A nuclear attack of that size would probably destroy India as a unified, organized state, at least for a few generations. The disruption, dislocation of mass populations, cost of the devastation, and general panic and chaos would be utterly unmanageable.
Remember how nutty things were in the U.S. after 9/11, when 3,000 people were murdered. Multiply that level of disruption by 33,333, and stick it into a country with about a tenth of the per capita income.
Another reason why this would be Real Bad would a huge outbreak of ‘Communal Violence.’ (Odd how only India and Pakistan suffers Communal Violence.) We would be talking about tens of thousands dead, I guess.
Very bad indeed.
After the plastering they gave India on the first two days, I’m betting it definitely won’t be India.
The thing is, you don’t even need such a catastrophe to cause an economic depression – which is what I stated, NOT a collapse.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/southasia.asp shows scenarios of casualties based on the weapons India and Pakistan realistically fielded at press time – though based on a primitive city-busting strategy. Scenario 2, leaving the tactical hypothesis aside, includes a list of what major Indian cities are considered realistic targets from Pakistan: Ahmadabad, Bhopal, Bombai, Delhi, Jaipur, New Delhi and Pune. Eight cities, they estimate 12 bombs to take them out. For the sake of argument let’s say another 10 nukes to hit strategic industrial, transportation, and military-value targets within the range.
And yes, they estimate 99% of the population and most of the conventional military survives unscathed. But between 4 and 15 million casualties in India translates to between 1.3 and 5 million casualties in the USA, together with the destruction of large portions of DC, Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Norfolk, Lower Manhattan and the Port of NY. With much less economic resources at hand to deal with the aftermath. The economy goes down.
Oh, and even in that NRDC game, India “wins” by at least still having more major cities standing, having potential casualties of “only” 1% rather than 7% of its population, and still having numerical superiority in surviving conventional forces. Some victory.
OK, I promise this is my final self-clarification in this turn:
…to cause a severe economic depression – which is what I stated (“make India much poorer”), NOT a *general national * collapse.
China
Well, unlike WWII, where the US was able to wage total war with little real threat to it’s own borders, citizens, and economic infrastructure, a total land war between India and Pakistan would be devastating on every level. (As you pointed out.) And this is assuming a conventional war; nuclear war is too horrible to imagine.
The only winners would be the countries and corporations who sell these idiots the means with which to destroy themselves, and the opportunistic few who find a way to profit by “helping” the few survivors left with picking up the pieces of their shattered lives.
Batsmen, if prepared.
I think in WarGames this was scenerio 5 or 6 when Joshua loses it.
“Ethiopian Local” would lead to WWIII? Yikes.
