Is nuclear war between india and pakistan possibility,the highly sensitive persons survival guide free pdf,emergency in planet earth - Downloads 2016

A “pink flamingo” is a term recently coined by Frank Hoffman to describe predictable but ignored events that can yield disastrous results. The tense nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan may be the most dangerous pink flamingo in today’s world. The Indian subcontinent—home to both India and Pakistan—remains among the most dangerous corners of the world, and continues to pose a deep threat to global stability and the current world order. India and Pakistan have fought three wars since they gained independence in 1947, including one that ended in 1971 with Pakistan losing approximately half its territory (present-day Bangladesh).
Both the Kargil crisis of 1999 and the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament by Pakistan-supported militants brought both nations once again to the brink of war. Since 2004, India has been developing a new military doctrine called Cold Start, a limited war option designed largely to deter Islamabad from sponsoring irregular attacks against New Delhi. The problem is, unlike its neighbours India and China, Pakistan has not renounced the first use of nuclear weapons.
Perhaps the most dangerous scenario that could lead to catastrophe is a replay of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. The chances of such Indian government restraint in a similarly deadly future scenario are unlikely.
There may be little the US or the world can do to forestall this conflict still looming just over the horizon.
The US should also reach out to current (and former) civil and military decision-makers on both sides to develop and grow bilateral relationships that could prove vital in the next crisis.
This post was originally published on War on the Rocks where the authors write the Strategic Outpost column. The concept of using nuclear device by recognised institution (whether political or military) of any nuclear power in the world is rubbish. 1- Why not to solve the Kashmir dispute through democratic means and let the 1.5 billion people of the region live in peace, but then they would lose their leverage and their arms sales would also drop significantly. This – at the very basic level means – they reserve the right to terrorize under a nuclear umbrella! It will be fun to watch when this madness will be called and how the world will finally react to this sheer madness.
Apparently there being no short answers, there will be a war of will and attrition, perhaps sanctions.
People from 1 country enter another country and wreck havoc killing innocents and still the host country who trained the terrorist do not feel ashamed but build weapons. But, if Pakistan uses nukes (even tactical), India won’t be the only one retaliating! The author conveniently forgets that Pakistan has only achieved parity in TNWs because Indians have tested there TNWs in Pokhran. The realistic scenario is any Tactical Nuclear Weapon use will trigger full scale Nuclear War. After the 1971 war, Pakistani army has learnt the lessons and strengthened itself very much. Hence even if another Mumbai attack or Parliament attack happens in India, first of all India will not have the guts to launch attack on Pakistan directly as they are baniyas and Hindus. Even if they launch, Pakistan has the required edge now to teach a lesson to the Indian army. Given the current and projected trends in West-assisted Indian military build-up, the existing asymmetries between India and Pakistan shall exacerbate and may force Islamabad to rely more on nuclear weapons are balancers.
It was Pakistan who infiltrated armed fighters in Kashmir after independence, 1965 war started after Pakistan’s operation Gibraltar, in 1971 Pakistan airforce attached on Indian western front and lead to full fledge war and 1999 Kargil infiltration was carried out by Pak army.
In case of nuclear conflict in South Asia, Indian Cold start doctrine would be the only responsible factor. Nobody wants to see a nuclear war, but if India believes that it can sit around arrogantly and ignore the sufferings of the Kashmiris and even then nobody should raise a voice for them then sorry, you are wrong! Pakistan should always be ready to face Indian aggression and should never listen or care to propoganda about its nuclear or strategic arsenal.
I agree with you to keep the minds sane but the same holds true more for your people & Army who thinks nuclear arms are just fireworks that they can play around with recklessly. Only through the combination of diplomatic pressure from the US and immense restraint exerted by then-Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh was an Indian retaliatory strike averted. The theory of a nuclear conflict is, that the only nuclear armed country in the world which will survive the nuclear holocaust and be able to retaliate is the Russian Federation. Pretty immature statement considering kargil and all other wars were instigated by Pakistan , then does it mean all our leaders are fundamentalists ?? So what makes us continue blasphemy law and Islamic constitution when quaid never said it is Islamic nation ?? I read today in the NYT that Cheney once had the Army calculate how many tactical nuclear weapons were needed to take out one Iraqi Republican Guard division. Only Pakistan can sell its bonds in Europe for 9 percent interest when Indian baniyas are getting the same amount for 2 percent. Modi being the product of a deprived childhood, having grown with insensitivity to other humans, can under pressure feel lured into carrying out an impulsive action against Pakistan and we know that without any doubt. The first launch of Indias nuclear weapon will be from Afghanistan land supported by Iran in the background..
Ooh, why does US not exercise its wonderful benign influence on middle east and stop the war in Syria and Yemen?
Undoubtedly, for nearly two decades, the most dangerous place on Earth has been the Indian-Pakistani border in Kashmir. Alarmingly, the nuclear competition between India and Pakistan has now entered a spine-chilling phase.
When it comes to Pakistan’s strategic nuclear weapons, their parts are stored in different locations to be assembled only upon an order from the country’s leader.
In the nuclear standoff between the two neighbors, the stakes are constantly rising as Aizaz Chaudhry, the highest bureaucrat in Pakistan’s foreign ministry, recently made clear.
Islamabad, in turn, has been planning ways to deter the Indians from implementing a Cold-Start-style blitzkrieg on their territory. All of this has been happening in the context of populations that view each other unfavorably. This is the background against which Indian leaders have said that a tactical nuclear attack on their forces, even on Pakistani territory, would be treated as a full-scale nuclear attack on India, and that they reserved the right to respond accordingly. Last November, to reduce the chances of such a catastrophic exchange happening, senior Obama administration officials met in Washington with Pakistan’s army chief, General Raheel Sharif, the final arbiter of that country’s national security policies, and urged him to stop the production of tactical nuclear arms.
This failure was implicit in the testimony that DIA Director Lieutenant General Vincent Stewart gave to the Armed Services Committee this February. Since that DIA estimate of human fatalities in a South Asian nuclear war, the strategic nuclear arsenals of India and Pakistan have continued to grow. As the 1990s ended, with both India and Pakistan testing their new weaponry, their governments made public their nuclear doctrines. In Pakistan in February 2000, President General Pervez Musharraf, who was also the army chief, established the Strategic Plan Division in the National Command Authority, appointing Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai as its director general. Within seven months of this debate, Indian-Pakistani tensions escalated steeply in the wake of an attack on an Indian military base in Kashmir by Pakistani terrorists in May 2002. Unsurprisingly, the leaders of the two countries found themselves staring into the nuclear abyss because of a violent act in Kashmir, a disputed territory which had led to three conventional wars between the South Asian neighbors since 1947, the founding year of an independent India and Pakistan. The Kashmir dispute dates back to the time when the British-ruled Indian subcontinent was divided into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, and indirectly ruled princely states were given the option of joining either one.
Fearing a defeat in such a plebiscite, given the pro-Pakistani sentiments prevalent among the territory’s majority Muslims, India found several ways of blocking U.N. In September 1965, when its verbal protests proved futile, Pakistan attempted to change the status quo through military force.
A third armed conflict between the two neighbors followed in December 1971, resulting in Pakistan’s loss of its eastern wing, which became an independent Bangladesh. During the military rule of General Zia al Haq (1977-1988), Pakistan initiated a policy of bleeding India with a thousand cuts by sponsoring terrorist actions both inside Indian Kashmir and elsewhere in the country. In order to stop infiltration by militants from Pakistani Kashmir, India built a double barrier of fencing 12-feet high with the space between planted with hundreds of land mines. Even before Pakistan’s introduction of tactical nukes, tensions between the two neighbors were perilously high.  Then suddenly, at the end of 2015, a flicker of a chance for the normalization of relations appeared.
There is little doubt, however, that a repeat of the atrocity committed by Pakistani infiltrators in Mumbai in November 2008, leading to the death of 166 people and the burning of that city’s landmark Taj Mahal Hotel, could have consequences that would be dire indeed. Beyond the long-running Kashmiri conundrum lies Pakistan’s primal fear of the much larger and more powerful India, and its loathing of India’s ambition to become the hegemonic power in South Asia. Another secret project, the Indian Rare Materials Plant, near Mysore is already in operation. The overarching aim of these projects is to give India an extra stockpile of enriched uranium fuel that could be used in such future bombs. Once manufactured, there is nothing to stop India from deploying such weapons against Pakistan. In other words, as the Kashmir dispute continues to fester, inducing periodic terrorist attacks on India and fueling the competition between New Delhi and Islamabad to outpace each other in the variety and size of their nuclear arsenals, the peril to South Asia in particular and the world at large only grows. Tagged andrew the prophet, andrewtheprophet, holocaust, india, kashmir, nuclear, pakistan, program, South Asia, the prophecy, theprophecy, war, weapon, winter.
These are perilous times and contemplating the possibility of ‘nuclear terrorism’ no longer seems far-fetched.
More than 1,800 tonnes of nuclear materials are stored worldwide in hundreds of sites, some guarded well, some not so. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and 50 other leaders will try to demonstrate that they carry the burden of nuclear materials with the seriousness they deserve, and that the store is properly locked to prevent anything from ever getting into the hands of terrorists.
Modi is said to be bringing some ‘house gifts’ — summit-speak for voluntary pledges — to show India’s continued commitment to nuclear security.
It would be a good opportunity to ask the Prez about pushing India’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group in earnest when the organisation meets for its annual plenary in June. Obama has proved his leadership by forcing world attention on the highly technical subject of nuclear security through four summits since 2010.
It has been working the corridors of the United Nations since 2002, introducing an annual resolution on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. It’s a good time to remember that UNSCR 1540 was partly a response to the discovery of the proliferation network run by a certain A Q Khan of Pakistan.
The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a US-based non-partisan, non-profit organisation working to raise awareness, continues to rank India low in its 2016 Nuclear Security Index with a score of 46 on a scale of 100. Even though India’s ranking improved by two points since 2014, the main reason it hovers in the 40s is the lack of an independent regulatory agency to provide oversight and ensure accountability. India also gets below-average marks on insider threat prevention (33), physical security during transportation (0) and control and accounting procedures (29).
Indian diplomats, at least officially, dismiss the index as a ‘private initiative’ based on private assessments. Tagged andrew the prophet, andrewtheprophet, india, nuclear, revelation 15, terrorism, the prophecy, theprophecy, war, weapon. Gulf regional power Saudi Arabia and nuclear-armed Pakistan are working on a proposal to form a ‘NATO-like’ military alliance of Islamic countries, British newspaper The Independent reported on 15 March citing a report on Pakistani TV channel Dunya News a day earlier. While the report credited Saudi Arabia to be the brain behind the initiative, it said Pakistan had been entrusted to develop the framework for the proposed military alliance of 34 Muslim majority nations.
The development gains significance as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is poised to visit Saudi Arabia early next month with maritime security and increasing military cooperation placed high on the agenda.
Reports suggest India will be taking diplomatic steps to ensure greater cooperation in the Middle East with its latest plan to hold joint naval and military exercises with Saudi Arabia.
Let us explore the factors that led to the emergence of this proposed Islamic ‘NATO’ and the strategic repercussions of this regional coalition for India. The genesis of an Islamic ‘NATO’ alliance appeared to have emerged during the recently-held war games in Hafr al Batin region of Saudi Arabia, the closing ceremony of which was attended by Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Shareef and Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Shareef.
Billed as the region’s biggest-ever military exercise, the 12-Day ‘Northern Thunder’ manoeuvres, which concluded on 10 March, saw participation from over 20 nations from the Middle East, Africa and Asia. It is important to note that in December 2015, Saudi Arabia announced a military alliance of 34 Muslim nations (all Sunni-majority) including Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey.
Pakistan, at that time, had reacted with surprise saying its consent was not taken for the alliance, but later Islamabad welcomed the initiative and confirmed its participation in the ‘anti-terror’ alliance. The ‘Northern Thunder’ war games were the first collective show of strength for this newly-formed alliance which saw over 350,000 troops, 2,500 warplanes, 20,000 tanks and 450 helicopters in action. While both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have asserted that the proposed alliance would not be against any particular country but would combat terrorism and threats coming from extremist groups like Islamic State; the composition of mainly Sunni-majority nations makes it amply clear that the Saudi-led coalition is a consolidation of forces against the regional Shiite rival Iran.
Riyadh cut diplomatic ties with Tehran earlier this year after mobs ransacked Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran following the execution of a prominent Saudi Shiite cleric.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are engaged in proxy wars in Syria and Yemen where they are backing opposing sides. Iran does not seem to shy away from a belligerent display of its military prowess every now and then, as was evident again in its latest series of ballistic missile tests last week and also by its audacious detention of US Navy sailors in January just before the nuclear deal was implemented. Seen from the perspective of Saudi Arabia and its allies, the Tehran regime has gone beyond its periphery, posing a serious threat to the stability of the region. Also, Russia’s military intervention in Syria and its close alliance with the Iran-led Shiite troika (including Syria and Iraq) seems to have prompted the major Sunni countries in the region to form such a military alliance. On the other hand, after Turkey downed the Russian military plane, the wedge between the two countries reached a serious point. Weakening US influence in the Middle East has also contributed to the emergence of this alliance. The formation of this broad-based alliance is certainly aimed at checking Iran’s regional aspirations and stall increasing Russian influence that run contrary to the interests of Riyadh and its friends. With Pakistan playing a leading role in the formation of this Islamic ‘NATO’, it wouldn’t be out of place to imagine that Islamabad would eventually use the alliance as a bulwark against India.
Just like the NATO was founded as an alliance against the erstwhile Soviet Union and eventually encircle and target Russia, Pakistan – with its India-centric foreign policy – is bound to lead the alliance into an anti-India trajectory.
Although India has strategic ties with several Muslim countries – including Saudi Arabia, UAE and Oman – that are, or may become, part of this coalition; in the event of a future conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbours, these member countries would be bound by the principle of collective defence (as in NATO), wherein an attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all allies.
A military alliance on doorsteps, in all likelihood, will trigger a dangerous arms race and a realignment of forces in the region.
According to reports, the Indian Army has also agreed to hold joint military exercises with the Royal Saudi Land Force. Acknowledging India’s growing status as a major power in the region, Saudi Arabia has allowed New Delhi to carry out hydrographic surveys off the Saudi coastline. Modi must candidly share India’s concerns about the proposed military alliance during his talks with Saudi officials. Tagged allies, andrew the prophet, andrewtheprophet, arabia, india, iran, islamic, nato, pakistan, program, russia, saudi, terrorism, the prophecy, theprophecy, war. ISLAMABAD – Riyadh’s growing love for New Delhi is causing serious concern to Islamabad as the country’s diplomats scrambled to stop the traditional ally from moving away towards the historic rival, The Nation learnt. The diplomatic tremor came after Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said his country’s relations with Pakistan did not come at the expense of the Kingdom’s ties with India.
He expressed the hope that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first visit to Saudi Arabia early next month would see a “tremendous uplift” in bilateral relations. Officials at the foreign ministry said the al-Jubeir’s statement was seen as a reaction to Pakistan’s diplomacy on Saudi tension with Iran, Syria and Yemen. Calling it “a bombshell for most of us”, a senior official said Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has asked his diplomatic corps to stand up and stop Saudi Arabia from going into the hands of India.
Established in the 1960s, strategic ties between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have remained largely cordial, except during the erstwhile Pakistan People’s Party led government, which Saudis viewed with suspicion due to the PPP’s secular credentials and close relations with Iran. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif – who recently visited Saudi Arabia along with Army Chief Raheel Sharif – enjoys exceptionally close ties with senior members of the Saudi royal family. When Sharif was toppled in the bloodless 1999 Pakistani coup d’etat, Saudi Arabia intervened and then military ruler Pervez Musharraf allowed Nawaz Sharif and his family to travel into exile to the kingdom. Mr Sharif, he said, believed Saudi Arabia has every right to have good ties with India but these should not be comparable to Pakistan.
Another official said, in the past, the United States too walked away from Pakistan preferring India. He said serious diplomatic efforts will be made to control the Saudi-India friendship from going too far. After coming to power in 2013, the incumbent PML-N government regained an enthusiasm for diplomatic and strategic ties with Saudi Arabia.

The enthusiasm of Nawaz government to maintain close ties with Saudi Arabia was recently watered down when the Pakistani parliament decided to maintain Pakistan’s traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference in Middle Eastern affairs and refused to send troops to join Saudi-led combat forces in Yemen. This decision was mainly motivated by a growing shift in Pakistan’s foreign policy, which is apparently becoming regional and China oriented in its outlook and calls for friendly relations with the country’s neighbours, including Iran, and fears that Pakistani involvement in the Middle East will negatively affect sectarian harmony and internal security of the country. Defence analyst Lt-Gen Amjad Shoaib (r) said Pakistan was the only major military power in Saudi-led military alliance but other countries have their own political significance in the world. After Pakistan announced its National Action Plan against terrorism, criticism of Saudi Arabia’s alleged funding of madrasas and violent sectarian groups also increased. Saudi Arabia’s 2014 defence agreement with India had also greatly disturbed Pakistani strategists and policymakers.
In 1969 pilots of the Pakistan Air Force flew aircraft of the Royal Saudi Air Force to repel an incursion from South Yemen. Senior analyst Dr A Z Hilali also said Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had historic bilateral relations which were based on religious grounds.
Saudi Arabia has also negotiated the purchase of Pakistani ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
While KSA had supported Pakistan’s stance on the Kashmir conflict, it has since endorsed the Paik-India peace process. Defence analyst Lt-Gen Talat Masood (r) said Pakistan has its unchanged stance on Kashmir and wants to resolve all disputes with India through negotiations but India has never shown maturity in this regard.
Former ambassador B A Malik said, “The regional and global dimension of recently created KSA-led alliance must be kept in mind. Tagged allies, andrew the prophet, andrewtheprophet, arabia, daniel 8, horn, india, nuclear, pakistan, saudi, the prophecy, theprophecy. NEW DELHI (Staff Report) – India on Monday successfully test-fired Agni-I ballistic missile in an experiment conducted at strategic test range off Odisha coast.
According to Defence officials, the missile is capable to carry conventional warhead as well as nuclear material of up to 1,000 kg weight. Agni-I can be used for ground to ground and ground to air purposes for up to a range of 1,000 kilometres. The missile will be used by the 334 Missile Group at Secunderabad, under the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) of the Indian Army.
Tagged agni, andrew the prophet, andrewtheprophet, daniel 8, ICBM, india, missile, nuclear, the prophecy, theprophecy, weapon. NEW DELHI: Canada is planning to send a delegation to the Def Expo in Goa later this month to explore partnership in the area of defence electronics as it eyes an expansion in strategic ties with India, including an opportunity to set up nuclear reactors in the country.
India is among the top priorities for the Justin Trudeau government that came to power late last year, Canadian High Commissioner to India Nadir Patel told ET. Last April PM Narendra Modi had the opportunity to meet Trudeau when the latter was the Opposition leader. Canada will follow the USA, Russia and France in setting up nuclear reactors in India if a decision is taken to allot the country a plant site. Following this the first tranche of uranium from Canada arrived here four decades after civil nuclear cooperation was suspended following the test at Pokhran.
Tagged andrew the prophet, andrewtheprophet, canada, canadian, daniel 7:7, deal, horns, india, mining, nuclear, ten, the prophecy, theprophecy, trading, uranium. While at Stanford last month, we had a long conversation with former Secretary of Defense William Perry about the nuclear dangers facing the world. Perry knows whereof he speaks, since he has devoted most of his career to preventing nuclear conflict. After our conversation with Perry, we attended a lecture that he gave on today’s nuclear dangers. The first danger is the possibility of a nuclear war with Russia, either by accident or miscalculation. The second danger is a regional nuclear war — a danger that did not exist during the Cold War. Perry noted that both Indians and Pakistanis expect and fear future attacks similar to the 2013 Mumbai terrorist massacre — and neither side expects New Delhi to exercise similar military restraint in response. The third nuclear danger is the prospect of nuclear terrorism, which also did not exist during the Cold War — and which he argued is far more dangerous than most people understand. This scenario may be unlikely, but it is both credible and chilling — and a little-discussed danger for the United States. Perry suggested a series of steps to help reduce the growing risks of nuclear war in this century.
Tagged andrew the prophet, andrewtheprophet, holocaust, india, near, nuclear, pakistan, revelation 15:2, russia, terrorism, the prophecy, theprophecy, war. Radioactive contamination would spread throughout Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and China besides, of course, India and Pakistan.
It is scientifically proven that the environment post N-explosion no longer remains favourable for farming.
IPPNW calls for free healthcare accessibility to one and all, and the best way to do that is to create hospitals and develop manpower. Tagged andrew the prophet, andrewtheprophet, daniel 7:7, famine, holocaust, india, nuclear, pakistan, the prophecy, theprophecy, war.
China now has 250 nuclear warheads against 240 in 2012, while Pakistan has increased its warheads by about 10 to between 100 and 120 and India has also added roughly 10 for a total of 90 to 110, SIPRI said in its annual report.
Only the two old superpowers have cut their warheads, Russia reducing its number from 10,000 to 8,500, and the United States scaling back from 8,000 to 7,700. SIPRI acknowledged that the figures were to a large extent estimates, as the nuclear powers aren't equally transparent, China being totally opaque, and Russia gradually becoming less open.
SIPRI does not count North Korea and Iran as nuclear powers yet, as their respective programmes are still considered in their early stages. While the global total of warheads was down, SIPRI said it did not translate into a significantly diminished nuclear threat. Efforts to reduce arsenals of chemical and biological weapons have also been slow, according to SIPRI, a long-time advocate of abolishing weapons of mass destruction. The United States and Russia have not destroyed all their chemical weapons in 2012 as promised, and Syria has said it is prepared to use them in the case of foreign attack. SIPRI figures also show that the number of peacekeepers deployed around the world fell by more than 10 percent in 2012, reflecting partly the beginning withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan. SIPRI noted an increase in recent years in the number of intrastate conflicts that are internationalised, as outside states have supported one side or another. The report also said China has overtaken Britain as the world's fifth largest arms exporter after the United States, Russia, Germany and France.
Hoffman argues that these situations are fully visible, but almost entirely ignored by policymakers.
Their 1,800-mile border is the only place in the world where two hostile, nuclear-armed states face off every day. Today, the disputed Line of Control that divides the disputed Kashmir region remains a particularly tense flash point.
Yet, unlike earlier major wars, these two crises occurred after both India and Pakistan became nuclear-armed states.
It involves rapid conventional retaliation after any such attack, launching a number of quick armoured assaults into Pakistan and rapidly securing limited objectives that hypothetically remain below Pakistan’s nuclear threshold. Instead, Pakistani leaders have stated that they may have to use nuclear weapons first in order to defend against a conventional attack from India.
Pakistan’s arsenal of short-range tactical nuclear weapons is a game changer in other ways.
Furthermore, large numbers of small nuclear weapons scattered at different locations increase the risk that some will fall into the hands of violent extremists. In November 2008, 10 terrorists launched attacks that left 166 people dead before the last of attackers were finally killed by Indian security forces almost 60 hours after the attacks began. Experts such as Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution and former US ambassador to India Robert Blackwill agree that if there were another Mumbai, Indian prime minister Narendra Modi would not step back from using military force in response, unlike his predecessors. Nevertheless, the tremendous dangers of this situation require US policymakers to devote more time and energy in trying to do so, and some small steps may help. And the US should continue to encourage Pakistan to slow its fielding of tactical nuclear weapons, and keep them under tight central control well away from vulnerable forward-deployed positions.
The damage from fallout and blast, the deaths of potentially millions, and the environmental devastation of even a few weapons detonations would suddenly dwarf any other global problem.
Pakistan has spent fortune in building its military force and given the past experiences should never lower its guard. They call Kashmir an unsolved problem, reserve the right to send non-state actors across the border and threaten with low yield nuclear devices if these state actors or their patrons are chased over the border. So, it is not unimaginable that there will be another war, because the same Military (mindset) still makes policy in Pakistan. An alliance of western powers will smash Pakistan and break it up and disarm Pakistan of its nukes. Shakti IV & Shakti V were sub-kiloton yield weapons which come in the category of TNWs. Now Pakistani army is battle hardened due to the constant war it has been fighting for the last few years with militants.
Since both are nuclear countries, even in the case of war, India will not dare to use nuclear missiles.
The onus of this growing instability partly lies on the West, which wants to make the best use of the Indian market. They used the same logic that Pakistan is currently using (enemy is on border and has superior conventional military) …. Nuclear war in South Asia will have global environmental implications- disastrous consequences to every one including USA and Europe. Keeping in view innocent India’s role in creation of Bangladesh, Pakistan has every right to defend its territory in the manner its leadership deems appropriate. Imagine if 5 Indian cities getting attacked but you conveniently missed what fate will Pakistan meet. Are you imagining yourself to be descendent of Napolean or say Chenghiz Khan who marched and destroyed anything that stood in their way ?
Please think before saying something , secondly being a Islamic with blasphemy law in place, what right do we have to question modi or India credentials????
At that time, I thought India and Israel was doing the sub kiloton explosion together to develop theater nukes. Even Before you feel such pain your territory will turn into nothing but vast tracts of coal mines every where. The problem is there are many people in Pakistan who feel for the K people and from time to time loose control and cross over to hurt your assets because of your illegal occupation. It’s possible that a small spark from artillery and rocket exchanges across that border might—given the known military doctrines of the two nuclear-armed neighbors—lead inexorably to an all-out nuclear conflagration.  In that case the result would be catastrophic.
That danger stems from Islamabad’s decision to deploy low-yield tactical nuclear arms at its forward operating military bases along its entire frontier with India to deter possible aggression by tank-led invading forces.
By contrast, tactical nukes are pre-assembled at a nuclear facility and shipped to a forward base for instant use. The deployment of tactical nukes, he explained, was meant to act as a form of “deterrence,” given India’s “Cold Start” military doctrine—a reputed contingency plan aimed at punishing Pakistan in a major way for any unacceptable provocations like a mass-casualty terrorist strike against India. A typical survey in this period by the Pew Research Center found that 72% of Pakistanis had an unfavorable view of India, with 57% considering it as a serious threat, while on the other side 59% of Indians saw Pakistan in an unfavorable light.
Since India does not have tactical nukes, it could only retaliate with far more devastating strategic nuclear arms, possibly targeting Pakistani cities.
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), a worst-case scenario in an Indo-Pakistani nuclear war could result in eight to 12 million fatalities initially, followed by many millions later from radiation poisoning.  More recent studies have shown that up to a billion people worldwide might be put in danger of famine and starvation by the smoke and soot thrown into the troposphere in a major nuclear exchange in South Asia. In return, they offered a pledge to end Islamabad’s pariah status in the nuclear field by supporting its entry into the 48-member Nuclear Suppliers Group to which India already belongs.
The National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine, for example, stated in August 1999 that “India will not be the first to initiate a nuclear strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail.” India’s foreign minister explained at the time that the “minimum credible deterrence” mentioned in the doctrine was a question of “adequacy,” not numbers of warheads. In October 2001, Kidwai offered an outline of the country’s updated nuclear doctrine in relation to its far more militarily and economically powerful neighbor, saying, “It is well known that Pakistan does not have a ‘no-first-use policy.’” He then laid out the “thresholds” for the use of nukes. New Delhi as well as Washington speculated as to where the red line for this threshold might lie, though there was no unanimity among defense experts. At that time, Musharraf reiterated that he would not renounce his country’s right to use nuclear weapons first. As a result of the first of these in 1947 and 1948, India acquired about half of Kashmir, with Pakistan getting a third, and the rest occupied later by China. In October 1947, the Hindu maharaja of Muslim-majority Kashmir signed an “instrument of accession” with India after Muslim tribal raiders from Pakistan invaded his realm. Soon after, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi tried to convince Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to agree to transform the 460-mile-long ceasefire line in Kashmir (renamed the “Line of Control”) into an international border. Delhi responded by bolstering its military presence in Kashmir and brutally repressing those of its inhabitants demanding a plebiscite or advocating separation from India, committing in the process large-scale human rights violations. Later, that barrier would be equipped as well with thermal imaging devices and motion sensors to help detect infiltrators.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had a cordial meeting with his Pakistani counterpart, Nawaz Sharif, on the latter’s birthday, December 25th, in Lahore. Mercifully, the attack in Pathankot turned out to be a minor event, insufficient to heighten the prospect of war, though it dissipated any goodwill generated by the Modi-Sharif meeting.
The Indian doctrine calling for massive retaliation in response to a successful terrorist strike on that scale could mean the almost instantaneous implementation of its Cold Start strategy. Irrespective of party labels, governments in New Delhi have pursued a muscular path on national security aimed at bolstering the country’s defense profile.
Last December, an investigation by the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity revealed that the Indian government was investing $100 million to build a top secret nuclear city spread over 13 square miles near the village of Challakere, 160 miles north of the southern city of Mysore. It is a new nuclear enrichment complex that is feeding the country’s nuclear weapons programs, while laying the foundation for an ambitious project to create an arsenal of hydrogen (thermonuclear) bombs.
As a military site, the project at Challakere will not be open to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency or by Washington, since India’s 2008 nuclear agreement with the U.S. The fourth and last Nuclear Security Summit being held in Washington on March 31-April 1 is expected to come up with an action plan for a more effective global nuclear security system, with a special session on threats posed by the IS. The plan is to squeeze in a separate meeting with President Barack Obama and give him what possibly could be the last hug before the latter becomes a private citizen. The exercise helped create traction for UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540 adopted in April 2004, which imposed legally binding obligations on all countries to prevent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation by passing domestic laws and enforcing them. The main question facing leaders at the summit is to find ways to continue to keep the eye on the ball and not allow inertia to set in. Unfortunately, here, India is in the company of Iran and North Korea, the only other countries with weapons-grade nuclear material and no independent regulatory agency. It gets average scores for political stability (55), effective governance (38), on-site protection (60), domestic legislation (50) and international assurances (40). Sheel Kant Sharma, India’s former permanent representative to the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency, is on the panel of NTI experts. These included: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Senegal, Sudan, Maldives, Morocco, Pakistan, Chad, Tunisia, Comoro Islands, Djibouti, Malaysia, Egypt, Mauritania, and Mauritius.
The Islamic Military Alliance was envisioned with the mission to fight terrorism in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan. The subsequent proposal of an Islamic ‘NATO’ appears to be a logical extension of this new military coalition.
Riyadh is also concerned about a resurgent Iran, which is increasingly asserting itself in the region post its nuclear deal with the world powers that ended the sanctions against Tehran. This has made the Sunni bloc try to overcome its divisions and forge a common front that can deal with the Iranian threat. It can be reasonably said that Russian military intervention in the Middle East has sowed the seed of this counter-alliance to deal with the emerging situation. With this new Islamic Military Alliance, the regional players will have more vital roles in Middle East affairs.
Countries like Russia, Iran and India that may feel targeted by the Islamic ‘NATO’ alliance may eventually be compelled to form their own coalition as a strategic counterweight.
In 2014, the two countries signed an MoU on defence cooperation, which allows exchange of defence-related information, military training and education as well as cooperation in areas varying from hydrography and security to logistics. In fact, there are talks of India establishing a mountain warfare training school to help Riyadh improve their offensive and defensive capabilities. Such surveys, which facilitate the operation of submarines, had until now been outsourced only to the US.

Only time will tell what impact will the Islamic ‘NATO’ have on the robust bilateral relations between India and Saudi Arabia. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has asked his diplomatic corps to stand up and stop Saudi Arabia from going into the hands of India,” a senior official told The Nation. The visit of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to Pakistan is also due in coming days,” he added. However, analysts believed Pakistan will not want these factors to become permanent irritants in its relations with Saudi Arabia. He said the kingdom’s better ties with India or any other country does not mean a threat to Pakistan.
KSA was one of the strongest supporters of Pakistan during country’s wars with India, especially opposing the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. In the 1970s and 1980s, approximately 15,000 Pakistani soldiers were stationed in the kingdom.
The Saudi forces are thankful to our military forces who provided them professional training,” he said.
Western countries speculate the kingdom secretly funded Pakistan’s nuclear bomb programme and seeks to purchase nuclear weapons from Islamabad to enable it to counter possible threats from the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ possessed by Iran, Iraq and Israel. The alliance should expand its goal beyond elimination of ISIS.” It should include the Kashmir, Palestine and other issues haunting regional peace into its agenda. A Canadian nuclear mission comprising nuclear firms and officials visited India in October last year and both sides have explored cooperation in pressurised heavy water reactors, training, capacity building and nuclear waste management. Given the opportunity Canada could consider setting up nuclear reactors in India and upgrading Indian reactors run on CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) technology,” Patel said. The civil nuclear partnership between the two countries entered a new phase with the conclusion of commercial pact during Modi’s trip for supply of uranium from the North American country to energy hungry India.
Canada will supply 3,000 metric tonnes of uranium beginning last year under a $254 million five-year deal to power Indian atomic reactors.
We were struck by his provocative and frightening outlook: that the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe today is greater than it was during the Cold War. It is well worth watching in its entirety, for he offered a nuanced analysis of the nuclear policies and capabilities of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan. Perry argued that today’s situation is “comparable to the dark days of the Cold War,” not only because Russia is modernizing its nuclear arsenal but also because Russian President Vladimir Putin might consider using nuclear weapons if the survival of his regime is at stake. Though he discussed possible future threats from North Korea, Perry rightly described a possible nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan as “the poster child” of this scenario. Thus, the stage is set for a conventional military confrontation that could rapidly escalate into an Indo-Pakistani nuclear war — first at the tactical level, but one that could spiral unpredictably into a strategic exchange. Its dangers lie not just in tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties from such a devastating attack here at home, but in the potential for the United States to plunge into chaos and respond in ways that forever alter the essence of what it means to be an American.
He continues to work tirelessly to reduce the threat of nuclear conflict and towards a world free of nuclear weapons. Hundreds of thousands of second and third degree burns cases… These people would need urgent and intensive medicare which would not be available. Radiations are bound to cause hosts of cancers in the generation directly affected by the blast and thereafter. Forget about big and small countries, even a newly created country like South Sudan hasn’t procured any drugs but has been investing millions in buying weapons for last two years.
It may not display this or other websites correctly.You should upgrade or use an alternative browser. The long-term modernisation programmes under way in these states suggest that nuclear weapons are still a marker of international status and power," said SIPRI Senior Researcher Shannon Kile. Pink flamingos stand in stark contrast to “black swans“—the unpredictable, even unforeseeable shocks whose outcomes may be entirely unknown. And the risk of nuclear conflict has only continued to rise in the past few years, to the point that it is now a very real possibility.
Quick and forceful diplomatic intervention played a pivotal role in preventing a larger conflict from erupting during each crisis. In accordance with this doctrine, the Indian military is meant to mobilise half a million troops in less than 72 hours. Therefore, both to counter Cold Start and help to offset India’s growing conventional superiority, Pakistan has accelerated its nuclear weapons programme—and begun to field short-range, low yield tactical nuclear weapons.
Pakistan clearly intends to use these weapons—on its own soil if necessary—to counter Cold Start’s plan for sudden Indian armoured thrusts into Pakistan. A terrorist group gaining control of a nuclear weapon remains one of the most frightening potential spin-offs of the current arms race. By that time, there was strong evidence that the attackers were Pakistani and belonged to a Pakistan-supported militant group.
Indian public opinion would demand retaliation, especially after the unpopular degree of restraint exercised by the Singh government after the Mumbai attacks. The US should work hard to catalyse confidence-building measures between the two sides, seeking to open more peacetime channels to create dialogue and potential conflict mediation options for the future. The lack of any tangible results from the US government’s recent outreach to Pakistan on this topic should only encourage renewed efforts. There is no shortage of conflicts and crises around the world demanding the attention of policymakers in Washington and other capitals. And any country, which leaves these devices for rogue elements, will be taken care of befittingly.
Even after 4 wars no lesson learned and the ironic thing is the Pakistan masses think India started the wars even after people like Musharaf boasting publicly.
Every state has a right to pursue trade, but also has the responsibility to maintain peace. You have put the future of both countries in the hands of terrorist – a criminally stupid move. Unless your side comes to terms with this being a disputed territory and requiring negotiations, all bets are off. They find sympathy with the masses due to the excesses being committed in Kashmir by your security forces. Even shias are not spared in Pakistan and you are giving sermons on how neighbours should behave !!
Try sending your soldiers into our territory and see their bits and pieces flying up and disappearing in the thin air. Pakistan can not simply stop such non-state mujahideen in the same way Indian border forces have failed to prevent infiltration.
Besides causing the deaths of millions of Indians and Pakistanis, such a war might bring on “nuclear winter” on a planetary scale, leading to levels of suffering and death that would be beyond our comprehension.
Most ominously, the decision to fire such a nuclear-armed missile with a range of 35 to 60 miles is to rest with local commanders. In addition to the perils inherent in this policy, such weapons would be vulnerable to misuse by a rogue base commander or theft by one of the many militant groups in the country. As early as 2004, it was discussing this doctrine, which involved the formation of eight division-size Integrated Battle Groups (IBGs).  These were to consist of infantry, artillery, armor, and air support, and each would be able to operate independently on the battlefield.
The resulting “nuclear winter” and ensuing crop loss would functionally add up to a slowly developing global nuclear holocaust. Although no formal communique was issued after Sharif’s trip, it became widely known that he had rejected the offer. In subsequent years, however, that yardstick of “minimum credible deterrence” has been regularly recalibrated as India’s policymakers went on to commit themselves to upgrade the country’s nuclear arms program with a new generation of more powerful hydrogen bombs designed to be city-busters. Many surmised that it would be the impending loss of Lahore, the capital of Punjab, only 15 miles from the Indian border.
New Delhi then conferred a special status on the part of Kashmir it controlled and held elections for its legislature, while Pakistan watched with trepidation.
Unwilling to give up his country’s demand for a plebiscite in all of pre-1947 Kashmir, Bhutto refused. By the late 1990s, on one side of the Line of Control were 400,000 Indian soldiers and on the other 300,000 Pakistani troops. But that hope was dashed when, in the early hours of January 2nd, four heavily armed Pakistani terrorists managed to cross the international border in Punjab, wearing Indian Army fatigues, and attacked an air force base in Pathankot.
That, in turn, would likely lead to Pakistan’s use of tactical nuclear weapons, thus opening up the real possibility of a full-blown nuclear holocaust with global consequences. When completed, possibly as early as 2017, it will be “the subcontinent’s largest military-run complex of nuclear centrifuges, atomic-research laboratories, and weapons- and aircraft-testing facilities.” Among the project’s aims is to expand the government’s nuclear research, to produce fuel for the country’s nuclear reactors, and to help power its expanding fleet of nuclear submarines. And the Islamic State (IS) has already reportedly used chemical munitions against the Kurds in Iraq.
Meanwhile, India has shown itself as a responsible power by signing and ratifying various international conventions against terrorism, including one on nuclear terrorism.
But it scores high and gets above-average marks in cybersecurity (75), international legal commitments (100), implementation of UNSCR 1540 (100) and capabilities to respond (86).
To continue to bolster its credentials as a responsible stakeholder, New Delhi knows it must engage all sides, even those who are in the business of ranking.
This remains uncertain whether the proposed alliance will be a further upgradation of the already established 34-nation alliance or a different initiative altogether,” said the Dunya News report.
Countries like Turkey and Egypt have long been supporters of regional solutions to regional problems. These issues are expected to come up for discussion during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit next month.
They are by far the most peaceful non-Saudi community and we appreciate all their contributions to Saudi nation and society. After this sweeping tour of the world, he concluded that there are three main nuclear dangers today that, taken together, make the current world even more dangerous than during most of the Cold War.
Putin faces many domestic challenges, including the drastic decline of oil prices that is forcing the state to rapidly consume its capital reserves, and aggressive nationalist policies are one way to divert domestic attention from those problems. It involves a rogue group of scientists operating on the fringes of a state’s nuclear weapons program smuggling out enough plutonium and bomb-making knowledge to create a single nuclear device, which they then transfer to a waiting terrorist group. He also reinforced the need to raise global awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons, and remain focused here at home on the very real dangers of a terrorist group detonating a weapon in the United States. But he does not believe he is a “naive idealist,” as he has been called, for promoting such unrealistic goals. No nation in this world, forget countries like India and Pakistan, is medically equipped to tackle the aftermath of such a war. For a country like India which is home to the highest number of malnourished children in the world, this should sound as an alarming bell. But then there are countries like Cuba, Finland and Switzerland where health spend is almost equal to defence expenditure. The introduction of these weapons has altered the long-standing geometry between the two nuclear powers and increases the risk of escalation to a nuclear exchange in a crisis. But there remains no meaningful senior-level dialogue between the two states—last August’s planned meeting between the two national security advisers was cancelled after disagreements about Kashmiri separatists. But the stakes of a war between two of the world’s most hostile nuclear powers deserves attention before the next inevitable flare-up.
This is a perilous departure from the universal practice of investing such authority in the highest official of the nation. In the case of major terrorist attacks by any Pakistan-based group, these IBGs would evidently respond by rapidly penetrating Pakistani territory at unexpected points along the border and advancing no more than 30 miles inland, disrupting military command and control networks while endeavoring to stay away from locations likely to trigger nuclear retaliation. Since then, according to Rajesh Rajagopalan, the New Delhi-based co-author of Nuclear South Asia: Keywords and Concepts, Pakistan seems to have been assembling four to five of these annually.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, India has 90 to 110 of these. Ambassador Robert Blackwill investigated building a hardened bunker in the Embassy compound to survive a nuclear strike. Later, they battled regular Pakistani troops until a United Nations-brokered ceasefire on January 1, 1949. No wonder President Bill Clinton called that border “the most dangerous place in the world.”  Today, with the addition of tactical nuclear weapons to the mix, it is far more so.
These enterprises are directed by the office of the prime minister, who is charged with overseeing all atomic energy projects. He pointed out that the Doomsday Clock is currently set at three minutes to midnight — the closest to midnight it has been since the height of the Cold War in 1984, and only one minute ahead of its lowest setting ever, in 1953. Russia is not deliberately seeking a military conflict with the United States or NATO, Perry said, but the key danger is that Putin “will take actions that will cause him to blunder into a conflict.” He argued that over time, Russia would inevitably lose any such conventional conflict, which might lead it to use its tactical nuclear weapons (which it refers to surreally as a “de-escalatory strike”). Pakistan and India remain locked in a frozen conflict that is the legacy of nearly 70 years of unresolved issues — including Kashmir — and three bloody wars.
This group then uses commercial air, sea, and land transport to infiltrate the bomb into the United States and detonate it in downtown Washington, D.C.
Instead, he noted that the famous Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov spent his whole life working toward political reform in the Soviet Union, which also seemed to be a hopeless task. Nora Bensahel is a Distinguished Scholar in Residence, at the School of International Service at American University.
Besides burn patients, people with eyesights destroyed by the flash, ruptured eardrums, collapsed lungs and broken limbs would be crying for help. Pakistan will reportedly have enough fissile material by 2020 to build more than 200 nuclear warheads—more than the UK plans to have by that time.
Quiet, off-the-record meetings between senior military leaders would help lessen tensions and establish some degree of mutual dialogue and understanding before a crisis erupts. Taking a series of modest steps now to try to avert the worst outcomes from this dangerous pink flamingo hiding in plain sight is an investment well worth making. Pakistan offered the best possible deal during Musharraf’s time but your arrogance got in the way of amicably settling this. Such a situation has no parallel in the Washington-Moscow nuclear arms race of the Cold War era. In other words, India has long been planning to respond to major terror attacks with a swift and devastating conventional military action that would inflict only limited damage and so—in a best-case scenario—deny Pakistan justification for a nuclear response.
Only when he and his staff realized that those in the bunker would be killed by the aftereffects of the nuclear blast did they abandon the idea.
The accession document required that Kashmiris be given an opportunity to choose between India and Pakistan once peace was restored.
By the time order was restored on January 5th, all the terrorists were dead, but so were seven Indian security personnel and one civilian.
India’s Atomic Energy Act and its Official Secrets Act place everything connected to the country’s nuclear program under wraps.
And if that were to happen, it would be impossible to predict or control the resulting escalation. When told he was being too idealistic, Sakharov replied, “There is a need to create ideals, even when you cannot see a path to achieving them.
The US should also sponsor unofficial tabletop exercises involving representatives of each side to explore how escalation in a nuclear conflict could unfold.
The United Jihad Council, an umbrella organization of separatist militant groups in Kashmir, claimed credit for the attack. In the past, those who tried to obtain a fuller picture of the Indian arsenal and the facilities that feed it have been bludgeoned to silence.
The Pakistanis have recently begun developing and fielding tactical nuclear weapons, ostensibly to offset India’s sizable conventional superiority. The Indian government, however, insisted that the operation had been masterminded by Masood Azhar, leader of the Pakistan-based Jaish-e Muhammad (Army of Muhammad). These short-range weapons are inherently less easy to secure and control, and clearly lower the threshold for actual use on the battlefield. To sign up for Barno and Bensahel’s Strategic Outpost newsletter, where you can track their articles as well as their public events, click here. The resultant chaos plunges the nation into a paroxysm of civil disorder, mass roundups of thousands of suspects, and martial law.

Free movie online american pie 4
Bug out bag for sale uk online
Any natural disasters in germany
Preparing for man made disasters

Comments to “Is nuclear war between india and pakistan possibility”

  1. BERLIN writes:
    You can acquire a geocaching grab bag away from house that needs the.
  2. ayanka writes:
    Signaling in case you from a few minutes to an hour or much best type of galvanized.