Ahem. Are you sure the US doesn't have any of the massive warheads left? I was fairly certain we had a few, but I'm not certain how up to date my sources were, so I could be wrong. Eh. It's a moot point for India/Pakistan.
I'm not so sure now actually. Although the B53 9 MT bombs were slated for destruction, it would appear that a few have been left intact (or possibly dismantled, but with the option of reassembly). However, the main US strategic bomb is the B83, which is newer and cleaner than the B53, and has yield options ranging up to 1.2 ( or 2 according to some sources) MT. This is a high enough yield, if used as a ground bust, to destroy all but the deepest targets. In fact, against most deep targets, much smaller weapons could be employed.
Its possible that if the B53 has been retained in the active stockpile this is due to the poor performance of the earth penetrating B61 mod 11. This was designed to be able to penetrate fairly deeply into the earth so as to use a low yield option (as low as 0.3 kT, but more likely in the 1-10 kT range, although this design can be set to yields as high as 300 or 340 kT) to destroy deep hardened targets. This idea would minimise fallout and collateral damage, and some more hawkish types were suggesting that this would be a militarily useful bomb. Perhaps then it's comforting that this design performs very poorly in penetration tests, although the warhead can be assumed to work very well.
BTW: The B41 had the highest yield of all US weapons: 25 MT. The last of these weapons was retired in 1976, in favour of the B53.
India will, in all likelihood, spank them in a conventional war. So Pakistan will be losing a war, and invasion by India will be an obvious result. In all likelihood, they will use nukes, most likely tactical.
I agree that if India did invade Pakistan, and they made major breakthroughs (and I also agree that India has the stronger army) then it may become likely that Pakistan would look for ways to use its WMD's to some military advantage. This is what NATO would have done if the Soviets had invaded Europe.
However, I think that the very fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons would mean that India would not wish to put Pakistan in the position where using them might seem advantageous. So therefore India cannot invade Pakistan, as the risks are to great. And of course the reverse is true.
and we know for sure that any nuke over 1 megaton sends a large proportion of radiated paricles into the upper atmosphere (and thus, the jetsream) allowing fallout to fall way the hell away from the site of detonation.
There was a measurable amount of Pu spread around the world by the atmospheric testing in the '50s.
The local impact of fallout from a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would almost certainly be horrific. In the Americas and Europe we would not have much to fear from the fallout, but it would not be pleasant.
Fortunately, India and Pakistan don't have nukes large enough for this to be a factor.
Agreed.
MF:
Thinking linguistically, you can't wage war on an emotion. I like that one, whoever came up with it earlier in this thread.
Pyro did.
WWTS:
Yeah, killing innocent Afghanis was the Taliban's job, right?
Have things gone perfectly over there? Of course not. Something had to be done, though, and it's an unfortunate reality that people get caught in the crossfire. You have to draw some kind of distinction, though, between accidentally killing innocents and deliberately executing innocents.
A lot of people do seem to forget this. I find that some people who argue against the intervention in Afghanistan are the same ones who were always urging that something be done about the Taliban. Argh!
I guess they think Allah's going to smite the unbelievers for them. Somebody needs to tell them that aggression only works when you've got the upper hand.
I think your confusing the attitudes of Pakistan’s version of bigoted rednecks, with the attitude of the government and people as a whole. Every country has such people, and they typically get a disproportionate press.
The situation in Pakistan is confounded by the fact that some areas are somewhat tribal in nature and the government cannot exert control. I'm sure there’s nothing that Musharraf would like more than to be rid of the problem of militant and tribal types. However if he attempted a large clampdown on this kind of thing he would risk losing a lot of popular support, and even civil war. I'm sure that everyone would agree that this would make the whole situation much worse. Things have, and are, getting better though.
When you're constantly provoking a country that's more than your match, though, you're pretty much asking to get slapped down.
The provocation works both ways. India does it's share of Sabre rattling too.
And they've said they'll use nukes if their existence is threatened. I kind of wonder how they think that will actually make India more sympathetic to them if they get overrun.
Of course. This is deterrence. India says they same thing. We did this not so long ago during the cold war.
I can imagine if India conquers Pakistan and no nukes are fired their attitude will pretty much be, "Screw you guys, stay the hell out of Kashmir and we'll let you keep your state this time since occupying you would be more trouble than it's worth." If they go nuclear though, they can pretty much expect to get booted out of their whole country for good in response, though. Few are going to be shedding many tears on their behalf, either.
Whoa there. Even if there were no WMD's in the equation, there is no chance of India conquering Pakistan. They wouldn't want to because it would lead to massive civil unrest in both countries.
And no, if they "go nuclear", then the situation will most likely degenerate, and no-one will be in any position to even bury the dead and conduct disaster relief, let alone do anything of any military value.
You seem to be neglecting the fact that it's not just a matter of armies and weapons and soldiers, but people too.
I would shed tears. If there was a nuclear exchange in this part of the world many (millions of) normal, happy, peaceful, innocent people on both sides would die.
CBR:
Also, who would have defended Finland from the Russians if America did not exsist?
Well the same people who defended Finland against Russia even though the US did exist: the Fins.
The thing that I hate about this new European "trend" is to call America fascists and unimaginative obese bastards that have never worked while drinking a diet coke and loving France, a country that had it not been for America would at the very least be balkanized after the Russian vicory over Germany. Europe forgot that war was a part of human nature with the aftermath of WW2- we re-lerned it in Vietnam. Not only that but look at Le Pen and Putin! Fascisim is on the rise in Europe, everwhere! While our freaks still have less than 1% of the vote- when the time comes, who will save Europe from itself- Britan? Against france maybe, but not against france+germany/russia! Spain? Plese! Germany? They brought anti-semitisim into the mainstreme in the beggining!
*plonk*
"Ancient Greece was ahead of its time, and before our time. They had no TV, but they had lots of philosophers.
I, personally, would not want to sit all evening watching a philosopher."
