surajmal Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 it won't unless we have found some technology to completely neutralize nukes. and if it does, then it would be the stupidest thing ever to do. Such as what ? If I knew, I wouldn't post such info on an open forum. But I know Indian Military bigwigs have been hard at work trying to work out ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 If I knew' date=' I wouldn't post such info on an open forum. But I know Indian Military bigwigs have been hard at work trying to work out ways.[/quote'] So are the Americans, Israelis, Brits, French, Chinese and Russians. There is no viable counter to MIRV-ed ballistic missile re-entry or hypersonic cruise missle payloads. Remember, This is not Iran-Israel or even Russia-USA, where there is 1000s of kms of neutral territorry seperating the combatants. This is trying to toss nukes to your roomate. You will get nuked, period. There is no counter and there won't be any counter to MIRV-ed ballistic missile or hypersonic cruise missiles for bordering nations and i doubt there would be an effective solution against these in our lifetimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 So are the Americans, Israelis, Brits, French, Chinese and Russians. There is no viable counter to MIRV-ed ballistic missile re-entry or hypersonic cruise missle payloads. Remember, This is not Iran-Israel or even Russia-USA, where there is 1000s of kms of neutral territorry seperating the combatants. This is trying to toss nukes to your roomate. You will get nuked, period. There is no counter and there won't be any counter to MIRV-ed ballistic missile or hypersonic cruise missiles for bordering nations and i doubt there would be an effective solution against these in our lifetimes. Pakis don't have MIRV (and neither do they have hypersonic cruise missiles). And Majority of their ballistic missile inventory is liquid fueled. I'll leave rest to the imagination (and that would be just one way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Pakis don't have MIRV. And Majority of their ballistic missile inventory is liquid fueled. I'll leave rest to the imagination (and that would be just one way). doesn;t matter if they are liquid fuelled or not. You have virtually zero chance of shooting down a launching ballistic missile that is launched from a mobile truck-based launch mechanism ( you can't pre-empt something when you don't know where it is) and you certainly can't shoot down cruise missiles either. Pakistan does not need MIRV (and if it acquired MIRV, then its completely hopeless to try and block it), it needs 1950s katyushas and scuds to nuke amritsar, jammu, etc. and it certainly has missiles 10 times better than those. As i said, lobbing nukes between roommates is not an option in today's world and i doubt it would ever be an option in our lifetime. Remember, we are talking about nuclear tipped missiles here. Even if your missile shield is 90% effective, it is still completely unfeasable to take that chance. To engage a nuclear enemy, you need a system that is 99.999% effective against missiles and humanity is nowhere close to finding such a tech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 And those who CIA funded then went and did 9/11. The ones Pakistan funded in Afghanistan are now exploding their every city. And Indira Gandhi did same with LTTE, led to death of her son. This will again come to bite us back, plus Pakistani's will start hating. Balochi's even if they take over will then cause the same problem and use those stingers on us. Plus the nuclear weapons too. We don't bloody have resources to do it either. We need more to develop our country too, you no ? :omg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cevno Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 :omg: Yeah, still in terms of average population there is not as much hatred as there is between say a Israel and Palestine, where they all want to destroy each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Has US won the cold war? :giggle: Unless you are extremely "focussed" (read myopic) and consider fall of USSR as end of cold war, I refuse to see how US won it. Lets's see: US supports Afgan rebels to get at USSR during cold war. The rebels have been after US ever since. US uses Pakistan as landing area to get weapons and money to Afganistan. Pakistan uses it to develop its own N weapons and ultimately becomes worst terrorist place on earth. All roads to anti US start from Pakistan today. US supports China to encircle Russia from other end, providing economic benefits. Today China is US's number 1 competitor. Sure US won the cold war...if you say so :giggle: This strawman is like telling the allies didn't win WWII, because look at how Israel is still fighting for survival. US did win the cold war looking at how USSR disintegrated, fall of berlin wall, unification of germanyt and there are no cold-war hostilities anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 This strawman is like telling the allies didn't win WWII, because look at how Israel is still fighting for survival. US did win the cold war looking at how USSR disintegrated, fall of berlin wall, unification of germanyt and there are no cold-war hostilities anymore. indeed, the US, technically 'won' the cold war. but it didn't do it by beating the USSR in any form, it did it because USSR collapsed. Its like walking into a boxing ring and emerging victorious because your opponent had a heart attack and died. You technically won. But you didn't beat him. That is the point of relevance here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cevno Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Nah, what Lurker said is right. They won it in the short term but got bitten back by the snake they fed later. They, technically won yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpressPace Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 "A United Nations resolution adopted after the first war called for a referendum allowing the people of Kashmir to choose which country they wanted to join".... So why won't India just hold that referendum and clear the whole issue once and for all? Why fight wars and keep such a big army positioned in the state when there is such a simple UN mandated solution available? I see India more at fault for this than Pakistan, for a change.Indian kashmiris don't want to be a part of India.....as a complete outsider it is just blatantly clear to me...why can't the Indians see that? Without Kashmir India could atleast focus on its real problems which are that half of its population lives below the international poverty line. Its a country known for its slums. Anyways, went through some poverty figures. India's poverty is 43% compared to Pakistan's 17% according to UNDP 2008 report. Seems like conditions are much better in Pakistan. Last year when i crossed the Wagah border from Amritsar to Lahore, i was simply amazed by the fact how well off Pakistanis are compared to Indians. Visiting India just made me sick, the constant sight of beggars and slums and had to suffer an 18th century infrastructure. Pakistan was much much better compared to anything that India had to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpressPace Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I don't think its healthy for either nation to let the military decide the fate of its people. Dead people do not benefit anyone. Btw you might also want to check the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958 which gives broad powers to the Indian Army. So much so that for two people to get married, they have to clear it with the Indian Army first. The guest list has to be approved and so do the sort of food to be served. An average Kashmiri cant go to work without passing 10-15 checkpoints. Its all quite draconian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpressPace Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Anyways, Listen all you fool Indians and Pakistanis. It was the British colonial masterstroke of their golden rule of "DIVIDE AND RULE". So brilliantly it has applied to us that even after 63 years (most of us were not even born then) but we keep on fighting tooth and nail on this issue and keep on spending billions of dollars in a mad arms race while our populace is starving and lacks basic civil amenities.The British not only robbed us blind but also left behind a legacy thru which we spend biilions of our hard earned foriegn exchange on arms we buy from the western world, making them still richer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panther Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Listen all you fool Indians and Pakistanis. It was the British colonial masterstroke of their golden rule of "DIVIDE AND RULE". So brilliantly it has applied to us that even after 63 years (most of us were not even born then) but we keep on fighting tooth and nail on this issue and keep on spending billions of dollars in a mad arms race while our populace is starving and lacks basic civil amenities.The British not only robbed us blind but also left behind a legacy thru which we spend biilions of our hard earned foriegn exchange on arms we buy from the western world' date=' making them still richer.[/quote'] This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 This strawman is like telling the allies didn't win WWII, because look at how Israel is still fighting for survival. US did win the cold war looking at how USSR disintegrated, fall of berlin wall, unification of germanyt and there are no cold-war hostilities anymore. Coffee saab, you can nitpick but the reality is that all the modern day horrors that USA faces today, or atleast most of them, can be traced to their desire to beat USSR in the Cold war. The reality is that in the process of "beating" USSR, US lost its bearings. In fact a decent analogy for this would be CIA. CIA proclaims Afganistan as its greatest success, and yet has been chasing Afgan rebels for past decade plus. I would say short term win earned US long term ailment. Hopefully it will come out of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 "A United Nations resolution adopted after the first war called for a referendum allowing the people of Kashmir to choose which country they wanted to join".... So why won't India just hold that referendum and clear the whole issue once and for all? Why fight wars and keep such a big army positioned in the state when there is such a simple UN mandated solution available? I see India more at fault for this than Pakistan' date=' for a change.Indian kashmiris don't want to be a part of India.....as a complete outsider it is just blatantly clear to me...why can't the Indians see that?[/quote'] 1. Referendums have to apply to all Kashmiris- including kashmiri hindus who've been displaced by violence in kashmir through rest of India. Identifying Kashmiri hindus throughout India and making them eligible for referendum is a logistical nightmare. 2. Technically Kashmir belongs to India, period. The instrument of accession explicitly said that British crown lands were to be partitioned and the 'puppet monarchs' have the right to remain independent or join whoever they wanted. The maharaja of Kashmir wanted a referendum to deciede and remain independent till the process completed (1951 was his target date).Pakistan jumped the gun & invaded Kashmir, Kashmiri maharaja acceeded to India. All of which are legal moves and binding. 