What he left too?ShauryaT wrote: Too bad, he is not here and I already miss him and his sharp responses.
Don't see him active on Twitter too
What he left too?ShauryaT wrote: Too bad, he is not here and I already miss him and his sharp responses.
My friend it is impossible to stop the escalation ladder once a nuke is used. Believe it or not, authorizing a nuclear weapon (even a tactical one) requires codes from Army HQ, preparation, and all that other stuff. Just b/c they say it is up to the field commander or whoever to use it hardly means anything. Also, India wont be sending in armored columns deep into Pakistan unless it was already on the verge of breaking. Perhaps some shallow thrusts here and there and then quickly shift to China border. I honestly don't see a nuke risk in any of this.ShauryaT wrote:There are two issues with our doctrine.RoyG wrote: Why isn't India's nuclear doctrine suitable? Authorizing nuclear weapons in any capacity leads to full scale use.
1. NFU. It lacks credibility in the eyes of our adversaries and there have been enough indications from those in decision-making circles that if there is a threat of an "imminent" attack, we shall not wait for a first hit. NFU also takes away some of the edge that we may need if confronted by a superior power. e.g: Big reason for IG to authorize POK I, was to signal the US. In those days, a nuclear weapon was the weapon of choice against carriers. NFU also puts an extra burden on India to be ready to absorb a hit and then retaliate in a manner that will end the war.
2. Massive retaliation. MR, by all means, a valid response to a nuclear attack lacks credibility as the only response to ANY nuclear or WMD attack. A scenario where a tactical lone strike against an armored formation in a foreign land, say destroying a handful of tanks being responded to with MR against civilians threatening the lives of millions, lacks any sense of proportionality. There could be instances where such a response may be valid however, to limit it by doctrine is an issue as many factors would be at play to determine such a response. There are other scenarios of WMD attack, where MR as the only choice is problematic.
The above parts have been debated before and Shiv ji had indicated a different take on these. Too bad, he is not here and I already miss him and his sharp responses.
What did the nuclear deal achieve for India?
Most importantly it expanded India’s strategic space, enabling it to leverage its enhanced relationship with the U.S. to upgrade its relations with other partners as well. That the U.S. was prepared to take such a major initiative with India despite the risks to its non-proliferation objectives, put India in a category of major global players and Delhi as an indispensable destination for leaders across the globe.
The deal also led to the dismantling of most of the technology denial regimes operating against India since 1974 and which had been progressively expanded to cover most dual use items as well. The relaxation of export controls has also led to a significant increase in defence related trade and collaboration with the U.S. as well as with other partner countries. It is true that so far deals for setting up new nuclear plants have not been materialized. The nuclear liability law was an issue but now that it has been resolved we may begin to see some progress.
The deal has opened the way for India to conclude long term uranium supply agreements with several countries. This has enabled capacity utilization in our nuclear plants to reach 80-85%, when in 2005 shortage of fuel due to NSG restrictions had pushed utilization down to 30-35%.
India is very much in the international mainstream as far as nuclear issues are concerned despite continuing to be outside the NPT. Its membership of the NSG is being supported by the US and is likely to come through though there are challenges which need to be overcome through intensive diplomacy.
Almost 13 years after the deal was announced, India-U.S. relations are stronger than they have ever been. They may not have been if the nuclear deal had not cleared the decks of the negative legacies of the past and created a culture of engagement and dialogue.
Ten years of the deal was commemorated in Washington in 2015 and its importance was underlined by the U.S. Vice-President attending one event and delivering an important speech. What he said certainly resonates among those of us who were privileged to be associated with its negotiation. He observed that ultimately this deal was not so much about the nuclear issue as it was about India. It reminded me of similar remarks made to me by the Brazilian, Mexican and South African representatives just after the NSG waiver was extended to India on September 8, 2008. They conveyed their warm congratulations on a signal achievement against the most difficult odds but added, “Make no mistake this has been possible only because it was for India”.
There is a lot of chatter about this issue these days. Gov testing the waters? With elections right around the corner and relative thaw in relations with US i think it is certainly a possibility. The way NK tested which brought US to negotiating table ending up in reward rather than punishment, may have woken up something in GoI.India Capable of Nuclear Test At Short Notice: Defence Research Chief
NEW DELHI: India is capable of conducting a nuclear test at short notice, defence research chief Dr S Christopher has told NDTV. This assertion from one of the country's top scientists comes 20 years after India successfully tested its nuclear capability in Pokhran.
Dr Christopher sought to dispel any notion that India's nuclear technology was stuck at the 1998 level when five bombs were successfully tested.
"Technology-wise, we are continuously growing; there is no doubt about it. You cannot stagnate in that position. I am honest to say that the growth is so tremendous we are almost on par with many other countries," Dr Christopher said in an exclusive interview.
These remarks by the chairman of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) are an expression of the country's technological readiness. The final call to go ahead with a nuclear test is a political decision taken by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Committee on Security.
India had imposed a unilateral moratorium after the 1998 nuclear tests and continues to abide by it. According to the nuclear doctrine, there will be no-first-use of atomic weapons by India but in case an adversary strikes with atomic weapons, New Delhi will exercise the right to give an answer with a 'punishing second strike'.
In 1998, then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had given DRDO, which was headed by APJ Abdul Kalam, 40 days to undertake the nuclear test.
Asked if the DRDO could replicate that feat within the same timeline, Dr Christopher said "we are ready", adding that no field tests were needed due to available advanced technologies that can recreate a real time environment.
"Everything in research and development you cannot test --- like, for instance, a mission to the moon. There are a lot of simulations that are possible today to say what exactly will happen," claimed Dr Christopher.
On May 11 and 13, 1998 India had tested five nuclear weapons, including a hydrogen bomb. Two weeks later, Pakistan had responded with a set of five tests at its Chagai nuclear site.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-c ... -topscroll
Pakistan for whatever reason has already thrown in the white towel in nuclear race with India. They wouldn't be building TNW otherwise. Wasting fissile stock for stopping ~10-20 tanks doesn't make any sense.ramana wrote:Nam well said.
Which part was not understood at least on this forum?
While I fully agree with your statement related to Pakistan, could you please provide any semi-official Indian statement or articles that support the assertion that usage of a nuke on an Indian armoured column will result in an Indian strategic response on Chinese assets?nam wrote: From my point of view, it is very simple. Pak uses nuke on our forces or Indian territory. we go full monty, including strikes on China for providing them with nuke warhead. Let US & China manage their rent boy.
There is no such statements from anyone linked to GoI. As i mentioned, it is my point of view and why, here is the reason.Tanaji wrote:While I fully agree with your statement related to Pakistan, could you please provide any semi-official Indian statement or articles that support the assertion that usage of a nuke on an Indian armoured column will result in an Indian strategic response on Chinese assets?nam wrote: From my point of view, it is very simple. Pak uses nuke on our forces or Indian territory. we go full monty, including strikes on China for providing them with nuke warhead. Let US & China manage their rent boy.
The window to retest within sustainable cost it entailed was IMHO upto ~10 years after 1998 (I.e. ~2008). The train had left the station since then as the matrix that straightjackets Indian strategic option has cured to hardened state. Miano-Mohan corruption sold the national interest to highest foreign bidder. JMTramdas wrote:@haridas:
Why is there no way to break out of the `self imposed moratorium' ? All we lose is the nuclear deal. Russia will continue supplying us nuclear plants, given that it itself is under sanctions. Full scale sanctioning of such a large economy is too disruptive for the world at large. Didnt happen in 1998. Wont happen now.
Don't think Modi can be dethroned in 2019, so no need to think of extreme position.Given the united opposition NaMo faces, breaking out of this moratorium by testing the corrected TN would make sense, especially if done close to the LS polls. Something like this is necessary for NaMo to have a fighting chance in the next LS election.
Thank you and sorry for the delayed reply. I find it hard to believe that the Indian polity will authorise a nuclear strike on Shanghai or Beijing when Pakistan nukes an Indian armoured column either on Indian or Pakistani. Yes, I am aware that the sequence is not exactly that, your hypothesis is that an exchange has taken place in India-Pak contest and India for some reason thinks it is best to take down China with it.nam wrote:There is no such statements from anyone linked to GoI. As i mentioned, it is my point of view and why, here is the reason.
During the Cold war, Russians wanted to nuke China, so they let US know about the plan. US refused to support it and said it will nuke USSR if Russia used nukes. So fundamentally, deterrent is a apple cart.
Imagine India nukes Pak for it's TNW usage. Pak nukes Delhi. India will be thinking we are going down, why should we let Chinese survive who gave nukes to Pak. At the same time, Chinese will be thinking, what is stopping India from nuking Shanghai, as Chinese retaliation will be well.. nuking an already nuked Delhi!.
I have. The DND stated the following:ramana wrote:Tanaji, Please read MND
Let's talk after that.
Code: Select all
(b) any nuclear attack on India and its forces shall result in punitive retaliation with nuclear weapons to inflict damage unacceptable to the aggressor.
