What if Pakistan nuked India in 1999?

I forgot who said it but someone in this site wrote about this in a post and said that about 1 billion people would die due to the nuclear Winter and aftermath

They're an idiot. I even wouldn't put deaths due to the cold and failed crops after an all out Nato/USSR exchange at that amount.

India comes out on top. According to wikipedia, India has 110 nukes to 120 for Pakistan (none active on either side ATM), but at 1 bomb per city (and assuming that bomb wipes out the cite, irrespective of the physics), the world population review site puts it that Pakistan's largest remaining city will be Sibi, with 64,069 people, while India's largest will be Muzaffarpur, with more than five times that (it's among 9 that reach that mark). Interesting to note, the total loss of those cities would see Pakistan's population drop by more than 23%, while India's would drop by less than 11%.

They wouldn't drop one bomb per city and on average the weapons will be small (probably less that 10kt) leaving a good chunk of the cities still in tact.

If they have any sense the weapons will be directed towards destroying the ability for their enemies to wage war i.e. enemy nuclear weapon delivery systems, military HQs and large military bases.

But yes, India will most likely come out on top. Their GDP trumps Pakistan's enabling them to rebuild faster.
 
I didn't say they'd drop one bomb per city, I said that at a rate of one bomb per city India still comes out on top. Drop it to the top 11/12 cities (10 bombs per city average), India's losses drop to under 5% (58% drop over 1 bomb/city), while Pakistans drop to a bit over 15% (33% drop over 1 bomb/city).
 
I forgot who said it but someone in this site wrote about this in a post and said that about 1 billion people would die due to the nuclear Winter and aftermath

And this is a validated resource!!

Its unlikely that even a full scale exchange between the USSR and the USA would cause more than six months to a year bad weather, if that. The amount of crap tossed up looks big to us, but volcanoes do more.
 
I didn't say they'd drop one bomb per city, I said that at a rate of one bomb per city India still comes out on top. Drop it to the top 11/12 cities (10 bombs per city average), India's losses drop to under 5% (58% drop over 1 bomb/city), while Pakistans drop to a bit over 15% (33% drop over 1 bomb/city).

Eh, I felt it was implied.
 
i'd imagine the end result would be the rest of pakistan descending into anarchy, a good portion of india destroyed and it's ability to supply its massive population with food, water, medication severely damaged raising the death toll 100 fold.

there's be a hundred million pepole trying to cross the border to iran, china and bangladesh - i doubt they'd let them through.
 
Because to hypothetically cause a possible nuclear winter then the Pakistani and Indian nuclear arsenals combined. Remember that since trinity something like a thousand nuclear weapons have been detonated by the us, ussr, the uk, france, India, pakistan, and possibly israel/south Africa.

An Indian pakistani war at this point would have involved at most two or three dozen nukes all of relatively low yield. The tsar bombs alone would have been several dozen times more destructive.

Significantly more than 1000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

The BBC recently aired a play called War Book that showed Civil servants 'role playing' just this very scenario (A Pakistani Attack on India) and how Britain would react to the escalating crisis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b065ylyy
 
http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/nuclear-famine-two-billion-at-risk-2013.pdf

Give this report a look. It may look like hyperbole, but just check out the details. I believe the claim holds water. Billions may not die but hundreds of millions surely might.... Who knows i might be one of them. :(

If that's anything like other nuclear winter 'studies' then they'll screw up in many areas.

If I remember correctly the last study I read on the topic thought that each nuclear weapon used in a nuclear war would be multi-megaton, aimed at cities with one per city, would be groundburst for maximum fallout and that each city would go up like a Japanese paper and wood city during the dry season.

Then, they dumped all of this data into a 1950s model also based on 1930s Japanese paper cities and produced a ridiculous result.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/nuclear-famine-two-billion-at-risk-2013.pdf

Give this report a look. It may look like hyperbole, but just check out the details. I believe the claim holds water. Billions may not die but hundreds of millions surely might.... Who knows i might be one of them. :(

While the data itself is more than slightly biased in presentation, and makes some projections that are questionable, it is also not germane to the scenario at hand.

By the time of the report you linked the number of potential warheads increased from 50-60 total to 240 and the likely number of successful detonations from 20-30 to well over 120 thanks to the increased number of IRBM with sufficient range to strike deep into the enemy's interior.
 
Top