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.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3450
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 19 Apr 2019 12:39

for comparison sake, the largest American deployed nuke is the B83, with a maximum yield of 1.2 megatons

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby dinesh_kimar » 19 Apr 2019 13:53

Other devices exist as well.

Comparision with Russian SS-28 deployed in 2016 indicates MT yield.

Specifically mentioned to target city like Austin, Texas or New York.

Chinese single warhead designs of 2.8 to 3.3 MT also exist, as do US designs of 4 MT, many air dropped by their Strategic Air Command.

Though lower yield MIRV designs are popular right now.

A city buster device is about 4 MT, single warhead.

Also, relevant to deterrence thread:
From Indranil saars' version of the new K4 with 1.3 m dia, it may be because of propulsion and packaging.

To fit socially acceptable no. of 8 SLBMs on a submarine requires substantial design work, such as zig zag arrangement of launch tubes, lengthening of hull and subsequent weight addition.

In turn requiring more reactor power, shafting and power generators transfering all the forces to a single screw.

Expensive and difficult, more engineering required.

The new K4 version (mk-IR, copyright pending) will fit the K -15 form factor into the existing tube, say with slightly increased diameter, so 2 x K4 missiles per tube and 3000-3200 km range. (Using Agni 4 main stage).

Easier to do, same reactor power plant can be used instead of the 190 MW proposal, saves money, reuses Arihant know how, less and simpler engineering work.

I congratulate DRDO for thinking out of the box on this one.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7221
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Deterrence

Postby disha » 21 Apr 2019 00:56

dinesh_kimar wrote:
H bomb posession is already known, with some experts saying possible yield up to 250 kt....

It's nothing new.

When he spoke the above words, I think he means a class of 4 MT H-bombs, known in the trade as a "City buster".

Anything bigger won't be deployable by present inventory.


300 Kilotons.

Anything bigger is not required. It is better to target with four (4) at 300 Kt each rather than one 1.2 MT. Same with 4 MT H-Bombs.

Anything larger than 1 MT is actually useless. This is due to extreme accurate missiles which can achieve CEP in meters compared to earlier ones where the CEP was in Kilometers.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 22 Apr 2019 01:59

The big bomb statement is to assure the Chinese only. No one needs that assurance.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 02 Jun 2019 04:59

https://www.dawn.com/news/1485843 Deterrence didn’t fail during stand-off with India: officials
ISLAMABAD: Senior officials insist that deterrence did not fail during the military confrontation between India and Pakistan in the aftermath of the Pulwama incident.wo senior officials — Director General Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs, Strategic Plans Division (SPD) Brig Zahir Kazmi, and Director General Arms Control and Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kamran Akhtar — told journalists at an interaction hosted by the Islamabad Policy Institute (IPI) that deterrence worked despite dangerous escalation witnessed in the last week of February. They were speaking on the topic ‘Pakistan’s Nuclear Journey: 21 Years of Deterrence and Stability’. The discussion largely remained focused on post-Pulwama confrontation between the two nuclear-armed arch-rivals during which the Indian Air Force violated Pakistan’s airspace and when Pakistan retaliated the following day, India mobilised its missile batteries and nuclear submarines. The situation later de-escalated due to intervention by third-party intermediaries.
He said deterrence was largely a misunderstood concept and “some have come to believe that even a stone cannot be hurled at us”. It by no means implied that India could now do nothing against Pakistan, he maintained while explaining how the Indian Air Force intruded into Pakistani airspace despite knowing that Pakistan possessed nukes. He cautioned that the misunderstood concept of deterrence could undermine public confidence and work against deterrence from psychological and political point of view.“If Indians are trying to sell this narrative that deterrence failed then it is an irresponsible and dangerous narrative, which could undermine strategic stability and lead to escalation for India would be responsible,” he observed.Brig Zahir Kazmi stated that the purpose of deterrence was to close space for war and bring states to the negotiating table.He said deterrence worked during the post-Pulwama military stand-off despite Indian attempt to escalate to a different level by talking about mobilisation of nuclear missile and nuclear submarines.
Brig Kazmi identified three imperatives for deterrence. First, enabling geostrategic environment that includes sustainable mechanism for dispute resolution; second, strategic restraint and responsibility; and third, maintenance of balance in nuclear deterrence capabilities through arms control rather than competition.He further clarified that deterrence is not an end in itself but a psychological state. “It should inspire fear in which the perceived cost of deterrence breakdown is higher than the desired benefits of preferring war as an instrument for dispute resolution.”

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23757
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 02 Jun 2019 06:26

IMO, the above, Deterrence did'nt fail during stand-off with India: officials, is a new concession by SPD that there indeed is a sub-nuclear war possibility, something which remained vague before (to the strategic advantage of Terroristan) and that India would do so and we can't do anything about it (He said deterrence was largely a misunderstood concept and “some have come to believe that even a stone cannot be hurled at us”). The Balakot attack has put that into a concrete shape, as we have said here before. Terroristan used to claim that "No one can even cast an evil eye on us".

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2118
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Deterrence

Postby manjgu » 02 Jun 2019 08:47

the pakis have been shaken to the core by balakot irrespective of their loud proclamations and fancy english. the fact that such a conference/meeting had to be called is enough proof of what has happened...

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 02 Jun 2019 12:04

SSridhar wrote:IMO, the above, Deterrence did'nt fail during stand-off with India: officials, is a new concession by SPD that there indeed is a sub-nuclear war possibility, something which remained vague before (to the strategic advantage of Terroristan) and that India would do so and we can't do anything about it (He said deterrence was largely a misunderstood concept and “some have come to believe that even a stone cannot be hurled at us”). The Balakot attack has put that into a concrete shape, as we have said here before. Terroristan used to claim that "No one can even cast an evil eye on us".


In other words Balakot restored deterrence to core deterrence only.
That is nukes deter only nukes.
Something General Sunderji said many times.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23757
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 02 Jun 2019 14:09

ramana wrote:In other words Balakot restored deterrence to core deterrence only.

Absolutely.
A side-effect of that is that Nasr and TNWs to stop Indian advancement of Cold Start have just become useless. They were always useless because of the clear Indian doctrine of massive and unacceptable punishment. But, Terroristan has just conceded that.

The enunciation of 'three imperatives' by those three PA gentlemen is significant indeed. Terroristan has thrown in the towel.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12424
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 02 Jun 2019 14:44

All it took was one air-strike for all ambiguity about ambiguity to vanish like misty after sunrise.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 04 Jun 2019 00:48

pankajs wrote:All it took was one air-strike for all ambiguity about ambiguity to vanish like misty after sunrise.


A pebble aimed correctly will shatter a false image.

I said repeatedly in the Balakot thread how path breaking this strike was.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1754
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Deterrence

Postby wig » 16 Jul 2019 10:34

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 236904.cms

Pakistan relentlessly expanding nuclear and missile arsenal

excerpts from the above
In its latest annual report, the MoD says Pak army has further “consolidated” its position as the “institution driving Pakistan’s foreign security and defence policies” after the Imran Khan government came to office in August last year.

The MoD’s assertion about Pakistan’s rapidly-growing nuclear and missile arsenals is in tune with international assessments that the country now has 140-150 nuclear warheads as compared to 130-140 of India.

With its expanding uranium enrichment and plutonium production facilities, Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile could realistically grow to 220-250 warheads by 2025 if the current trend continues, as per the Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists. Pakistan, of course, owes much of its progress in the nuclear and missile arenas to clandestine help from China and North Korea over the years.

Noting that there were global concerns regarding proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, which pose a “serious” danger to international security, the MoD said, “WMD terrorism will remain a potent threat as long as there are terrorists seeking to gain access to relevant materials and technologies for malicious purposes.”

The MoD report, turning to Pakistan army’s active support to anti-India terror outfits, said, “It has avoided taking action against jihadi and internationally proscribed terror outfits that target its neighbours.”

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1754
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Deterrence

Postby wig » 16 Aug 2019 08:56

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... tZRPM.html

US cables show how it took eye off Pakistan nukes amid Soviet war
Over the space of months during 1979-80, the US went from intense efforts to slow down or reverse Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme to turning a blind eye to it in order to get Islamabad’s support following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, according to newly declassified cables and documents


the article carries some nuggets on the discussions of US representatives with Pak

In a memorandum to president Carter dated September 29, 1980, defense secretary Brown talks about providing military aid to Pakistan and renewing “our earlier decision to turn a blind eye to their nuclear weapons program”.

Perhaps more telling is a record of a conversation between Carter and visiting foreign minister Agha Shahi in Washington on January 12, 1980, with the then president saying: “Our position on nuclear explosives is clear and I hope you will relay our concern to President Zia. Movement on this is not a prerequisite for cooperation, but our long-term relations will be substantially affected by the question of nuclear explosives...The nuclear question, then, is no longer an insurmountable obstacle, but it remains important.”

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11309
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Aditya_V » 16 Aug 2019 15:06

wig wrote:https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/us-cables-show-how-it-took-eye-off-pakistan-nukes-amid-soviet-war/story-0f8i2N6Ew79QXrTK5tZRPM.html

US cables show how it took eye off Pakistan nukes amid Soviet war
Over the space of months during 1979-80, the US went from intense efforts to slow down or reverse Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme to turning a blind eye to it in order to get Islamabad’s support following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, according to newly declassified cables and documents


the article carries some nuggets on the discussions of US representatives with Pak

In a memorandum to president Carter dated September 29, 1980, defense secretary Brown talks about providing military aid to Pakistan and renewing “our earlier decision to turn a blind eye to their nuclear weapons program”.

Perhaps more telling is a record of a conversation between Carter and visiting foreign minister Agha Shahi in Washington on January 12, 1980, with the then president saying: “Our position on nuclear explosives is clear and I hope you will relay our concern to President Zia. Movement on this is not a prerequisite for cooperation, but our long-term relations will be substantially affected by the question of nuclear explosives...The nuclear question, then, is no longer an insurmountable obstacle, but it remains important.”


I dont think it is taking eye off but a question of favoring the Pakis, nobody in the world recognizes restraint except us. When we failed to do more detonations after 1974 it was assumed that we did not have Nuke capability. Thats why Pakis were confident of going to war in 1989, the also threatened Gujral as Foreign Minister, a Paki F-16 even had a Nuke for Hiroshima/ Nagasaki type strike, it was only when they learnt about us also having some Nukes that Pakis left it just supporting the insurgency, US admin 90's was absolutely pro paki, the only thing they were worried was Qadir Khan supply of information to Libya and Iran. Foreign Secretary Madeline Albright actually claims that Hindu militants did Chittisinghpura, I dont how people sleep at night with these kind of lies

mmasand
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 19 May 2009 23:46

Re: Deterrence

Postby mmasand » 16 Aug 2019 15:14

BIG!

Rajnath Singh: Pokhran is the area which witnessed Atal Ji’s firm resolve to make India a nuclear power and yet remain firmly committed to the doctrine of ‘No First Use’. India has strictly adhered to this doctrine. What happens in future depends on the circumstances.

https://twitter.com/rajnathsingh/status ... 93504?s=20

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7030
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby JE Menon » 16 Aug 2019 16:08

Yup. Indication of policy shift in the making.

vinod
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby vinod » 16 Aug 2019 16:16

Not sure talking up the nuclear bit is wise when Pak is going around frantically shouting about nuclear war. This just adds a bit of legitimacy to their claims..

We will have to wait and see what direction they take after this statement - whether they gnarl and show teeth, or tuck their tails in and stay low!

Gautam_2
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 04 Mar 2019 17:32

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gautam_2 » 16 Aug 2019 16:19

also a message to UNSC maybe who is meeting today? possibly?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8117
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Deterrence

Postby Pratyush » 16 Aug 2019 16:24

vinod wrote:Not sure talking up the nuclear bit is wise when Pak is going around frantically shouting about nuclear war. This just adds a bit of legitimacy to their claims..

We will have to wait and see what direction they take after this statement - whether they gnarl and show teeth, or tuck their tails in and stay low!



It's okay. 2 can play this game. The only way to win it is be crazier of the 2. In that situation it is India will be appeased by the world.


Pakistan will be asked to shut up.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby dinesh_kimar » 16 Aug 2019 16:55

May be planning a series of nuclear tests, to validate 200kt + yields.

Situations in our neighborhood is growing more complicated, a Civilization fight may be at hand.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1489
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby yensoy » 16 Aug 2019 17:28

NFU tied our hands, and Pakis took the lead with threats of tactical nukes. Now even an idiot knows that (i) tactical nukes is bullsh*t and (ii) if tactical nukes were employed, it would obviously be a first use and be met with an overpowering answer.

I think Shri Rajnath's talk here follows from a cold calculation first revealed by Shri Parikkar to free us of any constraints, at the same time sending Pakis into a tizzy because basically their nuclear blackmail won't work, even for the purpose of a threat.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3450
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 16 Aug 2019 20:13

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/india-hints-at-changing-no-first-use-nuclear-policy-11816218


"India has stopped getting scared of Pakistan's threats. Every other day they say, 'we have a nuclear button.' What do we have then? Have they kept it for Diwali?"," he said, referring to a Hindu festival when fireworks are set off.


Another game-changer in the making, this is not the rona dhona India most of the world has been accustomed to

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12424
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 16 Aug 2019 20:23

Look who is talking about NFU being haram!

https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status ... 7555263509
The Economist @TheEconomist

Committing America to a “No First Use” nuclear-weapons policy could actually make the world less stable

Did ninda Turtle coordinate with the Thee CONomist?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23757
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 18 Aug 2019 10:34

The US withdrawal from INF, the Russian development & deployment of Iskander and the very large number of Chinese missiles of the INF-class are really destabilizing. The New Start itself is under cloud adding to uncertainty. Asia has the maximum number of n-weapon states, rogues, nuke & missile proliferation etc. Pakistan-China have become one frontier for us. So, India's deterrence cannot be etched in stone for ever. Has to change with times.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 20 Aug 2019 00:17

wig wrote:https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/us-cables-show-how-it-took-eye-off-pakistan-nukes-amid-soviet-war/story-0f8i2N6Ew79QXrTK5tZRPM.html

US cables show how it took eye off Pakistan nukes amid Soviet war
Over the space of months during 1979-80, the US went from intense efforts to slow down or reverse Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme to turning a blind eye to it in order to get Islamabad’s support following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, according to newly declassified cables and documents


the article carries some nuggets on the discussions of US representatives with Pak

In a memorandum to President Carter dated September 29, 1980, defense secretary Brown talks about providing military aid to Pakistan and renewing “our earlier decision to turn a blind eye to their nuclear weapons program”.

Perhaps more telling is a record of a conversation between Carter and visiting foreign minister Agha Shahi in Washington on January 12, 1980, with the then president saying: “Our position on nuclear explosives is clear and I hope you will relay our concern to President Zia. Movement on this is not a prerequisite for cooperation, but our long-term relations will be substantially affected by the question of nuclear explosives...The nuclear question, then, is no longer an insurmountable obstacle, but it remains important.



I wonder what Blackwill and Tellis were smoking when they write of
Strategic Altruism' in Foreign Affairs !!!

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Deterrence

Postby Peregrine » 20 Aug 2019 02:18

You first

Should America rule out first use of nuclear weapons?

Elizabeth Warren thinks so. America’s allies do not

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA promised that he would reduce the role that nuclear weapons played in America’s national security strategy. His successor has done the opposite. In a review of nuclear policy published in February 2018, Donald Trump seemed to expand the circumstances in which America might use nuclear weapons first, to include cyber-attacks on the networks that transmit presidential orders to silos, submarines and bombers. He also ordered the manufacture of new low-yield warheads (these are equivalent to about half a Hiroshima), which critics fear are more likely to be used. And he has issued hair-raising threats against North Korea, alarming those who worry about his impulsiveness. All this is fuelling a debate about nuclear risks.

Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic presidential contender, wants to start with American nuclear doctrine. Every president since Harry Truman has reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in a conflict even if an enemy has not unleashed them first. In January Ms Warren introduced a Senate bill that would mandate a policy of what wonks call No First Use (NFU). Such pledges are common: China and India committed themselves to versions of NFU decades ago, as did the Soviet Union. But in America it would reverse over seven decades of nuclear thinking.

Image

Proponents of NFU argue that launching nuclear weapons first in a conflict is neither necessary nor wise. It is not necessary because America’s regular armed forces are strong enough to defeat enemies without recourse to weapons of mass destruction. It is not wise because an adversary that fears an American bolt from the blue is more likely to put its own arsenal on hair-trigger alert, increasing the risk of unauthorised or accidental launch. An adversary might also be tempted to pre-empt America by going even faster, a dangerous dynamic that Thomas Schelling, an economist and nuclear theorist, called the “reciprocal fear of surprise attack”.

That is all well and good, say critics of NFU. But America is in a different position from China and India. It not only defends itself, but also extends a protective nuclear umbrella over allies around the world. If North Korea were to invade South Korea with its ample army, it must reckon with the possibility of a nuclear response from America. The South Korean government would like to keep it that way.

Estonia and Taiwan would like Russia and China, respectively, to face similar uncertainty. Thus when Mr Obama toyed with the idea of pledging NFU during his administration, Britain, Japan, France and South Korea—all American allies facing more populous foes—lobbied successfully against such a move.

NFU-sceptics also point to the increasing potency of non-nuclear weapons. Like America, China and Russia are both developing hypersonic missiles capable of crossing oceans at over five times the speed of sound. Some might destroy targets with nothing more than their kinetic energy—no need for nuclear tips. Chemical and biological weapons could also wreak havoc without splitting atoms.

That would put an NFU-bound America in an invidious position. If such non-nuclear missiles were falling on Washington, should a nuclear response be off the table? And even if it was declared to be so, would adversaries believe it? After all, Pakistan is scornful of India’s own NFU pledge, just as America is sceptical of China’s. Talk is cheap, trust is in short supply and the stakes could not be higher.

Whereas Ms Warren’s proposal would outlaw first use under any circumstances, others merely wish to place checks on this untrammelled presidential launch authority. America’s nuclear chain of command was designed to concentrate decision-making in the White House and to keep it away from generals. James Mattis, Mr Trump’s defence secretary until last year, reassured outsiders that he would serve as a check, telling Strategic Command “not to put on a pot of coffee without letting him know”, according to the Washington Post. But he had no foolproof means to guarantee he could do this.

“The weight of the open evidence” suggests that “the Secretary of Defence is not just unnecessary, but not even in the nuclear chain of command,” says Alex Wellerstein, an expert on nuclear history at the Stevens Institute of Technology. William Perry, a former defence secretary, agrees. The president is free to instruct the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the top military officer, as he wishes. “We built a system that depends on having a rational actor in the White House,” says Alexandra Bell, a former State Department official now at the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “We now know the system is flawed.”

America first

In January Congressman Ted Lieu and Senator Ed Markey, both Democrats, reintroduced a bill, originally proposed in 2016, that would force the president to seek a congressional declaration of war (last done in 1942) with express approval for nuclear first use. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, endorsed the idea in 2017.

There are also wider efforts to prune the arsenal. Adam Smith, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and co-sponsor of Ms Warren’s NFU bill, has sought to cut funding for Mr Trump’s mini-nuke and to limit its deployment on submarines. To the Pentagon’s horror, he has also suggested scrapping America’s silo-based missiles, leaving the job to submarines and bombers.

Politicians should not expect clear guidance from voters. A survey in 2010 found that 57% agreed with Ms Warren that “the us should only use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack by another nation.” Yet it turns out that Americans also quite like fire and fury. A paper by Scott Sagan of Stanford University and Benjamin Valentino of Dartmouth College, published in 2017, found that a clear majority approved of using nuclear weapons first if doing so would save the lives of 20,000 American soldiers—even if it killed 2m Iranian civilians. “The conventional wisdom around nuclear weapons remains strongly embedded,” says Jon Wolfsthal, director of the Nuclear Crisis Group and a former official in Mr Obama’s administration. “I am not sure there will be changes, but big changes are being discussed more openly now than in a long time.”

Cheers Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 27 Aug 2019 03:09

Periodically every election time such bokwas articles are floated and the subject of the articles given prizes for peace.

Looks like Warren is eyeing the Nobel Prize.

The best reason is the American beief they are safe from nuke attack.

Look at saving 20K American soldiers lives vs killing 20M Iranians.
What were the soldiers doing in the first place?
Defensive war?

And the bokwas by the Obama Admin official!

“I am not sure there will be changes, but big changes are being discussed more openly now than in a long time.”

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1754
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Deterrence

Postby wig » 28 Aug 2019 18:43

https://zeenews.india.com/india/us-reve ... 45237.html

US reveals 9 secret locations housing Pakistan's nuclear weapons

extracted
The report, authored by Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, estimates that Pakistan has stored its nuclear arsenal in the following nine locations:

1. Akro Garrison, Sindh (Possible underground weapons storage site)
2. Gujranwala Garrison, Punjab (Possible weapons storage with components in remote depot)
3. Khuzdar Garrison, Balochistan (Possible underground weapons storage site)
4. Masroor Depot (Karachi), Sindh (Potential storage of bombs for Mirage Vs at Masroor AB)
5. National Development Complex (Fatehjang), Punjab (SSM launcher assembly and potential warhead component storage)
6. Pano Akil Garrison, Sindh (Possible weapons storage with components in remote depot)
7. Sargodha Depot, Punjab (Possible storage site of bombs for F-16s at nearby Sargodha AB and warheads for SSMs)
8. Tarbala Underground Depot, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Potential warhead storage)
9. Wah Ordnance Facility, Punjab (Possible warhead production, disassembly, and dismantlement facility)


The scientists used commercial satellite images, expert studies, and local news reports and articles to derive the locations.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 29 Aug 2019 00:55

All these are moot after Balakot.
And these chicken could have done a service if they revealed them earlier.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 29 Aug 2019 09:07

>>“The weight of the open evidence” suggests that “the Secretary of Defence is not just unnecessary, but not even in the nuclear chain of command,” says Alex Wellerstein, an expert on nuclear history at the Stevens Institute of Technology. William Perry, a former defence secretary, agrees. The president is free to instruct the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the top military officer, as he wishes. “We built a system that depends on having a rational actor in the White House,” says Alexandra Bell, a former State Department official now at the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “We now know the system is flawed.”

In comparison, India's NCA has the CCS, of course headed by the PM but the political decision comes from the CCS and the execution instructions to the SFC flow through the NSA. No mad man scenario here! But, I still prefer that our executive learns to deal with the top military leadership without the bureaucracy as an intermediary. Let us see what does the CDS become. Will it mean changes in the NCA?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 29 Aug 2019 09:20

Thank ACM S.K. Mehra saab.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23757
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 02 Sep 2019 19:47

Pakistan has tactical nuclear bombs as small as 125-250-grams to target India: Pak Minister Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad - PTI
"Pakistan has as small as 125-250-gram atom bombs also, which may hit (and destroy) a targeted area," The News newspaper quoted the minister as saying after he inspected an under-construction railway station building.

His comments came as Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has been harping on the possibility of a military confrontation between the two nuclear armed countries over the Kashmir issue.

He said India should avoid a war with Pakistan, lest it proves the last one between the two nuclear armed countries.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1124
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Deterrence

Postby RKumar » 02 Sep 2019 21:30

We have 125-250-gramKg atom bombs, why to waste grams? the equation is getting better
1 NaPaki == 1000 SRDEs :rotfl:

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby Ramesh » 03 Sep 2019 11:09

It could be something more sinister. Probably a dirty bomb attack or use other means to spread radiologically active substance. Either it is in plans or being threatened...

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23757
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 04 Sep 2019 15:14

Pakistan rules out change in its nuclear policy - ToI
ISLAMABAD: A day after Prime Minister Imran Khan unexpectedly announced that Pakistan will not use nuclear weapons or initiate military action against India first, Islamabad on Tuesday in a U-Turn said that there was no such change in its nuclear policy.

Addressing an event of Sikh community in Lahore on Monday, Khan had said that both Pakistan and India were nuclear-armed countries and if tension escalated between them, the whole world could be in danger. “But there will be no first from our side ever,” Khan reportedly said.

However, Dr Muhammad Faisal, spokesperson of the foreign affairs ministry, in a tweet said, “Prime Minister’s comments on Pakistan’s approach towards conflict between two nuclear armed states are being taken out of context.” “While conflict should not take place between two nuclear states, there’s no change in Pakistan’s nuclear policy,” he added.


Since New Delhi nullified the special status of Jammu and Kashmir on August 5, Imran Khan has been appealing to the world leaders asking them to play their part in resolving the Kashmir issue to prevent a fatal war, a reference to the use of nuclear weapons between Pakistan and India. Khan has repeatedly warning the international community that Pakistan-India conflict will not be limited to South Asia but will have global consequences.

Last month, India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh had said that his country’s commitment to ‘No First Use’ (NFU) policy for nuclear weapons may see a shift in future. “It is for now, but what happens in future depends on the circumstances,” Singh had said.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23757
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 06 Sep 2019 12:25

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/pakistan-nuclear-bogey-shows-lack-of-faith-in-its-army-general-bipin-rawat/articleshow/71002680.cmsPakistan nuclear bogey shows lack of faith in its Army: General Bipin Rawat - Manu Pubby, Shaurya Karanbir Gurung, Economic Times
The Army chief said India has noted the emerging threats from Pakistan and is more-than-prepared to meet any challenge. On nuclear threats by Islamabad, General Rawat said that this was a sign of a loss of confidence in conventional forces in Pakistan.

“When you don’t have confidence in the abilities of your conventional forces to deter the adversary, you start using the nuclear bogey," the Army chief said

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23757
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 16 Sep 2019 07:54

Imran hints N-war as a ‘consequence’ of Pakistan losing conventional war - Omer Farooq Khan, ToI
Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan raised the spectre of a nuclear war with India once again over the Kashmir issue while elaborating that this could be a “consequence” in the event of Islamabad losing a conventional war with New Delhi.

In an interview to Al Jazeera that was telecast on Saturday, Khan reiterated that nuclear war between the two neighbours could be a possibility. “When two nuclear-armed countries fight, if they fight a conventional war, there is every possibility that it is going to end up into nuclear war. The unthinkable.”

While emphasizing that he was clear that Pakistan would never start a war, Khan said: “I am a pacifist, I am anti-war. If say Pakistan, God forbid, we are fighting a conventional war, (which) we are losing, and if a country is stuck between the choice: either you surrender or you fight till death for your freedom, I know Pakistanis will fight to death for their freedom. So when a nuclear-armed country fights to the end, to the death, it has consequences.

“We discovered that while we were trying to have dialogue, they were trying to push us in the blacklist in FATF (global terror financing watchdog Financial Action Task Force) ... If Pakistan is pushed into the blacklist of FATF, that means there will be sanctions on Pakistan. So they were trying to bankrupt us economically, so that’s when we pulled back. And that’s when we realised that this (Indian government) is on an agenda ... to push Pakistan to disaster,” he said.


Now, Khalid Kidwai, the ex-Chief of SPD of Pakistan had enunciated the four Pakistani redlines openly at least on two occasions, once in c. 2002 and another in c. 2015 at Carnegie. Pakistan would use n-weapons if anyone of the following conditions happens:

• A significant territory of Pakistan is captured by India
• A significant portion of the PA or PAF is destroyed by India
• India strangulates Pakistan economically
• India causes political destabilization of Pakistan through subversion

So, is there a dilution of at least two of the red lines already?

Khan says only when they reach the surrender stage they will use the nukes. He had already stated that Pakistan would not be the first country to use the nukes (which was later rescinded by their FO spokesperson saying there was no change in their nuclear policy of First Use). This is different from the nuclear button being triggered when India 'captures significant territory'.

Secondly, the strangulation of Pakistan economically. India is pursuing that policy in FATF, as per Mr. Khan, but there is no sign of Pakistan attacking the enemy with its nukes !

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Deterrence

Postby SaiK » 19 Sep 2019 19:12

Getting mad slowly and strategically.
the unclassified part of the report will be made public.

NSS report by Oct to Modi sarkar

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 24 Sep 2019 23:29

#HowdyModi stadium walk was interesting for the briefcase carried by NaMo guard.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby JayS » 24 Sep 2019 23:56

ramana wrote:#HowdyModi stadium walk was interesting for the briefcase carried by NaMo guard.


Now I haven't seen video of this part, but These VIP security gaurds often carry a portable bullet proof shield which folds into a shape of briefcase.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TKiran and 86 guests