[AM2000]

ping

[Brett66]

"A nuclear strike by either country could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory since, due to the close proximity of several cities on either side of the Indo-Pakistani border, the resulting fallout could easily be blown over the attacking country."

If they're willing to use nukes, then worry over fallout isn't going to cocern them too much. It's better than being at ground zero.

[Thud]

Jane's statement here is such a bunch of hooey that it makes the whole article suspect:

"A nuclear strike by either country could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory since, due to the close proximity of several cities on either side of the Indo-Pakistani border, the resulting fallout could easily be blown over the attacking country."

City-busters are always airbursts to maximize the blast wave and thermal pulse, and airbursts don't produce short-term fallout.

I wonder if this is disinformation, sloppy journalism or the usual lefty propgaganda.

[uncbob]

150 to 50 nukes
What the hell does it matter
There ain't no winners

[BansheeBill]

I remember when I was a kid in the 50's and there were above ground Nuke tests in the US? and Russia?, maybe, there was some concern about the safety the milk we were drinking, due to radiatioactive particles being carried in the atmosphere and then setlling in the US where cows ate grass crops that those particles settled on.

Other than the obvious geopolitical concerns if India and Pakistan start lobbing a few nukes at each other, do any FReepers have an idea of the possible radioactive fallout effects on US citizens, livestock, food crops, etc?

[RightWhale]

devastating death tolls

Only part of the story.

Just as many will need medical attention, which will be in short supply. At the same time just as many again will need other things such as food. The entire country will have to mobilize just to deal with that, and it won't be over in a week or a year. Any country that takes even 3 hits on pop centers will be out of commission for a long time. 50 or 150 such hits would ruin the country for decades or longer. The immediate death toll is only the beginning, the tip of the ice-berg.

[MrNeutron1962]

Not to make undue light of the numbers, but, assuming 50 KT yield each, a total of 10 MT yield. Granted, this will be spread around all over the subcontinent, and that being the case from a human toll perspective a truly horrifying idea, the simple fact is that their nuclear arsenals are far smaller then the total us inventory at the start of the Korean war.

First, the yield estimate my be high by as much as 3x.

Second, I doubt that all of the weapons will survive to produce a yield.

Third, the use of these remaining weapons will most likely be a military targets, and no mass blasting of cities.

So, will it generally suck to live in the battle zone, YES. Will it bring about world wide nuclear destruction, NO.

[Voronin]

The big question is, and that so far I have seen no one ask is 'does either side have the right systems to shoot down each others IRBMs'? As far as I can remember, shooting down IRBMs doesn't contravene any agreement (SCUDS - Gulf War III), so I wonder if some of this 'emergency' equipment that Russia is sending to India may consist of the S-300MPU anti-air/missile system?

What we do know is that the US acquired and early version of this system and built their own version for training - would they pass on information to Pakistan that could render such systems less effective?

VRN

[Lazamataz]

20 Kiloton weapons are not that powerful, really. Megaton weapons are powerful. Clearly they have not mastered H-bombs.

[Anticommie]

India has up to 150 nuclear warheads while Pakistan could only call upon a third of that total at most

Glad to hear that, in case of nuclear exchange the ragheaded terrorist harbouring Pakistan will glow, that will be a good start!