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.
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1438
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby vasu raya » 05 Apr 2017 02:23

After watching the experimental HSTDV release from the booster, I think they can release a Cluster bomb such as the CBU-105 using the Prithvi airframe simulating a profile not much different from a aircraft release.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 05 Apr 2017 02:45

Use a ballistic missile to allow the kill vehicle to quickly cover distance, once in the area, it is a Guided Hypersonic Kill Vehicle.
Depending on the range of the ballistic missile, this could be India's global strike system

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 05 Apr 2017 09:25

Gagan wrote:
shiv wrote:Gagan these should do but more than 1 will be needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYrE2EMzN4Y

This is what I meant by risking pilot and plane for a job like this.
The 20th century way of dealing with an ammo dump like this was Sudrshan/KAB-500 like TV guided bomb, one on each target. The pilot fires one off, then hangs around until the bomb hits the target, because he has to lase the target too.

What is needed is one fat ballistic missile with a few dozen conventional MIRVs/MARVs, with extremely small CEP, each of which will take out one bunker
Or an air delivered munition, that has half a dozen smaller bomblets, each targetable, and capable of penetrating such a reinforcement and flattening the whole ammo dump in just one pass of a strike group of fighters.

For a nation like Pakistan, should war break out, a strike by upwards of a 1000 projectiles, across the length and breadth of that nation, in a few hours should be planned for. All this without risking any soldier yet.

Imagine the deterrent impact of this...

For what is seen in that image - about 50 separate hardened overground entrances to what may be underground chambers - each 150 meters apart in a 1.5km x 1.5km area - I think a "single weapon" would be useless if it was a not a nuke. A single small nuke exploded accurately overground could probably create enough overpressure to crush the underground bunkers or at least render them unusable for the course of the war.

The problem would be what to do using conventional bums.

The air force and aircraft are meant to be used and I believe they will be used and not "saved" saying that it is so 20th century to send aircraft. We have no other option.

I think multiple ground penetrating bombs could do enough damage to access tunnels and wiring underneath to put the place out of action - but I think at least 7-8 direct hits from 500 kg bombs would be needed. I don't think Brahmos would be of much use unless it penetrates the ground and explodes and even then we would need to use 8-10 of them. 500 kg bombs from a height are pretty devastating general purpose things to mindlessly damage anything - but they need to be aimed right. Perhaps LGBs or glide bombs fuzed to explode only after they bury themselves in the earth. The assumption is damage for a radius of 100 meters around the bomb.

Delay fuzed 1000 lb (500 kg) bombs would cause much surface damage and some underground disruption and certainly spoil access to many of those bunkers at least for a useful duration during war. The other question is whether Durandal type weapons would be useful in causing underground facilities to be disrupted. As I see it we don't need to destroy everything in one attack. Simply restricting access to it by cratering it every alternate day and making it hazardous to approach with cluster bombs would be the same as total destruction - at least for the duration of a war.
Last edited by shiv on 05 Apr 2017 09:30, edited 1 time in total.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 05 Apr 2017 09:29

Those are not underground bunkers.
Those are above ground hardened bunkers protected by a few meters wide mud wall on all sides.
The curved ceiling might be half a meter thick possibly
Image
Image

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 05 Apr 2017 09:34

Meter thick walls are easily penetrated by 500 kg bombs as long as those bombs can be made smart enough to know where they hell they are going. That is a problem. But whether we hit them directly or simply stop access by cratering up the entire place so that earthmovers are needed for access and re cratering after 2-3 days may not make that much of a difference. After all there need to be access roads for vehicles to take the munitions somewhere. A cratering raid one day plus cluster bombs and a repeat raid to shoot up the earthmovers & workers

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 05 Apr 2017 09:34

The problem is they could designate one of them out of 50 to store, what they call "N" warheads.
There will probably never be 100% intel on exactly which one that bunker is.

The question is, how to take the whole ammo dump out superfast, and with minimum damage or risk to our own troops

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 05 Apr 2017 09:35

^^nukem

added later: A sudden thought. If we hit even one of those storage bunkers would we need to do anything more - considering the massive secondary explosions and fires that would keep people busy. That aside hitting one or two and then recce-ing the area would show what the Pakis are trying desperately to rescue and retrieve giving a hint about what they are desperate to save.

