India To Invade In Two Weeks

[Moonbeam]

In the great Lawaris-Shomer Confligration of 2036 four billion people lost their lives and civilivation required another 3000 years to reach it's former glory. Historians have speculated for centuries as to the cause, but none has reliably been put forward. None the less, the persistant urbal legend that it grew form an Internet Forum persists. This is not without some foundation. Fragments of data tapes with Google cache and related surviving minutia contain tantelizing reference to a lawaris and a DaveShomer, as well as a sinister Red Dawn like the one that greated the world on that fateful Jan 2, 2036 morinng. Informed scholars and the intelligencia dismiss such theories as the palaver of the lunitic fringe. Serious people aren't likely to credit the death of billions to something so mundane. It is generally now recognized that the war had a greater purpose, but one now lost in the sands of time.

 

[Aquaman]

Originally posted by: hammer09
Thursday, June 6, 2002.

By Executive Order, I hereby name lawaris, Blackwolf the Dragonmaster.

No......... you can't just order that........... he must fight NFS4 for that title Nerd Combat with Filet O'Fish sandwiches

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[tcsenter]

I would wonder though, how many of those tests were underground? A good percentage I would think. Obviously any nuke used in a war would not be, just the opposite in fact. I don't think we should delude ourselves into thinking that somehow the after affects would somehow be minimal or acceptable.

According to the Center for Defense Information, the United States (several in conjunction with the UK) performed a total of 1054 nuclear tests involving detonation of a nuclear device, 210 of which were atmospheric. Numerous atmoshperic tests were conducted within the US borders (Nevada and New Mexico, primarily).

The Ruskies conducted a total of 715 (best available data), 216 of which were atmospheric. An additional 94 atmospheric nuclear detonations were performed between China, France, and the UK.

 

[ElFenix]

wow, this is a thread.

the queen was victoria, so you english changed on us, not the other way around.

as for the nukes, if something starts happening along those routes i expect china to get involved.

 

[Format C:]

Hmmmmm, lawaris. Isn't that like mouthwash or something?

 

[lawaris]

Originally posted by: Format C:
Hmmmmm, lawaris. Isn't that like mouthwash or something?

uuhhh ?

 

[coolVariable]

I only fear that their use of nuclear weapons suddenly makes nuclear war acceptable !!!

THAT would be the worst that could happen!!!!

 

[lawaris]

Originally posted by: coolVariable
I only fear that their use of nuclear weapons suddenly makes nuclear war acceptable !!!

THAT would be the worst that could happen!!!!

Is US willing togive up it's nuclear weapon ?

If no, why should pakistan ...and why should India ?

You think people are idiots everywhere ?

 

[coolVariable]

Did the US use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan? In the Gulf War? In Korea? In Vietnam? In Yugoslavia? .................?

No MORON!!!!

Because right now everyone is afraid to use nukes!!!! (WW2 is to long gone for most to remember!)
But if freaking countries like india and pakistan suddenly start throwing nukes the world will see that they are basically just very big bombs ... and nukes will suddenly be a viable means of waging war!

I only think YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!! :|


BTW To correct some people about the Gulf war: The air campaign lasted something like 2 months? But it was only for softening up the Iraqis ... the ground campaign lasted 2 days! (90000 prisoners and 60000 dead Iraqi soldiers if I remember correctly)


The main goal of india will be to destroy pakistans ability to wage war against them and destroy terrorists bases for strikes against india ...

 

[lawaris]

Originally posted by: coolVariable
Did the US use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan? In the Gulf War? In Korea? In Vietnam? In Yugoslavia? .................?

No MORON!!!!

Because right now everyone is afraid to use nukes!!!! (WW2 is to long gone for most to remember!)
But if freaking countries like india and pakistan suddenly start throwing nukes the world will see that they are basically just very big bombs ... and nukes will suddenly be a viable means of waging war!

I only think YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!! :|


BTW To correct some people about the Gulf war: The air campaign lasted something like 2 months? But it was only for softening up the Iraqis ... the ground campaign lasted 2 days! (90000 prisoners and 60000 dead Iraqi soldiers if I remember correctly)


The main goal of india will be to destroy pakistans ability to wage war against them and destroy terrorists bases for strikes against india ...

