Deterrence

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Deterrence

Postby ArjunPandit » 28 May 2018 00:45

ShauryaT wrote:Too bad, he is not here and I already miss him and his sharp responses.

What he left too?
Don't see him active on Twitter too

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1007
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Deterrence

Postby nam » 28 May 2018 02:13

It serves us no advantage testing a TN device at this moment. The only nation we might need to scare off with TN, is either China or US.

If war clouds are imment from these nation, we will publicly announced our intention to test and do it . What will stop us.

So we will let the world decide if they would like to force us to resume testing..

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5151
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 28 May 2018 03:20

ShauryaT wrote:
RoyG wrote:Why isn't India's nuclear doctrine suitable? Authorizing nuclear weapons in any capacity leads to full scale use.
There are two issues with our doctrine.

1. NFU. It lacks credibility in the eyes of our adversaries and there have been enough indications from those in decision-making circles that if there is a threat of an "imminent" attack, we shall not wait for a first hit. NFU also takes away some of the edge that we may need if confronted by a superior power. e.g: Big reason for IG to authorize POK I, was to signal the US. In those days, a nuclear weapon was the weapon of choice against carriers. NFU also puts an extra burden on India to be ready to absorb a hit and then retaliate in a manner that will end the war.

2. Massive retaliation. MR, by all means, a valid response to a nuclear attack lacks credibility as the only response to ANY nuclear or WMD attack. A scenario where a tactical lone strike against an armored formation in a foreign land, say destroying a handful of tanks being responded to with MR against civilians threatening the lives of millions, lacks any sense of proportionality. There could be instances where such a response may be valid however, to limit it by doctrine is an issue as many factors would be at play to determine such a response. There are other scenarios of WMD attack, where MR as the only choice is problematic.

The above parts have been debated before and Shiv ji had indicated a different take on these. Too bad, he is not here and I already miss him and his sharp responses.


My friend it is impossible to stop the escalation ladder once a nuke is used. Believe it or not, authorizing a nuclear weapon (even a tactical one) requires codes from Army HQ, preparation, and all that other stuff. Just b/c they say it is up to the field commander or whoever to use it hardly means anything. Also, India wont be sending in armored columns deep into Pakistan unless it was already on the verge of breaking. Perhaps some shallow thrusts here and there and then quickly shift to China border. I honestly don't see a nuke risk in any of this.

What makes you think NFU lacks credibility? You don't make any sense. NO REGIME will allow even a single major population center to be vaporized in a flash, especially when they are competing for primacy in the economic arena or trying to survive.

The fact that India is around and easily dealing with these two sh*t neighbors in one piece is a testament to NFU working.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6957
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby JE Menon » 28 May 2018 17:00

Shiv is here, but in other threads...

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 28 May 2018 17:47

N-deal: A signal triumph for Indian diplomacy
A self congratulatory message by our esteemed diplomat but history will determine if the deal did indeed serve Indian interests.
What did the nuclear deal achieve for India?

Most importantly it expanded India’s strategic space, enabling it to leverage its enhanced relationship with the U.S. to upgrade its relations with other partners as well. That the U.S. was prepared to take such a major initiative with India despite the risks to its non-proliferation objectives, put India in a category of major global players and Delhi as an indispensable destination for leaders across the globe.

The deal also led to the dismantling of most of the technology denial regimes operating against India since 1974 and which had been progressively expanded to cover most dual use items as well. The relaxation of export controls has also led to a significant increase in defence related trade and collaboration with the U.S. as well as with other partner countries. It is true that so far deals for setting up new nuclear plants have not been materialized. The nuclear liability law was an issue but now that it has been resolved we may begin to see some progress.

The deal has opened the way for India to conclude long term uranium supply agreements with several countries. This has enabled capacity utilization in our nuclear plants to reach 80-85%, when in 2005 shortage of fuel due to NSG restrictions had pushed utilization down to 30-35%.

India is very much in the international mainstream as far as nuclear issues are concerned despite continuing to be outside the NPT. Its membership of the NSG is being supported by the US and is likely to come through though there are challenges which need to be overcome through intensive diplomacy.

Almost 13 years after the deal was announced, India-U.S. relations are stronger than they have ever been. They may not have been if the nuclear deal had not cleared the decks of the negative legacies of the past and created a culture of engagement and dialogue.

Ten years of the deal was commemorated in Washington in 2015 and its importance was underlined by the U.S. Vice-President attending one event and delivering an important speech. What he said certainly resonates among those of us who were privileged to be associated with its negotiation. He observed that ultimately this deal was not so much about the nuclear issue as it was about India. It reminded me of similar remarks made to me by the Brazilian, Mexican and South African representatives just after the NSG waiver was extended to India on September 8, 2008. They conveyed their warm congratulations on a signal achievement against the most difficult odds but added, “Make no mistake this has been possible only because it was for India”.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1007
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Deterrence

Postby nam » 28 May 2018 18:08

The arguments around escalation ladder gets repeated. In nuke deterrent, there is no ladder, it is only escalation.

Just like the Pak, NATO created TNWs to wage a nuke war in Europe. Russians promptly let them know, any attack, including a conventional invasion in to Soviet Union would result in USSR using nukes. Period. All the TNWs plans fissiled out.

For Pak, shouting loudly about TNWs, means they take our Strategic weapons seriously. They want to prevent a strategic strike and a conventional invasion. So they telling us, let have a escalation ladder. They come up with plans like using in Pak territory, warning strikes etc. All these are nonsense.

From my point of view, it is very simple. Pak uses nuke on our forces or Indian territory. we go full monty, including strikes on China for providing them with nuke warhead. Let US & China manage their rent boy.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5151
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 28 May 2018 21:53

India Capable of Nuclear Test At Short Notice: Defence Research Chief

NEW DELHI: India is capable of conducting a nuclear test at short notice, defence research chief Dr S Christopher has told NDTV. This assertion from one of the country's top scientists comes 20 years after India successfully tested its nuclear capability in Pokhran.

Dr Christopher sought to dispel any notion that India's nuclear technology was stuck at the 1998 level when five bombs were successfully tested.

"Technology-wise, we are continuously growing; there is no doubt about it. You cannot stagnate in that position. I am honest to say that the growth is so tremendous we are almost on par with many other countries," Dr Christopher said in an exclusive interview.

These remarks by the chairman of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) are an expression of the country's technological readiness. The final call to go ahead with a nuclear test is a political decision taken by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Committee on Security.

India had imposed a unilateral moratorium after the 1998 nuclear tests and continues to abide by it. According to the nuclear doctrine, there will be no-first-use of atomic weapons by India but in case an adversary strikes with atomic weapons, New Delhi will exercise the right to give an answer with a 'punishing second strike'.

In 1998, then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had given DRDO, which was headed by APJ Abdul Kalam, 40 days to undertake the nuclear test.

Asked if the DRDO could replicate that feat within the same timeline, Dr Christopher said "we are ready", adding that no field tests were needed due to available advanced technologies that can recreate a real time environment.

"Everything in research and development you cannot test --- like, for instance, a mission to the moon. There are a lot of simulations that are possible today to say what exactly will happen," claimed Dr Christopher.

On May 11 and 13, 1998 India had tested five nuclear weapons, including a hydrogen bomb. Two weeks later, Pakistan had responded with a set of five tests at its Chagai nuclear site.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-c ... -topscroll


There is a lot of chatter about this issue these days. Gov testing the waters? With elections right around the corner and relative thaw in relations with US i think it is certainly a possibility. The way NK tested which brought US to negotiating table ending up in reward rather than punishment, may have woken up something in GoI.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49805
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 28 May 2018 22:17

Nam well said.
Which part was not understood at least on this forum?

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5151
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 28 May 2018 23:09

ramana wrote:Nam well said.
Which part was not understood at least on this forum?


Pakistan for whatever reason has already thrown in the white towel in nuclear race with India. They wouldn't be building TNW otherwise. Wasting fissile stock for stopping ~10-20 tanks doesn't make any sense.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1038
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Deterrence

Postby dinesha » 29 May 2018 17:27


Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3238
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby Tanaji » 31 May 2018 01:26

nam wrote:From my point of view, it is very simple. Pak uses nuke on our forces or Indian territory. we go full monty, including strikes on China for providing them with nuke warhead. Let US & China manage their rent boy.


While I fully agree with your statement related to Pakistan, could you please provide any semi-official Indian statement or articles that support the assertion that usage of a nuke on an Indian armoured column will result in an Indian strategic response on Chinese assets?

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1007
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Deterrence

Postby nam » 31 May 2018 01:43

Tanaji wrote:
nam wrote:From my point of view, it is very simple. Pak uses nuke on our forces or Indian territory. we go full monty, including strikes on China for providing them with nuke warhead. Let US & China manage their rent boy.


While I fully agree with your statement related to Pakistan, could you please provide any semi-official Indian statement or articles that support the assertion that usage of a nuke on an Indian armoured column will result in an Indian strategic response on Chinese assets?


There is no such statements from anyone linked to GoI. As i mentioned, it is my point of view and why, here is the reason.

During the Cold war, Russians wanted to nuke China, so they let US know about the plan. US refused to support it and said it will nuke USSR if Russia used nukes. So fundamentally, deterrent is a apple cart.

Imagine India nukes Pak for it's TNW usage. Pak nukes Delhi. India will be thinking we are going down, why should we let Chinese survive who gave nukes to Pak. At the same time, Chinese will be thinking, what is stopping India from nuking Shanghai, as Chinese retaliation will be well.. nuking an already nuked Delhi!.

When we as a civilization are going down, we will take others with us. Similarly for the Chinese, they would want to take US with them, US want to take Russia with them...

So it is in everyone's interest the "atom bum" stays inside.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49805
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 31 May 2018 07:05

Tanaji, Please read MND
Let's talk after that.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10945
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 01 Jun 2018 21:18

Roy G
How did the BJP come to power, ordered the tests, PC and AK developed a new design, built it and tested it, all in one month possible?
How can an out of power BJP have any role in asking BARC to develop a new design?

Truth is:
ABV must have asked PC/AK, what we have. Told them we have one day to test, what can we test?
The rest was upto them to do what they felt was the most bang for the buck.

They fizzled the TN, and PC was made to be attached with GoI as an advisor post retirement so that he never gets to write a book or join the lecture circuit. That was his penance. Now an octogenarian, with dementia kicking in, and away from active research for two decades, he is finally retired.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Deterrence

Postby Haridas » 02 Jun 2018 06:45

ramdas wrote:@haridas:

Why is there no way to break out of the `self imposed moratorium' ? All we lose is the nuclear deal. Russia will continue supplying us nuclear plants, given that it itself is under sanctions. Full scale sanctioning of such a large economy is too disruptive for the world at large. Didnt happen in 1998. Wont happen now.

The window to retest within sustainable cost it entailed was IMHO upto ~10 years after 1998 (I.e. ~2008). The train had left the station since then as the matrix that straightjackets Indian strategic option has cured to hardened state. Miano-Mohan corruption sold the national interest to highest foreign bidder. JMT

Given the united opposition NaMo faces, breaking out of this moratorium by testing the corrected TN would make sense, especially if done close to the LS polls. Something like this is necessary for NaMo to have a fighting chance in the next LS election.
Don't think Modi can be dethroned in 2019, so no need to think of extreme position.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3238
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby Tanaji » 02 Jun 2018 17:01

nam wrote:There is no such statements from anyone linked to GoI. As i mentioned, it is my point of view and why, here is the reason.

During the Cold war, Russians wanted to nuke China, so they let US know about the plan. US refused to support it and said it will nuke USSR if Russia used nukes. So fundamentally, deterrent is a apple cart.

Imagine India nukes Pak for it's TNW usage. Pak nukes Delhi. India will be thinking we are going down, why should we let Chinese survive who gave nukes to Pak. At the same time, Chinese will be thinking, what is stopping India from nuking Shanghai, as Chinese retaliation will be well.. nuking an already nuked Delhi!.



