'12m deaths' in nuclear war

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 05/28/2002 | Ahmed Rashid

[SevenDaysInMay]

Since this fight is mostly about a region as a water source, why not poison the rivers with radiation killing foolish martyr wannbes by the millions for years to come. Concentrated in valleys, Pakistan would wilt and die as a third-world power; their Allah should bi+ch slap his little holy warriors out of the afterlife and back through reincarnation to get it right the second time around.

Nuclear war is one more fool away. Who is going to be the Arch Duke?

[DeaconBenjamin]

Thank you. You're welcome.

Man, having a free will - when he chooses darkness and brings it to my home, I trust God to protect us. I would go further. I trust God to enable me to meet my responsibilities to protect them. God's callings are God's enablings. Sadly, I too often fall short of the mark.

If that man insists on his dark ways, he can either turn from them or meet his Maker. I would prefer that terrorists repent and turn to God. If not, then they that live by the sword shall surely die by it. Christ said to 'love your enemies' - not sacrifice your families to them. No argument there. I freely confess that I too often desire evil for my enemies, rather than pray for God's best for them. Nor do I question the propriety of God's judgment of death on such.

I do not rebuke you for the objects of your anger. I am given to believe that they have wrought great evil upon our Lebanese brothers and sisters in the Lord. But I would admonish you that your freedom and efficacy in presenting the words of Life must needs be limited, so long as you have adopted the name of death.

[GalvestonBeachcomber]

The US assessment said a limited nuclear exchange would have cataclysmic results, overwhelming hospitals across Asia and the Middle East and requiring vast foreign assistance, particularly from America, which would be forced to go in and clean up the radioactive mess.

Right. And who is supposed to pay? BS! Leave it all as a "National Park."

[stumpy]

On 1 Aug. 1967, a mere 42 years (less a couple of days) from the real event, I stood alone on the three way bridge that was the aiming point for the Bombadier of the Enola Gay, and saw a large number of shadows on the bridge that were not mine.

At the time, I was a Marine going to Viet Nam, wishing that loser Johnson would turn the nukes loose on the DMZ in Viet Nam.

Now as a grown up that has seen war, I would hope my nation would turn to the nukes once again against the muslim terrorist in Lebanon (Bekka Valley), Syria, Iran, and Iraq.

My personal belief is a couple of small (10k-20k) missiles in the Bekka valley to repay the terrorist responsible for the Marine Barracks in Beirut (after taking out the "Palestinian" terrorists and the Syrian supporters of them in Lebanon, might make the follow up nukes in the other countries unnecesary. Maybe not, but maybe. I also would not rule out SAUDI ARABIA, and make it a point of letting them know they were NOT ruled out.

[NerdDad]

As far as the publicly available intelligence provides, Indian and Pak nuclear capabilities are in the 50 Kiloton range. Pak is thought to have 40-50 devices, about half of which are deliverable with missiles and the other half with F-16 fighters. Assuming the Paks go after population concentrations, the top 10 cities in India (not all are reachable from Pakistan) are populated with between 2.5 and 12 million people each. The top 25 cities have more than 1 million each in population. Since all are not reachable from Pak, I would expect multiple events in the cities that are reachable. Maps of India shows population concentration of more than 1000 people per square kilometer in Delhi. Concentrations of the states closest to Pak (excluding Kashmir) run from 100 to 1000 per sq k. My point is, with these kinds of kill zones, they don't need megaton capability to kill well over 12 million just in India.

While I spout all this gloom and doom, I fail to point out that I do not see this happening. The US and UK will prevail on the combatants and keep the nukes locked away for the time being (he said from his knees, amen).

[Timesink]

I am not to keen about paying for any clean up either. They make the mess, they can sit in it for all I care.

Yeah, and I'm sure 90% of the electorate agrees with you (as do I). Even bringing up the concept of wasting our tax dollars to go clean up that mess would be a guaranteed election loser to whoever proposes it.

So, hopefully, it'll be the first issue Dashole uses against Bush after the bombs drop.

[Centurion2000]

An American intelligence report says a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan could kill up to 12 million people and injure seven million.

That's probably on the low side of the estimate.

The US assessment said a limited nuclear exchange would have cataclysmic results, overwhelming hospitals across Asia and the Middle East and requiring vast foreign assistance, particularly from America, which would be forced to go in and clean up the radioactive mess

Why should we help anyone if they are stupid enough to push the button??? Not helping them will probably make a MUCH larger deterrent for the next countries to pair off with nukes. Let them see the abomination of desolation firsthand.

[lavaroise]

Forced by who indeed. I just don't get it aside from using this conflict as a worldwide socialist psychological blackmail against America. There is indeed fears that a scheme is being set up to ruin America economicaly. This would be one of them.

[Rebelbase]

", just imagine what one of those Russian 50 megaton ones could do. "

The Blast Mapper shows the damage zone of a 25MT blast, just type in your zip code.

Does anyone know how the increase in Yield directly relates to damage? For instance, does a 50MT blast have twice the destructive force of a 25MT or is there an exponential increase?

[Snowy]

If the Heroshima bomb was 1 kiloton, just imagine what one of those Russian 50 megaton ones could do.

Does everyone think that India and Pakistan are going to actually drop nuclear bombs? I would think it would be a very difficult decision to make. I'm sure their decision makers are fully aware of all the lives that would be lost. Usually, with our current and past wars we talk about casualies in the thousands. Could everyone here give the order to kill millions? I would think it would be difficult to give that first strike order. Perhaps I'm just being too rational?