India and Pakistan Closer to Nuclear War (Revelation 8 )

A man stands in front of his damaged house Sunday after cross-border shelling in Jora in the Neelum Valley of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (Sajjad Qayyum/Afp Via Getty Images)

India and Pakistan trade fire in Kashmir, killing nine

By Joanna Slater

October 20, 2019 at 3:05 PM EDT

NEW DELHI — India and Pakistan exchanged fire across the line dividing the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir on Saturday and Sunday, killing nine civilians and soldiers, according to authorities in both countries.

It was one of the deadliest sequences this year at the Line of Control, the highly militarized frontier where soldiers from the two countries regularly trade small-arms and artillery fire.

The barrage came amid increased tension between the nuclear-armed rivals.

In August, India withdrew Kashmir’s semiautonomous status, shut down communications in the region and detained thousands of people. The moves incensed Pakistan, which considers itself the defender of Kashmiri Muslims.

India accuses Pakistan of stoking a three-decade insurgency against Indian rule in Kashmir by sending fighters and arms across the Line of Control. Pakistan denies the accusations.

India detains prominent Kashmiri leader under law critics call draconian

People gather during funeral prayer for victims of the cross-border shelling. (Sajjad Qayyum/Afp Via Getty Images)

Five civilians and one soldier were killed on Pakistan’s side of the Line of Control, a spokesman for the Pakistani army said Sunday. Two Indian soldiers and one civilian were also killed, a spokesman for the Indian Defense Ministry said.

India and Pakistan claimed to have killed larger numbers of the other country’s soldiers in the incident, but such assertions could not be verified independently.

Gen. Bipin Rawat of the Indian Army told reporters that the exchange began when militants attempted to cross into Indian-controlled territory. Pakistan rejected the accusation and said India’s firing was “indiscriminate and unprovoked.”

Exchanges of fire across the Line of Control have increased in recent years, an ongoing confrontation that some analysts have called a “war by other means.”

The two countries reached a cease-fire agreement in 2003, and for several years, relative calm prevailed on the de facto frontier in Kashmir. Since 2014, however, cease-fire violations have jumped.

Pakistani Kashmiri women mourn around the body of a family member who was killed in firing by Indian forces. (M.D. Mughal/AP)

Last year was the worst year in 15 years for such cross-border firings, according to data from the independent Indo-Pak Conflict Monitor. Each side reported 2,000 or more incidents.

The fear of escalating into the first nuclear war (Revelation 8 )

Dr Rabia Akhtar speaks at the PIIA on Friday.—Shakil Adil / White Star

The fear of escalation between India and Pakistan is very real’

Shazia Hasan

KARACHI: “Today is the 75th day of the brutal curfew in India-held Kashmir invoking a nuclear threat,” said Dr Rabia Akhtar, director of a policy research centre and a member of the prime minister’s advisory council on foreign affairs.

She was speaking at a programme titled ‘Kashmir: a Nuclear Flashpoint’ at the Pakistan Institute of International Affairs on Friday.

“Since February, when India attacked Pakistan in Balakot, people have been worried. But during the Balakot strikes, Prime Minister Imran Khan refrained from the ‘N’ word. Neither did the DG ISPR mention it,” she continued.

A member of the PM’s advisory council on foreign affairs says going to war over Kashmir will not go well with a broken economy

“When the prime minister visited the United States earlier in July and met President Trump there, he told him about the Kashmir crisis. Then he comes back and faces the August 5 development there with India revoking the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir. Earlier, it was Syria, Iran, the Turks and the Kurds whom the world watched and spoke about but India has internationalised Kashmir,” she said.

Dr Akhtar, who is the director of the Centre for Security, Strategy and Policy Research (CSSPR), said that in a January 2002 interview, former adviser to Pakistan’s National Command Authority and pioneer director general of the Strategic Plans Division retired Lt Gen Khalid Kidwai had mentioned four thresholds for Pakistan in case India attacked Islamabad such as the special threshold, the military, economic and socio-political threshold. “At the time, our forces were on a 10-month stand-off,” she explained.

She said that literature written by Western scholars on the issue showed Pakistan as the weaker power that must maintain escalation dominance.

They say that Pakistan will be first to use nuclear weapons,” she said, adding: “But, there always used to be a third-party intervention in crisis termination until the Pulwama incident when Pakistan unconditionally released India’s pilot. It was unprecedented behaviour from Pakistan.”

“Still, the Indian media said that it was Pakistan’s weakness which made us do that. Not much credit has been given to Pakistan in crisis termination in the Pulwama and Balakot crisis but not only did we release their pilot we also kept our strikes way over the Line of Control [LoC]. So literature needs to be re-written as Pakistan is not really predictable,” Dr Akhtar pointed out.

“India believes that Pakistan should accept what India did on Aug 5 as fait accompli and any firing from this side will be seen by them as an act of war. Therefore, Pakistan needs to wait till the curfew in India-held Kashmir is lifted. Going to war over Kashmir will not go well with a country with a broken economy,” she added.

“In any crisis situation between Pakistan and India, Kashmir as India says is the only point of dispute with Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan ‘saffronises’ India. But we don’t know this India. We have never dealt with Hindu [nationalism]. Modi is here for the next five years and after him there are going to be more like him. We are not developing strategies looking at this,” she said.

The fear of escalation is very real. There is currently no third party interested in intervening too. The US has its hands full with other things, China doesn’t want to interfere, the Arab nations’ attitude is also quite clear. So no one wants to take India head on. Besides, they see Kashmir as an internal matter and not bilateral. India is talking of Jammu & Kashmir as its jurisdiction and we here want to go back to before Aug 5. We want peace,” she said.

“Pakistan going to war and Pakistan posing for war are different things. We have been saying ‘Kashmir banayga Pakistan’ [Kashmir will be Pakistan] for over 72 years now but there has been lack of action from us since Aug 5,” she said, adding that the situation was tense as the people here did not want to hear about economic matters in case of war. They only care of the plight of the people of India-held Kashmir.

“If the people take it on themselves to cross the Line of Control, we have a problem,” she concluded.

Published in Dawn, October 19th, 2019

India’s Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Keeps Getting Bigger Before the First Nuclear War

India’s Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Keeps Getting Bigger and Bigger

October 19, 2019, 12:30 PM MDT

Key Point: India has its nukes pointed at China and Pakistan, two other nuclear powers.

India is estimated to have produced enough military plutonium for 150 to 200 nuclear warheads, but has likely produced only 130 to 140,” according to Hans Kristensen and Matt Korda of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. “Nonetheless, additional plutonium will be required to produce warheads for missiles now under development, and India is reportedly building several new plutonium production facilities.”

In addition, “India continues to modernize its nuclear arsenal, with at least five new weapon systems now under development to complement or replace existing nuclear-capable aircraft, land-based delivery systems, and sea-based systems.”

Unlike the missile-centric U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, India still heavily relies on bombers, perhaps not unexpected for a nation that fielded its first nuclear-capable ballistic missile in 2003. Kristensen and Korda estimate India maintains three or four nuclear strike squadrons of Cold War-vintage, French-made Mirage 2000H and Jaguar IS/IB aircraft targeted at Pakistan and China.

“Despite the upgrades, the original nuclear bombers are getting old and India is probably searching for a modern fighter-bomber that could potentially take over the air-based nuclear strike role in the future,” the report notes. India is buying thirty-six French Rafale fighters that carry nuclear weapons in French service, and presumably could do for India.

India’s nuclear missile force is only fifteen years old, but it already has four types of land-based ballistic missiles: the short-range Prithvi-II and Agni-I, the medium-range Agni-II and the intermediate-range Agni-III. “At least two other longer-range Agni missiles are under development: the Agni-IV and Agni-V,” says the report. “It remains to be seen how many of these missile types India plans to fully develop and keep in its arsenal. Some may serve as technology development programs toward longer-range missiles.”

The Sobering Stats of the First Nuclear War (Revelation 8 )

Predictive analytics assesses an India-Pakistan nuclear war

A new study, from University of Colorado at Boulder, shows that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan would, over less than a week, kill 50-125 million people. This short persuade of time would exceed the death toll during the entire time period of World War II (a six year period of global conflict).

To arrive at these figures, the researchers used predictive analytics and computer modelling. Inputs into the model included geographies, populations and the statistic that India and Pakistan each possess around 150 nuclear warheads. The model also looked slightly into the future, noting that the number of weapons is expected to rise to more than 200 by 2025.

It is difficult to assess how powerful each bomb would be, given the lack of nuclear testing in recent years. Furthermore, much depends where each weapon is directed. However, it is predicted that each weapon could kill up to 700,000 people. According to lead researcher Dr. Brian Toon: “An India-Pakistan war could double the normal death rate in the world. This is a war that would have no precedent in human experience.”

Beyond the immediate impact, there are risks that a nuclear conflict could plunge the entire planet into a severe cold spell, here temperatures could mirror those seen during the last Ice Age (the theoretical ‘nuclear winter’).

These findings were based on running computer simulations relating to potential effects on the Earth’s atmosphere, with some of the data drawn from readings relating to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945.

In relation to the impact of the weapon son the climate, each weapon fired could release 80 billion pounds of thick, black smoke into Earth’s atmosphere. The loss of temperature is the effect of blocking out sunlight.

The research has been published in the journal Science Advances, with the research paper titled “Rapidly expanding nuclear arsenals in Pakistan and India portend regional and global catastrophe.”

A War Between Pakistan And India Will Kill 2 Billion (Zechariah 13)

A War Between Pakistan And India Could Kill Billions (If It Went Nuclear)

Kyle Mizokami

October 13, 2019, 7:36 AM UTC

Key point: Even a small skirmish could escalate into a doomsday scenario.

It’s distinctly possible that any future war between India and Pakistan would involve limited action on the ground and full-scale fighting at sea and in the air. India has the upper hand in both, particularly at sea where it would have the ability to blockade Pakistani ports. Pakistan imports 83% of its gasoline consumption, and without sizable reserves the economy would feel the effects of war very quickly. An economic victory, not a purely military one might be the best way to decisively end a war without the use of nuclear weapons.

With that scenario in mind, let’s look at several Indian weapons Pakistan would fear most in a war.

INS Vikramaditya Aircraft Carrier

Commissioned in November 2013, INS Vikramaditya is the newer and more modern of India’s two aircraft carriers. In the event of war, Vikramaditya would lead an offensive at sea designed to sweep the Pakistani Navy from the field. The nightmare scenario for Pakistan would be Vikramaditya parked off the coast of Karachi, Pakistan’s largest port, enforcing a naval blockade.

Originally built for the Soviet Navy as the anti-submarine aviation cruiser Baku, Vikramaditya was mothballed in 1996 after it became clear post-Cold War Russia could not afford to operate her. The ship was purchased by India in 2004, to be upgraded by Russian shipbuilders to a true aircraft carrier complete with angled flight deck. The updated design deleted all cruiser armament, including two 100mm deck guns, 192 SA-N-9 surface to air missiles and 12 SS-N-12 Sandbox anti-ship missiles.

Vikramaditya is 282 meters long and displaces 44,000 tons, making it less than half the displacement of American supercarriers. Nevertheless Vikramaditya’s powerful air wing is capable of executing air superiority, anti-surface, anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare. The carrier air wing is expected to consist of 24 MiG-29K or Tejas multi-role fighters and 10 anti-submarine warfare helicopters. India has ordered 45 MiG-29Ks, with the first squadron, 303 “Black Panthers” Squadron, stood up in May 2013.

The Pakistani and Iranian Horns Unite (Daniel 8:8)

Pakistan’s Imran Khan in Tehran to Meet Senior Officials

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan arrived in Tehran on Sunday morning for a visit that includes meetings with high-ranking Iranian officials.

Tasnim News Agency

The Pakistani premier has visited Iran for the second time in six months.

“In the framework of the longstanding and friendly relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Imran Khan will make his second visit to Iran this year within the agenda of close and friendly cooperation between the two countries,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Abbas Mousavi said in comments on Saturday.

He also noted that regional and international issues as well as the latest developments in bilateral relations between Iran and Pakistan are among the main topics of discussion in Imran Khan’s meetings during his one-day visit to Iran.

Regarding the possibility of Islamabad’s mediation between Tehran and Riyadh, Mousavi told IRNA that the mediation of Imran Khan is not on the agenda this time, but the latest and most important regional and international developments will be discussed.

If there is a misunderstanding it must be resolved, the Iranian spokesman stressed, saying the regional states must not allow the region to undergo developments that would let the third parties and trans-regional countries take advantage of the situation.

“The readiness of the Islamic Republic of Iran to negotiate with the countries of the region is a matter already announced, and our initiatives and plans have always been in line with such policy,” IFP quoted Mousavi as saying.

The End is a Religion Thing

‘It Goes by Religion’: Pakistani Army Spokesperson Defends Rajnath Singh Over Rafale ‘Shastra Puja’ Row

Performing the ritual, Rajnath Singh etched an ‘Om’ on the Rafale jet, adorned it with flowers and laid a coconut and lemons to ward off the evil eye. His actions have drawn strong criticism on social media as well as from the Opposition.

File photo of Pakistan army spokesperson Major General Asif Ghafoor (Image)

Breaking the habit of making indefatigable attacks against the Indian government, Pakistan army spokesperson Asif Ghafoor on Thursday came to the defence of union minister Rajnath Singh who has been under fire for performing ‘Shastra Puja’ after receiving the first Rafale jet in France and said that nothing is wrong in Rafale Puja ‘as it goes by the religion’.

Ghafoor in a tweet on Thursday said, “Nothing wrong in #RafalePuja as it goes by the religion and that must be respected. Please, remember….it’s not the machine alone which matters but competence, passion & resolve of the men handling that machine. Proud of our PAF Shaheens.”

His remarks also come at a time when tensions between the two nuclear-armed nations have peaked since August 5, when India downgraded the autonomy Jammu and Kashmir, downsizing it into two union territories and virtually imposed a communications blackout in the region.

Singh on October 8, received the first of the 36 French-built Rafale fighter jet in the French port city of Bordeaux and performed ‘Shastra Puja’ (worship of weapons) ahead of taking a sortie on the jet on the auspicious occasion of Vijayadashami.

Performing the ritual, he etched an ‘Om’ on the aircraft, adorned it with flowers and laid a coconut and lemons to ward off the evil eye. His actions have drawn strong criticism on social media as well as from the Opposition.

Senior leader Mallikarjun Kharge described Singh performing Shashtra Puja as “tamasha”. Congress leader Udit Raj also raised objections saying the day “superstition” ends in India, the country will start making its own fighter jets. Several leaders including Nationalist Congress Party chief Sharad Pawar had hit out saying it had been akin to a puja performed for a new truck.

However, Singh on Thursday hit back and said, “People can say whatever they want. I did what I thought was right and I will continue to do so. This is our faith, that there is a superpower and I have believed it since childhood.”

According to Defence Minister, the France visit had been a success and he had also held a 35-minute meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron.

“After induction of Rafale fighter aircraft, the combat capability of the Indian Air Force will increase. We don’t want to intimidate anyone by doing so. We will neither fear anyone nor will we intimidate,” ANI quoted the Defence Minister as saying.

New Study Forewarns of the Tribulation (Revelation 8 )

New US study warns: India-Pakistan Nuclear war can kill over 125 million people

By Abdus Sattar Ghazali, The Milli Gazette Online

Published Online: Oct 09, 2019

Amid rising tension over Kashmir between the two nuclear neighbors, India and Pakistan, a new US study examines how such an hypothetical future nuclear conflict would have consequences that could ripple across the globe.

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan could, over the span of less than a week, kill 50 to 125 million people that is more than the death toll during the six years of World War II, according to the research by Colorado University Boulder and Rutgers University.

The study published Wednesday said if India uses 100 strategic weapons to attack urban centers and Pakistan uses 150, fatalities could reach 50 to 125 million people, and nuclear-ignited fires could release 16 to 36 Tg of black carbon in smoke, depending on yield.

“The smoke will rise into the upper troposphere, be self-lofted into the stratosphere, and spread globally within weeks. Surface sunlight will decline by 20 to 35%, cooling the global surface by 2° to 5°C and reducing precipitation by 15 to 30%, with larger regional impacts. Recovery takes more than 10 years. Net primary productivity declines 15 to 30% on land and 5 to 15% in oceans threatening mass starvation and additional worldwide collateral fatalities,” the study added.

Rapidly expanding nuclear arsenals in Pakistan and India portend regional and global catastrophe, the study warned and added: Pakistan and India may have 400 to 500 nuclear weapons by 2025 with yields from tested 12- to 45-kt values to a few hundred kilotons.

The picture is grim. That level of warfare wouldn’t just kill millions of people locally, said CU Boulder’s Brian Toon, who led the research published in the journal Science Advances.

Here are excerpts of the US study conducted by ten experts:

Neither Pakistan nor India is likely to initiate a nuclear conflict without substantial provocation. India has declared a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons, except in response to an attack with biological or chemical weapons.

Pakistan has declared that it would only use nuclear weapons if it could not stop an invasion by conventional means or if it were attacked by nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the two countries have had four conventional wars (1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999) and many skirmishes with substantial loss of life since the partition of British India in 1947. Therefore, the possibility of conventional war becoming nuclear is of concern.

Chinese factor

India has one of the largest conventional militaries in the world, with about 1.4 million active duty personnel. India has not deployed tactical nuclear weapons. Indian nuclear strategy requires that a significant number of high-yield bombs be held back in case China joins a war on the side of Pakistan. Because Pakistan is a small country with only about 60 cities with more than 100,000 people, India would not need all of its 250 weapons to destroy Pakistan’s cities.

We assume that India will keep 100 nuclear weapons in its arsenal to deter China from entering the war. Chinese involvement would greatly amplify the destruction discussed below. As China expands its presence in Pakistan as part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which is an element of China’s broader “Belt and Road Initiative,” the odds of a Pakistani-Indian war spreading to China would appear to be increasing.

Urban targets

Of India’s 150 weapons that can be used against Pakistan, we assume that about 15% will fail. In this case, failure is primarily due to the weapons not being delivered or failing to explode. Most urban targets in Pakistan are so large that precise targeting is not needed to hit them. Therefore, our scenario suggests 125 weapons actually exploding.

We further assume that there are 25 targets in Pakistan that are isolated military bases or industrial facilities located in regions with low populations and little combustible material. We do not include these in computing fatalities or environmental damage. Therefore, we assume that India has 100 strategic nuclear weapons to use on urban counter-value targets or military counterforce targets that are located within urban areas, such as military bases, industrial facilities, oil refineries, nuclear weapons facilities, and airports.

Pakistan also has one of the largest militaries in the world, with about half as many active duty personnel as India has. We assume that, in 2025, Pakistan will have 50 tactical weapons with yields of 5 kt to be used against an invading Indian army.

We assume that 20% of these will fail or be overrun by the Indian Army. Many of these tactical weapons might be used in sparsely populated areas with little flammable material. Accordingly, we only consider the remaining 200 strategic weapons when computing fatalities or smoke created from fires.

Of these 200 strategic weapons, we assume that 15% will fail to be delivered to the target but that the remaining 170 will be detonated over their targets. We further assume that 20 of these explosions will be over isolated military, nuclear, or industrial areas. The balance, 150 weapons, will thus be used against India’s urban counter-value targets and military counterforce targets located within urban areas.”

War scenarios simulation

A crisis simulation exercise in Sri Lanka during 2013 organized by the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School and involving retired senior military and civilian analysts from India and Pakistan found that “a limited war in South Asia will escalate rapidly into a full war with a high potential for nuclear exchange”. In our scenario, with the Indian government having been severely damaged, the Indian Army brings a number of tanks to the border and crosses into Pakistan and also crosses the Line of Control in Kashmir.

On day 1 of the nuclear conflict, Pakistan uses 10 tactical atomic bombs with 5-kt yield inside its own borders with low air bursts against the Indian tanks.

The conflict continues on day 2 when Pakistan uses another 15 tactical weapons with 5-kt yield on the battlefield, whereas India detonates two air bursts against the Pakistani garrison in Bahawalpur and deploys 18 other weapons to attack Pakistani airfields and nuclear weapons depots, partially degrading Pakistani retaliatory capabilities.

Nevertheless, on day 3, Pakistan responds with a barrage of nuclear ballistic and cruise missiles on garrisons, weapon depots, naval bases, and airfields in 30 locations in Indian cities (30 air bursts with 15- to 100-kt yield each) plus another 15 tactical bursts with 5-kt yield. India also uses 10 strategic weapons against Pakistani military bases on day 3. Because of panic, anger, miscommunication, and protocols, escalation cannot be stopped now.

On days 4 to 7, cities in India are hit with 120 strategic weapons, and those in Pakistan are struck with 70 air bursts with 15- to 100-kt yield. In total, Pakistan’s urban areas are hit with 100 nuclear weapons using airbursts, and India’s urban areas are hit with 150 nuclear weapons using airbursts. In addition, Pakistan has used 40 tactical nuclear weapons successfully and 20 strategic weapons successfully on targets not in urban areas, whereas India has used 25 strategic weapons successfully on targets not in urban areas.

Even one nuclear weapon explosion in a city can do a great deal of damage. For example, in the most densely populated urban area in Pakistan, a 15-kt airburst at the optimum height to maximize blast damage could kill about 700,000 people and injure another 300,000. With a 100-kt airburst over the same region, roughly 2 million fatalities and an additional 1.5 million nonfatal casualties could occur. Similar numbers would result for nuclear explosions over large Indian cities.

World War II casualties

During WWII, it is estimated that about 50 million people were killed, not considering those who died from disease and starvation over 6 years. Because of the dense populations of cities in Pakistan and India, even a war with 15-kt weapons could lead to fatalities approximately equal to those worldwide in WWII and a war with 100-kt weapons could directly kill about 2.5 times as many as died worldwide in WWII, and in this nuclear war, the fatalities could occur in a single week.

The world’s annual death rate from all causes is about 56 million people per year. Therefore, a war between India and Pakistan in our scenario with 15-kt weapons could kill the same number of people in a week as would die naturally worldwide in a year, effectively increasing the immediate global death rate by a factor of 50. A regional catastrophe would occur if India and Pakistan were to engage in a full-scale nuclear war with their expanding arsenals.

India would suffer two to three times more fatalities and casualties than Pakistan because, in our scenario, Pakistan uses more weapons than India and because India has a much larger population and more densely populated cities. However, as a percentage of the urban population, Pakistan’s losses would be about twice those of India. In general the fatalities and casualties increase rapidly even up to the 250th explosion due to the high population in India, whereas the rate of increase for Pakistan is much lower even for the 50th explosion.

Conclusion

India and Pakistan may be repeating the unfortunate example set by the United States and Russia during the “cold war” era: that is, building destructive nuclear forces far out of proportion to their role in deterrence…. Compounding the devastation brought upon their own countries, decisions by Indian and Pakistani military leaders and politicians to use nuclear weapons could severely affect every other nation on Earth.

Abdus Sattar Ghazali is the Chief Editor of the Journal of America (www.journalofamerica.net) email: asghazali2011 (@) gmai.com

The First Nuclear Winter (Revelation 8 )

Students in Mumbai rally against nuclear weapons on the anniversary of the world’s first wartime use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima.

Study: a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could lead to a mini-nuclear winter – Vox

Kelsey PiperOctober 9, 2019 1:10 pm

Study: a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could lead to a mini-nuclear winter

Both countries are expanding their nuclear arsenals.

• By Kelsey Piper

• on October 9, 2019 1:10 pm

Himanshu Bhatt/NurPhoto via Getty Images

More than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons are held by the United States and Russia. The world’s other nuclear powers — Britain, China, France, Israel, India, and Pakistan — are believed to maintain much smaller arsenals, probably 100 to 300 warheads each. But in the past few years, India and Pakistan are believed to have expanded their nuclear capabilities.

And that, argues a new paper, is a recipe for disaster. In the paper, “Rapidly expanding nuclear arsenals in Pakistan and India portend regional and global catastrophe,” published last week in Science Advances, Owen Toon of the University of Colorado and co-authors analyze the effects of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan in 2025, if both countries continue to expand their nuclear capabilities as they reportedly currently are. Unsurprisingly, the expanded capabilities would make a nuclear exchange between the two countries deadlier and more devastating.

Even if no other country in the world got involved, the effects would be worldwide and devastating. It’s a reminder that having countries with nuclear weapons is a frighteningly unstable situation. While most attention may focus on the US and Russia, any two nuclear-armed countries are more than sufficient for a global catastrophe.

“A war with 15-kt weapons,” — or about the explosive force of the weapons deployed against Hiroshima and Nagasaki — “could lead to fatalities approximately equal to those worldwide in WWII and a war with 100-kt weapons could directly kill about 2.5 times as many as died worldwide in WWII, and in this nuclear war, the fatalities could occur in a single week,” write the authors.

That reflects just the direct effects of a nuclear exchange between the two countries — that is, the deaths caused by being near the bombs when they went off.

The paper also looks at another source of effects: deaths caused indirectly by changes to the climate and atmosphere. Many atmospheric scientists have modeled the effects of nuclear exchanges, and believe that large-scale use of nuclear weaponry would cause ozone destruction and large climate changes, due to the release of dust and ash both by the nuclear explosions and by subsequent firestorms.

The authors estimate “surface sunlight will decline by 20 to 35%, cooling the global surface by 2° to 5°C and reducing precipitation by 15 to 30%, with larger regional impacts.” This would be disastrous, leading to famines across much of the world. They forecast that it’d take more than 10 years for the global climate to return to normal and that, in the meantime, millions more people would die of starvation.

It’s worth noting that the atmospheric science estimates in this paper aren’t settled science. Researchers have produced many different models of the effects of nuclear exchanges on the climate and atmosphere. There’s a lot of uncertainty about whether nuclear exchanges would cool the planet, and for how long the effects would linger. And the scenario that the researchers studied is one that analysts considered plausible, but not the only scenario for war or for atmospheric effects. It should be considered a good starting point, but far from certain.

Nonetheless, the model suggests in more detail what we already knew: Nuclear war between India and Pakistan would be very, very bad, and the prospect gets worse as the two countries acquire more and more sophisticated nuclear weapons.

Of course, India and Pakistan are very unlikely to get into a nuclear war. The same principle of mutually assured destruction that held the United States and the Soviet Union away from nuclear conflict, even during decades of bitter enmity, applies here too. Very few politicians would want to launch a suicidal strike.

But despite the principle of mutually assured destruction, the US and the USSR frequently came terrifyingly close to nuclear exchanges. During the Kennedy administration, the two countries almost plunged the world into nuclear holocaust during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1983, a Soviet early warning system reported incoming American missiles. Rather than reporting a strike and potentially prompting a nuclear retaliation, the officer on duty concluded (correctly) that it was a false alarm: The system had picked up the sun’s reflection on clouds and mistook it for missiles. What if someone else had been on duty?

When rival nations have large nuclear arsenals, mistakes or unintended escalations or stupid decisions by leaders can be catastrophic. That makes India and Pakistan’s increasing arsenals nerve-wracking, and it makes the far larger arsenals maintained by the United States and Russia an ongoing cause for concern.

Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.

More Pakistani Terrorism Before the Nuclear War

Pak Reopens Terror Camps Along Border, Security Agencies On Alert

October 7, 2019

Safety personnel are bracing themselves for a soar in infiltration makes an attempt.

New Delhi:

Pakistan has reactivated all the phobia camps it had quickly shut down alongside the road of management, intelligence companies have reported, indicating the necessity for safety companies to brace themselves for a rise in infiltration makes an attempt within the days to come back.

Sources additionally counted 20 terror launch pads and 18 coaching centres amongst these camps, every accommodating a median of 60 terrorists.

Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated after the centre scrapped the particular standing accorded to Jammu and Kashmir on August 5 and imposed a region-wide clampdown to forestall a backlash. In his first speech delivered within the United Nations Common Meeting final month, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan warned of an impending battle between the 2 nuclear powers except New Delhi reconsidered its transfer.

The intelligence inputs got here a day after Jammu and Kashmir police chief Dilbag Singh reported the presence of 200-300 terrorists within the state and a rise in cross-border firing geared toward pushing in additional of them earlier than the onset of winter. “The number of active terrorists (in Jammu and Kashmir) is between 200 and 300… the figure keeps going up and down,” Mr Singh instructed reporters throughout a go to to the border district of Poonch on Sunday.

He mentioned that though Pakistan has resorted to ceasefire violations at many locations throughout Jammu and Kashmir, together with Kanachak, RS Pura, Hira Nagar, Poonch, Rajouri, Uri, Nambla, Karnah and Keran, they have not at all times succeeded in injecting terrorists into Indian territory. “Our anti-infiltration grid is very strong and many infiltration attempts have been successfully foiled in the recent times,” he mentioned.

Based on current intercepts, three prime terror organisations — the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hizbul Mujahideen and Jaish-e-Mohammad — even met at an undisclosed location in Pulwama final week to determine on terrorist strikes on politicians and safety personnel in Jammu and Kashmir in addition to different elements of the nation.

Nevertheless, working in India’s favour is an remark by the Monetary Motion Activity Power (FATF) – a worldwide money-laundering watchdog – that Pakistan has failed to completely implement a United Nations Safety Council decision towards designated terrorists similar to Hafiz Saeed. The report, which went on to say that Pakistan was largely compliant on solely 9 of FATF’s 40 suggestions, got here per week earlier than the company decides whether or not to retain Pakistan in a “grey list” of nations with insufficient management over terror financing.

India has lengthy advocated together with Pakistan into the FATF blacklist, which lists international locations adjudged as non-cooperative within the world battle towards cash laundering and terror financing, and sources mentioned diplomatic efforts on this regard are nonetheless on.