Thank you and sorry for the delayed reply. I find it hard to believe that the Indian polity will authorise a nuclear strike on Shanghai or Beijing when Pakistan nukes an Indian armoured column either on Indian or Pakistani. Yes, I am aware that the sequence is not exactly that, your hypothesis is that an exchange has taken place in India-Pak contest and India for some reason thinks it is best to take down China with it.

Firstly, the reasoning does not make sense: a Pakistani attack on 3-4 Indian cities will set us back 25-30 years but is hardly civilisation ending. On the other hand an unwarranted attack that will invite a huge response would most definitely be. I find it hard to believe that any Indian leader will take that risk.

Secondly, deterrence has broken down in the Indo-Pak contest in this scenario, but there has not been a break down in Indo-China context. Why do you think we would contribute to that break down?

ramana wrote:Tanaji, Please read MND
Let's talk after that.


I have. The DND stated the following:

Code: Select all

(b) any nuclear attack on India and its forces shall result in punitive retaliation with nuclear weapons to inflict damage unacceptable to the aggressor.


How is China the aggressor in any of this?

Please note that I am not batting for China, I just find it hard to believe we will go down that path.

Gagan wrote:They fizzled the TN, and PC was made to be attached with GoI as an advisor post retirement so that he never gets to write a book or join the lecture circuit. That was his penance. Now an octogenarian, with dementia kicking in, and away from active research for two decades, he is finally retired.


Facts not in evidence or proved. Lets not turn theories into statements of fact. Apart from AK and others no one knows what happened and they are not telling. We have been down this road before with pages and pages of points and counter points and in the end nothing was evident.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3238
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby Tanaji » 02 Jun 2018 17:11

nam wrote:It serves us no advantage testing a TN device at this moment. The only nation we might need to scare off with TN, is either China or US.

If war clouds are imment from these nation, we will publicly announced our intention to test and do it . What will stop us.

So we will let the world decide if they would like to force us to resume testing..


+100. Fully agree. That is why talk for fizzle is pointless.

Interestingly no one doubts the Israeli deterrent or the NoKo one but use different metrics for the Indian TN. Why?

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1007
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Deterrence

Postby nam » 02 Jun 2018 17:26

Tanaji wrote:
Firstly, the reasoning does not make sense: a Pakistani attack on 3-4 Indian cities will set us back 25-30 years but is hardly civilisation ending. On the other hand an unwarranted attack that will invite a huge response would most definitely be. I find it hard to believe that any Indian leader will take that risk.


Deterrent is exactly opposite of being rational. It should NOT make sense. If it makes sense, adversary will find a way around it. The objective is to prevent usage of nukes. Let the adversary pull his hair thinking if India will or will not do it or there will something left or not left etc..

From our end, we will nuke Pakistan, along with China. So we are telling the Chinese, it is your responsibility to stop your rent boy from using his toys. You gave it to him and we consider you guilty.

So China will always have this doubt lingering in their mind, if Pak uses nuke, they may become a target. Because of this fear, the world will not allow Pak(or anyone else) use it's weapons. The apple cart.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5151
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 02 Jun 2018 20:04

nam wrote:
Tanaji wrote:
Firstly, the reasoning does not make sense: a Pakistani attack on 3-4 Indian cities will set us back 25-30 years but is hardly civilisation ending. On the other hand an unwarranted attack that will invite a huge response would most definitely be. I find it hard to believe that any Indian leader will take that risk.


Deterrent is exactly opposite of being rational. It should NOT make sense. If it makes sense, adversary will find a way around it. The objective is to prevent usage of nukes. Let the adversary pull his hair thinking if India will or will not do it or there will something left or not left etc..

From our end, we will nuke Pakistan, along with China. So we are telling the Chinese, it is your responsibility to stop your rent boy from using his toys. You gave it to him and we consider you guilty.

So China will always have this doubt lingering in their mind, if Pak uses nuke, they may become a target. Because of this fear, the world will not allow Pak(or anyone else) use it's weapons. The apple cart.


Actually it isn't. It's supposed to be rational. If I get nuked, you get nuked. It's as simple as that. If you can demonstrate at least a 15-30kt yield and reliable means to deliver you're all set. Nobody will fck with you because lets face it, everyone who worked hard to travel up the food chain of gov and industry will be hard pressed to let it all go in a flash of light.

As far as China is concerned, they aren't worried about getting nuked. They are more worried about the fall out. They don't want the US to pick up whatever pieces are left of India and start building bases everywhere on the Indian subcontinent and Indian ocean. Their situation is bad as it is, no need to create a bigger headache than they can handle.

Contrary to what some may think, things are very stable with Pakistan. Even if they crumble, it will be a controlled demolition. The asymmetry between the two nations is already quite substantial. India is more concerned with making its way into NSG and UNSC and improving its economy and environment.

Y. Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 684
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Y. Kanan » 03 Jun 2018 03:22

Do we appear to have any plan for a global-range ICBM? We appear to have only a regional focus from what I can see, even for the future. I haven't seen or heard about any credible plans for any such global ICBM or other type of delivery system that could actually hit the United States. Is this because the idea has been dismissed as utterly unreachable for the foreseeable future?

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5151
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 03 Jun 2018 03:38

Y. Kanan wrote:Do we appear to have any plan for a global-range ICBM? We appear to have only a regional focus from what I can see, even for the future. I haven't seen or heard about any credible plans for any such global ICBM or other type of delivery system that could actually hit the United States. Is this because the idea has been dismissed as utterly unreachable for the foreseeable future?


Global not sure. But definitely enough to cover parts of Africa, most of Europe, and all of Asia.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2536
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 03 Jun 2018 06:06

RoyG wrote:
Y. Kanan wrote:Do we appear to have any plan for a global-range ICBM? We appear to have only a regional focus from what I can see, even for the future. I haven't seen or heard about any credible plans for any such global ICBM or other type of delivery system that could actually hit the United States. Is this because the idea has been dismissed as utterly unreachable for the foreseeable future?


Global not sure. But definitely enough to cover parts of Africa, most of Europe, and all of Asia.


Maybe missile range should cover the US too

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 06 Jun 2018 08:27

x-post.
ramana wrote:
Arima wrote:we have a policy of no first use. but in case one country use nuke against us, then can India attack a third country? how can India justify this to world?


The MND says very clearly retaliation will be on the attacker and their allies.
It is actually broader than that. India reserves the right to use nuclear weapons not only on the attacker and its nuclear allies but even non-nuclear allies of the attacker.
India and the Policy of No First Use of Nuclear Weapons

One result of pressure from these “maximalists” was that the DND widened the set of countries that might nominally be seen as suitable targets for India’s nuclear weapons. The DND stated that “India will not resort to the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against States which do not possess nuclear weapons, or are not aligned with nuclear weapon powers”. The significance of the last clause has been emphasised by Ashley Tellis:

With the addition of this qualifying clause, the draft report radically expanded in one fell swoop the number of countries that would be potentially threatened by India’s emerging nuclear arsenal. Under the strict no-first-use assurances provided by India’s prime minister in parliament, only the states with deployed or readily deployed weapons – the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, Pakistan, and Israel (and perhaps North Korea) – could in principle find themselves subjected to Indian nuclear threats and, that too, only if they were to attack India first. Under the Board’s new formulation however, even allies of these powers that do not possess nuclear weapons – for example, the 16 non-nuclear allies of the United States in NATO, the 2 non-nuclear allies of the United States in the ANZUS treaty (the military agreement linking Australia, New Zealand, and the United States) and the 3 non-nuclear allies of the United States in the Five Power Defense Agreement, the (at least) 6 non-nuclear allies and partners of the United States in East Asia, and the 11 non-nuclear partners of Russia in the virtually defunct Commonwealth of Independent States – could now all be subjected to Indian nuclear threats in some extreme circumstances. (Tellis 2001, 52–53)

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 06 Jun 2018 20:12

@haridas: can you explicitly spell out the cost of a new nuclear test? What sanctions can we expect in this eventuality ? As far as I can see it, we only stand to benefit by breaking this straitjacket. Sanctions have no meaning when they are sought to be used to prevent us from securing core national interests. A credible deterrent is one such. Beyond the nuclear deal going bust (no foreign uranium supplies, nuclear power program slows down, etc), and some GDP growth slowdown, I do not see any price that has to be paid for such testing. Such slowdowns in growth even happened after demonetization and GST. People will find it acceptable given that it is in the larger national interest.

As for NaMo being invincible, even PVNR expected to be reelected. We all know what happened. Luckily ABV cam around to test in 1998. Here, nobody other than NaMo is capable of ordering a test. A united opposition, media and assorted foreign interests working in tandem are too much to overcome on the basis of `vikas' alone. Something else is required to have a fighting chance. A nuclear test is a perfect option, as Bharat Karnad has recently explained.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5331
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 06 Jun 2018 21:31


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49805
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 06 Jun 2018 21:53

Supratik, Please post eh text so can be discussed. and include author name too.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5331
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 06 Jun 2018 22:34

Here you go

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 743176.cms

Under Rajiv Gandhi, India was ready with H-Bomb to counter Pakistan's nukes

Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury

NEW DELHI: India under Rajiv Gandhi made preparations in 1985 to test a hydrogen bomb in response to Pakistan’s nuclear programmes, recently released US documents showed. Concerned about the possibility of a nuclear arms race in South Asia, the Ronald Reagan administration wanted to send an emissary to mediate between the two neighbours and help ease tensions.

About 930,000 declassified documents, running into more than 12 million pages and recently posted online by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), provide interesting insights into India’s nuclear weapons capabilities during the 1980s and Delhi's increasing concerns over Pakistan's nuclear programme at the time.

In one of the documents, the world’s premier intelligence agency said it faced difficulties in gathering details of Delhi’s nuclear programme as Indian security was “extremely tight”.

The spy agency said the hydrogen bomb that the government of Rajiv Gandhi was preparing to explode was much stronger than the one tested 11years earlier, when his mother Indira was the Prime Minister. India at the time was also far ahead than Pakistan on nuclear technology, it noted.

While Rajiv Gandhi was initially hesitant to pursue his mother’s plan to push the nuclear programme, his mind changed when he got reports in early 1985 that Pakistan was making progress with nuclear weapons, according to the CIA. On May 4, 1985, he stated that Pakistan’s persistent efforts to join the nuclear club had compelled India to review its nuclear policy.

The agency said the H-bomb was created by a team of 36 scientists at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre near Mumbai. The CIA also claimed that India was stockpiling plutonium for nuclear arsenal. “A rapid series of Pakistani tests would compel New Delhi to develop nuclear weapons and touch off a nuclear arms race between the two,” assessed a CIA document.

But, according to CIA assessment, fear of international political and economic reprisals would deter India from conducting an attack on Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. “China and not Pakistan is perceived as a long-term threat to the Indian security,” it noted.

On sending an emissary, a document said while India was not warm to the idea, it nonetheless was not against giving the person an audience.

The agency had suggested that the emissary should meet Rajiv Gandhi but refrained from predicting an outcome. On the other hand, Islamabad would welcome a US representative, according to the spy agency.

At the time, Pakistan was seen as a key ally of the US in South Asia, and India as a friend of the Soviet Union.

The Rajiv Gandhi government didn’t go ahead with the testing. It was in 1998 under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee that India again conducted nuclear tests. Pakistan followed with its own testing. The CIA documents, posted online on January 17, were declassified after the mandatory 25 years.
***************

If this is true India had a H-bomb device by the 80s and would have a couple of decades to refine it.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5331
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 06 Jun 2018 22:51

To put the chronology in order IIRC during the Rajiv Gandhi era India was also trying to get supercomputing facility and the US was vehemently trying to stop it. The above may have caused the shift. The news is that simulations on the Param supercomputer helped refine the design. Since the various Gods on this forum named Ram, Shyam, Hari, Vishnu, Jodu, Modu, etc who have no access to primary data are claiming the H-bomb was a dud - thought of revisiting the chronology. In my estimate 98% of the establishment have to be outright fraud to pass a dud for a success and pass it onto the Govt. The Govt has to be thoroughly convinced it has a working device to enter various 3 and 4 letter clubs and nuke deal all of which makes it even more difficult to test. There have been 3 different govts of contrarian ideology since the tests all of whom could have called the fraud. I sleep well at night.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10945
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 11 Jun 2018 23:37

Tanaji wrote:Facts not in evidence or proved. Lets not turn theories into statements of fact. Apart from AK and others no one knows what happened and they are not telling. We have been down this road before with pages and pages of points and counter points and in the end nothing was evident.

Stop this Tanaji
Don't defend the indefensible.
The scientists are so pious that they didn't test to full yeild, but a billion people should believe the scalable line.

North Korea can test to full yeild, but Indian scientists can't?

What you test is what you have, deterrence is based off of what you prove, not what you theorise and claim OK?

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5331
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 12 Jun 2018 19:15

Indian scientists "didn't" test to full yield. Countries have tested megaton bombs. India "didn't". Indian scientists new the window is going to be extremely limited unless India wanted to go rogue like NK. So they did the best under the circumstances. And it seems the establishment is satisfied with what they got which is why they are trying to enter NSG which was specifically designed to stop India. Once you enter NSG bypassing NPT you can't test except under extreme national interest e.g. China threatening a nuke attack.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5151
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 13 Jun 2018 06:05

Supratik wrote:Indian scientists "didn't" test to full yield. Countries have tested megaton bombs. India "didn't". Indian scientists new the window is going to be extremely limited unless India wanted to go rogue like NK. So they did the best under the circumstances. And it seems the establishment is satisfied with what they got which is why they are trying to enter NSG which was specifically designed to stop India. Once you enter NSG bypassing NPT you can't test except under extreme national interest e.g. China threatening a nuke attack.


pages of bickering over speculation.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21546
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby Austin » 17 Jun 2018 12:26

Mohan Guruswamy
‏@mohanguruswamy
Follow Follow @mohanguruswamy
More
HOW PAKISTAN GOT ITS BOMB WITH US STATE DPEARTMENT CONNIVANCE.
I speak with some prior knowledge. RAW mostly slept it out while Pakistan clandestinely went about its nuclear...

A CIA agent, North Korea and Pak. bomb

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1038
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Deterrence

Postby dinesha » 19 Jun 2018 09:13

So 200 warheads as ultimate goal, I wonder How and from whom Rajat Pandit’s got this number .. also this article is giving credence to Hans Kristenen’s wild fishing guessitamate.

Pakistan remains ahead in nuclear warheads but India confident of its deterrence capability
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 641056.cms

NEW DELHI: Pakistan may continue to remain slightly ahead of India in terms of the number of nuclear warheads, with China having double the quantity, but the Indian defence establishment believes its deterrence capability is "robust", designed to ensure "survivability" for retaliatory strikes and firmly on track for further modernization.

Pakistan now has 140-150 nuclear warheads as compared to 130-140 of India, with China hovering around 280, as per the latest assessment of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which was released on Monday.

The US and Russia are in a different league altogether with 6,450 and 6,850 nuclear warheads respectively, together accounting for 92 per cent of the 14,465 nuclear weapons around the globe. Arsenals of the other seven nuclear-armed countries are considerably smaller, but all are either developing or deploying new nuclear weapon systems.

"India and Pakistan are both expanding their nuclear weapon stockpiles as well as developing new land, sea and air-based missile delivery systems. China continues to modernize its nuclear weapon delivery systems and is slowly increasing the size of its nuclear arsenal," said SIPRI.

Defence establishment sources here say India, confronted with the collusive threat from China and Pakistan, has no other option but to systematically build nuclear deterrence that is "credible" and capable of inflicting massive damage in a retaliatory strike to any first strike by an adversary.

"The number of warheads do not really matter. With a declared no-first use (NFU) nuclear policy, India is keen to ensure survivability and credibility of our assets and NC3 (nuclear command, control and communication) systems for assured second-strike capabilities…We have achieved this to a large extent," said a source.

Pakistan, of course, has deliberately kept its nuclear policy ambiguous to deter India from undertaking any conventional military action despite repeated provocations, even as it fast supplements its enriched uranium-based nuclear programme with a weapons-grade plutonium one through the four heavy water reactors at the Khushab nuclear complex with help from China.
Islamabad also often brandishes its 70-km range Nasr (Hatf-IX) nuclear missiles as an effective battlefield counter to India's "Cold Start" strategy of swift, high-voltage conventional strikes into enemy territory. "For India, nuclear weapons are not war-fighting weapons. But we need credible minimum deterrence, with the certainty of massive retaliation against adversaries," said the source.

China, with its rapid military modernization and expanding nuclear and missile arsenals, of course remains a major worry. Towards this end, it's estimated that India, which has a largely plutonium-based nuclear weapons programme, would like to achieve a stockpile of around 200 warheads in the decade ahead.

The tri-Services Strategic Forces Command is now in the process of inducting India's first intercontinental ballistic missile, the over 5,000-km range Agni-V missile, which can hit even the northernmost region of China.
But the continuing lack of an adequate number of nuclear-powered submarines armed with long-range nuclear-tipped missiles, which can silently stay underwater for extended periods, needs to be plugged to achieve a credible nuclear weapons triad. "Projects are underway to achieve this," said the source.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49805
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 19 Jun 2018 09:37

I think the source is talking through his hat.
The credibility is based on land based long range missiles which are deployed with SAC.
The short range SUB based missiles hardly add to the deterrent.
And long range missiles are not there yet.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Deterrence

Postby ArjunPandit » 19 Jun 2018 10:10

^^It's rajat pandit, just an article to justify his paycheck or whatever. Nothing new here in this article. He seems to have gone through this thread quite sometime back and was merely summarizing

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1038
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Deterrence

Postby dinesha » 19 Jun 2018 13:01

On questioning the credibility of stated number of 200 this was was he has to say-
Rajat Pandit
@rajatpTOI


Number of warheads do not matter. With declared NFU policy, India is keen to ensure survivability and credibility of its assets and NC3 (nuclear command, control & communication) systems for assured 2nd-strike capabilities & has achieved it to a large extent

https://twitter.com/rajatptoi/status/10 ... 87842?s=12

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1007
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Deterrence

Postby nam » 19 Jun 2018 17:12

Pakistan remains ahead in nuclear warheads but India confident of its deterrence capability
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 641056.cms


This is not good.

We should encourage Pak to make more warheads.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1038
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Deterrence

Postby dinesha » 19 Jun 2018 18:05

Book Discussion | India in Nuclear Asia: Evolution of Regional Forces, Perceptions and Policies

rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3248
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Deterrence

Postby rsingh » 19 Jun 2018 18:33

nam wrote:
Pakistan remains ahead in nuclear warheads but India confident of its deterrence capability
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 641056.cms


This is not good.

We should encourage Pak to make more warheads.

SIPRI is making these numbers out of their mushraff. GOI never comment on this and ignores. Somebody is not sure about Indian nuclear arsenal and is provoking India to deny or accept the numbers. gutter material nothing else. I see all these numbers in Time,Newsweek and economists etc. All knowing Institute is in complete dark about NoKo, Israel and China. But they speak about India and Baki's as if they personally counted. :rotfl:

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6226
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Deterrence

Postby habal » 19 Jun 2018 19:23

During Indo-US notsoclear deal I had made a rough estimate of enough stock of pu to make 800-2000 warheads in the 80s. Now at present that stock would have gone up only by multiple times. How many they could/wanted to convert into weapons was a choice of the govt of the day. So how many weapons is a always a trick question in guise of an 'opinion of xyz institute' which is more like a fishing expedition to obtain some answers from some quarter.

You can say we may only have 120 deployed, but at what stage rest of material is sitting is the part of guesswork.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests