NO
No
"The greatest purpose of knowledge is the abundance of inspiring thoughts."
Hell yeah, wait what was the question?
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif
Seriously no.
Ours is not to reason why;
Ours is but to do and die
pakistan has the right to use nuclear weapons against india.but it should forsee the repercussion too...
That depends on the exact situation.
What do you think they were made for?? Nuclear club members will use if their security is threatned. You see any problem with that?
Yes. Whilst nuclear attacks on population centres should only be carried out if India initiates such an exchange, after 3-4 weeks of conventional war Pakistan's armed forces will run critically low on supplies. In this case, the use of low-yield tactical warheads will become necessary so as to disperse Indian military formations concentrating for attacks.
[This message has been edited by mAd_ScIeNtIsT (edited April 08, 2002).]
If a full scale conventional war carries on for 3-4 weeks, both India and Pakistan would have done enough damage to each other to put both countries infrastructure back 20 years. There will be no need for Nuclear Weapons.
This is not 1965 or 1971. Both countries have very powerful conventional weapons and delivery systems.
depends on situation...
[quote]
Originally posted by 2bornot2b:
If a full scale conventional war carries on for 3-4 weeks, both India and Pakistan would have done enough damage to each other to put both countries infrastructure back 20 years. There will be no need for Nuclear Weapons.
[/quote]
Nuclear weapons, in an exchange initiated by Pakistan, should in no way target India's infrastructure. The weapons' usage should be strictly limited to militry formations that pose a threat to the territorial integrity of Pakistan.
That would be suicide... Hell, No!
“w*Hy is **It thaT* i*F* y*Ou kiLL* a Man in wa*R* y*Ou aRe a hEro,* but
if you k*Ill a maN* out*Side of **War you are callEd a murdeRer *?**”
use of nukes comes from more emtional hatred
between both nations than from rational
thinking. even if india and pakistan
can take over each other the situation on the ground would not change that much
as compared to nulcealr war.
YES, especially if Pakistan's integrity and sovereignity comes under stress.
[This message has been edited by zaavia (edited April 08, 2002).]
I am sorry to say but some of our forum members reply is not clear. To avoid this please write
YES or NO
I never realised there is people like 2bornot2b. Huh
Fight for Justice
[This message has been edited by Shadab (edited April 09, 2002).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Shadab:
**some of our forum members reply is not clear. To avoid this please write
YES / NO.
**
[/quote]
YES / NO.
[This message has been edited by 2bornot2b (edited April 09, 2002).]
To clarify ..... - YES
No
There are probably people that would think this issue, does not concern me, but I think it does, for the simple fact that we all share the same Earth, and of course the fall out from such an event would go everywhere. Not to mention the fact that I would not want to see so many people killed in such a horrible way. I have read what happens to a person when they die from radiation, and it sounds like the worst death you can imagine.
The problem with using nuclear weapons is very clear to me. If Pakistan used nuclear weapons against India, India would then return them. So who win? Noboday!!!
So do I think Pakistan or any other country for that matter should use nuclear weapons, I say a big huge NO!!!
Brenda McLennan
No, unless (Like the President said) Pakistan is about to be wiped off the face of the earth.
I am against nuclear weapons however I am even more against Pakistan's national integrity being broken. Hey if Pakistan going to hell, the invaders MUST suffer as well.
The eyelids of a Rajputs eyes are lowered only in death.