Jump to content







Photo
- - - - -

The Hypoethical Question Part 1

Posted by goferrarigo , 09 November 2007 · 204 views

So Pakistan is in emergency with Musharaf at the reins. The miltants first used to be in the outer tribal areas, have now got into cities and especially the madrassa(holy sites for Islam).

Now the main cause for concern is that Pakistan has a good ammount of Nuclear Bombs. Musharaf has said earlier(5-6 years ago) that the bombs are aimed at Delhi, Bangalore, Calcutta and Bombay(i live in Bombay), and only the launch codes are required to set them off.

So if the miltitants get hold of the launch codes and fire at either Afganistan(due to US presence) or India(arch-enemies), then how should the other country respond???(US or India) the gut reaaction would be to fire away the nukes which both countries have, but would that be right and acceptable to the world???





Eric
Nov 18 2007 03:04 AM
To nuke them back is to be a hypocrite.

But is it better to be a hypocrite or be dead?

It is kind of like self-defense.  If someone threatens to beat you up, but doesn't, and then you beat them up before they beat you up, is it right or wrong?  It technically isn't self-defense.  But if you're dead, can you defend yourself?

That is why no one replied to this: there is no answer.  To criticise leaders on their decisions is easy, but to be the leader himself is not.
  • Report

Max Mosley
Dec 17 2007 08:11 PM
If militants got hold of the nukes and used them without provocation, then India or the USA would clearly want to take urgent measures to defend themselves.  Ideally they would invade Pakistan and regain control of the nukes.  Failing that, perhaps they could mount a missile or air strike to destroy the remaining nukes.  If the countries have missile defence capabilities then that might also solve the issue.  If India knows roughly where the militant leaders are, which probably it does, then they could eliminate them by various means.

Of course the dilemma is if India has to choose between accepting considerable loss of Indian life, and nuking large parts of Pakistan.  If I were Indian I'm sure I would be willing to do the latter to save myself.  Speaking more impartially, it's very hard to decide.  I don't think the world would care too much, considering America already faced this dilemma in many ways at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It's very different if India launches a pre-emptive nuclear strike: that would be unacceptable imho, unless it was one using small, smart nukes to only attack a very small area.
  • Report

goferrarigo
Sep 17 2008 03:33 AM

Murray Walker, on Dec 17 2007, 03:11 PM, said:

If militants got hold of the nukes and used them without provocation, then India or the USA would clearly want to take urgent measures to defend themselves.  Ideally they would invade Pakistan and regain control of the nukes.  Failing that, perhaps they could mount a missile or air strike to destroy the remaining nukes.  If the countries have missile defence capabilities then that might also solve the issue.  If India knows roughly where the militant leaders are, which probably it does, then they could eliminate them by various means.

Of course the dilemma is if India has to choose between accepting considerable loss of Indian life, and nuking large parts of Pakistan.  If I were Indian I'm sure I would be willing to do the latter to save myself.  Speaking more impartially, it's very hard to decide.  I don't think the world would care too much, considering America already faced this dilemma in many ways at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It's very different if India launches a pre-emptive nuclear strike: that would be unacceptable imho, unless it was one using small, smart nukes to only attack a very small area.
Sorry for replying after ages to your post.. But i didn't think anyone else except Eric replied to this...

India has a no first use nuke policy (Only China, North korea and India have this policy. Though India has in the most explict way... http://en.wikipedia....i/No_first_use)

Generally, when terrorists would get hold of a bomb they would want to announce their feat to the world so as to create panic but most likely after their speech they will fire it and there is a very short time frame for the bomb to reach it's destination. So only retaliation is an option not defense per say...

The main point when i posted this blog was that Hypothetically the bomb went off in Bombay or Delhi (Financial Capital/ Capital). Then how should the counrty react a same size bomb in the area where the terrorist is or dipomacy or invasion??
  • Report

← May 2013 →

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122 23 2425
262728293031 

Recent Entries

Recent Comments

Disclaimer

This blog contains my personal views and does not represent TotalF1.com in any way.


This website is unofficial and is not associated in any way with the Formula One group of companies. F1, FORMULA ONE, FORMULA 1, FIA FORMULA ONE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, GRAND PRIX and related marks are trade marks of Formula One Licensing B.V.

  1. GPToday.com Forums
  2. → Community Blog
  3. → AJ's Blog
  4. → The Hypoethical Question Part 1
  5. GPT Forum Terms & Rules