Deterrence

[shiv]

The opponents of big bums give various reasons to not to pursue them:.

RamaY - what makes my posts a lot of fun for me is because you are stating my own arguments as the arguments of "people who oppose big bum". When you start with garbage - what follows is more garbage.

That is because you are cherry picking my posts and have no idea that I do not oppose big bombs

I oppose calling one scientist a liar to make an argument that our bombs are small because of one man. Our bombs are not small because of one man telling lies.

Our bombs are small because we do not have the political will power to make and test big bombs. Big bombs need repeated testing. Repeated testing needs political will. Political will means that the politician should be able to get away without having his people punished. If his people are punished they will punish him.

If you oppose this politician you can call him a liar, a traitor or whatever but your laments do not make a whit of a difference to the politician or the people who vote him in. That is why the whole thing is funny in a pathetic way - like a fart in a hurricane.

It really is a no win situation - but to under stand the true meaning of "no win" you either have to come and fight the system, or actually nuke India so people learn that nukes are important tools in some instances.

[RamaY]

That is not the greatness of India. It shows how screwed up the "average Indian" actually is. If he and his kind want gigaboom - India would have more nukes than anyone else. just like Indians own the most privately held gold in the world.

If this statement is correct then one shouldn't give-in to the logic of butter Vs guns logic, right? That is why we elect PMs to make sound choices for our collective-betterment.

Now, you might say our PM is doing what he thinks is good for India, and I must agree with you on that. At the same time one can observe that a certain strategic posture, that is more butter and less guns, didn’t get us far in the past 60 years. And we also observe that every time we shouted “we got a couple of guns this year”, we not only got world recognition but also more butter.

That is where your logic failed.

Our philosophical deference is -

You believe in an India/Indian who is screwed up in their logic, prefers to live in poverty that stems from their religious beliefs, a coward to face internal and external enemies and want to make policies that suit such a nation.

I believe in the spiritual nature of Indian who takes only what he needs and saves the rest for the future, who is capable of understanding the internal and external threats and respond accordingly. The average Indian does his dharma as a farmer, father, son, etc and expects the others such as politicians, police, judges, armed forces, scientists to do their dharma. We cannot attribute a certain politician’s failure to perform his duty to a farmer who voted for him to do that specific job.

[NRao]

RamaY,

IF I have a 10 Kt nuke which can prevent my enemy from doing what they want to do, why invest in 1 Mt?

[RamaY]

Shiv-ji

You are one of my gurus on BRF.

I am not cherry picking your ideas. I am trying to provide alternate POV, that’s it. There are many others who think in those lines and those are my audience.

[RamaY]

RamaY,

IF I have a 10 Kt nuke which can prevent my enemy from doing what they want to do, why invest in 1 Mt?

For the same reason you are willing to pay a little more premium to get a Rs 10L life insurance coverage instead of Rs 1L coverage. You can afford the premium.

[rajeshks]

RamaY,

IF I have a 10 Kt nuke which can prevent my enemy from doing what they want to do, why invest in 1 Mt?

For the same reason you are willing to pay a little more premium to get a Rs 10L life insurance coverage instead of Rs 1L coverage. You can afford the premium.

Then my enemy tries to make 1.5 MT weapons and I respond my making 2 MT weapon. This cycle will go on and we call that as arms race. My personal opinion is countries, atleast the so called present and future super powers, should behave as responsible powers.

[RamaY]

I oppose calling one scientist a liar to make an argument that our bombs are small because of one man. Our bombs are not small because of one man telling lies.

Our bombs are small because we do not have the political will power to make and test big bombs. Big bombs need repeated testing. Repeated testing needs political will. Political will means that the politician should be able to get away without having his people punished. If his people are punished they will punish him.

If you oppose this politician you can call him a liar, a traitor or whatever but your laments do not make a whit of a difference to the politician or the people who vote him in. That is why the whole thing is funny in a pathetic way - like a fart in a hurricane.

Good points. However the ground rules must apply to everyone.

When a scientist stops behaving like a scientist and starts acting like a politician; he is dangerous to national interests.

sreyan sva-dharmo vigunah
para-dharmat svanusthitat
sva-dharme nidhanam sreyah
para-dharmo bhayavahah

[RamaY]

Then my enemy tries to make 1.5 MT weapons and I respond my making 2 MT weapon. This cycle will go on and we call that as arms race. My personal opinion is countries, atleast the so called present and future super powers, should behave as responsible powers.

I am glad you recognized that they are your enemies. I would compete with my friends in terms of knowledge, generosity, humility etc. I would compete with my enemy in the fields of influence, power (economic as well as military), generosity etc.

By the way: why would your enemy see the need for 1.5 MT weapon, unless it is more effective? Why do you want to let go that opportunity, especially when you CAN have it? Remember he is your enemy.

There is nothing wrong in settling for less if you CANNOT. It is timidity and cowardice to get stare down by your enemies even when you CAN acquire the necessary weapons.

Where do you want to be?
Your enemy 1.5 MT weapon – you 1 MT weapon? OR
Your enemy 1.0 MT weapon – you 10KT weapon?

[shiv]

When a scientist stops behaving like a scientist and starts acting like a politician; he is dangerous to national interests.

Yes. And when a witch hunt is started to vilify one man, all the other guilty people around him are forgotten, as is the truth because bringing one man down becomes more important than finding the truth. The man becomes a scapegoat while his cheerleaders, instigators and misinformers go scot free.

[rajeshks]

Where do you want to be?
Your enemy 1.5 MT weapon – you 1 MT weapon? OR
Your enemy 1.0 MT weapon – you 10KT weapon?

If my enemy has 1 MT weapon I would go for 1 MT weapon if i want to project an aggressive posture. Otherwise if I settle for a 100 KT weapon that can effectively deter my enemy then it shows that i am a responsible person. I may use the money saved for developing a better delivery system.

[shiv]

By the way: why would your enemy see the need for 1.5 MT weapon, unless it is more effective? Why do you want to let go that opportunity, especially when you CAN have it? Remember he is your enemy.

Applying the logic in practice.

India exploded at least 25 kilotons. Pakistan go 15-20. Pakistan is not looking for more. So they do not believe that more is more effective.

The USSR tested 50 megatons. The US did not because they did not believe it was useful.

The US tested up to 15 megatons. China did not. China does not believe that is necessary.

China has megaton bombs, but India dos not think they are necessary.

How come you feel they are necessary? I have repeated endless arguments to say why megaton yield bombs are not necessary for deterrence. Bigger bombs (in the hundreds of kt range are only good for efficiency and saving fissile material and getting better bang for buck. Not for deterrence.
Deterrence is fine even with 10 kt bombs.

[Sanku]

If he and his kind want gigaboom - India would have more nukes than anyone else. just like Indians own the most privately held gold in the world.

I suppose that's what Brajesh Mishra was inspired by, democracy of numbers, when he asked for a voice vote on whether nukes worked.

A friend of mine was very upset about the whole voice vote thingy, according to him Brajesh Mishra should have at least tried for a SMS poll for better accuracy. (the elites did have cell phone then)

(Please sirs, dont rap me for above its a joke onlee)

--------------

More fundamentally I have a fundamental difference with the above at a fundamental level (I must be a fundoo only)

It is this picture -- the avg man does not take a call on strategic matters. It is not because he does not care, or he cares about his food before the country. In fact given the line of Indians queuing up of Solider jobs but the middle class does not line up for Officer jobs (the salaries for both classes and other avenues are both in the same scale as the individual numbers of the classes, i.e. avg solider salary/avg solider class person sal = avg officer sal/avg officer class person sal) tells me that for the things the person can understand he is actually more willing to put his nation beyond himself than the elite.

In fact, given that the Nuclear explosion did result in +ve vote for BJP (I know first hand) tells me that, the avg person does want India to have a strong deterrence he is also willing to forgo somethings for it.

It is infact the elite which gets cold shoulder first. In fact we had seen it during freedom struggle too. The elites as characterized by the English speaking folks in comfortable and superior position are actually more careful about where they are and are loath to let their advantages go.

The other Indians are a little more, unaffected. They care more for the rain coming on time and well.

The voters care more for local issues primarly because that is something they can see judge and understand. A person talking about strategic stuff may appear as a smooth operator bluffing his way out and not because they dont care about India's security.

------------

So the common man judges on the basis of metrics of what he can judge, and lets the strategic decision making stay in domain of what he implicity trusts the govt and his leaders to do.

That's why he chooses leaders -- those who can take decision for him in domains where he cant go -- and after choosing a leader on the basis of overall trustablity (and not only on Bijli Sadak Pani issues) he expects them to do the right thing.

So this is a leadership responsibility -- plain and simple.

----------------

Finally with out all that verbosity above -- this argument really cuts no ice, because even US a fairly well functioning democracy never had a referendum or elections based on Number and yield of nukes. It had elections on the basis of BSP issues mostly and some times over all hard or soft direction towards world challenges including communism.

Never ever did they go asking for
Teller-Ullam or fission?
1 MT or 1.5 ?
100 * 10 KT or 10 * 100 KTs?
1000 Mil $ or 500 Mil $

I think in short that any argument on deterrence is what it is because this is what common man wants has no merit.

[shiv]

Finally with out all that verbosity above -- this argument really cuts no ice, because even US a fairly well functioning democracy never had a referendum or elections based on Number and yield of nukes. It had elections on the basis of BSP issues mostly and some times over all hard or soft direction towards world challenges including communism.

Hmm - you had some comments about my speaking of an American disease being imposed on India? Why do people want American standards to be followed in India by Indians?

Never ever did they go asking for
Teller-Ullam or fission?
1 MT or 1.5 ?
100 * 10 KT or 10 * 100 KTs?
1000 Mil $ or 500 Mil $

Indian leaders did not ask these questions of Indians either. Is that not the desired American behavior in India? Is there _any_ reason for dissatisfaction?

[samuel]

Let's look at this argument that even a 10KT nuke against China and Pak (together) suffices as a deterrent. We will rehash things again stated a few pages ago, but never mind. It would be important to note here that we may assume about 100 devices ready to go at 10KT and, in return, about 100 MT devices and several other 100s of KT devices. If you want to rachet up to 50KT, that's ok too.

The first premise is that if China attacks using nuclear weapons, then we deter because we can escalate the conflict.

The second premise is that China will never start a nuclear exchange with us anyway.

The third premise is that irrespective of what scale China's aggression is, we can match it.

The fourth premise is that India has a rich history of coming through on its threats, e.g. Nehru.

I can probably catalog more by the end of the day.

[vera_k]

Chiranjeevi scheme that promises to improve maternal care to BPL families all across India was estimated to cost 1200 CR.

Vera. this is a scam. Having said that BARC too is a scam as per some people, so their almost equal budgets make almost equal scams.

You are missing the point. If the state is running scams all over, it matters not if one scam is preferred over the other. Both are going to be equally ineffective, although in different ways. Therefore, the solutions to the problems you raise lie in fixing the state and not in a choice that either prefers or rejects Gigabooms.

[shiv]

The first premise is that if China attacks using nuclear weapons, then we deter because we can escalate the conflict.

Samuel. If China attacks with nukes deterrence has failed. We cannot claim that "We can deter"

The second premise is that China will never start a nuclear exchange with us anyway.

My take: China is less likely to start a nuclear exchange if we can cause them pain that exceeds their gains from conflict

The third premise is that irrespective of what scale China's aggression is, we can match it.

Not

The fourth premise is that India has a rich history of coming through on its threats, e.g. Nehru.

ROTFL!

[shiv]

You are missing the point. If the state is running scams all over, it matters not if one scam is preferred over the other. Both are going to be equally ineffective, although in different ways. Therefore, the solutions to the problems you raise lie in fixing the state and not in a choice that either prefers or rejects Gigabooms.

And they are exactly that. Ineffective in their own ways. And it is the state that requires fixing. Not an individual scientist or the yields of bombs. Or a discussion of how big the scam budget is to make a gigaboom easily affordable.

[RamaY]

Applying the logic in practice.

India exploded at least 25 kilotons. Pakistan go 15-20. Pakistan is not looking for more. So they do not believe that more is more effective.

The USSR tested 50 megatons. The US did not because they did not believe it was useful.

The US tested up to 15 megatons. China did not. China does not believe that is necessary.

China has megaton bombs, but India dos not think they are necessary.

How come you feel they are necessary? I have repeated endless arguments to say why megaton yield bombs are not necessary for deterrence. Bigger bombs (in the hundreds of kt range are only good for efficiency and saving fissile material and getting better bang for buck. Not for deterrence.
Deterrence is fine even with 10 kt bombs.

Who is India's enemy? You yourself once said that US is the real enemy to Indian interests; because it protects TSP and to some extent PRC (in its proliferation). So make your choice based on your threat assessment.

USSR > US > PRC > India > TSP - Is there a LOGICAL reason behind this pattern?

[Sanku]

Hmm - you had some comments about my speaking of an American disease being imposed on India? Why do people want American standards to be followed in India by Indians?

Indian leaders did not ask these questions of Indians either. Is that not the desired American behavior in India? Is there _any_ reason for dissatisfaction?

Sir I fell into your trap by using America

America was just a example of a democracy that came to mind, use UK if you prefer, or France or whatever.

My point is the same, the word America is a place holder for democracy.

And before you do piskology on me for why that example came to my mind -- its because of you talking about it all the time.

[samuel]

I am absolutely serious about Nehru. He said we will go up there and take em out, forward posturing. He came through alright, with nothing in tow. But I am glad pulling the Nehru is funny; if that was policy, we'd need a reality check for sure!

It is useful to start with a what if and go backwards. What if China attacked. If that happened is it clear we can stop them at any (nuclear) scale? To say that if china actually attacks deterrence fails is a tautology, but to conduct the gedanken experiment using that condition is preparation, I'd say. Alternately, you could say can we make it so difficult for them that they would not want to do X. Part of them not wanting to do X depends on what is coming their way, not much.

Suppose they dropped a tactical nuke on the field and wiped out a whole mountain division in arunachal. Massive retaliation like Nehru would do. 100x 10KT on their way. 10 fail. 25 intercepted. 65 make it. We don't got guts to hit Beijing or we are stupid to hit Beijing. 3/4 of city gone. In return 100 x 1MT come. 10 fail, 30 intercepted. 60 hit 30 cities. Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bengaluru, Mangoluru, Hyderabad, Vijaywada, Vizag, Nagpur, Pune, Ahmedabad, Cuttack, Bhopal, Jhansi, Jaipur, Udaipur, Patna, Lucknow, Chandigarh, Jammu, Simla, Dehradun, Dibrugarh, ...

So now the PM gets really pissed and says, fire away. Out go what, rocks?

If instead if were guaranteed that a) the tactical nuke that destroyed the mountain division can be matched, and b) india will or will not escalate per the emergent scenario and c) if escalated india can and will match or perhaps take it even to a scale where, not that we are interested in matching the bombs or size they have, but we will have capacity to destroy their civilization.

China goes through that thinking, starting with, hey, what if I lob a tactical nuke, a teeny tiny one and ends up with, ugh, not worth it. India's starting point is NOT that, it never does even go to Pakistan when they come to Kargil for fear of escalating. India's starting point is, what if they do take the first step and my bluff fails? I just told the world who's been testing for a long time that I do not need to test any more after 1 and 1/6th.

S

[vera_k]

And they are exactly that. Ineffective in their own ways. And it is the state that requires fixing. Not an individual scientist or the yields of bombs. Or a discussion of how big the scam budget is to make a gigaboom easily affordable.

But the fact that the state requires fixing does not mean that a Gigaboom is not needed. What if building the Gigaboom is part of what's needed to fix the state apparatus responsible for the gigaboom?

[Manish_Sharma]

RamaY,

IF I have a 10 Kt nuke which can prevent my enemy from doing what they want to do, why invest in 1 Mt?

But N Rao for a city like Shanghai spread over 6,340 sq. km. wouldn't 10 Kt be too small? Our Mumbai is having 18 million people in 440 sq. km., so 3 x 10 Kt would maybe suffice.

But 3 x 10 kt. spread over Shanghai having same population like Mumbai but spread over 15-16 times more area would hardly be enough. Even for creating a scenario suggested by Shiv of lots of wounded & burned population I would say 200 x 8 [Shanghai].

[NRao]

But N Rao for a city like Shanghai spread over 6,340 sq. km. wouldn't 10 Kt be too small?

I am not talking of destruction. IF destruction is THE issue, yes India NEEDS Mt. IF what you present is the intent, absolutely India needs many Mts.

I am talking of deterrence. I do not have to destroy, the way you present it, to deter.

Or am I wrong?

[Manish_Sharma]

But the fear of destruction is what deters. No?

[ss_roy]

FYI..

Key Indian Figures Call for New Nuclear Tests Despite Deal With U.S.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02865.html

By Rama Lakshmi
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, October 5, 2009

NEW DELHI -- A little more than a year after India and the United States signed a historic civilian agreement lifting a 30-year ban on nuclear trade, some former top nuclear scientists here are arguing that India needs to conduct another weapons test.

..."Santhanam finally realized the enormity of consequences of India's never testing again," said Bharat Karnad, a member of the team that developed India's nuclear doctrine and a former member of the National Security Advisory Board. "It has to do with the perception that Manmohan Singh is predisposed to offer no resistance to Obama's nonproliferation policy push and may sign the CTBT. And that the government has to be stopped from doing this. It is, in fact, about keeping our testing option open."...

[NRao]

But the fear of destruction is what deters. No?

That can be ONE of the items that can deter. True.

But, there can be plenty more.

In the case of Mao or even NoKo, even that MAY not hold true.

My feel is that in the case of China IF the leadership feels that even after surviving a strike they cannot come back as a "power" that it is a deterrence. Now the question is what is this "cannot come back" - how does one quantify it. That part is both an art and a science.

Remember that after a nuclear strike both nations will be very open to occupation by other nations - via NATO I would imagine. IF I lay some 30% of China - the most productive parts - to waste, then what will China be able to defend against NATO? For all I know NATO will take over and hand over what is remaining to Taiwan. Now, IF India can force such a scenario - there is deterrence. Flip side is also true. (Again that is one way of thinking, there must be others.)

In the case of the US it is pretty much defined - not a single missile should get through.

[NRao]

FYI..

Key Indian Figures Call for New Nuclear Tests Despite Deal With U.S.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02865.html

By Rama Lakshmi
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, October 5, 2009

NEW DELHI -- A little more than a year after India and the United States signed a historic civilian agreement lifting a 30-year ban on nuclear trade, some former top nuclear scientists here are arguing that India needs to conduct another weapons test.

..."Santhanam finally realized the enormity of consequences of India's never testing again," said Bharat Karnad, a member of the team that developed India's nuclear doctrine and a former member of the National Security Advisory Board. "It has to do with the perception that Manmohan Singh is predisposed to offer no resistance to Obama's nonproliferation policy push and may sign the CTBT. And that the government has to be stopped from doing this. It is, in fact, about keeping our testing option open."...

Rehash of older articles. But, perhaps cleaner.

[samuel]

If nothing's gonna stop a mad guy, we had better have what it takes to stop him. If there are other ways to swing the deter flag, go for em, but get the bottom line straightened out, but at least don't shut it out and do the nehru all over again; come come, we will deter you with prep-boy talk and universal brotherhood.

Meanwhile, now that things have reached wapipe, things look like they are starting to cook. We still dream about that unsc seat, hoping we get it by being nice.

"Critics of Santhanam say that testing now would endanger India's rising prominence in international affairs and would invite sanctions that could hurt India's economic growth.

"The cost is intolerable if India tests," said Kanwal Sibal, a former foreign secretary. "We will suffer international isolation. It will be a huge setback to our bid for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council."

I wonder how our 1998 tests froze our rising prominence. Could it be because they...

S

[Manish_Sharma]

Yes to hit economically like taking out refineries, few industrial cities, ports 10-20kt would be enough. To send them back 60-70 years economically.

[ShyamSP]

If nothing's gonna stop a mad guy, we had better have what it takes to stop him. If there are other ways to swing the deter flag, go for em, but get the bottom line straightened out, but at least don't shut it out and do the nehru all over again; come come, we will deter you with prep-boy talk and universal brotherhood.

Meanwhile, now that things have reached wapipe, things look like they are starting to cook. We still dream about that unsc seat, hoping we get it by being nice.

"Critics of Santhanam say that testing now would endanger India's rising prominence in international affairs and would invite sanctions that could hurt India's economic growth.

"The cost is intolerable if India tests," said Kanwal Sibal, a former foreign secretary. "We will suffer international isolation. It will be a huge setback to our bid for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council."

I wonder how our 1998 tests froze our rising prominence. Could it be because they...

S

For exactly same reason of statements by fake or real timid Indian, Santhanam contribution whether he is right or wrong is enormous. I don't know when will these govt spokesmen cut the crap of exhibiting fear. Who buys into that?

[ss_roy]

The current crop of Indian political/ policy "elites" are gungadins.

[shiv]

But the fact that the state requires fixing does not mean that a Gigaboom is not needed. What if building the Gigaboom is part of what's needed to fix the state apparatus responsible for the gigaboom?

Agreed.

But I believe Gigaboom= 100 to 400 kt

In fact my own arguments can be used against me. Is it better to have 1 missile with a 1 Mt warhead, or one missile with 3 x 150 kt warheads or 4 missiles with one 20 kt warhead each? Cost effectiveness wise the MIRVed 150 kt would probably be the best. A lot depends on

1) Amount of Pu available
2) National technical capability

One Kg Pu gives 20 kt at 100 % fission. "Fat Man" of Nagasaki gave 23 kt at 17% efficiency. They must have used about 6 kg Pu.

But suppose your conventional high explosives whiz kids are good enough to be able to compress 3 kg Pu and get (by some means maybe boosting, 40 kt at 66% efficiency?

So if you have 300 kg Pu and use 6 kg to get only 20 kt you will have 50 bombs of 20 kt each - total kilotonnage of 1000 kt

But if you can use just 3 kg Pu to get 40 kt then you will have 100 bombs and your total kilotonnage will be 4000 kt (assuming you have 300 kg Pu)

And if you can make an efficient TN with that 3 kg and get 400 kt per bomb - you still have only 100 bombs (from 300 kg Pu) but a total kilotonnage of 40,000 kt

[shiv]

Suppose they dropped a tactical nuke on the field and wiped out a whole mountain division in arunachal. Massive retaliation like Nehru would do. 100x 10KT on their way. 10 fail. 25 intercepted. 65 make it. We don't got guts to hit Beijing or we are stupid to hit Beijing. 3/4 of city gone. In return 100 x 1MT come. 10 fail, 30 intercepted. 60 hit 30 cities. Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bengaluru, Mangoluru, Hyderabad, Vijaywada, Vizag, Nagpur, Pune, Ahmedabad, Cuttack, Bhopal, Jhansi, Jaipur, Udaipur, Patna, Lucknow, Chandigarh, Jammu, Simla, Dehradun, Dibrugarh, ...

So now the PM gets really pissed and says, fire away. Out go what, rocks?

If instead if were guaranteed that a) the tactical nuke that destroyed the mountain division can be matched, and b) india will or will not escalate per the emergent scenario and c) if escalated india can and will match or perhaps take it even to a scale where, not that we are interested in matching the bombs or size they have, but we will have capacity to destroy their civilization.

China goes through that thinking, starting with, hey, what if I lob a tactical nuke, a teeny tiny one and ends up with, ugh, not worth it. India's starting point is NOT that, it never does even go to Pakistan when they come to Kargil for fear of escalating. India's starting point is, what if they do take the first step and my bluff fails? I just told the world who's been testing for a long time that I do not need to test any more after 1 and 1/6th.

S

Samuel your thinking is completely different from mine. I just hope that if there is a nuclear attack on India my thinking prevails over yours merely because I see deterrence as the assurance of massive retaliation even if a teensy weensy nuke is lobbed against India.

Nobody can predict the exact consequences of of a tactical nuke. A China that lobs one tac nuke has to be prepared to have 15 -20 cities taken out (even with 3 x 10 kt per city). There is no way that China must be allowed to assume that they can lob a tactical nuke and Indians waffle and dither and hope they can get away with a counter tac nuke.

The thinking here is that rationality exists as long as there is no nuclear escalation. Rationality ends with the use of a nuke whatever the size. It is a game changer. A small nuke against an armored division (in the mountains ??) Once rationality ends the irrational power must be ready to face massive destruction because they already have the power to destroy India as we know it. If we waffle and "knock the chip off their shoulder" they can escalate straight away to a massive counter force strike leaving our PM with only rocks.

The idea of retaliation should be to let off our nukes before they are hit by a first strike even if a tactical nuke is used.

I don't pray about nuclear war, but if I must pray I would pray and ask that my viewpoint is favored over yours. I see your viewpoint as one that hopes against hope that India will get away without destruction against a ruthless enemy who has escalated. I would not rest on such futile hopes. The enemy must be hit back will all the force we have long before they can use all their might against us. We may lose, but they must not win.

That is nuclear war. IMHO

[RamaY]

NRao garu,

how much we know about PRC/TSP thought process to base our deterrence upon it?

If we know enough about their thought process why are we failing to use that info to mitigate their misadventures in various theators?

[NRao]

but if I must pray I would pray and ask that my viewpoint is favored over yours.

Yeah, I am listening.

[shiv]

If nothing's gonna stop a mad guy, we had better have what it takes to stop him.
S

How much Plutonium do you have?

[shiv]

NRao garu,

how much we know about PRC/TSP thought process to base our deterrence upon it?

If we know enough about their thought process why are we failing to use that info to mitigate their misadventures in various theators?

Now guess who would be in a position to assess that?

[NRao]

NRao garu,

how much we know about PRC/TSP thought process to base our deterrence upon it?

If we know enough about their thought process why are we failing to use that info to mitigate their misadventures in various theators?

Two things:

1) I do not know is the simple answer (yeah, what else is new). However, there are guys on both sides who do have extensive tentacles all over the place. To get an idea read up on those RAND URLs I posted a page or so ago. But, I would not get too much into it - not worth the time, put all that on your family or something more worthwhile like that.

Note that China cannot unload all her missiles/nukes onto one country - no matter which one. IF China was such a great NUCLEAR threat why is that India did not buckle much earlier? I am not saying I have the answer, but I am inclined to believe that there is some other dynamics in place that actually makes me feel that the Indo-Sino nuclear game is not as bad as we think it to be.

Today's FT has an article on railway systems, etc - China has invested $850 Billion to revive their economy, 35% towards infrastructures and a great %age of the 35% is towards high speed rail. As an ex transportation planner I am very, very impressed. And based on this current discussion I am that much more confident that China will try her best not to launch a nuclear attack - unless she is very, very confident that her first strike will result in India not even sending a single missile back.

2) Misadventures are not to test strategic resolve. Note that China had deployed MT since 71!!!!! Since 71 Indo-Sino relations at the border seem to have gone all over the graph. (I have always believed that there are two groups within Chicom: good and bad. It is this bad group that is hankering for a "will teach you" fight with India, but would like it to be just that - teach you.

Dunno. Just pure speculation on my part based on what I have been reading. Tea leaves.

[RamaY]

Now guess who would be in a position to assess that?

That would amount to "donga chetiki talaalu ichinattu" (handing over the keys to the thief)

[RamaY]

Nukavarapu garu!

Nothing wrong in focussing on shield strategy. But in some scenarios building a long sword is more feasible and effective. Once again it boils down to ones capability and resources.

The debate is supposed to be on india's capability. The problem is when people mixup resources, strategies, intents, morals, apposition tactics and what not.

My belief is that if India has the technical capability then it must build big bums. It has necessary resources and threat environment. All other good-to-have features can be acquired simultaneously if executed well. It boils down to capabilities and execution only and nothing else.