Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 19:55

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:Does Korea have a deterrent?
No - not completely, China has a deterrent which prevents S.Korea and Japan and in turn the US from invading DPRK.

This is the theory. But how do you know that it is China that is the deterrent factor? Has China stated that it will support NoKo in a nuclear war? Do you have reason to believe that China will intervene if Korea launches a nuke at someone and invites retaliation?

If NoKo does not launch a nuke but continues to proliferate it will not be attacked. That is deterrence. That is as good as deterrence can get. Better than what Saddam got

If NoKo launches a nuke and is not attacked in retaliation - then it might be Chinese deterrence that comes into play. But if NoKo gets hit in retalation then Chinese deterrence does not exist or is not working.

The only eventuality that can prove that NoKo does not have any deterrent is if it gets attacked just like that - without launching a nuke against anyone.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Deterrence

Postby Manish_Sharma » 04 Sep 2017 20:32

Singha wrote:...its not option for india to be flattened and we registered a 'dharmic' protest by wiping out only 10 of the biggest cheen cities - cheen too must be flattened into the neolithic age in return. that means 150+ weapons have to be used in a counterstrike.



Exactly, the when a thread with title "Deterrence" is created then it cuts out all arguments which proves that bigger arsenal is needed so they don't just eat up few piddly warheads, dust themselves up and get up; proceed to rebuild themselves, while we are left bleeding to death.

Post war effects are to be factored in too.

I would not say we need 1MT beasts but 350-500kt city busting weapons with light weight , which is impossible unless we test a new family to our satisfaction.


Also one point Arun_S made was that more sophisticated thermonuclear warheads need much much lesser amount of precious fissile material.

Also to create more sophisticated warheads which don't exude much radiation; much needed for wellbeing of Arihant's crews.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4918
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 04 Sep 2017 21:35

The Chinese did massively intervene in the Korean war of the 50s. This is why NoKo survived. China is using NoKo to destabilize US and Pak to destabilize India. Lets see what is the countergame. Right now I don't see any except more sanctions against NoKo and more killed terrorists for Pak. Neither state seems to be bothered by it as they believe China is going to prevent their collapse.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1073
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 04 Sep 2017 21:45

There are only a few cases of cities being wiped out. Hiroshima, Nagasaki are just two examples, but 'strategic bombing' by the allied powers wiped out many German and Japanese cities. Large parts (upwards of 50%) of all Japanese cities were obliterated, yet that nation stood back on its feet within 20 years.

Estimates of killed and wounded are all over the place, but a median estimate would be 400,000 dead and upwards of half a million wounded. How did Japan go on fighting when it had such a huge burden of wounded to take care of? Some people put forward the claim that a single atomic attack with a 20KT weapon would would so many that any nations medical resources would be overwhelmed, and that nation would simply fall apart. Any such single atomic attack creates a few tens of thousands wounded. How did Japan continue to fight when it had to take care of half a million wounded? People who make such bold claims must provide an answer.

Taking an example from natural disasters, the energy release on the surface by the great Tohuku earthquake was at least a few MegaTonnes. Same for the Indian ocean Tsunami and earthquake. Similar amount of destruction by the Pakistani floods in the Indus basin recently (the river shifted course). In each case, the countries disaster management strategies, however basic, were able to bring them back on their feet within a few years. Why? Because as long as there are skilled humans alive, they will self organize to save their fellow citizens and continue their civilization.

The only way to 'kill' or destroy a nation is to kill almost all skilled human beings. Right now, other nations can do this to India. India has a notional capability to do this back to the 'other' countries. When we tested in 1974, our main goal was to deter the west. And the west is easily deterred by small weapons, so that is a valid strategy. However, genocidal and totalitarian regimes are a different matter altogether. If Pakistani crazy people get these genocidal weapons, I can easily imagine a scenario where they decide to preemptively kill off most Indians, and bet on 'absorbing' the Indian return strikes in their Jihadi fantasies. Similarly, say we are the victims of four strikes at the Indo-Chinese border, will we strike Beijing in return? No one can seriously believe that. We will hesitate to strike back because any retaliation has the potential of spiraling out of control, and while China can completely wipe out our metropolitan areas to the last man, we can not do the same in return - only inflict large numbers of casualties on them and make some of their cities non-functional for a few years or months.