Bheeshma
BRFite
Posts: 592
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 22:01

Re: Deterrence

Postby Bheeshma » 05 Apr 2017 13:06

Speaking of deterrence there has been no news on Arihant test firing K-4/5 or Aridaman ?

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1438
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby vasu raya » 06 Apr 2017 01:33

Glide bombs with bunker busting warheads along with boosters or cruise missile engines extending the stand off ranges would be better suited, I think this comes close to the Gremlin's concept where Harpy sized UAVs are launched from a C-130 though they extend that to also have a return path and reuse of 20 times.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 882
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Deterrence

Postby RKumar » 06 Apr 2017 02:09

Bheeshma wrote:Speaking of deterrence there has been no news on Arihant test firing K-4/5 or Aridaman ?


There is no need to show case, its a strategic asset. Only those know, who need to know.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Deterrence

Postby ranjan.rao » 06 Apr 2017 02:11

RKumar wrote:
Bheeshma wrote:Speaking of deterrence there has been no news on Arihant test firing K-4/5 or Aridaman ?


There is no need to show case, its a strategic asset. Only those know, who need to know.

Aren't we supposed to inform SLBM launches to pakis as CBM? All land based BM tests certainly are informed to them

RohitAM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 21:28

Re: Deterrence

Postby RohitAM » 06 Apr 2017 03:46

I personally think that we should take all the CBM's that we have with Pakistan and tell them to shove them where the sun doesn't shine - and add a couple of big bombs to light them up...

But all in all, a rapid and incisive conventional first strike capability with the supersonic Brahmos would be a good idea - quick travel time, less detection and reaction time for the target, the simple classification of being conventional even if detected en route to target (unlike the Agni I, which might be construed to be a nuclear decapitation strike), not to mention the ability to do excessive kinetic damage on impact. Can we equip Brahmos with cluster munitions/smart bomblets for dispersal or with ground penetrating warheads? A first strike with ground penetration/delayed fuse warheads for direct damage to the target bunkers and underground facilities, and then a follow-up strike (based on intelligence inputs) with cluster munitions to make short work of anyone trying to access the facility, whether engineers or soldiers?

Also, using Brahmos to target Nasr and other tactical missile carriers/regiments of the Pakistani Army before they can be ready for launch, would be a far cheaper exercise to undertake than to see a mushroom cloud over one of our IBG's. The missile's rapid transition time to target means that the Pakistani's won't be able to cover much ground before the missiles are over their heads - and they don't have any AA capability to stop the Brahmos anyways in the first place.

PS: We should go nuclear, whether at the tactical or the strategic level, when it becomes absolutely imperative/unavoidable - not that I would mind seeing that mud-hole across our Western border to be turned into anything more than a wasteland in its entirety. That land and its populace has caused us enough grief to be MT nuked to oblivion several times over.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 882
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Deterrence

Postby RKumar » 06 Apr 2017 13:23

ranjan.rao wrote:Aren't we supposed to inform SLBM launches to pakis as CBM? All land based BM tests certainly are informed to them


AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN ON PRE- NOTIFICATION OF FLIGHT TESTING OF BALLISTIC MISSILES

http://mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreatiesDoc/PA05B0591.pdf

Article-1
Each Party shall provide to the other Party, advance Notification of the flight test that it intends to undertake of any land or sea launched, suface-to-suface ballistic missile

Article-3
Each Pafi shall issue appropriate NOTAMs and NAVAREAs through their respective authorities


So it seems, it is covered by the treaty but each party can skip info like type of missile or the range.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4893
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 06 Apr 2017 21:11

shiv wrote:That south India reference Shaurya was an ignorant one.
Shiv ji: This topic is OT. But, you can presume I am ignorant on the matter. What I stated was a statement of fact. Nothing less, nothing more. Stand by every word in the post.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 06 Apr 2017 22:08

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:That south India reference Shaurya was an ignorant one.
Shiv ji: This topic is OT. But, you can presume I am ignorant on the matter. What I stated was a statement of fact. Nothing less, nothing more. Stand by every word in the post.

I know I know. I would not expect you to make statements that you did not mean. But the same holds true for me too. That is why it is important to rebut a statement when it is wrong, or if there is a difference of opinion especially when the question is one of an assumption being made about what the other person (or group of people) think/s being posted as dogmatic fact.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4751
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 06 Apr 2017 22:18

Please re-read the previous news items. India has abandoned trying to take out Nasr batteries conventionally by using say Brahmos. 'It is deemed to be risky. What they are talking about is a comprehensive nuclear first strike to take out Paks war fighting ability. No escalatory ladder as it will mean deaths of millions of Indians which is deemed infeasible.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47334
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 07 Apr 2017 00:56

I think a revisit of the NFU part of the Indian MND is appropriate at this uncertain times.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4893
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 07 Apr 2017 03:05

^+1.

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 581
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: Deterrence

Postby Suresh S » 07 Apr 2017 05:32

Most important thing in India,s first strike is the paki nuclear war heads. Paki missiles, aircrafts, subs are important only if they are carrying any nuclear war heads. It is very unlikely we will ever know the exact location of a nuclear war head( by that I mean precise coordinates) and it may be deep underground or in a mountain cave where conventional strike just will not work (or even a nuclear strike may fail ). In my opinion only a first nuclear strike on all known locations of war heads is critical . Exact intelligence obviously is the key. conventional strike will not work in taking out their nuclear war heads. For example if we know that some warheads are stored at the sargodha airbase, you have to absolutely demolish that airbase leaving no chance of any survival of those warheads. A conventional strike just won't do it. Also our first strike has to be massive and simultaneous giving the pakis no chance to retaliate. A very likely scenario is inspite of successful strike and great intelligence some warheads will survive and our chinese enemies may further resupply the pakis.We will not be able to remove all risks inspite of a successful first strike.

I have thought about this subject quite a bit and the BP goes up thinking about why our so called leaders in the 80,s did not pre-emptively take these out when the problem was just beginning. Cancer is always easier to rx when attacked early.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47334
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 07 Apr 2017 06:54

Because there is no Paki made bomb. Its all Chinese provided bombs.
First version in 1986 and even in 1998 it was Chinese versions that were tested.
Even Pu version, whereas Khusab Pu reactor was operationalized in November 1998.

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 581
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: Deterrence

Postby Suresh S » 07 Apr 2017 06:58

Of course ramana we all know paki can not make even a sui(needle) . what bumb they gonna make.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 07 Apr 2017 09:16

RohitAM wrote:PS: We should go nuclear, whether at the tactical or the strategic level, when it becomes absolutely imperative/unavoidable - not that I would mind seeing that mud-hole across our Western border to be turned into anything more than a wasteland in its entirety. That land and its populace has caused us enough grief to be MT nuked to oblivion several times over.

Rohit,
I understand the emotion behind this post, but my feeling is that N weapons are only a last resort weapon.
This is true for all N weapons powers, and it is true of Pakistan as well.

Trust me when I say this, when push comes to shove, the Pakistani Army Officer corps will be VERY reluctant to use, what they call, N weapons. This is because there are sane elements there. There is full understanding that in the event of N weapon use by them, their nation, way of life, Pakistani punjab will cease to exist along with a substantial percentage of their population. It will be the end of Pakistan and everything that they represent.

Now, the question is, how to inflict pain and degrade war fighting capability and protect the Indian soldier in the meantime?
India needs to be smart and develop such a stand-off weapons capability, that a major chunk of Pakistan's offensive and defence capability, including command and control nodes, strategic sites, N weapons depots and forward deployed launch sites are taken out. All this will have to be conventional and it will have to be done in a matter of hours.

Not days, not a week, but hours.
This will have to be done in the face of extremely still resistance in the initial hours - Pakistan has sufficient air defence capability to deter any attacking airforce, and most of their air defensive and offensive capability will be at its peak in the initial hours. The losses in terms of men and equipment for any attacker will be large.

I know, the Indian armed forces have a long history of bravery, but having our soldiers climb mountains in batalik and tololing, in the cold, in the middle of the night, with the enemy merrily sitting above, strafing them with MMGs is something I take exception to. That is not the type of bravery I want my country's soldier to have to endure.
India has the technological means and the economic power (and now the political power) to overcome this challenge and fight a war in a 21st century way - kill the enemy with a massive conventional strike, even as they sit in their bunkers. That threat must be built, and deployed. India must then proceed to use that threat to return the favour to Pakistan

Pakistan's use of terrorism under the N umbrella , can be responded to with surgical and drone strikes under such an overwhelming conventional sword hanging over pakistan's neck.

But this is my 2 new paisa...

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2045
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 07 Apr 2017 18:53

most of the stand off weaponry is in place ..barring a few.. howitzers MBRLS Brahmos CLAWS PGMS .. india would not even need to cross the border to decimate most of paks infrastructure .. the abduls sitting in military cantonments will be dealt with in between by armed drones as well.Call in the americans to take off their nukes ..CIA has been itching to do that for long

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4893
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 07 Apr 2017 21:11

A Disruptive Nuclear China and India’s Imperatives Bharat Karnad

Thank the gods for someone has the wits to speak for the uncompromised Indian view point. I am tempted to post the whole article but it is a long one.

PS: ramana: Your assertion on China is not off the mark.

China – chief nuclear proliferator


China claims to have no more than 250-odd nuclear weapons. The US and Russian military intelligence agencies estimate the Chinese force strength at upwards of 800 nuclear weapons. Given the discrepancy in numbers I have suggested that the average of the estimates at the lower and higher ends should be the number for India to shape its strategic forces around. This number for the Chinese force strength is around 500-525 nuclear weapons. For India’s deterrence strategy to be viable would require a build-up to the 500 plus nuclear weapons level, and thereafter for the Indian forces to remain in lockstep with the Chinese counterpart forces in size and quality to ensure Beijing never has an edge.[25] Constant force augmentation is, in fact, permitted by the inherently “elastic” concept of “credible minimum deterrence” at the heart of the Indian nuclear doctrine.[26]

Nuclear deterrence is ultimately a mind game and China has the upper hand because its rulers have cultivated a reputation over the past 70 years of not taking guff from any country, not backing down in the face of military disadvantage, and of reacting forcefully and unpredictably to even the remotest provocation. It has always acted as a great power should and is now reaping the benefit of not being taken lightly by anyone. India’s record, on the other hand, is of New Delhi habitually accommodating and appeasing bigger powers, and backing down when pressed. In a nuclear contingency, therefore, the Chinese pronouncements will always carry more weight. Even so, conflict between India and China is unlikely to ever become nuclear sphere because both the countries believe in deterrence, not nuclear warfighting, and both adhere to the No First Use principle.[27] It won’t happen also because the A-5 and the Arihant can wreck prohibitive damage.


India and Pakistan

But inherent in the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons as between nuclear weapon states is the likelihood of a war of annihilation. Cut from the same social and cultural fabric, India and Pakistan have not waged and cannot in the future wage a war of annihilation owing to their organic links — “partitioned” families and communities, ongoing kith and kinship relations, and shared religion, social values, norms, cuisine, language, and ethos, which act as tremendous political constraints on the governments in the two states.[31] In the event, what has obtained in the subcontinent are limited “wars of manoeuvre” that fit the description of them by the late Major General D.K. Palit, Director, Military Operations during the 1962 War with China, as “communal riots with tanks”. This is because Indo-Pakistan military hostilities are time, space, and intensity constrained and fit the metrics of riots.[32] This does not preclude tough talk and nuclear bluff and bluster, which is the warp and woof of nuclear deterrence. Nor does it prevent India and Pakistan from taking precautionary measures, such as putting nuclear forces on alert in case of incidence of conflict — reasonable actions that are invariably misinterpreted by the West and feed its alarm about the “nuclear flashpoint”.[33] It is a line that Islamabad understandably propagates because it legitimates its nuclear deterrent[34] and, more importantly, guarantees US intervention in case of hostilities endangering Pakistan.

This does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons by Islamabad or any other country, as the UK government policy paper says, “to deter the most extreme threats to [its] national security and way of life, now and in the future.”[35] But such a threat has never been posed by India in the conflicts so far (1947-48, 1965, and 1999). The 1971 War was an exception to this rule, but only because the hideous political mismanagement of East Pakistan by the martial law regime in Islamabad compounded an even worse military strategy of stretching the defensive forces thin around the then East Pakistan border, which allowed small breaches in defence to widen, with the help of the rear area operations by the Bangaldeshi Mukti Bahini guerillas, into pathways for the Indian forces to race to Dhaka. In this respect, it may be recalled that the original directive by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to the army was to occupy a thin sliver of East Pakistan territory on which to install a “government in exile”, which was then expected to negotiate with General Yahya Khan in Pakistan.[36]

The public announcements by Pakistani officials during crisis, notwithstanding, the Pakistan army cannot, realistically speaking, afford initiating use of nuclear weapons because of the sheer disparity of resources and a very adverse “exchange ratio” – the ratio of the destruction absorbed to the destruction imposed on the enemy. The certain extinction of Pakistan as a state and social organism in return for the destruction of at most two Indian cities is not a prospect even the most callous Pakistan army leadership can stomach. If, as it is said, most countries have armies but the Pakistan Army has a state, losing Pakistan is therefore absolutely unacceptable to its army. As a professionally run force it understands only too well the dangers of fighting itself into a corner, or pushing India into unleashing a war to the finish that Pakistan cannot win. This last could happen if it follows through on its threat and attacks Indian armoured and mechanized army units with tacnuckes even if on its own territory. Doctrinally, India is geared to respond with “massive retaliation”. Excessive or not, credible or not, this is how India officially says it will respond in that situation. Will the Pakistan army leadership see this as an Indian bluff and risk the consequences? It is the uncertainty attending on the Indian response and its outcome that will stay Pakistan from breaking the seven decade-old “nuclear taboo” and chancing escalation by tripping the nuclear wire.[37] The Pakistan Army leadership has always been prudent and pragmatic, and sued for peace when the hostilities have gone badly on the battlefield. It is unlikely to venture recklessly into a nuclear exchange that could spell Pakistan’s doom.

That said, the predominance of tacnukes in Pakistan’s arsenal does give credence to its India-centric deterrence and raison d’etre of providing the Indian government with pause for thought before ordering an armoured offensive. Moreover, to the extent nuclear sabre-rattling unnerves New Delhi and keeps it from retaliating with military penetration and strikes in depth to Pakistan’s asymmetric use of terrorists across the Line of Control in Jammu & Kashmir, its tacnuke-heavy nuclear arsenal, from the Pakistani perspective, serves a purpose. But it is limited purpose considering that India holds the upper hand in the asymmetric/covert warfare sphere as well. Compared to India Pakistan has more numerous social, ethnic and political faultiness for New Delhi to exploit. This is a fact of life the Pakistan army can ignore at its own peril.[38] Nuclear weapons are supposed to confer a sense of unshakeable security and equanimity on countries possessing them. Should this happen to Pakistan, it will usher in durable nuclear peace on the subcontinent.

The negative fallout of the Pakistani tacnukes is that the Indian government and military can readily rationalize their inappropriate threat focus on a measly Pakistan and justify an otherwise obsolete Indian conventional force structure featuring excessively large armoured forces meant, it seems, to keep an influential combat arm in good humour.[39] No one seems to care that this keeps a predominantly industrial age Indian armed services from transforming themselves for fifth generation warfare centered on robotic systems and network-enabled armaments, and the defence budget from being more effectively utilized to meet the primary challenge posed by China.[40]

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47334
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 07 Apr 2017 21:33

ShauryaT, Right before the MND was announced I wrote in BRM in the article title "Quo Vadis -What Next?" that India needs around 400 nukes. I gave my rationale based on number of targets in both TSP and China and the need for pipeline as weapons will always be under refurbishment cycle due to various needs: electronics, conventional explosives degradation, topping off limited life components etc.
I had 100 in that category.

Unfortunately the Forum Webmasters have delinked the BRM articles so they are not readily available.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2045
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 07 Apr 2017 21:53

i dont believe the publicized number of indian nukes .. 8) .. a second strike full option against two nuclear powers needs upwards of a thousand warheads .

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4751
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 07 Apr 2017 22:21

Shaurya, you and your guru Karnad are like the mule that refuses to budge. Saying the same thing over and over again until nobody takes him seriously.
Karnad if I am not mistaken is a Kannada. I don't know what kind of shared religion, culture, language, cuisine, etc he shares with Pakistanis. He should talk to Punjabis and other north Indian non-Muslim communities to find out what 90% think of Pakistanis or even Muslims and also study what 90% Pakistanis think of Hindus and Sikhs. Wake up from coma. Indian policy is changing viz-a-viz Pak nuclear black-mail.
Last edited by ramana on 07 Apr 2017 23:33, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited. ramana

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4751
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 07 Apr 2017 22:41

Karnad has been repeating the same crap for the last 20 yrs (the last 10 yrs I have stopped reading what he writes).

1) India is a weak kneed power that only shivers - not withstanding Bdesh
2) H-bomb is a dud, all scientists are liars
3) China and US can only be tackled with megaton bombs. Since India has not tested these india is all crap
4) Indian scientists are all crap who produce only crap
5) The Indian establishment is crap - only Karnad knows everything
6) The problem with Pakistan is just "communal riots with tanks". There is nothing more to it.

And other assorted gems. I sometimes think which fellow in the Indian establishment takes him seriously.

In comparison to someone like KS he is not even a class five pass.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4751
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 07 Apr 2017 23:03

If you do a back of the envelop calculation from their reactors and not believe the crap that FAS puts out China should have enough material for bombs in the thousands. Being a dictatorship and having the second largest economy in the world they can maintain a large arsenal. A struggling Soviet Union had an arsenal in the tens of thousands. Unless a cold war like situation develops between India and China a nuclear arms race by India against China is impractical and undesirable at this stage. We should have enough resources to take out their main cities and economic centers in a second strike. China has to be tackled at present through other means. The primary focus should be on how to stop them from arming Pak. I don't think megaton bombs alone will deter them. It did not deter the Soviet Union from having a cold war with the Americans. The Americans reduced their arming of Pakistan only after they discovered that jihadi terror could hurt them. I haven't seen anything practical or path breaking from Karnad except for howling the same things.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47334
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 07 Apr 2017 23:36

supratik, it would be helpful if you limit your remarks at Karnad writings only.
No need to shoot messenger.

Aside:
Karanad might be saying China will stop arming TSP if they feel India can threaten them.
And they feel the threat with megaton bombs.
However A-5 also threatened them based on their reaction to the flight tests.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4751
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 07 Apr 2017 23:53

OK. Just exasperated by repeatation of the same thing year after year. My point is that I don't think a Communist dictatorship can be threatened with nukes alone. They have killed millions of their own people in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia. The present China has softened up a bit but it is still being led by a hardline dictatorship with little value for human life. Besides whether you deliver a megaton bomb or megaton yield with MIRV doesn't make a difference. Some other way has to be found. My personal opinion is to cut the cats paw instead of trying to kill the cat which is much more difficult.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4893
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 08 Apr 2017 00:07

Supratik wrote:Shaurya, you and your guru Karnad are like the mule that refuses to budge. Saying the same thing over and over again until nobody takes him seriously.
Karnad if I am not mistaken is a Kannada. I don't know what kind of shared religion, culture, language, cuisine, etc he shares with Pakistanis. He should talk to Punjabis and other north Indian non-Muslim communities to find out what 90% think of Pakistanis or even Muslims and also study what 90% Pakistanis think of Hindus and Sikhs. Wake up from coma. Indian policy is changing viz-a-viz Pak nuclear black-mail.
Supratik: If you want a response, you will have to make it non-personal and a discussion on policy and facts or at least opinions with some facts behind them - not just facts that are convenient to you or as you wish to see them. It is easy to see through the bias and if you cannot live with a differing view and have to get angry et al, then why post. At this time, there is nothing for me to respond for all you have shown is personal disdain without ANY understanding and broad presumptions about others. Incidentally, me and Karnad both have no choice but to speak to a Punjabi every day!!! But, seriously I do not need to speak to anyone on Islam or North India and have enough family relationships with the east and south. So please stop these personal remarks which are nothing but ignorant.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4893
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 08 Apr 2017 00:16

Shiv ji has been dutifully compiling the on the ground positions of the Chinese, their infra et al. I have always maintained on the LAC who is the hunter and the hunted is debatable with the Indian side maintaining a "defensive" position, which has recently been changed to "Active Defense". If one looks at the whole picture on the plateau, what is clear is it is Lhasa as the key node around which all other plans of China depends upon. It is pre-mature to say this but if India builds certain capabilities, it can really threaten China's control over Western Tibet. It is in building these conventional capabilities and the 17th corps is a start that we can fundamentally change the equations with China.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3487
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby KLNMurthy » 08 Apr 2017 00:28

ramana wrote:
KLNMurthy wrote:Seems to me comprehensive first strike capability against China should be a goal for us, over and above working with China's adversaries.

