thanks for the fantasy paper from Mr. Ramana.. can I quote Dr. Strangelove?
Colin Powell intervened to put a leash on Americas puppet.. Its Ultimately US is who is responsible if ever Pakistan uses Nuclear weapons on India.. Its US who let its favorite terrorist buddy to acquire nukes..

Aha! The usual American propaganda machinery at work. American nukes are a FAR BIGGER threat to humankind than probably Pakistani and most certainly Indian ones are.

If the US was soooo concerned about India and Pakistan blowing themselves up into smithereens, why was Pakistan waived the restrictions imposed by the Symington Amendment under the Reagan administration, when earlier, Z. a. Bhutto had made Pakistan’s intention crystal clear: “Pakistanis will eat grass but will make nuclear bombs”?

An Indian arsenal by itself is no more of a threat than, say, the British arsenal, don’t you think?

> “The result being entire cities
> burned to cinders in a flash�
>
> threat perception American Style..

Well, maybe you might see it that way if you reviewed the following publication by a left-wing organization here, but it’s true enough. Don’t forget that Colin Powell was sent to you and Pakistan to convince you not to go to war just a few years ago. You had people in Pakistan’s military saying, “Why not?” when asked about nuclear war. You have exchanged threats not only to destroy each others’ cities, but to deliberately strike nuclear reactors to breach their containments and deliberately subject the lands on the Subcontinent to extremely high and long-lasting activity levels. Your structures are inferior compared to Western standards, and your cities are much more croweded than ours, a recipe for collapse and inferno after a nuclear strike, as this leftist organization’s publication describes. I wish I could have heard Colin Powell’s briefings to your and to Pakistan’s government with the casualty figures and the descriptions of the consequences you would face on the Subcontinent.

Bombing Bombay?

M. V. Ramana

http://www.ippnw.org/bombay.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/junwalla/bombingbombay.doc

Scientists Bridge Political Divide

“Taking as his starting point the size of bombs that were used on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Ramana comes to the chilling conclusion that the number of deaths in Bombay resulting from attack by a single nuclear bomb could range somewhere between 160,000 and 860,000.”

“Ramana’s Pakistani colleague, Mian, agrees that the effect of a nuclear attack on Bombay is typical of what would happen to other cities in South Asia. A former member of the teaching staff at Qaid-eAzam University in Islamabad, Mian says, ‘The only variables are local population density – in other words, how many people per square kilometer. The only key variable to differentiate an attack on Bombay from an attack on Rawalpindi is what is the actual population density per square kilometer around the region where the bomb explodes.’

Mian was a sounding board for Ramana while he was writing up his research. He since has participated in a separate study of nuclear bombing in South Asia, looking specifically at Bangalore, Bombay, Calcutta, New Delhi and Madras in India, and Faisalabad, Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore and Rawalpindi in Pakistan. ‘If we looked at just prompt fatalities it was 300,000 in Bangalore, 500,000 in Bombay, 350,000 in Calcutta, 365,000 in Madras and almost 200,000 in New Delhi,’ Mian explains.

For the Pakistani side, he continues, ‘it was 330,000 in Faisalabad, 150,000 in Islamabad, 240,000 in Karachi because it’s spread out, about 250,000 in Lahore and about 180,000 in Rawalpindi.’

These figures since have been dwarfed by U.S. intelligence estimates that as many as 30 million could be killed in a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. The discrepancy in the casualty figures is explained by the assumption of U.S. intelligence analysts that any nuclear-bombing raids would not be confined to five cities on either side of the border. Indeed, if nuclear war were prolonged, according to yet another estimate prepared by U.S. Air Force intelligence, casualties could reach 100 million.”

http://www.inesap.org/bulletin22/bul22art09.htm

“A U.S. intelligence assessment released this week warned that a full-scale nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, whose bitter dispute over Kashmir continues to escalate, could immediately kill up to 12 million people. Assuming that both countries would use most but not all of their nuclear arsenals, the report argued that the combined blasts would immediately draw American forces into the conflict. With millions dead and up to 7 million people wounded, the world would collectively have to respond.”

“Both Indian and Pakistani leaders seem more willing than ever to use nuclear weapons. On Thursday, Pakistan threatened once again to use its nuclear weapons. And Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has spoken repeatedly of the need for a ‘decisive battle.’ He’s defended his country’s right to use its nuclear weapons, which are at least 10 times as powerful as Pakistan’s, according to India’s claims. Plus, the political party that Vajpayee leads — the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party — is considered by many to be the political wing of a rising racial and Hindu mythology that lends itself to extremism.”

“Pakistan remains the more likely nuclear actor. Unlike India, Pakistan has never sworn off the possibility of a first strike. Its standing army is weaker than India’s, so it relies more heavily on nuclear power. In fact, Pakistani officials often argue that nuclear weapons are the country’s most viable defense. As Munir Akram, Pakistan’s new ambassador to the United Nations, said Thursday, ‘India should not have the license to kill with conventional weapons while Pakistan’s hands are tied regarding other means to defend itself.’

There are also signs that high-ranking members of the Pakistani military favor an even more aggressive nuclear stance. For example, the secretary to ousted leader Benazir Bhutto, Brig. Gen. Amanullah, as quoted in the March issue of the Atlantic, said that ‘We should fire at them and take out a few of their cities — Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta.’ Later in the article, he added, ‘Before I die, I hope I should see it.’”

“Ramana’s estimate of 160,000 to 860,000 dead, says Makhijani, is actually conservative.

‘He’s only talking about one nuclear weapon,’ Makhijani says. ‘If more than one were used, that kind of effect would reinforce itself. The dislocation of the fires would be worse. There’d be no exit for injured people, especially in a place like Bombay, which is an island, and which doesn’t have sufficient medical facilities.’”

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/05/31/doomsday/index.html?pn=1

Have you tried reasoning with your pwwecious Anglo-saxon brethren right across the Atlantic:

(i) Why they have their own arsenal of 150 nukes (which I doubt you would call “primitive” despite similar capabilities as the Indian one),

(ii) Why unlike the Indian arsenal, theirs does not suddenly become a “threat” (in spite of its proven aggressive nature that culminated in the invasion of Iraq), and more importantly,

(iii) what business your own nation had to jointly conduct a (sub kT) nuclear test in Nevada as recently as in 2006?

I am not proud of India’s nuclear weapons either. Our precious resources could be put to much better use elsewhere.

A few very obvious discrepances on your comments:

1. INDIA’S ARSENAL IS BEING DISMISSED AS PRIMITIVE, YET BEING USED AS A JUSTIFICATION BY THE USA TO RETAIN ITS OWN ACCORDING TO WHITE AGENT On one hand you claim that India’s nukes are “primitive”, and on the other, you say that “As long as nations have nuclear weapons we cannot get rid of ours”. Somehow India’s 200 nukes become enough threat to you to hang on to your 10,000 vastly superior arsenal.

2. INDIA’S ECONOMY IS LARGER THAN RUSSIA’S, WHOSE ARSENAL IS COMPARABLE TO AMERICA’S We happen to be a “third world” nation (I find the term to be disgusting and racist). Yet, owing to our sheer size, we happen to be a bigger economy than your greatest adversary, Russia.

3. THE AMERICAN ARSENAL WAS SMALLER THAN INDIAS FOR ALMOST TWO DECADES AFTER WW-II You said you developed nuclear weapons during WW-II. Actually, you should read up more on your history. At the end of WW-II, your arsenal was primitive by even Pakistani standards. India’s arsenal today is comparable to what you had much later, at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. Your present arsenal was developed much after WW-II.

4. INDIA HAS A NO-FIRST USE POLICY, AMERICA IS THE ONLY NATION TO HAVE USED NUKES: May I remind you that you are the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons. India on the other hand has a strict no-first use policy. Your nation is reckless, avaricious, and stupid. We possess wisdom of the ages (as does China BTW). We are going through a bad time, that is all.

