India Warns Kashmiris to Prepare for Nuclear War

[bananas]

Source: New York Times

Indian officials are advising residents of strife-torn Kashmir to prepare for a possible nuclear war by building bombproof basements and stockpiling food and water, adding to tensions between India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, after deadly cross-border skirmishes in recent weeks.

“People should construct basements where the whole family can stay for a fortnight,” read the advisory, which was published Monday in the newspaper Greater Kashmir. It comes in the midst of the worst fighting in Kashmir between India and Pakistan since a cease-fire was signed in 2003. Three Pakistani and two Indian soldiers have been killed, and one of the Indian soldiers was found without his head.

News of the mutilation infuriated Indians, with Sushma Swaraj, the leader of the opposition in the lower house of Parliament, calling for India “to get at least 10 heads from their side” if the Pakistanis did not return the soldier’s head. After criticism that he was not doing enough, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India said he was reviewing ties with Pakistan. A special visa program between the two countries has been suspended, and Pakistani players in a new Indian field hockey league have been sent home.

Officials insisted that the advisory published Monday was unrelated to these developments. Yoginder Kaul, the inspector general of the Civil Defense and State Disaster Response Force, said the advisory was meant to commemorate the first anniversary of the creation of his unit.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/world/asia/indian-officials-advise-preparations-for-possible-war.html

[TwilightGardener]

1. That headline--that's a little scary.

One more thing to worry about.

[TexasTowelie]

2. And most Americans are so unaware.

[Socal31]

3. Ah yes, more reminders of the forgotten "genie."

A full exchange between India and Pakistan will affect the entire planet, even if nobody else gets involved.


Castle Bravo and Tsar Bomba are only a taste of what a full exchange would look like..*shivers*

[AverageJoe90]

10. There won't be a full exchange now.....that window effectively closed in 1991.

Now, of course, the possibility of a second, less tense but perhaps more complex Cold War, is still out there, I think, but it certainly wouldn't be quite as scary as the first.....a small scale war is a bit less unlikely, particularly if it's India vs. Pakistan or Israel vs. Iran, but I really can't think of anything that would plausibly draw in all of the world's nuclear powers; we don't, after all, live in the world of Command & Conquer or Tom Clancy.....

[SkyDaddy7]

25. What happened in 1991...

That has you convinced India & Pakistan could not have a "full exchange" where multiple nuclear detonations take place? All that is needed to throw the Earth into a "nuclear winter" for 5-10yrs, if not longer, is about 10-20 powerful nuclear detonations.

Or do you mean by "full exchange" where all or the major nuclear powers let loose with their arsenal? Primarily the USA & Russia? That would be the end of civilization probably if just the USA & Russia launched one round of nukes each. Although extremely unlikely, the fall of the Soviet Union does not mean the chance of a "full exchange" between the two is over. All it takes is one launch by either side & there would more than likely be either a "full exchange" or at least multiple explosions from both sides...Not to mention other nuclear powers who might take sides & launch what they have as well. Regardless, it would be a nightmare if only one was launched not to mention if there were multiple detonations.

The most likely nuclear war would be a "small scale" war between two countries like Pakistan & India. Who have enough nuclear fire power for the entire world to be worried about should they engage in a nuclear war.

[AverageJoe90]

27. I was talking about a full-scale global exchange, though.

BTW, I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I should point out that Sagan's '70s projections(I assumed that's what you might be referring to) were fudged a bit, as the man himself admitted......

[SkyDaddy7]

33. "rain on your parade"???

WTF? It is just data that has been known for decades...We don't need a "global exchange" to ruin the Earth's climate for a decade if not longer...Pakistan & India both are known to have 100 or more warheads a piece plenty enough to destroy our lives on the other side of the planet should they go lobbing bombs at each other.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

20. I'm not up on Indian/Pakistan nuclear stockpiles, but do they have either of those

types of weaponry.

I thought that the Tzar bomb was big, but not as effective as MIRVs. Wouldn't India and Pakistan move towards those types of tactical weapons instead.

Enclosed is a map of fallout patterns over India.

[and-justice-for-all]

29. Yes they are both armed with nukes

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/

http://www.ibtimes.com/pakistan-rapidly-expanding-nuclear-weapons-arsenal-859260

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. Any exchange will not be good for either of them or the world. n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

38. Nope, that border region has been in flux for ages too...

but it does not help that the US meddles in the region and makes things even worse.

[ReRe]

4. India...

... is getting too big for it's breeches. Telling Kashmiris they're going to nuke them and to stop digging. When's Hillary's last day? Do we have State Dept People over in India as I speak talking those fools down?
Holy Moly....

[Socal31]

5. They aren't trying to nuke Kashmir

They consider Kashmir theirs, as does Pakistan.

