What's new

Limited War Possible: Indian Army Chief Kapoor

I don't know if yanking off the cozy M.A.D. blanket to expose the trembling child within can be classified as mental disorder Jana ..... unless you are referring to that of pathological denial over-compensated for with delusions of grandeur commonly found in various forms of manias and dementias and exhibited so liberally on this thread by your compatriots.

And Jana, please do a count of number of Pakistani posts on this thread (kapooray oriented and otherwise) and the number of Indian posts, and you will get your answer as to WHO is scared and WHO it was who contributed max to these 9 pages. :)

You see, with kapooray, like all good things in life, it is not the number that matters ..... but the weight.

Cheers, Doc


Doc we are a nation that is not scared of criticising US and standing up to US despite whatever our politicians are dealing with it, so be sure this nation in no way can be scared of Bharat aka India.

Your attack or war can damage us to some extent but be sure we will become a bigger headach for you.
 
No one is doubting the courage of either nation Jana.

There are issues which however cannot be brushed aside simply by nationalistic chest thumping and derisive name-twisting of the head of the enemy's military.

The first rule they teach you in any form of combat training is to never under-estimate the enemy.

That said, what is wrong in what Gen. Kapoor has said?

I have said this before, the MAD bogey is past its sell by date for Pakistan.

World dynamics have changed so strongly in the past one year, that Pakistan realises now that it cannot hide behind that blanket anymore ..... beyond a point.

And that point will not be what we Indians are led to believe by shrill drum beating from your side.

It will be decided by the limit of our patience and the point where we say Enough! This much, and no more.

Does pakistan feel ballsy enough to call our bluff?

That is the question Kayani goes to bed with every night.

Cheers, Doc

P.S. We bawas love our aleti-paleti (mix of kapooras and liver and kidneys and heart and other innards made spicy semi-dry).

P.P.S. We also love our Kayani biscuits with hot chai. World famous, exported all over from Poona.
 
Last edited:
Doc we are a nation that is not scared of criticising US and standing up to US despite whatever our politicians are dealing with it, so be sure this nation in no way can be scared of Bharat aka India.

Your attack or war can damage us to some extent but be sure we will become a bigger headach for you.
Exactly when did you 'stand up to US'? Do you really have the 'kapooras' to stand up against US? Or is it another example of what our good ol' daktaar sahaab calls, 'delusions of grandeur'?
 
For the first time on this board I have smelled true FEAR.

Fear? What fear? Who is scared?? :rofl:
Muslims are never scared of anyone. We chase death where as most of you guys try and run away from death!!
Normally you guys generalise and label us all as terrorists and now you contradict and say we have fear! Make your minds up guys!! :rofl:

Indians would also no doubt notice the marked absence of participation and enthusiasm of the more mature and knowledgeable Pakistani posters.

I've not had a chance to go through this thread. I only jumped to the last page and was not at all surprised by the same old comments where you guys try and have a dig at us where ever you can!

As i said, I'm not sure who else has posted as i've only had a quick skim through the last page of this thread. But doc, i thought u considered Jana as a 'mature and knowledgeable Pakistani poster'??! It is amazing how quickly you guys change tunes!!! But once again, not surprised at all!
 
Pathetic and sick & unexpectedly poor view:tdown:

Just Count the zeros....

90,000,0000 People will die and the India you are supporting would a part of history you Idiotic face :hitwall:

Pakistani nukes would not be taken away they would be used on the Ground :agree:

Something like this.....

f1754ccb6e6bcd85ce26fbcd5d91f140.jpg


Just multiply it with 200 ...

BTW if India and Pakistan would go so would you .... 200 bombs will destroy the Ozone layer and you already have very little of it:cheers:

If you feel ashamed on your comment let the Forum know

You do not have an iota of idea of what you are talking.
First no one has guts to nuke the other country, second if some insane person does it than the consequence of that will be too high to absorb.
 
No one is doubting the courage of either nation Jana.

There are issues which however cannot be brushed aside simply by nationalistic chest thumping and derisive name-twisting of the head of the enemy's military.

The first rule they teach you in any form of combat training is to never under-estimate the enemy.

That said, what is wrong in what Gen. Kapoor has said.

I have said this before, the MAD bogey is past its sell by date for Pakistan.

World dynamics have changed so strongly in the past one year, that Pakistan realises now that it cannot hide behind that blanket anymore ..... beyond a point.

And that point will not be what we Indians are led to believe by shrill drum beating from your side.

It will be decided by the limit of our patience and the point where we say enough, this much and no more.

Does pakistan feel ballsy enough to call our bluff.

That is the question Kayani goes to bed with every night.

Cheers, Doc

Fascinating tripe.

The reason a very small number of senior posters have contributed to this thread is likely because there isn't much to analyze in terms of Kapoor's rhetoric.

'Limited war under a nuclear umbrella'? That already occurred in Kargil, and in essence is just a fancier way of restating the rhetoric of 'Indian strikes on alleged terrorist camps in Pakistan'.

Boil the fancy terminology down to the essentials and there is nothing new here, except a propaganda opportunity for the Pakistani FO to try and paint India as 'a war mongering, hostile entity'.

On the actual issue of 'limited war', I think we'll give Kapoor the benefit of the doubt that this was mere chest thumping rhetoric, since he would be extremely foolish, given the relative standing of the militaries of the two nations, to think that India could actually dictate the terms, and more importantly the results, of a 'limited conventional war' to its liking , given current Indian and Pakistani capabilities.

But hey, if it helps you sleep better at night and feel better about the abundance of empty space in the groin of your underpants by imagining socks in ours, let your creative juices flow unhindered.

I personally have little interest in 'Kapooray's' comments, and little interest in commenting upon them - they reflect nothing new.

Your tripe did deserve (barely) this response.
 
You do not have an iota of idea of what you are talking.
First no one has guts to nuke the other country, second if some insane person does it than the consequence of that will be too high to absorb.

Same applies on your COAS, has he got any idea what is meaning of a "nuclear war"

The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan

NRDC's nuclear experts think about the unthinkable, using state-of-the-art nuclear war simulation software to assess the crisis in South Asia.

The months-long military standoff between India and Pakistan intensified several weeks ago when suspected Islamic militants killed more than 30 people at an Indian base in the disputed territory of Kashmir. As U.S. diplomatic pressure to avert war intensifies, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is going to India and Pakistan this week to discuss with his South Asian counterparts the results of a classified Pentagon study that concludes that a nuclear war between these countries could result in 12 million deaths.

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) has conducted its own analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia. Prior to this most recent crisis we calculated two nuclear scenarios. The first assumes 10 Hiroshima-sized explosions with no fallout; the second assumes 24 nuclear explosions with significant radioactive fallout. Below is a discussion of the two scenarios in detail and an exploration of several additional issues regarding nuclear war in South Asia.


Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Forces

It is difficult to determine the actual size and composition of India's and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals, but NRDC estimates that both countries have a total of 50 to 75 weapons. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we believe India has about 30 to 35 nuclear warheads, slightly fewer than Pakistan, which may have as many as 48.

Both countries have fission weapons, similar to the early designs developed by the United States in the late 1940s and early 1950s. NRDC estimates their explosive yields are 5 to 25 kilotons (1 kiloton is equivalent to 1,000 tons of TNT). By comparison, the yield of the weapon the United States exploded over Hiroshima was 15 kilotons, while the bomb exploded over Nagasaki was 21 kilotons. According to a recent NRDC discussion with a senior Pakistani military official, Pakistan's main nuclear weapons are mounted on missiles. India's nuclear weapons are reportedly gravity bombs deployed on fighter aircraft.

NRDC's Nuclear Program initially developed the software used to calculate the consequences of a South Asian nuclear war to examine and analyze the U.S. nuclear war planning process. We combined Department of Energy and Department of Defense computer codes with meteorological and demographic data to model what would happen in various kinds of attacks using different types of weapons. Our June 2001 report, "The U.S. Nuclear War Plan: A Time for Change," is available at NRDC: The U.S. Nuclear War Plan: A Time for Change.


Scenario: 10 Bombs on 10 South Asian Cities

For our first scenario we used casualty data from the Hiroshima bomb to estimate what would happen if bombs exploded over 10 large South Asian cities: five in India and five in Pakistan. (The results were published in "The Risks and Consequences of Nuclear War in South Asia," by NRDC physicist Matthew McKinzie and Princeton scientists Zia Mian, A. H. Nayyar and M. V. Ramana, a chapter in Smitu Kothari and Zia Mian (editors), "Out of the Nuclear Shadow" (Dehli: Lokayan and Rainbow Publishers, 2001).)

