Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on May 29, 2002, 10:32:47 AM
-
Just heard an estimate stating over 100,000 dead for each city hit with one nuclear missile.
That is within 1st 24 hrs.
Anyone else think this may go all the way???
What do you think the US would do to stop the madness?
-
I think the U.S. should stay the hell out of it.
Britain made that mess. No reason for us to clean it up.
-
Leave 'em alone. Its their problem. They nuke themselves, they will become the modern day reminder of nuclear stupidity.
-
I agree but it'll be our mess no doubt, esp since we are buddy buddy with Pakistan now..
Hell, it'll be our fault 6 months after it happens .. :rolleyes:
-
100,000 dead in an Indian City....no way man..gotta be more than that..they are packed in like Sardines in Calcutta & Bombay.
I agree that the US should stay out of this one...it is a lose-lose situation for American involvement.
I just hope we don't get sun-tans from all the radiation that would be floating about in our atmosphere in the form of irradiated dust and other particles. Or more accurately...sun-BURNS.
-
*IF* the nukes start flying, it depends.
Nuclear fallout will spread to neighboring countries most likely... depending on how many nukes they use.
Question I have is: how many nukes does Pakistan/India have (by best estimates) and how powerful are they? How would it be relative to Hiroshima/Nagasaki?
-SW
-
The weapons efficiency and yeilds would be significatly higher than hiroshima.. the weapon would also be nominally 'cleaner'.
Pakistan would be able to 'hurt' india; but i suspect the weight of population, military dispersal and number of warheads gives india the 'three hundred pound gorillia' title in a slugfest between the two.
the biggest unknown is china... and i suspect that after pakistan and india get through with each other, china will regretfully step in and take the survivors toys away, and annex whatever territory remaining that ain't glowing at night.
-
India's Nuclear Capability:
An interesting read, I wasn't aware India had nuclear subs and sea launched missles too.
India's Stuff (http://www.greenpeace.org/~nuclear/testing/indiacap.html)
-
you think the US would not receive fallout from an exchange? can you say JETSTREAM? and you think it would stop at a single exchange? JFC! fallout would hit China sooner than the US..you think the Chinese will show restraint? HA..
now where is all that Y2K stuff I had stashed....
-
Did anyone else think this was a thread about an upcoming test cricket match?
-
Cricket? Thats just bait!
:)
-
It is a fact (recently confirmed by CIA) that current events in India are orchestrated by Al-Kaeda to disrupt Pakistani cooperation with US and preferably topple Musharaff. Starting war with India is a good way to achieve that.
The increase in attacks in Israel after 9/11 are most likely have the same purpose with respect to our Gulf allies.
So in this case, Tak, it's definitely not "their problem". Musharaff risked his presidency and his life to help us deal with Taliban.
Of course throwing our closest most proven friends to the wolfs will be in line with our country character and past behavior...
miko
-
They've been at each other's throats for decades miko. There's no real difference.
But I do agree that China wont stand by quietly. I really do see them rolling over what's left of India and Pakistan after the exchange... and I wouldnt blame them either.
-
Does Bush know The General's name now? :D lol
Musharaff risked his presidency...
Presidency? He's a dictator who happens to be a friend of the West because of Afghanistan. Let's not forget that.
If it hadn't been for Sept. 11th, we'd probably be calling for democratic elections over there right now.
-
also, when they start cooking nukes off , all the sleeper cells in the US will sense the end of the world and have to go out and die for their cause....you know..gotta have those 72 virgins.
-
Any nuclear scale war, in this day and age, could conceivably destroy the world. Currently, there are two-million troops opposing each other in encampments not even three-thousand feet apart. It certainly would not take much to touch this powder keg off.
-
You gotta admit, if this comes to pass, it would be a prime opportunity to catch rats trying to cross the border out of Pakistan.
-
Originally posted by Curval
100,000 dead in an Indian City....no way man..gotta be more than that
No kidding, they can lose that many in a train wreck :eek:
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Tac
They've been at each other's throats for decades miko. There's no real difference.
What the heck are you talking about? CIA report clearly says that the current policy of Al-Kaeda is to topple gen. Musharaff beause he is our friend - by any means possible, including assasination or destabilising the country.
How could they have been trying to topple him for decades? He only came to power recently and until 6 month ago his was the only state recognizing Taliban as a government - untill he joined us!