At any rate, our present passive policy is something which we will come to regret when it is too late.



This will make India enemy number one for China.
Right now its not.


Do we really know whether China ranks its enemies, and if so, what metric or metrics it uses for the ranking? I am not trying to be contentious, I just think it is better to drill into this question instead of thinking in emotive shorthand like "Enemy no. 1", which can just make me scared or happy depending on my personality and/or mood but doesn't give much useful information.

It makes sense that if we actively pursue the capability to inflict unacceptable harm on China, something is bound to change in China's attitude towards India. It would be helpful to ask what that "something " is, and exactly how it affects India.

For example IIRC China has nukes in Tibet targeting Indian cities already, and presumably has no thoughts of removing them as things stand today. If India puts in place nukes targeting Chinese cities, how will that change?

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4751
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 08 Apr 2017 00:44

You started the whole north-south thing and Karnad is frankly nauseating. Your position is similar to him. Personal things aside most non-Muslim north Indians don't feel any natural inclinations towards Pakistanis except Commies and those with Urdu Sher o Shyayari type inclinations and some older generation Punjabis or with ancestry in that part. We Bongs are technically north Indians, share similar language, customs, cuisine, even surnames with other north Indians (including Punjabis) and we don't feel what Karnad is saying we feel. At least not the majority. And I have lived all over north India. Have seen the opposite.

As I said trying to kill the cat is right now a pipe dream. Unlike the Soviet Union China follows a controlled market economy. So no chance of an economic collapse. No chance of dictatorship that kills its own people being deterred by nukes unless you want to go for an arms race which could be detrimental to India itself. Focus should firmly be on Pakistan. Nuclear posture against China should be defensive. Karnad is trying to distract. Why I don't know.

Karnad, whom you are quoting, has not explained how he will kill the cat.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Apr 2017 00:56

That statement about communal riot with tanks actually has a grain of truth in it.
The movies show a PC, sanitized version of things.
The sikhs will readily belt out the choicest of abuses, including everyone from close family relatives, involving religion and sacred things.
The pakistanis are even worse.

Supratik,
Again your #2 was true, it may not be true today, but we don't know, since we never proofed to full yield.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Apr 2017 01:02

The only way that China will stop arming Pakistan is if Pakistan ceases to exist. Period
If there is a Punjabistan left after that, the chinese will a) try to have it as a nuclear power and b) sell arms to it.

China will never stop.
The truth is, that India will continue to feel the pain, and india needs to return the favour by arming chinese adversaries.
This economic lead that our netas allowed them to have is really hurting India.
This is the 2nd big blunder after the, not testing n weapons on time.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4751
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Supratik » 08 Apr 2017 01:20

Gagan,

I don't believe a country like India can base it deterrence on a failed test. While there are many bad things in India it is not that bad. What we are talking about is actually fraud. Unless someone can provide me with concrete evidence, I believe our scientists. If you are talking of next gen bomb designs then I agree they are untested.

I have tried to game China in my mind but have come to a dead end at this point. I am not seeing an opening. Megaton bombs will have limited use becoz China is not doing anything directly. It is doing through Pak. US was easier to handle. Now Karnad may crap on the Indian establishment but even the US has failed in stopping China from using a third rate power like NK against it. If you believe NK is working on its own then it is even worse. I firmly believe the opposite of Karnad. Karnad wants us to focus on China but I think we should focus on Pak.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Apr 2017 01:23

Err
India has sites in eastern India targeting the lizard...

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10471
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Apr 2017 01:32

Nobody is going to use a N weapon really. Not India and not china.
It is a d$@k measuring contest which involves displaying scientific and military poweress.
Once a certain yield threshold is proofed, then scientifically we are at par.

Now the problem is, scaled and untested weapons which are deployed. They need backups with proofed heavy FBFs.
This has a bearing on missile range, on number of MIRVs carried. There is a reason why india missile ranges are so conservative, and their throw weights so large. 3000km with a 3 ton throw weight on a 2 staged 1.8 -2 m dia missile!
It is pretty frustrating sir.

But again deterrence is present, for china.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yayavar and 37 guests