If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News.com.au)   India apparently believes that two weeks of food is enough of a stockpile for the upcoming nuclear war   (news.com.au) divider line 88
    More: Scary, bomb shelters  
•       •       •

7720 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2013 at 1:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-23 12:27:26 AM  
Neither side has anything to gain in a nuclear war.  No way it will happen.
 
2013-01-23 12:56:28 AM  

Brontes: Neither side has anything to gain in a nuclear war.  No way it will happen.


Because two countries have never gone to war with no realistic gain at the end of it.
 
2013-01-23 01:00:27 AM  
Obviously they're not Mormon
 
2013-01-23 01:03:47 AM  
Remember, duck and cover!

i1282.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-23 01:24:00 AM  
If you plan for your population to be nonadecimated, then a two-week supply could last quite a while.

And yes, I just made up a term for killing ninety percent of people with utter disregard for both math AND etymology.
 
2013-01-23 01:30:31 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: If you plan for your population to be nonadecimated, then a two-week supply could last quite a while.

And yes, I just made up a term for killing ninety percent of people with utter disregard for both math AND etymology.


GIGADEATH!
 
2013-01-23 01:50:29 AM  
Well that's encouraging.

kmmontandon: Brontes: Neither side has anything to gain in a nuclear war.  No way it will happen.

Because two countries have never gone to war with no realistic gain at the end of it.


Eisenhower wanted to nuke Korea because it was a cheap way to wage war.  LeMay rather famously thought that not only was a nuclear war winnable, but we'd be smart to fire first.  Both were military experts.  Now add a religious war into that, and you have the possible thoughts of Indian and Pakistani generals.

It's completely plausible they nuke each other.  Or rather Pakistan nukes India after they get their asses kicked by the Indian military.
 
2013-01-23 01:58:33 AM  
Well yeah, cuz after that everyone's zombies and they can just eat each other!
 
2013-01-23 02:02:45 AM  
But it's India. Two weeks of food for Americans can last six months in India.
 
2013-01-23 02:05:29 AM  
It may be more along the lines of what they can stockpile, rather than what they would prefer to stockpile.
 
2013-01-23 02:05:55 AM  
What about the cows?

Think of the cows!
 
2013-01-23 02:08:32 AM  
Or more likely, two weeks is viewed as long enough to re-establish supply lines to those who survive.
 
2013-01-23 02:08:51 AM  
If you are preparing for a nuclear war, you are part of the problem.

The Bush-Obama policy of turning a blind eye to India's nuclear ambitions could prove to be the greatest foreign policy mistake of the past decade. Punching holes in nonproliferation regimes, encouraging both India and Pakistan to subsidize the U.S. military industrial complex, and viewing the subcontinent purely through the eyes of the GWOT were all serious, serious errors.
 
2013-01-23 02:16:45 AM  
OK now it's time for the massive song and dance scene. It's all Bollywood drama. Drama drama drama. Rama Lama Ramalamananda Ding Dong.
 
2013-01-23 02:18:04 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: If you plan for your population to be nonadecimated, then a two-week supply could last quite a while.

And yes, I just made up a term for killing ninety percent of people with utter disregard for both math AND etymology.



After the war is over, will they put all those bodies in the Ganges?
 
2013-01-23 02:18:17 AM  

cedarpark: But it's India. Two weeks of food for Americans can last six months in India.


Because they make use of every part of the animal.
 
2013-01-23 02:22:04 AM  

Kevin72: OK now it's time for the massive song and dance scene


Challenge accepted
 
2013-01-23 02:22:08 AM  

GAT_00: Well that's encouraging.

kmmontandon: Brontes: Neither side has anything to gain in a nuclear war.  No way it will happen.

Because two countries have never gone to war with no realistic gain at the end of it.

Eisenhower wanted to nuke Korea because it was a cheap way to wage war.  LeMay rather famously thought that not only was a nuclear war winnable, but we'd be smart to fire first.  Both were military experts.  Now add a religious war into that, and you have the possible thoughts of Indian and Pakistani generals.

It's completely plausible they nuke each other.  Or rather Pakistan nukes India after they get their asses kicked by the Indian military.


I don't remember the exact timeline, but at the time of the Korean War did Eisenhower et al. know about the long-term consequences of nuclear weapons, or did they just think of them as extremely powerful versions of conventional bombs? I seem to remember that in the years following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there were vague accounts of an "atom bomb disease", but it wasn't determined until much later that nuclear radiation was giving people leukemia.

Although I would put it past the religious fanatics in charge of Pakistan to be just as ignorant of the long-term consequences of nuclear weapons as Eisenhower would have been back in the day.
 
2013-01-23 02:22:55 AM  

anfrind: Although I wouldn't put it past the religious fanatics in charge of Pakistan to be just as ignorant of the long-term consequences of nuclear weapons as Eisenhower would have been back in the day.


Dammit.

/need to go to bed
 
2013-01-23 02:26:10 AM  
<
The Bush-Obama policy of turning a blind eye to India's nuclear ambitions could prove to be the greatest foreign policy mistake of the past decade
>

Actually, the problem is Pakistan, not India. Pakistan is totally unstable. You don't see teams of crazies from India going to Pakistan and killing large numbers of people, including legislators. You don't see members of the Indian secret service working against the interests of their nominal ally and sponsor. You don't see Indian the nuclear program selling knowledge and assistance to North Korea/etc.

In addition, India is philosophically incapable of a first strike. Pakistan, well, who the heck knows what they're going to do day-to-day?
 
2013-01-23 02:26:34 AM  

Brontes: Neither side has anything to gain in a nuclear war.  No way it will happen.


logic usually escapes people...

let me put it to you this way, "IF I CANT HAVE IT NO ONE CAN" BOOOOOOM.... loool tyrants are so cute when they throw temper tantrums...
 
2013-01-23 02:31:01 AM  
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-01-23 02:32:30 AM  
How would global warming be affected by the nuclear death of some 5 billion people?
 
2013-01-23 02:34:36 AM  
Add enough cumin and ginger to food and even a small bowl feels rather filling. Of course, you are filled with heartburn and actual flames.

What I'm saying is some of those so called nuclear missiles are filled mostly with vindaloo.
 
2013-01-23 02:34:58 AM  
What exactly is in Kashmir that these people want so badly?
 
2013-01-23 02:35:36 AM  

debug: What exactly is in Kashmir that these people want so badly?


Sweaters.
 
2013-01-23 02:36:29 AM  
Officials in India-controlled Kashmir are warning people to build bomb-proof basements

You there! Build a bomb-proof basement!
Consider it done!

Is the knowledge of how to do so something that the people of Kashmir are born with or does everyone stand around asking, "Uh, what? How? With what? I suspect the majority of anyone anywhere doesn't have the first clue as to what's involved/required.

/No, I don't either.
 
2013-01-23 02:36:49 AM  

debug: What exactly is in Kashmir that these people want so badly?


The land is supposed to be nice during peacetime.
 
2013-01-23 02:39:10 AM  

WeenerGord: Kevin72: OK now it's time for the massive song and dance scene

Challenge accepted


That was hilarious. I truly was laughing out loud it was so well done.
 
2013-01-23 02:42:53 AM  
I imagine the two weeks stock of food and water is supposed to be preparation for disruption of services in the event of a conventional conflict, not a nuclear exchange, and so prevent a massive humanitarian/refugee crisis alongside the border conflict. Remember, this wouldn't be the first time nuclear-armed India and Pakistan had exchanged fire (Kargil conflict, 1999.).

Seth'n'Spectrum: If you are preparing for a nuclear war, you are part of the problem.

The Bush-Obama policy of turning a blind eye to India's nuclear ambitions could prove to be the greatest foreign policy mistake of the past decade. Punching holes in nonproliferation regimes, encouraging both India and Pakistan to subsidize the U.S. military industrial complex, and viewing the subcontinent purely through the eyes of the GWOT were all serious, serious errors.


India has had nuclear weapons since the 70's and Pakistan since the 80's. Obama, Bush Sr. and Jr., and Clinton really had no input in the matter. And even so, India was nominally Soviet aligned, and Pakistan's nuclear program was built up very secretly by defecting European scientists (of Pakistani descent). Both programs were started because the countries were faced with a perceived existential threat: Pakistan from India's nukes, and India from China's nukes (Who in turn were threatened by Soviet and American nukes...). But, yeah, I suppose the U.S. should have enforced global hegemony and everything is Bush/Obama's fault...
 
2013-01-23 02:45:18 AM  
Whaddaya expect from a buncha idiots that shun beef?
 
2013-01-23 02:48:51 AM  

Buffet: Whaddaya expect from a buncha idiots that shun beef?


Some Asian countries say that about us and dogs
 
2013-01-23 02:49:11 AM  
Step 1: Instill fear in the population.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit?
 
2013-01-23 02:50:29 AM  
debug

What exactly is in Kashmir that these people want so badly?

They'd like to meet with a traveler of time and space.
 
2013-01-23 02:55:15 AM  

debug: What exactly is in Kashmir that these people want so badly?


Their homes. Half the people say they're Pakistani, half say they are Indian, and they're all mixed together. Of course, no one will compromise because any political party that supports such action would lose all support for abandoning citizens of India/Pakistan. This would result in people losing money/heads. There also may be oil reserves, but speculation about fossil fuel deposits is only a recent development.
 
2013-01-23 02:56:21 AM  
All I see turns to brown, as the sun burns the ground
 
2013-01-23 03:02:37 AM  

WeenerGord: How would global warming be affected by the nuclear death of some 5 billion people?


Nuclear winter would oppose global warming....
 
2013-01-23 03:05:16 AM  

Mad-n-FL: WeenerGord: How would global warming be affected by the nuclear death of some 5 billion people?

Nuclear winter would oppose global warming....


Yup. I used to have nightmares about that.
 
2013-01-23 03:06:31 AM  
I have it on good authority that salisbury steaks alone will last for at least 200 years.  Not to mention the Blamco Mac and Cheese.
 
2013-01-23 03:10:41 AM  
So if they do, will they be labeled terrorists like they do with us?

-Someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the Department of Justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist.-
 
2013-01-23 03:15:15 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2013-01-23 03:25:20 AM  
www.ilbe.com 2.bp.blogspot.comimages.wikia.com

You need to stock up on the good stuff with a long shelf life, like 200-year-old salisbury steak.
 
2013-01-23 03:26:33 AM  

Relatively Obscure: I have it on good authority that salisbury steaks alone will last for at least 200 years.  Not to mention the Blamco Mac and Cheese.


The trick is figuring out how to eliminate the radiation you picked up from eating it.
 
2013-01-23 03:43:30 AM  

generallyso: Relatively Obscure: I have it on good authority that salisbury steaks alone will last for at least 200 years.  Not to mention the Blamco Mac and Cheese.

The trick is figuring out how to eliminate the radiation you picked up from eating it.


Oh wait, the trick is finding a 200-yr-old salisbury steak that ISN'T from a cow.
 
2013-01-23 03:49:52 AM  
Does Pakistan even have an effective delivery method for multiple nukes at once? Does India for that matter?

To me that's the biggest deterrent to their use of nukes, they could only fire off a few and only locally before they lose capability and the rest of the world comes down on them like a sack of hammers.
 
2013-01-23 03:59:23 AM  

Lunchlady: Does Pakistan even have an effective delivery method for multiple nukes at once? Does India for that matter?

To me that's the biggest deterrent to their use of nukes, they could only fire off a few and only locally before they lose capability and the rest of the world comes down on them like a sack of hammers.


Well...they're right next to each other, so you wouldn't need very sophisticated rocketry (and a huge percentage of the major cities are close -> eastern border of Pakistan and Western coast of India), Both possess it.

There is nothing BUsh/Obama could have done about either's Nuclear weapons. That ship sailed a long time ago. India and Pakistan both officially tested their weapons in the late nineties, but they've had the capabilities for much longer than that (India tested in the 70s first, and they were soviet allied, while Pakistan was more US-allied).
 
2013-01-23 04:02:03 AM  

garkola: What about the cows?

Think of the cows!


i391.photobucket.com

Oh, they are...
 
2013-01-23 04:03:49 AM  

Brontes: Neither side has anything to gain in a nuclear war.  No way it will happen.


If they are stupid enough to think two weeks of food will last them, well, you never know what they are capable of.
 
2013-01-23 04:09:40 AM  

fisker: Brontes: Neither side has anything to gain in a nuclear war.  No way it will happen.

If they are stupid enough to think two weeks of food will last them, well, you never know what they are capable of.


It's been mentioned before, but it makes sense. Well, if only certain areas are nuked, it's not unreasonable. Especially if they think the nuclear war might be geographically limited to Kashmir. If it's an all out nuclear annihilation...then it doesn't really matter how much food you store.
 
2013-01-23 04:14:18 AM  

debug: What exactly is in Kashmir that these people want so badly?


That is like saying what has Cuba done that would justify an embargo for over 50 years (while China even while it was still an almost completely communist nation became a major trade partner). Two neighbouring nations that don't like each other will always find reasons to argue (which tends to prop up the government as they have a clear external enemy to help rally people behind them even if they are doing dodgy stuff domestically), and the reason is rarely of any actual strategic importance.
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report