What's new

‘India might not be able to defend itself from Pakistani missiles’

Syed1 said:
Lol at the Indians claiming that they will defeat the sixth largest army in the world in a matter of days.

Also a defensive army is always at a considerable advantage due to developed bunkers and established trench lines. Some military strategists claim that you only need one third of the offensive army to effectively drive back the offense.

I won't expect keyboard warriors like you guys to know about this.

Also for the joshila folks Pakistan has plenty of F16 and JF17 both which are 4th gen fighters. You don't need to worry about our capabilities. Thank you very much.

Also as soon as we concede even an inch of our motherland India should be ready for a barrage of nukes.
Click to expand...

The Punjabi plain is not an easily defensible border and it is hard to make suitable trench lines for it, which is part of the reason why Pakistan had so little success in 65.

In any event of war during the XIst century without the use of nuclear weapons, one would expect Lahore to fall pretty soon. But we can chalk that one down to Radcliffe for giving muslim majority regions around the Sutlaj to India.

Of course, India doesn't have the capability to occupy the whole of Pakistan, especially against inevitable resistance, but would they ever need to?
 
Last edited:
Yossarian said:
When your backs are to the wall and you're in danger of losing anyway to a much larger force .... "If we're going down anyway, we'll just make sure we take enough of you down with us so that even if we get annihilated, you won't get away scott-free either. Apart from any destruction we inflict upon you, just the fall-out from our death and destruction will cause havoc to you and to others in the region". Isn't that the whole point of a deterrence and why Pakistan will not rule out a first-strike nuclear option if attacked?
Click to expand...

The only scenario where India will launch an surgical attack on Pakistan is another mumbai style terror attack.

Following which Pakistan will have two options:
1.Have a limited war with India something India will like to have.

2.Go for a full scale war with army atleast 2-3 times your size.

Now in case of a full scale war and Pakistan going nuclear and have complete annihilation,is that the cost Pakistan is willing to pay to harbour the likes of Masood Azhar Hafeez Saeed and co.?Will Pakistan risk complete annihilation just to save these people?

Secondly India is developing the ABM capability to make sure it will take out most if not all incoming missiles from Pakistan.Also in case of such a war entire world will be focusing their technology through satellites etc to get prior info if Pakistan is trying to go nuclear.In such a scenario not only India but other nations too will prempt such a nuclear attack.

Now lets come to scenario of a defeat.Pakistan facing a conventional defeat versus India at the worse will lose POK and will have to shut down the support system of the terrorists that attack India.Most of Pakistan will be as it is today.

Now if Pakistan goes nuclear there wont be anything left of Pakistan.India may or may not be affected or the extent of damage will depend on whether Pakistan is able to launch its nuclear missiles and how many of them hit.In either scenario India will still exist,Pakistan wont.

Dont think your generals are fools to risk such a scenario just to save some terrorists.
And someone may not have told you that nothing stops India from launching a nuclear attack first if it suspects a imminent Pakistani attack.This has been articulated many times by Indian govt.

So this no first use or only Pakistan can use first is a myth.
 
Last edited:
cricketjoshila said:
Following which Pakistan will have two options:
1.Have a limited war with India something India will like to have.

2.Go for a full scale war with army atleast 2-3 times your size.
Click to expand...
:facepalm: There's no need to read further than this simplistic logic. Once conflict starts, no one has "two options, of having a limited war or full scale war". No one sits down and says "Hmmm.. let me think, should I go for a limited war or a full scale war ...". Once a conflict starts which leads to war then events take a life of their own. A terrorist, belonging to a small terrorist group, killing the son of the king of a middling state, escalated to the 1st major war (and the 2nd biggest in terms of casualties) of the last century, involving all the major world powers at the time.
 
Yossarian said:
:facepalm: There's no need to read further than this simplistic logic. Once conflict starts, no one has "two options, of having a limited war or full scale war". No one sits down and says "Hmmm.. let me think, should I go for a limited war or a full scale war ...". Once a conflict starts which leads to war then events take a life of their own. A terrorist, belonging to a small terrorist group, killing the son of the king of a middling state, escalated to the 1st major war (and the 2nd biggest in terms of casualties) of the last century, involving all the major world powers at the time.
Click to expand...
The weaker foe has to think before it goes for a full scale war where at ths end it may be facing nuclear annihilation.And all this to save what few 100 terrorists?

No one plunges into war without thinking its consequences.Neither will Pakistani generals.They know that its one thing of talking about nuclear use and totally another to do it and that too to save a few 100 terrorists.
 
cricketjoshila said:
The weaker foe has to think before it goes for a full scale war where at ths end it may be facing nuclear annihilation.
Click to expand...
Childish logic yet again. When war starts, there's no such thing as a 'limited war' or a 'full scale war'. Events take a life of their own in such scenarios. Logic goes out of the window. Otherwise WW1, WW2, Vietnam, The Korean War ... to name just a few, would never have became major wars in the manner they did.
 
Yossarian said:
Childish logic yet again. When war starts, there's no such thing as a 'limited war' or a 'full scale war'. Events take a life of their own in such scenarios. Logic goes out of the window. Otherwise WW1, WW2, Vietnam, The Korean War ... to name just a few, would never have became major wars in the manner they did.
Click to expand...

Limited war is something like Kargil.Heard of it?

Now please go read a few books on limited warfare.

And WW1 WW2 and Korean war werent fought between nuclear powers.And certainly the stakes in those wars werent as low as a few terrorists and their masterminds.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Limited war is something like Kargil.Heard of it?

Now please go read a few books on limited warfare.

And WW1 WW2 and Korean war werent fought between nuclear powers.And certainly the stakes in those wars werent as low as a few terrorists and their masterminds.
Click to expand...
Childish logic yet again. No one decides at the outset what kind of war one wants to fight with an enemy. It's not an IPL game where there's a start time, number of overs and a cut-off end-time, and then everyone goes home until the new season starts. Wars take on a life of their own. Sometimes they end because one defeats the other. Sometimes they end because the stupidity of fighting over something insignificant becomes obvious. Sometimes there's outside intervention. Sometimes there's a truce. Sometimes other factors come into play. And sometimes it drags in others and escalates to such an extent that everyone loses.

The bigger question is for the one who starts the war by being the first to attack the other. Is it worth suffering the damage and losses they will incur, as well as the ensuing aftermath, even if they win and annihilate the enemy? Apart from warmongers and those who will make big profits, such as the arms manufacturers, only those with no concern for their own populations start wars (even if they are likely to inflict more damage on the enemy).

Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no nuclear power has attacked, or been attacked by, another nuclear power. Not even a minor skirmish. The risks of escalation are too big to contemplate.
 
i see the delusional non North Indian is at again. If in a nuclear exchange, the northern half of subcontinent is destroyed, that's pretty much the end of Indian independence, southerners will fall back into foreign servitude.

Draw a line just south from Mumbai to Himalayas that's pretty much the real india power.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
i see the delusional non North Indian is at again. If in a nuclear exchange, the northern half of subcontinent is destroyed, that's pretty much the end of Indian independence, southerners will fall back into foreign servitude.

Draw a line just south from Mumbai to Himalayas that's pretty much the real india power.
Click to expand...

Best way to break the dignity of people is to attack and demolish the structures they hold dear. Instead of aiming for more casualties, pakistan should target taj mahal, red fort etc. It will defeat the spirit of people without causing much bloodshed.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
i see the delusional non North Indian is at again. If in a nuclear exchange, the northern half of subcontinent is destroyed, that's pretty much the end of Indian independence, southerners will fall back into foreign servitude.

Draw a line just south from Mumbai to Himalayas that's pretty much the real india power.
Click to expand...

True. India without North India is like a Peacock without its tail. Just an ugly Murghabi like hundreds of others.
 