Musharaff does not want war, neither do most of pakistani's or indians. The problem is that they are manipulated towards war in the context of Al-Kaeda/USA war.
I agree in general that there are often good cases to leave bastards to their own devices. We should never have helped Kuwaiti princes against Iraq. We should not have interfered with attempts of OBL to topple Saudi monarchy. We probably should not have stuck our nose into Israeli/Plestinian conflict. We stupidly did that and Al-Kaeda declared war on us.
So we got scared and went looking for friends to help us fight the mighty Al-Kaeda in the mighty Afghanistan. Musharaff was one of the first and most helpfull to answer our call.
Of course our friends have their own historic burdens - and the enemies we suddenly share with them will try to use those burdens to defeat our friends. To me that is not a good reason to abandon them once going gets tough. Or next time we will not find any friends on call.
miko
-
no miko, india and pakistan have been at each other's throats for a loooong time before this.
That Al-Queada is putting fire on their rumps... well, not surprising either. But hey, if CIA knows, dont you guess the Indians and Pakistanies know by now?
Either way, they'll keep at it, all they do is posture and throw threats around. Its almost a tradition for 'em by now ;)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
--snip-- So we got scared and went looking for friends to help us fight the mighty Al-Kaeda in the mighty Afghanistan. Musharaff was one of the first and most helpfull to answer our call.
--snip--
miko
At first I thought... Which universe is Miko in today? Then I changed my mind...........
-
BTW I'll take India and give the 14 points.
:p
-
Let em duke it out, who cares.
Aww, and that big radio-active cloud would linger over Red China? Aww, bummer :o
Let the Euros police their own backyard for once. Remember that little French thing we tried to help out in...Vietnam?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
miko: So we got scared and went looking for friends to help us fight the mighty Al-Kaeda in the mighty Afghanistan. Musharaff was one of the first and most helpfull to answer our call.
At first I thought... Which universe is Miko in today? Then I changed my mind...........
Besides sarcasm (obvious in "scared" and "mighty"), what factual inconsistency did you find in my post?
Tac: That Al-Queada is putting fire on their rumps... well, not surprising either. But hey, if CIA knows, dont you guess the Indians and Pakistanies know by now?
I guess not - since Al-Quaeda plans seem to be working. But why would they be any less ignorant and pig-headed than average american?
Pakistanis did not want to help US go after Taliban - Musharaf did. Pakistanis in general are not the ones infiltrating into India - a handful of US enemies do that. But when India hits back, they will have to fight. Does Indian government have a choice not to hit back if such incursions continue? Hardly. If it chooses not to, it will be promptly replaced by the one that does - even if it will take muslim or hindu fundamentalists to kill them and open way for more radical ones.
No matter how you turn it, the lesson will be clear - side up with USA and you will find yourself deep in s#@t! Of course pakistanis did not have to learn it first hand - they could have asked iraqi Kurds (whom we've thrown to the wolves because otherwise it would have upset our friend Turkey). Instead of gas they risk to get a few H-bombs for their trouble.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Besides sarcasm (obvious in "scared" and "mighty"), what factual inconsistency did you find in my post?
miko
Sorry miko, but sarcasm is obvious through tone or inflection, not through your choice of words.
And some of the very best of trolls are factually consistent.
As to our "friends" always being "thrown to the wolves", I'm afraid that just isn't true. For clarification see Great Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, All of Western Europe, Kuwait etc. I can't think of a better friend to have than the biggest baddest MoFo on the block!
Miko wrote: Of course throwing our closest most proven friends to the wolfs will be in line with our country character and past behavior...
-
miko, why do you think the U.S. wanted/needed Pakistan's help with Al Qaeda?
Could it be that the U.S. knows that many in Pakistan support Al Qaeda/Taliban and that rather than declare war on Pakistan the U.S. was offering Pakistan an opportunity and help in taking control of their problem?
I see it more as a face saving gesture offered to Pakistan than a real need for their help.
-
Miko - are u CIA? They only tell us stuff they want us to know - otherwise post something to back your statement...you know you'll be ribbed until you do (recently confirmed gives me no resource to back YOUR claim) - or opinion
Clarify this as well please:
Of course throwing our closest most proven friends to the wolfs will be in line with our country character and past behavior...
:)
-
frankly.......the idea of them starting a nuclear boxing match scares the hell outa me....and the little crack about the euros fending for themselves......i got a very good friend in germany.....i would be VERY...pissed to see her die from some crap like that......if those mid easterners want to gas or chem the hell outa each other.....fine....but when it comes to nukes too much is at stake to start playing.....because if one starts.....others will follow.....now im not one of those anti-nuke activists......i think they keep the balance.....by placeing everyone under duress.....BUT......if used......god help us all
-
Originally posted by Tracer-15
frankly.......the idea of them starting a nuclear boxing match scares the hell outa me....and the little crack about the euros fending for themselves......i got a very good friend in germany.....i would be VERY...pissed to see her die from some crap like that......if those mid easterners want to gas or chem the hell outa each other.....fine....but when it comes to nukes too much is at stake to start playing.....because if one starts.....others will follow.....now im not one of those anti-nuke activists......i think they keep the balance.....by placeing everyone under duress.....BUT......if used......god help us all
I dont think anyone has told Europe to "fend for itself"...I, however, stated it would be nice if they tended to their backyard though. That's all.
-
ok
-
Just one question:
WTF was everyone doing while these people were developing their nukes?
And don`t come up with the "they have the right to have whatever they want" BS.
I have a feeling it`s only the beginning.We`ll see other moronic countries racking up nukes,and unlike the nuklear powers of the past,they won`t hesitate to use them.
All this needs to be kept in check,before it all gets out of hand.
The US is powerfull,and even if You don`t like the "cop of the world" concept,it still needs to be done for self defence reasons.
-
"The US is powerfull,and even if You don`t like the "cop of the world" concept,it still needs to be done for self defence reasons."
Exactly their reason.
Take the US and a small and powerless country... say... Nicaragua for example.
If Nicaragua armed itself with a few dozen warheads and missiles to deliver them... it'd be on a "level" power footing with the US.
Yes, the US can blast Nicaragua into orbit.. but Nicaragua can inflict SERIOUS harm on the US if their nukes launch. And that again is the balance of power.
Nukes are like N1ks.. the great equalizers ;)
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
Just one question:
WTF was everyone doing while these people were developing their nukes?
And don`t come up with the "they have the right to have whatever they want" BS.
I have a feeling it`s only the beginning.We`ll see other moronic countries racking up nukes,and unlike the nuklear powers of the past,they won`t hesitate to use them.
All this needs to be kept in check,before it all gets out of hand.
The US is powerfull,and even if You don`t like the "cop of the world" concept,it still needs to be done for self defence reasons. [/QUOTE
Unfortunately the US didn't have the teticular fortitude to force Pakistan or India into signing or agreeing to the various Nuclear Treaties when they embarked upon their quest for nukes. It would have meant doing what the Israelis did to Iraq when they realised that Hussein was getting close to nuclear and/or bio-chemical capability...bombing them (or maybe even threatening them with nukes).
I think the situation has changed now, though. After 911 I think the powers that be in the US are keeping a much closer watch over the technology and materials required to construct nuclear weapons, on a global basis.
But, they can't really undo the fact that India and Pakistan are nuclear capable at this time, especially now as the two sides waggle their nuclear sabres at each other.
-
BTW Sandman we didn't make the kashmiri mess. It was the Indian government's decision to split India (pre '47) into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. They just didn't split it very well it seems.
-
"Unfortunately the US didn't have the teticular fortitude to force Pakistan or India into signing or agreeing to the various Nuclear Treaties "
Well of course it's the fault of the United States. That goes without saying......
-
CIA, alQuaeda ? lol Go read some newspapers dating from the beginning of the century, same content (maybe without nukes). This is nothing new, didn't even last two days on the news...
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
CIA, alQuaeda ? lol Go read some newspapers dating from the beginning of the century, same content (maybe without nukes). This is nothing new, didn't even last two days on the news...
Like all good wars, this ones basically based on nationalism and good old religious grounds....Hindu vs Muslim. The violence between the two faiths can make Palestine look like a McDonald's birthday party.
Kashmir has been in dispute since '47, and has been the flashpoint of 3 wars - '47-48, 1965, and a brief conflict in 1999.
As well as the rivial claims to area by the Pakis, and Indians, there are Pakistani army backed radical independance groups as well.
Musharraf was not democratically elected, so cannot control the extremist groups with an iron hand. That would create many internal problems in Pakistan, as Kashmir and the independance groups have great support amongst the people. And India armed by the new International attitudes on terrorism, is not looking to back down. Using all too minute links to Al-Qaeda, India can sabre rattle all it wants.
Any concessions by either country is a betrayl to it's people
Tronsky
-
One thing is for sure; If India and Pakistan blast eachothers to smitherines with nukes, the population growth problem of the planet gets corrected temporarily.
India is one of the problem spots alongside with african countries and China.
It's weird that you americans consider Pakistan your friend. The country is harbouring international terrorism and it's not guarding it's afghan border or Indian border (hence attacks on kashmir region.)
Dealing with Pakistan was just one of the dirty little deals your government has had to make over the years for it's purposes and I'm suspecting this one will blow to your face too sooner or later. I'm pretty sure that Pakistan was a temporary solution to the afghanistan problem but is actually a problem in itself.
-
"It's weird that you americans consider Pakistan your friend. "
Its wierd but we know what peoples are ready to do for the oil...
-
Originally posted by Otto
"Unfortunately the US didn't have the teticular fortitude to force Pakistan or India into signing or agreeing to the various Nuclear Treaties "
Well of course it's the fault of the United States. That goes without saying......
I didn't actually mean that it was the "fault" of the US...at the time of the proposed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties the US was embrolied in the Cold War with the Soviets. It would have taken an incredible amount of "testicular fortitude" to attempt to force India or Pakistan to stop development of nuclear weapons. It could have also brought the world to the brink of nuclear war with the USSR.
-
Originally posted by Xjazz
"It's weird that you americans consider Pakistan your friend. "
Its wierd but we know what peoples are ready to do for the oil...
:rolleyes:
Yeah, Pakistan is just bursting with the stuff.
US Support for Pakistan (which until the "war on terror" tm CNN all rights reserved) was suspended in an attempt to reign in the nuclear programs.. too little too late) had nothing to do with the polorized geopolitical climate of the cold war, when Pakistan was a US client state, and India was a Soviet client. Things in the world are never overdetermined. No, instead they are always explainable by washing them through a single "one size fits all" filter.
Anyhow, I hope you didn't invest in any Pakistani Oil Drilling Operations.
-Sikboy
-
U.S. Authorizes Non-Emergency Staff to Leave India
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20020531/ts_nm/southasia_usa_warning_dc_1
-
Dealing with Pakistan was just one of the dirty little deals your government has had to make over the years for it's purposes and I'm suspecting this one will blow to your face too sooner or later.
Dirty deals like feeding all of Western Freakin Europe after the war you putz!?
Dirty Deals like protecting your sorry bellybutton for the last 50 years?
BS of the highest order to sit on the sidelines and pass judgement on those who are actually causing things to happen in the world.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Dirty deals like feeding all of Western Freakin Europe after the war you putz!?
Dirty Deals like protecting your sorry bellybutton for the last 50 years?
BS of the highest order to sit on the sidelines and pass judgement on those who are actually causing things to happen in the world.
Midnight..no disrespect, but I think he was refering to:
Cuba - attempting to support a democratic government by recruiting Cubans to invade and then leaving them stranded after the "Bay of Pigs".
Vietnam - Mistaking Ho Chi Mihn for a communist initially, when in fact he was a Nationalist. A mistake that cost the US 60,000 men.
El Salvador - Supporting a dubious government for years
Nicaragua - same as above
Panama - supporting Noriega and then having to invade the country in order to get rid of him.
Supporting Irag in their war with Iran - that tended to bite the Americans in the bellybutton a few years later.
Not ousting Hussein and leaving the Kurds to the mercy (or lack thereof) of the Iraqis. He later supported terrorism to the maximum extent possible.
etc..I could go on..but I'm late for lunch..
Please don't get me wrong...I am a huge supporter of the US, but I am not blind to their horrible track record in certain cases.
Flame away.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Dirty deals like feeding all of Western Freakin Europe after the war you putz!?
Dirty Deals like protecting your sorry bellybutton for the last 50 years?
BS of the highest order to sit on the sidelines and pass judgement on those who are actually causing things to happen in the world.
Ooooh... that's 10 demerits TahGut...
When someone who's interests are so closely tied to yours tries to polorize an issue, the last thing you want to do is give them the satisfaction. And if you choose to take that road, make fun of them like this: "If you've ever been treated in a UK hostpital, please send a thank you note to Lockheed"
Better yet, remind them of the "dirty deals" that got us here. The "Dirty Deal" with China after the Sino-Soviet split, when the US went in all nice with Mao, and we opened a new era of "engagement" with China. Or the "Dirty Deal" where the Russians increased support to India, in order to counterbalance the loss of China. Or the other dirty deal of the US selling weapons to Pakistan in order to play "quid pro quo" with the Russian/Indian cooperation.
Personally, I was happier when we took the Pakistani's money, and then kept the F-16s we were supposed to sell them. That was funny. It was also part of our efforts to curtail their nuclear program. As I mentioned above it was too little too late, but then again, it's hard to get too mad at them when their most hated neighbor has the bomb already. But I digress.... I don't like Musharraf. We like to call him "Predisent" but we should never lose sight that he is a dictator. But as was mentioned before, Pakistan has proved instrumental in our campaign against the Taliban. Perhaps we could have achieved success simply by using the former SSR's int he area, but I don' t know that, and neither does anyone else (damn those counterfactuals!) But working with Pakistan to Achieve one goal does not force our hand in other situations.
Anyhow there are some juicy bits in this argument that have nothing to do with the Marshall plan :)
-Sikboy
-
I stand chastized and forlorn... yet still pretty pissed.
I apologize for personalizing the issue. Of course we have made mistakes. Funny thing is, we make them (usually) for good reasons.
I attribute my response to typical Month-end manufacturing frenzy and the fact that it's really hot outside. Either that or temporary insanity.
Sorry Mr. Ripley.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Midnight..no disrespect, but I think he was refering to:
Cuba - attempting to support a democratic government by recruiting Cubans to invade and then leaving them stranded after the "Bay of Pigs".
Vietnam - Mistaking Ho Chi Mihn for a communist initially, when in fact he was a Nationalist. A mistake that cost the US 60,000 men.
El Salvador - Supporting a dubious government for years
Nicaragua - same as above
Panama - supporting Noriega and then having to invade the country in order to get rid of him.
Supporting Irag in their war with Iran - that tended to bite the Americans in the bellybutton a few years later.
Not ousting Hussein and leaving the Kurds to the mercy (or lack thereof) of the Iraqis. He later supported terrorism to the maximum extent possible.
etc..I could go on..but I'm late for lunch..
Please don't get me wrong...I am a huge supporter of the US, but I am not blind to their horrible track record in certain cases.
Flame away.
Funny thing is that Panama was also "stolen" from a sovereign nation and made a quasi puppet state via underhanded means. ;)
-
Accepted Tah Gut.. :)
Even if the things were made with good intentions, sometimes (often it seems) you just can't calculate all the risks.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I think the U.S. should stay the hell out of it.
Britain made that mess. No reason for us to clean it up.
Hmmm interesting and very bizarre considering the Brits spend a hell of a lot of time and men cleaning up some of yours.
-
Originally posted by scspook
Hmmm interesting and very bizarre considering the Brits spend a hell of a lot of time and men cleaning up some of yours.
None come to mind for me, unless you are trying to blame UK involvement in Afganistan on the USA. I thought that had soemething to do with AQ attacks and NATO agreements.
-
What he means is the UK always stands behind the US, no matter what. I agree. No matter what the denizens of this BBS may feel, the UK and the Commonwealth have always stood beside us, and we owe it to them to do the same.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
What he means is the UK always stands behind the US, no matter what. I agree. No matter what the denizens of this BBS may feel, the UK and the Commonwealth have always stood beside us, and we owe it to them to do the same.
It must have someting to do with the subtlety of it, but why is it that when I use the "Poor foreign Policy of the UK" bait, I get nothing. But Sandman gets hits on it? :confused:
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Curval
Midnight..no disrespect, but I think he was refering to:
Cuba - attempting to support a democratic government by recruiting Cubans to invade and then leaving them stranded after the "Bay of Pigs".
Vietnam - Mistaking Ho Chi Mihn for a communist initially, when in fact he was a Nationalist. A mistake that cost the US 60,000 men.
El Salvador - Supporting a dubious government for years
Nicaragua - same as above
Panama - supporting Noriega and then having to invade the country in order to get rid of him.
Supporting Irag in their war with Iran - that tended to bite the Americans in the bellybutton a few years later.
Not ousting Hussein and leaving the Kurds to the mercy (or lack thereof) of the Iraqis. He later supported terrorism to the maximum extent possible.
etc..I could go on..but I'm late for lunch..
Please don't get me wrong...I am a huge supporter of the US, but I am not blind to their horrible track record in certain cases.
Flame away.
Cuba - Shame on US for the Bay of Pigs tragedy.
Vietnam - a crystal ball would have been nice.
El Salvador - Cold War strat, and no worse than supporting the Soviet Union during WW2.
Nicaragua - Same as above, and seems to have worked-out in the end.
Panama - I guess the General though he was invincible and could do anything. I hear too much drugs can do that and worse to people.
Supporting Iraq - Ya, they had hordes of M60 tanks, F-15s and cobra helicopters and billions of dollars. Saddam is the type of guy that needs a lot of encouragement to go on the warpath. lol. He saw a weakness and tried to exploit it. The US saw an opportunity to get back at a regime that held a bunch of US diplomats hostage for 444 days.
Iraq 1991 - Imagine all the other OBLs that would have popped-up because the US was occupying a defenseless Muslim country and all the innocent people killed fighting in Baghdad urban combat. All the pictures of dead babies on BBC and CNN would have led to a crucifixion of the US. I guess the US would then be even more responsible for attacks on it like 11Sept. In hindsight, we should have done it anyway.
Kurds - Shame on US. Republican Guard survived to massacre them. No-Fly-Zones and embargo were steps to protect them, but were inadequate and result in political attacks on the US and more palaces for Sadam. NATO ally Turkey has a Kurd "problem" too. I guess that had something to do with the lack for a more forcefull defense of the Kurds.
-
Sorry, Sikboy. Just responding to the last obscure comment. Of course, I happen to feel that way, too.
-
I don't know what "the poor foreign policy of the UK" and the crisis in Kashmir have to do with each other, as I said before it was the indian government that split India pre 1947 into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. So next time you slam British foriegn policy, please get your facts straight.
Cheers :D
-
Originally posted by samu1
I don't know what "the poor foreign policy of the UK" and the crisis in Kashmir have to do with each other, as I said before it was the indian government that split India pre 1947 into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. So next time you slam British foriegn policy, please get your facts straight.
Cheers :D
OK I'll play.
It was missmanagement by the British during the decolonization process that led to the formation of India and Pakistan, along the lines of 1947. To the British, it was just a big lump of land, and not enough was done in an effort to prevent the split from coming throught the threat of civil war and violence. Instead the UK set up a horrid situation, then washed its hands and walked away when things threatened to get ugly.
-Sikboy
-
I agree the decolonisation process was certanly far from perfect but IIRC the dispute over Kashmir has more to do with borders which were drawn up by the Indian administration and not caused by British mis-management of the North-West frontier region (i.e 3 Religions in a small densely populated area) but then again if they hadn't been so eager to kill eaah other it wouldn't have made much difference. In short I agree with your point but I don't see how it has much (if any significant) bearing on today's crisis. The British gave India the land, they (The Indian's) knew full well the ethinc make-up of Kashmir and IMHO tried to bite a little more than they could chew.
-
Originally posted by samu1
In short I agree with your point
Please don't agree with it, as it is complete and utter mandoble. Originally it was meant as a wry observation to point out how I disagree with those who say "The Sept 11th attacks are a direct result of US Foreign Policy." Sure there is a relationship between the two, but I think we need to understand the differences between the two as well. But, Sandman picked up the ball and ran with it and was able to get a few more strikes on his bait than I was.
-Sikboy
-
Now Sik, you are counting me as a strike when in fact I was merely clarifying a mispoken point. Take my comment as a general ideology regarding our allies and you get the point. ;)
FWIW, I think the WTC attacks were an eventuality more than anything else. When people are willing to die to achieve such ends, little will stop them.
-
Quoting a news site, from an anonymous Pentagon representative:
"...] nine to twelve million immediate dead in total in a war between Pakistan and India.[...]not counting ensuing casualties from famine, contaminated water and disease. [...] in short term the wounded would reach between two to six million."
This estimation was based on the number of nuclear weapons the two countries disposed of and their probable targets.
According to Jane's, India has fifty to 150 weapons, while Pakistan between 25 and fifty.
The Pentagon representative precised Indian nuclear weapons were ten kt while Pakistan's were twenty kt; WWII Hiroshima's was ~fourteen.