5. CLIMATE CHANGE MAKES TOMORROW’S WORLD FROUGHT WITH DANGER. POSSESSING NUKES IS AN INSURANCE AGAINST ADVENTURISM BY A SUPERIOR FOE Interestingly, you also commented that at the time the US developed nuclear weapons (WW-II), the fate of the world was uncertain. If you were to read up on climate change, you would find that the world is far more uncertain today than during WW-II. Countries will go to war over limited resources. India will stand to lose substantially, as will China, Pakistan, and your good friend Iran, owing to a mess that you caused.

Shameless hypocrisy I say!

In fact, with America’s gred for oil, and scant regard for basic human dignity in other nations (c.f. Iraq), I recommend that Iran, N. Korea, and any other country capable of doing so, better develop nuclear weapons.

1. Its a huge expense, therefore less money for welfare.
2. Superiority in conventional weapons is made negligible. Now India is not really much powerful than Pakistan because the possession of Nuclear weapons on both sides.
3. The moral high ground in international politics is lost.
4. Today war has taken the form of terrorism and nuclear weapons are not useful for that.

But countries have to develop a strong defense keeping in mind that future is unpredictable. Therefore India needs nuclear defense.

And given your lack of any military knowledge or any merit in
philosophy, you are not entitled to reply in the dominant tone
you used in this blog.

The nuclear missile is something to condemned, but you are
racist when you say that a demographically giant-sized country
is not entitled to many x-category weapons for its protection
whereas countries 1/10 th its size or 1/30 are supposed to
have a natural right to possessing them.

Dont take your own narcissistic comments too seriously

That’s what YOU think. *grin*

> There aren’t oil resources at stake.

Gee, an answer about as worthy as the question (less than zero in both cases).

Exactly, including being treated that way by China itself.

And it can show Pakistan that India’s [range] is longer.

threat perception American Style.. if that is the case why doesn’t US get rid of all its Nuclear Weapons and set an example for us to follow.. India was the first country to advocate world-wide nuclear disarmament.. look where it got us. US deliberately allowed Pakistan to acquire nukes..

Trust me we are wiser, we are no more into Gandhian philosophy nor do we require US nuclear deal.. I hope the nuclear deal falls through. Bush must be naive to think he can arm-twist India into signing NPT by offering nuclear-tech cooperation.. He will get a new lesson in statesmanship Indian style..

>I’m not proud of our nuclear weapons.
We are also not proud of nuclear weapons. Thats why, india asked to scrap all nuke weapons from world….what did it get? — NPT, CTBT– which prohibits other states from nuke & allows just for USA, china etc to produce it?

>Where are the hawks demanding a preemptive strike on India?
> … so why in God’s name would we strike her?
>How about for not abiding by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?
>Yes, I know that India is not a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty yet another reason to attack!!

Are u gone mad in saying that? Be rational…attacking india…u must be kidding…Dont you?
whichever does not fall in line, strike on it…that seems yours policy….dont consider India in line with Afghan or iraq or iran…From USA’s point of view, rest of world is third world…that is their biggest problem
its great democracy, great economy…i admire that, In fact i love USA for all reasons
but its policies are ridiculous………….
WHO ARE YOU to strike a country for not signing a document/treaty-NPT?
A treaty which is just not on foundation of equality …NPT?

Every Individual/Nation has its own honest opinion, it may agree with or may not agree with your opinion. I find Americans take it personal, Why??

I think Americans have ” White man`s burdon” Syndrom.

Bushco knows better than that

Too Funny! Bushcoâ„¢ ‘Don’t Know Jack’

My entire post was meant point out the transparancy of the Man at 1600 asinine attempt to justify attacking Iraq for exactly the same reason… Guess snark works.

@White Agent:

I think India is in fact being wiser by improving its nuclear deterrents. With so many vultures around, its the wisest thing to do ! Agreed , we are not world power … yet. But so called ‘world powers’ can’t do without India.

India is not a world power. India is a third world nation aquiring nuclear weapons. Its sad for me, because of all nations, I would have thought India was wiser than this.

… so why in God’s name would we strike her?

How about for not abiding by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?

That is The Reason (acording to Bushco The Only reason) for his obligation to attack Iran. It would seem reasonable… nay manditory… that we attack India, too, if only for consistancy and, of course, the Bush Legacyâ„¢.