Yossarian said:
Childish logic yet again. No one decides at the outset what kind of war one wants to fight with an enemy. It's not an IPL game where there's a start time, number of overs and a cut-off end-time, and then everyone goes home until the new season starts. Wars take on a life of their own. Sometimes they end because one defeats the other. Sometimes they end because the stupidity of fighting over something insignificant becomes obvious. Sometimes there's outside intervention. Sometimes there's a truce. Sometimes other factors come into play. And sometimes it drags in others and escalates to such an extent that everyone loses.

The bigger question is for the one who starts the war by being the first to attack the other. Is it worth suffering the damage and losses they will incur, as well as the ensuing aftermath, even if they win and annihilate the enemy? Apart from warmongers and those who will make big profits, such as the arms manufacturers, only those with no concern for their own populations start wars (even if they are likely to inflict more damage on the enemy).

Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no nuclear power has attacked, or been attacked by, another nuclear power. Not even a minor skirmish. The risks of escalation are too big to contemplate.
Click to expand...
If you are the bigger foe and the stronger foe you can dictate the course of the war as the smaller foe will think many times before expanding a war were its stakes are low.

As i suggested please read literature by various neutral well known international experts on various scenarios in case of a Indian attack on terror camps and why Pakistan will not go for a full scale war to save a few petty terrorists who are expendable to the state.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
i see the delusional non North Indian is at again. If in a nuclear exchange, the northern half of subcontinent is destroyed, that's pretty much the end of Indian independence, southerners will fall back into foreign servitude.

Draw a line just south from Mumbai to Himalayas that's pretty much the real india power.
Click to expand...

Yes the ABMs will simply sit and do nothing.

And the southern states have proved to be far more difficult in past to control than northern India and present day Pakistan that fell to inavders again and again and again.

I can only laugh at your assumptions.The area you described as falling to foreign servitude is larger than Pakistan.LOL.Real power.Lol
 
I feel like Bollywood has far too much influence on these Indians. They firmly believe that they can easily walk in and target whoever they want "ghar mein ghus ke"

Remember what happened last time Indian MIGs came to the border, Pakistan scrambled twice as many Vipers forcing the Indian jets to return to base even before they entered Pakistani airspace.


And here we have people saying they will hit wherever they want before Pakistan has time to react :)))
 
Eagle_Eye said:
i see the delusional non North Indian is at again. If in a nuclear exchange, the northern half of subcontinent is destroyed, that's pretty much the end of Indian independence, southerners will fall back into foreign servitude.

Draw a line just south from Mumbai to Himalayas that's pretty much the real india power.
Click to expand...

Lol is this a potshot at the thread creator?:narine
 
@streetcricker You are not delusional. Time and again I see the said individual blabber out delusional none sense about the nuclear exchange...
 
Last edited:
Eagle_Eye said:
@streetcricker You are not delusional. Time and again I see the said individual blabber out delusional none sense about the nuclear exchange...
Click to expand...

bro, always get confused whether you are eagle eye or eye done. If you are hinting at CJ, then I disagree. He never attacks any country unless provoked. And always separates religion from nationality.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Yes the ABMs will simply sit and do nothing.

And the southern states have proved to be far more difficult in past to control than northern India and present day Pakistan that fell to inavders again and again and again.

I can only laugh at your assumptions.The area you described as falling to foreign servitude is larger than Pakistan.LOL.Real power.Lol
Click to expand...

Just like the laser wall protecting the pathankot airbase?

The north is the power base and always has been. The name India derives from a tiny portion of the northern part of the subcontinent. Hindi/Urdu are the de facto "national languages" of the entire subcontinent.

Even in Hindu mythology, Warriors, great leaders and even Gods are northerners and the south is synonymous with villains and dark forces....

Even in modern day India, the northerners generally lead and southerners follow.
 
I agree, North = Land of Ram and Laxman,

While South = Land of Ravana and Kumbkaran.
 
Both countries aren't stupid enough to wage another war. Both countries will warmonger each other, increase military budget, steal money from the weapon sales and the it will go on and on.
 
