Further, the entire debate amounts to arguing the modalities of a particular doctrine without bothering to ask what purpose it serves. Everything follows from the basic goal - effective deterrence against PRC. What do they fear losing most, and what do we have the most ability to credibly target ?
I'm getting the sense that you have not understood my points and we are talking in circular fashion as seen from the above statement.
For the record, I'm not arguing, not even questioning the current doctrine which holds the deterrence. I'm very happy with whatever doctrine if it can hold the deterrence. My entire argument is focused on actions *after* deterrence failure. In that, some of the points of my argument are 1. How a scalable N war can be waged. 2. How to stop the situation deteriorating further. 3. Advantages of using CounterForce either alone or with CounterValue response.
I particularly insisted, I'm not replicating the CounterForce strategy floated during Cold War. And consistent with the goals of GoI in describing those actions.
from Wiki, "Indian National Security Advisor Shri Shivshankar Menon further signaled a significant shift from "no first use" to "no first use against non-nuclear weapon states" in a speech on the occasion of Golden Jubilee celebrations of National Defence College in New Delhi on October 21, 2010.
Further from that speech,
In sum, there is an Indian way, an Indian view and an Indian practice in the use and role of force. We do not claim that it is better or worse than any other way that other nations adopt. It is a result of our own history and experience, and we feel it best suited to our goals and situation. And it too is evolving, both consciously and unconsciously, as is the world around us. It is time now to consciously build our own concepts and strategic thinking, adapted to today’s realities and India’s environment, including on the role of force.
To tell you from official line that nothing is stagnant; everything is evolving in accordance to today's reality.
Kanson: a counterforce doctrine against China is and will remain a nonstarter. They do not talk about the size or dispersal of their arsenal. Even the US has no clue about it. They are not party to any arms limitation treaty with any deterrent adversary. Their land based doctrine under the 2AC uses a widely dispersed (by some accounts 5000km long) tunnel system that enables them to protect their arsenal from a first strike. It was originally intended to protect them from Soviet megaton payloads. The accuracy or numbers of our arsenal do nothing against this - we don't know what to hit, where and how many.
I couldn't agree with anything that you say is peculiar to China. Is China alone doesn't reveal the size and dispersal of its arsenal? Can you point to a single official document on what our Credible Minimum Deterrence means and what is the size of our arsenal?
Is China alone having such tunnels? Russia, US, Israel, NoKo, even our neighbor Pak do have elaborate tunnel complex systems. if we believe BK, even we have some rudimentary tunnel systems for Strategic missiles. There is no need to single out China here. If we have to come to that level, we must develop ways to deal with that. If there is a will, you can always find a way.
"we don't know what to hit
" : Oh, C'mon, If individuals like SoC of keypub forum can do so much IMINT with just GoogleMap and GoogleEarth and then there was a fine gentleman in this forum who shared Google Images of several Pak mil bases having underground complex and possible entrances to such complex, what a prof team of MI can do. Imagine what GoI can do. And ponder what if like minded countries pool their resources for that intel?
There's either option CF - spend ruinous amounts of money on a vast, accurate arsenal that can take out a large number of military targets that we don't know where they are or how many there are.
hmm....you have just argued in the subsequent post to have superior ABM system to defeat sophisticated Chinese BM. You say CF spending is ruinous amount of money. Do you know how much it will cost to procure and maintain a decent ABM system? How many missiles needed to protect a single city? And how many and how much supportive systems are needed to field an effective ABM system. You don't have to believe me. As per Russians, it takes only a fraction of cost for developing such sophisticated BM like Topol-M to defeat such elaborate ABM system. So to destroy adversary's BM, to be effective in cost wise as well, both CounterForce and ABM can be used combinedly.
Alternately we can implement option CV,
There is no 'Alternatively'. By default even if a rogue hopeless country acquires N weapon capability it going to be CounterValue response. Pure ConterValue response results in doomsday scenario. Once you initiate a CounterValue response, controlling the outcome is very difficult and results in utter destruction. Pls try to use the game theory to see possible outcomes. War itself is an irrational outcome. So there is no rationality in N warfare. Once you step on the CounterValue pedestal, point of return is bleak. And if that happens, if will after further destruction. Say, if you start a CounterValue response to Pak's usage of nuke on a division of IA, at the point of ending the war, if suppose that happens, your destruction will be much more than before the N war. It makes no sense of why you started the war. No need to listen my words, you just ask any Army personnel or educated members of this forum in that area, what is needed to control the outcome of a war? and to keep the control in your grasp? Same logic applies in N war too. You may see my reason why I insist on CounterForce.
where we build a smaller number of accurate, maneuverable single and MIRV payload based ICBMs and IRBMs that we can credibly use to state 'no matter what you do to us, you will lose all your top N big cities.' From everything we've seen of Agni-IV and Agni-V technology and capability, we've been implicitly pursuing the latter approach.
hmm....let me ask you purely from common sense perspective and let's leave all these N related doctrine and policies aside for a while.
you say you want to have smaller missile force. And with that you want to say with Bravado,"No matter what you do to us," to China which you accept has superior missile force than India and not revealing all that they got?
China is improving its military capabilities continuously. How long you think, they are going to believe in your Bravado, ie., "Not matter what you do to us". Once they think they have sufficient capabilities to overwhelm you, do you think they are going to sit idle? Will they not test us, like they continuously probe our strength on the border areas, whether that Bravado is true? If suppose that happens, what will you do? The same "No matter what you do to us" speech and receive a punishing & crippling blow that destroys most of the smaller missile force that you envisage in the name of retaliating 'unacceptably' with smaller second strike ? Where is unacceptable retaliation is possible if their first strike is so overwhelming becoz of their superior missile force, it destroys all of your country? Even if you are retaliating, what you gain after that? What if China's ABM can overcome our already small arsenal?
Lets go to the next level, what if your adversary is completely irrational. Do that Bravado, ""No matter what you do to us," stops them in their tracks? I term that as bravado, becoz that is all deterrence is all about. Once your adversary dismisses your bravado, we must be in a position to move to a different gear to neutralize enemy's actions and I think CounterForce is one such tool to do that.
Point I'm trying to say, and touched by Shivshankar Menon is that we should be prepared for all eventualities.
I'm talking so much about this statement 'no matter what you do to us, you will lose all your top N big cities
', becoz such posture is getting obsolete and going to be obsolete in near future, becoz of developments