right, sounds impressive until you realize that their goal is just to act tough in front of india. not sure if a nuke launched from pakistan would make it out of its borders
their nukes were built with the help of chinese scientists and pakistani’s who worked in the manhattan project prior.
pakistani nukes are legit.
Japan is sitting on two, three if you count Fukishima. Or is it the nukes sitting on them.
^haha ouch
It’s not the warheads he’s questioning. It’s the missiles. China doesn’t have good ICBM’s and the manhattan project had nothing to do with delivery.
Which brings up a question: Why haven’t we invented a more powerful bomb since 1950? We got to the hydrogen bomb and stopped. Sure, we can make bigger H-bombs, but I’m talking about altogether new technology.
We’re all about surgical precision today instead of maximum destruction. That’s not going to help when the aliens come.
"The Pentagon said 5,113 warheads were either operationally deployed, kept in active reserve or held in inactive storage. On a fact sheet detailing numbers that had been classified for decades, it said that the arsenal has been reduced by 84 per cent from its maximum level of 31,225 warheads at the end of 1967.
The only country to use nuclear weapons, the US has developed warheads up to 25 megatons, which would be thousands of times more powerful than either bomb used on Japan at the end of the Second World War. Most are in the 5 to 400 kiloton range."
Thirty one thousand!!!?
25 Megaton Nuclear Weapon:
A 25 Megaton blast would produce a destructive circle of 6.5 miles. Most buildings would be completely blown-out at a radius of 10.7 miles. The destruction would go a lot farther out than 250 miles.
In a 25 Megaton blast, people would be killed in two to fourteen days over 2,000 miles away. (A bomb dropped on NYC means people in Cuba will die)The populations of entire cities could be wiped out through a nuclear winter, where large amounts of debris and smoke from thousands of acres of city fires could lead to a virtual black-out of the sun. This would cause the earth’s temperatures to drop and creating a nuclear winter.
Gotta hand it to the Russians:
The Tsar Bomb - 57 Megatons. Capable of going to 100 but the Russians thought that might be a bit excessive.
Still, we need to develop something a little more 21st century. Our most powerful weapon was invented when people were watching black and white TVs.
I’d like to see deployable mini black holes. Why explode someone when you can crush them to a point of infinite density? I mean, aside from the fact it may get away from you and devour the entire solar system.
I assume you’ve been here? I enjoy this site more than I should. Interactive map allowing you to “deploy” a nuke and see what kind of damage it does.
All kidding aside, Japan, UK, Canada, and other NATO member forces are seriously capable. Nowhere close to US, but I’d definitely bet on Japan against China (yep) or UK+France against Russia. Japan hasn’t ramped up their defence capabilities because of the US protection but if they put their mind to it, China would be left in dust.
Per capita, Israelis are very capable, but overall just too small. It would be interesting (theoretically, not in real life considering the human cost) to see how an Israel vs Iran bout would turn out if Iran gets a lot of nukes and the systems to deliver them. Or today, Israel vs Iran + Pakistan (for nukes) + N Korea (for missiles.)
I have had fun on that site. I especially enjoyed droping nukes on old girlfriends’ homes and seeing how big it’d have to be before I got blowback.
Interestingly enough, the small nukes don’t seem to have nearly as much punch as I’d imagined. I got the sense that you could Hiroshimize Times Square and I’d be ok up here in Harlem, hanging out with CvM at Dinosaur BBQ, at least until we start breathing in any fallout.
I do rember when I lived in DC after Sept 11, 2001, and were worried whether AQ had nukes, we wondered what would be the effect of a Hiroshima sized bomb detonated in Lafayette Park in front of the White House, and the result was that I lived in an area that probably would not be killed instantly. The circles seem to confirm that, although how much time I’d have to linger before croaking wasn’t clear. (Actually, it looks like I’d have been crushed by my building collapsing if I were at home, and shredded by flying glass if I were at work.
Conclusion: much safer to nuke the Capitol than the White House, at least from where I lived. 
Also, the “duck and cover” videos of the 1950s were mostly about trying to protect people from flying glass and objects. If you were too close, you’d still get fried by heat and radiation, but if you were far enough away, your biggest threat was being too injured from flying debris (and burns) to get to help.
I love the disdain towards Russia. It’s hilarious. France more powerful than Russia? Good luck with that. Japan if it ramps up would be as powerful as China? Based on what? I guess you forget how difficult it is to “ramp up”. If you do not have the indigenous technogical base, you cannot suddenly start producing equipment regardless of how much money you throw at it. (ask India).
In actual warfighting capability I’d put it US, Russia, China. In technology I’d put it US, Russia, Israel=France. Israel is tough to place as they’re really advanced in certain things, like radar and avionics, and nonexistent in others.
Yeah, Russia is not the superpower it was in the 1960s and 1970s, but I get the sense that it could still overrun much of Western Europe if it wanted to (assuming the US were somehow not there to provide a security guarantee).
Perhaps the UK and France could provide a deterrent with nuclear weapons, but in a conventional war, they’d be toast.
The main problem with overrunning Western Europe, I suspect, is that it would be incredibly challenging to administrate and hold on to after it was conquered… but the actual combat capability is a different story.
The one caveat here is that I am not sure how much the Russian army has shrunk compared to the Soviet army: clearly that has had an impact, but Putin is all about making Russia a military power again. Technological sophistication may have lagged somewhat compared to the west (mostly because of resources taken from the military, not because of any incapacity to apply and deploy it). But Russia’s strategy was always to overwhelm with numbers more than overwhelm with technology.
I think you also need need to factor in two other things:
A) how ruthless the country is willing to be
B) how willing to accept casualties
There are lots of great countries like France with decent militarys, but the country itself just doesn’t have the cajones to deal with a 100k dead French soldiers, nor are the willing enough to just throw out the rule book and stright up murder civilians which is really necessary to win usually when you look at the history of war. (The US civil war might be the great exception here)
Contrast that with Russia, who loves to brag about how many tens of millions they lost stopping the Germans and who will happily suspend press freedom so they can commit “atrocities.” I fear Russia and China much more for these reasons than the euro zone. They have the will.
^ Also true. China has had like 7-8 genocides.
That is what worries me about India. Not their technological capabilities, which will grow substantially. But the idiots giving them orders. I can’t fathom how Hafiz Saeed (the creator of Mumbai attacks) just walks freely, if it was Israel, Russia, or US, he’d be obliterated.
Thats not true, where did you get that information? The sortie rate for carrier based aircraft is alot higher then using land based long range bombers. When your engaged with interdiction or close airsupport carrier based aircraft make all the difference in the world.
CT has a point, military might can be overwhelmed by unpopularity in a democracy - no such danger is Russia.
I think some people are seriously underestimating UK and France as far as military capabilities go, just IMHO.
Same with China vs Japan. The Japanese are not into showing strength but I think they are in the same position as US was before WWII, when no one including Roosevelt (who set the targets) believed that American manufacturing would gear up so fast in such a short time. If you put their backs up, the Japanese will crush the Chinese.
I understand India is a democracy and all, but I can’t seriously fathom them not destroying terrorist bases in Pakistan. They will never be taken seriously until they just up and bomb the bases. Bush was a fucking moron but one part of his redneck philosophy I agree with, is “if you kill us, we will kill you right back.” So I’ve heard the Gandhi quote “an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind” but nation states don’t exactly behave like individuals and “turn the other cheek” just doesn’t work.
The whole India / Pakistan thing is a joke. It’s not a real war and never was. The main casualties are cattle.
Its convenient because it gives the top brass on either side a reason to exist - it also gives their navies an excuse to buy things that they don’t need like carriers and top gun jets. For the average Indian / pakistani it’s a Bollywood spectacle that they enjoy. They get to have their side vs the bad guy. The only people that really might suffer are the Kashmiris who wish the paksitanis and Indians would both leave.
Check out that border dance off if you want an idea of what a joke this conflict is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9y2qtaopbE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Could you imagine this kinda stuff in a real conflict? Say, Stalingrad?
P.S.
if this thing ever did turn into a real conflict, which it won’t, India would wipe the floor with Pakistan even despite their nukes. Not even close.
This must be the manliest thread ever.