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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 18 Oct 2009 05:57

I am regretting my own statement. Maybe I'll spoon feed because the example is too classic to leave out.

http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/main-ar ... on_1291787
It is a common fallacy drawn from our uncritical reading of American nuclear deterrence literature that "credible" deterrence must be based on the capacity to do damage in the many millions; :P and that we therefore need to have sufficient numbers and types of nuclear weapons that are certain to inflict such levels of damage even if the adversary has struck first.
History reveals the opposite. In the early 1960s, the United States and the Soviet Union were embroiled in two major crises when the possibility of war was high -- in Berlin (1961) and Cuba (1962). At the time, the United States had more sophisticated weapons and a numerical advantage in warheads to the tune of 10:1. Yet president Kennedy's overriding concern was to avoid nuclear war.


and

the notion that warhead yield must be higher in order to deter effectively involves the unquestioning internalisation of American norms,


Now compare that with:
You are trying to propose your own theory of deterrence to replace a cold war tested theory of deterrence.


Touche...

vijyeta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 01 May 2006 03:10
Location: Olympus Mons

Re: Deterrence

Postby vijyeta » 18 Oct 2009 07:24

abhiti wrote:Do a little thought experiment and explain to me why speed of light will be the same no matter speed and direction of your motion? You are trying to propose your own theory of deterrence to replace a cold war tested theory of deterrence.


Why do we need to assume that the theory is 'proven' and 'tested'. The same players still exist, the game is not over yet.
This seems similar to the chest beating around 'winning' and 'ending' the cold war. How is war over and the theory done and dusted when the fear of complete destruction is still tormenting the 'winner'.

Lessons in 'deterrence' are still being learnt.
Send the theory for binding and printing either after somebody pushes a red button somewhere or when mankind sees a dawn with no nukes around.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 18 Oct 2009 09:00

Well said vijyeta.

Meanwhile, a cross post and some comments

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 134343.cms

Second, said Tellis, there are serious questions about the monitoring mechanism of CTBT, which basically means - can countries cheat? Tibor Toth, secretary general of CTBT Organisation (CTBTO) claims the international monitoring system (IMS) is now sophisticated enough to be able to detect even the smallest test on land or water . But the IMS is not yet foolproof.


The CTBT monitoring mechanism is highly suspect.

They did not pick up the May 13th tests at all and there are many arguments to believe that the CTBT apparatus is less sensitive than the boast you hear from the NPA.

For example, the Subkiloton tests of may 13 1998 were done 50 meters deep in sand. I have at least one ref for that 50 meter figure and sand "decouples" the explosive yield so that it is difficult to detect. If India had done another half dozen subkiloton tests they would not have been picked up.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: Deterrence

Postby Rien » 18 Oct 2009 13:08

shiv wrote:BTW India is totally connected up by underground fiberoptic cable which is totally immune to nuke generated EM pulses.


Huawei was bidding on India's telecommunications networks. The Chinese *know* all they need to know about where to put their missiles. Also, the fiber network cable is immune to EMP, but the switches at both ends are not. The equipment at both ends will be dead! Radars are like gigantic antenna's for EMP. In fact, any long metallic structure will suck up EMP. This includes electrical grids. So the equipment probably won't work because of lack of electrical power. As long as you have copper wire and processors, EMP can still kill even a plane with fiber optics. EMP only needs the slightest bit of metal or copper to defeat the best Faraday cage ever built. Read the earlier links. They go into detail about how this works.

shiv wrote:I was doing a totally theoretical gigaboomer calculation of how far apart 100 puny 25 kt Indian warheads + 200 dummy warheads will be from each other. They will be separated by at 100 km or more from each other and those China megatons will have to put 10 of her megaton warheads to take out one missile launch site with a 2/3 chance that they will hit a dummy.


That's wrong. A 0.5 MT can kill a 7 km radius. That equals a circular area of 153 square kilometers. A 1 Mt can kill much farther than 20 km. A 3.3 can probably kill out to 150 km. This is not blast damage. They are disabling the fission warhead by neutron predetonation and EMP effects. The missile is still there, but it won't work. You cannot do this to fusion warheads because they have less plutonium. You are mixing up calculations with fireball radius and ionizing radiation. Radiation doesn't drop off with distance.

China doesn't have to guess at where India's missiles are. TEL's are big, bulky and heavy. They can only go via special strong bridges and roads that can handle at least 100 tons of weight. They go *very* slowly. Do you remember the IA rejected the Agni tank because it said bridges in India can't handle 50 tons? I'm not saying this, the IA claims this is true.

Substitute seperated by a 100 km for the Indian reality of only 6-10 places where Indian TEL's are guarded by a lot of soldiers. Use Google Earth, I'll toss in a picture of Pakistani TEL's to show how easy it is. The Chinese have much better sources of information then I do, they probably know the location of India's missiles (NOT warheads - missiles). Unless India has much more of an underground system than is publicly known.

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/art ... r_forc.php

Look at that nice picture of where 11 Pakistani TEL's are. You will notice I don't use Indian pictures, and mods, please ban anyone who shows pictures of Indian TEL's. With just Google Earth, it's not that hard to find the handful of places, and the power of a 3.3 MT monster, they don't even need a near miss. And those TEL's are exactly where someone would first think to look as well. Try it for yourself. Well dispersed they are not. The Pakistani ones are 400% more secure. And this is why the USA talks about pre-emptive strike, because it is very easy to take out either Indian or Pakistani missiles. And even the Pakistani ones can be killed with just 3 multi megaton monsters.

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/05/ext ... -china.php

Here's an example of Chinese ones. They are much easier to find than you might think.

Indeed, the DOD’s determination that all of China’s smallest mobile missile units – those that are hardest to detect and the most numerous – are confined to one region and nowhere else in this vast country suggests that a considerable detection (and thus targeting) capability exists today.


shiv wrote:500 million deaths is an overestimate. 3 million sq km of India with 70% (750 million) occupying 2.5 million sq km rural areas . Those Chinese bombs will hardly take out 25 million people. Will live to fight another day.


If the Chinese decide to target just 42 Indian cities, they can easily kill 200 million Indians.Far many more people will die from the firestorms, dust storms, and fallout than die from the blasts. 500 million is an underestimate. Fusion bombs are no "cobalt bomb" but they will kill millions just fine.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17006
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Deterrence

Postby Rahul M » 18 Oct 2009 13:49

Rien wrote:China doesn't have to guess at where India's missiles are. TEL's are big, bulky and heavy. They can only go via special strong bridges and roads that can handle at least 100 tons of weight. They go *very* slowly. Do you remember the IA rejected the Agni tank because it said bridges in India can't handle 50 tons?


this is indeed of the "Breaking News" category !! :eek:
I wonder if the rest of your posts live up to this level of accuracy.

btw, do you realise that the TSP images you posted are from the fabrication facility ? it does NOT mean they are based there.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17006
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Deterrence

Postby Rahul M » 18 Oct 2009 13:56

abhiti wrote:
shiv wrote:Do a thought experiment. Imagine 2 nations A and B - each is big enough to have more than 100 cities.

Do a little thought experiment and explain to me why speed of light will be the same no matter speed and direction of your motion? You are trying to propose your own theory of deterrence to replace a cold war tested theory of deterrence.

does the speed of light depend on your speed and direction ? I would really like to know more ! :mrgreen:

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Deterrence

Postby Virupaksha » 18 Oct 2009 14:04

Rahul M wrote:
abhiti wrote:Do a little thought experiment and explain to me why speed of light will be the same no matter speed and direction of your motion? You are trying to propose your own theory of deterrence to replace a cold war tested theory of deterrence.

does the speed of light depend on your speed and direction ? I would really like to know more ! :mrgreen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17006
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Deterrence

Postby Rahul M » 18 Oct 2009 14:06

and did you yourself read what is in those links ? :wink:

p.s. I was looking forward to a reply from abhiti and NOT info on STR.

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Deterrence

Postby Virupaksha » 18 Oct 2009 14:08

Rahul M wrote:and did you yourself read what is in those links ? :wink:

koi shak yaa sawaal?

my driver* can answer them. :mrgreen:

*based on a popular lore of impersonation

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17006
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Deterrence

Postby Rahul M » 18 Oct 2009 14:14

saar jee, the driver could answer q's on GTR if memory serves right, this is much more mundane stuff. chances are he didn't get to listen to any STR lectures. :wink:
STR is a special case of GTR (duh ! that's why it is called 'special').

/sorry for the OT post.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Siberian Salt Mines

Postby Rien » 18 Oct 2009 17:43

Regardless of whether or not India has thermonuclear weapons, some things we can find out for sure or not. Whether, according to the Praful Bidwai group:

1. Indian missiles are invisible.

2. TEL's, when they are manufactured, become invisible until they reach their destination. That's right, when I show pictures of Pakistani TEL's, no one could have kept track of them. China launches expensive spy satellites and spends billions of dollars, when, on BR, they could have learned that means nothing. .. :roll: Let's get in touch with the Americans and Russians too.

3. 30 kt nukes can do more damage than 3,300 Megatons. Wait, let's be generous, 3 thirty kt warheads are as dangerous as one 3.3 MT.

4. 100 missiles can do more than 800. :eek:

5. The US and Russia know less about missile deterrence than some internet generals. Hell, what does China know about nuclear weapons either huh? What would the country that invented the atomic bomb know? Less apparently, than some internet superheroes.

6. Salted weapons ..

Let's take the various suggestions. First of all, Leo Szilard only suggested them in the context of fusion weapons, not fission.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-4.html

No attempts to actually use cobalt in this way are known. Cobalt has an atomic number of only 27, making it a rather poor pusher/tamper since it completely ionizes at 9.9 KeV.


The same applies for all the other suggestions, verging on the absolutely ridiculous. There is a reason no country built cobalt bombs, or that Pakistan isn't building manganese bombs right now. And it's not because these countries are humanitarian, but because these proposals are unworkable. And, in every single reference I read, they only work with fusion weapons. Whether or not some people on BR deserve guru status will be clear after this thread.

Let me make this clear. The GoI has never signed on to any of these foolish proposals or ideas. These are all unique to BR, and Bharat Rakshak alone. Find one GoI spokesman who will agree with any part of what the alleged defenders of the government are saying. Indeed, by going for the development of TN weapons,and the Arihant, and the Agni 5, the government obviously disagrees!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 18 Oct 2009 17:48

Rien,

I am not sure what you are arguing about.

IF it is the destruction power (between China and India), yes, you are absolutely right. China has a LOT more power and thus the ability to destroy India. No two ways about that. They have superiority in all respects (I think).

But, IF it is about Indian deterrence (which is what the topic of this thread seems to be) I would like to hear what you have to say on this specific topic - in a sentence or two if possible.

TIA.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17006
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Deterrence

Postby Rahul M » 18 Oct 2009 18:00

Rien wrote:............Praful Bidwai group:

I don't know what you mean by this.
I can only assume either : a) you are referring to bidwai and like minded folks who argue against India's nuclear weaponisation
or (more likely) b) you are referring to certain postors on this board who don't agree with your MASSIVE RETALIATION philosophy.

in case it is (b), this constitutes flaming and you will be served board warnings accordingly.
therefore, kindly explain that phrase or edit it out yourself. if you don't respond I'll assume it is (b) and will issue warnings.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 18 Oct 2009 18:16

who don't agree with your MASSIVE RETALIATION philosophy


The sole purpose of "deterrence" is to prevent what Rien is saying could happen!!!!

By laying out all those horrific details he seems to be stating that India has no deterrence and therefore, as we post, since India has a very small retaliatory force - perhaps even so exposed that retaliation is not or may not be possible - that India needs to build a MT capability. And, I would totally agree with him IF India had no deterrence.

What I am saying is that India has deterrence - has had deterrence - and therefore need not fear Chinese power (and yes China is powerful - I am painfully aware of it).

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4554
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Deterrence

Postby Manish_Sharma » 18 Oct 2009 18:26

Rien the way I get it is that you are making 3 points:

1. China can see our missile sites + mobile launchers.

2. In a first strike it can make them useless by hitting with 3 megaton warheaded missiles. Even if the missile lands many kms. away the metal parts of missiles will fry because of EMP thus making them useless. Even the fusion warheads will be rendered useless and only

3. Salted/Cobalted weapons are made by nobody for:
a) Difficult to create through fusion.
b) Even if made they can't be declared as deterrent for obvious HUMANITARIAN REASONS.

Instead of bringing in Bidwai Mahashya, can you propose your idea positively how to counter these three above points raised by you:

1. Do you want to counter it by dropping NFU. Or placing all missile launchers in Subs/Ships instead of Silos/Trucks/Trains?

2. Bharatvarsh should make jee tod effort to make 3 megaton bombs by relentlessly testing ignoring sanctions. It would be nice if you propose something positive.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Deterrence

Postby harbans » 18 Oct 2009 18:35

Has anyone seen this video before? Oppenheimer quoting from the BG:

[youtube]pdATuDKYlgA&feature=related[/youtube]

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: Deterrence

Postby abhiti » 18 Oct 2009 19:33

irrelevant post deleted.
Last edited by Rahul M on 18 Oct 2009 21:45, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: edit.

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: Deterrence

Postby abhiti » 18 Oct 2009 19:41

vijyeta wrote:Why do we need to assume that the theory is 'proven' and 'tested'. The same players still exist, the game is not over yet.
This seems similar to the chest beating around 'winning' and 'ending' the cold war. How is war over and the theory done and dusted when the fear of complete destruction is still tormenting the 'winner'.

Lessons in 'deterrence' are still being learnt.
Send the theory for binding and printing either after somebody pushes a red button somewhere or when mankind sees a dawn with no nukes around.


It is proven and tested since NATO and USSR kept its troops far away from each other e.g. NATO never tried to liberate Germany held by USSR, USSR never got to deploy missiles in Cuba, etc. I have heard of no one, absolutely no one in American or Russian military establishment ever challenge the theory. But I see a group of people on BR led by Shiv who seem to have come up with their own theory...dare I ask what are their credentials...what military strategy or security negotiations have they been ever a part off. May be I am wrong, may be folks were running nuclear policy in two super powers, but I suspect it is more like an ambulance driver pretending to be a neurosurgeon.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 18 Oct 2009 19:56

abhiti wrote:May be I am wrong, may be folks were running nuclear policy in two super powers, but I suspect it is more like an ambulance driver pretending to be a neurosurgeon.

:eek: :lol:

Boss no need to have so many doubts. This is an internet forum and if you take me so seriously you really will end up seeing an ambulance driver who promises to improve your brain.

It is another matter that you are unable to come up with a credible deterrent against my ambulance driver arguments and have to stick to one liner critiques and protests asking for "my credentials"

I present my credentials to you:

Ambulance driver acting like neurosurgeon.

Sorry if my views upset you enough to ensure that the majority of your last 15 posts on this forum have been aimed at trying to oppose and ambulance driver's views. Now that is a compliment. Thanks. I know my views are having an effect, good or bad, one someone....even if it is only you.

Here - let me remind you of your last 15 posts
search.php?author_id=15775&sr=posts

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: Deterrence

Postby abhiti » 18 Oct 2009 20:03

shiv wrote:It is another matter that you are unable to come up with a credible deterrent against my ambulance driver arguments and have to stick to one liner critiques and protests asking for "my credentials"

Sorry if my views upset you enough to ensure that the majority of your last 15 posts on this forum have been aimed at trying to oppose and ambulance driver's views. Now that is a compliment. Thanks. I know my views are having an effect, good or bad, one someone....even if it is only you.


EDITED .what I need from you is to back your questions about theory of deterrence with serious research. I am sure it has been questioned before and there will be some folks like former military generals incharge of weapons who have questioned it. But sadly when anyone asks you for the basis of your assumptions you simply seem to depend on "it is an internet forum, I will say what I want".
Last edited by Jagan on 19 Oct 2009 01:05, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: dont be confrontational needlessly. make your point in simple english

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: Deterrence

Postby rakall » 18 Oct 2009 20:12

Manish_Sharma wrote:Rien the way I get it is that you are making 3 points:

1. China can see our missile sites + mobile launchers.

.



Specific to Rein's comments on TEL's :

1. I would like to see the position of TSP's TEL's now.. or even today.. Bcoz I cannot aim my missiles at the position of the TEL's yesterday..

2. The whole idea of having TEL's - road mobile or rail mobile.. and then going further and having canisterised ones is the advantage that mobility can give.. Bcoz of the mobility - it is not possible to locate where all TEL's are at a given point of time..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 18 Oct 2009 20:41

abhiti wrote:Again more rhetorical garbage...what I need from you is to back your questions about theory of deterrence with serious research. I am sure it has been questioned before and there will be some folks like former military generals incharge of weapons who have questioned it. But sadly when anyone asks you for the basis of your assumptions you simply seem to depend on "it is an internet forum, I will say what I want".



The basis for my assumptions are there in articles linked on here and in India's nuclear deterrence doctrine. You are only upset because I am pointing that out. It's all there - either you have not bothered to read them or more likely your personal policy is to believe the cold war theory from America and not give any credence to the articles posted on this very thread (not written or posted by me).

You don't have to believe anybody - but you are giving me undue credit by claiming that I have personally conjured up these theories. I have not thought them up myself. They are all here on this thread but I can't help it if you are attracted like a magnet to my posts to the extent of believing that i thought them up.

Boss - you need to understand that I am telling the truth when I say I am only an ambulance driver. The real neurosurgeons have said things that are posted here this forum in the form of links. It's not my problem that you get upset by the "rhetoric" of the ambulance driver pointing towards the neurosurgeon. That is something you have to deal with yourself. I will not spoon feed you there. It is another matter that I have had a laugh at the expense of those who have disagreed with the posted articles - but again if that bothers you I can't help you. Sorry :D

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 18 Oct 2009 20:53

rakall wrote:1. I would like to see the position of TSP's TEL's now.. or even today.. Bcoz I cannot aim my missiles at the position of the TEL's yesterday..


But you don't know that 3.3 megaton bombs of China will knock out all missiles within 1000 km radius. Do you even know how much 3.3 megaton is? If you are Indian you can only understand kiloton - naturally. 10 bombs will knock out all your Agni fizziles and kill 500 million. So please tuck your tail between your legs and back out now before I post more facts. :roll:

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7381
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Deterrence

Postby disha » 18 Oct 2009 21:13

shiv wrote:
rakall wrote:1. I would like to see the position of TSP's TEL's now.. or even today.. Bcoz I cannot aim my missiles at the position of the TEL's yesterday..


But you don't know that 3.3 megaton bombs of China will knock out all missiles within 1000 km radius. Do you even know how much 3.3 megaton is? If you are Indian you can only understand kiloton - naturally. 10 bombs will knock out all your Agni fizziles and kill 500 million. So please tuck your tail between your legs and back out now before I post more facts. :roll:


:rotfl:

I was researching the above and found this which you may find interesting:

The formula for EMP, even neglecting saturation, shows that the peak electric field varies as the square root of the weapon yield divided by the distance from the burst. Hence, a 100-fold increase in yield only increases the EMP at a given distance by a factor of 10, even when you neglect saturation.

When you include saturation, the difference is even less. Saturation introduces a exponential limiting of the form: E = Y[1 - exp{-(X/Y)2}]1/2, where X is peak EMP predicted by the simple law that ignores saturation, and Y is the saturation field (Y ~ 60,000 v/m). (When X is very large, the exponential disappears so this formula reduces to the saturation value E=Y, but when X is very small, the formula reduces to E=X, the weak field limit. The reason for the square and square root powers appearing instead of just E = Y[1 - exp{-(X/Y)}], is actually due to the fact that for the time of peak EMP, the air conductivity at that time is proportional to the square-root of the Compton current. I'll return to this mathematical model in a later post. In the meantime see the full calculations of EMP as a function of burst altitude online in Louis W. Seiler, Jr., A Calculational Model for High Altitude EMP, report AD-A009208, March 1975.)

Still another factor you have to take account of is that Philip J. Dolan's formerly classified Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons, DNA-EM-1, chapters 5 and 7, show that the prompt gamma yield fraction was only 0.1% for Starfish but can be 0.5% for less efficient low yield pure fission devices, depending on the design.

Hence a 10-20 kt fission weapon, because it has a thinner case than a massive x-ray coupled 1.4 Mt thermonuclear weapon (Starfish), would result in up to 5 times as much prompt gamma ray energy release per kiloton of yield, which causes the peak EMP. Taking all factors into account, it is easy to design a 10-20 kt fission weapon which produces exactly the same peak EMP as Starfish if you reduce the burst altitude slightly (the area covered will still be massive). Another plus is that, because you are only dealing with a single stage design, there is no danger of pre-ionisation of the atmosphere.

If gamma or x-rays from the first stage deposit much energy in the atmosphere, they will cause ionisation and hence a rise in conductivity of the air, which will literally 'short out' much of the Compton current for the EMP from the second pulse of gamma rays


In short for EMPs, smaller is even more better - a lot lot better. I have argued earlier several times that it is not the big bums that matter, it is the chotus that matter. Getting a sub-kiloton boom is tougher and has more utilities!!

There is indepth analysis of High altitude tests at this blog site:
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/emp-radiation-from-nuclear-space.html


Of course everybody will draw conclusions suited to their own positions, particularly the Energizer-Bunnies (EB's), however to cover entire of India, several high altitudes booms have to take place (not just one!) and it will have curious side effects like:

1. Intense ionisation in the Earth's magnetic fields at low to mid earth orbits frying out most of the satellites going through it. For the mango man all over the world, no communications (including cell phone communications) for a very long time. The net net effect, all global communications disrupted leading to massive loss to the global economy :-)

2. End of humans as a space faring race.

Given that, it will be a *Pyrrhic* victory indeed for the nation causing such high altitude gigabooms ... In fact it will not guarantee any victory, since any second strike capability will take care of the "millions" who do not have communcations thanks to their own governmand deciding to cause a massive EMP that took their own communications out.

Added later: Another side effect is that the RADAR sites etc will be also effected (for the starter country) and hence the targetted countries' second strike missiles will be *undetected* and hence cannot be countered leading to a curious situation where the second striker may actually have an advantage!!

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7381
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Deterrence

Postby disha » 18 Oct 2009 21:23

harbans wrote:Has anyone seen this video before? Oppenheimer quoting from the BG:


Yes several times....

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 18 Oct 2009 21:34

disha wrote:
When you include saturation, the difference is even less. Saturation introduces a exponential limiting of the form: E = Y[1 - exp{-(X/Y)2}]1/2, where X is peak
...
Hence a 10-20 kt fission weapon, because it has a thinner case than a massive x-ray coupled 1.4 Mt thermonuclear weapon (Starfish), would result in up to 5 times as much prompt gamma ray energy release per kiloton of yield, which causes the peak EMP. Taking all factors into account, it is easy to design a 10-20 kt fission weapon which produces exactly the same peak EMP as Starfish if you reduce the burst altitude slightly


This must be stupid and wrong because there are so many nonsense words. For example try and run the following quote through your MS Office spellcheck and see if it passes.
E = Y[1 - exp{-(X/Y)2}]1/2


It will fail so everything is wrong. How can 20 kiloton equal 1.4 megaton? Hain? My physics teacher, Mr Powar, who used to call me "naansense donkey boy" will be proud of me.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7381
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Deterrence

Postby disha » 18 Oct 2009 21:35

Rien wrote:http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/05/art ... r_forc.php

Look at that nice picture of where 11 Pakistani TEL's are.


How are you sure that they are not dummies? It is easier to manufacture some 100 Dummy TELs and move them around. Lot of jobs for the local drivers I say.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 18 Oct 2009 21:43

One way to get to a neurosurgeon is to call an ambulance and ask the driver to take you to one.

Here are some links and quotes not written by me. I am merely playing the role of ambulance driver pointing people to the neurosurgeon specializing post cold war deterrence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/world ... ton&st=cse
http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/main-ar ... on_1291787
http://www.thehindu.com/2009/09/21/stor ... 800900.htm

From:

Strategic Analysis:
A Monthly Journal of the IDSA
September 2000 (Vol. XXIV No. 6)
India's Nuclear Force Structure
By Gurmeet Kanwal *
 
For India's doctrine of minimum deterrence and 'no first use' nuclear strategy to be credible, India's targeting philosophy must be based on a counter value strategy of massive punitive retaliation to inflict unacceptable damage against the adversary's population centres and industrial assets. The retaliatory strike should be massive regardless of the level (quantum, yield, type of target, location) of a first strike against India and its armed forces.

Since India's targeting philosophy is not premised on 'proportionate deterrence' or 'flexible response', India does not need tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons. Also, the inherent disadvantages of tactical nuclear weapons (primarily, the lower threshold of use, the need for 'launch on warning' and 'launch through attack' strategies, complex command and control challenges, increased cost of manufacture and maintenance, the problems of storage, transportation and handling in the field and the greater risk of accidental and even unauthorised use) should preclude the use of these weapons for deterrence.


"Minimum deterrence is not a numerical definition but a strategic approach. If a country is in a position to have a survivable arsenal, which is capable of exacting an unacceptable penalty in retaliation, it has minimum deterrence as opposed to an open-ended one aimed at matching the adversary's arsenal in numerical terms. Those arsenals in thousands were produced in an era when the strategic establishments believed in nuclear war fighting and did not understand its ecological consequences. Today, sections of the US strategic community argue that the US can discharge its global responsibilities with an arsenal of 200 warheads."

China has approximately 20 ICBMs to over 1500 of the US. However, it is nobody's case that the US is not deterred by the Chinese arsenal. Had China's ICBMs not deterred the US, it would not have been so vigorously engaged in developing a national missile defence (NMD). It clearly emerges that the nuclear force levels necessary for a retaliatory strike are independent of the quantum of the adversary's nuclear force and depend only on the numbers that are needed to inflict unacceptable damage. The side that can cause greater damage does not necessarily achieve greater deterrence.

ss_roy
BRFite
Posts: 286
Joined: 15 Nov 2008 21:48

Re: Deterrence

Postby ss_roy » 19 Oct 2009 02:27

'Dummy' missile launching platforms with dummy warheads (but real missiles) are quite cheap to make and deploy. :twisted:

It will be hard to tell which of the 50 warheads flying towards say.. shangai, have a nuke in them. :((

PS- I strongly support nukes with Au-197 tampers for precisely that reason. The civilian casualties would so horrifying that the survivors (if any) will not be able to rebuild a functional society.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 19 Oct 2009 09:19

Roy - the more recent reading I have been doing suggests that nuclear goalposts are being shifted.
What seems to be happening is that with and increase in the number of countries with nukes and/or nascent nuclear capability the war wining advantage of nukes is being replaced by deterrence. Every nuclear nation is being deterred by much weaker nations merely because they are not willing to accept the damage that the weaker nation can now inflict. Even as recently as 1960 - this was not true.

So the goal post is being shifted by saying "Let us ban big nukes and updating of big nukes by tests". And what is happening instead is that the countries with the most advanced nuclear technology are opting for sub-threshold testing of 4th generation nukes that can yield say 2 kilotons.

What happens now is that wars can be won locally with such weapons while at a national level deterrence works. The weak nation may deter the stronger one by just 10 nukes, but the stronger one, given 4th Gen tech may thrash the weak nation on the battlefield.

For example - a Smerch warhead is 235 kg. You will have to fire 8,000 Smerch rockets to pepper an area with the same firepower as just one single 2 kiloton warhead. I would love to see the Brahmos fitted with a 0.2 kt warhead for tactical use. All the info I have seen here suggests that the Brahmos can take a 15 to 20 kt warhead. That is a very big "strategic" yield.

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: Deterrence

Postby abhiti » 19 Oct 2009 16:07

shiv wrote:
abhiti wrote:Again more rhetorical garbage...what I need from you is to back your questions about theory of deterrence with serious research. I am sure it has been questioned before and there will be some folks like former military generals incharge of weapons who have questioned it. But sadly when anyone asks you for the basis of your assumptions you simply seem to depend on "it is an internet forum, I will say what I want".



The basis for my assumptions are there in articles linked on here and in India's nuclear deterrence doctrine. You are only upset because I am pointing that out. It's all there - either you have not bothered to read them or more likely your personal policy is to believe the cold war theory from America and not give any credence to the articles posted on this very thread (not written or posted by me).

You don't have to believe anybody - but you are giving me undue credit by claiming that I have personally conjured up these theories. I have not thought them up myself. They are all here on this thread but I can't help it if you are attracted like a magnet to my posts to the extent of believing that i thought them up.

Boss - you need to understand that I am telling the truth when I say I am only an ambulance driver. The real neurosurgeons have said things that are posted here this forum in the form of links. It's not my problem that you get upset by the "rhetoric" of the ambulance driver pointing towards the neurosurgeon. That is something you have to deal with yourself. I will not spoon feed you there. It is another matter that I have had a laugh at the expense of those who have disagreed with the posted articles - but again if that bothers you I can't help you. Sorry :D


Well the only one upset is you who posted this above: "you really will end up seeing an ambulance driver who promises to improve your brain." I understand fillibuster and see that you trying one. Don't see no answers in this post either.

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: Deterrence

Postby abhiti » 19 Oct 2009 16:21

America depended on MAD to survive against communist and succeeded...the strategy may work just fine against maoists and jihadis. However a weak deterrence is not usable and weakness invites aggression.


http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Deter ... ence.shtml
Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara

No sane citizen, political leader or nation wants thermonuclear war. But merely not wanting it is not enough. We must understand the differences among actions which increase its risks, those which reduce them and those which, while costly, have little influence one way or another. But there is a great difficulty in the way of constructive and profitable debate over the issues, and that is the exceptional complexity of nuclear strategy. Unless these complexities are well understood rational discussion and decision-making are impossible.

One must begin with precise definitions. The cornerstone of our strategic policy continues to be to deter nuclear attack upon the United States or its allies. We do this by maintaining a highly reliable ability to inflict unacceptable damage upon any single aggressor or combination of aggressors at any time during the course of a strategic nuclear exchange, even after absorbing a surprise first strike. This can be defined as our assured-destruction capability.

It is important to understand that assured destruction is the very essence of the whole deterrence concept. We must possess an actual assured-destruction capability, and that capability also must be credible. The point is that a potential aggressor must believe that our assured-destruction capability is in fact actual, and that our will to use it in retaliation to an attack is in fact unwavering. The conclusion, then, is clear: if the United States is to deter a nuclear attack in itself or its allies, it must possess an actual and a credible assured-destruction capability.

When calculating the force required, we must be conservative in all our estimates of both a potential aggressor's capabilities and his intentions. Security depends upon assuming a worst plausible case, and having the ability to cope with it.
Last edited by abhiti on 19 Oct 2009 16:32, edited 1 time in total.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Deterrence

Postby amit » 19 Oct 2009 16:32

The doctrine assumes that each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force.


Abihiti,

Are you seriously trying to say that China has "enough" nuclear weapons and delivery systems to match US in a classical MAD deterrence scenario? :eek:

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: Deterrence

Postby abhiti » 19 Oct 2009 16:37

amit wrote:
The doctrine assumes that each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force.


Abihiti,

Are you seriously trying to say that China has "enough" nuclear weapons and delivery systems to match US in a classical MAD deterrence scenario? :eek:


Where did I say that? You simply assuming too much.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Deterrence

Postby amit » 19 Oct 2009 16:42

Abihiti,

Boss I suggest you spend some time reading the links posted in this thread. From one of the posts above:

China has approximately 20 ICBMs to over 1500 of the US. However, it is nobody's case that the US is not deterred by the Chinese arsenal. Had China's ICBMs not deterred the US, it would not have been so vigorously engaged in developing a national missile defence (NMD). It clearly emerges that the nuclear force levels necessary for a retaliatory strike are independent of the quantum of the adversary's nuclear force and depend only on the numbers that are needed to inflict unacceptable damage. The side that can cause greater damage does not necessarily achieve greater deterrence.


The same kind of deterrence equilibrium that China has achieved with the US (and Russia) works in the case of India vs China or for the matter Pakistan (in its favour) vs India.

In any nuclear conflict China will destroy India as we know it today. There are no two ways about that. But China will also suffer grievously with its main economic centres destroyed. Given that more than half of Chinese economic output comes from the Pearl River Delta, which is closer to India than other part of that nation, that is sufficient deterrence, IMO.

Again IMO the question you need to ask yourself is what would China want to gain to allow a confrontation with India to escalate into a nuclear conflict? Apart from being seriously interested in Tamang due to the fact that it houses the second most scared monastery for Tibetan Buddhists the only other objective that China has is to box in India within South Asia and ensure that we have too many problems (via the Pakis, Bangladeshis, Maoists and pious activists like A Roy) to concentrate on economic growth. It has no vision of conquering the whole of India or anything.

So why should it risk destroying or at the least suffering a serious setback to what it has achieved over the past 30 years through sustained economic growth?

Boss deterrence calculations cannot be done in a vacuum as an academic exercise. It needs to reflect reality. It's mad to talk about MAD now.

JMT

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Deterrence

Postby amit » 19 Oct 2009 16:44

abhiti wrote:Where did I say that? You simply assuming too much.


Then how can you say MAD exists between the US and China?

Added later:

Wow! Boss you completely changed your post to which I responded? :eek:

But it's amazing that in the substitute post that you inserted you are using what McNamara said in 1967 in the specific context of US-USSR Cold War stand off to explain the US-China dynamics and China-India dynamics in 2009-2010. Phew!

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: Deterrence

Postby abhiti » 19 Oct 2009 16:54

amit wrote:Boss I suggest you spend some time reading the links posted in this thread. From one of the posts above:


Right I caught you good trying to pass on your own conclusion as mine. :lol:

The same kind of deterrence equilibrium that China has achieved with the US (and Russia) works in the case of India vs China or for the matter Pakistan (in its favour) vs India.


China and America are different governments and people. America never claimed any part of Canada or Mexico. They don't have a single inch of land they captured in Europe while Russia kept it and became USSR. China like Russia regularly claims more land from its neighbours. A small example of this is that American forces in South Korea never strayed across the border on North Korea. Chinese forces regularly visit Arunachal, Leh, and more. China today is militarily as powerful as USSR (except for growing nuclear deterrent) and unfortunately right on our border, we don't have the luxury of Atlantic or Pacific oceans b/w us and this monster.

In any nuclear conflict China will destroy India as we know it today. There are no two ways about that. But China will also suffer grievously with its main economic centres destroyed. Given that more than half of Chinese economic output comes from the Pearl River Delta, which is closer to India than other part of that nation, that is sufficient deterrence, IMO.


What if China and Pakistan start a conventional war together? It has been Pakistani dream and may be Chinese too. The question isn't just about nuclear conflict, it is about conventional superiority too.

Apart from being seriously interested in Tamang due to the fact that it houses the second most scared monastery for Tibetan Buddhists the only other objective that China has is to box in India within South Asia and ensure that we have too many problems.


How can anyone guarantee that? As someone aptly put the diplomacy is about capabilities not intentions because no one can measure intentions.

Boss deterrence calculations cannot be done in a vacuum as an academic exercise. It needs to reflect reality. It's mad to talk about MAD now.


And they were done to a very rigorous standard in US, they arrived at MAD :!:
Last edited by abhiti on 19 Oct 2009 17:37, edited 1 time in total.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Deterrence

Postby amit » 19 Oct 2009 17:03

Abhiti,

Changing your post and then denying that you wrote it shows a certain kind of mentality. I wouldn't want to assume you possess that kind of mentality. Either way it's pointless trying to discuss anything with you.

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: Deterrence

Postby abhiti » 19 Oct 2009 17:39

amit wrote:Abhiti,

Changing your post and then denying that you wrote it shows a certain kind of mentality. I wouldn't want to assume you possess that kind of mentality. Either way it's pointless trying to discuss anything with you.


If you look more closely the discussion is about deterrence not my mentality. So stop personal attacks.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17006
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Deterrence

Postby Rahul M » 19 Oct 2009 18:18

sheesh, we are discussing deterrence with people who know all about the technical shortcomings of India's "agni tank", know the precise location of both pakistan and china's nuclear arsenal (probably India too. though he has chosen not to disclose it. thank god for small mercies !) and believe china has a MAD worthy arsenal vis-a-vis the US. :eek: :eek:

are we wasting time on this thread or what ? :roll:


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vips, VKumar and 18 guests