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.
kancha
BRFite
Posts: 752
Joined: 20 Apr 2005 19:13

Re: Deterrence

Postby kancha » 22 Sep 2017 21:32



Put out some thoughts on this. Nothing like the IDSA paper linked above, but very basic stuff instead. Drawn on Shivji's research on the likely impact of tactical nukes.

Twitter Link

Blog Link

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21474
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 23 Sep 2017 12:41

kancha, well done.

kancha
BRFite
Posts: 752
Joined: 20 Apr 2005 19:13

Re: Deterrence

Postby kancha » 23 Sep 2017 19:35

Thanks for the endorsement, SSridharJi

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4935
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Sep 2017 01:23


Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20257
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Deterrence

Postby Prem » 30 Sep 2017 08:37

US deterrent views
https://www.brookings.edu/research/meet ... uirements/
A key priority must therefore be to reinforce deterrence at the regional level. That will require strengthening U.S. and allied conventional military capabilities, ensuring the credibility of the forward-deployed and -deployable components of the U.S. extended nuclear deterrent, and maintaining the solidarity and resolve of U.S. alliances. It will also require modernizing U.S. central strategic systems and supporting infrastructure, which remain the bedrock of U.S. deterrence policy, both in extending deterrence and providing assurance to U.S. allies, and in deterring direct attacks on the American homeland.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21474
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 30 Sep 2017 10:14

Prem wrote:US deterrent views
https://www.brookings.edu/research/meet ... uirements/
A key priority must therefore be to reinforce deterrence at the regional level. That will require strengthening U.S. and allied conventional military capabilities, ensuring the credibility of the forward-deployed and -deployable components of the U.S. extended nuclear deterrent, and maintaining the solidarity and resolve of U.S. alliances.

The US must therefore loosen the technology transfer constraints in certain areas with a country such as India, though India and the US do not have an alliance let alone a military alliance. Yet, deterrence does not merely stop with a nuclear triad or ABM these days. It goes into cybersecurity, space & satellite-denial capabilities, economic opportunities or penalties etc as well. War with China is inevitable for at least three countries, India, US and Japan. Therefore these three countries must move towards a networked-deterrence even if the US can take care of itself without the other two at the present time in most areas. But, in future, the US would be found wanting vis-a-vis China as its power vanes. Similarly, as the gap between India-China or Japan-China increases in favour of the latter in the medium term, it is only the combined deterrence that could stop the juggernaut from its c. 2049 goal of being the Middle Kingdom once again after two hundred years of humiliation and shame.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47521
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 01 Oct 2017 04:18

Prem wrote:US deterrent views
https://www.brookings.edu/research/meet ... uirements/
A key priority must therefore be to reinforce deterrence at the regional level. That will require strengthening U.S. and allied conventional military capabilities, ensuring the credibility of the forward-deployed and -deployable components of the U.S. extended nuclear deterrent, and maintaining the solidarity and resolve of U.S. alliances. It will also require modernizing U.S. central strategic systems and supporting infrastructure, which remain the bedrock of U.S. deterrence policy, both in extending deterrence and providing assurance to U.S. allies, and in deterring direct attacks on the American homeland.


Coming from Brookings whose Party leaders did the least to curb nuke proliferation and US arsenal changes, it's a bit rich to sound wise and solicitors now.

They still have not come to terms that NoKo h bomb and missiles is modern day Cuban Missile Crisis.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2054
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 01 Oct 2017 06:37

SSridhar wrote:

The US must therefore loosen the technology transfer constraints in certain areas with a country such as India, though India and the US do not have an alliance let alone a military alliance. Yet, deterrence does not merely stop with a nuclear triad or ABM these days. It goes into cybersecurity, space & satellite-denial capabilities, economic opportunities or penalties etc as well. War with China is inevitable for at least three countries, India, US and Japan. Therefore these three countries must move towards a networked-deterrence even if the US can take care of itself without the other two at the present time in most areas. But, in future, the US would be found wanting vis-a-vis China as its power vanes. Similarly, as the gap between India-China or Japan-China increases in favour of the latter in the medium term, it is only the combined deterrence that could stop the juggernaut from its c. 2049 goal of being the Middle Kingdom once again after two hundred years of humiliation and shame.


China s rise is not set in stone ., nor is India s but decline of the American and western powers seems more or less assured. However, a big factor would be Indian political stability for its assured rise economically and militarily.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21474
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 02 Oct 2017 13:30

X-posted from Terroristan thread
The Nuclear Dimension - Munir Akram, DAWN
Even if Pakistan and the US are able to reconcile their divergent positions on Afghanistan, the emerging strategic alignments that will shape policies in Asia are unlikely to change. The US has chosen India as its major strategic partner in Asia to counter the rising power of China. The resulting escalation in the Indian threat to Pakistan’s security is either irrelevant for the US or part of its strategic plan to weaken Pakistan’s opposition to Indo-US regional domination. The recent visit of the US defence secretary to India has confirmed and reinforced their strategic alliance and intention to collaborate in Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s ability to resist Indian diktat and to disagree with America’s strategic design flows from one principal source: its nuclear and missile capabilities. Without this, Pakistan would have been attacked like Iraq or sanctioned like Iran. On the other hand, North Korea, despite its isolation, has been able to thumb its nose at America because of its demonstrated nuclear and missile prowess.

An Islamic nuclear power was always anathema for America and much of the Western world. The US worked ceaselessly — even when Pakistan was a close ally — to retard and reverse its nuclear and missile programmes. This endeavour has intensified since the emergence of the American alliance with India. Apart from the discriminatory technological and political restrictions it has long imposed against Pakistan’s strategic programmes, the US now demands that Pakistan unilaterally halt fissile material production and the development and deployment of short- and long-range nuclear-capable missiles. Meanwhile, it is actively assisting India in enlarging and modernising its nuclear arsenal, its missile and anti-ballistic missile capabilities, its air and naval forces, as well as satellite and space capabilities.

There are credible and not-so-secret reports that the US has formulated plans to seize or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in a crisis. American think tanks have concocted scenarios of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists or, even more absurdly, of the Pakistan Army turning into an ‘extremist’ or ‘jihadi’ force. Indeed, such scary scenarios could be engineered as an excuse to execute the ‘seize or destroy’ plans.

Matters are more likely to come to a head in the event of another war between Pakistan and India. Kashmir is an ongoing dispute and a nuclear flashpoint. Every India-Pakistan war game confirms the likelihood of a rapid escalation of a conflict to the nuclear level due to the asymmetry in conventional forces. A war should thus be unthinkable. Yet, India’s political and military leaders continue to speak of ‘surgical strikes’ and a ‘limited’ war against Pakistan. If India does ever decide to go to war with Pakistan, it would have to first conduct a pre-emptive strike to eliminate Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence capabilities. Or, would the US be prepared to do so on India’s behalf? Pakistan must be prepared for both contingencies.

Islamabad must presume that in the course of its past (ill-considered) ‘cooperation’ with the US to enhance the ‘safety and security’ of Pakistan’s nuclear assets, the US has gained considerable intelligence about Pakistan’s strategic assets. However, Pakistani officials correctly discount America’s ability to seize Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. These are too many, and too widely dispersed and well protected, thus not amenable to any seizure or strike. But nuclear delivery systems are more difficult to hide and protect.

In a crisis, it is the delivery systems that will be the prime target of a pre-emptive strike. These are most likely to be detected when, in a crisis, they are being ‘mated’ with the separately stored warheads. Furthermore, as revealed during the current Korean drama, missile launches can be sabotaged by cyberattacks and other technical means.


In the emerging strategic scenario, nuclear deterrence is Pakistan’s ultimate assurance against external aggression and coercion.

Pakistan needs to take several measures so that the credibility of its nuclear deterrence is assured. One, the massive deployment of artillery and short-range missiles (à la North Korea) as the first line of conventional deterrence and defence against an Indian Cold Start attack. This would deter Indian attack and also raise the nuclear threshold. Two, the multiplication of long-, medium- and short-range nuclear-capable missiles to ensure the penetration of any ballistic missile defence systems that India deploys. Three, the continued production of fissile materials to provide warheads for the enlarged missile force.

Then, there is the need to ‘mate’ at least some warheads with delivery vehicles, their dispersal and disguise, or protection in hardened silos, to respond to a pre-emptive strike. Eventually, submarine-launched ballistic missiles could provide an assured second-strike capability. Five, the deployment of effective air defence systems plus a limited number of advanced (and expensive) anti-ballistic missile systems to protect command and control centres. Six, the development of offensive and defensive cyber-warfare capabilities.

Following this, Pakistan needs the acquisition and deployment of early-warning capabilities — satellites, surveillance aircraft and drones. In the meantime, Pakistan should utilise Chinese early warning capabilities. Lastly, greater integration and inter-operability with Chinese land, air and naval forces to enhance conventional and strategic deterrence, quickly and cheaply.


Once Pakistan can demonstrate the complete credibility of its nuclear deterrence posture, its offers to negotiate peace and security in South Asia and to resolve the Kashmir dispute may evoke a more positive response from both India and the US. Pakistan will then also be able to pursue its socioeconomic objectives free from the threats of external coercion, intervention and aggression.

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1215
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Deterrence

Postby schinnas » 02 Oct 2017 14:05

Munir Akram seems to be dreaming too much for a beggar nation and a near bankrupt economy.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9619
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Deterrence

Postby sum » 02 Oct 2017 14:10

I hope his dreams of building up like NoKo come true and Pakistan gets further pushed down the toilet due to the strain of such a buildup since Iron brother certainly wont pay for it

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21474
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 02 Oct 2017 14:24

The fact that its former Permanent Representative to the UN can only think of urging Terroristan to develop along the lines of North Korea sums up the bankruptcy of this artificial construct that calls itself a nation.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 02 Oct 2017 15:16

Munir Akram's ambitions are most probably beyond TSP's technical capabilities to fulfill, even in the next 25-30 years. The fact that TSP has not launched a satellite in spite of all the IRBMs it has got, while Iran and NoKo have launched satellites even as they acquired IRBMs, goes to show that TSP is unlikely to have anything beyond a superficial technical understanding of the systems in their possession: no capability to further develop or modify them, etc.

This is very different from NoKo and Iran. While the latter have genuine programs which went on to indigenize and further develop the systems they initially obtained from outside TSP is stuck with what its patrons (PRC/NoKo) condescend to provide it. Unless PRC is foolish enough to provide TSP with capabilities almost matching its own, TSP will not obtain any such capabilities.

Even TSP following NoKo is rhetoric that is impossible to fulfill. NoKo clearly has an excellent, well-educated cadre of scientists and engineers in these fields. From what we have seen with TSP, it is at most a capability to assemble what their patron(s) provide(s) them.

JohnTitor
BRFite
Posts: 1271
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby JohnTitor » 02 Oct 2017 16:06

The part of the article that got me was this

Meanwhile, it is actively assisting India in enlarging and modernising its nuclear arsenal, its missile and anti-ballistic missile capabilities, its air and naval forces, as well as satellite and space capabilities.

Is the US really helping india modernising its nukes??? Seems a little hard to believe. I don't think even Russians are willing to do that

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21474
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 02 Oct 2017 16:43

JohnTitor, the fertile imagination of a Terroristani mind knows no limits. The mind-boggling conspiracy theories it spins out constantly are a proof. From why Cyril Radcliffe awarded Gurdaspur distt to India to the US help as stated above, Terroristanis have let loose an orgy of vile imagination.

Also, they are under the impression that since they only paint the missiles and tighten the screws in nukes received as a Completely Built Unit (CBU) from China, they assume that India should also be doing the same thing. They don't want to believe otherwise because it will then be cognitive dissonance and extremely troubling. The entire facade that they have carefully built to fool their people would collapse. So, it is easier to believe that somebody should be really giving all the 'goodies' to India. And, there is a theory, the famous YYY conspiracy !

Besides, the Terroristanis have been the recepient of largesse from the US in the the nuclear weapons field through its various acts of commission and omission. So, they may believe that similar transactions are taking place with India too.

Remember that Musharraf's gloat that SUPARCO engineers were better than ISRO's after Ford Aerospace moved one of their dysfunctional satellites to a Pakistani slot after Pakistan was on the verge of losing that slot to ITU? Or, his prophetic claim more than a decade back that Pakistani IT would soon overtake India's (through complicated accounting manipulation etc.) or that Taseer guy's tweet (before being done in by Qadri) taunting ISRO after a GSLV failure?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47521
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 02 Oct 2017 21:37

JohnTitor wrote:The part of the article that got me was this

Meanwhile, it is actively assisting India in enlarging and modernising its nuclear arsenal, its missile and anti-ballistic missile capabilities, its air and naval forces, as well as satellite and space capabilities.

Is the US really helping india modernising its nukes??? Seems a little hard to believe. I don't think even Russians are willing to do that


Its the stereotyping of the Hindu capability along the lines of 10 Hindus equal 1 Baki myth.

They think India is getting help from US just like they got from China and US looked askance.

Its subaltern Orientalism!!!

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10564
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 02 Oct 2017 22:41

Their conspiracy theory before this current one was when India tested various SLBMs.
Their news anchors went overboard, with statements that Russia has given India this tech, but has denied this to Pakistan.
:lol:
Russia will likely whack Pakistan, when it gets the chance (but seems to want to hurt the US in Afghanistan more these days)

Their other theories extend to almost every aspect of military or daily life.
Thier JF-17 is "Better" than the F-16, because as one genius claimed "The Thunder has a 17 on it. It is better than the 16 in the F-16" :rotfl:
When asked exactly what is Pakistan's contribution in the whole JF-17 project, the answer is that Pakistan Airforce studied all foreign aircraft and gave the chinese exact modern requirements, which they implemented !!! Wonder-e-fool !!! :rotfl:

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10564
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 02 Oct 2017 22:47

JohnTitor wrote:Meanwhile, it is actively assisting India in enlarging and modernising its nuclear arsenal, its missile and anti-ballistic missile capabilities, its air and naval forces, as well as satellite and space capabilities.

Is the US really helping india modernising its nukes??? Seems a little hard to believe. I don't think even Russians are willing to do that

According to the Pakistanis, the "Nuclear Deal" is supposed to have given India every technology under the sun by the US. So they were asking for a similar deal for themselves.
Now their schizophrenia imagines a lot of things - that India gets uranium from outside, so it frees up India's domestic uranium for weapons use. Yeah right! India's reserves just more than quadrupled based on the new mines being opened up. Pakistan probably spends every gram of Uranium it gets on N weapons - now its upcoming chinese built reactors will sap some of this away, but one can bet that they will pilfer every gram of plutonium from there and use it to make N weapons.
As long as the Army is in perpetual power in that country, anything and everything will be used for a military use.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47521
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 02 Oct 2017 22:57

You can add Larry Pressler to the CT experts who is claiming that IUCNA is an armament deal with India!!!

And media in India is lapping it up.
Larry Pressler introduced the Pressler Amendment that allowed the US President to claim progress on Pakistan not working on nukes to dilute the Carnston amendment.

This way Pak could obtain nukes from China and money from US.
Once the Afghan war was over the US informed that they could not certify that Pak did not have the nuke bomb. This in 1990.
And Larry Pressler was still raising money from foolish Indian Americans.

And this guy is selling his book in India.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 02 Oct 2017 23:43

@Ramana:

Unlike the Pakis, Larry Pressler is not claiming that the IUCNA is bolstering our strategic armaments (nukes/missiles) in any way. He claims that the IUCNA was a sweetener for general (i.e, conventional/related) deals with the U.S. MIC. Given how much we have coughed up for expensive U.S. transport aircraft, P8I's etc. (of course with rather poor returns in terms of capacity increment for the given amount spent), he cannot be totally dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47521
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 03 Oct 2017 05:09

All that was jiziya to buy US military non-combat goods. Not one combat goods were sold.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33449
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 03 Oct 2017 08:28

My video on the effects of nuclear weapons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q70u5G-gk1E

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 03 Oct 2017 12:19

@ramana: that is what I have been saying. P8I is the only combat item, the rest being non-combat and all at astronomical prices. Add to that the political baggage. This ``alliance" is not worth it. SoKo would have had its own deterrent had it not overvalued such an ``alliance". Today, it is a colony to be made a bali-ka-bakra for the PRC-NoKo axis when its master decides to do so.

JohnTitor
BRFite
Posts: 1271
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby JohnTitor » 03 Oct 2017 15:33

Gurus.. I suspected as much. But I'm also guessing that between pak, china and nk.. there is a lot of give and take.

Since the chinese have had a chance to do more testing of the weapons, I would assume that they are "better/sophisticated" and more "reliable" than ours. Further, it is unclear how much of that is being passed over to pak leading to a funny position of pak having "better" nukes than india even though they (on their own) couldn't come up with a decent conventional bum let alone a nuke.

Is this not something that india should be concerned about? Has this and previous governments done something about trying to address the issue? Or am I being paranoid.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21474
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 05 Oct 2017 17:01

Terroristan's deterrence goes for a toss.

IAF Chief indicates that IAF can locate, target & neutralize Terroristan's nuclear weapon locations, not only TNWs but ANY target, he says.

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3427
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby deejay » 05 Oct 2017 17:05

SSridhar wrote:Terroristan's deterrence goes for a toss.

IAF Chief indicates that IAF can locate, target & neutralize Terroristan's nuclear weapon locations, not only TNWs but ANY target, he says.


AoA... Chini bilathels plijj to help. Atim Bum has been sighted by the endians.

But seriously, does this mean that we have live tracking and targeting in real time?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21474
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 05 Oct 2017 17:36

In the light of Chief Dhanoa's articulation, Munir Akram's rambling (posted here a few days back), "In the emerging strategic scenario, nuclear deterrence is Pakistan’s ultimate assurance against external aggression and coercion" assumes a whole new meaning. He means that their bombs are useless completely and could never be deployed if a need arose and if Pakistan was intelligent enough, it would continue with the fig leaf of 'deterrence'. He clearly accepts the Terroristani Emperor's New Clothes . . .

sudhan
BRFite
Posts: 708
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 17:53
Location: Timbuktoo..

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudhan » 05 Oct 2017 18:43

I remember the constant stream of statements from the service chiefs before the Doklam incident was made public. The IAF Chief himself had sent out a curt letter asking his pilots to be ready for ops in short notice. I suspected something was up for the top guys to drop statements like that. This one seems very much like that, something must be up not revealed yet to the public. The IAF chief would not be making a statement like this lightly.

Something is up..

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21474
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 05 Oct 2017 21:03

Air Force capable of striking nuclear, other targets in Pakistan: IAF Chief - PTI
Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa on Thursday said the IAF has the capability of locating and striking nuclear and other targets in Pakistan.

The comments by the chief of the Indian Air Force came when he was asked at a news conference about global concerns over the safety of Pakistan's tactical nuclear weapons and whether IAF would be able to disarm Islamabad of its nuclear assets if necessary.

"We have a draft nuclear doctrine. It is answered in that - what happens when the enemy decides to use nuclear weapons on us. As far as IAF is concerned, it has the ability to locate, fix and strike and that is not only for tactical nuclear weapons but for other targets across the border (as well)," he said.

Dhanoa said the IAF has the capability to carry out "full spectrum" of offensive at a "short notice" to thwart any security challenge facing the country.


"The IAF is prepared to fight at short notice in full synergy with other two sister services should the need arises. IAF has the capability of sustaining operational preparedness for a prolonged period," he said, referring to overall threat perception facing the country.

Last month, Pakistan Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi had said his country has developed short-range nuclear weapons to counter the 'Cold Start' doctrine of the Indian Army.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 05 Oct 2017 23:08

@SSridhar

Could it be, as claimed by Prasun Sengupta, that Pak has only a dozen or so non tactical nukes donated by PRC ? It also makes sense from the PRC's point of view. PRC would not want to end up as a victim of one of their own nukes. If the number is on such a small scale, then talk of the ability to preempt these assets makes sense. Maybe, the NPA claim of Pak having a vast, rapidly growing arsenal is a lot of hot air ?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2054
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 06 Oct 2017 01:12

sudhan wrote:I remember the constant stream of statements from the service chiefs before the Doklam incident was made public. The IAF Chief himself had sent out a curt letter asking his pilots to be ready for ops in short notice. I suspected something was up for the top guys to drop statements like that. This one seems very much like that, something must be up not revealed yet to the public. The IAF chief would not be making a statement like this lightly.

Something is up..


or the Govt is sending a message, the Chiefs won't be making statements like this without full political support :twisted: lets see the response

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5747
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Amber G. » 06 Oct 2017 07:08

^^^ Pakistan is taking this seriously: They tweeted this:
Image
(Govt of Pakistan's ‏Verified account tweeted that Naval Chief Admiral Muhammad Zakaullah tells President Mamnoon Hussain in #Islamabad that he is leaving).
Last edited by Amber G. on 06 Oct 2017 07:12, edited 1 time in total.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9619
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Deterrence

Postby sum » 06 Oct 2017 07:11

Whats the pic supposed to convey? Whos the fatso with PN chief?


saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3319
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby saip » 06 Oct 2017 07:19

^^President Mamnoon Hussain

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21474
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terroristan's Deterrence Failure - I

Postby SSridhar » 06 Oct 2017 09:02

ramdas wrote:Could it be, as claimed by Prasun Sengupta, that Pak has only a dozen or so non tactical nukes donated by PRC ? It also makes sense from the PRC's point of view. PRC would not want to end up as a victim of one of their own nukes. If the number is on such a small scale, then talk of the ability to preempt these assets makes sense. Maybe, the NPA claim of Pak having a vast, rapidly growing arsenal is a lot of hot air ?


Unlike any other rational nuclear weapon nation-state which considers possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent mechanism, Pakistan has always thought of nukes as 'war-fighting' weapons. Deterrence, for Pakistan, was just coincidental.

Deterrence flows from the following (to a large extent for a country like Terroristan that has FU policy):

  • The adversary assumes that you have certain quantity of certain types of nukes with certain capabilities that have a high probability of working well when tossed in
  • The adversary assumes that you have the capability to toss into her/his land these nukes with a certain range and a certain accuracy
  • The adversary assumes that you have the courage and political will to do so when the situation so demands
  • The adversary feels that he/she cannot stop you or wean you away from using WMDs or protect himself/herself sufficiently through countermeasures, threats, blandishments etc.

Deterrence fails if one or more of these conditions becomes suspect.

If we look at the statement made by Chief Dhanoa, he makes two points: one, a reference to India's Nuclear Doctrine in case it is attacked and two, IAF's ability to denude Pakistan of its WMDs.

The former addresses the 'war-fighting' strategy of Pakistan, namely that any usage of these weapons against Indian interests would invite 'massive retaliation' (2003 doctrine of India that has been emphasized repeatedly since then by various 'involved' personalities), while the latter addresses the incidental 'deterrence' (non)value of Pakistani nukes.

In the current case, we have to observe a few things. The Indian Military Chiefs are not known to speak out of turn. They are not known to air their views casually. They are known to be conservative in estimating not only their own but also the adversary's capabilities and intents. The Air Chief's words have to be seen in this context. We have always warned Pakistan about obliterating that country from the maps if they launch a misadventure. However, this is the first time, as far as I can recall, that an Indian military chief called their 'deterrence' bluff as well.

It is quite possible that Terroristan has only a few strategic nukes, not in the several dozens that it is claimed to have. It is also very much possible that they have only a few nuclear-capable missiles. In any case, the IAF Chief's statement covers all bases (pun intended).

IMO, a window exists now for an operation to take these out, a task that Ms. IG didn't complete.

In any case, we have a more serious problem on hand. Within a decade, Terroristan would be formally under China and then there would be more nukes targetting us from there. Therefore, we must simultaneously breakup Pakistan, while we are at the task of taking out the nukes, so that China has multiple entities to deal with. Unlike what many may think, there may not be any potentially greater risk to India from this disintegration. In any case, that risk is more than amply mitigated by the breakup and denuding Terroristan of its gifted and/or borrowed nuclear arsenal. We should even signal to China that the nuclear weapons would be returned to it (of course, after inspection) in such a case. If China is uninterested in taking back the missiles, they should be destroyed (of course, there is no question of returning them to North Korea).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47521
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 12 Oct 2017 20:06

X-Posting an article from NoKo thread on importance of CNC machines for strategic programs.

viewtopic.php?p=2222966#p2222966

Long ago ArunS had made the point and was attacked most viciously for this observation.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33449
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 12 Oct 2017 20:14

ramana wrote:Even now OFB factories are stymied by lack of CNC machines and are far behind factory modernization. Year after year CAG reports bemoan this fact yet nothing happens as the industrial policy is in doldrums with import mentality.

OT data point: HAL had China made CNC machines - I was told by a forumite a few years ago

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4935
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 16 Oct 2017 03:29

I guess something like this will fall under a "space command" or is it the exclusive domain of the IAF?

Space: Future Pivot of Strategic Stability?

‘Overall, strategic stability is a complex multi-political and multidisciplinary problem that requires the constant attention of political and military leaders, national experts who research national security issues, and scientists representing different fields. Therefore Strategic Stability concept is rooted in many disciplines/domains, to include International Relations, Political Science, Psychology, military theory and doctrines, weapons and technology, development of forces, C4I2SR. the last three aspects though terrestrial and located essentially at secure locations are now linked to space in a major way hence, ‘space is to be viewed in the context of continuation of terrestrial situation or nuclear stability’.....


Strategic Stability is intertwined with space stability in an extremely complex manner, beginning with early warning to damage measurement by own weapons, making it very vital devise means and methods to understand the complexities and intricacies involved. Space stability can maintain strategic stability unless political stability is disturbed and becomes the overriding factor for movement up the escalation ladder. Very limited understanding has been reached between nations to put in place treaties and agreements to keep space free from o ensive actions which may result in loss of space stability and consequently Strategic Stability. On the contrary, leading space nations are in the race to establish their lead or supremacy before any substantive agreements or treaty is discussed which may preclude to offensive actions in space. This makes it important that progress is made on reaching an understanding before some nations achieve dominant positions akin to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and then dictate terms. China is well ahead of India in space systems, and India too must increase its assets to meet the needs of national security by developing anti-satellite capabilities on priority. This is not difficult since India already has tested its BMD capability, which is more precise and complex vis-à-vis ASAT. In addition, India must keep ready many reserve satellites for launch on demand to cater for losses to first strike. There is an urgent need to develop capabilities for EW against adversaries for non-permanent kills and defence of own assets. Progress is required in cyber warfare to prevent space attacks. Own satellites must now be designed for constellations to ensure continuity under attack and defeat temporary loss of a few satellites. Emerging technologies o er great scope for developing new capabilities that are more resilient and robust and even self-generating, additive manufacturing and advanced materials are some examples. For India, it is extremely important to match China if not be ahead, time is not too far when Chinese assets will be available to Pakistan for the asking or use by China to perform tasks required by Pakistan, including o ensive actions against India’s space assets.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bharati and 32 guests