I did a quick google search but couldn’t find anything that addressed the specific question of what the fallout, in years, would be between Pakistan and India. 10 years? 100 years? And how much more powerful are today’s nukes than say the one’s used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
Happy thoughts, people. Happy thoughts.
I don’t know about the fallout thing, but maybe this helps about the destructive power of Indian and Pakistani bombs.
From this page. Dates back to fall of 1998, so it might be a bit outdated, but this more recent FAQ says the kilotonnage is estimated to be 15-20 (Hiroshima was 20 kilotons), although India could have a “possible high” of up to 200 kilotons.
Years? Fallout ususally falls out within days/weeks, as I understood it. If you mean how long will the fallout (once it has landed on everyone’s farmlands, cities, etc.) will remain dangerously radioactive … that I don’t know.
Ya, I guess my nuclear “terminology” is lacking. I am referring to the radiation factor. How long would it be before levels of radiation decreased enough to make it liveable? My second question was how much has atomic weaponry has advanced since WWII. If we dropped a bomb on Japan today (God forbid. I’ve been there and love it), how much more destruction would it do then the bomb dropped in '47?
Here’s some stuff related to Hiroshima/Nagasaki effects. I imagine we would see similar effects, since the kilotonnage is similar. But don’t quote me on that.
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q340.html
This says, basically no measurable long-term effects. So the region will not likely be rendered “uninhabitable.”
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q711.html
So 10 days later, things were pretty OK, per this PhD.
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1996.html
Here’s a very apropos one:
[quote]
Q: In 1945 an atomic bomb using plutonium as its source for a chain reactive explosion was used to destroy the city of Nagasaki in Japan. Because plutonium was used, and because plutonium has a very long half life, is plutonium still present there today and is it still irradiating and effecting local fauna and local inhabitants?
A: Essentially all of the uranium and plutonium in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs fissioned, producing radioisotopes with half lives of a few seconds to a few years. These have decayed down to near background levels. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are now thriving cities, rebuilt and repopulated. I had the privilege of visiting Hiroshima recently, and found it to be a modern, lively city. They have maintained one bombed-out building, near the hypocenter, and developed a large Peace Park and museum, all as reminders of the suffering and devastation of nuclear war.
http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c06.html
Some Chernobyl insights:
If India and Pakistan weren’t as good at bomb-making as the Trinity folks, then the fissionable material might not all be used up, resulting in a “dirtier” explosion and more contamination.
Also, deployment is an issue. Ground bursts generally lift up and irradiate more dirt, producing more fallout and contamination, than air bursts (which generally produce more blast damage).
So basically, you might see some severe local conditions (on the order of a few square miles, I would guess) that persist for centuries, and slightly higher cancer rates. Most everything else will probably be safe within days.
Honestly, the worst effects are not going to be radiological, but are going to be the massive loss of services that will result, leading to increased deaths from secondary sources (i.e., those not killed by the blast itself but by poor sanitation, water quality, starvation, trapped under rubble, etc.)–like in a massive earthquake.
Here’s some stuff related to Hiroshima/Nagasaki effects. I imagine we would see similar effects, since the kilotonnage is similar. But don’t quote me on that.
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q340.html
This says, basically no measurable long-term effects. So the region will not likely be rendered “uninhabitable.”
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q711.html
So 10 days later, things were pretty OK, per this PhD.
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1996.html
Here’s a very apropos one:
[quote]
Q: In 1945 an atomic bomb using plutonium as its source for a chain reactive explosion was used to destroy the city of Nagasaki in Japan. Because plutonium was used, and because plutonium has a very long half life, is plutonium still present there today and is it still irradiating and effecting local fauna and local inhabitants?
A: Essentially all of the uranium and plutonium in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs fissioned, producing radioisotopes with half lives of a few seconds to a few years. These have decayed down to near background levels. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are now thriving cities, rebuilt and repopulated. I had the privilege of visiting Hiroshima recently, and found it to be a modern, lively city. They have maintained one bombed-out building, near the hypocenter, and developed a large Peace Park and museum, all as reminders of the suffering and devastation of nuclear war.
http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c06.html
Some Chernobyl insights:
If India and Pakistan weren’t as good at bomb-making as the Trinity folks, then the fissionable material might not all be used up, resulting in a “dirtier” explosion and more contamination.
Also, deployment is an issue. Ground bursts generally lift up and irradiate more dirt, producing more fallout and contamination, than air bursts (which generally produce more blast damage).
So basically, you might see some severe local conditions (on the order of a few square miles, I would guess) that persist for centuries, and slightly higher cancer rates. Most everything else will probably be safe within days.
Honestly, the worst effects are not going to be radiological, but are going to be the massive loss of services that will result, leading to increased deaths from secondary sources (i.e., those not killed by the blast itself but by poor sanitation, water quality, starvation, trapped under rubble, etc.)–like in a massive earthquake.
It would depend on if it was a ground burst or an air burst. I have here in my hands an original copy of “The Effects of Atomic Weapons”, published by the good folks at the Los Alamos Scientific laboroatory back in 1950. There is a wealth of information on these things, although most of it is highly technical and WAY over my head. However, there are a few things understandable by the layman. In the section titiled “Residual nuclear radiations and contaminations”, it has a wealth of information about contamination due to low and high air bursts.
Evidentaly, a low air burst is much worse than a high one when it comes to irradiation and fallout. According to this little chart here, the radiation dosage at ground zero one hour after a low-air burst 1 megaton explosion is in excess of 8,000 rotogens. This is most likely fatal. The Minimum safe distance listed is 1,500 feet, where you would take 10 rotogens per hour. According to what I could understand here, it would take a year (theoreticaly) for ground zero to be approachable again. I am going to assume that these figures have been revised quite a bit for modern weapons. Heck, this book is so old that under the section for ground bursts, it states that all the information contained therein is speculative, because they hadn’t done a ground detonation yet at the time of publishing!
Oh well. Hope this gave you some ideas.
sigh The benefits of a well-rounded library. 
This really is an unaswerable question at this point…
How many weapons will be used?
What is the yield per weapon?
How efficient is each weapon?
How many weapons will squib?
How many ground bursts? Of what yield?
How many Airbursts? Of what yield?
Over what time frame are the weapons used?
Over how large a geographic area are the weapons used?
What are the prevailling weather conditions upon use?
What are the prevailing weather conditions for the weeks after use?
Too many imponderables to give any but the most generic answer: There will be some fallout. Effects will vary.