What would be the geostrategic implications of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, assuming it stays limited to those countries?
>>30094454
That's bullshit. Killing brown people is America's job.
>>30094454
Might calm Afghanistan down a bit, as the Pakistani ISI would be busier with other problems (namely that they were on fire and irradiated).
For India, it would depend on where they got hit. If it was somewhere important like Mumbai they will take a big economic hit, and one they may not be able to recover from any time soon. China would be looking to fill in that power vacuum, which means the chance of war in the South China Sea would increase.
We would also see a major flood of refugees towards Europe. I can't even begin to predict what that would lead to.
>>30094454
I doubt it could stay limited to those two countries. The international backlash would be huge. China would almost certainly get involved considering it's happening right in their back door. No idea what Russia would do. The US could possibly just because of economic interests.
1 billion poo in loo refugees get on ships and airplanes to go to the Western world as "refugees", the mintute war were declared.
>>30094508
>We would also see a major flood of refugees towards Europe. I can't even begin to predict what that would lead to.
Shitskin cunts have to come to my continent. Every time. Cant Australia take a hit this time?
>>30094560
Austrailia gets the Southeast Asian refugees you get the brown ones. This shit was worked out years ago. Don't fuck with the system.
>>30094508
>Millions of pajeets comming to euope and litterally shitting up our streets.
No thank you.
>>30094654
the good part about nuclear war is that infrastructure is the main target. No boats left in the countries and nobody will to go there due to radiation. I would be more worried about fallout.
>>30094915
Modern nukes have virtually no fallout. Literally go inside, turn off any air circulation to the outside, and wait a few days.
That's pretty much it.
>>30094915
>the good part about nuclear war is that infrastructure is the main target
This depends on who you are talking about.
Those nations that fall under the <300 warhead mark don't plan to fight a slug match like the US or Russia.
>>30095040
wow kid. just wow. High air burst results in the least amount off fallout but 600 of them going off is going to release enough radioactive iodine to give you thyroid cancer if you are in the 27 day window of airflow. ground burst nukes make the area uninhabitable for geologic periods of time. Stated policy for both countries is ground burst at all major ports and population centers. air burst for effect on military.
>>30095040
Eh, wat?
>>30094454
India's recent and gradual economic growth would be shattered.
I would like to see Iran and Saudi Arabia get into it too, even if it was in just a proxy-war capacity.
http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/inlinefiles/glasstone%20and%20dolan%201977.pdf
Mandatory /k/ reading
>>30094532
China's closest competition is India, and India is expected to be the "next China" according to some economists. Even if that's a stretch, China has a lot riding on this
>>30094454
>poo in loo and radioactive hajjis kill remove each other
1) nuclear-weapon states list would get shorter
2) assuming they keep it to themselves nobody would give a flying warhead about it
buuut
3) Russia would amp up it's trash talk about we wuz tsar bomba an shiet
2) Murica would pass another patriot act because reasons
>>30095213
>High air burst results in the least amount off fallout but 600 of them going off is going to release enough radioactive iodine to give you thyroid cancer if you are in the 27 day window of airflow.
No.
Airbursts have little local effect. Their fallout tends to distribute evenly over the hemisphere over the course of many years.
>ground burst nukes make the area uninhabitable for geologic periods of time.
No. Fallout decays according to the 7/10 rule. For every 7 fold increase in time, there is a 10 fold decrease in dose.
>Stated policy for both countries is ground burst at all major ports and population centers. air burst for effect on military.
Where on Earth did you find the stated targeting strategies for either nation?
>>30096246
new I could summon you. but really by the autistic standards that are considered safe ground bursts on the port areas due to neutron capture would mean nobody is going there for at least a year. and yes I said that airbursts cause little other than iodine pollution to the ground also maximum damage. after 27 days not much to worry about unless you are only eating white rice. they have both said that nuclear would be a scorched earth policy not a tactical or strategic one.
>>30096407
>both said that nuclear would be a scorched earth policy not a tactical or strategic one.
Where?
>>30095272
anon can still deliver
thanks
>>30096407
Surface bursts are for hardened targets. Any targets in urban areas would be hit with surface bursts.
Even ports.
Given the inaccuracy of the weapons in question, air bursts are almost required to hit point targets.
>>30096440
Correction.
Any targets in urban areas would get air bursts.
>>30096440
wow. two. okay they fling that back and forth all the time and the level of hate makes it believable. Ground burst does little over air as it is a ^3 function you are less likely to achieve damage to your target unless you have a lucky shot or very high accuracy. what you get with ground burst is the chances of neutron capture by things close to the blast hence more fallout and more concentration of fallout.
>>30096475
unless you can get accuracy inside the coronal effect of the reaction airburst is what you always do. unless you simply want pain on your opponent then you put the neutron flux as close to things as possible. only takes one to make lead and gold unusable.
>>30096515
>okay they fling that back and forth all the time and the level of hate makes it believable.
Where did they say this as a pronouncement of policy?
>Ground burst does little over air as it is a ^3 function you are less likely to achieve damage to your target unless you have a lucky shot or very high accuracy.
Airbursts cover a larger area with the blast effect you need to damage the target. For urban targets this is generally 10 to 15 psi.
Surface bursts have smaller area of coverage than air bursts.
>what you get with ground burst is the chances of neutron capture by things close to the blast hence more fallout and more concentration of fallout.
Neutron activation is not a militarily significant effect. As is fallout.
>>30096575
>airburst is what you always do.
Unless you have a hardened target. Then you use a surface burst.
>>30096626
do some math the refraction of energy from the ground makes airburst at 1000 meters makes more probable delivered energy than ground burst if your probable point of impact is greater than 1 klic. which for India and Pakistan it is. sorry you are using ideas from counties that expect some sort of survival after the fact and go for military use. they want maximum pain. not assets destroyed or people killed in the first wave. They want long term death. Means putting the capture arm of the neutron flux close to the ground to make more fallout.
>>30094454
Manure prices go through the roof.
>>30094454
>What would be the geostrategic implications of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, assuming it stays limited to those countries?
Nuclear fallout does not respect borders.
>>30094654
If Muslims get Shariah Law in Detroit then Indians must have Designated Streets in New York too!
>>30094454
less curryniggers
less mudslimes
