what if nukes were launched?????

[km]

would anybody know what would happen if india and pakistan launched nukes at each other would everyone else ie: USA, Russia launch theres

 

[1X83Z]

Why would they?

 

[km]

Originally posted by M5Power
Why would they?

have u watched the news lately

 

[1X83Z]

Of course, I watch 24-hour news about eleven hours a day at work and at home. But America and Russia would never launch nukes if a hostile country like Pakistan or India did.

 

[1X83Z]

Unless that hostile country fired their nukes AT America or Russia or another nuclear power.

 

[km]

i think what i'm trying to say is if india and pakistan did launch would it start world war 3 (A.K.A nuke war)

 

[1X83Z]

Okay. And I said "no" because it wouldn't.

 

[LordIV]

Nuclear weapons do so much damage, unless total destruction of the enemy and yourself is what you want, they are not the route to go. Because there will be retaliation.

 

[km]

i think it is stupid that india and pakistan are fighting for a peace of land why don't they just split it 50 50 don't that sound better than nuking each other

 

[TAFJonathan]

The Pentagon says a nuclear war would cause 11-17 million casulaties.

 

[1mic]

dam if nukes were to get launched and everything was in chaos, i would go to the nearest exotic car dealer and steal a nice car...
(skyline r-34, or and thing that costs over 70, grand)!
den it would prolly end up not even launching nukes... but you never know....

 

[km]

Originally posted by 1mic
dam if nukes were to get launched and everything was in chaos, i would go to the nearest exotic car dealer and steal a nice car...
(skyline r-34, or and thing that costs over 70, grand)!
den it would prolly end up not even launching nukes... but you never know....

That is not the point of this thread my friend :burnout:

 

[1X83Z]

1mic: You didn't even spell "damn" correctly.

And if one country launched a nuke...the other country would GIVE UP completely, like Japan did when we launched at them. Because it would be way too devastating.

 

[Zero]

Russia's are out dated and are obsolete.

 

[km]

Originally posted by M5Power
1mic: You didn't even spell "damn" correctly.

And if one country launched a nuke...the other country would GIVE UP completely, like Japan did when we launched at them. Because it would be way too devastating.

i'm sorry but that is wrong because japan did not have a nuke like the USA so u can not say they really gave up they were more forced out of the war

 

[1X83Z]

Okay. But Pakistan would be wiped out when India hit them. Maybe if Pakistan hit first, India would retaliate. But I just don't see how poor Pakistan can AFFORD to retaliate after ONE strike and risk a second.

 

[km]

Originally posted by M5Power
Okay. But Pakistan would be wiped out when India hit them. Maybe if Pakistan hit first, India would retaliate. But I just don't see how poor Pakistan can AFFORD to retaliate after ONE strike and risk a second.

but they both have nukes

 

[1X83Z]

Okay. But you see my point?

Pakistan is a fair deal poorer than Japan was when we hit them. They couldn't afford to get hit then retaliate and risk more lives and more property that they could never rebuild.

 

[DeliveratorTitan]

Hell no!!!! Launching nukes always causes total annihilation. You actually love nukes? You must be insane!!

 

[vat_man]

I can't bring myself to believe they'd actually do it - it's not just the immediate death toll, it's the lingering radiation damage - just hope from Australia's point of view the wind ain't blowing our way that day....

 

[boombexus]

There is a policy in the USA regarding nuclear strikes. Concieved by Ronald Reagan, the acronym- MAD - mutually assured destruction, in essence it states that if you shoot at us we will shoot back. We understand that we will be destroyed but so will you!
I'm sure that there is a similar situation between Pakistan and India so there would be no first strike or second strike. All they are doing is posturing, just like the USA and USSR. MAD is probably the primary reason that we are all still alive today. No one can win a war like that.

 

[1X83Z]

Yeah. That was Reagan's plan.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Im all for the "you shoot me, i shoot you thing"... if a country is dumb enough to launch a nuke they should get 2 or 3 back just to show them what they did

 

[Giancarlo]

It's.....a very complex topic; isn't it?

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

I sure hope it doesnt come that far that they launch nukes.... its not good for anyone

 

[TAFJonathan]

This should go in "Current Events".

 

[Deathhawk]

Originally posted by Zero
Russia's are out dated and are obsolete.

Do you realize that matters not at all? Nukes don't have to be "updated", strap a nuke warhead to any delivery device and you have a potent weapon.

And to everyone, does anyone know what TYPE of nukes pakistan and india have? Are they tactical or all out? I don't think that there are many non tactical nukes around...

 

[km]

Originally posted by Deathhawk


Do you realize that matters not at all? Nukes don't have to be "updated", strap a nuke warhead to any delivery device and you have a potent weapon.

And to everyone, does anyone know what TYPE of nukes pakistan and india have? Are they tactical or all out? I don't think that there are many non tactical nukes around...

what is the diffrece between tactical and non tactical

 

[1X83Z]

This should go SOMEWHERE.

 

[boombexus]

Originally posted by km


what is the diffrece between tactical and non tactical

A tactical nuke is one that has a smaller blast radius and can be used, say, against troop concentrations or other specific battlefield targets. They can be laucnhed by artillary or aircraft.

All the other "non-tactical" are high yield devices usually straped to a ICBM or Inter Continental Ballistic Missile and are targeted at the enemy's major cities.