I never said that it used them in all these places ...... but guess which is the only country to use them when it got a big licking ?
WW II maybe be too way bacxk for you to remember ..... but many people still remember it sadly.

And the ground campaign didn't last just 2 days ..... US forces were already in since long.

Become educated first ; then try to argue

 

[MadRat]

Kasmir is India's equivalent of Chechnya. Rogue rebels are staging out of Kashmir and launching surprise attacks on both the military and civilians of India. The latest saber rattling is a direct result of a string of terrorist attacks on Indian civilain centers. Pakistan has severely limited the movement of Kashmir rebels this last two weeks and has even been so brazen to confiscate the weaponry of rebels whom would not yield. Around three dozen were detained under force.

India may invade in two weeks, but it will not be the all out war that you all believe. Pakistan is going to save face by allowing Indian jets to make precision strikes on rebel bases while at the same time donning a public front of defending the territory from aggressors. Within three weeks we'll have diplomatic pressure from the outside world to stop the attacks and both sides will stand down.

 

[coolVariable]

I never said that it used them in all these places ...... but guess which is the only country to use them when it got a big licking ?

And I said it was a GOOD thing that they weren't used! And WHY weren't they used???
Because they are not an acceptable means of waging war! GET IT NOW???

WW II maybe be too way bacxk for you to remember ..... but many people still remember it sadly.

Oh, I remember it (at least I was the ONLY one to bring up WW2) and THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING!!!
Everyone is only remembering how horrible the use f nukes was in WW2! Even in this thread people were saying things about their impact on the world climate without realising that HUNDREDS of test-nukes were set off during the cold war!
MY POINT IS THAT THEIR USE BY INDIA AND/OR PAKISTAN COULD SET A BAD PRECEDENT AND MAKE THEIR USE ACCEPTABLE (WHICH IT IS NOT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!)

And the ground campaign didn't last just 2 days ..... US forces were already in since long.

I got that information from a discovery channel special about the second gulf war and I am sure they are wrong and you are right! (right, moron!)

Become educated first ; then try to argue

(BACK TO YOU)
I might also recommend reading other peoples posts and maybe even getting a brain (that is this thing in peoples heads that makes them capable of thinking).

 

[coolVariable]

How about you back up your statements with some facts???

I can do it:

The ground war proved quick and decisive. Four days of fighting was more than the Iraqis could stand.

http://www.indepthinfo.com/iraq/index.shtml
http://www.indepthinfo.com/iraq/groundwar.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/gulfguide/gwtimeline.html

Yeah, my mistake!
The ground war lasted 4 days!!! (24 February 1991 - 28 February 1991)

Now, how about you getting an education, kiddo?
(Yeah, I know they don't teach that in elementary school but you could ask your parents before posting stuff like that, hmm?)

 

[AvesPKS]

US forces were already in since long.

Become educated first ; then try to argue

Learn spelling, punctuation, and grammar first. Then try to argue.

 

[Hammer]

Just to clear some things up:

Feb 23 - Ground war started/
Feb 26 - US/Allied forces controlled Kuwait City, and reached the Euphrates river near Basra
Feb 27 - Bush orders the cease fire.
Mar 3 - Iraq accepts.

 

[Peetoeng]

Originally posted by: IGBT
Which side is God on??

India has more troops and greater military might and WAY TOO MANY gods!

 

[lawaris]

Originally posted by: hammer09
Just to clear some things up:

Feb 23 - Ground war started/
Feb 26 - US/Allied forces controlled Kuwait City, and reached the Euphrates river near Basra
Feb 27 - Bush orders the cease fire.
Mar 3 - Iraq accepts.

No , CNN is right .... it was 4 days ..... - more so 'cos the fact is backed by "intellectuals" here ...they seem to know everything about anything.:disgust:

They won't even accept that The ground war started much earlier than Feb. 23 ( the date it was officially declared ).

I was wondering what the covert forces were doing till then

 

[Red Dawn]

was wondering what the covert forces were doing till then

What do you think they were doing Lavoris, eating Pork Pie and playing Mumbly Peg?

Does either side even give their own population any consideration? The Fallout from any Nuclear strike will probably make the region uninhabitable. The Refugee situation would be horrific and neither economy is close to being strong enough to be able to deal with them.

 

[lawaris]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

was wondering what the covert forces were doing till then

What do you think they were doing Lavoris, eating Pork Pie and playing Mumbly Peg?

Does either side even give their own population any consideration? The Fallout from any Nuclear strike will probably make the region uninhabitable. The Refugee situation would be horrific and neither economy is close to being strong enough to be able to deal with them.

That's it , kiddo ! Stop twisting my remarks around :disgust: - in case you didn't get it in your dumb head .... I meant exactly what you are trying to say. They were there much earlier doing their job.

And, I never said that I amin favor of a Nuclear War - all I said is that Pakistan will use it if they feel threatened enough and then India will have to retaliate.
India has a no first use policy which Pakis do not agree to !

And yes.... if it happens it will be horrific.

But, then how long does a nation go on tolerating the evils of cross border terrorism?

Maybe, I feel about it stronger cos' I have friends who lost their lives there while doing their duty.

 

[Red Dawn]

But, then how long does a nation go on tolerating the evils of cross border terrorism?

Until they feel that using a horrific device such as a Nuclear Weapon is a legitimate option?

 

[lawaris]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

But, then how long does a nation go on tolerating the evils of cross border terrorism?

Until they feel that using a horrific device such as a Nuclear Weapon is a legitimate option?

I never said that

and please read my post before bringing up stupid questions ..... India has a "no first use " policy

 

[jjones]

That's it , kiddo ! Stop twisting my remarks around - in case you didn't get it in your dumb head .... I meant exactly what you are trying to say. They were there much earlier doing their job.

Intel and recco do not make a ground war except maybe on your PC playing games.

 

[Red Dawn]

Lavoris

I never said that

Never said you did.

 

[jjones]

I never said that it used them in all these places ...... but guess which is the only country to use them when it got a big licking ?
WW II maybe be too way bacxk for you to remember ..... but many people still remember it sadly.

And the ground campaign didn't last just 2 days ..... US forces were already in since long.

Become educated first ; then try to argue

WTF? You should become educated because it's obvious you know nothing about the use of nukes in WW2. The US used nukes to avoid a mainland invasion of Japan. That was the primary reason. If you're referring to Pearl Harobor as "a big licking" and are saying that was the justification for using nukes you need to pull your head out. PH might be considered further justification but in no way was it the primary reasoning behind using nukes in Japan. What led up to the use of nukes was the intense island fighting, island by bloody island, and the realization that the Japanese would not surrender even against the most severe odds. It was going to be a very bloody battle for every inch of ground even if the outcome was inevitable.

 

[lawaris]

Originally posted by: jjones

I never said that it used them in all these places ...... but guess which is the only country to use them when it got a big licking ?
WW II maybe be too way bacxk for you to remember ..... but many people still remember it sadly.

And the ground campaign didn't last just 2 days ..... US forces were already in since long.

Become educated first ; then try to argue

WTF? You should become educated because it's obvious you know nothing about the use of nukes in WW2. The US used nukes to avoid a mainland invasion of Japan. That was the primary reason. If you're referring to Pearl Harobor as "a big licking" and are saying that was the justification for using nukes you need to pull your head out. PH might be considered further justification but in no way was it the primary reasoning behind using nukes in Japan. What led up to the use of nukes was the intense island fighting, island by bloody island, and the realization that the Japanese would not surrender even against the most severe odds. It was going to be a very bloody battle for every inch of ground even if the outcome was inevitable.

yeah ... you tell this to the Japanese ...." we were getting bogged down by the intense fighting and couldn't see a win in the forseeable future - so we decided to bomb the hell out of our civilians with nukes"

PH was a big factor buddy ! There were other reasons too including the ones you have pointed out .......I am not saying there weren't.

But, the only fact I wanted to point out was that US did use nukes on civilians cos' it thought it justified in a war .

Am I wrong here ?

If yes - there can be no further discussion cos' we cannot agree on the very premise of the discussion

If no - then why should the US get to tell others where and when to use the required force.

Leave it to the people who live there .... they are intelligent enough to decide.