Bharat Rakshak

I don't think 2TON2T conundrum has been settled yet.

What is quite convincing is that the S1 could have had a design yield of approx 45kt. This is due to the need to maintain secrecy by keeping the village appearing to run normally until the first test, and also not endanger lives of the villagers. If it was a fizzle, in the sense of a "partial burn", then I am willing to accept that that could have been by design too.

But, the secrecy was needed "only" for the very first test. Subsequently, the villagers could have been evacuated, and a full yield device could have been tested. And villagers adequately compensated, and relocated if needed.

The fact that one bomb/device was pulled out of the shafts without testing it, can be interpreted in several ways.

(i) It could mean that since the first was a unexpected fizzle, there was no point in testing a second one based on the same design without understanding the cause of failure of the first.
(ii) Or that the first was a success (or fizzle by design), and a "political" decision was made not to go for the full yield test. Reasons could be many, including not having to relocate the villagers, or rebuild the village, or fears about containment, or that testing a >200kt yield will make Vajpayee's job harder internationally.

IMHO, neither of these two reasons are good enough. A full yield test could have been conducted. And its costs would have been well worth it.

The fact is only 45kt was demonstrated. The question is, is that enough"? Or even when enough, is it weaponizable without further tests. IMHO this has not been settled yet, despite many good arguments from all sides.

P.S. I have become quite a big fan of "fizzles". For example, lets say India declares to test a 1MT city-buster, but unfortunately it fizzles and gives only 200kt. Or India declares to test the Raja Bomba of 10Mt, but it fizzles to 1MT. Well, I don't know about others, but I can compromize to live with that.

A dictator, who does not trust his shadow, will trust 100 commanders of his rag tag military with nuclear weapons?

Nuclear weapons are at the end of the day not for war fighting. These are weapons, to be used for dooms day scenarios. But the son of a b*tch, who dares use these weapons better know that in retaliation, chances are, his nation WILL be destroyed. (unacceptable damage)

A MT type aresenal, is one measure amongst others for this guarantee. India needs assured massive realiation and the weapon of choice by our users are an MIRV capable vehicle, with an ability to carry a cumulative MT level payload.

Dictators with their puny brains are unlikely to understand this conept and hence will be the cause of their destruction.

If a 1 MT class weapon was to be tested, why would there be a need for secrecy. It would have been done in broad daylight and with prior announcement even, since outside pressures are not going to work to put it off if the mind is already made up in political circles, assuming technological feasibility and capability.

A lower yield weapons test OTOH will be under greater outside pressures, since it brings down the threshold for its eventual use. So the need to maintain ultimate secrecy before going in for multiple tests maybe.

Gerard, What you bolded applies when the test article was proven without a shadow of doubt. It doesnt apply here.

Here the participants are not answering as they dont have the rhetoric skills in play here.

Still isnt it curious that the number announced was 4 5 and not anything else?

Satyarthi:
"IMHO, neither of these two reasons are good enough. A full yield test could have been conducted. And its costs would have been well worth it."

Reason 3: The sensor network for yield estimation on the 6th and biggest demonstrator was damaged along with the houses at the village, because the 30kT demo on May 11 actually yielded 45 kT. So the 60kT demo on May 13 was cancelled, fearing that it might end up being 100kT and cause far worse damage, and anyway there was no way to estimate yield properly.

If I were planning these tests, I would have planned to get the most technically critical tests done first (so that there would be a second chance in case of gross failure).

But I see a problem with testing a big bum first - it damages the strata, unless the test range is so large that one does not affect the other. I never did understand this "test simultaneous" idea, because it seems way too risky and error-prone, but it is one solution to allow testing a big one along with some small ones - the data is obtained before the place melts.

The May 13th ones were apparently least critical to security - or there was too much political risk in testing them first. Or they are the most "destabilizing" weapons, with the lowest use threshold, so they would cause the worst external noise. On May 13th hardly anyone noticed, in the noise from May 11.

Either way, the plausible explanation is that the device removed without testing was a big-yield one, and the point was proven without it. Why waste so much good stuff that probably has "Mush's Chair" written on the side?

I have not bothered to read the history of how "MAD" started between the US and USSR and reached such idiotic levels. Instead I will merely do what comes to me naturally - I will post what I think actually transpired and then search to see if there is any evidence for or against that.

The US first had nukes and felt 'I am the strongest"

This was upset when the Soviets tested.

The US always believed that (and still does, like most of the West or indeed almost any country including Pakistan)
1) We (the US) are the most humane and civilized of all peoples
2) We the US must protect our humaneness and civilization
3) But we are under threat from uncivilized people who do not care about the deaths of their own people. They will gladly lose a city or ten while our civilization must not lose even one person - leave alone one city. The bestiality of our foes knows no bounds. They have bombers that can reach us, but not go back - ergo the bombers will be used on one way missions - so uncivilized are our foes.

How do we deal with such a foe?
Ans: we will destroy him totally. We will build up and arsenal that will completely destroy every city, town and village in his abominable nation.

And the Soviet response : (first in Russian- translation below) "Bzzt bzbzztz bzzski bzznov bzzarad bomba"
"OK - so you (US) want to be b**chod? We will be bigger b**chod and match you bomb for bomb"

When this business reached insane levels we have todays situation between the West and Russia.

The assumption that everyone makes is that the US Soviet model of deterrence is the only workable model. It is the only workable model assuming that you consider yourself civilized and your enemy totally irrational.

Since India is totally civilized (5000 years of it) and the rest of the world is totally uncivilized and irrational and will not feel hurt by the loss of one city or 10, India must build up a huge arsenal to destroy all cities of all potential adversaries. By this standard India has no deterrent at all and anything less than 20,000 weapons is beginning to look "weak"

Do not doubt this need to be mad, to deploy MAD. What saves us is the lack of utterly mad folks, in our neighborhood, who have built such weapons, but are more mad than the only partially mad civilization. When the partially mad decide to become full mad, MAD cannot be ruled out. Even if MAD has been proven to be mad. I hope we are not that mad and hence just show the capability to be MAD and then there will be no need for actual MAD, in our region. Recessed deterrence is the Indian mantra.

By a strange coincidence many moons ago on this series of threads, it was calculated that:

1. should India have a workable TN warhead which uses 3 to 3.5kg of WgPu

and

2. should India use all of its proven reserves of uranium (some 77,000-94,000 tons) to produce WgPu in a low burn mode in its reactors

it would end up with about 18,500 weapons.

One very fortunate thing for me on this thread is that I am neither constrained by knowledge of nuclear physics, not of much maths or engineering. That allows me to say stuff that I pick up here and there trawling the net.

One reference that speaks of "efficient" fission bombs says that a fusion boosted fission bomb using 4.5 Kg Pu will produce about 11 kilotons of boom (14% efficiency). I am not at all sure that it is possible to get it much more efficient than that - but if we say 3.5 Kg can produce 15 kilotons by efficient boosting, it sets some limits on how big your bombs can be.

The same reference makes a link between size of primary and size of secondary in a TN bomb. Because fusion require compression, it takes a bigger bang to compress a larger amount of LiD - so there is a link between yield of primary and secondary. No figures are given - but if I arbitrarily apply LakshmiC's 2-1-4-6 (formula) A 15 kiloton fission primary can produce at most 105 kt.

But even that 100 kt comes at a price. Nearly half that yield would be fission of tamper, provided the tamper is fissile. Now the tamper can be "spent fuel" - U 238, but its propensity to go boom can be increased by retaining within that tamper a proportion of U 235 and even Plutonium

But..

If Pu is retained in the spent fuel that goes to make a tamper, then that Pu has to be left out of the calculation in making new 3.5 kg fission primaries - so the number of warheads to make India really really "secure" may fall short of the required minimum 18,500.

We are finished!

Evolution of doctrine
The first use of nukes was war termination. The usage of nukes against Japan along with the massive SU invasion in East Asia greatly reduced the will to fight and brought a speedy conclusion.

After this the primary goal of nuke weapons was war prevention. After WWII, the US faced demands to demobilize and return to civilian economy while it faced the large conventional armies of the Soviet Union. It was in this milieu that the doctrine of “massive retaliation” or “total annihilation” was adopted to prevent a SU break-out in Western Europe whether conventional or nuclear.

After the SU achieved qualitative parity the doctrine was still retained but the goal was deterrence - to prevent the use of nukes against own territory i.e. to prevent the breakdown of will like that happened in Imperial Japan.

In the first and half decade of nuke weapons i.e. from 1945 to 1960 the reliance was on aircraft. However as missiles improved in throw weight and accuracy and anti-aircraft defenses improved in quality and quantity, the delivery system changed from aircraft to missiles. Then came, Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV) which could defeat of Anti Ballistic Defenses. In the late 1950s, US thinkers came up with the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) concept of deterrence as the challenging power achieved parity in qualitative and quantitative terms. This is based on game theory to prevent the very outcome that is the premise- total annihilation. With improvements in technology and delivery vehicles this took different forms like second strike based n submarines etc. Second strike doctrines are by nature counter value doctrine that is they target civilian assets as opposed to counter-force that target military assets and are thus primarily first strike doctrines. Simultaneously the concept of extended deterrence was announced to cover the territories their allies. This is also called nuclear umbrella. After end of Cold war and spread of technology the doctrine of expanded deterrence against BCW (Biological and Chemical Weapons) was announced. In 1996, the CWC (Chemical Weapons Convention) was negotiated to reduce and eliminate chemical weapons. The idea of a similar BWC to reduce and eliminate biological weapons is not progressing.

In mid 1970s, all the NWS (Nuclear Weapon States as defined by NPT) gave negative security assurances to all non NWS. This means they will not use nuclear weapons against non nuclear states. However this was negated by the doctrine of expanded deterrence which declares the threat to use nuclear weapons to deter use of non-nuclear weapons like BCW.

Smaller Powers

While this was going on France developed the Balance of Terror, which is a counter value doctrine, appropriate for a smaller power against a bigger power. But in reality France despite its rhetoric was a part of the Western alliance and is part of the MAD doctrine in a global sense. France also does not subscribe to No First Use (NFU) as it is a status quo power.

UK is fully part of the US system and need not be considered here.

PRC has a mixed strategy, to prevent war with a nuclear power Soviet Union and US and to have maximum leeway to prevent breakaway areas (Tibet) or reconquista of areas it considers under its area of influence (Taiwan). It has declared NFU against the powers recognized by NPT, and potential first use on territories it considers its own. The first part contributes to stability i.e. PRC wont threaten them if they don’t threaten her. The second part is to prevent the others from playing in her pond. So it’s basically a war prevention strategy.

Also the above three powers have proven yields of various values to suit the targets and deployed patrols to lend credibility to their respective postures. Further there is a mutally agreed arms balance that takes into account their challengers. As the threat of global nuclear war is receding there is pressure to reduce the numbers.


New powers

TSP has announced various red-lines for its nukes in the famous three authors’ article. The troublesome part is its Army motto which has jihad in its motto and considers all means fair in attaining its aims. The main threat to India form TSP is a jihadi strike with plausible deniability from TSP.

Indian doctrine is the MND (Minimum Nuclear Doctrine). The principal elements are deterrence i.e. prevent use or threats of nuclear weapons on itself, and expanded deterrence against BCW. India has declared No First Use (NFU). As it is primarily a second strike doctrine it is by nature mainly a counter value (i.e. against population centers) and some elements of counter force (military and leadership targets). Besides most of the horses would have left the barn after the challenger’s first strike. So it’s mainly a counter value doctrine.

So what has been suggested is already the doctrine that India subscribes to. The yields that are required are based on the mega sizes of the challenger’s population centers. Smaller yields will require larger number which is against global trends. So one should take into account the whole picture while deciding on future steps.

A link to a wiki article on MAD and further links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Thanks for reading so far.

ramana: sorry to toss in the irrelevant question, but....

Given the nature of dictatorial or religious-based regimes, how reliable are these advertised doctrines as predictors of a regime's course of action? For instance, I am sure North Vietnam never threatened the mainland USA, but there were numerous loud calls for nuking Hanoi and Haiphong. Absent the Soviet MAD, would the US have been so shy to use nukes when faced with defeat in Vietnam?

We have heard that India was threatened with nukes in 1971 if there was a full-speed breakout into West Pakistan, but we won't know for sure. We've also heard that the SU refused to provide MAD cover if India broke out in West Pakistan, which may have decided the issue. Same sorts of stories about 1973 Arab-Israel war.

How much more or less stable would a nuke-armed dictator regime be if it was facing humiliation in conventional warfare? Reason is that the regime faces, not election defeat, but a Rabbani fate. Would they then say: "Our Doctrine does not permit us to FU" or will they hit the launch button? Will their Generals then try to advise them for hours on why breaking the Doctrine would reduce morale or bring trade sanctions?

So, while the doctrines lay out things nicely for papers by Policy Studies experts, do they have much value in the heat of war? Or should the only doctrine be:


Abdul Enqyoob Foundation Think Tank slogan: Vive L'Ignorance!

Do postors really want to know or are just posting to increase noise in the thread under mandates from outside the Forum? Looks like there is a different audience to which the posts are being made.

If they want to know Indian doctrine is a mixed one of counter value and counterforce. Thats what where it is addressed. If its a totaliarian regime then its assets are targetted. Others are left to imagination.

The Enterprise was thought to be a threat and thats why there was the 1974 PNE. The threats to Vietnam were before the neagtive security assurances of 1978.

The reason why I posted the evolution of doctrine is because "Doctrine drives policy." Not other way round. And folks were saying they had not read doctrines but were posting anyways.

About doing unto others is a relgious concept and we should not bring it in this discussion.

People seem uber-sensitive on this thread. I have just not understood why.

My question is whether published doctrine doesn't hinder freedom of action and thus make responses too predictable. This would be especially true if doctrine drives policy, would it not? Predictable is good when major responsible powers are trying to go about their business and neither wants war, but not good when someone spends all their waking hours dreaming of Revenge for 48, Revenge for 64, Revenge for 71, etc. Hence the question. Other intents, funding support for posting on BRF etc. are left up to people's imagination. (gotta go now, Control is calling..)

Ramana - I don't know why Sunil Sainis's blog should make people on here look over their shoulders and talk to people there. I am reading Sunil's blog every day and I find people on there thinking that they are having some effect on people here. I didn't believe that till I saw this post of yours and it appears that you believe that to be true. Yours is the second post on BRF that I have seen, making that allegation.

A long time ago I found this game being played between PakDef and BRF and put an end to that. But this time it's worse.

What is worse than one forum actually cross posting discussions on another forum is the general belief that posts "here' are being read and responded to "there" and that people are carrying information from "there" and making posts here any having a good laugh.

For a completely different reason, one BRF poster had linked the blog but the link was deleted first time by someone else and the second time by me under the mistaken impression that BRF can carry on without getting into the "She loves me she loves me not" game with Sunil's blog. It appears that it will not happen that way. Sunil was too deeply involved with BR for people not to continue to value his opinions and his blog is getting filled with people who want to have a rant about BRF. That of course is exactly what happened in the early days of India Forum until Kaushal's persistence and maturity took India forum way beyond being a shoulder for homeless people to cry on.

I believe the best thing is to openly link the blog on here and let people decide for themselves, right out in the open whether information transfer is happening and where information is coming from or going. That would be better than worrying and suspecting that something sinister is happening. Of course derogatory things have been said about Arun, Jagan, ramana and me apart from a few others - but it is better for this to be out in the open than people being paranoid.

Some posters on that blog - paricularly former respected BRF member Alok N and recently booted out troll Saurav Jha seem to dearly want validation that they are being seen and heard on BRF - giving them a back door entry on here. "Yes we see you and we hear you" would be a perfectly honest thing to say under the circumstances. Especially if it is going to make people visiting the blog happy that they have a voice on here and give them a good night's sleep because they are finally back on BRF via the back door. Go on have a rant. We will read all that - but it will be open, and I will still not allow cross posts here. Sorry.

And you can betcha this post of mine will find mention on the blog comments sooner or later. But at least everyone will immediately understand who is taking what discussion from where and to where. Ultimately, I am sure Sunil's blog will grow and mature - but only after the usual bevy of "disgruntled ex BRF" types stop destroying everything there in favor of their constant "DF (Disreputable Forum - aka BRF) mein log kya keh rahen hain?" anxiety.

But ramana - let US not have that anxiety on here please. Let us not waste bandwidth worrying "Sunil Sainis ka blog mein log kya keh rahen hain?" without explicitly saying so. Let people go to Sunil Sainis's blog "Maverick's world" and have a look and satisfy themselves.

Thanks for listening.

Gee! Just FYI, it didn't even occur to me that THAT is what all this tummy acid is about. I thought ppl were saying that the CIA, Mossad, ISI, Al Qaida, and Mau Mau were putting me up to it, as one worthy declared in an email to his entire fan club because he was upset at losing a gentle debate in fair jousting on some other forum. All these folks are good e-buddies of mine, but sorry to disappoint anyone, I wouldn't know even how to to go to any of these forums, I don't have the time, and I am waaay too ignorant to figure out most of what is said in the emails that I sometimes get (probably cc-ed to others here) are saying. Of course, when ppl write "XXXXX, go "FU" I gather they aren't talking about First Use... but that's all that I can figure out.

I come here to get a break from the joys of dealing with Administrators, Managers, and other Honorary-Dignitary Pakis. It's too hot to go out and kick the lawnmower.

So, like I've said b4, ease up, guys. This is a web forum for shooting the breeze, not a "Deep Scientific Conference" as the cabaret-fan SRR-invitation-waiter imagined.

shiv, it wasn't quite like that.
the soviet response in the early days of the cold war was very unconventional and certainly extremely interesting from India's POV.
throughout the 50's and early 60's USSR kept nuclear america at bay with just a handful of nukes compared with US' arsenal. even their delivery systems were nothing to write home about in terms of range, reliability or accuracy.
and this was arguably one of the most hawkish periods of US military thinking when they thought up concepts like surviving a nuclear war and wanted to finish off the reds in pre-emptive strikes.
and yet, the small arsenal of the soviets had enough deterrent value to halt the US military hawks from any adventurism.

soviet thinking changed after the 62 missile crisis and they started to match the americans bomb for bomb. it has been commented by experts that this unfortunately was a panic decision by the politburo and not justifiable by any lessons from the cuban crisis.

this part of pre MAD deterrence is unfortunately rarely highlighted.
It could hold interesting lessons for India.

Now,this kind of deterrence should hold against any regular nation state (yes even a RAPE ruled pakistan and certainly the PRC) but would show signs of strain if any kind of govt/army with jihadi mindset gets control of the bombs.

JMT.

The real lesson from the Cuban Missile Crisis was that if there is any new clear detergent on either side, he who has conventional superiority and is willing to use it, wins. The Russians had no hope of protecting their shipping in the Caribbean from the US Navy, or of protecting Cuba from massive air strikes.
Same lesson came across in the Falklands war too. The British nuclear capability proved irrelelevant. So the investment is better spent on conventional superiority, once there is some nuclear deterrent.

The decision to put missiles in Cuba was a response to the US nuclear missiles in Turkey (and Greece, maybe). Again, the Soviets lacked the conventional power to stop that. Like India can't do diddly about missiles in Tibet.

exactly !
a limited deterrent with small no of bombs none of which exceed 45 kT (assuming the worst case scenario and all these fizzle business to be true) is enough for India's needs.

granted, it won't provide assured deterrence against jihadi generals but then even a 1000 bomb arsenal won't do that trick.
however, conventional counter force weapons might give us at least a fighting chance against such entities !


couldn't have put it in more succinct terms !

i agree on the strategic deterrence value on nukes is inversely proportional to conventional strength., but may be only on specific agenda.. where the enemies understand the meaning of it.. In our case, no amount of show, 1:10, or anything that would even make a super power think twice, will go haywire over nerveless jihadic societies, who lives in a different world. Hence, it is necessary to provide superiority from being smart to stupid.

Thanks for the correction and feedback RahulM and enqyoob.

In other words "Irrationality=breakdown of deterrence"

Irrationality, in which a nuclear armed adversary does not care who is killed or whether he is himself destroyed falls outside the scheme of deterrence. That may be why the US, which has convinced itself that every one of it adversaries is irrational and uncivilized, is invariably deterred by the smallest nuclear arsenal.

In fact irrationality is a hedge against the US in particular, and the rational behavior that India displays puts it at greater risk of attack from an entity such as the US than from Pakistan because the latter believes that India is irrational.

China too uses this rationality/irrationality posture well. India would do well to do a tit for tat. Luckily Indian political chaos always leaves room for people to think that an irrational person will reach the top, but this chaos has its drawbacks within India as the idea that someone is irrational can be used in political campaigns against someone.

In fact - I just wonder:

A huge and credible nuclear arsenal is expected to deter the rational, but will not deter the irrational.

In fact, rather than saying that "Irrationality=breakdown of deterrence" (as I have done) it might be more accurate to say that irrationality also deters the rational.

IOW - if you have a huge arsenal, your arsenal is expected to deter the rational.

But even if you have a small arsenal, you can utilize irrationality to deter the rational.

As long as a player is rational, the size of the nuclear arsenal that can deter him is less important than the worry that the arsenal itself exists and could hit him via an irrational actor. I now see why a doctrine of "first use" is better than a doctrine of NFU. But then again, when a player can be irrational, declared doctrines will mean nothing to him.

Deterrence does have a significant piskological components.

1. One of which is the rationality/irrationality aspect as you mention.

2. Second is the total size of the arsenal. An irrational or desperate power can consider half the country getting destroyed as acceptable than the whole country getting destroyed. Remember Mao's statement that enough chinese will survive even after a nuke war to populate the earth, or something to that effect. So a threat of complete destruction can deter them, but not necessarily the threat of partial destruction. The total arsenal strength matters here.

3. Even the size of the bombs in the arsenal matter. I claim that between a number of smaller nukes and one big one, matched in their total destructive power, the bigger one carries a bigger deterrent value. It may not be obvious at first. But say you are stuck in Africa in a place where if you go right you are going to be attacked by hyenas, and if you go left you will be attacked by a single lion. Even though the strength of the hyenas and the lone lion are matched evenly, which one would you rather take your chance with?

So, yes an irrational actor can possibly buy a bigger deterrence than a rational one for same sized arsenal, upto a point.

But..., if the nukes actually start exploding, then

(i) An irrational opponent is likely to get hit much harder than a rational one.
(ii) The party with the biggest arsenal (a function of numbers and yields), will come out on top.

So, a small arsenal is useful only if there is assurance of deterrence holding. But if for some reason the deterrence breaks down, then the big cats will have the smaller ones, and especially the irrational smaller ones, for lunch.

What worries me is a repeat of the Nehruvian Blunders. That is we may convince ourselves that, rather limited offensive capacity is enough to survive and deter aggression, and concentrate on economy etc. But if a Mao again forces the situation and calls our bluff, then we may find ourselves in the same kind of soup that Nehru landed in. And given that our neighborhood has become even more dangerous than what Nehru faced, the fear is not unjustified.

There is no excuse for getting caught with our guard down again. India must be able to match China and Pakistan's arsenal for a worst case scenario, not just hope to deter them with a small arsenal. Because if the bluff actually gets called, it could be one of the greatest blunders in our civilizational history.

It is in fact a play of rationality and arsenal strength in various proportions, so to speak.

America ia VERY rational on the question of a 0.001KT ejjplojan in their yard, but not so rational about a 100MT ejjplojan by them in another's yard. So, they are deterred; no, wear brown pants; on the thought of the 0.001KT with anone.

India is VERY rational on BOTH questions, so we are deterred by EVERYONE, and NO ONE is deterred by our 50,000 1MT ejjplojans!! We are "compatriots of gaandi and boodda", right?

China (and Russia) is somewhat rational on the first (I presume), and not so rational on the second. Bakistan is somewhat irrational on both.

The other two aren't worth mention. They are like the old Tharavaad that maintains the elephant spoor and the chain in the yard for prestige's sake.

Now, anyone who didn't flunk the advanced math can easily figure out the "partial burn differenjial equajan" between these countries. Throw in the political affiliations and the game becomes interesting.

IMHO, all that is worthless.

One thing for sure is that the rationality index HAS changed a lot from that of the 50s, for the simple reason that the economics changed. The economy of nations are so intertwined now, that the "butterfly effect" is REAL. A 0.001KT happens in sichuan, and 100K jobs lost in USA. It is no longer about arable land and livestock. It is about consumerism and outsourcing. The world is tied together, so you hit anywhere, everyone gets the pain.

Hello Folks;

It is also a true homily that the only winner in a nuclear war is war itself; everyone loses -- so does that mean a nuclear pebble will deter a mighty arsenal?

My take on Nuke deterrence for dummies -- what it is about is fear. If person A can do enough damage to person B; person B will fear him. After all the intellectual stuff is shorn its about the basics.

Now the tough part is judging what is enough for person B. This enough is further subject to a whole variety of goals and rationals. What is person B willing to take from A to get X. As we know even a cow turns into a fierce creature when her young one is attacked.

With the "current" understanding of our limited nuclear capability (45 KT weapon)

Would China be willing to go for a nuclear conflict if we thew out its Ambassador?

Would China be willing to go nuclear for loss of a battle over Tawang?

Would China be willing to go nuclear if about to lost Tibet in a war?

Would China be willing to nuclear against India in a two front conventional war with India + (Russia or Taiwan/US)?

The answer clearly is different in each case. The same can be applied to India as to when will India be ready to go nuclear (assuming a No NFU with NFU the answers are clear)

The concept of rationality also changes similarly -- you hurt some one in Sichuan US will worry about economies; but if China has already hit mil targets within India with Nukes what then? Will you still worry about what whether US worries or not?

What the point of the ramble? ---> Escalation chain --> The nuclear capability to deter must be able to climb the escalation chain to a level where we can match the adversary in a potential chess game till such a time the reward/pain ratio for the both min out for each below at the unacceptable level for each. So that we are covered in nearly ALL situations and if need be we dynamically scale up or down with time.

If you find yourself in a situation that reward/pain for you has min out for you but not for your adversary; you can be sure that nuclear option will be used. What I find people discussing is only the pain aspect and not the reward aspect for using the weapon. Not so lets not be single tracked by the pain to the level we forget the reward.

We are a NFU nation because for us
reward of using weapons == 0 under all circumstances (we are Dharmic onlee)
so what we want to do is increase adversaries pain to high.

However we must not forget that reward > 0 for other rational non-Indian nations.

So Shiv's analysis though caustic on nature of India is partially correct; we do not deter others because others know that short of a nuclear attack we are NOT TRYING to deter.

Others however use the nuclear escalation chain to deter non nuclear situations -- a conventional attack so to say.

What we need to do is have a capability which will deter the non nuclear aspects of enemies deterrence by increasing the cost of using the nuclear deterrence.

The key is to understand the equation reward/cost and what factor are you going to tweak.

Overall I think NFU is a great doctrine; changing the doctrine because we did not make the right tools to use it in my opinion is a cop out. If the problem is credibility of bums to support it; bums must be made credible rather than change the doctrine. We shouldn't do "Hey we don't have the courage to do the right thing; so lets change the definition of right to what we are doing"

Basic homily is true here -- intents and situation can change overnight; but capabilities cant. So your capabilities determine the envelop of possibilities where your survival is assured.

Russian army chief: We'll use nuclear weapons if threatened
Associated Press
Published: 01.19.08, 12:04 / Israel News

OK, a classic statement of doctrine:


Trouble is:
Case 1: Chechen sistahs experience vacuum burst inside Moscow Cinema theater. Once.
No reaction possible, and no deterrence.
Case 2: Chechen sistahs (or SOMEONE) experience vacuum bursts in Moscow, St. Peterburg, Vladivostok, and 20 other cities (I know a lot of Soviet city names, but not sure any more if they are in Russia). Any deterrence?
Case 3: Airliner brought down on top of Kremlin when the top leadership is in session. Most of the leadership "retires to go on vacation" per Pravda. Pakistani-trained Saudi"hotel management students" with 3 weeks of flying lessons in Ukraine found to be the perpetrators (fedayeen), with airport in Georgia being the launching point. Any deterrence?
Case 4: Russian-Ukrainian riots, Russian-Georgian riots, Russian-Chechnyan riots, riots inside Moscow, St. Petersburg, and 20 other cities threaten Russian integrity. Any deterrence?
Case 5: Georgian and Ukrainian troops cross respective borders to protect ethnic populations undergoing pogroms. Russian military is in serious crisis, 40% locked down due to suspect loyalties following decapitation strike in Moscow (see airliner event). Will Russia use nukes against Georgia and Ukraine?

This is the shape of "modern war" that threatens to break down "rational" nations.

Of course there is only one solution.
"(NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer) underscored that in this war Pakistan is a part of the solution and this fact is always acknowledged by NATO," Pakistan's foreign ministry said in a statement."
IOW,
Give Peace A Chance. Destroy Pakistan's Army


The only real deterrence is a demonstration that "rational" countries will also act decisively to "solve the problem". Not by bombing a border post, but by sending that B-1 bomber and 2 F-15 escorts a bit deeper (about 30 minutes east-southeast). With laser-guided bombs. And THEN back it up with nuclear deterrence to any Honor and Dignity reactions.

My take is that if this is demonstrated on Pakistan, other dictators will be a bit less willing to try misadventures. Immediate counter-example, I know, will be "What about Eyerak" Answer is obvious: If Dubya had stopped with a few airstrikes in downtown Baghdad, regardless of the outcome of "decapitation strikes", Iraq might today be a Bissful, exemplary Moderate Islamic Secular Enlightened State. The idiocy was in sending in ground troops and trying to micromanage a "Japan replication" without global support (would have failed even with global support).

IOW, here is a proposition to those who argue that a nuclear test today will not result in sanctions of unacceptable pain. Why not extend that thinking to what would happen if the Pakistan Army leadership were hit very hard for each terrorist strike inside India, with a backup warning that any escalation will be treated as an act of total war?
Of course this will require an evacuation and major renovations inside Dilli, plus an extensive air defense system. It may reduce the rush to win party elections to cabinet posts as well. But why not seriously analyze the costs of this strategy, maybe in another thread? The very existence of such a thread, I submit, will do a lot of good in inducing better behavior in certain places.

if India is considered a rational player then the real developments in Agni missile system and ATV cannot be dismissed as a wasteful indulgence without a strategic plan and by extention the MND too cannot be dismmised given the delivery system requires there to be credible nuke weapons.

So by the measure of what India has and will have in the future in terms of a fully developed nuke sub based delivery system, India can be deemed to have an effective deterence atleast in the near future from the the point of view of the rational P5.

Gee enqyoob, It was as simple as that? What I saw over a number of threads, is you come in post some off hand remarks in Pingrezi with a scatter gun and scoot like panda eats, shoots and leaves. I thought this isnt the N^3 I know. Maybe he is making a point to some folks outside the forum who are reading it.

Shiv, I thought it was the study circle and discussion groups run by US academia and business interests. The blog people did not occur to me. The former are very active in trying to gauge the opinion to keep their masters informed.

I think your idea of giving the blog people a link is altruistic and laudable. However its not samdura manthan thats going on. No amrut will come.

Peace.

N^3, one has to separate internal from external threats in your 4 cases. And when a tack hammer will do the job, no need to use the sledge hammer. All doctrines are for external powers. If external powers use internal players or non-state actors then the doctrine gets invoked. Otherwise we will end up with analysis-paralysis. And all this irrational stuff is all hogwash. When faced with assured destruction everyone gets rational. The so called irrational states will get rid of their irrational leaders if they know they will all be totally destroyed and that our idea of civilization will prevail no matter. If you read the history of warfare between the old traditional "shahadat/martyrdom" way and the assured destruction way the latter wins always and new order emerges. Go back to Mahabharata, Shogun Japan, Mameluke Islam and Ottomon Turkey so on.
For those truly irrational, the Puranas show the way- one has to make them destroy themselves- a la Bhasmasura.

In my opinion things are not bad as they are made out to be. The option to test will make the external players think twice before putting the kabash as Dileep says the globalized world cant stand the instability. So that option has to be retained as insurance. I dont know why folks want to take a more rigid stand than goi which has retained the test option(albiet at a price if India buys stuff from US) and settle for no test ever.

And finally satyarthi and others, we have blamed Nehru enough. It is abdicating responsibilty by fixing the blame on him and others. He and his generation have worked very hard to gain breathing space for the modern Indian state in very turbulent times. He worked with what tools he had and created new tools. Its another matter that in our blame maisma we havent used the tools he created due to our own shortcomings.

So please if there is an edict on not blaming MMS then I request it be extended to the founding fathers also- Gandhi, Nehru and that generation. The Commies (MN Roy etc) are exempt from this

What bout the blog people. Can they be targetted.

You can target them on the blog please. Not on here.

Oh absolutely - but a small correction. You can "blame" someone if you think he was wrong, but getting personal and say "Traitor" "idiot", "buffoon", "Needs to be slapped by chappals on his backside", etc should not be used because of the following possibility:

Shiv: "I think Atalji is an idiot"
BRF member: "Big deal. I think YOU are an idiot"

On BRF we seem to find it OK for the former to occur but the latter calling shiv an idiot is "ad hominem".

AH at last even enqyoob sara is seriously talking about doctrine, when I said what is our vision, strategy goals objectives , short term medium term long term, enqyoob saar with his eloquence beat me to pulp.
added later

Bad example.
The simple axiom is that Two or more people should agree about third or anyone who is not particpant in the opinion elucidation/prespcription/solicitation.

OK now that we all know where we are coing from lets get back to topic without snide or otherwise remarks on this thread atleast.

ramana: seriously.

I think even those entities that you describe, are split on what I am, which is fine. U'll c references where one more recent entity cites an article kindly, whereas an earlier Report by an NPA cites the same article as "example of nationalistic.." whatever. As it happens, the latter is the one that seems to have disappeared from the web.

So FYI, though irrelevant to my particular posting at any given moment, here is my general opinion:
1. India is P6. No waffling on that need be tolerated.
2. Testing in 1998 was way overdue, but I agree with the compulsions that prevented it in the 1980s and early 90s. No sense in becoming a Belgrade. So I don't agree with the bashing of former Indian leaders. General Fundamental Principle there (I think it was No. 4): Every Indian leader till now has been ELECTED in free, democratic elections where every citizen of voting age is entitled to vote (yeah, yeah, subject to usual corruption, errors, etc). So their decisions were the decisions of India, whether you or I or anyone else personally agrees with them.
3. Sanctions in 1998 were beaten (but not completely gone) due to will of desi ppl inside and outside. It was not easy, but we can take justifiable pride that in our generation we came so far, and in 1998-99 when it was utterly critical, we helped shape and even swing world opinion. Anyone who disses that does so at their peril, 1-touch-ban is no deterrent.
3. I think the tests in 1998 were, well, what the GOI said they were. There is adequate validation in all the discussions here, and in articles on BRM/SRR, including yours (NOT that I have read it with enough sense to understand all of it!). I know enough of western "experts" to know that they were idiotically wrong in 1948, 62, 65, 71, 80s, 90s, post 2000 and all the years in between. It's like a "con trail" in the sky. A few lies, amplified a thousand times by the idiots all frozen like ice crystals onto the dust exhausted in the hot air from the liars. I think my "Kashmir" website in 1999 said why: I remember what I read as a child, and decades later, I find that what the GOI said was exactly true, whether about casualties and results of war in 1965, genocide in East Pakistan or Kargil invasion. The West was always bloody dishonest.

4. I have expressed my opinions on NPT and CTBT, in exactly the sorts of circles that you expressed fear of.

5. I supported the efforts TOWARDS the India-US Nuclear Deal. That's where I part company from many of the jingos here. I STILL maintain that it's an OK deal, in fact FAR BETTER than what I anticipated. So no reason to back out. I am of course not happy that the deal seems dead/dying now, but again, when it comes right down to it, if that is the decision of the elected representatives of the people of India, then, well.... that's it. The People have shown time and again that their collective sense is far better than that of someone sitting outside or inside.

6. My SENSE was that further testing would be stupid from repercussions point of view, and cause a needless downward slide (what I thought would be far worse in 1998, but what we fought to avoid and were helped by the Pakis' stupidity. Why do you think I took the trouble to direct blasts at Moni B and her gang? I thought all the gains since 1992 would be wiped out in another economic collapse, which is what the COTUS/NPAs intended to happpen). In today's environment, I think a new series of Indian nuke tests would be EXACTLY what the NPAs and Pakis and most of all, Pandas want. So it is very unfortunate to see ppl in the NDA in India arguing for such a course of action, just to spite their political opponents.

7. After reading (in scatter-brained fashion, no doubt) what I have read here, I am now firmly convinced that these "absolutely essential" new tests are in fact not only inadvisable, they will contribute nothing to Indian security. This argument has gone and visited many places, but always came back with the same result, ever stronger: The arguments for new testing don't hold water.
So there, I emphasize that I started with only a SENSE, but now am FIRMLY CONVINCED.

8. Discussions of the general nature of doctrine and deterrence are now in the cud-chewing category: No particular position to defend or push there, except that Pakistan's Army should be destroyed before they destroy the world.

9. Deterring the Panda, I think, requires an order-of-magnitude improvement in Indian conventional and civilian and economic infrastructure. Our infrastructure stinks, both in terms of Himalayan logistics, and capability for swift mobilization for a large conventional war. We have to IMPORT ARTILLERY SHELLS, not to mention warm clothing!

Without that, the "best" we can hope for is to become the equivalent of 1988 Iraq vs. Saudi Arabia. Capable of causing a lot of fear, but ultimately, not in a position to prevail. So it's better to shut up re: scaring the Panda.

Hope this helps clarify. Maybe in several months, I may be in a position to start writing serious stuff again. Right now it's like nuclear testing: ppl know what I am, but there is no sense in aggravating them without the time and other resources to back up the operation and break out to other things. So I am in "pingreji" mode as you say.

Thats the enqyoob I know.

Clear concise precise, erudite, informative,
educative, invigorating, and finally convincing.
thanks.

At last we got back our enqyoob. All this was worth it for only that.

In Telugu there is a saying "Emden laaga kottavu" tranlated as "You have hit like Emden". Emden is the Imperial German battle cruiser of WWI that bombarded Madras with an accuracy never seen in that part of the world.

Thanks bro!

He is a bro in more ways than that is understood- gurukul, BRF, jingo, India first among others.

Agree 100%!

Not that you said it first time but certain members repeatedly choose to ignore this line of thinking and instead used words/phrases like "why PM/Nehru is holy cow" "BRF edicts against..." "Why PM/GoI is above criticism". This is akin to putting false words on other's mouth and than arguing against it.

This is what a lot of jingos need to understand, you should attack actions and policy choices of individuals not persons and personalities.

If you go to Chinese forums you would find that a general ban is observed on calling names to uncle Hu and his ministers. If you go to Puki forums every leader of that country is called by numerous unmentionable names except may be Jinnah. Those people and their discussion reflect their culture and political systems, we must reflect on ours. Ours is a civilized democracy where everyone is subjected to criticism and held accountable but with in the boundaries of parliamentary decorum.

It is your choice to call MMS a ‘weak and timid’ PM verses a "rat". Both have similar meaning but if you need to choose colorful language to support your argument than either you are not confident in your own position or you think you are arguing with a moron, in either case it'll create a problem.

And at the end of the day, like n^3 said, you are talking about PM/President/Govt of India you better watch your language or be ready to be confronted by a lot of Indians who’ll not tolerate cheap and colorful language against the supreme leadership of their country even by fellow Indians.

Katare, Admins have already spoken na?

I sense some "amrit" has come out of the "manthan" here, after a looming threat of "halahala".

P.S. I think using the word "blunder" in strategic decisions of Nehru should be alright, since there is enough and repeated justification for it. Even Brig. Dalvi named his book "Himalayan Blunder".