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 15
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-23 02:42:53 AM
4 votes:
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 12:56:28 AM
3 votes:

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 02:35:36 AM
2 votes:

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


Sweaters.
2013-01-23 01:24:00 AM
2 votes:
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 06:17:18 AM
1 votes:
Somewhere there is a producer at Fox News trying to come up with a way to blame this on Obama.
2013-01-23 04:14:18 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-23 04:09:40 AM
1 votes:

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 02:56:21 AM
1 votes:
All I see turns to brown, as the sun burns the ground
2013-01-23 02:45:18 AM
1 votes:
Whaddaya expect from a buncha idiots that shun beef?
2013-01-23 02:31:01 AM
1 votes:
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
2013-01-23 02:26:10 AM
1 votes:
<
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 02:08:32 AM
1 votes:
Or more likely, two weeks is viewed as long enough to re-establish supply lines to those who survive.
2013-01-23 02:05:29 AM
1 votes:
It may be more along the lines of what they can stockpile, rather than what they would prefer to stockpile.
2013-01-23 01:50:29 AM
1 votes:
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 01:00:27 AM
1 votes:
Obviously they're not Mormon
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report