Nuclear war?

[Guest deadlydnut]

I'm just hearing about this between india and Pakistan...are almost at the point of nuclear war...what are your veiws?

[ledzep]

two words:

 

that sucks

[DorkstaR]

BURN EM' ALL!!!!!! as long as i live to see tommorrow...i dont really care. altho i never heard that....then again i cant remember when ws the last time i watched the news.

[DorkstaR]

haha....me and bufme1 think alike.....kool

[Big Bruno]

i vote yes....

[DorkstaR]

damn straight

[Mr. Mang]

why the hell are they gonna use nukes when they're so close together? that's like me calling in heavy artillery on my neighbor across the street.

[Guest deadlydnut]

Originally posted by Mr. Mang

why the hell are they gonna use nukes when they're so close together? that's like me calling in heavy artillery on my neighbor across the street.

Pakistan hardly has any nuclear weaponry if they detonate any they will probally just put it in a truck and drive it to the center of their country and go boom...

[fizm]

that "kill em all" bullshit is wack. i'd prefer "kill us all". fucking humans.

[Guest deadlydnut]

I think i'll wait for blink atx to reply with something he thinks is intriguing and have everbody flame him...

[ASER1NE]

i dont care either way , it doesnt affect my life so why do i care , theyve been at near war for 50 years , its enevitable that it would come to this . maybe once it happens they'll learn a lesson from it , just as was learned from hiroshima , and then perhaps some common sense can seep back in .

[High Priest]

Originally posted by ASER1NE

i dont care either way , it doesnt affect my life so why do i care , theyve been at near war for 50 years , its enevitable that it would come to this . maybe once it happens they'll learn a lesson from it , just as was learned from hiroshima , and then perhaps some common sense can seep back in .

 

Ignorance and arrogance.. damn your 2 for 1. Maybe you should read up on U.S. relations and Foreign affairs because if Pakistan and India get into a Nuclear War you can most definitely bet that the U.S. will end up involved.

[Guest BROWNer]

ouch.

[ASER1NE]

well thats just as well , bc i live in canada .jk

 

its not that im ignorant or arrogant . its more that in the 50 years theyve been fighting , neither of them has had the common sense to just let it go , and nothing the us , or the un has done has helped anything , maybe a nuclear war would make them realize the error of their ways .

[Guest uncle-boy]

oooohh.....noooooo..ooooh.oooh.

-in a rasta stylie voice

[Guest NATO]

With more than a million troops poised along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir, India and Pakistan stand on the brink of a war which could quickly escalate into a nuclear conflict.

 

The scale of the Indian mobilisation is meant to serve two main purposes.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38038000/gif/_38038655_india_pakistan150.gif'>

 

 

India:

 

Agni II intermediate-range missile

 

Tested 1999

 

200 kiloton nuclear warhead

Pakistan:

 

 

Shaheen II intermediate-range missile

 

Tested 1999

 

35 kiloton nuclear warhead

South Asia's nuclear stakes

 

 

The first is to exert maximum pressure on Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf to crack down on Kashmiri militants, in the process aligning India's war against Kashmiri insurgency with the wider US-led "war on terrorism".

 

The second aim is to challenge in a decisive way Pakistan's deterrence calculations.

 

Since the Kargil crisis of 1999 in which more than 1,000 troops, including many Pakistani regulars, crossed into Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir, India has argued that Pakistan has been willing to escalate low-level military operations across the Line of Control, confident that its nuclear weapons will deter India from a substantial military response.

 

It is in part in order to disabuse Pakistan of this belief that India is now in the final stages of building up conventional forces for the "decisive victory" of which Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee recently spoke.

 

This is also the main reason why it is going to be extremely difficult for India to turn away from its present course.

[Guest NATO]

Catalysts

 

In February of this year, General Khalid Kidwai, Chief of Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division tasked with the control of nuclear weapons, outlined four scenarios which would imperil the nation and could therefore lead to the use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan:

 

 

India conquering a large part of Pakistan's territory (including Azad (free) Kashmir)

 

India destroying a large part of Pakistan's armed forces

 

India pushing Pakistan into political destabilisation

 

India strangling Pakistan economically.

It is entirely possible that a major military move by India across the Line of Control could quickly lead to the first three of these scenarios, any one of which could trigger nuclear war.

 

Even allowing that Pakistan, in the final analysis, would not use nuclear weapons as a deliberate instrument of policy, there are still at least three other routes to nuclear war - in descending order of probability - which arise because the systems to assure the safety, security and control of nuclear weapons in the context of an ongoing conflict are not yet fully in place.

 

The first is that the control of one or more nuclear weapons may be delegated to a regional commander whose forces then become subject to conventional attack or to misperception.

 

Such a commander, under time pressure and fearing the loss of his nuclear weapons, may decide to use them without high-level authority rather than risk them being captured or destroyed.

 

It is worth noting that there are reliable reports of both India and Pakistan training for conventional air strikes and commando raids against the nuclear weapons sites of the other.

 

 

Weapons held by India and Pakistan could create many new Hiroshimas

 

 

The second is that nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of one or a group of unstable military (or conceivably non-military) personnel who may use the weapon(s) for motives of religious fervour or as a result of psychological, drug, or other problems.

 

The third is that nuclear weapons may be dropped or launched by accident as a result of technical or human error.

 

It is impossible to quantify these risks, but past evidence within and outside the region suggests all scenarios are entirely possible.

 

Constant communication

 

This does not mean that nuclear war is consequently inevitable.

 

It is often overlooked that India and Pakistan have a track record of managing potentially nuclear crises - Brasstacks in 1986-7; Zarb-i-Momin in 1990 and Kargil in 1999 - and that they have in place a number of arms control measures to stabilise nuclear competition.

 

Both sides have also been able to learn from the Cold War experience, and have highly disciplined and well-trained military personnel in nuclear weapons roles.

 

Moreover, considerable bilateral dialogue at many levels continues behind the scenes even at the height of rhetorical hostility.

 

Much has been made of the absence of a "hotline" allowing General Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee to communicate directly.

 

In fact, bilateral communications of this kind are readily available and were indeed used during the 1999 Kargil crisis when Mr Vajpayee spoke with Narwaz Sharif, then Pakistan's leader.

 

That said, the present crisis is undoubtedly the most serious the two nations have faced since the 1971 war and even with major international diplomatic input it will still be extremely difficult to find a face-saving formula to allow the protagonists to disengage.

 

If war does break out, the possibility of nuclear escalation puts millions of lives at risk and perhaps even the existence of the states themselves.

 

That dreadful prospect may yet be enough to forestall a war and persuade Indian and Pakistan to find better ways to tackle their differences - much as the United States and Soviet Union were forced to do in the aftermath of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

[Guest Wilt]

i wonder if they know that radioactive waves will travel....does anyone know how far it could actually span???id be willing to bet their gonna both get fucked....tsk tsk....

[Guest deadlydnut]

Originally posted by Wilt

i wonder if they know that radioactive waves will travel....does anyone know how far it could actually span???id be willing to bet their gonna both get fucked....tsk tsk....

it takes about 200 wats of raditation to kill a person I think? anyway the groundzero radiation of a nuclear bomb is 9000+ I think?..anyway yes it will travel and probally if it did happen would kill 90 million + people because india is so populated...

[ASER1NE]

for a 1 megaton Surface explosion , on land . the concussive pressure of the blast would kill ppl 16 miles away in every direction .

[ASER1NE]

for a 1 megaton surface explosion on land , the radition would kill ppl 200 miles away . and cause serious internal injuries 250 miles away .

[Guest seno.oner]

^^^^^ i watched some thing on the discoverey channel and it said that from 13 miles away a nuclear bomb will suck the air out of your lungs not kill you. I dunno, havent seen a nuclear explosion in a while.

[Guest deadlydnut]

Originally posted by seno.oner

^^^^^ i watched some thing on the discoverey channel and it said that from 13 miles away a nuclear bomb will suck the air out of your lungs not kill you. I dunno, havent seen a nuclear explosion in a while.

thats when the explosion begins it sucks the air forward to the base then straight up than out, than your fucked....either way if its a windy day and it blew up that radius of 200 miles could turn into 300..

[Guest BROWNer]

13miles..

does that sound like a safe distance to

be from a nuclear detonation?

[Guest deadlydnut]

I'd rather be 5 miles away than 150, and having my skin melt off like pizza cheese from the raditation very slowly, and my eyeballs turning into eggyokes slowly, yea I'll take a shockwave blast over radiation...

[kissmyass#1]

ahhhh, fuck it! let them kill each other off!

[ledzep]

unless you mutate into something cool, but that dosent happen in real life :o

[Guest willy.wonka]

I think we should all care a little on this subject

 

well,

one of the fears is that pakistan might accidently fire one or two of those missles to the USA or Jeurusalem.

an estimate of 22 million people will die between the two countries..not including the "fall out" estimate over the next 20 years after.

 

nuclear war is scary..i think we should all keep in mind that there was a time when you MOTHERS would start crying in fear cause of the "Atomic War" when they were children.

 

we are growing up in a new War age...this could be the age that determines our existance...or mass population.we are capable of destroying every thing on this planet and have the means to do so.

 

Russia is putting a large amount of nukes in storage.."which some people fear" that will make it easier for "terrorists" to get thier hands on,cause of low security.

 

these are some dangerous days.

[Guest SPLINTER]

fuck it if a nuke war starts i hope it clears out all humans because the world would be a much better place without us. i just feel sorry for all the plants and animal except roaches cuz they live thruogh this type of shit. when its all happens i hope im chillin on my couch eating a weed brownie and thanking god for the wonderful life and for whiping us out, then i will proceed to be high as fuck when i get into my car and drive as fast as i can until i die, hopefully ill have someone i love riding shot gun.

[ASER1NE]

anyone who says you wont die in a nuclear blast , and the air will just get sucked from your lungs doesnt know his ass for a hole in the ground . if youre within 150 miles , in any direction , you will die .

 

here is the general radiation effects , courtesy pbs .

3,000 Rem* Distance: 30 miles

Much more than a lethal dose of radiation. Death can occur within hours of exposure. About 10 years will need to pass before levels of radioactivity in this area drop low enough to be considered safe, by U.S. peacetime standards.

900 Rem Distance: 90 miles

A lethal dose of radiation. Death occurs from two to fourteen days.

300 Rem Distance: 160 miles

Causes extensive internal damage, including harm to nerve cells and the cells that line the digestive tract, and results in a loss of white blood cells. Temporary hair loss is another result.

90 Rem Distance: 250 miles

Causes a temporary decrease in white blood cells, although there are no immediate harmful effects. Two to three years will need to pass before radioactivity levels in this area drop low enough to be considered safe, by U.S. peacetime standards.