Bharat Rakshak

Let us assume that we have such a warhead and that it effective in smashing into the Chinese tunnels, etc. Have we identified all the tunnels, all their entrances? Have we identified all the launch site outside the tunnels? You are hoping for a fighters/bombers with a couple of brahmos, at each and every launch site at about the same time. Do we have sufficient number of fighters/bombers with sufficient range? Will all of them make it through the heavy air defense?

Otherwise we are just setting our country for a smash. Even if one tunnel entrance is left intact, assuming most of them are connected and movement inside the tunnels are unhindered, we have setup our own cities and our people for a deadly diwali.

please don't get focused only on few aspects of the counter measures. even with full blown MAD attack, you have no guarantee that you have the correct coordinates, even with massive strikes. and NFU does not stand only for bursting bunkers alone.

if launched, then the capability to intercept mid-course has maximum value for NFU effictiveness.

Saar if you have reached the point that you are going to launch all you've got or loose it you will feed in the co-ordinates of the big cities and not missile silos. Beijing will not move to the western border to evade a A5.

We were talking of attacking their tunnels and preempting them. So my question on preemptive action using a bramhos or anything else is still valid.

Saar you correct that we cant base everything on bunker busters, but that's where their effective defense against our missile lies. If we can't hide and they can, we will be subjected to heavy loss, even with ABM, it will be tough if your opponent has number superiority if not in quality. Having some counter measure to dig out would not harm us in our response.

Agree Saar.

Lets look at this whole discussion from another angle. Given how dharmic we are or rather how we portray to the outside world, will any Indian government, and I mean run by any party that exists as of now, choose to preempt a nuclear attack? After all don't we all, and that includes GoI, proudly state that India has never attached or Invaded any country in about 5000 or is it 10,000 years of its history. Don't we all take pride in the fact that we are the land of Gandhi and Buddha, the land of restraint and renunciation, the land that taught the world ahimsa?

We have always been a defensive power and will react only when attacked, or even then, quoting our civilizational value may exercise restrain to earn some plaudits from the gora sabihs.

If you bring Gandhi and Buddha, we billion have to be a Tibet onreee. might take the sheen off NFU, and will throw MAD for just thinking about it.

For effective NFU, we have to ensure, we are reactive as a system and not individuals especially baboozes. It is better not have any use, forget first or last use.

Saar I was being sarcastic but the point I was making is valid. No Indian government will go beyond NFU. The only consolation that we have is we haven't defined the 'Minimum' in the MCD. It might be 200 or 2000 or 20,000. That number is our hope i.e the Jingos hope. It is the reason why the NPT Ayatollas want to define that Lakshman Rekha and the GoI doesn't.

Deterrence doctrines are country-specific. Against TSP, they are the smaller, asymmetric actor. Against PRC, we are in that role. Against US, PRC are in that role. Our task is to ensure that PRC has to spend massive amounts of cash to defend against our ability to destroy their accumulated wealth and productivity centers.

Just as PRC responds to the presence of carrier task forces by designing the DF-21D ASBM, our goal is to implement vastly cheaper, asymmetric capabilities that circumvent their stadoff superiority by focussing on their most vulnerable high value targets, and forcing them to spend exponentially greater money to defend it, and then responding with yet another asymmetric weapon that costs us a fraction of what it costs them to defend themselves against it.

Therefore, against PRC, our role must be that of the more volatile and packee entity, just as the US were in the face of the superior Soviet arsenal. Force them to react by spending more time tunnelling, digging, protecting their cities, and improve the technology of our missiles to target each new defense that costs them far more than it costs us to improve our missiles.

This is what TSP does against us, except that we've already a 10:1 economic superiority and can afford the cost of defending our cities against their packee posture; China doesn't have a 10:1 superiority against us; their existing ~2.5:1 gap is about the largest they'll ever have. The soviets were in an even worse position - even with Moscow Math they barely had 1:1 economic parity. Therefore against PRC we should not be the one with the defensive CF posture; it does not make logical sense because we would be playing the game to their strengths - we should force them to maintain a CF posture to defend their superior economic base, and in the process erode that base by maximizing the cost of defending it.

TSP does not have depth and that is the reason their escalation does not change the balance much.
But China landmass has depth and hence India needs more strategic assets on land and in sea to 'surround' china from all sides. Every region of China must be covered under Indian threat.

Suraj Sir, I agree, but eventually sooner than later PRC will get ABM, PRC's ABM is same as TSP's ABM. What if that is their answer to our CV posture? They can secure their high value targets, have defenses against our missiles yet can hit us through secure locations our missiles cant reach not because of range, but because they are just unreachable? and how effective is our missile evasive mechanism? is it good enough that it can out maneuver their ABM? and add to the complexity, what if they take out our communication and future GPS satellites through well hidden ASAT missiles? that would blunt out CV posture, we can't even launch our missiles and guide them to the right targets. Hence I think CV and CF are must, first try to take out their missiles, bury them where they are, deal with the rest through CV targeting.

They can secure their high value targets ? There is no such guarantee. ABM bubbles can be defeated. That's one of the reasons why the A-V 3rd stage is designed the way it is. Our task is to ensure we keep extending the bleeding edge of ABM evasion technology. Their job is to spend orders of magnitude more cash to defend themselves against each incremental and generational update to our technologies.

The 'packee position' is not that we can stop them *and* hit them. It is 'we accept we'll get mauled, but we'll hurt you so badly in the process you'll not want to do it.' Don't apply TSP specific doctrines to addressing the posture against PRC; the two are unrelated. The best way to view it is to see our posture against PRC the way TSP views theirs against us. Our strategic programs reflect this developing posture - we're designing capable (but not guaranteed to be perfect) ABM shields and simultaneously devising maneuverable delivery platforms.

On that I will go with Singha saar i.e Have TEL/RailCar/SSBN based nuclear missile. Have them dispersed all about the county (Away from Cities), and Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean. Above all have sufficient warheads, enough to give real meaning to the word 'unacceptable'.

Treaty means give and take. If that is what they want they will find the modalities. For example, They may restrict the no. of launches in a time frame so it won't appear as an all out strike on Russian missile silos. Revisiting the negotiated treaty is cumbersome. By having a non ballistic profile and by accepting to some restrictions they may have their way. Anyway, JMT. BTW, already people raised the concern you highlighted here and you can see several discussion on that, if you are interested.

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,

To tell you from official line that nothing is stagnant; everything is evolving in accordance to today's reality.

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?

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.

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.



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 happening around.

JMT on the Indian NFU posture:

"A recent concern has broken out amongst some analysts that India has shifted its nuclear doctrine away from no first use. The publicly released summary of India’s 2003 official nuclear doctrine pledged “no first use” of nuclear weapons and an additional negative security assurance of “non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.”1 On 21 October 2010, India’s National Security Advisor, Shivshankar Menon, gave a speech to the National Defence College in which the text employs the formulation that India’s nuclear doctrine emphasizes “no first use against non-nuclear weapons states.”

http://www.idsa.in/node/6932/2404

1. 'Non use' versus 'no first use' is very different in diplomatese
2. 'Non nuclear weapons states' under NPT means PRC can be hit first because it is a NWS
3. TSP has nuclear weapons and is a de facto NWS so the NFU does not apply

In short, sufficient ambiguity (which is what deterrence is all about) re PRC and TSP. Some may also recall that at one point ABV/LKA (??) said (paraphrase): " We are not going to wait until their bombs land to retaliate.." . I remember Steve Cohen went ballistic (:)) about this 'change' in NFU.

A probably naive question, and I think I asked this before- and don't remember the answer . We all know that China/North Korea have helped Pakistan in a big way with missile development, probably shipping entire missiles to be quickly assembled. Sometimes perhaps transferring the entire pre-assembled missile.

What has prevented China from giving Pakistan satellite launch capability? They could covertly send a large SLV , have the Pakistanis assemble it, then launch it, allowing the Pakistanis to claim it is locally developed. Are they more concerned with the global reaction to that, than to simply missiles?

Is it that if Pakistan obtains satellite launch capability, they(the Pakistanis) would then start behaving like a serious country, and start competing in the launching business? Which is against the interest of both China and certain old type colonial/cold war thinkers in the West? Missiles- which are essentially India specific, designed to either force India into a mutual restraint regime with Pakistan alone, or alternatively, pressure India to make concessions on Kashmir- are okay with the 'world'. But not satellite launchers, which then conceivably become competition for a whole slew of countries.

The other possibility is that Pakistan itself has no wish to become a serious country, that it is quite content to simply be forever reactive and opposed to India, as long as India continues in its present configuration.

Kanson: It's fair to say we're probably debating very different issues here I cannot possibly address all the various theoretical permutations - I mentioned the specific case of why CF against PRC will not work, and why a irrational CV posture is on the lines of our actions so far. If you disagree, that's fine.

PS: please don't equate the verbal characterization of a game theory situation as some personal emotional response, i.e. 'your bravado' for example. I've not made the debate personal, and would appreciate the same.

I see that almost all discussions in this forum focusing on China and there is justification for this. If you go back in time China had excellent relation with India for thousands of years until middle of the 20th century. China at best has limited object of containing India's influence. If you study history India's real enemies have been arab islamists who have been attacking us for the last 1400 years and british/european imperialists who occupied us centuries back. Both these groups tried to destroy the very fabric of India which is indian spiritual traditions or sanatana dharma which make us as a single nation. The real benefit of these missiles is no more physical attacks by these groups who get their inspiration to wipe out indian civilisation from their abrahamic traditions.

Spinster/Umrao John reminded me that the very same people who are in GOI were derisive of George Fernandes when he said China was a threat to justify the POKII explosions. How the wheel turns!

Also SSM when asked about the change in the doctrine said no one except KS and the folks on a not to be named forum caught on to it! That is the value of his statements.

Constable Singh wanted British to rule and Arab (indirectly) to have first claim on India resources. They are not enemies for Indian government.

In terms of weapons, India should match and exceed China who is enemy number one according Indian government.
At least 10K missile range and heavy war heads launchable from trains and submarines will teach China a lesson.

There is a chicken or egg situation here. For Pakistan to become a "serious" country there has to be some internal resource separable from bullshit that can be used to make it that way.

More to the point, missiles are like a one night stand. Fire and forget. Satellites are like a marriage - needing continuing commitment, support and physical infrastructure which all cost much more in resources and commitment than a fire and forget Ding Dong. If you don't have all that there is no use launching a satellite.

Better drop the subject buddy. You are yourself spouting a warped version of history. There is a lot more detail and India does not look as weak and helpless as you make it appear, nor is Arabia as powerful as you claim and for that period of time.

You are swallowing up a lot of history and vomiting out a mash of half digested data. In the wrong thread to boot.

Deleted

Lets stick to thread topic please. There are other threads to debate other issues.

On a more serious note the how would an aerospike affect the throw weight of Tessy?

Not much. Aerospike is for first stage flight where there is more aero resistance.

Can pure quartz transform light energy say as laser into electrical energy?

I know that quartz can transform mechanical energy into electric and vice versa as piezo-electric effect.

Thanks ramana ji, also one more question, are these aerospikes retractable, rather are these afixed on a permanent basis?

Carbon nanotubes can.

Nako bhai, I think ramana ji wants to see some kind of ionization effect from lasers.

self deleted

arun: reposting something that's already been deleted as a cleanup effort on this thread by multiple moderators, is not a good idea. Please discuss it in the TSP thread - as another poster stated, it's for their own domestic consumption.

They are trying get more details of A5 by rumors and misinformation.

I remember reading in newspaper a few years back that India has changed its posture from NFU to use against any nation (nuclear/ non-nuclear) that uses a WMD (biological, chemical, nuclear or radiological) against Indian assets civilian or military.

Somehow Shiv Shankar Menon's statement partly contradicts above.

Also, for folks talking about response to nuclear attack can have a look at Sum of All Fears. It more or less outlines the options and the irrational thoughts of human mind in a nuclear shadow. (I agree it is very Clancyish, but atleast better than Humphrey Hawksley).

I believe India's planners keep following points in mind:
1) Not to outspend on nuclear assets alone at the cost of conventional deterrence, internal security or overall development.
2) Not to outspend on ABM alone at the cost of nuclear & conventional deterrence, internal security or overall development.
3) Build sufficient nuclear assets spread over a triad to keep it survivable.
4) Build a credible ABM to protect against Nuclear attack. This will start with terminal defence to protect the assets in NCR and other important cities (though the atmospheric/ above atmospheric detonation can affect the people in these cities). As we have more money and the technology matures ABM will shift to mid course defence.

Keeping above factors in mind and deriving a suitable cost-benefit ratio we will develop options to field Counter Value and limited Counter Force, with latter also based upon conventional weaponry (when we have sufficient numbers of PAKFA and Su-30 MKI guess what they will be doing most). In our own Indic way, we will not clearly advertise our posture as CF or CV. But display through a host of conventional and non-conventional weaponry the ability to do either. And also use either as the situation demands.

Whats the need for new R-27 missiles? None of the western airforces use these types of missiles. The AIM-7 sparrow is being replaced almost entirely by the AIM-120 AMRAAM. When we have the R-77s, also ported for use with MiG-29s, along with MiG-21 BISON, and Su-30, why are we buying a huge number of R-27s again?

Pure speculation onlee.

But given ,that Pakis have Aim 120 C5/c7. the R-27's have much higher ranges than r-77 and Aim120. SO with the missile having an active IR seeker, the r-27 can be fired first and host aircraft will turn back once the missile is say 25km from the target.

just my opinion adding to what Shiv ji already said. I think that TSP seriously lacks the man power and technology to launch satellites. Our own program had very humble beginnings as you know. Whole the satellite launching business needs mastering of propulsion, astrodynamics, communication, dynamics and control etc. if a country depends on comparatively simple technologies like missiles on other countries, one can imagine what is the standard of their aerospace program is in. I read somewhere that we tested sounding rockets atleast 250 times. Satellite launch requires lot of additional infra as Shiv ji said, you have to build the technologies gradually through a gradual learning curve. I think pakis are still years away from launching one by themselves. You need to have manpower and industry in place to absorb the tech, so even if PRC is ready to give, TSP lacks the resources to absorb it.

"Satellites are like a marriage - needing continuing commitment, support and physical infrastructure which all cost much more in resources and commitment than a fire and forget Ding Dong. If you don't have all that there is no use launching a satellite."

Makes sense- the resources and infrastructure needed to sustain a serious and viable space programme, are more than for missiles.

On a somewhat related note, why do the UK and UK net denizens, not raise the issue of Pakistan using British aid for their missile programme? Is it again, because Pakistan is not seen as either a serious country or a competitor. If they see India as advanced in its space programme, why would they not see Pakistan as 'advanced' in their missile programme. After the recent Indian Agni test, there were some rumblings about British aid going into that effort; why would the same concerns not surface for Pakistan? It must be because they see the true nature of the one over the other; India is serious, sophisticated, deep, long term and global. Pakistan is frivolous, mendacious, reactive/reactionary and superficial.

Varoon, I think they need TSP's missiles. They know i'ts missiles are India centric and that they have are PRC/NOKO based. Brits always favoured TSP over India. Even in great game perspective TSP's role and its existence is for their benefit. It's missile smuggling and program hence never bothered US and UK. So why should they even bother about it's nefarious activities? if they really bothered will they even let TSP smuggle nuke tech and missiles?