The 15-kiloton yield of the Hiroshima weapon is approximately the size of the weapons now in the Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals. The deaths and severe injuries experienced at Hiroshima were mainly a function of how far people were from ground zero. Other factors included whether people were in buildings or outdoors, the structural characteristics of the buildings themselves, and the age and health of the victims at the time of the attack. The closer to ground zero, the higher fatality rate. Further away there were fewer fatalities and larger numbers of injuries. The table below summarizes the first nuclear war scenario by superimposing the Hiroshima data onto five Indian and five Pakistan cities with densely concentrated populations.

6158f2367fa1c53d6757b2396f2e4f4b.jpg


As in the case of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in this scenario the 10 bombs over Indian and Pakistani cities would be exploded in the air, which maximized blast damage and fire but creates no fallout. On August 6, 1945, the United States exploded an untested uranium-235 gun-assembly bomb, nicknamed "Little Boy," 1,900 feet above Hiroshima. The city was home to an estimated 350,000 people; about 140,000 died by the end of the year. Three days later, at 11:02 am, the United States exploded a plutonium implosion bomb nicknamed "Fat Man" 1,650 feet above Nagasaki. About 70,000 of the estimated 270,000 residents died by the end of the year.

Ten Hiroshima-size explosions over 10 major cities in India and Pakistan would kill as many as three to four times more people per bomb than in Japan because of the higher urban densities in Indian and Pakistani cities.

Scenario: 24 Ground Bursts

In January, NRDC calculated the consequences of a much more severe nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. It first appeared as a sidebar in the January 14, 2002, issue of Newsweek ("A Face-Off with Nuclear Stakes"). This scenario calculated the consequences of 24 nuclear explosions detonated on the ground -- unlike the Hiroshima airburst -- resulting in significant amounts of lethal radioactive fallout.

Exploding a nuclear bomb above the ground does not produce fallout. For example, the United States detonated "Little Boy" weapon above Hiroshima at an altitude of 1,900 feet. At this height, the radioactive particles produced in the explosion were small and light enough to rise into the upper atmosphere, where they were carried by the prevailing winds. Days to weeks later, after the radioactive bomb debris became less "hot," these tiny particles descended to earth as a measurable radioactive residue, but not at levels of contamination that would cause immediate radiation sickness or death.

Unfortunately, it is easier to fuse a nuclear weapon to detonate on impact than it is to detonate it in the air -- and that means fallout. If the nuclear explosion takes place at or near the surface of the earth, the nuclear fireball would gouge out material and mix it with the radioactive bomb debris, producing heavier radioactive particles. These heavier particles would begin to drift back to earth within minutes or hours after the explosion, producing potentially lethal levels of nuclear fallout out to tens or hundreds of kilometers from the ground zero. The precise levels depend on the explosive yield of the weapon and the prevailing winds.

For the second scenario, we calculated the fallout patterns and casualties for a hypothetical nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan in which each country targeted major cities. We chose target cities throughout Pakistan and in northwestern India to take into account the limited range of Pakistani missiles or aircraft. The target cities, listed in the table below, include the capitals of Islamabad and New Dehli, and large cities, such as Karachi and Bombay. In this scenario, we assumed that a dozen, 25-kiloton warheads would be detonated as ground bursts in Pakistan and another dozen in India, producing substantial fallout.

The devastation that would result from fallout would exceed that of blast and fire. NRDC's second scenario would produce far more horrific results than the first scenario because there would be more weapons, higher yields, and extensive fallout. In some large cities, we assumed more than one bomb would be used.

8ca22742994b31f154e6d08a6e237117.jpg


NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.

Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.

Most Indians (99 percent of the population) and Pakistanis (93 percent of the population) would survive the second scenario. Their respective military forces would be still be intact to continue and even escalate the conflict.

Thinking the Unthinkable

After India and Pakistan held nuclear tests in 1998, experts have debated whether their nuclear weapons contribute to stability in South Asia. Experts who argue that the nuclear standoff promotes stability have pointed to the U.S.-Soviet Union Cold War as an example of how deterrence ensures military restraint.

NRDC disagrees. There are major differences between the Cold War and the current South Asian crisis. Unlike the U.S.-Soviet experience, these two countries have a deep-seated hatred of one another and have fought three wars since both countries became independent. At least part of the current crisis may be seen as Hindu nationalism versus Muslim fundamentalism.

A second difference is India and Pakistan's nuclear arsenals are much smaller than those of the United States and Russia. The U.S. and Russian arsenals truly represent the capability to destroy each other's society beyond recovery. While the two South Asia scenarios we have described produce unimaginable loss of life and destruction, they do not reach the level of "mutual assured destruction" that stood as the ultimate deterrent during the Cold War.

The two South Asian scenarios assume nuclear attacks against cities. During the early Cold War period this was the deterrent strategy of the United States and the Soviet Union. But as both countries introduced technological improvements into their arsenals, they pursued other strategies, targeting each other's nuclear forces, conventional military forces, industry and leadership. India and Pakistan may include these types of targets in their current military planning. For example, attacking large dams with nuclear weapons could result in massive disruption, economic consequences and casualties. Concentrations of military forces and facilities may provide tempting targets as well.

NRDC: The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan
 
Last edited:
You do not have an iota of idea of what you are talking.
First no one has guts to nuke the other country, second if some insane person does it than the consequence of that will be too high to absorb.

ooow do i sense some fear from our neighbours now??! :rofl:

We will do whatever it takes to protect our beloved country! Even, if in the worse case scenario if that means taking the whole of pakistan out with india!! :chilli:

Btw, personally i feel any war (limitied or extended!) between pakistan and india would be in pakistan's favour!! We have nothing to lose. We have corrupt politicians and a f'kd up economy in my opinion. so, we have nothinng major to lose. In contrast, you guys have everything to lose. Your 'fast growing economy' is the first thing you should be worried about. The stakes are much higher for you guys than us! so yeh, bring on the war any day ;)
 
how many indirect meanings u have? :rofl:

Any miltary force either its Indian, Pakistani or American obey the orders of higer command...there is nothing else to do or say.....

My friends brother is a Major. Few years back there was an issue raised at Spin Boldak area. Afghanistan was claiming that it was its terroriy and Pak was saying it was its. My friends bro whos Major got an order from GHQ to move ahead 500m and make their post at 5:45 AM. His watche were synchronized with higher command and he was ordered to start operation at 5:55 am and finished it before 6:15 am.

He moved with his company (poeple of 100 + men), fully armed, mud on their colthes and body as usually army prepared for missions. They just completed their mission at 6:05 AM.

There was no such kind of serious or armed resistance but the reason I am quoting this that there is nothing such kind of Performing duities. Its impossbile and ur statement shows that ur not aware abt the professionalism of an Army.




:mod: Mods wt kind of person he is.
Plz put some qualification to those who want to join this forum.

There is no deal for army to take over, nither they ever do untill and unless they have conflict with civilian gov or any thing going against the intrust of Pak.

And we all know that Mr Kiyani have very good understanding with Gov, especially with M Gillani.

Let me tell u Who, when and why miltary took over Gov in Pak history.

Ayub Khan, 1958-1971, Unstable political climate Ayub deposed Mirza .

General Zia , 1977-1988, Political and civil disorder intensified

Pervez Musharraf, 1999 - 2007, Kargil war where PA abought to capture Kahmir. The operation was without the involvment of Democratic Gov. Mr Nawaz ordered Mushraf to retreat. Mushraf disliked it and the sitituation & relation got worsed bweteen these 2.
U can say it was some how also political.

So far there is not even single threat of conflict between Miltary and Gov. Nither these are the intentions of Kiyani.



Few reasons, Why world community likes him




Top 80 powerful men

1: Barack Obama
2: Hu Jintao
3: Nicolas Sarkozy
4-5-6: Economic Triumvirate
7: Gordon Brown
8: Angela Merkel
9: Vladimir Putin
10: Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud
11: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
12: Kim Jong Il
13-14: The Clintons
15: Timothy Geithner
16: Gen. David Petraeus
17: Sonia Gandhi
18: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
19: Warren Buffett
20: Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani

I just gave reasons why he was well known. You still did not replied on that. Your entire post is out of context.

I gave you 2 reason why he was in news, one of the many reasons. You replied with personal attack. Its your choice.

To eloborate little bit, wheater or not he does not want a coup, he was still in news for that reason. Hope you can understand what I mean this time or forget.
 
The reason a very small number of senior posters have contributed to this thread is likely because there isn't much to analyze in terms of Kapoor's rhetoric.

Or the cold icy fingers of premonition a good poker player feels stroking his spine when he's been called out by his better.