We are gettting quite cozy with India, as a way to balance against China. Both through military joint drills, and advanced weapons sales.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/us-offers-top-line-weapons-to-india_638121.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/10/mil-091026-voa02.htm

[ReRe]

6. Ok, OK, OK...

I'm half asleep. So India's telling Kashmiris to stop digging cause they've got this? Thanks for waking me up, or shaking me out of my senior moment, whichever it was. Will go back and read everything, including your links.. Thanks

[BobbyBoring]

26. The sad thing is

Kashmir isn't fit for a fucking mountain goat, much less us 2 legged critters. Not worth fighting over IMHO~

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

28. But their sweaters are nice.

[denverbill]

14. You think India is the problem?

Pakistani soldiers killed and mutilated an Indian soldier to begin this latest spat. Pakistan is home to the Taliban. They were home to Osama bin Laden. They jailed the doctor to tipped us off to Osama's location. They freed the nuclear scientist to gave nuclear technology to North Korea. They are home to most of the madrassas that feed Islamic terrorism. Their intelligence service has ties to the terrorist group that hit Mumbai.

Quite frankly I can't think of a worse country in the world, with the possible exception of North Korea. Of course, I exclude the US since we never bother anyone.

[ReRe]

18. I agree with some of what you said...

Last edited Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:41 PM - Edit history (1)

... particularly that Pakistan is not the most respected neighbor on the Global block, and since they are now killing medical UN workers who are trying to administer life-saving vaccinations to their children, simply because that is how our wonderful CIA chose to use the Dr to get bin Laden's DNA. But defend nuking them? Number one, I can't go that far, because the effects of a nuke would be catastrophic to more than Pakistanis. Too much blowback. And Number two, because nukes should NEVER be used, period. There is NO justification for the use of nukes, as long as words come out of our mouths.



Edited @5:41pm to add the word "not" in the top line! sorry

[denverbill]

23. I don't see anywhere that India is threatening a first strike.

I think India was warning it's Kashmiri citizens about Pakistan possibly attacking them with nukes, though I'm sure India would respond in kind.

[Victor_c3]

7. Sounds like a republican's wet dream

I know that the conservatives I hear talking always preach how they want to turn the middle east into a giant glass parking lot...

[AverageJoe90]

9. Indeed so.

WWIII, TBH, really isn't more than a remote possibility these days, but, of course, that sure as hell doesn't stop the wingnuts from either salivating(the Fuckdie 'Christian' right), and the fringe loons(Alex Jones, etc.)from going apopleptic, over the mere thought of it.....

Nuclear terrorism on the other hand? Now that is a real concern.....

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

21. India isn't in the Middle East.

But yeah, they have Muslims there and in Pakistan so we all understand the GOPiggies and their wet dream of killing off the planet.

[NickB79]

8. A fortnight, huh?

Methinks you'll need to bunker down a bit longer than that to escape the worst of the radioactive fallout.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

11. Maybe need a better spot than "a basement", too.

I think it would be better for the Kashmiris if nobody dropped an atomic bomb on them in the first place. Just a guess.

I'd bet that not every Kashmiri has the means to get a basement shelter built and stocked in the next couple of weeks. Maybe they can just google "collateral damage" to prepare for their future.

[Xithras]

24. Two weeks will get you through the worst of the fallout.

Fallout tends to degrade rapidly at first, with a consistently slowing degradation rate as time goes on. The most intensive radiation (instant death) from fallout fades off within about two hours of the blast, and radiation intensity fallsl to levels that will allow you to venure outside a few minutes at a time within 12-16 hours of the blast. Within 48 hours, radiation levels will typically fall to only 1% of their strength immediately after the blast. That's still high enough to kill you, but low enough to allow you to venture outside for an hour or two a day with minimal risk to your health.

Within about two weeks, overall radiation levels from fallout will drop to only about .01% of their initial strength. If the original intensity was 1000 r/hr (400 is guranteed death), it will drop to about 1 or 2 r/hr within a couple of weeks. The overwhelming majority of Japanese who were exposed to that level of radiation after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks showed no long term damage. That's still far higher than we would consider "safe", but it's low enough that you could remain outside for an extended period while you evacuated to a less radioactive area.

There are obvious exceptions to all of this. If you're in the initial blast area, or if you happen to be in the heaviest fallout areas immediately downwind from the blast zone (less than 10 miles), you're SOL. If the blast doesn't incinerate you, the higher fallout density in those areas is going to keep the radiation at lethal levels for a few months. If I lived near a Kashmiri army base, I'd consider moving.

[daleo]

31. Breathing in small particles that have been irradiated

Is bad for the health even years later. Japan only had two relatively small nukes dropped on it. I doubt that an exchange between two nuclear powers would be that contained, should it ever occur.

[Xithras]

35. Depends on the particles. And the person.

Most of us breathe in dust particles on a near-constant basis. Our bodies are designed to deal with it by trapping it in mucus and expelling it. The radioactivity of a particular dust particle has no bearing on your bodies ability to expel it.

The problem tends to come from inhaling dust particles containing heavy metals like uranium. Because of their mass, the body has a harder time expelling them, so more are likely to remain lodged in your lungs. This leads to lung cancer later on.

There's also a very fundamental difference between the Japanese bombs and the ones built today. The Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima used over 60kg of uranium, only about 1kg of which was converted to energy. The other 63kg was converted to dust, which settled over the city and into peoples lungs. It was an extremely primitive and inefficient weapon, and it kept killing long after it was detonated.

Modern nuclear weapons use only a few kilograms of plutonium, nearly all of which is converted to energy during the blast. The downside of this is that the blasts are bigger. The upside is that there are fewer radioactive heavy metals left afterward to permanently pollute the ground and survivors.

Virtually all of the fallout from modern nuclear detonations comes from secondary materials irradiated during the blast (dust, vaporized buildings, etc). That type of fallout is still lethal, but it typically has a very short half-life. Within a couple of weeks, you can safely walk around the fallout zones for an extended period without harm. Within a year, the radiation in the fallout zones would be low enough to allow permanent habitation again (note that I'm talking about fallout zones...the actual blast zone would be uninhabitable for a far longer period).

So yes, building a shelter to hunker down in for a few weeks would be sufficient for most people in the fallout zones. The people in the blast zone are dead no matter what, but those downwind would only need to shelter in place for a couple of weeks until the radiation levels dropped low enough to permit them to evacuate to a less radioactive area.

Of course, there are NO guarantees.

[DonCoquixote]

12. I may get flamed here

But ever since India got bigger (by stealing IT jobs that used to be well paid) they have shown a very crass, ugly side. It is not good enough to act like the new Britiain, now they have to buy jaguar, Tetley tea, and threaten Nuclear War based on an old hatred of Muslims. It's like they want the worst of Kipling's UK and the Moguls in one big fat greasy sandwich.

[Lurks Often]

15. The hatred over there is hardly one sided

Read up on the 1947 partition when Pakistan was created. The Muslims slaughtered the Hindus and Sikhs and the Sikhs & Hindus slaughtered the Muslims.

The only troops that could be trusted not to commit atrocities were the Gurkha battalions under the command of British officers. It was so bad that if they managed to get a 5 mile column of refugees to it's destination and arrive with half the column alive, it was considered a success.

Pakistan seems unwilling or unable to prevent it's citizens from committing political murders and other terroristic attacks and has been less then cooperative in aiding India in investigating the Mumbai attacks in 2008.

Of the two countries, Pakistan is far more likely to be the first to use nuclear weapons since their conventional military has repeatedly lost to India's military and Pakistan stands no chance of winning without either Chinese military intervention or the use of nuclear weapons.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

22. In defense of India...

The reason that India has a lot of formerly Western IT jobs is that they ramped up their technical colleges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institutes_of_Technology

This made for ideal candidates so Western companies (AKA US companies) could give US engineers the middle finger and ship out a generation of jobs to low-paid India. The same thing can be said for manufacturing jobs moving to China. The jobs just don't migrate like birds, they have to be moved there by somebody.

I don't fault an Indian worker that wants to make money or have a better life for his/her family, but I do fault ruthless business practices for hemorrhaging US jobs out to other countries. Had countries in Africa been able to do the same work for 5¢ on the $ then India would be in the same boat or worse that we are now.

The majority of blame goes to the corporations, my friend.

And as to buying up companies: Japan was no different. It's just how the story goes.

[Javaman]

13. Kashmir meet the 1950's USA.

"building bombproof basements and stockpiling food and water" Or as my dad would tell us, "those are some well stocked coffins".

I can't believe this shit is still happening in our screwed up world.

Duck and Cover!

[magical thyme]

16. they left out the plastic and duct tape

Which I figure will save them on body bags down the road.

They also advised those not in shelter at the time to lie down and stay lying down. I thought it was "tuck your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye." I also distinctly remember grade school drills in which we sheltered under our little school desks. Maybe they could invest in such desks and carry them around wherever they go...

Seriously, is wrong with "those" people? What has Kashmir got that everybody has some need to "own?"

[rickyhall]

17. What is India saying

Are they saying they might nuke Kashmir or are they expecting Pakistan of doing the nuking? As for fallout, since the earth rotates as it does most of the fallout would be over India and SE Asia first, then the rest of us, then Pakistan last. Pakistan seems out of control and the little guy with the chip on the shoulder. Too bad there aren't more Buddhists in the area.

[bemildred]

19. "Get under your desk, put your head between your knees, and kiss your ass goodbye." nt

[Comrade_McKenzie]

32. This is why I have no problem with the US drone program in Pakistan. nt

[Nihil]

34. Surely not ...

> Sushma Swaraj, the leader of the opposition in the lower house of Parliament,
> calling for India “to get at least 10 heads from their side”

I thought India were supposed to be "the civilised ones" in that particular
tribal war ...?

[Joel thakkar]

37. copying israel

That political party is pro-israel, pro-hindu and anti-muslim...thus, they have to crush muslims anywhere..

[Joel thakkar]

36. Indian Here

Went to kashmir last june...locals are friendly but they do charged us a big bill (in everything : hotels, restaurants, massages, sight-seeing etc..)

Indians normally take a national pride in having kashmir in india...

About that news : yeah they were talking about possible attack from pak. side.