Breaking News Iran strikes Pakistani territory; Pakistan Counter Strikes; Operation Marg Bar Sarmachar

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,334
Reactions
26 19,134
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
After searching a bit I do believe that the bombing on QS death anniversary is related to what went on.



If ISIS claimed responsibility for the bombing then it makes sense that Iran would find a way to hit something ISIS related.

Seriously though this happened on 6.january 2024 and no one didn't expect this kind of tantrum ? It doesn't sound believeable.
 

mehmed beg

Committed member
Messages
277
Reactions
328
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
People are trying to understand and systemise this event, trying to give some analysis. Of course it pose more questions than the answer.
For me this looks like yet another thing what Iran has been doing since 1979.
Chaos , fanaticism, superstitions and God knows what not.
I know these people, a lot of them with different profiles. I know they are waiting for " the awaited one" just like the small hats or evangelical Christians.
In order to understand something in this world, it is not enough to look just to the " political " things . Someone needs to know a lot other things.
I said it before, the politics like so many things came to disrepute, looking at it in " analytical " way will bring you to nothing. How a normal person can understand the loonetics? Impossible.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,776
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
If ISIS claimed responsibility for the bombing then it makes sense that Iran would find a way to hit something ISIS related.

Seriously though this happened on 6.january 2024 and no one didn't expect this kind of tantrum ? It doesn't sound believeable.

ISIS DID claimed responsibility. And Tehran needs to portray the 'strong' aura to its populace that it is capable of punishing ISIS.

The thing is, ISIS in Iran (and actually everywhere else) now implies ANYONE who the state/regime thinks as their foe. That explains why Iran send missiles to strike Idlib, a place where there is no ISIS control and their sleeper cells are steadily decimated by HTS in cooperation with Turkish and American intel.

Because for the common Iranians, FSA=ISIS, Hay'at Tahrir Al Sham = ISIS, Syrian rebels= ISIS, Israel =ISIS, Turkiye = ISIS,...in short everyone I don't like is ISIS.

So when Iran bombed Pakistan, justifying it against Jaysh Al-Adl, the common Iranians swill see this as none other than an attack on ISIS, because for them Jaysh Al Adl= Anti-Iran, that means Jaysh AlAdl = ISIS (pretty stupid logic, but that's what the conclusion I saw after reading many comments from the Iranian side since the Syrian Civil War.

The only similarity between Jaysh AL Adl and ISIS is that both are Sunnis, that's it.

The thing is, Iran, overestimated itself and underestimated Pakistan's resolve, they prolly think that Pakistan will just let it brushed under the floor...it did not happen that way.
 

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,334
Reactions
26 19,134
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
Doesn't sound plausible or rational. Iran knew there would be a retaliation, but weighed the risk and decided to go through with it.

However as you can see from Iraq


Not much but words. But this is due to Iraq's internal instability and incapable of retaliating. Iran wouldn't have been able to do that under Saddam, dictator as he may have been. He'd retaliate.

And who's going to retaliate from Idlib, no one.

EDIT: I'm thinking that these strikes were to satisfy the fanatics internally. Especially since what's going on in Gaza and their own domestic people can see IRGC weak responses against US and Israel. Not everyone is gullible and as long as there is internet access then IRGC can't keep blowing smoke up their faces.
 
Last edited:

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
4,757
Reactions
85 17,735
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
1705586546080.png
 

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,442
Reactions
11 9,062
Nation of residence
United Kingdom

personally i wouldn't give the fake anti-zionist regime any attention. Its clear all of these pointless attacks and strikes on "sunni Muslims" is meant to appease their shia fanatics who can't understand why their regime never attacks Isreal and when it attacks american bases no americans ever die. Its purely theatre, a distraction for the persian shia population. Gaza has been reduced to rubble and they are doing nothing yet again.

Personally had Pakistan not struck back i would have just seen it as Pakistan not falling into Persian games, why shift the worlds focus aways from the genocide taking place in gaza. However having struck back what a massive humiliation that is for the regime of iran. Pakistan just took a massive shit on them and said know your place.

The Persians have a big problem now, if they do nothing they expose themselves as being massive frauds, if they do something they have to fear a nuclear armed Pakistan coming for them. What a stupid move from the mad mullah regime. Basically they created a lose lose situation for their nation.
 

suryakiran

Active member
Messages
65
Reactions
4 111
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
It is Iran's interest that it backs down. Won't end well for them. My reasoning is as follows:

a. Saudi and UAE will fund American weapons to Pakistan. Israel will have no problem for this.
b. Pak-Iran war will result in TTP getting bolder and carrying out incursions into KP.
c. India will also join in for the PoK region, trying to link to Afghanistan, Wakhan corridor.

