Stalin Math on the sub-Continent

[Seeker]

-India has a population of over 950 millions.

-A nuclear strike might cost them 5-15 million, but they might be able to put a 'friendly government' in place and eliminate the threat of Pakistan forever.

-India loses millions per year anyway to disease, malnutrition, natural causes. War might only cause a small bump in their natural population growth.

-Pakistan only has 'Hiroshima' type bombs. Contrary to talk about fallout dangers, radiation being blown by the wind, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both quickly rebuilt and populous within less than a decade, cancer and radiation poisoning was only significant at the bomb site, and even in those places it was relatively minor, and in terms of total population insignificant.

-The fallout fears are from much much more powerful Soviet hydrogen 'dirty' bombs, Pakistan is far away from such advances. Such bombs might indeed make a 'death cloud' in numbers, but info from Bikini, other tests seems to indicate that a nearby population would not be decimated by fallout from a small number of nukes. There would be many casualties, a great increase in cancer rates, etc, but the population as a whole would only be somewhat impacted.

So:
Are India's nationalist parties and ministers making a 'Stalin equation' (i.e. in World War 2, Stalin knew that USSR with 300 million could lose 20 million with much overall impact) in their conflict with Pakistan?

[KrazyHorse]

USSR with 300 million

USSR didn't have 300 million people in it during WWII. Maybe 150-200 million (maybe less).

[H Tower]

what about the fallout of indian nukes being blown back over india?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Exactly... Any bomb that hits Pakistan will have fallout go over India because of how the winds blow.

[Az]

They could build huge fans to build air the other way.
USSR had around 150 million people , I think. with around 25 million dead, it had every 7th citizen dead.

[Urban Ranger]

If I were an Indian citizen, by now I'd up in arms rioting in the streets, demanding the current government to immediately step down.

[notyoueither]

The possibility that the Indian government would never dismiss such equations should not be discounted.

AAMOF, the Pakistanis should not forget it. The region might be more stable.

[Frankychan]

I don't know about you, but my grandfather on my mother's side was from Hiroshima.

He died when I was 10 from cancer. If you think that this is "minor".....well....I'd probably get banned for what I could say.

[notyoueither]

Who said minor? Nuclear weapons are never 'minor'.

[Sarxis]

Re: Stalin Math on the sub-Continent

Originally posted by Seeker
-India has a population of over 950 millions.

-A nuclear strike might cost them 5-15 million, but they might be able to put a 'friendly government' in place and eliminate the threat of Pakistan forever.

-India loses millions per year anyway to disease, malnutrition, natural causes. War might only cause a small bump in their natural population growth.

Exactly. In a land where human life is cheap, there is no concern for the loss of civilian life.

But they don't want to lose their military bases, which is probably where most of the nukes are aimed at.

[Frankychan]

Re: Stalin Math on the sub-Continent

Originally posted by Seeker

-Pakistan only has 'Hiroshima' type bombs. Contrary to talk about fallout dangers, radiation being blown by the wind, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both quickly rebuilt and populous within less than a decade, cancer and radiation poisoning was only significant at the bomb site, and even in those places it was relatively MINOR, and in terms of total population insignificant.

Right there.

and yes, I do think the Indian's are using numerical superiority.

[Sprayber]

Re: Re: Stalin Math on the sub-Continent

Originally posted by frankychan


Right there.

and yes, I do think the Indian's are using numerical superiority.

Franky: to be fair I believe Seeker was simply discussing how the Indians may be thinking about the prospects of war. One of their military officers supposedly stated that India was prepared to take 10-20 million deaths if it meant that they would win any war. I don't think Seeker himself was advocating that line of thought.


I wonder what the reaction of the rest of the world would be to India and Pakistan if they do engage in nuclear war regardless of its size and impact. Which ever one comes out the winner would most likely need massive aid to rebuild and I really doubt that many countries would be too generous to them while those in the ruling goverment remained. Esepecially countries like Australia who will potentially be affected by such a war. Besides, as it stands either country isn't exactly doing so well in terms of wealth as it is. I guess unlike developed nations, they don't have a whole lot to loss. At least maybe in their eyes.

[Urban Ranger]

Somebody should inform the Indians about now on how much their government value their lives.

[Mercator]

And it's not only just population, but more importantly surface... Even if Pakistan and India were on par with everything else, Pakistan would still lose, simply because they'd need more nukes to cover all of India...
Of course, this is all purely strategical, rational thought, and I'm not for any nuclear war in any way etc.
But I doubt the governments will take personal tragedies etc. really into account.

[Seeker]

Think of the Gulf War frankychan.

Many American soldiers died, in tragic ways. Their deaths were, of course, not 'minor' to them or their families.

But in terms of the whole Allied force in Desert Storm of over 100 000, the loss of a few hundred is statistically insignificant.

Now think on a larger, national scale:
Japan with a population of some 60-75 millions.

"It is believed that more than 140,000 people died by the end of the year. They were citizens including students, soldiers and Koreans who worked in factories within the city. The total number of people who have died due to the bomb is estimated to be 200,000" (this after a year and includes the initial blasts)

Obviously a national tragedy, and the cause of many personal tragedies.

But in terms of total national population...?

And about the fallout from their own bombs...it is Pakistan whose strategic position would force them to use a-bombs. India can win in a conventional way and claim some flimsy moral superiority if they do.

And, if they were really fanatical and brutal, they could just 'eat' the fallout, I don't think it would have much of an effect on the 'big picture'.

Oh, and obviously I'm not advocating this! I'm just drawing your attention to the way a hypothetical Indian strategist might be thinking. This was not an issue in the Cold War because of the threat of Nuclear Winter, which meant that the majority of the population would die regardless.