Thivagar said:
Both countries aren't stupid enough to wage another war. Both countries will warmonger each other, increase military budget, steal money from the weapon sales and the it will go on and on.
Click to expand...

And its funny that some "citizens" of the two countries feel pride in the proverbial "comparison of wang sizes" on internet forums. The militaristic capabilities are nothing to be proud of if a vast majority of the two nations struggle to feed themselves and their families properly.
 
Stewie said:
And its funny that some "citizens" of the two countries feel pride in the proverbial "comparison of wang sizes" on internet forums. The militaristic capabilities are nothing to be proud of if a vast majority of the two nations struggle to feed themselves and their families properly.
Click to expand...

Agree, like I said before, countries spend billions of dollars to "defend its people" but easily giving half of that to the health care could literally save 1000s, if not 10,000s of people per year. 3rd world countries like to look cool. People of India and Pakistan could feel "cool" about their country producing fighter jet and missiles, but according to the west, they will always be two 3rd world countries filled with poverty, ignorance and corruption.
 
cricketjoshila said:
If you are the bigger foe and the stronger foe you can dictate the course of the war as the smaller foe will think many times before expanding a war were its stakes are low.

As i suggested please read literature by various neutral well known international experts on various scenarios in case of a Indian attack on terror camps and why Pakistan will not go for a full scale war to save a few petty terrorists who are expendable to the state.
Click to expand...
In other words you didn't understand a word of the following paragraph

The bigger question is for the one who starts the war by being the first to attack the other. Is it worth suffering the damage and losses they will incur, as well as the ensuing aftermath, even if they win and annihilate the enemy? Apart from warmongers and those who will make big profits, such as the arms manufacturers, only those with no concern for their own populations start wars (even if they are likely to inflict more damage on the enemy).
Click to expand...
Do you seriously believe any Pakistani general or politician who wants to live will sit idly by and do absolutely nothing if India attacked Pakistan? And if Pakistan responded, and they will, do you seriously believe that there is zero chance of the whole thing escalating into something much bigger? Would these "well known international experts" be prepared to backup their theories by placing themselves and their families in some of the sensitive border regions of India and Pakistan if an Indian attack on Pakistan took place on the basis that the Pakistanis will simply say "Oh well, India has just attacked us, but we'll do nothing"?

Your chest-thumping and warmongering attitude is getting a bit tiresome. Makes one wonder why you spend all your waking hours posting gibberish on a Pakistani forum.
 
The Good said:
you can't afford to spend like India. That's the only reason.
Click to expand...


Look I don't want to be dragged into Wang comparison like I said earlier but I see something's here are being twisted.

Pakistan holds a very strategic position for the US and they get most of the support from them. If you are suggesting they negotiate other stuff instead of weapons I assure you US wont oblige.

It's spending yes.. But you have to look at the overall context. Not saying I agree with it but what you said is not apples to apples.
 
It seems Pakpassion is full of children.

Either that or they are hot blooded with strong passion and emotion on matters that they can't even control.

They are two things I am certain of

1. People die in wars for both sides.

2. The damage to infrastructure incurred by fighting wars, is not worth it.

Warna, what's stopping India from launching a nuclear attack on Pakistan? What's stopping Pakistan from going nuclear against India?

Both the nations are smart and just building up their arsenal to keep the other on foot.

Intelligence is a sensitive aspect, and both will keep doing this.

Will they ever go to war ?

Unlikely.

Only keyboard warriors can discuss the implications of war and decide which nation will win in case of a full fledged war.

War doesn't leave anyone victorious.

It just causes nations to go back 20 years.

India can't afford that, when it is progressing rapidly. Pakistan can't afford that, when it cannot even feed its basic people.

Let's be realistic and not talk about potential fantasies.
 
Missile shield will never save states closer to border.
Both countries have way too much weapons to damage each other significantly. Nuclear war will create zones worse than Cherbonyl disaster. Many future generation would be affected too.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
Just like the laser wall protecting the pathankot airbase?

The north is the power base and always has been. The name India derives from a tiny portion of the northern part of the subcontinent. Hindi/Urdu are the de facto "national languages" of the entire subcontinent.

Even in Hindu mythology, Warriors, great leaders and even Gods are northerners and the south is synonymous with villains and dark forces....

Even in modern day India, the northerners generally lead and southerners follow.
Click to expand...

1.Laser walls?Please go read before you make such ignorant statements.The laser walls were erected on the border after Pathankot attack.The David Sling,Iron dome,S 400 are well known ABMs and their capability has been attested to by experts,your whining wont change that.

2.India doesnt have a national language.And if Pakistan has Urdu as national language its your problem not ours and that problem resulted in Bangladesh.

3.Who said god are northeners?Some of Hinduisms most venerated temples are in south.You have no idea about hinduism so please stop trying to teach hindusim to Hindus.

4.Southerners follow?Some of India's best known leaders are from south.As i said just because Pakistan follows a certain narrative,it isnt true.
 
Yossarian said:
In other words you didn't understand a word of the following paragraph

Do you seriously believe any Pakistani general or politician who wants to live will sit idly by and do absolutely nothing if India attacked Pakistan? And if Pakistan responded, and they will, do you seriously believe that there is zero chance of the whole thing escalating into something much bigger? Would these "well known international experts" be prepared to backup their theories by placing themselves and their families in some of the sensitive border regions of India and Pakistan if an Indian attack on Pakistan took place on the basis that the Pakistanis will simply say "Oh well, India has just attacked us, but we'll do nothing"?

Your chest-thumping and warmongering attitude is getting a bit tiresome. Makes one wonder why you spend all your waking hours posting gibberish on a Pakistani forum.
Click to expand...

Seems you have read nothing and just go on assumptions.

Pakistan will not go for a full scale war just to save the lives of a few expendable terrorists.Ofcourse there will be retaliation and a limited war.But it will mean that in future Pakistan will be aware of costs to pay if it allows terrorists to use its soil to attack India.

Pakistan or any country will not take the risk of a full scale war to save expendable non state actors.This one of the reasons to use these non state actors.So that in case of a retaliation from India these expendable non state actors can be allowed to be destroyed and avoid any significant damage.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Seems you have read nothing and just go on assumptions.

Pakistan will not go for a full scale war just to save the lives of a few expendable terrorists.Ofcourse there will be retaliation and a limited war.But it will mean that in future Pakistan will be aware of costs to pay if it allows terrorists to use its soil to attack India.
Click to expand...
And isn't it likely that India will retaliate to Pakistan's retaliation to an Indian attack? What then? You keep on harping about "full scale war" and "limited war" as if it will be purely down to choice. The point that you simply can't get into your head is that if/when an attack takes place and war starts, all predictions and all theories go out of the window. No one, absolutely no one, could say for certain how events will unfold from that point onwards. No one that is except apparently you and all those 'experts' sitting comfortably thousands of miles away. And with both sides possessing nukes, only warmongers will take the chance of starting a war.
 
Last edited:
Biggest reason for Pak to get away with "thousand cuts" strategy of supporting murderers is because they know India doesn't want to go to war since its an expensive proposition in more ways than one. To counter this mindset, India needs to arm and prepare itself appropriately so that a believable deterrent is created. This is why after decades of under-funding its armed forces, Indian govt has been on a spending spree last 5-7 years. Results will take time, because Army has not even used up its proper fund allocations in the last couple of years. Sau chaal suar ki, ek chaal haathi ki ;)
 
Yossarian said:
And isn't it likely that India will retaliate to Pakistan's retaliation to an Indian attack? What then? You keep on harping about "full scale war" and "limited war" as if it will be purely down to choice. The point that you simply can't get into your head is that if/when an attack takes place and war starts, all predictions and all theories go out of the window. No one, absolutely no one, could say for certain how events will unfold from that point onwards. No one that is except apparently you and all those 'experts' sitting comfortably thousands of miles away. And with both sides possessing nukes, only warmongers will take the chance of starting a war.
Click to expand...
As i said you have no concept of a limited war.So please read about it.There are various examples of it.

The Indo-Sino Cho La Nathu La incident
The Sino Soviet Border war
 
cricketjoshila said:
If you are the bigger foe and the stronger foe you can dictate the course of the war as the smaller foe will think many times before expanding a war were its stakes are low.

As i suggested please read literature by various neutral well known international experts on various scenarios in case of a Indian attack on terror camps and why Pakistan will not go for a full scale war to save a few petty terrorists who are expendable to the state.
Click to expand...

yar ye konsi movie mein 'terrorist camp' dekh liye hein bhae ne ?
 
cricketjoshila said:
As i said you have no concept of a limited war.So please read about it.There are various examples of it.

The Indo-Sino Cho La Nathu La incident
The Sino Soviet Border war
Click to expand...
Don't confuse the final outcome of a particular war with thinking beforehand that one can control events if/when a war starts. Anybody can claim anything retrospectively. The point that you cannot seem to comprehend is that if/when a war starts, no one can control how events will unfold, especially if both sides possess significantly large military forces (albeit one being bigger than the other), and especially if they also possess nukes.

Anyway I'm done with arguing with you on this. If you think that after an Indian attack on Pakistan, the Pakistani politicians and generals will sit down and have a cup of tea whilst having a laugh over the fact that they've been spending $billions on Pakistan's armed forces in case of this very eventuality, and then did nothing when the Indians did attack - then carry on thinking that way.

Besides, I live in the UK, and I'm far less likely to be affected than you if neither side blinks, and Pakistan and India end up throwing a few dozen nukes at each other.

Go and stew on that.
 
cricketjoshila said:
1.Laser walls?Please go read before you make such ignorant statements.The laser walls were erected on the border after Pathankot attack.The David Sling,Iron dome,S 400 are well known ABMs and their capability has been attested to by experts,your whining wont change that.

2.India doesnt have a national language.And if Pakistan has Urdu as national language its your problem not ours and that problem resulted in Bangladesh.

3.Who said god are northeners?Some of Hinduisms most venerated temples are in south.You have no idea about hinduism so please stop trying to teach hindusim to Hindus.

4.Southerners follow?Some of India's best known leaders are from south.As i said just because Pakistan follows a certain narrative,it isnt true.
Click to expand...

Go and find out what de facto means? Which Indian language is taught widely in schools , offices other than the local one.... It will be Hindi. Even you as a Bengali learnt and probably can speak Hindi. That's northern cultural dominance right there. How many northerners learn to speak Bengali in Delhi/Mumbai/Ahmedabad ?

How many southerners have ruled the north, even now, independence was mastered by three northerners and it's been pretty much non stop northerners who hav been in power. Even the facists that is in power now, who you admire so much is a northerner.

I can go on and on....... The fact is north is the real power of the subcontinent from ancient times till now.

Going back to the thread.... the northerners on both side of the border will probably end up destroying each other if they see a disasterous defeat on the cards, no matter what ABMS are applied on what side. As a non northerner, you won't understand the northern psyche.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
Go and find out what de facto means? Which Indian language is taught widely in schools , offices other than the local one.... It will be Hindi. Even you as a Bengali learnt and probably can speak Hindi. That's northern cultural dominance right there. How many northerners learn to speak Bengali in Delhi/Mumbai/Ahmedabad ?

How many southerners have ruled the north, even now, independence was mastered by three northerners and it's been pretty much non stop northerners who hav been in power. Even the facists that is in power now, who you admire so much is a northerner.

I can go on and on....... The fact is north is the real power of the subcontinent from ancient times till now.

Going back to the thread.... the northerners on both side of the border will probably end up destroying each other if they see a disasterous defeat on the cards, no matter what ABMS are applied on what side. As a non northerner, you won't understand the northern psyche.
Click to expand...

Are you a northerner?
 