Facts not in evidence or proved. Lets not turn theories into statements of fact. Apart from AK and others no one knows what happened and they are not telling. We have been down this road before with pages and pages of points and counter points and in the end nothing was evident.Gagan wrote: They fizzled the TN, and PC was made to be attached with GoI as an advisor post retirement so that he never gets to write a book or join the lecture circuit. That was his penance. Now an octogenarian, with dementia kicking in, and away from active research for two decades, he is finally retired.
+100. Fully agree. That is why talk for fizzle is pointless.nam wrote:It serves us no advantage testing a TN device at this moment. The only nation we might need to scare off with TN, is either China or US.
If war clouds are imment from these nation, we will publicly announced our intention to test and do it . What will stop us.
So we will let the world decide if they would like to force us to resume testing..
Deterrent is exactly opposite of being rational. It should NOT make sense. If it makes sense, adversary will find a way around it. The objective is to prevent usage of nukes. Let the adversary pull his hair thinking if India will or will not do it or there will something left or not left etc..Tanaji wrote:
Firstly, the reasoning does not make sense: a Pakistani attack on 3-4 Indian cities will set us back 25-30 years but is hardly civilisation ending. On the other hand an unwarranted attack that will invite a huge response would most definitely be. I find it hard to believe that any Indian leader will take that risk.
Actually it isn't. It's supposed to be rational. If I get nuked, you get nuked. It's as simple as that. If you can demonstrate at least a 15-30kt yield and reliable means to deliver you're all set. Nobody will fck with you because lets face it, everyone who worked hard to travel up the food chain of gov and industry will be hard pressed to let it all go in a flash of light.nam wrote:Deterrent is exactly opposite of being rational. It should NOT make sense. If it makes sense, adversary will find a way around it. The objective is to prevent usage of nukes. Let the adversary pull his hair thinking if India will or will not do it or there will something left or not left etc..Tanaji wrote:
Firstly, the reasoning does not make sense: a Pakistani attack on 3-4 Indian cities will set us back 25-30 years but is hardly civilisation ending. On the other hand an unwarranted attack that will invite a huge response would most definitely be. I find it hard to believe that any Indian leader will take that risk.
From our end, we will nuke Pakistan, along with China. So we are telling the Chinese, it is your responsibility to stop your rent boy from using his toys. You gave it to him and we consider you guilty.
So China will always have this doubt lingering in their mind, if Pak uses nuke, they may become a target. Because of this fear, the world will not allow Pak(or anyone else) use it's weapons. The apple cart.
Global not sure. But definitely enough to cover parts of Africa, most of Europe, and all of Asia.Y. Kanan wrote:Do we appear to have any plan for a global-range ICBM? We appear to have only a regional focus from what I can see, even for the future. I haven't seen or heard about any credible plans for any such global ICBM or other type of delivery system that could actually hit the United States. Is this because the idea has been dismissed as utterly unreachable for the foreseeable future?
Maybe missile range should cover the US tooRoyG wrote:Global not sure. But definitely enough to cover parts of Africa, most of Europe, and all of Asia.Y. Kanan wrote:Do we appear to have any plan for a global-range ICBM? We appear to have only a regional focus from what I can see, even for the future. I haven't seen or heard about any credible plans for any such global ICBM or other type of delivery system that could actually hit the United States. Is this because the idea has been dismissed as utterly unreachable for the foreseeable future?
It is actually broader than that. India reserves the right to use nuclear weapons not only on the attacker and its nuclear allies but even non-nuclear allies of the attacker.ramana wrote:The MND says very clearly retaliation will be on the attacker and their allies.Arima wrote: we have a policy of no first use. but in case one country use nuke against us, then can India attack a third country? how can India justify this to world?
One result of pressure from these “maximalists” was that the DND widened the set of countries that might nominally be seen as suitable targets for India’s nuclear weapons. The DND stated that “India will not resort to the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against States which do not possess nuclear weapons, or are not aligned with nuclear weapon powers”. The significance of the last clause has been emphasised by Ashley Tellis:
With the addition of this qualifying clause, the draft report radically expanded in one fell swoop the number of countries that would be potentially threatened by India’s emerging nuclear arsenal. Under the strict no-first-use assurances provided by India’s prime minister in parliament, only the states with deployed or readily deployed weapons – the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, Pakistan, and Israel (and perhaps North Korea) – could in principle find themselves subjected to Indian nuclear threats and, that too, only if they were to attack India first. Under the Board’s new formulation however, even allies of these powers that do not possess nuclear weapons – for example, the 16 non-nuclear allies of the United States in NATO, the 2 non-nuclear allies of the United States in the ANZUS treaty (the military agreement linking Australia, New Zealand, and the United States) and the 3 non-nuclear allies of the United States in the Five Power Defense Agreement, the (at least) 6 non-nuclear allies and partners of the United States in East Asia, and the 11 non-nuclear partners of Russia in the virtually defunct Commonwealth of Independent States – could now all be subjected to Indian nuclear threats in some extreme circumstances. (Tellis 2001, 52–53)
Stop this TanajiTanaji wrote:Facts not in evidence or proved. Lets not turn theories into statements of fact. Apart from AK and others no one knows what happened and they are not telling. We have been down this road before with pages and pages of points and counter points and in the end nothing was evident.
pages of bickering over speculation.Supratik wrote:Indian scientists "didn't" test to full yield. Countries have tested megaton bombs. India "didn't". Indian scientists new the window is going to be extremely limited unless India wanted to go rogue like NK. So they did the best under the circumstances. And it seems the establishment is satisfied with what they got which is why they are trying to enter NSG which was specifically designed to stop India. Once you enter NSG bypassing NPT you can't test except under extreme national interest e.g. China threatening a nuke attack.
NEW DELHI: Pakistan may continue to remain slightly ahead of India in terms of the number of nuclear warheads, with China having double the quantity, but the Indian defence establishment believes its deterrence capability is "robust", designed to ensure "survivability" for retaliatory strikes and firmly on track for further modernization.
Pakistan now has 140-150 nuclear warheads as compared to 130-140 of India, with China hovering around 280, as per the latest assessment of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which was released on Monday.
The US and Russia are in a different league altogether with 6,450 and 6,850 nuclear warheads respectively, together accounting for 92 per cent of the 14,465 nuclear weapons around the globe. Arsenals of the other seven nuclear-armed countries are considerably smaller, but all are either developing or deploying new nuclear weapon systems.
"India and Pakistan are both expanding their nuclear weapon stockpiles as well as developing new land, sea and air-based missile delivery systems. China continues to modernize its nuclear weapon delivery systems and is slowly increasing the size of its nuclear arsenal," said SIPRI.
Defence establishment sources here say India, confronted with the collusive threat from China and Pakistan, has no other option but to systematically build nuclear deterrence that is "credible" and capable of inflicting massive damage in a retaliatory strike to any first strike by an adversary.
"The number of warheads do not really matter. With a declared no-first use (NFU) nuclear policy, India is keen to ensure survivability and credibility of our assets and NC3 (nuclear command, control and communication) systems for assured second-strike capabilities…We have achieved this to a large extent," said a source.
Pakistan, of course, has deliberately kept its nuclear policy ambiguous to deter India from undertaking any conventional military action despite repeated provocations, even as it fast supplements its enriched uranium-based nuclear programme with a weapons-grade plutonium one through the four heavy water reactors at the Khushab nuclear complex with help from China.
Islamabad also often brandishes its 70-km range Nasr (Hatf-IX) nuclear missiles as an effective battlefield counter to India's "Cold Start" strategy of swift, high-voltage conventional strikes into enemy territory. "For India, nuclear weapons are not war-fighting weapons. But we need credible minimum deterrence, with the certainty of massive retaliation against adversaries," said the source.
China, with its rapid military modernization and expanding nuclear and missile arsenals, of course remains a major worry. Towards this end, it's estimated that India, which has a largely plutonium-based nuclear weapons programme, would like to achieve a stockpile of around 200 warheads in the decade ahead.
The tri-Services Strategic Forces Command is now in the process of inducting India's first intercontinental ballistic missile, the over 5,000-km range Agni-V missile, which can hit even the northernmost region of China.
But the continuing lack of an adequate number of nuclear-powered submarines armed with long-range nuclear-tipped missiles, which can silently stay underwater for extended periods, needs to be plugged to achieve a credible nuclear weapons triad. "Projects are underway to achieve this," said the source.
https://twitter.com/rajatptoi/status/10 ... 87842?s=12Rajat Pandit
@rajatpTOI
Number of warheads do not matter. With declared NFU policy, India is keen to ensure survivability and credibility of its assets and NC3 (nuclear command, control & communication) systems for assured 2nd-strike capabilities & has achieved it to a large extent
This is not good.Pakistan remains ahead in nuclear warheads but India confident of its deterrence capability
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 641056.cms
SIPRI is making these numbers out of their mushraff. GOI never comment on this and ignores. Somebody is not sure about Indian nuclear arsenal and is provoking India to deny or accept the numbers. gutter material nothing else. I see all these numbers in Time,Newsweek and economists etc. All knowing Institute is in complete dark about NoKo, Israel and China. But they speak about India and Baki's as if they personally counted.nam wrote:This is not good.Pakistan remains ahead in nuclear warheads but India confident of its deterrence capability
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 641056.cms
We should encourage Pak to make more warheads.