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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47339
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 03 Sep 2017 21:42

I guess we are still supporting for low yield tests when the game just changed.

US wont nuke NoKo.

The current TN test is to prevent that.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 03 Sep 2017 21:48

ramana wrote:
US wont nuke NoKo.

The current TN test is to prevent that.

Not if the nuke is used on someone

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3827
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Deterrence

Postby Manish_Sharma » 03 Sep 2017 23:29

So pakistan and china get a testing site without fear of any sanctions.

While we're assured by people like this chidumbram guy, that we don't need more testing due to his genius :roll:

Pakistan has sizzling thermonuclear warhead, while we have just "assurance" of this self proclaimed genius chidumbrum guy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/02/north-k ... uters.html


H-bombs are also harder to develop.

The USGS initially reported a first tremor as a 5.6 magnitude, but later raised it to 6.3, while China's earthquake administration said it detected a 6.3 magnitude earthquake in Northeastern North Korea, calling it a "suspected explosion," Reuters reported.

The depth of that quake was recorded as zero kilometers, the China earthquake administration said, according to Reuters.


I congratulate the patriotic scientists and leadership of Pakistan and china for looking after their national interests.

We are the losers with fizzled warheads.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 486
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 03 Sep 2017 23:48

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

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Sep 2017 00:23

Press Statement on Nuclear Test conducted by DPRK
India deplores the nuclear test conducted by the DPRK this morning.

It is a matter of deep concern that DPRK has once again acted in violation of its international commitments which goes against the objective of the de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula, which has been endorsed by DPRK itself.

We call upon DPRK to refrain from such actions which adversely impact peace and stability in the region and beyond.

India also remains concerned about the proliferation of nuclear and missile technologies which has adversely impacted India’s national security.

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 582
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: Deterrence

Postby Suresh S » 04 Sep 2017 08:49

Shiv I have thought about a similar idea vis a vis shitistan, now that u bring it up . I personally think to take out shitistan with minimal risk of a nuclear strike against a Indian city Without using tactical or even a strategic nuclear weapon is almost impossible. Even with tactical nukes there will be some risk of nuclear retaliation but as they say fortune favors the brave. Someone in the future will need to do just this. Every suspected paki storage site for nuclear warheads will have to be taken our simultaneouly without any warning or giving them any chance to recover. Some of these may be in caves or underground bunkers we do not know but likely. Simultaneously every ballistic and cruise missile batteries have to be destroyed as well all there aircrafts. You can not discount the possibility of cheenies having supplied even sub launched nukes to pakis which will be the most difficult to take out.


All the nuclear warheads can not be taken out(with conventional weapons) with certainty without a tactical or even a strategic nuclear strike ( u want to avoid that to keep fallout and civilan casualties to a minimum) by India if we are to avoid getting hit with a nuclear strike from shitistan.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60187
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Deterrence

Postby Singha » 04 Sep 2017 09:05

who can predict what kind of leadership and thought process will be in Paki elites in 20, 30, 50, 100 years? we are forever stuck to them at the hip and hence all our plans need to keep this in mind, considering international treaties are hard to overthrow and nukular weapons have a shelf life of decades before being considered unreliable

I would say for TSP we need atleast 150 low yield weapons and 10 high yield TN

but the problem is not just TSP but Cheen

given their nature to launch sneaky initiatives , we have to withstand a first strike in one scenario. that implies some 150 high yield TN weapons spread among road mobile ICBMs and in the sea. and another 150 low yield anti-TSP weapons for 'tactical' use. its not option for india to be flattened and we registered a 'dharmic' protest by wiping out only 10 of the biggest cheen cities - cheen too must be flattened into the neolithic age in return. that means 150+ weapons have to be used in a counterstrike.

these have to be compact and reliable and TESTED.

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

ALL of the P5 have the 350-500kt variable yield TN weapons as the mainstay of their deterrent. unless we want to invent some new science or philosophy or believe in some delusions there is no other way.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 09:52

NoKo's "implosion" nuclear fission bomb and the TN . It appears that the same fission bomb may be the primary

Check the framed image on the wall in the lower photo. All deliberately placed for maximum effect. Since I have seen a lot of comprison between India and NoKo I must point out that we must be incompetent bums because we had so much of an issue making a heat shield for re entry. The NoKos have done it just "like that only" :D Easy tech mastered by smart people easily

Image

Image

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gyan » 04 Sep 2017 09:58

With USA, Russia and whole of Middle East busy in ....off course Islamic conflict. It's an ideal chance for us to test. Crude price is low, we have massive FE reserves and ideal reason. Sanctions will only be an economically helpful rap on the wrist. We were in far difficult position in 1998 when decimated Russia and powerful USA, China, Saudis were gunning for us. Maar do Hathoda loha garam hai.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 10:12

Gyan wrote:With USA, Russia and whole of Middle East busy in ....off course Islamic conflict. It's an ideal chance for us to test. Crude price is low, we have massive FE reserves and ideal reason. Sanctions will only be an economically helpful rap on the wrist. We were in far difficult position in 1998 when decimated Russia and powerful USA, China, Saudis were gunning for us. Maar do Hathoda loha garam hai.

I will repeat what I have said before.

Deterrence is about optics and what others see of us. Testing for bigger yields now only sends out the signal that we are not confident of our deterrent. So far the usual reasons I have seen are that we need to demonstrate bigger yields to be confident of our deterrent.

Why? Which countries are not deterred by smaller yield weapons? What precedents/theories can be cited to support the idea that nations that are currently not deterred by small yields will start getting deterred by larger yields.

Sorry. These are ass hole questions that I keep asking. I know they cause anger and frustration but my intent is not to provoke emotions but to provoke thought. They are not easy to answer, but they are there to be looked at if anyone is interested. Ultimately all I have seen so far are "personal opinions" or various people from forumites to "strategic experts"

If we are going to take the step of testing these questions will be asked before, or after.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby ldev » 04 Sep 2017 10:29

Singha wrote:that implies some 150 high yield TN weapons spread among road mobile ICBMs and in the sea. and another 150 low yield anti-TSP weapons for 'tactical' use. its not option for india to be flattened and we registered a 'dharmic' protest by wiping out only 10 of the biggest cheen cities - cheen too must be flattened into the neolithic age in return. that means 150+ weapons have to be used in a counterstrike.

these have to be compact and reliable and TESTED.

I would not say we need 1MT beasts but 350-500kt city busting weapons with light weight .....

ALL of the P5 have the 350-500kt variable yield TN weapons as the mainstay of their deterrent. unless we want to invent some new science or philosophy or believe in some delusions there is no other way.


I have posted this before but here again:

The S5 submarine which is being planned as a follow up to the Aridhaman class must be capable of two missions:

Ballistic missile launchers (at least 16 tubes)

And nuclear tipped cruise missile launches.

The USN Ohio class with a displacement of 19000 tons has 24 Trident missile tubes with each tube also capable of launching 7 Tomahawk cruise missiles for a total of 154 cruise missiles per submarine.

The S5 looks smaller, about 12,000 tons and so it must be designed to launch 16 K4/K5 missiles or 16x7 Nirbhay missiles which should have a range of 2500 kms and each carry a TN warhead of 300-350 kt. Each submarine therefore when armed with Nirbhay cruise missiles will have a lethal capacity of destroying 16x7= 112 targets with a combined power of 34MT-40MT. Two such submarines on patrol in the South/East China seas will be a very credible deterrent, one armed with 16 x MIRVed K4/K5 ballistic missiles for time sensitive targets and the other armed with 112 nuclear tipped cruise missiles to mop up the remaining targets.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 486
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 04 Sep 2017 10:45

@shiv:

Why did NoKo test for a bigger yield when 20kt should have sufficed ? As for us, yields required for credible deterrence change depending on several factors. One of these factors is what the adversary possesses. Prior to the recent NoKo developments, TSP possessed yields that were less than or equal to our yields. Both sides were capable of inflicting similar damage on the other (not city busting). So credible deterrence existed vis a vis TSP.

Vis a vis PRC, our arsenal only had a dissuasive capability: ability to inflict some damage in return for own obliteration. Whether PRC was willing to go for such a situation depended on the stakes for PRC in a given situation: building a road at Doklam probably did not mean high enough stakes. Getting Tawang may be high enough stakes if a Dalai Lama reincarnates there, etc. As of today, such a dissuasive capability vis a vis PRC exists. Our capability vis a vis PRC is however, not a deterrent capability.

With the high yield NoKo test and certain acquisition of high yield weapons by TSP (500+ kt vs our 20-25 kt), the balance of power changes. They acquire escalation dominance: their use of TNW, if countered by our 20 its will invite retaliation from their 500+ kts. The end result is the Jihadi state of TSP winning a nuclear conflict. This would tempt such a state to initiate an escalation sequence at the earliest: starting possibly with a much bigger version of 26/11. They can indulge in greater and greater provocations knowing full well that they dominate the escalation ladder.