'Limited war under a nuclear umbrella'? That already occurred in Kargil, and in essence is just a fancier way of restating the rhetoric of 'Indian strikes on alleged terrorist camps in Pakistan'.

So where is the argument then AM .... we are all on the same page.

Boil the fancy terminology down to the essentials and there is nothing new here, except a propaganda opportunity for the Pakistani FO to try and paint India as 'a war mongering, hostile entity'.

And for the Indian establishment to rap the Pakistani one across the knuckles for being a naughty boy and taking liberties it can ill afford to .... in the present circumstances ..... and likely for the end of time.

On the actual issue of 'limited war', I think we'll give Kapoor the benefit of the doubt that this was mere chest thumping rhetoric, since he would be extremely foolish, given the relative standing of the militaries of the two nations, to think that India could actually dictate the terms, and more importantly the results, of a 'limited conventional war' to its liking , given current Indian and Pakistani capabilities.

My friend, I think no one including you with your padded jocks is under any illusion as to the results of a conventional showdown ..... even keeping our past showdown score aside.

Your tripe did deserve (barely) this response.

Au contraire, I look forward to the opportunity of rebutting yours.

Cheers, Doc
 
Doc we are a nation that is not scared of criticising US and standing up to US despite whatever our politicians are dealing with it.....,

Are you sure about that Jana?

Now, who quivered in their boots when threatened with being "bombed back to stone age"?

Off-topic, but "standing up to US" is right up there with "we are a martial race and have a genetic supremacy over the Indians" as the misconceptions that Pakistanis like to believe in.

Seriously, forcibly and literally ***-whipped into support US's war on terror,

Unmitigated and unchallenged, your sovereignty as a nation is being undermined almost daily by US drones and US special forces operating out of FATA.

Your government changes hand at the blessings of the US. Isn't it true that if US didnt want it, there could never have been elections in Pakistan and no democracy?

And don't tell me that the ordinary Pakistani doesn't like the US and would have none of their influence and its only your government that has bended over backwards to them. The truth is that whether you like it or not, its the govt.'s decision that matters (one chosen by the people) and not what you think the people say.

I hope the next time you will spend some more time thinking before blurting out such statements as "we stand up to the Americans".
 
Are you sure about that Jana?

Now, who quivered in their boots when threatened with being "bombed back to stone age"?

Off-topic, but "standing up to US" is right up there with "we are a martial race and have a genetic supremacy over the Indians" as the misconceptions that Pakistanis like to believe in.

Seriously, forcibly and literally ***-whipped into support US's war on terror,

Unmitigated and unchallenged, your sovereignty as a nation is being undermined almost daily by US drones and US special forces operating out of FATA.

Your government changes hand at the blessings of the US. Isn't it true that if US didnt want it, there could never have been elections in Pakistan and no democracy?

And don't tell me that the ordinary Pakistani doesn't like the US and would have none of their influence and its only your government that has bended over backwards to them. The truth is that whether you like it or not, its the govt.'s decision that matters (one chosen by the people) and not what you think the people say.

I hope the next time you will spend some more time thinking before blurting out such statements as "we stand up to the Americans".

:) despite bombing Afghanistan and Iraq to stone age US is still struggling.

Besides you should not bother about our pereception or relation with US. That doesnt set well with this topic.

US and Pakistan both know what they are up too.


On the other hand you should be more worried that your army chief is steping out of his shoes (if you claim that it was his personal statement while wearing uniform)
 
On the other hand you should be more worried that your army chief is steping out of his shoes (if you claim that it was his personal statement while wearing uniform)
He has only stated the obvious. It has happened before, in '99, and as long as Pakistan has a weak political system, where no one knows who is calling the shots, it can very well happen again.
 
On the other hand you should be more worried that your army chief is steping out of his shoes (if you claim that it was his personal statement while wearing uniform)

Not at all Jana ..... he is OUR army chief, his shoes are OURS, and WE decide whether or not he is stepping in or out of them, NOT YOU.

I think his view is measured and in keeping with his high office as a General leading a huge army.

His first and only loyalty is to his people and to his men.

If he can save their lives by forewarning Pakistan from indulging in tripe (thanks AM) that will invite a military response, and keep Pakistan in THEIR shoes, then his purpose is solved.

Rather than take offense, I sincerely hope you guys can see it that way too.

It would be a small start ..... but a not insignificant one.

Cheers, Doc
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom