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.
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10068
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 03 Feb 2018 15:28

2 points on the first video

1. Seems to back the Army cheifs recent statement that IA is ready to cross the border even with baki tactical nukes in the play.
2. The plan seems to surround/enter a city like Lahore or Sialkot a substantial population center close to the border and put the question to the bakis if they are going to put up or shut up wrt their *Full spectrum* deterrence.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 03 Feb 2018 19:27

Old gyan new article. Xerox Khan network
The Long Shadow of A.Q. Khan | Foreign Affairs
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ow-aq-khan

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20762
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Deterrence

Postby Prem » 04 Feb 2018 00:32

pankajs wrote:

Don't know this guy but is he is commenting on a forum he must have some kind of qualification but an interesting listen. He talks of some war-game simulation done in US.


Acharya San stopped posting, The The one of the founders of research group ORF is his friend and very interesting fellow.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 980
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Deterrence

Postby nam » 04 Feb 2018 03:57

shiv wrote:Old gyan new article. Xerox Khan network
The Long Shadow of A.Q. Khan | Foreign Affairs
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ow-aq-khan


Khan was probably been feed these tech to see where it is ending. This is the reason US was not serious about him.
Having blueprints does not help in a country like Pak, with no industrial base. It is like expecting programmer to know how to produce intel CPUs.

So it must have been the Chinese who provided the industrial ecosystem, funding and reverse engineering for the parts that was coming in from Europe. In return khan was the front to get parts from Europe.

This suited US as well, indirectly supporting the Chinese weapons program against USSR. Khan was probably producing low grade uranium useless for a weapon. Chinese gave him chic-4 design. They stuffed these low grade uranium during the test and all in all it was a fizzle.

Pakis were humoured with blueprints of all types, with US and chinis must have been sure that pakis will never get to test it and find out the reality. The paki lop Noor test was probably a Chinese device.

We bust that bubble in 98. Pakis plutonium story is not clear to me. So cannot comment.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 980
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Deterrence

Postby nam » 04 Feb 2018 03:59

One question in mind. Did the Tibetan occupation happen because Chinese wanted a desolate test site? Which was not possible in Hanland?

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 776
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby yensoy » 04 Feb 2018 08:36

nam wrote:One question in mind. Did the Tibetan occupation happen because Chinese wanted a desolate test site? Which was not possible in Hanland?


Lop Nor is in Sinkiang.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5166
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Feb 2018 09:46

Why India no longer cares about Pakistan's nuclear threats -- Sushant Sareen.
Irrational game

That Pakistan has played the "irrational" game for so long by threatening a nuclear attack was something that clearly escaped this unnamed official. Since rationality is a subjective thing, irrationality is a game two can play. This became clear when even the Pakistani foreign minister, who along with other politicians has often bandied the nuclear threat at India, called Gen Rawat’s statement “very irresponsible”.

While the Pakistanis have dared India to try Pakistan’s resolve, they know that if what Gen Rawat said is now Indian policy, then it signals the end of deterrence as conceived by them. In the words of the Pakistan military spokesman, the only thing that had stopped India for so long was Pakistan's "credible nuclear deterrence". But if India no longer considers Pakistani nuclear threats credible, then what happens to Pakistan's deterrence doctrine?

The fact that India has already injected some ambiguity in its "no first use" posture with senior officials claiming in interviews and in their books that India would not allow Pakistan to strike first with nuclear weapons (which effectively means pre-empting Pakistan’s use of nuclear weapons), certainly complicates Pakistan’s strategic calculus which has been built on bleeding India through proxy warfare from behind the safety of its nuclear shield.

It is possible that India is merely playing mind games with the Pakistanis. Even if this is the case, given that cross-LoC raids have been declared, coupled with the Modi government’s ability and capacity for taking risks, means that the Pakistanis will have to go back to the drawing board and re-think their strategic calculus. Not doing so could prove extremely expensive and dangerous for them.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5117
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 04 Feb 2018 10:41

ShauryaT wrote:Why India no longer cares about Pakistan's nuclear threats -- Sushant Sareen.
Irrational game

That Pakistan has played the "irrational" game for so long by threatening a nuclear attack was something that clearly escaped this unnamed official. Since rationality is a subjective thing, irrationality is a game two can play. This became clear when even the Pakistani foreign minister, who along with other politicians has often bandied the nuclear threat at India, called Gen Rawat’s statement “very irresponsible”.

While the Pakistanis have dared India to try Pakistan’s resolve, they know that if what Gen Rawat said is now Indian policy, then it signals the end of deterrence as conceived by them. In the words of the Pakistan military spokesman, the only thing that had stopped India for so long was Pakistan's "credible nuclear deterrence". But if India no longer considers Pakistani nuclear threats credible, then what happens to Pakistan's deterrence doctrine?

The fact that India has already injected some ambiguity in its "no first use" posture with senior officials claiming in interviews and in their books that India would not allow Pakistan to strike first with nuclear weapons (which effectively means pre-empting Pakistan’s use of nuclear weapons), certainly complicates Pakistan’s strategic calculus which has been built on bleeding India through proxy warfare from behind the safety of its nuclear shield.

It is possible that India is merely playing mind games with the Pakistanis. Even if this is the case, given that cross-LoC raids have been declared, coupled with the Modi government’s ability and capacity for taking risks, means that the Pakistanis will have to go back to the drawing board and re-think their strategic calculus. Not doing so could prove extremely expensive and dangerous for them.


Until Pakistan crumbles and/or B1/B2 bombers from Diego Garcia and snatch teams neutralize their nuclear capability, India isn't going to do sh*t. Simply sit tight and grow your economy and nuclear capability and wave at the Chinese/Taliban across the border who are gobbling up everything outside of the Punjab.

If only the Chinese read the Arthashastra instead of that bullsh*t tactic manual that the brilliant idiot Sun Tzu cooked up, they could literally have a world power safeguarding their southern border and sea lanes. The India-US partnership would literally evaporate overnight.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49651
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 05 Feb 2018 05:04

After 1971 the power balance shifted dramatically in India's favor. The only alternative for Pakistan and it's backers that nukes are needed to counter India. It's political instability in India that gave Pakistan a chance to stoke terrorism and invoke nuke card to prevent retaliation.
The political instability was the gradual erosion of Congress and idiot replacement leaders who had huge delusions clouding their worldview.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5166
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Feb 2018 05:35

Discrimination-problem-putting-low-yield-nuclear-weapons-submarines-dangerous -- VIPIN NARANG

Proponents argue that incorporating more low-yield nuclear weapons into the force posture gives the United States the ability to respond to various forms of aggression with more calibrated responses on the so-called escalation ladder (and in theory, deter or defeat that aggression without escalation to the strategic nuclear level). In other words, the Trump administration hopes to generate options beyond “suicide or surrender.”
Pakistani thinking too!!!

So why does the review call for additional low-yield options? In a word: Russia. The administration’s basic concern is that Russia may try to use a low-yield nuclear weapon on American or allied forces without the United States being able to successfully respond in kind. This forces America into the “suicide or surrender” dilemma of either not responding at all or escalating directly to the strategic thermonuclear level by retaliating against the adversary’s cities (or against all its nuclear forces directly)
Parallels to India too!

When it comes to waging a nuclear war, it is simply unrealistic to base a whole strategy on hoping that an adversary assumes the best-case scenario.
I agree with this part, however the article fails to address one major reason why the TNW theory is attractive and it is due to the rationale of proportionality or IOW a step in the escalation ladder before climbing big stairs. The author also bases too much credence on actions based on grave assumptions.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 09 Feb 2018 07:09

In my view these people simply do not understand how the US plans to spend its currency of power.

Comparing US low yield nukes with Pakistan completely misses the point and I have tried to make this point repeatedly. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Russia. It is now about NoKo and Iran. (Pakistan is our ally)

If you must wage nuclear war how best to wage it?

Use small (subkiloton) nukes with extremely accurate delivery systems to take out the most threatening targets - nuclear installations, underground missile sites, underground C&C centers etc. If that fails and still invites a retaliation - then the US sill has its mega weapons to wide out the enemy. But 250 low yield weapons (say 0-2 to 2 kilotons) delivered with deadly accuracy wil cause far less fallout and collateral damage than 200 large (100-200 kiloton) weapons.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5117
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 09 Feb 2018 08:05

shiv wrote:In my view these people simply do not understand how the US plans to spend its currency of power.

Comparing US low yield nukes with Pakistan completely misses the point and I have tried to make this point repeatedly. And it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Russia. It is now about NoKo and Iran. (Pakistan is our ally)

If you must wage nuclear war how best to wage it?

Use small (subkiloton) nukes with extremely accurate delivery systems to take out the most threatening targets - nuclear installations, underground missile sites, underground C&C centers etc. If that fails and still invites a retaliation - then the US sill has its mega weapons to wide out the enemy. But 250 low yield weapons (say 0-2 to 2 kilotons) delivered with deadly accuracy wil cause far less fallout and collateral damage than 200 large (100-200 kiloton) weapons.


I agree. These are mainly aimed at emerging powers. Also, Russia has plenty of tactical nukes in its arsenal.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5166
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Feb 2018 09:04

A superpower breaking the threshold by using nuclear payloads against tinpot regimes invites the breaking of a psychological barrier, where other powers may use that logic to lower the threshold for use even further. At the end of the day, lowers the ability of a great power to use their hard power.

I get the neat logic of efficient use of low yield devices with pinpoint targeting but the same goals can be achieved with maybe multiple missiles and soon with more powerful non-nuclear payloads, such as the prompt global strike. Not worth going nuclear for that extra super efficiency. If anything, the author gets one thing right, it is about the escalation dominance ladder, the difficulties of being able to carefully manage that ladder in the fog of war notwithstanding.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 10 Feb 2018 08:16

ShauryaT wrote:A superpower breaking the threshold by using nuclear payloads against tinpot regimes invites the breaking of a psychological barrier, where other powers may use that logic to lower the threshold for use even further. At the end of the day, lowers the ability of a great power to use their hard power.

Absolutely right. That is why I ask why people come up with scenarios in which a nuclear exchange takes place between India and Pakistan and one outcome would be the US and China nuking India. This assumes that the US or China have no concern about that psychological barrier and will willy-nilly use their nukes in a third party war and imagine that no other nation will take the cue and use nukes pre-emptively on them at some future date.

ShauryaT wrote:I get the neat logic of efficient use of low yield devices with pinpoint targeting but the same goals can be achieved with maybe multiple missiles and soon with more powerful non-nuclear payloads, such as the prompt global strike. Not worth going nuclear for that extra super efficiency. If anything, the author gets one thing right, it is about the escalation dominance ladder, the difficulties of being able to carefully manage that ladder in the fog of war notwithstanding.

Technically I think that the "same goals" cannot be achieved using conventional weapons because most power and definitely rogue powers have shifted their strategic forces underground. There is no weapon other than a nuke that can achieve the overpressure effects to collapse underground facilities.

A blast that achieves about 20 psi overpressure will collapse most underground facilities. The chart linked below shows that even a 1 kiloton blast will give 10 PSI overpressures up to a radius of 200 meters. So a small nuke with an accuracy of tens of meters (which is normal for many conventional munitions nowadays) will precisely collapse underground structures with 20+ psi overpressures provided their location is known or can be surmised from satellite images and other intel

A 1 megaton nuke would have the same effect on underground structures up to a radius of 2 km - but with massive fallout and collateral damage - so I can see the attraction of a subkiloton pinpoint nuke.

See chart:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3JNY4 ... sp=sharing

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5117
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 16 Feb 2018 07:56


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49651
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 17 Feb 2018 10:50

Shiv, Good table. Now go back to AGNI Fuze functioning video. And think what it means.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5166
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 17 Feb 2018 23:14

Shiv ji: Sorry for the delayed response.

On the table you have above, the PSI for a given yield provides PSI generated to maximize some type of damage. Missile silos are hardened to withstand >3000 PSI. Assuming high accuracy of the missile a 0.2 KT payload would generate >3000 PSI for a 20 meter radius, to probably destroy the target with minimal air blast effects for about 500 meters. However, it envisions the use of precision strike keeping the CEP of the missile in single digits. Cruise missiles being the preferred delivery vehicles both for its accuracy and the issues in use of classic ballistic profiles would probably demand a reaction from even a regional power let alone a large power. I think we can safely presume the days of 3 MT nukes for the purpose of destroying hardened silos in a given area with traditional levels of CEP’s is passé now. A precision strike with a small nuclear payload is one way to make the cookie crumble.

A similar argument was made to target large ships and carriers, until hysupersonic cruise missiles with high precision alleviated the need for nuclear payloads using its kinetic energy and maneuver capabilities to penetrate ship defenses. Part of the reason why the US fears the DF-21 type of ballistic missiles in an anti-shipping role is due to maneuverable re-entry vehicles that can get guidance from OTH radars and kinetic energy doing the rest. Let us leave alone the precision capabilities of PRC or the threatened mixing of non-nuclear payloads in a ballistic trajectory and its ramifications on probable responses.

I agree, cruise missiles probably cannot generate the kinetic energy + TNT required of conventional payloads to destroy hardened silos/bunkers. However, these new class of boost-glide-maneuver vehicles offers some interesting opportunities.

If one continues on classic deterrence principles respecting the objective of stability by way of asset demarcation and other CBM’s to reduce the risk of nuclear war (as India tries to), the segregation of LR ballistic profiles for nuclear payloads and conventional only for CM stands, exceptions such as the Prithvi notwithstanding. These new boost-glide missiles follow a distinct largely non-ballistic trajectory with only the maneuverable payload vehicle in a ballistic but maneuverable trajectory on re-entry. When used in a high angle of attack profile, their greater than 15 Mach speeds along with payloads of 1000 to 10,000 pounds of conventional explosives would be enough to destroy hardened silos, is the theory.

Hence, in my post above I suggested there are new programs being put into play for the precision strike mission that may not require a nuclear payload for hardened targets. Nothing stops these payloads from being nuclear too but then one would lose even these class of weapons for exclusive conventional use and compromise the classical principles of nuclear deterrence. I have yet to study the kinetic energy effects on reinforced concrete structures to understand this relationship fully so if you or someone else wants to add to this aspect, that would be great.

India should invest in this class of boost-glide-maneuver missiles to increase her options and assets for a precision strike in the conventional domain. It may provide India with an ability to target fixed and hardened assets of Pakistan or China without violating its NFU doctrine. Admittedly, it is a technology-centric approach but a boost-glide-maneuverable missile conventionally armed would be less expensive than cruise missiles and hence can be fielded in significant numbers with increased range and an ability to deliver more conventional payloads than CM can. Like any other missile, C4ISR is probably far more important to precision strike than the weapon itself.
Last edited by ramana on 20 Feb 2018 01:44, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited post to 'supersonic' instead of 'hypersonic'. ramana

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5166
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 19 Feb 2018 19:06

A short paper on Kinetic weapons in the bunker buster role. Kinetic Energy Weapons

Mach 10 can penetrate about 100 ft underground, Mach 50 would equal a 4 KT weapon but not sure what happens when this structure is reinforced concrete or hard rock? Need some more information on x-relationship of PSI to KEW than this paper alone provides.

PS: In the post above, i have made the mistake of using the word hypersonic instead of supersonic in the anti shipping role. Cannot edit the post now.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49651
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 20 Feb 2018 01:42

At that velocity the solid behaves as a thick fluid.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5166
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 20 Feb 2018 07:38

^Thanks ramana.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 20 Feb 2018 07:40

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... mber-24399
Officials with the Office of the Secretary of Defense confirmed to Warrior Maven that Mattis here is indeed referring to an emerging “nuclear variant” of the F-35. Multiple news reports, such as Business Insider, cite senior officials saying a nuclear-armed F-35 is slated to emerge in the early 2020s, if not sooner. The F-35 is equipped to carry the B-61 nuclear bomb, according to a report in Air Force Magazine.

It makes sense that the F-35 would increasingly be called upon to function as a key element of US nuclear deterrence strategy; in recent months, F-35s deployed to the Pacific theater to participate in military exercises over the Korean Peninsula. The weapons, ISR technolgoy and multi-role functions of the F-35 potentially provide a wide range of attack options should that be necessary in the region.

Utilizing speed, maneuverability and lower-altitude flight when compared to how a bomber such as a B-2 would operate, a nuclear-capable F-35 presents new threats to a potential adversary. In a tactical sense, it seems that a high-speed F-35, fortified by long-range sensors and targeting technologies, might be well positioned to identify and destroy mobile weapons launchers or other vital, yet slightly smaller on-the-move targets. As part of this equation, an F-35 might also be able to respond much more quickly, with low-yield nuclear weapons in the event that new intelligence information locating a new target emerges.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 20 Feb 2018 08:15

Shaurya that is an interesting paper you have linked about KEW - I am saving it for ref. I will repost it in a new thread I shall start on a "current topic" when I get a bit of free time. But both this paper and the points you make about non-nuclear methods to taking out silos and C&C centers can be viewed from two different but interesting (to me) perspectives:

Perspective 1: The science and technology aspect where non nuclear methods are used to achieve the same goals as were expected in the late 1900s to be achieved by nuclear weapons

Perspective 2
: The psychological element that brings in the question of "deterrence". I would like to write briefly on this perspective, because, as I see it - the world is now entering into a strange "post-deterrence" world. By "post-deterrence" I don't mean that deterrence has ended, but I am saying that the traditional nuclear powers are scrambling to hold on to the old nuclear order and keep deterrence working - while developing, in parallel the means to use nuclear weapons in "small doses" in restricted areas.

All expensive research, or expensive systems to ensure accurate delivery of non nuclear weapons (such as Kinetic energy weapons) onto targets that previously called for nuclear weapons are simply an attempt to keep war winnable against (minor?) nuclear powers without going nuclear. That means if a big P5 power was to fight against a nuclear armed pipsqueak - then the idea is that "We can take out your nukes even without using nukes"

But no sensible planner can rely on this - so there is, in parallel, the development of low-yield and accurately deliverable nukes "just in case"

But if you look at this from the perspective of a North Korea or a Pakistan - why would they want to invest in low yield or even accurate nukes? It is in their interest to be a threat to anyone - and to have their nukes hidden and safe by making many of them and putting them in as many platforms and as well hidden as possible. The US and the bigger powers send out signals which state that they seek to "win" any confrontation while trying to "dominate without using nukes". But smaller powers can simply upset the applecart ("the cosy world order") by managing to lob a couple of nukes into the heartland of USA or Europe. They may not "win" the war - but the people who survive the war will see a further erosion of power of the existing powers - especially the US. Of course China too is reaching a stage where its global power can be eroded by a few nukes on its major cities - even if it retaliates ruthlessly against a nuclear attacker.

Ultimately as long as the biggest powers on earth retain nuclear weapons as their ultimate threat - no amount of pussyfooting with non nuclear weapons will increase overall international security in any way. Nations have egos and the US and China have the biggest egos today. The only deterrence for nations with big egos is for many more countries to have nukes. Global proliferation is looking more and more likely to me.

JMT

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49651
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 22 Feb 2018 02:56

ShauryaT have you read the new NPR 2018?

Please do read.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5986
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Amber G. » 22 Feb 2018 03:53

shiv wrote:
All expensive research, or expensive systems to ensure accurate delivery of non nuclear weapons (such as Kinetic energy weapons) onto targets that previously called for nuclear weapons are simply an attempt to keep war winnable against (minor?) nuclear powers without going nuclear. That means if a big P5 power was to fight against a nuclear armed pipsqueak - then the idea is that "We can take out your nukes even without using nukes"

But no sensible planner can rely on this - so there is, in parallel, the development of low-yield and accurately deliverable nukes "just in case"yield or even accurate nukes?

Shivji et al -
Some factual information I use when I try to give some scientific perspective (which is not influenced by stereotypes or political opinions :) ) is to compare the destructive power of various method with respect to energy per gram.
Of course, there is much more involved than just these numbers but I think as a starting point they are helpful.

Like for radiation I used BED (Banana Equivalent Dose) I compare these things I use the unit ADG ( Energy in Asli Deshi Ghee per unit gram).. which is 27230 Joules/gm with this -

Bullet - (muzzle velocity about speed of sound) = .0015 ADG
TNT = 0.1 ADG (Yes, by weight Ghee (or butter) has 10x more chemical energy)
PETN (Modern Explosives) = 0.16 ADG
Gasoline = 1.5 ADG
KE Weapons (Mach 25) = 1 (which is still 10x TNT so no need to use any additional explosives on a KE weapon)
Asteroids (30 Km/sec) = 16 ADG
U235 = 3,000,000 ADG!

So when all is said and done, nuclear weapons are in a class in itself.
KE Weapons are good but energy supplied in them per unit mass of consumption is comparable to a Jawan with a sledge hammer given a ration of asli deshi ghee ..

(Added later: 27230 Joules/gm is about 6.5 Calories/gm)
For KE weapons use the basic physics formula KE = (1/2) mV^2

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5166
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Feb 2018 06:31

ramana wrote:ShauryaT have you read the new NPR 2018?

Please do read.
Not in full, will do so on an upcoming trip. Thanks.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Deterrence

Postby Haridas » 22 Feb 2018 12:15

Amber G. wrote:(Added later: 27230 Joules/gm is about 6.5 Calories/gm)

Aap key charan kahan hain, Gyani ji ! :twisted: :P

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22582
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

India needs to up its deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 22 Feb 2018 17:32

Why India needs to strengthen its nuclear deterrent - Brig. (R) Vinod Anand, Economic Times
While China has opposed the recently announced US Nuclear Posture Review of 2018 it has not been remiss in developing its nuclear arsenal both quantitatively and qualitatively. Towards the end of January China tested a DF-5C intercontinental ballistic missile equipped with 10 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs). This was a quantum jump from the three warheads of the earlier version DF-5B missile.

Earlier in November China conducted two flight tests of a new missile DF-17 that was attached to a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV). China has been the first to conduct such tests even though the US and Russia have been working on the same. The HGV can reach a speed of Mach 5 plus speeds thus capable of delivering nuclear warheads at the target in a matter of minutes.

While this has implications for the US it would also impact India’s evolving nuclear deterrence capabilities that are being built around boosting its missile defence and strike capabilities.

Towards the end of 2017 India conducted its third interceptor missile test to enhance its Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capabilities. On January 18, this was further supplemented by India successfully conducting a pre-induction test of Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile which has a range of 5000 kilometers. Both tests were designed to develop and strengthen the credibility of India’s nuclear deterrent.

The BMD test was part of phase two of the ongoing development of India’s two layered BMD system wherein Advanced Air Defence interceptor missile takes on the incoming ballistic missiles in the endo-atmosphere up to low altitudes of 20 to 40 kilometers. The phase one included testing and development of Prithvi Air Defence Missile (PAD) Interceptor and Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV) designed for intercepting enemy missiles at exo-atmospheric high altitudes of 50–150 kilometers. Phase 2 is intended to give India capabilities in the class of the US Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD).

The second phase was to be completed by 2016 giving India the technical capability to take on ICBMs with ranges over 5000 kilometers. Apparently, the programme has been somewhat delayed.

There has been considerable debate on the value and worth of BMD systems given that such systems can be penetrated by attacking missiles by a variety of means. The missiles are armed with MIRVed warheads enhances the quality of the attack. Similarly, HGVs would be able to confound the BMD systems. Further, low flying Cruise missiles can also penetrate the missile defences though they have limitations of having short ranges.

India’s No First Use Doctrine is also a compelling factor to strengthen missile defence capabilities in order to enhance the survivability of its nuclear arsenal. Though there has been some debate on the question of India jettisoning its NFU to overcome the nuclear challenges from Pakistan.


China’s evolving BMD capabilities as also technological upgradation of its offensive missiles degrade the value of India’s strategic deterrent against China. While Beijing might avow that their BMD is meant for the U.S. arsenal yet, equally it erodes the value of New Delhi’s nuclear deterrent.

If India has to maintain the credibility of minimal nuclear deterrent vis-à-vis China or for that matter Pakistan then besides strengthening the missile defence India needs to upgrade its strike capabilities. Developing ICBM like AGNI VI with MIRVed warheads is inescapable. While DRDO has been working on developing hypersonic vehicle there have been reports that it may take ten years to conduct a test. Other qualitative improvements of our missiles to beat the adversary’s BMD systems is also an imperative.

(Vinod Anand is Senior Fellow with Vivekananda International Foundation, New Delhi)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 22 Feb 2018 18:43

Amber G. wrote:[
Like for radiation I used BED (Banana Equivalent Dose) I compare these things I use the unit ADG ( Energy in Asli Deshi Ghee per unit gram).. which is 27230 Joules/gm with this -

Bullet - (muzzle velocity about speed of sound) = .0015 ADG
TNT = 0.1 ADG (Yes, by weight Ghee (or butter) has 10x more chemical energy)
PETN (Modern Explosives) = 0.16 ADG
Gasoline = 1.5 ADG
KE Weapons (Mach 25) = 1 (which is still 10x TNT so no need to use any additional explosives on a KE weapon)
Asteroids (30 Km/sec) = 16 ADG
U235 = 3,000,000 ADG!

So when all is said and done, nuclear weapons are in a class in itself.
KE Weapons are good but energy supplied in them per unit mass of consumption is comparable to a Jawan with a sledge hammer given a ration of asli deshi ghee ..

(Added later: 27230 Joules/gm is about 6.5 Calories/gm)
For KE weapons use the basic physics formula KE = (1/2) mV^2

:lol: This is fantastic. I will make it into a table and save for sharing..

I love the Asli Dsi Ghee Unit - it is just as expressive and iconic as "BTU"

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 883
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Deterrence

Postby dinesha » 28 Feb 2018 13:33

Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49651
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 04 Mar 2018 12:09


panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3723
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby panduranghari » 04 Mar 2018 15:16


shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Mar 2018 17:22

Hmm radioactive Strontium, Iodine and Cesium are such sweet cuddly bunny compounds to be released into the air...

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Deterrence

Postby Haridas » 05 Mar 2018 03:40

shiv wrote:
Amber G. wrote:[
Like for radiation I used BED (Banana Equivalent Dose) I compare these things I use the unit ADG ( Energy in Asli Deshi Ghee per unit gram).. which is 27230 Joules/gm with this -

Bullet - (muzzle velocity about speed of sound) = .0015 ADG
TNT = 0.1 ADG (Yes, by weight Ghee (or butter) has 10x more chemical energy)
PETN (Modern Explosives) = 0.16 ADG
Gasoline = 1.5 ADG
KE Weapons (Mach 25) = 1 (which is still 10x TNT so no need to use any additional explosives on a KE weapon)
Asteroids (30 Km/sec) = 16 ADG
U235 = 3,000,000 ADG!

So when all is said and done, nuclear weapons are in a class in itself.
KE Weapons are good but energy supplied in them per unit mass of consumption is comparable to a Jawan with a sledge hammer given a ration of asli deshi ghee ..

(Added later: 27230 Joules/gm is about 6.5 Calories/gm)
For KE weapons use the basic physics formula KE = (1/2) mV^2

:lol: This is fantastic. I will make it into a table and save for sharing..

I love the Asli Dsi Ghee Unit - it is just as expressive and iconic as "BTU"


Shiv ji you will lose all credibility when you accept the following hook & sinker :
Added later: 27230 Joules/gm is about 6.5 Calories/gm
:twisted: :rotfl:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 05 Mar 2018 07:50

Haridas wrote:
Added later: 27230 Joules/gm is about 6.5 Calories/gm

In Medical circles calories are KiloCalories and that figure is correct. The human requirement of 2000 "calories" per day is actually 2000 kCal per day
https://www.asknumbers.com/joules-to-calorie.aspx

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5986
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Amber G. » 05 Mar 2018 12:05

Haridas wrote:
shiv wrote: :lol: This is fantastic. I will make it into a table and save for sharing..

I love the Asli Dsi Ghee Unit - it is just as expressive and iconic as "BTU"


Shiv ji you will lose all credibility when you accept the following hook & sinker :
Added later: 27230 Joules/gm is about 6.5 Calories/gm
:twisted: :rotfl:

Haridasji -
It will be better if instead of " :twisted: :rotfl:" emojis if you correct/comment on the post of others if you think there is some mistake or a typo somewhere. Of course, it is also possible that there is some confusion on your part.

As Shivji's link explains, normally used term (food) Calorie = (physicists) Kcal (or with a capital "C" instead of 1000 "c" - calories) ..I carefully used "Calorie - with a capital "C" in my post - as scientists normally do to remove confusion..

Hope this helps.
If not, just ask google --"1 Calorie in joules"
6.5 Calorie in joules
Last edited by SSridhar on 06 Apr 2018 12:50, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Referring a poster by other names is unwarranted and deleted.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Deterrence

Postby Haridas » 06 Apr 2018 10:46

RoyG wrote:This doesn't make sense to me considering Russia, France, and England all signed and ratified. If India didn't feel comfortable for whatever reason it could've easily signed but not ratified like Israel. It would have been at least one more checkmark in a long list, however insignificant, for NSG membership. Instead we instituted voluntary moratorium aligning ourselves w/ the treaty in question instead of simply signing.

Something doesn't sit right w/ me -> Impose a voluntary moratorium essentially aligning ourselves w/ the treaty in question but don't sign and ratify (despite 3 P5 members doing it), chuck the second thermonuke awaiting testing in 1998 (why have it to begin with?), and keep that 81 yo geezer R Chidambaram chugging along occupying special advisory chair well after retirement.

Strange...


R.Chidambram finally drummed out of his chair. Finally a person on the seat who is not incapacitated. Don't know what happened his famous bums from simulation?
https://researchmatters.in/news/prof-k- ... government

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Deterrence

Postby Haridas » 11 May 2018 12:52

20 years and "sabb chalta hai...."


Pokhran 2 Anniversary: India Marks 20 Years Of Nuclear Weapons Testing
https://www.firstpost.com/india/kashmir ... 58433.html
Image

Arima
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 05 Apr 2018 14:45

Re: Deterrence

Postby Arima » 11 May 2018 16:47

so much have happened in 20 years in armed forces particularly nuclear reactor for submarine, missiles etc. but what about advancement in nuclear weapons arena?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5166
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 12 May 2018 05:29

India must revise its nuclear policy and keep its strategy opaque - BK

The Shakti series of underground tests 20 years ago were the last, stifled, hurrah of the Indian nuclear weapons programme. Stifled because the thermonuclear device tested on May 11, 1998 was a dud, and the last hurrah because the weapons unit at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, thereafter, went into eclipse, its best and brightest abandoning it. After all what scientific and technological challenge is there when there are no advanced fission, fusion and tailored-yield armaments to design and develop? Worse, official Indian thinking on deterrence is contradictory. Mired in minimalism, it has relied on threats of “massive retaliation”. This mandates the use of a large number of nuclear bombs to dissuade Pakistan from nuclear “first use” and, therefore, an extensive nuclear armoury of our own. So, the nuclear deterrent cannot be “minimum”.

The confused nuclear milieu has been obtained by the Indian government under three Prime Ministers – Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh, and Narendra Modi. With the ‘no testing’ pre-condition of the 2008 nuclear deal with the United States in mind, it has decided that, the country’s strategic arsenal is perfectly adequate now and in the future with just the 20 kiloton (KT) weapon/warhead, the only tested and proven weapon in the inventory. Also, under American pressure, the Indian government has put the brakes on the 12,000km-range inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) project and the testing of the indigenous MIRV (multiple independently-targetable re-entry vehicles) technology to launch several warheads from a single missile that’s been available for the last 15 years.

In this period, countries who prize their strategic security accelerated their capability build-up. North Korea shrugged off US pressure, answered American bullying with brinksmanship of its own, successfully tested a two-stage 250-350 KT hydrogen bomb, for good measure acquired the Hwasong ICBMs able to hit US cities, and silenced President Donald Trump. Nearer home, Pakistan, ahead of India with 130 nuclear weapons/warheads and counting, boasts of the most rapidly growing nuclear arsenal. It has four 50MW weapon-grade plutonium (WgPu) producing reactors operating in Khushab. Meanwhile, India has yet to build the second 100MW Dhruva WgPu reactor sanctioned in the mid-Nineties. North Korea and Pakistan are where they are courtesy the active “rogue nuclear triad” run by China which guarantees that Islamabad too will brandish thermonuclear weapons of Chinese provenance.

Delhi eschews anything similarly disruptive (like nuclear missile-arming Vietnam) because Indian leaders are more intent on polishing the country’s reputation as “responsible power” and winning plaudits from the US for showing “restraint” than in advancing national interest. So the country’s strategic options end up being hostage to the interests of foreign powers. India’s do-nothing policy has eroded its relative security, and its stature in Asia and the world as a strategically autonomous and independent-minded country.

India can recover its strategic policy freedom by taking several steps. It should fast forward the second Dhruva military reactor and ICBM development, and test-fire MIRV-ed Agni-5s. In lieu of nuclear testing, which Indian Prime Ministers have lacked the guts to resume, two things need to be done to configure and laboratory-test sophisticated thermonuclear weapons designs. The laser inertial confinement fusion facility at the Centre for Advanced Technology, Indore, needs to be refurbished on a war-footing, and a dual-axis radiographic hydrodynamic test facility constructed.

As regards the software of hard nuclear power, the nuclear doctrine has to be revised – something promised in the Bharatiya Janata Party’s 2014 election manifesto but so far ignored by the Modi regime. Without much ado the newly founded Defence Planning Committee should re-work the doctrine to stress flexible response, with ambiguity enhanced by publicizing the fact of doctrinal revision and the jettisoning of the “No First Use” principle, but nothing else. India will thus join the rest of the nuclear weapons crowd in keeping every aspect of its nuclear policy, doctrine and strategy opaque. There are good reasons why, other than in India, there’s no enthusiasm for nuclear “transparency”.

In keeping, moreover, with the passive-defensive mindset of the government and expressly to throttle aggression by a militarily superior China, technologically simple, easy-to-produce, atomic demolition munitions have to be quickly developed for placement in the Himalayan passes that the Chinese Liberation Army is likely to use, backed by forward-deployed canisterised Agni-5 missiles for launch on warning. The onus for India’s nuclear first use will thus rest entirely with China.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5166
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 12 May 2018 05:41

Arima wrote:so much have happened in 20 years in armed forces particularly nuclear reactor for submarine, missiles etc. but what about advancement in nuclear weapons arena?
In India everything takes another +20 years + babu pace of progress to see the light of the day. The sub program was semi-launched in 1978, IGMDP in 1982, but by even those standards POK-I was 1974!! Maybe that was a false start and the true launch date is POK-II. So, have some hope we will see advances in another 20 years. Patience :) easy for me to say, sitting pretty on a keyboard.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Falijee, sudeepj and 20 guests