Eagle_Eye said:
Go and find out what de facto means? Which Indian language is taught widely in schools , offices other than the local one.... It will be Hindi. Even you as a Bengali learnt and probably can speak Hindi. That's northern cultural dominance right there. How many northerners learn to speak Bengali in Delhi/Mumbai/Ahmedabad ?

How many southerners have ruled the north, even now, independence was mastered by three northerners and it's been pretty much non stop northerners who hav been in power. Even the facists that is in power now, who you admire so much is a northerner.

I can go on and on....... The fact is north is the real power of the subcontinent from ancient times till now.

Going back to the thread.... the northerners on both side of the border will probably end up destroying each other if they see a disasterous defeat on the cards, no matter what ABMS are applied on what side. As a non northerner, you won't understand the northern psyche.
Click to expand...

Please tell us which language is taughtt sir,since you must be living here aren't you,come to Chennai ,Bangalore,Kochi,Mysore etc let us know in which language our subjects are taught in, the answer is English.

There are hardly Hindi medium schools down south or in other regional states ,Hindi is mostly a second language here where in a person in south can also select Tamil/Sanskrit or French(incase of Chennai,Pondicherry).

Hindi is obviously used in the Hindi belt and yes they don't learn other languages which is wrong but what's your point though?Even When Tamil Nadu chose a party which wanted independence in 60's (DMK) we didn't cancel their elections.
 
To cut a long story short- which cities do we need to be in India/Pak to escape from the arm chair nuke trigger happy soldiers here?

Or we still debating on that?
 
nish_mate said:
To cut a long story short- which cities do we need to be in India/Pak to escape from the arm chair nuke trigger happy soldiers here?

Or we still debating on that?
Click to expand...

If a nuclear bomb goes off even in the central or western most parts of Pakistan then the damage will extend all the way to the Indian border states.

As well as Iran and Afghanistan.
 
Syed1 said:
If a nuclear bomb goes off even in the central or western most parts of Pakistan then the damage will extend all the way to the Indian border states.

As well as Iran and Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Sri Lanka be safe? If so we better set up base there.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
Go and find out what de facto means? Which Indian language is taught widely in schools , offices other than the local one.... It will be Hindi. Even you as a Bengali learnt and probably can speak Hindi. That's northern cultural dominance right there. How many northerners learn to speak Bengali in Delhi/Mumbai/Ahmedabad ?

How many southerners have ruled the north, even now, independence was mastered by three northerners and it's been pretty much non stop northerners who hav been in power. Even the facists that is in power now, who you admire so much is a northerner.

I can go on and on....... The fact is north is the real power of the subcontinent from ancient times till now.

Going back to the thread.... the northerners on both side of the border will probably end up destroying each other if they see a disasterous defeat on the cards, no matter what ABMS are applied on what side. As a non northerner, you won't understand the northern psyche.
Click to expand...

Modi is a northerner? LOL. North Indians will laugh in your face if you say that. Gujarat is not considered "north Indian" by anyone in India. And "south India" is by no means "dominated" - in fact so many of India's top leaders in politics, business, army you name it, hail from the south.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
Go and find out what de facto means? Which Indian language is taught widely in schools , offices other than the local one.... It will be Hindi. Even you as a Bengali learnt and probably can speak Hindi. That's northern cultural dominance right there. How many northerners learn to speak Bengali in Delhi/Mumbai/Ahmedabad ?

How many southerners have ruled the north, even now, independence was mastered by three northerners and it's been pretty much non stop northerners who hav been in power. Even the facists that is in power now, who you admire so much is a northerner.

I can go on and on....... The fact is north is the real power of the subcontinent from ancient times till now.

Going back to the thread.... the northerners on both side of the border will probably end up destroying each other if they see a disasterous defeat on the cards, no matter what ABMS are applied on what side. As a non northerner, you won't understand the northern psyche.
Click to expand...

Lol Eagle eye is on fire today..:))
 
nish_mate said:
To cut a long story short- which cities do we need to be in India/Pak to escape from the arm chair nuke trigger happy soldiers here?

Or we still debating on that?
Click to expand...

Calcutta, it will be protected by Joshila's Bengali missle shield
 
nish_mate said:
But then RSS is HQd in Nagpur which in Marathi Manush zone- do we then we speak Marathi or Hindi? back to square one?
Click to expand...
Are you a madrasi too brother nish? As a northerner you should strive to promote Hindi among our southern brethren.That's the only way to go forward.
 
TM Riddle said:
Agreed.He has shown you madrasis your rightful place.Now go and learn proper Hindi.
Click to expand...

Whatever hindi i know is enough for me and for my patients. We are full of extremists and isis sympathisers. You guys are better off without us.;-)
 
kaayal said:
Whatever hindi i know is enough for me and for my patients. We are full of extremists and isis sympathisers. You guys are better off without us.;-)
Click to expand...

No need to state the obvious. You even have an avatar of weapons against a blood red background.
 
TM Riddle said:
Are you a madrasi too brother nish? As a northerner you should strive to promote Hindi among our southern brethren.That's the only way to go forward.
Click to expand...

Brother TM riddle am as far removed to a Madrasi as an Israeli is to a Pakistani...

My roots are Lahore and Sialkot and then Delhi.
 
India’s Nirbhay cruise missile test fails

NEW DELHI — The flight test of India’s homemade 1000-kilometer-range cruise missile failed Monday following technical problems.

Nirbhay — an intermediate-range subsonic land-attack cruise missile with terrain hugging — is an Indian version of the American Tomahawk and the Russian Club SS-N-27 cruise missiles.

Defense scientists in India said the test failed within 8 minutes of the launch due to technical issues in the engine. They gave no further details.

The Nirbhay missile is currently powered by the Russian Saturn 50MT turbofan engine. Its local development began in 2007 with the Defence Research and Development Organisation.

A senior DRDO scientist said Nirbhay is a stealthy missile capable of delivering different warheads and is capable of loitering and attacking multiple targets.

“The cruise missiles like Tomahawk and Nirbhay (when successful) do not follow a ballistic parabola but are terrain-hugging in their path. Therefore, they are more difficult to detect by conventional radars. And hence more lethal and thus required by Indian Armed Forces,” an Army official said.

Weighing 1,500 kilograms with a height of 6 meters and a speed of Mach 0.7 Mach, the missile can carry up to 300 kilograms of conventional and nuclear warheads.

Nirbhay is a two-stage missile. Its solid-fuel rocket motor serves as its first stage and accelerates the missile after launch to cruise speed, when a turbojet engine in the second stage takes over.

It is equipped with a domestically made ring laser gyroscope inertial navigation system, a GPS-enabled guidance system and a Russian seeker system.

In July, the Ministry of Defence’s procurement body moved to purchase about 300 Nirbhay cruise missiles for the three armed forces.

At least 20 more tests will occur before the missiles are inducted, another DRDO scientist said, which could take three to five years.

The weapon is manufactured by the state-owned firm Bharat Dynamics Limited, and each Nirbhay missile system will cost about $1.5 million.
 
It might be a source of amusement for Pakistanis but the fact is that it they are developing one and matter of time before its perfected.

For Indians, is the cost = $1.5 million each too high?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bhaijaan
U.S. intelligence believes Pakistan is developing a nuclear-armed ICBM capable of reaching the United States.
Replies
43
Views
1K
Boyka
B
BouncerGuy
  • Poll Poll
Was Pakistan's decision to build nuclear weapons justified by the events of 2025?
Replies
10
Views
462
straighttalk
S
The Bald Eagle
[PICTURE] Big THREAT for India as Bangladesh seeks short-range ballistic missiles from Pakistan
2
Replies
148
Views
4K
sweep_shot
sweep_shot
BouncerGuy
  • Poll Poll
Operation Bunyan ul Marsoos - Objective of Pakistan?
Replies
65
Views
3K
uppercut
U
Cricket Warrior
Pakistan and India confirm ceasefire ‘with immediate effect’
59 60 61
Replies
5K
Views
103K
straighttalk
S
Back
Top