Yes, apparently such test are not pleasnat for indians especially when Indians have a 'no first use policy' w.r.t. nukes while the pakistanis dont.Although in the event of nuclear war I believe India does have the capability/intel to conventionally cripple pakistan's capacity to launch a massive second strike.

India wouldn't need to use nukes in a war against pakistan. their air force is very powerful and their navy and army is vastly superior to that of pakistan. india also have the friendship of russia and israel to back them up and huge diplomatic pressure would be applied on pakistan not to carry out a first strike.

Originally posted by nilzzo
India wouldn't need to use nukes in a war against pakistan. their air force is very powerful and their navy and army is vastly superior to that of pakistan. india also have the friendship of russia and israel to back them up and huge diplomatic pressure would be applied on pakistan not to carry out a first strike.

Unfortunately India's conventional superiority is what might eventually force Pakistan into using nukes. The military build up along the corresponding border in early 2002 could have lead to such a situation.

Consider the following series of events:

India takes out terrorist camps in pakistan occupied kashmir, pakistan retaliates by trying to do the same. India thwarts that move, occupying some pakistani territory in the process, Pakistan furious and insulted, open fronts in the south making inroads into the Indian heartland. India regroups and pushes back this onslaught until paksitan is losing on this front too. Now pakistan on the verge of collapse senses a threat to its soverignity, launches massive nuclear strike against major indian cities because they have nothing to lose, India cannot do anything but respond fittingly decimating all that is left of pakistan using its nukes.

It can cascade in this manner very quickly and thats what makes this a very dangerous place. Check out this scenarios in humphrey hawksley's books 'dragonfire, and 'third world war' i think.

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by nilzzo
India wouldn't need to use nukes in a war against pakistan. their air force is very powerful and their navy and army is vastly superior to that of pakistan. india also have the friendship of russia and israel to back them up and huge diplomatic pressure would be applied on pakistan not to carry out a first strike.

Unfortunately India's conventional superiority is what might eventually force Pakistan into using nukes. The military build up along the corresponding border in early 2002 could have lead to such a situation.

Consider the following series of events:

India takes out terrorist camps in pakistan occupied kashmir, pakistan retaliates by trying to do the same. India thwarts that move, occupying some pakistani territory in the process, Pakistan furious and insulted, open fronts in the south making inroads into the Indian heartland. India regroups and pushes back this onslaught until paksitan is losing on this front too. Now pakistan on the verge of collapse senses a threat to its soverignity, launches massive nuclear strike against major indian cities because they have nothing to lose, India cannot do anything but respond fittingly decimating all that is left of pakistan using its nukes.

It can cascade in this manner very quickly and thats what makes this a very dangerous place. Check out this scenarios in humphrey hawksley's books 'dragonfire, and 'third world war' i think.

I think that the situation you describe is a very likely possibility.
I feel that the solution to this problem is forcing Pakistan and India to disarm, now this raises a serious question of who should have nukes? but this is the only possible solution that is sensible. India and Pakistan cannot diplomatically agree on disarmement. Therefore the international community must step up the pressure on pakistan and india to dismantle their nuclear arsenal. However going down the sanctions route is cruel on the innocent people who will suffer the punishment for their governments crimes.
This potential war indeed has the capability to cause a third world war.

India cannot afford to disarm as it still has China looming overhead. Thats why India went nuclear in the first place. Pakistan on the other hand has obtained most of its nuke tech from the chinese( chinese attempt to surround india with nukes). also its nuclear assets may well fall into the hands of islamic fundamentalists which wont be a good thing for anybody
(china included). There are many generals inthe paki military who support the 'taliban' point of view and are unhappy with mushaarraf. A reverse coup or assasination of musharraf are very likely(5 attempts by fundamentalists on his life already!).Hence Paki nukes are not safe for anybody(not only india). Hence Pakistan should be the one to disarm if anybody, although i doubt they would!

The scenario is extremely likley to happen some day, but if india's main Nuclear arssenal is destroyed they will have Russia ( I hope so ) to retaliate for them. The Russian's have enough missiles to wipe out all of Pakistand ... & still deal with America

Originally posted by Kenshin
The scenario is extremely likley to happen some day, but if india's main Nuclear arssenal is destroyed they will have Russia ( I hope so ) to retaliate for them. The Russian's have enough missiles to wipe out all of Pakistand ... & still deal with America

Unfortunatley since the breakup of the Soviet Union The Indo-Russian alliance has worn thin. So if it were to get dirty the Russians would probably offer all out assistance to the Indians but I doubt they'd nuke a country for the Indians. Besides w.r.t. pakistan, even with a pre-emptive strike, they lack the firepower to completely neutralize India. India would still possess the ability to desstroy pakistan to such an extent that it wooould be unable to launch a second strike, conventional or nuclear

I think your analysis is really based on just trutty assumptions, india's nuclear power as assessed by third world countries is inferior to that of Pakistan, as Pakistani nuclear tests reported to be far more vigorous as that of their counter part, also the centrifugal based technology has no comparision with that of lased entriched uranium, so we can't only judge just depending upon the way of attack, as far as neighbouring nukes are concerned, russia has been reported to destroy most of their nuclear warheads and china a better friend of pakistan has got more potential, also israel in the past didn't seem to favour india directly so more fears on the relationship,
In my opinion, both countries should try to solve their problems by sitting together assisted with third parties like un friendly countries so as to save the endangered innocent people, what do you think??

^^yes yes I whole heartedly agree..peaceful resolution is the only way..however I beg to differ your statement that 'paki nukes' were more powerful than the Indian ones...The Indians even tested a thermonuclear device a hydrogen bomd if you will..while the paki tests were of substantially less yield...

I would love it if the whole world would just disarm all their nukes and live peacefully.However,that is definetly not possible,so if it was back to the original "nuclear club only" thing,when only China,Russia,USA,France and UK had nukes,the world would be safer by quite a bit;nobody from the nuclear club would launch a nuke at each other because of MAD,but now when countries like pakistan was about to crumble no doubt they would launch one at India.

santigwar,

I think daedalus was referring to the Pak bomb design itself, which they got from China. Pakistan's uranium enrichment technology came primarily from the Netherlands (German centrifuge design). Their missile tech came mostly from North Korea, with some assistance from China.

Daedalus is correct when he compares the India vs. Pak relative strength in nukes. India has far more, and they are far more powerful. But Pak has enough capability to wreak havoc on India, so the deterrence factor is still valid.

edit to add: itsjavaid, I just would like to point out that it doesn't matter how the uranium is enriched. What matters is the level of enrichment and the amount. The design of the bomb is the main factor in boosting yield.

And also, laser enrichment has not been perfected by anyone. Small amounts of uranium have been enriched in the laboratory, but nothing on a weapons program scale.

[edit on 4-12-2004 by engineer]

Originally posted by engineer
santigwar,

I think daedalus was referring to the Pak bomb design itself, which they got from China. Pakistan's uranium enrichment technology came primarily from the Netherlands (German centrifuge design). Their missile tech came mostly from North Korea, with some assistance from China.

Daedalus is correct when he compares the India vs. Pak relative strength in nukes. India has far more, and they are far more powerful. But Pak has enough capability to wreak havoc on India, so the deterrence factor is still valid.

thanks engineer

i would be really glad if you could give me some useful link to that.
need to update my "database"