In all of the above, Pakistan will get overwhelmed and will want to exert its strength and stop the incursions on all 3 sides. So what happens?

a. Nuke India? We nuke back. Not acceptable.
b. Nuke Afghanistan? To what end? Afghanistan will try to destablise it further.
c. Nuke Iran? Best case scenario. Americans, Saudis, UAE and Israel will say, tsk tsk and end o fmatter. Story line will be that, Iran was aggressor and Pakistan was defending. Will send message to India, don't cross IB. Will cement its place in the Muslim world and will be a true balancer to Turkey with backing from UAE and Saudi.

So, in all this Iran will be the end loser. I don't see Iran wanting to do anything beyond what its done.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,408
Reactions
69 8,189
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
It is Iran's interest that it backs down. Won't end well for them. My reasoning is as follows:

a. Saudi and UAE will fund American weapons to Pakistan. Israel will have no problem for this.
b. Pak-Iran war will result in TTP getting bolder and carrying out incursions into KP.
c. India will also join in for the PoK region, trying to link to Afghanistan, Wakhan corridor.

In all of the above, Pakistan will get overwhelmed and will want to exert its strength and stop the incursions on all 3 sides. So what happens?

a. Nuke India? We nuke back. Not acceptable.
b. Nuke Afghanistan? To what end? Afghanistan will try to destablise it further.
c. Nuke Iran? Best case scenario. Americans, Saudis, UAE and Israel will say, tsk tsk and end o fmatter. Story line will be that, Iran was aggressor and Pakistan was defending. Will send message to India, don't cross IB. Will cement its place in the Muslim world and will be a true balancer to Turkey with backing from UAE and Saudi.

So, in all this Iran will be the end loser. I don't see Iran wanting to do anything beyond what its done.

On the third scenario, I think any heavy indian penetration into Pak territory that they cannot stop will inevitably result in tactical nuclear strike on indian formations. Maybe just in inside Pakistan's territory or on the border. But it doesn't matter if India has nukes. It won't deter them as the only way Pak protect it's territorial integrity is through tactical nukes. Otherwise, no point for them in having those. (Do you think anybody has tactical nukes will wait to get nuked first? Chances are they will not, given the very nature of these weapon's operational use) The same is with Russia. One of the reason Nato isn't smashing through even though conventionally they pretty much could. I don't see why India would act any different and risk nuclear escalation.
 

suryakiran

Active member
Messages
65
Reactions
4 111
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
On the third scenario, I think any heavy indian penetration into Pak territory that they cannot stop will inevitably result in tactical nuclear strike on indian formations. Maybe just in inside Pakistan's territory or on the border. But it doesn't matter if India has nukes. It won't deter them as the only way Pak protect it's territorial integrity is through tactical nukes. Otherwise, no point for them in having those. (Do you think anybody has tactical nukes will wait to get nuked first? Chances are they will not, given the very nature of these weapon's operational use) The same is with Russia. One of the reason Nato isn't smashing through even though conventionally they pretty much could. I don't see why India would act any different and risk nuclear escalation.

Which is why I said, India may not cross the IB,except short incursions. LoC is not a defined international border. While fighting the Iranians and the TTP, the PA will be hard pressed if it activates the IB. India too will want to not activate the IB, like we did in Kargil.
 

Iskander

Well-known member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
365
Reactions
9 1,053
Age
63
Nation of residence
Azerbaijan
Nation of origin
Azerbaijan
It is Iran's interest that it backs down. Won't end well for them. My reasoning is as follows:

a. Saudi and UAE will fund American weapons to Pakistan. Israel will have no problem for this.
b. Pak-Iran war will result in TTP getting bolder and carrying out incursions into KP.
c. India will also join in for the PoK region, trying to link to Afghanistan, Wakhan corridor.

In all of the above, Pakistan will get overwhelmed and will want to exert its strength and stop the incursions on all 3 sides. So what happens?

a. Nuke India? We nuke back. Not acceptable.
b. Nuke Afghanistan? To what end? Afghanistan will try to destablise it further.
c. Nuke Iran? Best case scenario. Americans, Saudis, UAE and Israel will say, tsk tsk and end o fmatter. Story line will be that, Iran was aggressor and Pakistan was defending. Will send message to India, don't cross IB. Will cement its place in the Muslim world and will be a true balancer to Turkey with backing from UAE and Saudi.

So, in all this Iran will be the end loser. I don't see Iran wanting to do anything beyond what its done.
What do you? The matter will not reach that level of escalation. But in general, l must agree that the geopolitical situation in the world is terrible. But don't worry too much. Erdogan will soon solve all the world's problems. Erdogan is a world leader! Who else can you? Everyone seems to have gone crazy.
 
Last edited:

Marlii

Committed member
Messages
282
Reactions
3 302
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
On the third scenario, I think any heavy indian penetration into Pak territory that they cannot stop will inevitably result in tactical nuclear strike on indian formations. Maybe just in inside Pakistan's territory or on the border. But it doesn't matter if India has nukes. It won't deter them as the only way Pak protect it's territorial integrity is through tactical nukes. Otherwise, no point for them in having those. (Do you think anybody has tactical nukes will wait to get nuked first? Chances are they will not, given the very nature of these weapon's operational use) The same is with Russia. One of the reason Nato isn't smashing through even though conventionally they pretty much could. I don't see why India would act any different and risk nuclear escalation.
In any tactical nuke situation pakistan would do our job for us
IMG_20240119_153914.jpg

Tactical nukes are stupid dumb way of commiting suicide. Turning highly populated regions of your own country into chernobyl is never a smart choice.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,408
Reactions
69 8,189
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
In any tactical nuke situation pakistan would do our job for us
View attachment 64844
Tactical nukes are stupid dumb way of commiting suicide. Turning highly populated regions of your own country into chernobyl is never a smart choice.

Nope, you have a poor understanding of how tactical nuke works.


"Evaluating low-yield nuclear weapons effects

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) maintains high-fidelity nuclear weapons effects software that provides detailed information relating to effects and the variables that shape them. Unfortunately, an unclassified version of their software is not available. Thus, calculations for this article were derived using the unclassified Los Alamos Simple Effects Calculator.
Many variables affect the outcome of a nuclear detonation. Atmospheric conditions like rain, clouds, wind, and humidity change many aspects of the overall effect in radiation propagation and fallout. Topography also plays a role in a blast as, for example, mountains reflect blast waves and cityscapes channel winds. Since most nuclear tests were performed in open areas (deserts and oceans), much national effort was applied to understanding these other effects. However, since they are all based upon specific scenarios, public weapons effects calculators, such as the one used in this article, are limited in their ability to provide fidelity for all effects.
In previous work, we examined the use of a ten kiloton “fallout free” nuclear air burst that could be tailored to serve as a demonstration strike on a military target. The primary weapons effects – blast (overpressure), thermal radiation, and prompt radiation – were calculated from ground zero. Table 1 offers expected values for each of the three main effects of a ten-kiloton detonation, providing the distance to meet a relevant damage threshold.

1705661156911.jpeg


Table 1 illustrates that the major damaging effects from overpressure, thermal radiation, and prompt radiation from a ten-kiloton low-altitude detonation are not far-reaching. As a reminder, the prompt radiation is instantaneous and not long-lasting like fallout. This runs counter to the impression of many who believe any nuclear detonation turns the surrounding landscape into an irradiated wasteland. China and Russia understand this as well and see the military utility of low-yield nuclear weapons which, because of their smaller yields, would have even smaller damage footprints.
Below we provide further details about the effects of low-yield nuclear detonations. Three nuclear weapon detonations of one-, ten-, and twenty-five-kiloton yields are evaluated to determine the extent of damage at yields that are all possible with Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons. The twenty-five-kiloton yield weapon is outside our definition for a low-yield weapon but offers a useful size for sake of comparison.
In addition to providing effect calculations for three yields, we calculate for a ground detonation and air burst as these produce substantially different effects. For a ground burst, the fireball draws up considerable ground debris and reflects the blast wave. These result in differences in fallout and blast wave energy.


For air bursts, we calculate effects at a height of burst (HOB) that is both “fallout free” and optimizes overpressure to 12 psi. This is enough overpressure to cause severe damage to concrete structures, meaning the structure can no longer be used for its designed purpose. It also has a combined acute effective mortality rate of approximately ninety percent in the blast zone.
We also determined the distance from ground zero out to which an individual would receive an absorbed dose of approximately 450 rad [Ti] (radiation-absorbed dose to tissue). We use 450 rad [Ti] because this is the amount of radiation required to cause a lethal dose in fifty percent of the exposed population within thirty days absent medical attention. To reach this dose, a soldier, for example, would need to stand on the surface completely unprotected within the affected blast zone. In the case of a soldier sheltering inside a building, trench, or vehicle, for example, the dose would be reduced.
We also calculate the estimated hourly dose from residual radiation received by an individual within 1,000 meters of ground zero (GZ) for 24, 48, and 96 hours after detonation. This provides important data because personnel may need to move through an area where a nuclear weapon was detonated. Thus, residual radiation plays a role in increasing or decreasing effects from a nuclear detonation. In Table 2, we use Roentgen equivalent man (rem) to describe radiation dosage. The unit of rem accounts for the radiation type and its effect on a human. In general, 0.87 rem equals 1 rad.

1705661266611.jpeg


Several important general observations are visible from Table 2. First, even though the twenty-five-kiloton detonation is twenty-five times higher in energy than the one-kiloton detonation, the circumference of the 450-rad threshold is only 1.3 times further out for the twenty-five-kiloton detonation than the one-kiloton detonation. This illustrates that it is not possible to assume that yield and weapons effects maintain a perfect relationship as yield increases. Second, the residual radiation is less than half its original value within 48 hours for all detonations. Residual radiation declines rapidly. Third, even for a larger detonation, like twenty-five kilotons, the circumference from ground zero of deadly weapon effects only goes out to a little more than one kilometer in the worst case. For smaller yields, devastation exists in a much smaller area.


For the one-kiloton detonation, the overpressure created in a ground burst—sufficient to collapse concrete structures—extends out 285 meters from ground zero. In the case of an air burst the distance is 362 meters. While the air burst is more effective in creating overpressure, the residual radiation of an air burst is significantly less than the ground burst since debris does not interact with the neutron radiation.


For a ten-kiloton detonation, an air burst is more effective in creating the overpressure needed to collapse concrete structures. But, as our calculations suggest, this is true up to 779 meters from ground zero. For a ground burst, effective range is decreased by about 150 meters. An air burst also produces about five percent of the residual radiation generated by a ground burst, which is important if an area is occupied after detonation or if reduced long-term radiation effects are desired. This point is underscored by the very low residual radiation present at 24, 48, and 96 hours after an air bust.

The twenty-five-kiloton detonation is interesting because the primary military effects of blast and prompt radiation do not scale linearly. For example, the twenty-five-kiloton yield is 2.5 times larger than the ten-kiloton detonation, but for the surface bursts, the twenty-five-kiloton detonation’s 450-rad range is only 1.1 times larger than the ten kiloton’s range. However, the residual radiation at 24 hours is 2.5 times larger.


Conclusions

To underscore this point, all three of the low-altitude air bursts, for which we calculated effects, produced important military effects and almost eliminate residual radiation. Even in the case of a twenty-five-kiloton air burst, at 613 meters above ground zero, 96 hours after detonation, the hourly residual radiation dose rate for an unprotected person within 1,000 meters of ground zero is 4 rems – a dose that is within the Department of Energy five remyearly limit for occupational radiation workers. If the burst were not optimized for overpressure and the destruction of concrete structures, a detonation even a few hundred meters further above ground zero, like at Hiroshima, would produce almost no residual radiation at all.




In practice, there is no serious effect on civilians while Indian formations will be devastated.
 
Last edited:

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,334
Reactions
26 19,134
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
In any tactical nuke situation pakistan would do our job for us
View attachment 64844
Tactical nukes are stupid dumb way of commiting suicide. Turning highly populated regions of your own country into chernobyl is never a smart choice.
oh so you think that's what's going to happen.

Let me show you what else there is.

1705662895044.png

and
1705663039143.png


I don't see many mountain ranges that would potentially avert the radioactive cloud from spreading out. So stuff it.

What makes you think PAF will only use 1 nuke ? You think they don't know where their population is densily located. If Pakistan loses 60% of it's population, what's to prevent them from claiming same percentage of Indias population ?

let's pray such stupidity doesn't occur from any side.
 

Iskander

Well-known member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
365
Reactions
9 1,053
Age
63
Nation of residence
Azerbaijan
Nation of origin
Azerbaijan
I can see 2 laughing emoji here , in regards to Erdoğan?
Probably thoes were from the people whose leader prostates himself in front if naked man sitting on the elevated chair? Am I getting it wrong?
No, no. Laughing emoticons are adressed to me. I also like to joke. But not in this case. And I would like to draw the atention of users from Bangladesh and India to the words of Guterres. said yesterday that Türkiye Iran and Israel have more influence on conflict resolution than the 5 members of the UN Security Council. If anyone finds it funny, let them laugh at Guterres' words.
And for those who decided to continue laughing let me remind you: Armenians also laughed for a long time, but exactly until the moment when the Bayraktars appeared over their poor heads. Now they don't laugh animore and are weri sad.
 

Baryshx

Contributor
Messages
962
Reactions
8 2,056
Website
www.twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Too much imagination. I think the idea of nuclear bombs here is too far-fetched and funny. We're not talking about a grenade.

The destruction of Shia and Sunni extremist organizations and individuals is always good news for the world and Islam. The more of them die, the better. The same goes for organizations and individuals of extremist, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu and other faiths. It is this kind of thinking that has always led the world to war and chaos.

The sad thing here is that civilians also die in the process.
 
Last edited:

Marlii

Committed member
Messages
282
Reactions
3 302
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
oh so you think that's what's going to happen.

Let me show you what else there is.

View attachment 64849
and
View attachment 64850

I don't see many mountain ranges that would potentially avert the radioactive cloud from spreading out. So stuff it.

What makes you think PAF will only use 1 nuke ? You think they don't know where their population is densily located. If Pakistan loses 60% of it's population, what's to prevent them from claiming same percentage of Indias population ?

let's pray such stupidity doesn't occur from any side.
People trying to be subcontinent and nuclear experts should see the distance between lahore having a population of 1.11 crore from the indian border just 24 km. Same is the case of amritsar a major indian city. Both countries knows that even a conventional war is gonna end millions. Both cold start and pak tactical nukes are extreme case scenarios that both parties know will end in nuclear war. Only thing pakistanis have to loose is their pride if they loose a war but we are gonna loose everything we build over the years.
 

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,442
Reactions
11 9,062
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Right now this is looking like a massive fail for Iran. The word out there is that Iran has backed down. Started a fight with Pakistan by instigating/belittling her sovereignty and power only to get smacked back and do nothing about it.

Just shows how it only takes one stupid move and you destroy any clout you built up no matter how manufactured.

Then it made people think of what a war would look like between Pakistan and Iran and everyone came away with the reality that Pakistani conventional arms are much better then Irans. with a solid airforce comparted to Irans outdated airforce. Not even taking into account Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

The mental gymnastics I've seen from the persians and affiliated shia's online shows me they are shook and in absolute denial.

On a side note, Pakistan is probably one of the most anti-Zionist states on earth, and its a state the zionists absolutely hate because she has nuclear weapons. It must keep the zionists up at night at the thought that pakistan could supply one of their enemies with nuclear weapons. This is the nation while gaza is being reduced to rubble they thought they start trouble with. Absolute mullah madness.

The Ayatollah regime are the biggest frauds in the middle east, maybe the actual second isreal. Spreading shia secatrian terrorism across a sunni majority region. While 99% of the all the people and countries the Iranian regime has attacked have been Muslim.

At this point i'm actually surprised the americans don't sacrifice some of their peasants to the regime to keep the illusion going. The zionists must be seeing all this and seeing that the common Muslim is starting to see Iran for what it really is.
 
Last edited:

Smoke

Active member
Messages
26
Reactions
13
Nation of residence
Pakistan
Nation of origin
Pakistan
A lot of Iranians I've spoken to online before Pakistan retaliated were completely delusional, and boy, how they ran away and still haven't returned after Pakistan struck is just funny.

The facade has been torn to shreds, and while it is sad that this plays into US interests, I don't see it being a bad thing since Pakistan can leverage a great deal from them, like something similar to the CSF post 9/11. I can easily see them calling up Washington to demand funding, release of the helicopters they bought, and resumption of the F-16 MLUs, for something like an operation taking out Iran's uranium enrichment sites as a response.

While escalation was kept at almost an equal level, the destruction of their enrichment sites would have had the west sing praises of Pakistan, too bad we didn't capitalize on this for the sake of national interests.

Post operation, we could have worked out a pretty good deal for oil & gas initiatives to further solidify our energy requirements, well it could have also been looked at during ceasefire negotiations.

Truth is, during this campaign, the side with the stronger Air Force pretty much dominates and very easily obtains all objectives. With no deterrence in the sky, it becomes very easy to strike all your targets.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom