• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

May/2025 | India-Pakistan | Escalating Crisis DEFCON 3 | Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cilvilt_beredskap said:
Retired Indian Colonel said on WION that historically ceasefires in the Kashmir conflicts took at least 48 hours for everything to finally be calm. Unsure what India decides to do, too. (I am, too.)
Click to expand...
Yea, we will see about that.

Wow, I went to bed and while I was asleep a ceasefire was agreed to and by the time I wake up it has been violated.
 
Imma say that the ball is in India's court, since Pakistan clearly doesn't want an all-out war.
  • If Modi wants to deescalate, he'll find an excuse to do so.
  • If he wants to escalate, see above.
The "ceasefire" (or whatever this is) violations don't actually matter; that's just PR for the masses. This conflict is driven by dynamics that have nothing to do with the timing of drone attacks on Srinagar.

And as for purported conspiracies aiming to undermine US reputation - the US doesn't need any external help to totally embarrass itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jack

India’s new nuclear submarines mean that an atomic war with Pakistan is hugely less likely​

Click to expand...
So far, despite multiple flashpoints – Kargil, Mumbai, Balakot – the nuclear weapons of both nations have remained, thankfully, in their silos, bunkers, and bomb bays. And while we should never be complacent, there’s a good and comparatively recent reason to believe that the risk of nuclear escalation between India and Pakistan is less today than in the past.

That reason is quietly gliding beneath the waves of the Indian Ocean, in the form of India’s ballistic missile submarines. The first one went operational in 2016.
Click to expand...
When a country only has land-based or air-launched nuclear weapons, its deterrent is inherently vulnerable. An adversary might be tempted to launch a disarming first strike, to destroy all known nuclear launch sites in one go and hugely reduce or even completely prevent any retaliation. It’s a terrifying logic, but it’s there. If you believe the other side might attack first, the temptation is to pre-empt them. The huge nuclear arsenals of the Cold War sprang from this idea: both the US and the Soviets sought to maintain so many nukes that the other side could never eliminate them all in one go.

SSBNs changed all that. Once nuclear-powered submarines dive they become all but impossible to track, and they can stay down for months. That means any attacker who strikes against a nation with SSBNs on patrol, no matter how effective the first strike, knows with absolute certainty that retaliation is inevitable nonetheless. In nuclear deterrence terms, this is known as assured second-strike capability. In plain English: you hit us, we will hit you back, hard.

This is precisely why the presence of Indian SSBNs is quietly stabilizing. For Pakistan, the knowledge that India now has a nuclear-armed submarine essentially closes the door on any notion of a successful first strike. There is no disarming India now. Assuming one of India’s two SSBNs is currently at sea, it can fire if India is attacked. Pakistan is very unlikely to make a nuclear first strike. The certainty of retaliation is too great, and the risks too catastrophic.

For India, too, possessing a survivable second-strike capability reduces the pressure to act preemptively in a crisis. There is no need to “use them or lose them” when you know that even if your land-based arsenal is destroyed, your submarines will get the job done. The temptation to strike first, which is the most dangerous impulse in any nuclear standoff, is dramatically reduced. India, too, is unlikely to make a first strike: it has no need to.

If neither nation is likely to strike first, neither is likely to strike.

The presence of India’s SSBNs, then, is a very positive thing.
Click to expand...
www.telegraph.co.uk

India’s new nuclear submarines mean that an atomic war with Pakistan is hugely less likely

Underwater nukes bring peace
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Erecon said:
I got another question, would it be noticeable on the Richter Scale if you detonated a 1-40 kilotons nuclear device? "Tzar bomba" 50 megaton had like 5-5.6 I think. Or does it depends if its underground explosion.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's how the world monitors for underground nuclear testing. Seismic monitoring can pinpoint the depth of the epicenter of very small Seismic events, and through analysis of the waveforms and the depth and location of the event, determine the cause and yield of the explosion, if any.

It's an important monitoring tool for the enforcement of treaties.
 
Bravo said:
Interesting question.
IMHO it depends, how the device is exploding.
Subsurface: definitely.
Surface: yes
Midair: maybe not
Oceanic: yes
The Test in ROK were noticeable, but they caused a massive Avalanche and a Mountain nearly to collapse, they tested subsurface.
There are lot of people around in India and Pakistan who have iPhones and so on. It's nearly impossible, to make a possible Impact secret, or to hide that in case. On the other Hand, a Pakistani launch might be shot down by India. Pak was definitely launching Fateh Missiles and no one knows, what Payload they had :/
Click to expand...
Midair, no. But our early warning satellites would see the flash from any nuclear explosion in atmosphere. They can also detect the missile plumes from single missiles large enough to launch a nuclear payload of that mass (a 40 KT weapon).

Even if it wasn't detected through active monitoring, passive radiation monitoring throughout the world would detect the radioactive isotopes in the atmosphere after any nuclear incident. This is how the West discovered the Chernobyl accident, and how the West found out the Russians had the bomb in the 40s.
 
So wierd/crazy to see how quiet this conflict became. Couple of questions I have.

1) Did the two countries ever officially draw up declarations of war?

2) Is the ceasefire temporary? By that I mean do we have days or weeks before hostilities resume?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom