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.
drnayar
BRFite
Posts: 925
Joined: 29 Jan 2023 18:38

Re: Deterrence

Post by drnayar »

ShauryaT wrote:
disha wrote:
Some of this anal-cysts are just that. It is easy to play a numbers game. I have 1000 bums. You have only 100 bums. You must shiver in your dhoti. We know what happened to cheeni bums in Doklam.

Fifty such Agni-V at 300kt will suffice.


It is another matter that we do not have those number of missiles at required ranges and required vessels to launch. If we are serious about this game with China, will have no choice but to match whatever Chinese numbers are in this area. Just with the new MIRV capabilities alone China will likely up their available warheads 5-10 times. China knew in 86-87 itself with the Sumdorong Chu standoff that India is not to be trifled with. If we have to continue that image (and all for it) we will have no choice but to increase our numbers and continued investments into MIRV, ranges and assured strike assets in the triad.
who says india does not have 50 A5s ? ..each has 2-10 MIRVs :twisted:
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Deterrence

Post by Cyrano »

Having N weapons in my layman's understanding is a multi-step process. 1 & 2 are N warheads + delivery vehicles ie missiles.
Both have shelf lives, warheads management is more complex since there is radioactive decay which can influence detonation, yield and stability. Liquid or solid fuelled missiles also have shelf lives that need maintenance and refurbishment.So it's not just about how many were produced each year and total but how many warheads and missile combinations that can be mated at short notice, how many can be kept readily mated at a given point of time.

The third part is launch platform. Can be stationary underground silos, or road/rail mobile platforms, air and sea launch from fighter jets or bombers or ships and subs. These are perhaps the easiest to manage because they need standard maintenance for the most part, except for secure comms for launch authorisations. And of course there is the aspect of the survivability of the launch platform at least until the job is done.

The last part is the whole decision and command issue mechanism and protocol.

All these moving parts have to work precisely to make N deterrence credible. They obviously cost an arm and leg to design, implement, test and maintain. And the other arm and leg to protect and hide from prying eyes in the sky and spies, saboteurs etc.

So it's to be expected that nothing really accurate is released into public domain.

Even in the conventional sphere, the west despite colossal intelligence assets and years of experience predicted that Russia will run out of missiles and was rudely surprised when that didn't happen.

Iran, despite years of sanctions, recently announced some 86% of enrichment, again surprising the world.

If anyone ventures to guess what is the size, scope and capability of India's deterrence they should be ready to accept that a wide margin of error will exist.

That itself is ambiguity, on the capability part. To that if we add a dose of ambiguity on the intent part but none whatsoever on the determination part, that will establish a fairly credible, reasonably predictable (ie no flippant sabre rattling) deterrence in India's context

Deterrence in a N superpower context is yet another level because MAD scenarios enter into play. The huge number of weapons and plethora of delivery platforms means a lot more people will be involved and therefore the probability of error goes up. Plus all kinds of posturing is done on the intent side because capability is anyway beyond doubt.

While the west goes into horrified convulsions that Putin "suspended" START, they keep avoiding the fact that the US already"withdrew" from ABM and INF.

At least we don't have the overhead of all that posturing ;)
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Post by SSridhar »

Deterrence is a very complex subject, no doubt. Nevertheless, the following is a simplified overview:

• The adversary assumes that you have a 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 calculates the costs involved
• The adversary feels that he/she can/cannot stop you or wean you away from using WMDs or protecting himself/herself sufficiently, through countermeasures, threats, blandishments etc.

The last point above is the compellance part, or the failure of it.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Post by SSridhar »

Cyrano wrote:While the west goes into horrified convulsions that Putin "suspended" START, they keep avoiding the fact that the US already"withdrew" from ABM and INF.
We may have our own reasons to be negative about the US policies, but there are some valid reasons for either Bush withdrawing from ABM or Trump from INF.

After 9/11, the US threat assessment was such that they felt that the provisions of ABM Treaty, which was struck between two rational nuclear powers, prevented them from mounting an effective security against rogue n-weapon powers or non-state actors attacking the US. So, they needed to get out of that in order to beef up their security. Now, we can debate whether ABMs ever give that kind of protection or not, but that's besides the point. Also, Putin wasn't overly concerned about the US withdrawal at that time and he quite well understood the US reason.

On the INF, again, the US had a point. The INF tied the US & Russian hands through the elimination of the 500 to 5500 Km range ballistic missiles. With a massive vertical proliferation of these classes of missiles by China, the increasing tension in the Indo-Pacific and a threat to its hegemony overall, the US had to get out of this treaty to develop missiles in this class. The increasing North Korean missile development as well as the increasing threats from China required the Japanese to demand enhanced security from the US. The Chinese, naturally, refused to negotiate on the INF. It is the nuclear conundrum in Asia, the like of which doesn't exist anywhere else, that put paid to this treaty even though the US cited the development of Russian ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM), the Novotor 9M729 as the reason. Since the Treaty was only between them, that was what the US had to cite in order to withdraw.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Deterrence

Post by Cyrano »

Valid points.

Would it be fair to say that despite having huge nuclear arsenals and various levels of treaties, deterrence has not worked between the US and Russia? It hasn't prevented NATO expansion in several waves, and instrumentalisation of Ukraine on one hand and it hasn't prevented Russia from intervening in Syria and now very massively in Ukraine.

If we consider deterrence as a 3 part device consisting of capability, intent and doctrine/posture, which of these singly or in combination hasn't worked? Or is there another component to deterrence that hasn't worked?

What lessons for India?
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Post by RoyG »

Cyrano wrote:Valid points.

Would it be fair to say that despite having huge nuclear arsenals and various levels of treaties, deterrence has not worked between the US and Russia? It hasn't prevented NATO expansion in several waves, and instrumentalisation of Ukraine on one hand and it hasn't prevented Russia from intervening in Syria and now very massively in Ukraine.

If we consider deterrence as a 3 part device consisting of capability, intent and doctrine/posture, which of these singly or in combination hasn't worked? Or is there another component to deterrence that hasn't worked?

What lessons for India?
Deterrence has worked and will continue to for the foreseeable future. Hot spot conflicts predominate now and the loss of life due to conflict has fallen drastically since the mid 1940s.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

Deterrence between nuclear states is about deterring nuclear war. In that primary objective nuclear deterrence has worked - so far. The degree to which a nuclear state can deter a conventional and/or unconventional war is where there are questions and degrees of success, based on where one sits.

Geo-political goals are sought to be achieved using escalation dominance on abilities provided by hard and soft power. Nuclear assets are the pinnacle in this game of hard power.

States that do not subscribe to this escalation dominance theory and resort to nuclear blackmail are considered irrational states (Pakistan, N.Korea) and deemed not fit to wield such power.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Post by SSridhar »

Cyrano wrote:Would it be fair to say that despite having huge nuclear arsenals and various levels of treaties, deterrence has not worked between the US and Russia?
Deterrence has held so far very well.

The problem now would be when China massively expands its arsenal amidst its unabashed desire to reach the Middle Kingdom status. It has been far more unscrupulous than the US in the spread of nuclear-weapon & missile technologies, as we all know.
drnayar
BRFite
Posts: 925
Joined: 29 Jan 2023 18:38

Re: Deterrence

Post by drnayar »

Cyrano wrote:Valid points.

Would it be fair to say that despite having huge nuclear arsenals and various levels of treaties, deterrence has not worked between the US and Russia? It hasn't prevented NATO expansion in several waves, and instrumentalisation of Ukraine on one hand and it hasn't prevented Russia from intervening in Syria and now very massively in Ukraine.

What lessons for India?
Interestingly MAD works well when communication is good between the two !.. the nuclear option works because both do not go to the extent of using it. Those red lines were respected until recently when NATO was fed up with peace and its increasing obsolesecence in world order, so a nice engineered conflict to change that.

In Indias context, it just needs economic and military heft and most important political stability. For China that is deterrence. I do not for one moment think China wants a nuclear war with India. Absolutely not. A decent arsenal that matches theirs will work fine. Now the problem is that the American arsenal numbers is China's aim. India will have no option but to match it in someway. And again that would be a reactive parity.

Paki arsenal is not of any consequence. They can hang their ding-dong s anyway they want.
Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 632
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Re: Deterrence

Post by Anoop »

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Post by NRao »

^^^^^

* Wonder how, pretty much every, retired Indian Armed Force guy has become an expert on geo-economics, geo-finance, nuclear issues, geopolitics, etc (but has no impactful comment on how to resolve problems in the Indian context)

_________________________________________

* WRT topic on hand "deterrence", Putin did not say anything outside of stated Russian doctrine. Nothing. Anything outside of that is an extrapolation on the part of others. His speeches are available on the net.

According to a Russian military doctrine stated in 2010, nuclear weapons could be used by Russia (Wiki):
in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened
Putin has already stated that this war is existential. So, why are people complaining? Deal with it.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

NRao wrote: Putin has already stated that this war is existential. So, why are people complaining? Deal with it.
Maybe because the ability to escalate using conventional means is skewed in favor of NATO and NATO is unwilling to accept Putin's definition of existential? IOW: As long as the war is outside of Russian borders, pre 2014 the term existential should not come into effect as per NATO.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Post by SSridhar »

ShauryaT wrote:Maybe because the ability to escalate using conventional means is skewed in favor of NATO and NATO is unwilling to accept Putin's definition of existential? IOW: As long as the war is outside of Russian borders, pre 2014 the term existential should not come into effect as per NATO.
I agree.
During Cold War, the conventional means were in favour of the Soviets (Fulda Gap et al.) and NATO relied on n-weapons, but the role has reversed now.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Deterrence

Post by Cyrano »

I'm not so sure it's reversed now. NATO has been underfunded and understaffed for decades since the going was good. Even while stoking up Ukraine since 2014, NATO didn't think of increasing combatants or piling equipment and munitions. EU countries already have stocks depleted, even US has very low production capacity compared to Ukraine's burn rate. Their combat units are designed largely for assymetric short sharp interventions, not for attrition warfare with artillery and in trenches.

Otoh, despite doomsday predictions, Russia has mobilised 500K+ troops, seems to have huge stockpiles of all kinds of stuff including missiles and has ramped up mil production. NATO generals stationed in Europe are on record recently that they are in no shape to take on Russia in the Ukraine theatre in a conventional war.

When Putin says this war is existential he is IMO saying that if he let's Ukraine maintain antagonistic positions and joins NATO, it will station NATO bases and missiles on Ukr territory, reducing reaction times for Russia to unacceptable levels. If Ukrain's threat (ening posture) becomes very potent and massive, which it was well and truly on the way to realising and is backed by NATO and EU as a member, then it does indeed combine offensive capability, hostile intent to inflict unacceptable damage on Russia. So from this perspective, it's an existential threat.

There is a second interpretation possible for Putin's words. He considers Donbass as Russia and since they have been integrated, it is Russia. There is enough evidence to conclude that Kiev regime wants to remove every last person of Russian ethnicity from Donbass either by making them flee or killing/enslaving them (look up the ethnicity laws Rada has passed, similar to the Nuremberg laws under Hitler). For Putin, an attack of such existential nature on Russian people of Donbass and Crimea is an existential attack on Russia itself.
There is enough discussion on mil forum threads on this. Just wanted to clarify the "existential" part.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Post by NRao »

ShauryaT wrote:
NRao wrote: Putin has already stated that this war is existential. So, why are people complaining? Deal with it.
Maybe because the ability to escalate using conventional means is skewed in favor of NATO and NATO is unwilling to accept Putin's definition of existential? IOW: As long as the war is outside of Russian borders, pre 2014 the term existential should not come into effect as per NATO.
While I agree, I think it is more intricate than that.

I think there were two factors that impacted Russian doctrine - which has gone through multiple versions (1980-2010).

First was their economy. Which was in an absolute funk in the 90s and even today, at $1.5 trillion, is not something to admire (per capita is an impressive $12,000). The skew you mention is due to the curve traced by their economy.

However, I feel the factor that impacted the doctrine, even more, is a gradual decline (1990-2010) in the trust towards the collective West. Although the recent occurrences (Merkel saying the Minsk Agreements were meant to arm UKR) are not reflected in the doctrine (yet?), their recent policies very clearly reflect it - Russians have said that their relationship with the West is broken and perhaps not repairable. The decline in trust showed up on the battlefield when Lavrov said that Russia will build a buffer equal to the capabilities of the longest threat.

Has that skew vanished? And, is the doctrine being enforced ... conventionally? ................

Then what happens if Belarus is threatened? Transnistria?
sanman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 22 Mar 2023 11:02

Re: Deterrence

Post by sanman »

North Korea testing nuclear tsunami torpedo drone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n7Zy6SWqzs

Is this likely fully homegrown? Otherwise, who proliferated tech to them for this?

And given past precedents, how long until Pakistan announces one of their own?
drnayar
BRFite
Posts: 925
Joined: 29 Jan 2023 18:38

Re: Deterrence

Post by drnayar »

sanman wrote:North Korea testing nuclear tsunami torpedo drone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-

Is this likely fully homegrown? Otherwise, who proliferated tech to them for this?

And given past precedents, how long until Pakistan announces one of their own?
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

A bit of serious reading is required by Indian decisonmakers and lay public alike on the issue of the missing thermonuclear security of the country in a milieu in which, even in government and the military, “opinions”, not informed views and perspectives, generally prevail. Hence, I am reprodcing below an article that the Indian army’s thinktank — Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi, requested me to write for the winter 2022 edition of its professional publication — CLAWS Journal. It is featured in pages numbered 25-43 of the recently released Journal issue.
Getting the Thermonuclear Bomb: Bharat Karnad
  • India has to conduct open ended tests to secure a modicum of such data, which will be infinitely more accurate than information derived from ICF and computer simulation.
  • A Two-tiered Nuclear Doctrine and Posture
  • Filling the soft strategic infrastructure void
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Deterrence

Post by Cyrano »

Quite a bit of stuff to chew on there...
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Post by RoyG »

ShauryaT wrote:
A bit of serious reading is required by Indian decisonmakers and lay public alike on the issue of the missing thermonuclear security of the country in a milieu in which, even in government and the military, “opinions”, not informed views and perspectives, generally prevail. Hence, I am reprodcing below an article that the Indian army’s thinktank — Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi, requested me to write for the winter 2022 edition of its professional publication — CLAWS Journal. It is featured in pages numbered 25-43 of the recently released Journal issue.
Getting the Thermonuclear Bomb: Bharat Karnad
  • India has to conduct open ended tests to secure a modicum of such data, which will be infinitely more accurate than information derived from ICF and computer simulation.
  • A Two-tiered Nuclear Doctrine and Posture
  • Filling the soft strategic infrastructure void
Rumours of DRDO-BARC team at Bordeaux are probably true.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by ramana »

Sorry but Karnad has been windbagging.
He hasn't thought through the full testing strategy.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by ramana »

His stance plays into US thinktanks campaigns. For example Tellis.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

ramana wrote:His stance plays into US thinktanks campaigns. For example Tellis.
Interesting. From my read It is Tellis, who has moved closer to Bharat's view. Bharat's view has not changed much but Tellis' has over the past two decades or so.

Added from Karnad article references:
[21] “We want to be India’s defence partner of choice for India: US Official”, The Hindu, November 3, 2022. Also refer Ashley Tellis’ statement to an Indian daily, see “Idea Exchange: India may be compelled to test again and when it does, it’s in the US interest to avoid penalising it”, Indian Express, October 31, 2022.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Post by RoyG »

ShauryaT wrote:
Good find. Thanks.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

A series of articles on ORF marking 25 years from Shakti series of tests.

25 Years Since Pokhran-Il:
Reviewing India's Nuclear Odyssey
drnayar
BRFite
Posts: 925
Joined: 29 Jan 2023 18:38

Re: Deterrence

Post by drnayar »

I think India will do well to test it but at an opportune moment , like say for example a major skirmish with China. All other pieces are in place and likely designs following through would be a matter of plug and "play" . What can uncle do except look the other way in such an instance ? .. my only hope is India develop the expertise and capability by that time and collect all the raw data required for simulation tests for future modifications. Test enough times as required !!
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by ramana »

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/ ... s-of-1998/

Manoj Joshi.
Lots of bs and half-truths. The story is more about politics than the rationale of the tests.
SAD and the guy is a distinguished fellow of ORF.
If after 25 years cant tell the story then he doesn't know it.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

Mr. Gupta opines on his knowings of the event.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by ramana »

Lots of irrelevant talk. Chengappa already stated that RG authorized the program in 1989 after the annual IAF exercise.

Also this interview confirms this guy was a mole in India for West. His questions to AK are not those of a journalist. He is seeking the modus operandi.
Anyway he hasn't told anything new to long-term Forum members.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

I was going to write, Ramana do not click, nothing there :) In fact, just not him 95%+ of the authors who write/talk on the issue are under inspiring to people who have followed things closely. I would even say RG delayed the order for too long. The matter was out in the open since at least 1985 and he would have known earlier than that and maybe even IG knew where Pakistan was.

Hyper inflated fears of the US and its reactions still plagues the system. If there are learnings if any, it should be about how to overcome these fears and plan to pre-empt and mitigate these reactions to further our capabilities and Security.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

Thanks to Amber G. Anil Kakodkar interview.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6005&p=2588931#p2588931
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Post by ShauryaT »

The Dynamics of an Entangled Security Dilemma: China's Changing Nuclear Posture
Starting around 2015, China has been accelerating the modernization of its nuclear arsenal, including expanding its forces. The U.S. Defense Department projects that China will have about 1,000 warheads by 2030. Even though still only a fraction of the current U.S. stockpile of 3,750 nuclear warheads, this would represent an almost five-fold increase in China's warhead stockpile in roughly a decade.119 Although China is on the cusp of developing the components of a nuclear triad, its sea- and air-based legs remain weak. China currently operates six Type 094 (Jin-class) SSBNs, and the U.S. Defense Department reported in 2022 that they “likely began near-continuous at-sea deterrent patrols.”120 China is developing a more advanced Type 096 SSBN. China has started fielding its next-generation submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the JL-3, on at least some of its SSBNs, and the JL-3 has the range to strike the continental United States from Chinese littoral waters.121 Even if the 096 submarines are quieter, the Jin-class reportedly struggles with noise levels and remains vulnerable to U.S. anti-submarine warfare. For this reason, Chinese nuclear expert Wu Riqiang even recommends that China should refrain from undertaking deterrence patrols because of their limited survivability and should use the Type 094 SSBNs as training platforms instead.122 In addition, the PLA Air Force has been reassigned a nuclear mission. China has operationally fielded the H-6N bomber and is developing an air-launched ballistic missile that could be effective to counter U.S. missile defenses.123 Because the bombers would have to venture far into the Eastern Pacific before they can reach the continental United States—and be highly vulnerable in transit—their contribution to the survivability of the Chinese nuclear arsenal against the United States will arguably be limited (though they could be used to strike regional targets such as Guam).
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9265
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Post by Amber G. »

ShauryaT wrote:Thanks to Amber G. Anil Kakodkar interview.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6005&p=2588931#p2588931
Thanks. The whole interview - recorded version - can be seen here.
Worth watching.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Post by RoyG »

Amber G. wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:Thanks to Amber G. Anil Kakodkar interview.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6005&p=2588931#p2588931
Thanks. The whole interview - recorded version - can be seen here.
Worth watching.
Anything new in it?
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9265
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Post by Amber G. »

^^^ Plenty of technical details ( especially for 1998 Tests - the inside story)
Interview is quite good. It is quite long and has many details (OTOH one can speed up the playback speed :))

AK was a key figure in 1974 (Pu Assembly),in 1998 Shakti test and even in later in Nuclear Deal (He was called 600 Lb gorilla by USA) so obviously the perspective was worth listening. He is retired now so does not speak for GoI but he does talk about personal views about deterrent etc.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by ramana »

Any gist on last part or we have to hear it?
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8243
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Deterrence

Post by disha »

ShauryaT wrote:Thanks to Amber G. Anil Kakodkar interview.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6005&p=2588931#p2588931
The khulke site is at best pathetic. So it will take time for you to go through the entire interview. It is almost 80-90 mins interview. Posting summary below.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8243
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Deterrence

Post by disha »

ramana wrote:Any gist on last part or we have to hear it?
Nothing new that this thread already does not know. Some summations from the rambling interview:

1. Dr. Kakodkar dwells on nuclear deterrence with the perspective that he asked for TN test. And Dr. Kalam asked repeatedly that the yield has to be constrained to save Khetolai. And one piece I did not know, that Dr. Kakodkar gives in writing that the TN Test yield will be constrained within 45 Kt. His view was that India is a reluctant nuclear power, and paraphrasing, the global situation warranted that India needs to have an advanced deterrent and a proven weapon capability. So the 15 Kt shot was a weaponized device.

Some time is spent on the discussing two-stage (confirmed by Dr. Kakodkar) TN shot. Also per Dr. Kakodkar it was designed yield of 200 kt dialed down to 45 Kt. There is some discussion about fizzle controversy (which happened in '74 as well). Dr. Kakodkar points out about the siesmic signal and points out the lacunae in the western world's analcysts debates about yield using siesmic signals without understanding the geology strata.

2. One of the deep sites was near Khetolai and to let villagers of Khetolai know that they need to vacate. This would be public information and hence for secrecy required only 4 hours of a priori update. Dr. Kakodkar acknowledges the patriotism of the villagers of Khetolai.

2. Sub-kiloton tests were integrated tests. Personally I always maintained that the "chotus" (euphemisms for the sub-kiloton tests) were more important from science and weaponization perspective than the other two.

3. Dr. Kakodkar points out 'Dil maange mor'. There is a desire of using deterance for peace, at the same time there is pragmatism.

One thing that the interview did not go into details was Dhruva.

All of the above is covered in

1. Raj Chengappa's Weapons of Peace
2. Dr. Kakodkar's Fire and Fury: Transforming India's strategic identity

Note:

1. Op Smiling Buddha-2 (Pokhran-2) was a very well executed plan given all the national and international challenges. Comes out very well in the interview.

2. For any detractors of Shakti-1 (the TN shot), please check out Astrosat.

3. The https://news3lv.com/features/video-vaul ... -baneberry Baneberry shot was used to qualify the shockwave code developed by BARC (Dr. Kakodkar/Dr. Gupta) and the same code was used to demonstrate the yield of Shakti-I.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7808
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Deterrence

Post by Anujan »

What is Astrosat and how does it relate to Shakti-1?
Post Reply