Having said that, I believe a heavy, unoptimized MT weapon is completely within the grasp of Indian weaponeers, while an optimized design for MIRVing will need testing. We can use the current crisis in North Korea to form an alliance of Indo-Pacific democracies: US, South Korea, Japan, India and Taiwan and go nuclear in a synchronized, short term action. This precludes any sanctions, while also putting up a formal alliance system that can act against Chinese bullying.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1073
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 04 Sep 2017 21:49

I just want to add that, MT weapons are genocidal weapons. Their only use is to possibly commit genocide on another nation. Right now, totalitarian regimes, such as China (and Pakistan, if they have access to proven North Korean designs) have the capability to commit genocide on India, but we do not have the demonstrated capability to reply to such an attack.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1073
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 04 Sep 2017 21:52

ramdas wrote:It is time we upgraded our proven yields by testing. The sooner the useless Chidambaram is booted out of his perch as PSA to PM, the better. The alternative is TSP escalation dominance and military overlordship. Economic considerations cannot be let to come in the way of something so critical to national sovereignty.


You need to watch your potty mouth. If we do achieve a radiation imploded device, it will be by the efforts of RC and others like him. I cant imagine the mods sitting by and letting this slide, inspite of the fiasco we had last time.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 22:02

Let me continue on my role as intractable asshole asking irritating questions, simply because it is easy to start a chorus that we need testing without addressing why we need testing.

I am not into manufacturing but in my role as user of manufactured goods that need to maintain a high standard I know that there has to be a system of quality control. It is there for missiles as well - let alone things like medicines and medical appliances. Let me make a specious argument here. After all - once the technology for making a useful drug - say Insulin is standardized there is no need for quality control. Just keep producing the stuff and selling. I am sure there will be clever people who will be able to say why this is not a good idea.

Let us move to nuclear warheads. I am hearing the argument that once warheads are perfected after say 15 or 20 or 50 tests - all is hunky dory and there is no need to test after that. we are not even there. we need to standardize one good powerful warhead and then all will be well. We will be with the big boys and not the dharmic weaklings we are now.

I see a problem with this argument. When were the last nuclear tests done by anyone? China and France did 3-6 tests in 1993 IIRC - 24 years ago. Other countries stopped testing even before that. But they have made hundreds of warheads. Does this mean that hundreds of warheads will work perfectly well without testing? Without validation of quality standards? The argument I have heard in response is "Oh we need not bother about their quality - they have the tech already and at least some will work. But we have not burst anything more than 20 kt and even that the quality will be doubtful"

Without quality controls standards cannot be maintained. Without regular testing we have an unreliable small yield arsenal and others have an unreliable large yield arsenal. The entire world is now full of weapons that are 25 or more years old, untested for quality control and have no guarantee of producing the advertised yields. Everyone is suffering from lack of testing.

If this assessment of mine is wrong I would like to hear informed technical objections. Why isn't anyone testing? After all we all are certain that nothing can replace hot tests like NoKo is doing.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 22:10

sudeepj wrote: Some people put forward the claim that a single atomic attack with a 20KT weapon would would so many that any nations medical resources would be overwhelmed, and that nation would simply fall apart. Any such single atomic attack creates a few tens of thousands wounded. How did Japan continue to fight when it had to take care of half a million wounded? People who make such bold claims must provide an answer.

I would cut the rhetoric and stick to the truth. No one has said that a nation would fall apart. The argument is like why India should not have nuclear weapons because children are dying of starvation and disease. Ten million Indians die of heart attacks every year. How does the nation keep going? That is because all ten million do not die in one city at the same time.

Kill 100,000 people n once city at one time, and wound another 200,000 people with burn wounds that do not have the treatment facilities like heart attacks do - all in one city in the span of ten seconds and then ask if that city can carry on as usual. Do that to ten major cities and then ask if a nation can carry on as it does with ten million heart attack deaths

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 04 Sep 2017 22:25

@sudeepj: Yes, the 1998 failure would have given data that would help the next time we decide to go in for a test of a staged device (if such a decision is ever made). My apologies for what I said about RC. The fact remains that an honest assessment about the need for further testing should have been there.

The situation that PRC and TSP (through NoKo) have a demonstrated capability for carrying out an attack on a geneocidal scale on us with our not having such a demonstrated capability to reply is alarming. It could even tempt TSP to initiate provocations on a scale larger than seen before. This imbalance can only be rectified if we demonstrate yields of several hundred kt- whether by crude boosted fission or by two stage devices.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 22:26

I must point out that nuclear weapons cause burn injuries. If you bump your head or cut your finger - they are also injures. One could ask "Millions of people have injuries and survive, so why should the injured be a special problem after a nuclear attack?"

This is ignorance. Burns are a special type of injury that are difficult to treat. Burns with blast and crush injuries would be "normal" after a nuclear bomb. In a big city of 20 million the combination of "burn + blast/crush" would be less than 10 a day. It would be far higher say in Kashmir where fighting causes burn and blast together. But if you get 150,000 people with burn and blast injuries in one city -there is going to be a problem. No a nation won't collapse. But "al iz vel" is not something that will come to mind

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Deterrence

Postby sanjaykumar » 04 Sep 2017 22:28

Rules of military triage would be extended to civilians, it is naive to expect otherwise.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 04 Sep 2017 22:31

@shiv: but powers with high yield weapons can inflict damage on a scale that makes a nation collapse. If TSP through NoKo gets this ability, and our response can only damage a few cities in the way you specified, the jihadist TSP generals may well find this an ``acceptable deal". The counter capability to make TSP collapse is what is required.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 22:32

sanjaykumar wrote:Rules of military triage would be extended to civilians, it is naive to expect otherwise.

No doubt. But triage would only be for the people who are on the periphery of a nuclear blast area. No one will be going into the rubble for a while and the first 24 hours are critical for burns. Long ago I recall having searched and searched and searched and found that the US - if you take a count of all the specialist burns beds - there are not more than 1000. Maybe that can be extended to 10,000 in the US - but 100,000 burns in one city at one time only means more dead bodies to be disposed of soon.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 22:36

ramdas wrote:@shiv: but powers with high yield weapons can inflict damage on a scale that makes a nation collapse. If TSP through NoKo gets this ability, and our response can only damage a few cities in the way you specified, the jihadist TSP generals may well find this an ``acceptable deal". The counter capability to make TSP collapse is what is required.

So I am asking - what is the amount of damage required to make the other nation collapse? India is anyway going to collapse in any war. We are goners. It's only a question of what we need to make the other country collapse. I do not for one minute buy the idea that if we somehow have a large arsenal it will protect us and prevent our collapse because the others will be "more scared". No. We are screwed anyway. Others have enough to finish us off even today . So just talk about what is needed to make the other nation collapse.

Or explain why everyone who already has a big enough arsenal to finish us off (eg Pak, China) will not use it against us and make us collapse when the time comes.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 04 Sep 2017 22:42

Of course, if we have enough to make the others collapse, a situation of mutually assured destruction will exist, which will deter the other side from initiating anything that could eventually lead to a nuclear exchange.

If you do not believe this, you should be questioning the need for any kind of nuclear deterrent in the first place. Simple principle: if both sides have enough to finish each other off, restraint eventually prevails. If one side can finish the other off while the other can't the weaker side is at the mercy of the stronger side, which can choose to finish the weaker side off when it wants. This should be clear to anyone.

This imbalance has always existed vis a vis PRC, and for reasons best known to it, the establishment prefers not to redress this. Remains to be seen if the establishment os happy living with such an imbalance vis a vis TSP: they may well go the SoKo way and rely on the ``international community" and ``global public opinion" for protection, if they do not decide to systematically redress the imbalance. Till the imbalance is corrected, the window of opportunity exists for the adversary. All weaker powers faced this situation: the USSR from 1945-49. PRC from 1949-1967. NoKo from 1992-2017.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9572
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 04 Sep 2017 22:50

ramdas wrote:@shiv: but powers with high yield weapons can inflict damage on a scale that makes a nation collapse. If TSP through NoKo gets this ability, and our response can only damage a few cities in the way you specified, the jihadist TSP generals may well find this an ``acceptable deal". The counter capability to make TSP collapse is what is required.

Powers with lower yield weapons applied in adequate quantity can also inflict similar damage. You don't need higher yield weapon for that.
Last edited by pankajs on 04 Sep 2017 22:52, edited 1 time in total.

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 597
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: Deterrence

Postby Suresh S » 04 Sep 2017 22:51

couple of things about testing. Obviously nuclear weapons are not your everyday things but in general everything have to be tested to see that it works. Just like in surgery u can watch all the videos and discuss and think all u want but when u have the knife in your hand u know it is totally different .When u have to actual do something and it must work otherwise your patient,s life and your reputation and worse are on the line. Especially if it is a new operation that u have not done before even though u have done operations before makes it a very tricky situation to say the least. The reason I bring it up is nations are testing new designs of nukes based on computer simulations only and no testing.

Both The USA and soviets tested hundreds of times at the very least and I doubt if anyone was keeping count at that time. On the other hand we have barely tested and the outcome is still debated. I personally do not think this govt is going to test anytime soon as focus is on building economic strength and military might simultaneously and is the right thing to do . But the value of testing can not be understated whether others do it or not, especially when those others have tested hundreds of times already and we have not.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5001
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Sep 2017 22:54

shiv wrote:The only eventuality that can prove that NoKo does not have any deterrent is if it gets attacked just like that - without launching a nuke against anyone.
A possibility not out of the question, if the US takes a lead, My bets are against it.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 04 Sep 2017 22:57

@pankajs: the quantity required is clear: 8x20 kt = 500kt-1MT in destruction. So, lack of high yield must be compensated for by going in for 8 times the number of warheads in MRVed/MIRVed configurations (MRVed may suffice). There is no evidence that this is being done. If done, this is indeed one way to redress the imbalance.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9572
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 04 Sep 2017 22:59

That is the way my friend .. Why do I remember someone reasonably connected saying that we are investing in MIRVed/MARVed configurations? And that does not need to be stated while testing is ongoing. I am pretty damn sure we are on that path even as we discuss.

And our scientist did claim a design that could be dialed up to 325+ Kt. Even a 8x125 Kt will make for a fearsome response.

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 597
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: Deterrence

Postby Suresh S » 04 Sep 2017 23:08

To prove a point that shiv just stated. This is more than a anecdote, but something I saw and lived through which made me change my views about so called third world and first world and how India is so bad and how we in the west are so advanced and good. This is all worthless chatter, yes there are some differences but all this talk is worthless. After superstorm sandy The city of NewYork, Yes the greatest and the bestest and the heart of the superpower was on it,s ass. It was as though the city has been hit by a nuke. Total and complete chaos for a few days and very slow recovery. That actual made me think, I do not think India would have fared much worse than this inspite of the resources these people have. You have to see it to believe it.

After having seen it I can say with some conviction if any of these countries ever gets hit with ANY nuclear weapon expect total and complete chaos.All this thing u see in newspapers and TV and all the discussion we are having is not worth much. What actually happens on the ground is much worse. Both 9/11 and sandy has pretty much convinced me of that. Shiv is on the money and only thing I would say is he is underestimating the total chaos that will ensue in any country especially the so called first world.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 04 Sep 2017 23:20

So far there is no MIRV/MRV testing. MRV (without independent targeting capability) would also suffice as long as 8 20-25kt can be loaded onto each missile. If testing is not an option, moving rapidly and openly on such a track is the best.

Regarding the claim of dialing up to 325kt, that has to be taken with a bucket of salt. They have not demonstrated any such thing. Who will believe this ?

@Suresh: the issue is, we have nothing against any first world country. Our only potential targets are TSP and PRC (possibly NoKo as well). This will require adequate yield equivalent obtained by any means: MRVed 20-25 it's with 8 on each missile we deploy/ demonstrated boosted fission warheads/Tn warheads of several hundred kt yield.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4962
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 05 Sep 2017 00:30

We have achieved deterrence wrt China. The fact that we haven't been subject to nuclear attack is a testament to it. 50kt air burst with CEP < 100m over 20 major Chinese cities will effectively nullify everything they've worked hard to achieve as a civilization. However, to go beyond Asia and seriously threaten the US and Europe will require the capability. At some point India will have to do it.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1073
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 05 Sep 2017 03:09

shiv wrote:I must point out that nuclear weapons cause burn injuries. If you bump your head or cut your finger - they are also injures. One could ask "Millions of people have injuries and survive, so why should the injured be a special problem after a nuclear attack?"

This is ignorance. Burns are a special type of injury that are difficult to treat. Burns with blast and crush injuries would be "normal" after a nuclear bomb. In a big city of 20 million the combination of "burn + blast/crush" would be less than 10 a day. It would be far higher say in Kashmir where fighting causes burn and blast together. But if you get 150,000 people with burn and blast injuries in one city -there is going to be a problem. No a nation won't collapse. But "al iz vel" is not something that will come to mind


If you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. You are a doctor, so you are overwhelmed thinking about the thousands of burn victims in the aftermath of a nuke attack. We have had this conversation before, but if you get 150,000 burn victims in one day, almost all of them will die. As a doctor and a human being, that is horrifying, but it still wont destroy the human capital that forms a city. Incendiary attacks were carried out on ALL Japanese, and many German cities. Yet, German & Japanese war effort carried on. If Germany did not collapse, if Japan did not collapse after massive bombing raids spreading KT level conventional bombings, why would a more modern country just collapse? The answer is that most large metropolis, especially such as Beijing that are spread out will not collapse after a single KT weapon. Sure, the city would cease to function for a few weeks, but it will recover, because you have killed or incapacitated less than 10% of the populace. On the other hand, a MT weapon will simply erase most cities on the planet from the map, killing or incapacitating everyone.

For sure, stopping a city for a few weeks, killing as many as 10% of its population will deter all western democracies, but I dont think its sufficient to deter either Pakistanis or Chinese or NoKo. If the Pakistani elite cared about the vast majority of their population, would they not have changed their hopeless policies? They continue in the hope that 'one day', they will defeat 'Endia'. These regimes - China, NoKo, Pakistan, exist to serve an ideology not their people. They have amply demonstrated this by their behavior. Therefore, to expect that they will behave the same ways as western democracies is silly.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1073
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 05 Sep 2017 03:16

The simple fact is this:
1. MT weapons are weapons of Genocide. Early weaponeers such as Oppenheimer realized this and characterized these weapons as such.
2. Given a few hundred MT weapons, one country can commit genocide on another.
3. Pure/boosted fission KT weapons can impose sharp economic and human costs, but you will need a large number of such weapons to inflict a similar amount of damage as MT weapons.
4. While a pure/boosted fission weapon can deter a regime that is dedicated to serving its people, I doubt such weapons can deter a regime that is dedicated to serving an Idea, such as reuniting a homeland under a preferred political system, or Ghazwat ul Hind, or ...
5. If our adversary has MT weapons, it has the capability to commit genocide on India. To restore balance, we must have a similar capability.
Last edited by sudeepj on 05 Sep 2017 04:40, edited 1 time in total.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 05 Sep 2017 04:06

@sudeepj: agree 100%. We can't measure Pak/PRC/NoKo based on what we view as unacceptable damage, and you have explained precisely why this is so.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8687
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby UlanBatori » 05 Sep 2017 06:02

shiv:

The US would make the same "mistake" that India did in 1990 if Trump does not preemptively destroy NoKo nuke facilities and missile facilities this week. This is a gross failure of the Deterrence theory: both China and NoKo are basically mooning the US deterrent. Question I have is: assuming (as I do) that the US will launch preemptive/preventive strikes, and China enters the fray, will India help the US, help the Chinese or stay like the famous 3 monkeys? I doubt that India will help China against the US except maybe to accept millions of Chinese refugees from nuclear Armageddon (I hope it does not get to that because I live & work in a highly preferred Ground Zero..). But what if china blockades the Persian Gulf using Gwadar, and the Straits of Malacca to cut off the oil route to Japan as well as the movement of US supply ships and smaller warships?
What if the US sends an SOS to help protect Diego Garcia from Chinese invasion?

GOI will have to make some weighty decisions at short notice. No time for chai-biscoot.

Also, would India dare to open a massive 3rd front in the war by taking over the regions mentioned in a post by the Indian general? (Looked wonderful, those plans) Liberate Upper Dharmasala and East Turkestan? Drive to Kunming?

P.S. Those who :(( :twisted: about Indian failure to "take out" Pakistani nuke capacity in 1990, should please explain why the US is condemning generations to living in fear of NoKo/PRC thermonuclear blackmail? It is Strike Now Or Forever Stay With Ur Thumb Up Ur Mushattaf.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 05 Sep 2017 07:02

sudeepj wrote:The simple fact is this:
1. MT weapons are weapons of Genocide. Early weaponeers such as Oppenheimer realized this and characterized these weapons as such.
2. Given a few hundred MT weapons, one country can commit genocide on another.
3. Pure/boosted fission KT weapons can impose sharp economic and human costs, but you will need a large number of such weapons to inflict a similar amount of damage as MT weapons.
4. While a pure/boosted fission weapon can deter a regime that is dedicated to serving its people, I doubt such weapons can deter a regime that is dedicated to serving an Idea, such as reuniting a homeland under a preferred political system, or Ghazwat ul Hind, or ...
5. If our adversary has MT weapons, it has the capability to commit genocide on India. To restore balance, we must have a similar capability.


I can see your logic here but I would call it as "reverse logic" ie defining genocide based on bigger yield per warhead and not as number of deaths - which is what genocide means

I say this in the context of why we should not use 4 x 150 kt weapons instead of one1 megaton weapon. - because the discussion started with "yields" being the basis of deterrence not human cost. Your argument that human deaths beyond a particular range (that you define as genocide) is the standard of deterrence needed. I am not going to dispute your view on that (I agree in general that it is the human cost that will count) - but ask why the same genocide cannot be achieved by more missiles and weapons of lesser yield?

    More missiles/warheads - less chance of being shot down
    Failures of warheads/missiles are catered for
    Less chance of all being taken in a first strike
I get back to what I have been trying to say. If we have 100-150 kt capacity now (which I am convinced we do) there is no need to test simply for the science experiment of proving in public that we can make deuterium burn fully rather than 40% - all based on a nasty public spat in 1999-2000

Testing will be a better idea for warhead quality control and maintenance and not for fusion experiments

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 05 Sep 2017 07:54

UlanBatori wrote:shiv:

The US would make the same "mistake" that India did in 1990 if Trump does not preemptively destroy NoKo nuke facilities and missile facilities this week.
<snip>

P.S. Those who :(( :twisted: about Indian failure to "take out" Pakistani nuke capacity in 1990, should please explain why the US is condemning generations to living in fear of NoKo/PRC thermonuclear blackmail? It is Strike Now Or Forever Stay With Ur Thumb Up Ur Mushattaf.

The best chance is now. I don't think China will join.

India will neither support the US or China. We will mouth platitudes and say "dialogueueue is the best way forward". That said - India has no reason to join either side.

The US fought supported the Chinese nation against Japan, and later fought the Chinese communists in Korea. Later the US allied with the same Chinese communists via Pakistan to defeat the USSR in Afghanistan and that led directly to the nuclear arming of Pakistan and later Korea. Now the US does not have China. Pakistan or Russia on its side. I'm guessing that the whole world is "morally" allied with the US. That is like watching a man being shot. You are "morally allied" with the victim but can't lift a finger to help.

Maybe India should grow balls and ask for action against NoKo. The fuggin UN was formed to "keep the peace" in the world and control trouble spots. But all that the UN does is Congo etc - but thumb in musharraf is the rule when it comes to IndiaPakistan, NoKovsworld etc.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1073
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 05 Sep 2017 08:31

shiv wrote:
sudeepj wrote:The simple fact is this:
1. MT weapons are weapons of Genocide. Early weaponeers such as Oppenheimer realized this and characterized these weapons as such.
2. Given a few hundred MT weapons, one country can commit genocide on another.
3. Pure/boosted fission KT weapons can impose sharp economic and human costs, but you will need a large number of such weapons to inflict a similar amount of damage as MT weapons.
4. While a pure/boosted fission weapon can deter a regime that is dedicated to serving its people, I doubt such weapons can deter a regime that is dedicated to serving an Idea, such as reuniting a homeland under a preferred political system, or Ghazwat ul Hind, or ...
5. If our adversary has MT weapons, it has the capability to commit genocide on India. To restore balance, we must have a similar capability.


I can see your logic here but I would call it as "reverse logic" ie defining genocide based on bigger yield per warhead and not as number of deaths - which is what genocide means

I say this in the context of why we should not use 4 x 150 kt weapons instead of one1 megaton weapon. - because the discussion started with "yields" being the basis of deterrence not human cost. Your argument that human deaths beyond a particular range (that you define as genocide) is the standard of deterrence needed. I am not going to dispute your view on that (I agree in general that it is the human cost that will count) - but ask why the same genocide cannot be achieved by more missiles and weapons of lesser yield?

    More missiles/warheads - less chance of being shot down
    Failures of warheads/missiles are catered for
    Less chance of all being taken in a first strike
I get back to what I have been trying to say. If we have 100-150 kt capacity now (which I am convinced we do) there is no need to test simply for the science experiment of proving in public that we can make deuterium burn fully rather than 40% - all based on a nasty public spat in 1999-2000

Testing will be a better idea for warhead quality control and maintenance and not for fusion experiments


A boosted device of 150KT will be heavier, so you will need bigger missiles, you will also need many more of these devices with associated costs etc. When deployed, the risk of accidental detonation criticality will be greater with these devices. With a larger device, you will need better quality of Pu, to reduce the risk of predetonation and a fizzle. Further, we havent seen the genocidal 'intent' in Indian mil and political leadership. If we publicly say, we will deploy as many weapons as we need and put the resources in, again, publicly, we should be OK. Further, this 150KT device, is also notional. Based on my reading, I would put more faith in a 2 tonne, MT weapon than an optimized 150KT weapon.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9572
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 05 Sep 2017 09:04

shiv wrote:
sudeepj wrote:5. If our adversary has MT weapons, it has the capability to commit genocide on India. To restore balance, we must have a similar capability.

I can see your logic here but I would call it as "reverse logic" ie defining genocide based on bigger yield per warhead and not as number of deaths - which is what genocide means

It appears that the sole motivation of a MT nuke is prestige under the garb of *restore balance* or some such phraseology. If genocidal capacity was the SOLE criteria 8x20 Kt nuke is as good a MT nuke.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1073
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 05 Sep 2017 09:07

You just need many more KT devices, many more survivable platforms with associated costs, that is all. The only place I have heard 'prestige' is from you, I challenge you to produce one prestige related argument that can be inferred from my post. If you cant, stop arguing in bad faith.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9572
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 05 Sep 2017 09:15

I have quoted you and that is clear enough. You want to *restore balance* based on individual weapon capacity rather than genocidal capacity where a 8 x 20 Kt would be as good as 1 Mt nuke. There it is in plain sight.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 05 Sep 2017 09:40

sudeepj wrote: Further, this 150KT device, is also notional. Based on my reading, I would put more faith in a 2 tonne, MT weapon than an optimized 150KT weapon.

I guess you know which one of these is even reachable without testing and which one is wholly notional. Reading of course is another matter - all of us have our sources.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33992
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 05 Sep 2017 09:47

pankajs wrote:It appears that the sole motivation of a MT nuke is prestige

This is true of many viewpoints that I have read and that is what prompts me to ask possibly pesky questions.

If genocide is the end goal, the cake can be sliced in many ways including 8 x 20 kt. But if one hand is tied behind the back as in "no testing" then I would prefer practicality using known data over exploration of the unknown in science experiments whose results will be interpreted by the public as boosting or deflating ego depending on what people perceive as "big enough".

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Deterrence

Postby Manish_Sharma » 05 Sep 2017 19:00

Shanghai total area = 6,340 km²
Mumbai total area = 603.4 km²

Beijing total area = 16,808 km²
Delhi total area = 1,484 km²

We need Thermo Nukes. Cold-blooded lizard will be up and running in no time with our fizzled warheads

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1073
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 05 Sep 2017 19:14

pankajs wrote:I have quoted you and that is clear enough. You want to *restore balance* based on individual weapon capacity rather than genocidal capacity where a 8 x 20 Kt would be as good as 1 Mt nuke. There it is in plain sight.


I am talking about restoring a balance to deterrence, not prestige. Please ignore my posts from now on as you seem incapable of understanding rather plain concepts. This is a deliberate attempt to derail a discussion because its not going your way.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9572
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 05 Sep 2017 19:38

You posted
sudeepj wrote:5. If our adversary has MT weapons, it has the capability to commit genocide on India. To restore balance, we must have a similar capability.
My reply
pankajs wrote:It appears that the sole motivation of a MT nuke is prestige under the garb of *restore balance* or some such phraseology. If genocidal capacity was the SOLE criteria 8x20 Kt nuke is as good a MT nuke.
Again if genocidal capacity/balance is the SOLE issue at stake then 8 x 20 Kt is as good as 1 Mt. All one has to do is to look at you previous posts on the subject from yesterday to see the thrust of you arguments.

I cannot write as eloquently as you so I will have to quote you again
sudeepj wrote:Please ignore my posts from now on as you seem incapable of understanding rather plain concepts. This is a deliberate attempt to derail a discussion because its not going your way.

BTW, if you think I have done/written anything wrong you should report my posts and not try to offtrack the discussion.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Deterrence

Postby Manish_Sharma » 05 Sep 2017 19:49

The more sophisticated Thermo Nuke design we make through testing :

1. With lesser amount of super precious fissile material we will be able to make more number of warheads. Fission and boosted fission eat up too much of this fissile material which we don't have much anyway.

2. More warheads make more survivability. As we are no First strike types; so we need more dispersed and bigger number in warheads.

3. When going for building up nuclear arsenal, we need to avoid seeing through the lenses of "Deterrence" only, as Deterrence can change any moment. With zia ul hak it's different with benazir it's different, with hamid Gul or musharraf it's very different with Mao it was different with Deng Xiaoping it was different with Eleven's successor it may change totally.

So our policy should have a non moving target = THAT IN CASE OF NUCLEAR WAR OBLITERATION OF THAT NATION OR NATIONS.

Just tying it up to "Deterrence" is an obfuscation.

4. Our current warhead design maybe exuding too much radiation; which maybe harmful to Arihant crew, so more testing needed to make them safer for SSBNs. I remember Arun_S made a detailed post about it, either here or on India Forum , will check if I can dig it up.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48145
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 06 Sep 2017 03:00

Manish_Sharma wrote:Shanghai total area = 6,340 km²
Mumbai total area = 603.4 km²

Beijing total area = 16,808 km²
Delhi total area = 1,484 km²

We need Thermo Nukes. Cold-blooded lizard will be up and running in no time with our fizzled warheads



But you realize the forum over the last ten years has decided small is enough and banished any nay-sayers.

And still maintains that.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wadi1979 and 32 guests