
How bloody conflict 4,000 miles away could spark nuclear Armageddon killing billions
While the West is focused on how close Vladimir Putin is to pushing the red button, the real threat of Armageddon could be brewing in South Asia.
In April, suspected Islamist Pakistani militants shot dead 22 Indian tourists holidaying in the Baisaran valley, which is now pushing India and Pakistan - both nuclear-armed countries - to the brink of a nuclear confrontation. The gunmen are said to have prowled through the group of tourists, picking off any individual unable to recite Islamic verses. It's being viewed by Indians as the worst massacre since the 2008 Mumbai bombings.
India's security services are also being blamed for failing to realise the looming threat as the public outcry for retribution continues to grow. Indian national identity and foreign policy expert Dr Manali Kumar said the relations between the two countries are at a critically low point and "just short of war". However, any overt acts of war would see a swift response from Pakistan, which would likely push the two sides into an escalating conflict that would be impossible to reverse once started.
India has an active army of 1.2million, with an additional 250,000 individuals split between the navy and air force, while Pakistan has less than 700,000 - but experts believe the two sides are far more evenly matched than it would seem.
Defence experts say that Pakistan could still "inflict significant damage and cause massive casualties", according to the MailOnline.
Where the most concerning comparison comes is when looking at the nuclear arsenals of each country. Both Pakistan and India are understood to have around 170 warheads heads each, according to the Arms Control Association. While India has agreed to a "no first use" nuclear pact", Pakistan does not adhere to the same moral restriction.
And if the apocalypse did happen in South Asia, 125 million people would be dead in a matter of days, researchers warned back in 2019.
India has accused Pakistani nationals - said to be members of the same "Army of the Righteous" terror group responsible for Mumbai - of carrying out the April 22 killing spree. Pakistan has denied involvement, and has already warned it would respond to any military aggression on the basis of "baseless and concocted allegations".
The reason India has conflated the Pakistani government with the terror group is that they are said to have links to Pakistan's Inter-Services-Intelligence (ISI) agency.
In the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in 2019, researchers said that there would be "tens of millions" of immediate victims if a nuke was launched in South Asia. It would have devastating environmental impacts, causing famines that could affect billions of people across the world.
"The direct effects of this nuclear exchange would be horrible; the authors estimate that 50 to 125 million people would die, depending on whether the weapons used had yields of 15, 50, or 100 kilotons," the article read.
"The ramifications for Indian and Pakistani society would be major and long-lasting, with many major cities largely destroyed and uninhabitable.
"Smoke and radioactive particles would 'spread globally within weeks... cooling the global surface, reducing precipitation and threatening mass starvation."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Even after U.S. and Israeli strikes, Iran may still be able to build a nuclear weapon
Israel hailed its offensive against Iran as a success on Tuesday as it thanked its closest ally, the United States, for its role in 'eliminating' the Iranian nuclear threat. But experts say those celebrations are likely premature, with an accurate picture of the impact of U.S. and Israeli strikes targeting Iran's nuclear program unclear, and hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium still unaccounted for. 'It's far too soon for the United States or Israel to claim that Iran's nuclear program has been destroyed,' Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association told NBC News on Monday. Too soon to tell While President Donald Trump claimed over the weekend that the U.S. had 'completely and fully obliterated' Tehran's key nuclear sites, including Fordo, buried deep under a mountain, Isfahan and Natanz, the full impact of the strikes remains unclear. Meanwhile, nearly 400 kilograms, or 880 pounds, of uranium enriched to 60% purity is still publicly unaccounted for. Iran has maintained that it does not seek to build nuclear weapons, but its rapid acceleration in uranium enrichment, as reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), sparked alarm before Israel's and the U.S.' strikes. Power plants require the radioactive metal to be enriched to only 3%-5%, whereas 90% is required to build a nuclear warhead. Rafael Grossi, director general of the IAEA, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, on Sunday said that damage was visible at the Fordo and Natanz sites after American B-2 Spirit bombers dropped 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator munitions, also known as 'bunker busters.' Submarine-fired Tomahawk cruise missiles hit targets at Isfahan. But he said 'no one' including his agency was 'in a position to assess the underground damage at Fordo' as he called for inspectors to be allowed to visit Iran's nuclear sites to account for the stockpiles of uranium and, in particular, 'the 400kg enriched to 60%.' On Tuesday, Israel declared its operation against Iran a success as it said it had agreed to a shaky ceasefire announced earlier by Trump. Trump accused both sides of violating the ceasefire, telling reporters he was going to see if he could bring an end to the infractions as he looks to force Tehran back to the negotiations on its nuclear program. Was enriched uranium moved? It's unclear whether the enriched uranium might have been moved before the U.S. launched its strikes on Saturday. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., suggested Monday in an interview with CNBC that U.S. intelligence had found that Iran did not move nuclear material from its Fordo facility before the U.S. attack. NBC News was not able to independently verify that. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had warned IAEA director Grossi in a letter on June 13 that Iran would adopt 'special measures to protect our nuclear equipment and materials.' Images taken two days before the U.S. strike on Fordo released by Maxar Technologies, which provides satellite images used by various government agencies, show 16 cargo trucks on an access road leading up to the nuclear enrichment facility, with images captured the following day showing the trucks had moved away from the sites.


Sky News
3 hours ago
- Sky News
Donald Trump dodges commitment to founding NATO principle
Donald Trump has dodged a question asking him whether he is still committed to Article 5 of NATO, the alliance's founding principle. Article 5 is the principle of collective and mutual defence, meaning an attack against one NATO ally is considered an attack against all members. The US president spoke to reporters on Air Force One on his way to the NATO summit in The Hague and was asked about his commitment to Article 5 of NATO. Mr Trump replied: "Depends on your definition. There are numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right? But I'm committed to being their friends. You know, I've become friends with many of those leaders, and I'm committed to helping them. "I'm committed to saving lives. I'm committed to life and safety, and I'm going to give you an exact definition. When I get there. I just don't want to do it on the back of an airplane." The NATO summit is intended to signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin that NATO is united and set on expanding and upgrading its defences to deter any attack on its members from Moscow, but Mr Trump cast renewed doubt on his willingness to protect allies. NATO secretary general Mark Rutte said he had "no doubt" that the US is "totally committed" to the mutual defence clause and NATO. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.


The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Co-op to stop sourcing products from Israel, Iran and 15 other countries
The Co-op is to stop sourcing goods from Israel, Iran and 15 other countries where it says there are 'internationally recognised' human rights abuses and violations of international law. The mutual, which operates about 2,300 grocery stores in the UK, has drawn up a list of about 100 products affected by the change, including Israeli carrots and mangos from Mali. Other countries covered by the ban, which will be gradually implemented from this month, include Russia, Syria, Belarus, Afghanistan, Myanmar and Sudan, and the Co-op said it would cover ingredients for its own-label products as well as whole items. The Co-op's decision appears unlikely to cause a significant financial impact on the retailer, which sources most of its products from western Europe. The Co-op, which is known for its efforts to do business ethically including selling Fairtrade products and supporting local social projects, had already stopped selling Russian products in March 2022, shortly after Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The Co-op said the new list had been compiled by independent assessment of 'where there is agreement across respected assessments, such as by the UN and others, that there is consistent behaviour which would constitute community-wide human rights abuses or violations of international law'. The retailer said the move came after its members had made clear through surveys and motions at its annual meetings that conflict was one of their biggest concerns and that the Co-op 'should do all it can to advocate and build peace'. However, the Co-op said it would only take action that 'would make a difference directly or indirectly to those affected and would alleviate suffering' and it 'would not negatively affect the Co-op's integrity as a commercially successful co-operative business'. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Debbie White, the chair of the Co-op Group board, said the policy was a 'clear demonstration of our co-operative values in action, where the voices of our members have been listened to and then acted upon. 'We are committed, where we can, to removing products and ingredients from our shelves which are sourced from those countries where the international consensus demonstrates there is not alignment with what happens in those countries and our co-operative values and principles.'