Well, the easiest is probably a high-altitude nuke, and they already have those, right?

So, if they want to try and make one without the nuke part, I'm all for helping them do it.

Hang on a minute, hang on... we could use a pinch.

Am I a bad guy that I hate the governments of India and Pakistan equally?

fark those countries.

cretinbob: Like those F-16s that are capable of delivering a nuclear weapon Bush sold them, dumbfarkmitter.

That the Indians shoot down all the time because a goat herding paki caveman in a top of the line fighter jet is STILL a goat herding paki caveman?

"Hello, my name is "Bob". I am understanding that you have developing printed circuit device. Please do the needful and reboot the device while I am deploying the EMP."

socodog: Am I a bad guy that I hate the governments of India and Pakistan equally?

fark those countries.

Both sides are bad...so vote falafel

Subtle_Canary:
That the Indians shoot down all the time because a goat herding paki caveman in a top of the line fighter jet is STILL a goat herding paki caveman?

Not really. India and Pakistan are, generally speaking, classified as second world countries. You will find surprisingly well trained, educated and proficient people living in modern 'western' style living conditions AS WELL AS cave dwelling goat herders who has a pot to piss in and that's about it. Usually in relative close proximity to each other.

So the people in the F-16's know what to do, they just may not necessarily have much combat experience.

Saying that my money is on WW3 starting when those two finally get their ideological different freak on, and an ICBM tends to fly itself... yes neither country likes the other... yes both are nuclear armed... yes pointing at each other.

/Might not be true but reportedly "Paki" means "Clean" so bit of a shiat insult IMHO.

This new technology is relevant to my interests. I always approve of weapons that turn render my enemies helpless without the fuss of mass destruction and death.

Unsung_Hero: Well, the easiest is probably a high-altitude nuke, and they already have those, right?

So, if they want to try and make one without the nuke part, I'm all for helping them do it.

Bingo. Tactical nuke in the exosphere could very well EMP the entire continent, though, and that might irritate just a few people. Still, the technology is there.

If Skynet attacks, then we'll have over asses cover, at least.

If Skynet attacks, then we'll have our asses covered, at least

FTFM - I need more Red Bull, STAT!

Pakistan's nuke tech is probably better than India's, according to a talk I recently went to by a nuclear policy analyst.

cretinbob: Like those F-16s that are capable of delivering a nuclear weapon Bush sold them, dumbfarkmitter.

Bush didn't tell Pakistan nuclear weapons, cretin.

I believe in past aiwars Pakistan Airforce seriously owned the Indian Airforce to extent of no contest.

One Second After by William Forstchen. According to the book, it only takes two or three nuclear explosions high in the atmosphere to permanently render all existing electronic infrastructure in the US useless. Once that happens cue the mass starvation, roving bands of cannibals, and mass deaths from lack of prescription medications.

Maybe he's exaggerating, but it made for a really good read. Thanks to the Farker who recommended it!

caddisfly: One Second After by William Forstchen. According to the book, it only takes two or three nuclear explosions high in the atmosphere to permanently render all existing electronic infrastructure in the US useless. Once that happens cue the mass starvation, roving bands of cannibals, and mass deaths from lack of prescription medications.

Maybe he's exaggerating, but it made for a really good read. Thanks to the Farker who recommended it!

[www.norcalblogs.com image 329x500]

It sounds good but the introduction by Newt Gingrich makes me cautious.

RepoManTSM: caddisfly: One Second After by William Forstchen. According to the book, it only takes two or three nuclear explosions high in the atmosphere to permanently render all existing electronic infrastructure in the US useless. Once that happens cue the mass starvation, roving bands of cannibals, and mass deaths from lack of prescription medications.

Maybe he's exaggerating, but it made for a really good read. Thanks to the Farker who recommended it!

[www.norcalblogs.com image 329x500]

It sounds good but the introduction by Newt Gingrich makes me cautious.

I had the same reaction, but I got over it. It gets a little jingoistic & treacly at times but I thought it was an awesome read. It's "that book" that has been passed around by my friends for the last year.

caddisfly: I had the same reaction, but I got over it. It gets a little jingoistic & treacly at times but I thought it was an awesome read. It's "that book" that has been passed around by my friends for the last year.

So it's the literary equivalent of your mother, then.

Satanic_Hamster: caddisfly: I had the same reaction, but I got over it. It gets a little jingoistic & treacly at times but I thought it was an awesome read. It's "that book" that has been passed around by my friends for the last year.

So it's the literary equivalent of your mother, then.

Nope. Mom died last month.

cretinbob: Like those F-16s Bush sold them, which are capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, dumbfarkmitter.

For the functionally illiterate. If there is ever going to be a nuclear war, it will be between India and Pakistan.

Really, you have details that the Pakistani nukes are small enough to be delivered by F-16? You also have poor ass grammar.

socodog: Am I a bad guy that I hate the governments of India and Pakistan equally?

fark those countries.

I hate the government of Pakistan more but I know considerably less about the government of India, it's probably just a function of how much you know about them.

Thats an 827: I believe in past aiwars Pakistan Airforce seriously owned the Indian Airforce to extent of no contest.

Pakistan back in the 60s and 70s had more modern air force - they still lost the war pretty badly though (100,000 soldiers surrendered in '71). Also in the past decade and half, India has really taken off economically, with double digit increases in defense and really just zoomed past Pakistan in technical capabilities in addition to sheer size. They really see themselves as a counterbalance to china in the region rather than to Pakistan. Of course, china has also had massive increases military budgets and capabilities over the past couple decades - they started doing it when they saw how badly the US owned Iraq in 1991 - their army was similar to the Iraqi army (bigger in size of course but with similar models of tanks, etc). That shoked them and they started putting tens of billions of dollars towards increasing their tehnological capabilities. So right now China is trying very hard to catch up to the US (we are still ahead significantly) and India is trying to catch up to China.

China will take over the US as the largest economy in the world around 2015 (though of course they have 4x our population) and while India is significantly behind that, they are also have good long term growth prospects while most of the West is trying very hard to maintain what they have.

Given the proliferation of nuclear weapons, you don't have to worry about getting invaded but strategically speaking there are very interesting times ahead.

cretinbob: fark off, retard

Link (new window)

Did you even read your own link, cretin? It in no way backs up your claim that Pakistan's nuclear weapons can be deployed by their F-16's.

Is it hard being stupid?

sarah_t_s: Subtle_Canary:
That the Indians shoot down all the time because a goat herding paki caveman in a top of the line fighter jet is STILL a goat herding paki caveman?

Not really. India and Pakistan are, generally speaking, classified as second world countries. You will find surprisingly well trained, educated and proficient people living in modern 'western' style living conditions AS WELL AS cave dwelling goat herders who has a pot to piss in and that's about it. Usually in relative close proximity to each other.

So the people in the F-16's know what to do, they just may not necessarily have much combat experience.

Saying that my money is on WW3 starting when those two finally get their ideological different freak on, and an ICBM tends to fly itself... yes neither country likes the other... yes both are nuclear armed... yes pointing at each other.

/Might not be true but reportedly "Paki" means "Clean" so bit of a shiat insult IMHO.

I thought the term "second world" referred to the Soviet Union and their satellites.

As for EMP weapons, the US once detonated a nuke 50 miles up over the Pacific Ocean and knocked out radio transmissions from Hawaii to New Zealand for 8 hours. At the time they didn't realize something like that would happen but I'm sure that's been figured into the attack plans of every nuclear power since.

namatad: Satanic_Hamster: Is it hard being stupid?

why are you feeding the troll?
his NAME is CRETIN!!!!

Is it a troll? It's too damn hard to tell at times. :(

I thought you could build an EMP by coiling wire inside a kind of pipe bomb. Swear I saw that in New Scientist a few years back.

Ah, yep. Here you go India, knock yourself out (new window)

namatad: Satanic_Hamster: namatad: Satanic_Hamster: Is it hard being stupid?

why are you feeding the troll?
his NAME is CRETIN!!!!

Is it a troll? It's too damn hard to tell at times. :(

well
that and his profile says that he is a troll .... LOL

Profiles are for dicks.

pinchpoint:
I thought the term "second world" referred to the Soviet Union and their satellites.

Can't say for certain but it's generally used here as a marker for a countries development. Us lot here are pretty much first world, shiathole countries like Etheopia are third world and a mix of the two (like India as an example) are the second world.

The USSR is an odd one as you'd have to take the individual states that made it up on a case by case basis, but I think a lot of them would turn out to be first world countries/states.

sarah_t_s: pinchpoint:
I thought the term "second world" referred to the Soviet Union and their satellites.

Can't say for certain but it's generally used here as a marker for a countries development. Us lot here are pretty much first world, shiathole countries like Etheopia are third world and a mix of the two (like India as an example) are the second world.

The USSR is an odd one as you'd have to take the individual states that made it up on a case by case basis, but I think a lot of them would turn out to be first world countries/states.

It used to be 1st = West & allies, 2nd = USSR and allies, 3rd = everyone else.

Since an awful lot of 3rd world countries were relatively poor - I mean, if you had an economy worth anything, you ended up aligned with the USA or USSR, right? - 3rd world came to mean 'undeveloped'. Since the USSR and its satellite states weren't doing to well economically but had 1st world technology, they were 'developed but poor', which is what 2nd world came to mean.

In other words, the definition is in flux, but used to be about who you were allied with and is becoming the category or your economy.