Judi Lynn

A country that unstable as Pakistan - with anymore nuclear weapons...... Jikes I would say...

Diclotican

This is the country we've been drone bombing for the past, what? ten years?

But wait. This story is from a "propaganda tank."

Do what you want, but I'm going to 86 this because of the bogus factor.

They are both expanding their arsenals and delivery systems.
This is an escalating situation, and it's getting more dangerous every year.
Nuclear war between India and Pakistan would result in a global nuclear winter sufficient to kill about 2 billion people from starvation.

Oooga booga let's all hide under our beds.

MIC propaganda. They are not going to launch nukes at us, so it's not our problem!

And all the people smart enough to detonate a stolen nuke are much too smart and progressive to help Islamic extremists do it. Plus they are certainly well guarded, with the security forces well vetted to only be peace-loving moderates.

So nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

They really don't mind that as much as you think since for a long time the US drones were taking off from Pakistani Air Force bases.
They actually appreciate the help killing the more radical terrorists groups who want to take over the government there.
They pretend to mind for public consumption but Pakistani F-16's could easily shot down drones if they were so inclined.

...India's conventional and manpower edge.

June 12, 2011: Indian and Pakistani war plans are changing, in ominous ways, as India improves its mechanized forces faster than Pakistan can. In response, Pakistan has developed better short range ballistic missiles, armed with nuclear warheads. India also has short range missiles, but they also have a "Cold Start" capability for their non-nuclear forces. This was something the Russians developed during the Cold War. What it came down to was the ability to launch an attack on Western Germany, with a dozen or more mechanized divisions, with only a few hours warning. NATO improved its ability to quickly respond to such an attack, and that included having nuclear weapons ready to be used if the Russian Cold Start forces got too far into West Germany. This use of "tactical" (shorter range and less powerful) nuclear weapons turned out to be disaster in disguise. It was eventually realized that "going nuclear" would likely lead to escalation, and ultimately a large-scale use of nuclear weapons, and the destruction of the world as we knew it.

Pakistan is doing the same thing NATO did, developing more reliable short range nuclear missiles. This does not bode well for efforts to prevent nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

The best example of Pakistani "tactical nukes" is the Hatf 9, which was successfully tested earlier this year. This is the latest model in the Hatf line of nuclear armed missiles. With a range of only 60 kilometers, Hatf 9 is small enough for two to be mounted on one vehicle. It's trajectory is flatter than most ballistic missiles, making it more difficult for anti-missile systems to hit. The apparent size and range of the Hatf 9 is similar to the Russian OTR-21 (SS-21). Introduced in the late 1970s, the two ton, 650mm diameter, 6.4 meter (21 foot) long SS-21 had a range of 70 kilometers and a half ton warhead (large enough for existing Pakistani nuclear warheads). North Korea, a regular supplier of missile technology to Pakistan, had built its own version of the SS-21, and could have provided the needed technical assistance to Pakistan.

Pakistan has a full range of solid fuel rockets. In addition to the Hatf 9, there is the 1.5 ton Hatf 1, which appeared in 1989, has a range of 80 kilometers and a half ton warhead. The Hatf 1 apparently never entered service, due to reliability problems. Thus the Hatf 9 is basically the Hatf 1 done right....
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/20110612.aspx

Last edited Tue Sep 23, 2014, 04:22 PM - Edit history (1)

it heats up....ever so slowly. Iran and China having JOINT navel exercises? There will be a stumble or theft somewhere.

Don't buy what?
That Pakistan is a unstable nuclear power who has been adding to their nuclear inventory is just a fact.
That it doesn't bother you is another matter. It may worry the rest of us however.

Why not starve Pakistan with sanctions like we did Iran?

I have often advocated that we should stop all aid to Pakistan and let it fend for itself. A tiny banana republic trying to act like a superpower out of jealousy.

Better still, we should recognize Baluchistan as a separate country and give all the aid to the baluchis. They can really use it to be free of Pakistani terror apparatus.

Because Pakistan already has a nuclear arsenal and the fear is with out some help propping up their govt and military it could fall to hardcore terrorists groups (The pakistani Taliban) and that would be MUCH worse.

let us torture you because it is better than us killing you?

It is classic blackmail and Pakistan has engaged in it repeatedly. Someone has to call the bluff.

....is better then the alternative of the government falling to the Pakistan Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Omar, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed or Sipah-e-Sahaba. Then one of those far crazier groups would have access to nuclear weapons...and if they use them on India and India fires back it is practically the end of the world as we know it...

http://www.livescience.com/44380-small-nuclear-war-could-trigger-catastrophic-cooling.html

Even a relatively small regional nuclear war could trigger global cooling, damage the ozone layer and cause droughts for more than a decade, researchers say.
To see what effects such a regional nuclear conflict might have on climate, scientists modeled a war between India and Pakistan involving 100 Hiroshima-level bombs, each packing the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT — just a small fraction of the world's current nuclear arsenal. They simulated interactions within and between the atmosphere, ocean, land and sea ice components of the Earth's climate system.
"Most people would be surprised to know that even a very small regional nuclear war on the other side of the planet could disrupt global climate for at least a decade and wipe out the ozone layer for a decade," study lead author Michael Mills, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, told Live Science.
The researchers predicted the resulting firestorms would kick up about 5.5 million tons (5 million metric tons) of black carbon high into the atmosphere. This ash would absorb incoming solar heat, cooling the surface below.
The simulations hint that after such a war, global average surface temperatures would drop suddenly by about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius), their lowest levels in more than 1,000 years. In some places, temperatures would get significantly colder — most of North America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East would experience winters that are 4.5 to 10.8 degrees F (2.5 to 6 degrees C) colder, and summers 1.8 to 7.2 degrees F (1 to 4 degrees C) cooler. The colder temperatures would lead to lethal frosts worldwide that would reduce growing seasons by 10 to 40 days annually for several years.

with training, equipment, intelligence and guidance.

Starve the Pakistani military and those outfits would disappear.