This can be redressed if we have a proven several 100 kt yield, reestablishing parity. The big nuclear powers are not fools to have settled on several 100 kt as the optimum for deterrence. Time we rectified our policy of minimum deterrence, which eventually tends towards lack of deterrence and dependence on the U.S a la SoKo and other powerless states.

As for lack of confidence in our deterrent: better to acknowledge reality and take steps to consolidate the deterrent capability than to live away from reality with a false confidence that collapses the moment **** hits the fan.
Last edited by ramdas on 04 Sep 2017 10:49, edited 2 times in total.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 486
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 04 Sep 2017 10:46

@ldev: how do we achieve a 300-350kt yield without new testing ? The sooner we do this the better.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby ldev » 04 Sep 2017 10:59

ramdas wrote:@ldev: how do we achieve a 300-350kt yield without new testing ? The sooner we do this the better.


No easy answers there - it's all tied into India's geopolitical positioning. I don't think in the near future India is going to test unilaterally, no matter which Party is in power. So the only other option is a test by subterfuge and that is going to require the cooperation of at least one P5 country which in turn is going to demand it's own pound of flesh but I think that with present GOI, if they think it is necessary and it will become necessary to validate data, they will find a way of doing it.

Chandragupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 15:26
Location: Kingdom of My Fair Lady

Re: Deterrence

Postby Chandragupta » 04 Sep 2017 11:03

shiv wrote:
Gyan wrote:With USA, Russia and whole of Middle East busy in ....off course Islamic conflict. It's an ideal chance for us to test. Crude price is low, we have massive FE reserves and ideal reason. Sanctions will only be an economically helpful rap on the wrist. We were in far difficult position in 1998 when decimated Russia and powerful USA, China, Saudis were gunning for us. Maar do Hathoda loha garam hai.

I will repeat what I have said before.

Deterrence is about optics and what others see of us. Testing for bigger yields now only sends out the signal that we are not confident of our deterrent. So far the usual reasons I have seen are that we need to demonstrate bigger yields to be confident of our deterrent.

Why? Which countries are not deterred by smaller yield weapons? What precedents/theories can be cited to support the idea that nations that are currently not deterred by small yields will start getting deterred by larger yields.

Sorry. These are ass hole questions that I keep asking. I know they cause anger and frustration but my intent is not to provoke emotions but to provoke thought. They are not easy to answer, but they are there to be looked at if anyone is interested. Ultimately all I have seen so far are "personal opinions" or various people from forumites to "strategic experts"

If we are going to take the step of testing these questions will be asked before, or after.


I see that only in India do people make statements like 'Nuclear war is never an option', 'War is not an option', 'We must never ever ever ever have nuclear war'. But same people are okay with thousands of people being killed & country being bled over a larger period of time. I think as a nation we are darpoks, we want to keep procrastinating solving the problem in the hope that the problem will be solve itself just by natural causes.

All other major powers have made their people understand that nuclear war is just around the corner and they must prepare. Whereas our population whimpers at the thought of a nuclear war despite being bled profusely by Paki terror with Chinese backing.

Once a country completely puts an option off the table, they are out of the game. So instead of China/Pak deterring us, our people are themselves deterred. It is like being a man with a giant sword worrying about using it on the smaller man with a kitchen knife, thinking about how the smaller man with the kitchen knife is going to stab him.

If we are never thinking about nuclear war, then yes, no further testing is required. We can continue behaving like a non-nuclear weapons state. But if we want to play the game, we must think & truly believe that nuclear weapons are on the table as an option and that we will use them at some point in time against our adversaries. It is under this construct that we must look at our nuclear arsenal and analyse how many & how high yield we need it to be. In that case, testing for bigger yields is not for deterring other countries but ensuring that when (and not if) we use our nukes, the adversary must not be able to survive.

Or in other words, constantly sharpening our giant sword looking at the smaller man with the kitchen knife and thinking how many pieces you would like to cut him in.
Last edited by Chandragupta on 04 Sep 2017 11:06, edited 1 time in total.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby ldev » 04 Sep 2017 11:04

Huge range of possibilities of the actual yield of the DPRK test:
Image

DrDinD_im him‏ @DrDinD 10h10 hours ago
More
Replying to @ArmsControlWonk
It easily could be boosted fission at any of these levels. Not likely full staged h-bomb, agree?

Jeffrey Lewis‏Verified account
@ArmsControlWonk
Follow
More
Replying to @DrDinD
I don't think DPRK will boost that high. They are pretty stingy with Pu/HEU. Two-stage is more likely for most of range IMHO. (1/3)


If NoKo has actually successfully tested a 2 stage device, that is disturbing.....

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gyan » 04 Sep 2017 11:19

China is authoritarian state. We must have capability to kill each and every Chinese and Pakistani for credible deterrent. Today we need around 4000 fission bombs or we can stock say 500 Two megaton thermonuclear devices. If we don't have adequate mad max capability, then ten years down the road, China will cut off NE chicken neck with hostile Bangladesh. Then Pak can gang up to cut the other JK chicken neck. Our Civilization will have to fall back upto Ganga Yamuna.

We are loosing:-
Economic war of China against our domestic industries
Conventional military Competition
Nuke deterrent face off
Internal security challenges
Abrahamic religious challenges

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gyan » 04 Sep 2017 11:24

Chandragupta wrote:
I see that only in India do people make statements like 'Nuclear war is never an option', 'War is not an option', 'We must never ever ever ever have nuclear war'. But same people are okay with thousands of people being killed & country being bled over a larger period of time. I think as a nation we are darpoks, we want to keep procrastinating solving the problem in the hope that the problem will be solve itself just by natural causes.

All other major powers have made their people understand that nuclear war is just around the corner and they must prepare. Whereas our population whimpers at the thought of a nuclear war despite being bled profusely by Paki terror with Chinese backing.

Once a country completely puts an option off the table, they are out of the game. So instead of China/Pak deterring us, our people are themselves deterred. It is like being a man with a giant sword worrying about using it on the smaller man with a kitchen knife, thinking about how the smaller man with the kitchen knife is going to stab him.

If we are never thinking about nuclear war, then yes, no further testing is required. We can continue behaving like a non-nuclear weapons state. But if we want to play the game, we must think & truly believe that nuclear weapons are on the table as an option and that we will use them at some point in time against our adversaries. It is under this construct that we must look at our nuclear arsenal and analyse how many & how high yield we need it to be. In that case, testing for bigger yields is not for deterring other countries but ensuring that when (and not if) we use our nukes, the adversary must not be able to survive.

Or in other words, constantly sharpening our giant sword looking at the smaller man with the kitchen knife and thinking how many pieces you would like to cut him in.


Indian people are not cowards. Rich dynasty foisted by UK were cowards till they produced Indira Gandhi. Now we again have line of cowards who can only kick their own people and surender at every international forum. Let's see what Modi does.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gyan » 04 Sep 2017 11:27

We have a Ch***ya like Musharaff attacking India and threatening to use nukes and we were ONLY DEFENSIVE against a nation 1/10th our SIZE.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47339
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2017 11:29

Idev, none of those experts know the basics. All revealed to be nanga.

Chandragupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 15:26
Location: Kingdom of My Fair Lady

Re: Deterrence

Postby Chandragupta » 04 Sep 2017 11:30

Gyan wrote:
Chandragupta wrote:
I see that only in India do people make statements like 'Nuclear war is never an option', 'War is not an option', 'We must never ever ever ever have nuclear war'. But same people are okay with thousands of people being killed & country being bled over a larger period of time. I think as a nation we are darpoks, we want to keep procrastinating solving the problem in the hope that the problem will be solve itself just by natural causes.

All other major powers have made their people understand that nuclear war is just around the corner and they must prepare. Whereas our population whimpers at the thought of a nuclear war despite being bled profusely by Paki terror with Chinese backing.

Once a country completely puts an option off the table, they are out of the game. So instead of China/Pak deterring us, our people are themselves deterred. It is like being a man with a giant sword worrying about using it on the smaller man with a kitchen knife, thinking about how the smaller man with the kitchen knife is going to stab him.

If we are never thinking about nuclear war, then yes, no further testing is required. We can continue behaving like a non-nuclear weapons state. But if we want to play the game, we must think & truly believe that nuclear weapons are on the table as an option and that we will use them at some point in time against our adversaries. It is under this construct that we must look at our nuclear arsenal and analyse how many & how high yield we need it to be. In that case, testing for bigger yields is not for deterring other countries but ensuring that when (and not if) we use our nukes, the adversary must not be able to survive.

Or in other words, constantly sharpening our giant sword looking at the smaller man with the kitchen knife and thinking how many pieces you would like to cut him in.


Indian people are not cowards. Rich dynasty foisted by UK were cowards till they produced Indira Gandhi. Now we again have line of cowards who can only kick their own people and surender at every international forum. Let's see what Modi does.


But how many of us today would want an abrupt radioactive end to Pakistan? Not many. May be it is because of our Hindu ethos but we lack the killing instinct. Even after a terrorist attack of the scale of 26/11, how many Mumbaikars (leave the rest of the country) wanted us to nuke Pakistan?

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9454
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 04 Sep 2017 11:33

Gyan wrote:China is authoritarian state. We must have capability to kill each and every Chinese and Pakistani for credible deterrent. Today we need around 4000 fission bombs or we can stock say 500 Two megaton thermonuclear devices. If we don't have adequate mad max capability, then ten years down the road, China will cut off NE chicken neck with hostile Bangladesh. Then Pak can gang up to cut the other JK chicken neck. Our Civilization will have to fall back upto Ganga Yamuna.

We are loosing:-
Economic war of China against our domestic industries
Conventional military Competition
Nuke deterrent face off
Internal security challenges
Abrahamic religious challenges

500 MT nuclear bombs will not finish EVERY Chinese not even EVERY Chinese on their east cost where majority of their population lives.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9454
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 04 Sep 2017 11:37

Gyan wrote:We have a Ch***ya like Musharaff attacking India and threatening to use nukes and we were ONLY DEFENSIVE against a nation 1/10th our SIZE.

And what do we do when Musharaff makes another threat to use nukes?
1. Nuke bakistan.
2. Nuke Musharaff.
3. Threaten to nuke Bakistan.
4. Threaten to nuke Musharaff.
5. Do nothing let him bark.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gyan » 04 Sep 2017 11:46

When he attacked Kargil, even for limited conflict, we should have declared 50km within PAK from border/ LAC as area of conflict and bombed the relevant targets.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gyan » 04 Sep 2017 11:48

pankajs wrote:
Gyan wrote:China is authoritarian state. We must have capability to kill each and every Chinese and Pakistani for credible deterrent. Today we need around 4000 fission bombs or we can stock say 500 Two megaton thermonuclear devices. If we don't have adequate mad max capability, then ten years down the road, China will cut off NE chicken neck with hostile Bangladesh. Then Pak can gang up to cut the other JK chicken neck. Our Civilization will have to fall back upto Ganga Yamuna.

We are loosing:-
Economic war of China against our domestic industries
Conventional military Competition
Nuke deterrent face off
Internal security challenges
Abrahamic religious challenges

500 MT nuclear bombs will not finish EVERY Chinese not even EVERY Chinese on their east cost where majority of their population lives.


Then 1500x2MT devices. I think once Arun Vishkarma proposed something similar or equivalent. Also apart from instant deaths you have consider death due to radiation poisoning over 1 to 5 years.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9454
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 04 Sep 2017 11:52

Gyan wrote:When he attacked Kargil, even for limited conflict, we should have declared 50km within PAK from border/ LAC as area of conflict and bombed the relevant targets.

Please don't change the question. Your original post was not about Kargil or Mumbai or anything else. It was very specific on Musharraf's rants. Let me repost the choices along with your original post.
Gyan wrote:We have a Ch***ya like Musharaff attacking India and threatening to use nukes and we were ONLY DEFENSIVE against a nation 1/10th our SIZE.

And what do we do when Musharaff makes another threat to use nukes?
1. Nuke bakistan.
2. Nuke Musharaff.
3. Threaten to nuke Bakistan.
4. Threaten to nuke Musharaff.
5. Do nothing let him bark.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9454
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 04 Sep 2017 11:59

Gyan wrote:
pankajs wrote:500 MT nuclear bombs will not finish EVERY Chinese not even EVERY Chinese on their east cost where majority of their population lives.


Then 1500x2MT devices. I think once Arun Vishkarma proposed something similar or equivalent. Also apart from instant deaths you have consider death due to radiation poisoning over 1 to 5 years.

1500x2MT still will not kill EVERY Chinese though the China as we know it will be finished much before that.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gyan » 04 Sep 2017 12:13

pankajs wrote:
Gyan wrote:When he attacked Kargil, even for limited conflict, we should have declared 50km within PAK from border/ LAC as area of conflict and bombed the relevant targets.

Please don't change the question. Your original post was not about Kargil or Mumbai or anything else. It was very specific on Musharraf's rants. Let me repost the choices along with your original post.
Gyan wrote:We have a Ch***ya like Musharaff attacking India and threatening to use nukes and we were ONLY DEFENSIVE against a nation 1/10th our SIZE.

And what do we do when Musharaff makes another threat to use nukes?
1. Nuke bakistan.
2. Nuke Musharaff.
3. Threaten to nuke Bakistan.
4. Threaten to nuke Musharaff.
5. Do nothing let him bark.


My post also had the term DEFENSIVE in caps. Hence by being defensive we gave meaning to his rants. You are trying to use word manipulation rather meeting the point because it seems as per you we should do nothing.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gyan » 04 Sep 2017 12:14

pankajs wrote:
Gyan wrote:
Then 1500x2MT devices. I think once Arun Vishkarma proposed something similar or equivalent. Also apart from instant deaths you have consider death due to radiation poisoning over 1 to 5 years.

1500x2MT still will not kill EVERY Chinese though the China as we know it will be finished much before that.


I am sure as per your calculations Chinese will be celebrating the fire works after 1500x2 MT nukes are dropped on them but I don't intend to be drawn further into your pacifist agenda.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9454
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 04 Sep 2017 12:59

Gyan wrote:
pankajs wrote:1500x2MT still will not kill EVERY Chinese though the China as we know it will be finished much before that.


I am sure as per your calculations Chinese will be celebrating the fire works after 1500x2 MT nukes are dropped on them but I don't intend to be drawn further into your pacifist agenda.

Sure you don't want to be drawn into my "pacifist agenda" because you are unable to tell us how 1500x2MT will kill EVERY Chinese. I am posting your original post in full. Not even a comma has been added or deleted. I have just highlighted the relevant portion.
Gyan wrote:China is authoritarian state. We must have capability to kill each and every Chinese and Pakistani for credible deterrent. Today we need around 4000 fission bombs or we can stock say 500 Two megaton thermonuclear devices. If we don't have adequate mad max capability, then ten years down the road, China will cut off NE chicken neck with hostile Bangladesh. Then Pak can gang up to cut the other JK chicken neck. Our Civilization will have to fall back upto Ganga Yamuna.

We are loosing:-
Economic war of China against our domestic industries
Conventional military Competition
Nuke deterrent face off
Internal security challenges
Abrahamic religious challenges

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9454
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 04 Sep 2017 16:17

http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html
NUCLEAR WEAPON EFFECTS from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the present and beyond: a broad-gauged analysis with new information regarding SIMULTANEOUS DETONATIONS and Firestorms:
Let's start with what is widely known [when detonation occurs at an altitude to maximize 3.5+ psi destruction]. A single 20 Kt nuclear weapon would produce 8.04 square miles of 3+ psi destruction. From this we can easily calculate that detonating eight individual 20 Kt weapons would produce 64 square miles of 3+ psi destruction [64.3=8x8.04]. This is the same area of 3+ psi destruction that would occur upon detonating one 475 Kt thermonuclear weapon.

On this basis, we are able to know that, at the absolute minimum, eight individual low-tech 20 Kt nuclear weapons are capable of producing a level a level of destruction equal to a large thermonuclear weapon (475 Kt). Parenthetically, it is well to note that 58% of Russia's strategic nuclear weapons are of about this size (500-550 Kt), and 87% of the thermonuclear weapons in the U.S. strategic arsenal are smaller than 475 Kt.

Now let's go a step further and consider the potential consequences of SIMULTANEOUSLY DETONATING a pattern of eight nuclear weapons. I have not seen simultaneous nuclear air bursts discussed, or even hinted at, in the open literature, but too many of their effects are too obvious to ignore them, as can be seen in the "M" (Multiple Blasts) command in Nukefix.

When eight low-tech 20 Kt nuclear weapons are detonated simultaneously in an encirclement pattern (5 mile radius, 4.3 miles between zero points in a circle) in a high population density urban area, at least as much destruction would tend to be produced as with a single one megaton thermonuclear weapon. The reason for this is firestorms and the interaction of blast forces.
Takeaway:

Scenario 1>> 8/*low-tech* 20Kt used individually and results added up >> 8/*low-tech* 20 Kt ~ 1/475 Kt thermo-nuke
Scenario 2>> 8/*low-tech* 20Kt used simultaneously in an encirclement pattern for optimum effect >> 8/*low-tech* 20 Kt ~ 1/1Mt thermo-nuke

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9454
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 04 Sep 2017 16:32

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects1.shtml
The Energy from a Nuclear Weapon
In evaluating the destructive power of a weapons system, it is customary to use the concept of equivalent megatons (EMT). Equivalent megatonnage is defined as the actual megatonnage raised to the two-thirds power:

EMT = Y pow(2/3) where Y is in megatons.

This relation arises from the fact that the destructive power of a bomb does not vary linearly with the yield. The volume the weapon's energy spreads into varies as the cube of the distance, but the destroyed area varies at the square of the distance.

Thus 1 bomb with a yield of 1 megaton would destroy 80 square miles. While 8 bombs, each with a yield of 125 kilotons, would destroy 160 square miles. This relationship is one reason for the development of delivery systems that could carry multiple warheads (MIRVs).
Takeaway:

8/125 Kt nuke would destroy 160 sq. Miles i.e DOUBLE the destruction caused by 1/1 Mt nuke that would destroy 80 sq. miles. This is just the numbers added up not considering the combined effect of using 8/125 Kt simultaneously and in an optimum pattern.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 16:37

pankajs wrote:http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html
Takeaway:

Scenario 1>> 8/*low-tech* 20Kt used individually and results added up >> 8/*low-tech* 20 Kt ~ 1/475 Kt thermo-nuke
Scenario 2>> 8/*low-tech* 20Kt used simultaneously in an encirclement pattern for optimum effect >> 8/*low-tech* 20 Kt ~ 1/1Mt thermo-nuke


here is an illustrative image of a similar concept that I had created a few years ago
http://s1116.photobucket.com/user/benne ... y.jpg.html

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 18:02

Chandragupta wrote:I think as a nation we are darpoks, we want to keep procrastinating solving the problem in the hope that the problem will be solve itself just by natural causes.

:D I would be wary of using the word darpok in this context because Indians could actually be darpoks in the following manner.

Indians are darpok in thinking that no one is scared of their nukes because others' nukes have higher yield. And the darpokness goes further in imagining that Pakis and Chinese will also be darpoks like Indians and simply get scared if we increase the demonstrated yield of out nukes.

This form of darpok-panti is the darpokest of all because it is based on shaky assumptions and assumes a solution that would reassure us out of our darpok state would scare our adversaries- who may actually die laughing.

In fact if I was Paki I would laugh my guts out at ideas like "Thousands of 1 or 2 megaton nukes to kill all Pakis/Chinese" because such a darpok nation would not actually use any of those weapons and would remain scared to the last moment.

But I agree we are a totally darpok nation. +1 for that.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 18:20

@ramdas
China need not be scared of India at all because we have clearly stated that we will not use nukes unless we are nuked. So there is no business of "dissuasion" versus "deterrence". As long as China does not nuke us we will not nuke them. This statement would be true whether we have 110 x 20 kiloton nukes or 500 x 1 megaton nukes. And none of this will save India from "obliteration". The fear obliteration of India is only Indian fears, not Chinese capability or intent. It cannot be stopped by larger nuclear yields or more weapons. If you like we can argue about what your word "obliteration" means. While I doubt that India can be obliterated - I think the destruction of 10 Indian cities is bad enough. Those 10 cities will be toast whether we have puny 20 kt or huge 500 kiloton as our bombs.

It is only some strange imaginary idea that people have that others are scared by the size of our nukes. They are not. They are only intending to scare us with their nukes rather than being scared of our nukes. So our deterrence depends on whether they are scared of our nukes at all.

You (and others) are saying that they will be "more scared" if our nukes are bigger. This is your assumption. Maybe you feel more scared of bigger nukes and I am a darpok who is scared of even small nukes. Personal fears. How scared they are about our nukes depends entirely on how much they are willing to lose. They are not revealing that - and you have done some guesswork (Tawang/Dalai Lama etc) . But that is only your guesswork and I could do different guesswork from you and say "No Chinese are scared of what I say"

There is nothing logical here. There is nothing logical about wanting to kill every single Chinese and there is nothing logical about Chinese "willing to lose" 10 cities but unwilling to lose 20 cities. All assumptions. Let us see one single Chinese statement that they are willing to lose one city to a nuclear attack. You won't find it. How does one guess that they are fine with losing X cities but not fine with Y. These are not easy questions but they can simply be brushed away by one's favourite assumptions and fears

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 18:26

Gyan wrote:China is authoritarian state. We must have capability to kill each and every Chinese and Pakistani for credible deterrent. Today we need around 4000 fission bombs or we can stock say 500 Two megaton thermonuclear devices. If we don't have adequate mad max capability, then ten years down the road, China will cut off NE chicken neck with hostile Bangladesh. Then Pak can gang up to cut the other JK chicken neck. Our Civilization will have to fall back upto Ganga Yamuna.

We don't have enough fissile material for those numbers so your fears are not going to get assuaged.

Gyan wrote:We are loosing:-
Economic war of China against our domestic industries
Conventional military Competition
Nuke deterrent face off
Internal security challenges
Abrahamic religious challenges

Sure. If you say so.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3521
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Deterrence

Postby Karthik S » 04 Sep 2017 18:33

Need to change the discourse of the country, since pak was carved, everyone has been comparing with them, we feel proud when people say India is X times Pak in A, B, C. Now the discourse should be we need to compete against China, where we stand viz China. That will be a start.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Sep 2017 18:46

shiv wrote:Does Korea have a deterrent?
No - not completely, China has a deterrent which prevents S.Korea and Japan and in turn the US from invading DPRK. Achieves China's regional aims yet keeps the violence or threat of such away from its lands. At the end of the day, it is the Koreans as a people who will suffer the most along with Japan. DPRK did not have a real capability to unleash conventional war levels of violence on the general population of S. Korea or Japan, without nuclear devices. S. Korea or Japan may be deterred but not the US, with the current levels of capability and numbers fielded. These learnings will proliferate to Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto had personally hand delivered a CD of Pakistan nuclear designs in the 90's to DPRK. She carried a CD with her personally.

The days of the US forcing this issue in the name of "democracy" or the threat of the iron curtain are long over. Trump may bark but shall not bite. PRC-DPRK treaty calls for mutual defense but only if DPRK is attacked. PRC's job is to ensure that DPRK does not attack and does not get attacked. So does Korea have a deterrent, a partial one in the making.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 486
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramdas » 04 Sep 2017 19:15

@shiv: Can you explain why DPRK felt the need for high yield when 20 kt should have sufficed for deterrence ?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 19:44

ramdas wrote:@shiv: Can you explain why DPRK felt the need for high yield when 20 kt should have sufficed for deterrence ?

Two points
1. I cannot speak for Korea or explain what Koreans do
2. I don't think what NoKo does is necessarily relevant for India

In fact - other than what is published officially I have no idea what India has or does not have, but I will question what I believe are assumptions that do not take reality forward to the fullest degree. I also have some insight into (open source) physics of nukes and what can be done and what can't be done and how reliable or unreliable something might be when not tested. I will keep off that discussion

If I was a leader in India (or in any other country - and I speak as myself and only for myself here) I would not judge the threat of someone else's nuke based on whether it is 20 kt or 200 kt. Both would remain a scary threat to me and my people. I am deterred by either or both.

So what would I do to scare the other guy? How would I know if he is not scared of 20 kt but scared of 200 kt? I have to make some assumptions here and ask if my enemy nation would be more happy with 100,000 deaths and less happy with 500,000 deaths. I would also have to ask what would cause happiness if there were 100,000 dead in Peking and why they would be happy with that number. For that I need to ask about how cities work, their resources and how they cope with disasters. If I can reach a ballpark estimate of what hurts my enemy - then I know how much I need to damage him to scare him. If he is not scared of 100,000 dead from my 20 kt nuke I would be wary of assuming that he would start worrying only with 500,000 deaths from 200 kt. The mad bugger may not be bothered at all in such cases - and nukes simply will not scare him. When a nuke hits a city no one knows how many are dead and how many have died so I would not know whether to be happy or sad. No one knows whether it was 20 kt or 200 kt. But even 1 megaton will not destroy an entire city. How can I guess what the other guy thinks?

There is a video documentary where old Amreeki cold warriors are interviewed, from a time when the US thought they could eliminate every single nuke in the USSR. Their debates eventually went on to the US President asking that if the US did a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the USSR with thousands of nukes - would it guarantee that the USSR would not be able to retaliate with even ONE nuke on the US. No one could give that guarantee. In that era - even one nuke on the US was sufficient threat to serve as deterrent despite massive US superiority in numbers and yields. The US admitted back then that losing one city was too costly after a pre emptive US strike - and they did not move forward.

On what basis do we judge that the other guy is willing to lose X but not Y? That is what deterrence is about.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baikul, Brad Goodman, srin and 23 guests