3. Kashmir has immense strategic value to India. It is practically the only 'densely populated patch' of himalayan land except the Kathmandu valley region and provides immense geo-strategic advantages to India- as long as india holds Kashmir, the western link to Tibet and Sinkiang is not 100% secure. All major Pakistani riverine water flows through India (mostly KAshimr) before entering Pakistan and we would be foolish to give away such an advantage 4. Referendum has to apply for ALL kashmir- this includes Northern areas and 'azad kashmir'. Pakistan has refused to consider referendum there, implying that the prevailing peace there (enforced by massive Pakistani military presence and lack of terrorist infiltration from India) is tacit & de-facto approval of Pakistani rule. Ie, Pakistan has no case unless it is willing to hold a referendum in PoK as well. Kashmir changing hands will not drive down India's defence budget, which is already pretty modest ( india spends less % of its GDP on military than USA or China does) and as such, it is a strawman argument. By the same token, we can say that even USA should stop funding its military and tend to the slum-dwellers in Detroit and LA. Indeed. However, the main reason why half of Pakistan (Baluchistan and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa) is not impoverished is because Pakistan is the main artery for opium trade, emmenating from the Helmand valley in Afghanistan. Take away the huge drug-money influx and Pakistani poverty rate is not much dissimilar to that of India's. Indeed. India and Pakistan are not comparable, thats like saying why did it take China 50 years to get halfway to where South Korea got in 10 years. The answer is demographic size. Its far easier to solve the problems of a country that is 800,000 sq kms, most of it uninhabitable desert & mountains, with 150 million people, than to solve the problems of a country that is 3.2 million sq kms with 1 billion+ people. Further, one major reason why Pakistan is seemingly better off, is because the Islamic oil-rich gulf nations send estimated 2-5 billion dollars of raw untaxed cash to Pakistan for 'fostering muslim brotherhood and islamic charities'. India does not get to get free money because of what a few nutbars believe and consider 'solidarity issues' over an unproven and unsubstantiated book of godlyness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 "A United Nations resolution adopted after the first war called for a referendum allowing the people of Kashmir to choose which country they wanted to join".... So why won't India just hold that referendum and clear the whole issue once and for all? Why fight wars and keep such a big army positioned in the state when there is such a simple UN mandated solution available? I see India more at fault for this than Pakistan, for a change.Indian kashmiris don't want to be a part of India.....as a complete outsider it is just blatantly clear to me...why can't the Indians see that? Without Kashmir India could atleast focus on its real problems which are that half of its population lives below the international poverty line. Its a country known for its slums. Anyways, went through some poverty figures. India's poverty is 43% compared to Pakistan's 17% according to UNDP 2008 report. Seems like conditions are much better in Pakistan. Last year when i crossed the Wagah border from Amritsar to Lahore, i was simply amazed by the fact how well off Pakistanis are compared to Indians. Visiting India just made me sick, the constant sight of beggars and slums and had to suffer an 18th century infrastructure. Pakistan was much much better compared to anything that India had to offer. Can you take your trolling somewhere else please. This is a thread on two soldiers being murdered in gross violation of the geneva convention. Gtfo the thread please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texy Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Why is this surprising??? They did similar things in the past...mutilating, beheading, raping bengalis and throw them off the balcony........even barbarians would'be ashamed of what they did in 71 and in Kashmir in the 90s. It's not their fault....animals would be animals...we keep feeding them, we keep calling them...well eventually they will get greedy...not their fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Anyways' date=' Listen all you fool Indians and Pakistanis. It was the British colonial masterstroke of their golden rule of "DIVIDE AND RULE". So brilliantly it has applied to us that even after 63 years (most of us were not even born then) but we keep on fighting tooth and nail on this issue and keep on spending billions of dollars in a mad arms race while our populace is starving and lacks basic civil amenities.The British not only robbed us blind but also left behind a legacy thru which we spend biilions of our hard earned foriegn exchange on arms we buy from the western world, making them still richer.[/quote'] John Maynard Keynes would disagree with you. The corollary to that argument is, by creating a competition between India and Pakistan, their technological and logistical capabilities have been fast-tracked, something that wouldn't exist without active competition in the region. According to Keynesian theory of economics, its political, economic and military competition that leads to progress, as tiny European nations that were perma-locked in warfare throughout the middle ages spawned tiny but far more advanced states than the massive behemoths and unchallenged (thus, stagnating) empires, such as China or Russia. Another example is, look at Brazil- they are the unquestioned big-daddy of South America and independent for almost 200 years and yet, they are just a few decades ahead of India in most benchmarks. Why ? because Brazil lacks any competition in its zone of influence, thus, it does not have the artificially stimulated growth impetus that is currently affecting the subcontinent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpressPace Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 no one is made a fool of as much as a soldier..feed them patriotic kool aid, and let them die..call them martyrs after that.. at least some solace for their unlucky souls that their death count is discussed like a cricket score by the drawing room patriots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpressPace Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Why is this surprising??? They did similar things in the past...mutilating, beheading, raping bengalis and throw them off the balcony........even barbarians would'be ashamed of what they did in 71 and in Kashmir in the 90s. It's not their fault....animals would be animals...we keep feeding them, we keep calling them...well eventually they will get greedy...not their fault. And indian army is handing out bread and butter in kashmir and thats y we need half a mill of them there... :cantstop: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts