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.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10578
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 23 Feb 2017 01:36

Pakistan needs to be allowed to stew in its own juices.
They are exporting islamic terror into Xinjiang too - Hafiz is also part of that move.
The pak fauj, like experienced rent gal, entices its victims in, spreads its STD to them, and then makes videos of their meet for later blackmail.

They have massa and ouiropeans this way, China will be no different.
Pakistan needs more islam, the whiskey swilling Generals in Pindi and Lahore need to face the love and affection of islam. All these Rabb-a-dubb is their lashing out because of fear of encirclement by islamic yahoos.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10578
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 23 Feb 2017 01:39

NoKo claims a TN device.
They probably have flirted with an FBF sloika.
This will make its way into Pakistan's arsenal sooner or later. It will probably be big and unweildly

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4940
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 23 Feb 2017 02:02

sudeepj wrote:If there is a remote indication of an MT device with Pak, we should not wait a second and go ahead with our test. That regime simply cant be trusted with such a genocidal device while we dont have the devices to return the favor. On the other hand, absent Pak advances, for the same reason, we should not *demonstrate* such a device because at the KT level, we have the strategic advantage. We can still take them on from behind a BMD and our capability to absorb a one-sy. Once Pak is reduced and Chin needs to be deterred, we should go ahead and demonstrate the device.
A bad, bad idea to be benchmarking India to Pakistan actions and sly behaviors and dependence on any type of BMD for deterrence should be a no, no.

ramana is right, the need is to break out of the logjam, not an impossible task, but India needs to demonstrate some chutzpah!

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10578
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 23 Feb 2017 02:08

If India tests, it will be on its own terms.
This was what was done during both tests series. Completely out of the blue.

Pakistan is a very poor benchmark.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1050
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 23 Feb 2017 02:53

ShauryaT wrote:
sudeepj wrote:If there is a remote indication of an MT device with Pak, we should not wait a second and go ahead with our test. That regime simply cant be trusted with such a genocidal device while we dont have the devices to return the favor. On the other hand, absent Pak advances, for the same reason, we should not *demonstrate* such a device because at the KT level, we have the strategic advantage. We can still take them on from behind a BMD and our capability to absorb a one-sy. Once Pak is reduced and Chin needs to be deterred, we should go ahead and demonstrate the device.
A bad, bad idea to be benchmarking India to Pakistan actions and sly behaviors and dependence on any type of BMD for deterrence should be a no, no.

ramana is right, the need is to break out of the logjam, not an impossible task, but India needs to demonstrate some chutzpah!


I understand the desire, but I dont understand the mechanics of how an MT test will result in us breaking out of the logjam? Please consider illustrating. In any conflict, the enemy gets a vote too. If we get an MT capability while Pak is stuck at a (demonstrated) KT capability, that gives us coercive power. Considering the premise that a conservative radiation implosion design is easy to achieve, (more so with collaboration with Chin), If Pak follows with an MT test, it will simply make the logjam even more rigid. Therefore, its better to reduce Pak before taking up the MT posture.

[* Unless the status quo with Chin changes. In which case, testing becomes desirable]

Also, its not a question of chutzpah, simply taking the analysis one step further and looking at possible enemy responses and how that will influence the standoff.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4956
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 23 Feb 2017 03:12

I'd like to shift the discussion away from traditional deterrence to cultural deterrence.

When some of our most sacred ancient treasures are wiped off the map there should be some repayment to the Islamic world.

Would hitting just Pakistan be enough?

When we talk about defending the state of India, we are really defending its dharmic heritage (Bharat).

There is no such thing as absorbing nuclear punches in a full exchange.

The state will collapse and be at the mercy of China and the Western powers.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1050
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 23 Feb 2017 04:11

India will hardly collapse if a 20KT weapon goes off over, say, Jodhpur, or Bhatinda. (Both important military hubs) or even Delhi. It *will* collapse if a 3 MT weapon goes off over Delhi or Mumbai. In one shot, a vast percentage of our economic power, bureaucratic elite, economic elite, cultural elite etc. will be wiped out. A 20KT weapon over Delhi means about 150-300K casualties. It will be terrible, but its still a loss that Delhi would recover from, let alone India. But a 3MT weapon over Delhi/Mumbai means almost 10-15 million immediate casualties. The size of zone where thermal radiation would cause 3rd degree burns will extend from Noida to Gurugram.

To pretend that KT weapons are same as MT weapons is something that is frequently peddled, but is completely unbelievable to me.

I think we should have such weapons simply because the rest of the world has it. But if demonstrating these weapons means that PakJihadiMil complex ALSO ends up with them, then it actually ties down my own response to almost entirely 'non-kinetic' options.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4956
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 23 Feb 2017 06:08

sudeepj wrote:India will hardly collapse if a 20KT weapon goes off over, say, Jodhpur, or Bhatinda. (Both important military hubs) or even Delhi. It *will* collapse if a 3 MT weapon goes off over Delhi or Mumbai. In one shot, a vast percentage of our economic power, bureaucratic elite, economic elite, cultural elite etc. will be wiped out. A 20KT weapon over Delhi means about 150-300K casualties. It will be terrible, but its still a loss that Delhi would recover from, let alone India. But a 3MT weapon over Delhi/Mumbai means almost 10-15 million immediate casualties. The size of zone where thermal radiation would cause 3rd degree burns will extend from Noida to Gurugram.

To pretend that KT weapons are same as MT weapons is something that is frequently peddled, but is completely unbelievable to me.

I think we should have such weapons simply because the rest of the world has it. But if demonstrating these weapons means that PakJihadiMil complex ALSO ends up with them, then it actually ties down my own response to almost entirely 'non-kinetic' options.


They wont just target two cities w/ just 1 bomb each. Other population centers will be targeted as well.

Like Shiv and many others have pointed out - We have achieved deterrence. There is no question except for perhaps the quality of the system.

But I would like to bring us back to a very critical issue - Is hitting Pakistan enough? If we are to get set back 4-5 decades and lose our cultural capital in the process, should the rest of the Islamic world go unscathed?

Does exacting a toll on their ideological backers serve as additional deterrence? Should sacred places like Mecca remain standing?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10578
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 23 Feb 2017 06:48

A samson option?
Many people talk about one, MAD is a varient

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10578
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 23 Feb 2017 06:51

If the goal is progress and development as a civilization, and an event occurs that threatens it, and then an adversary's civilization will be an uncontested leader.

I wonder what the powers that be think about that one

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Deterrence

Postby Singha » 23 Feb 2017 07:49

TSP has access to chinese TN designs and a small stock ready weapons anyway via Noko or directly. in a emergency, they will be given the codes to hit back hard if india launches a first strike or if their KT weapons stockpile get taken out.

so they are all set from their pov.

But if we are be credible about TN and deter the dragon , we need proven TN weapons, tested and deployed on A5 and K4 @ web scale

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47547
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 23 Feb 2017 07:50

Gagan, I will ask a series of questions.


Why does India need nuclear weapons?

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4956
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 23 Feb 2017 09:05

Gagan wrote:If the goal is progress and development as a civilization, and an event occurs that threatens it, and then an adversary's civilization will be an uncontested leader.

I wonder what the powers that be think about that one


Precisely! This is next order deterrence which I feel hasn't been adequately addressed.

We need to unify views in the thread along a common theme - What is the psychology/anthropology that we seek to protect through deterrence? It's not Western, but something very distinct to Asia.

By wiping Pakistan, have we achieved civilizational parity? Can deterrence be amplified by expanding the targeting net to other Islamic nations?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1050
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 23 Feb 2017 09:11

Singha wrote:TSP has access to chinese TN designs and a small stock ready weapons anyway via Noko or directly. in a emergency, they will be given the codes to hit back hard if india launches a first strike or if their KT weapons stockpile get taken out. so they are all set from their pov.


This was exactly the situation in which we did the first test series, except that we knew that Pak had access to fission weapons, not TN. I suspect if the decision makers reach the same conclusion as you they will do the same thing as last time.

Singha wrote:But if we are be credible about TN and deter the dragon , we need proven TN weapons, tested and deployed on A5 and K4 @ web scale


Question is, deter the dragon from what? From invading India, I think we are already there. From some small scale action on the border? From 'assertive action' in the SCS? From helping Pak with thermonukes? From helping Pak with veto in the Security Council? From CPEC?

I dont think merely testing an MT device will deter Chin from this perfidy. The MT needs to tie in with a longer term strategy. Merely testing the device may result in Pak doing the same, and with the genocidal scale of these weapons, we will have a bigger problem on our hand.

To me, the right way to do this is to defang Pak before making Chin pay. Chin knows that our undivided attention will be on them once we have dealt with Pak. Therefore they are providing them with all kinds of help.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1050
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 23 Feb 2017 09:26

RoyG wrote:
sudeepj wrote:India will hardly collapse if a 20KT weapon goes off over, say, Jodhpur, or Bhatinda. (Both important military hubs) or even Delhi. It *will* collapse if a 3 MT weapon goes off over Delhi or Mumbai. In one shot, a vast percentage of our economic power, bureaucratic elite, economic elite, cultural elite etc. will be wiped out. A 20KT weapon over Delhi means about 150-300K casualties. It will be terrible, but its still a loss that Delhi would recover from, let alone India. But a 3MT weapon over Delhi/Mumbai means almost 10-15 million immediate casualties. The size of zone where thermal radiation would cause 3rd degree burns will extend from Noida to Gurugram.

To pretend that KT weapons are same as MT weapons is something that is frequently peddled, but is completely unbelievable to me.

I think we should have such weapons simply because the rest of the world has it. But if demonstrating these weapons means that PakJihadiMil complex ALSO ends up with them, then it actually ties down my own response to almost entirely 'non-kinetic' options.


They wont just target two cities w/ just 1 bomb each. Other population centers will be targeted as well.


With a working BMD, this is a worst case.

RoyG wrote:But I would like to bring us back to a very critical issue - Is hitting Pakistan enough? If we are to get set back 4-5 decades and lose our cultural capital in the process, should the rest of the Islamic world go unscathed?

Does exacting a toll on their ideological backers serve as additional deterrence? Should sacred places like Mecca remain standing?


MT is certainly the right way to go if you want to go effing genocidal.. :-D I think, if India faces a large scale terror campaign, thats another scenario in which Indian security managers may decide to demonstrate an MT device.. But then again, it will be tied into some larger strategy to counter the terror and the sponsors.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Deterrence

Postby Singha » 23 Feb 2017 11:36

>>Question is, deter the dragon from what?

from doing a kargil in demchok or tawang and threatening via track2 to use tactical n-weapons if we attempted to claw it back.
or getting TSP to do the dirty work and make the same threat.

with heavier nukes and missile inventory, right now we are rungs below them in the level of credible threat.

control that at high end with proper A5 and K4 @ web scale

at the low end we are already working on lot of tri service standoff missiles and tube / rocket artillery - pound the crap out of anyone.

TSP is a outlying state of china, so any dealing with TSP is in essence dealing with the veiled guy behind the green door. model them together.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10578
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 23 Feb 2017 17:54

ramana wrote:Gagan, I will ask a series of questions.


Why does India need nuclear weapons?

I feel three reasons:
1. Military
2. Scientific
3. Political

In which order this is prioritized, changes with time.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Deterrence

Postby Singha » 23 Feb 2017 18:17

weapons and high energy physics & the related uber maths is a expensive and esoteric field - both in terms of finding and nurturing the right talent and building the required long lead facilities for it. one just cannot get started in a rented office and a few laptops. without work and testing how will people develop? same story as our aerospace sector - give them Tejas and Dhruv through the dark years and see how many new stuff comes out now.

the P5 have all invested heavy in high energy physics , megajoule lasers + Japan also. so every 'power' out there is good at it. US obviously has the famous national laboratories

UK and France have teamed up - always the weasel UK looking to benefit from others hard work
http://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/deve ... %A9gajoule

“France is the first country in the world for which the 'Simulation' approach has guaranteed the operation of a new thermonuclear weapon”, he said. “Henceforth we head the race for deterrent technologies”.

The Prime Minister stated that so far only France and the USA have managed to build the nuclear test lasers necessary for such work, although China and Russia have recently begun to address the challenge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_M%C3%A9gajoule

Cheen is openly and proudly going in to emulate the american ICF system pix here
http://capt.pku.edu.cn/ppt/y22.pdf
http://www.epj-conferences.org/articles ... _01009.pdf

while we too need to step on the ICF route, for now maybe next 20 years we do need to have a new family of light and TN warheads until we close the laser loop

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4940
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 23 Feb 2017 19:57

ramana wrote:Why does India need nuclear weapons?
Well it seems like some are bent on genocide of "others"! For the sanity of this thread and for the sake of a reality check, it will be best to limit the answer to the following:

1. Deter nuclear war on India. 2. Act as a symbol of national power - in that order.


I am even reluctant to support the idea of Karnad's Atomic Demolition Munitions idea to collapse mountain passes in North and East. Although understandably, it was made pre-2006, when India did change its stance towards China and made plans to build infrastructure in the region, long neglected.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47547
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 23 Feb 2017 20:28

ADM is from Jerome Weisner, Science Adviser to JFK.
All before Gilpatric Commission advice on NPT.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1050
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 24 Feb 2017 04:57

Lecture by Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar on India's nuclear deterrent at Lawrence Livermore Labs. Worth watching in full for people interested in such stuff. He was once commander of the Indian deterrent.


Also this one by Monica Chansoria and Brig. Gurmeet Kanwal:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 24 Feb 2017 10:25

Singha wrote:We have an arsenal bigger than Israel and acting like north korea is the best we can think of?

Testing a few 1mt devices with a very public k4 and a5 test the same week is need of hour. Let the dynamic duo yap all they want thereafter.

I see it like this and I am convinced that my own thinking is following more modern and more dangerous paths than the past.

The idea of smaller weapons with accurate delivery is to actually use them against pinpoint targets and get away with nuclear war. In the past megaton weapons were designed with inaccurate delivery to wreak havoc - but it was realized that the fallout would affect everyone. That is why the concept of MAD, was used to keep the peace. Things have mopved forward now. 25-50 small weapons (say 5 to 50 kiloton) taking out all that matters can still "win" a war. That is the way Amreeka is heading. the "megaton" business is no longer considered kosher because everyone gets affected.

The world survived 2 bombs on Japan. The world may well survive 20 bombs on Pakistan
Last edited by shiv on 24 Feb 2017 10:58, edited 2 times in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 24 Feb 2017 10:29

sudeepj wrote:If there is a remote indication of an MT device with Pak, we should not wait a second and go ahead with our test. That regime simply cant be trusted with such a genocidal device while we dont have the devices to return the favor. On the other hand, absent Pak advances, for the same reason, we should not *demonstrate* such a device because at the KT level, we have the strategic advantage. We can still take them on from behind a BMD and our capability to absorb a one-sy. Once Pak is reduced and Chin needs to be deterred, we should go ahead and demonstrate the device.

Actually even today a 400 kiloton (0.4 megaton) device is not beyond Pakistan's reach. In fact it is not beyond Korea's reach given time. If it is boosted fission - it will be a headache to deliver - but that is how the west and USSR started. Pakistan's painted bulbous head mijjile may not be for MIRV - but just one fat easily made boosted fission weapon.

But I laugh at the idea that it will scare anyone if we do a megaton test just so say "we also have megaton". Megaton and Kiloton are all scary. If bengaluru gets hit and I am vaporized i am not going to be worrrying whether Delhi survived or not and Delhi people will not be thinking "ha ha - Bengaluru got only a kiloton device - not a megaton device"
Last edited by shiv on 24 Feb 2017 10:35, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 24 Feb 2017 10:32

As I see it - we will be more scared to use genocidal megaton devices and will be more amenable to plan a pre emptive/reactive pinpoint strike on significant targets - Military Headquarters and nuclear sites using pinpoint low to medium yield nuclear weapons. The larger genocidal weapons will be left for second strike - if any.
Last edited by shiv on 24 Feb 2017 10:46, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 24 Feb 2017 10:37

Singha wrote:But if we are be credible about TN and deter the dragon , we need proven TN weapons, tested and deployed on A5 and K4 @ web scale

How about 50 targets getting pinpoint strikes using Prithvi/Agni I, Brahmos with 0.5 to 20 kiloton weapons as a start? Keep the high kilotons as second strike. Why megatons - even high kilotons will leave massive fallout. The elephant in the room is that 70% of megaton yield is from tamper fission and not some magical "clean weapon"
Last edited by shiv on 24 Feb 2017 10:43, edited 1 time in total.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Deterrence

Postby ranjan.rao » 24 Feb 2017 10:38

shiv wrote:The world survived 2 bombs on Japan. The world may well survive 20 bombs on Pakistan

Rest of the world may survive, but there will be a radioactive fall out on our plains in addition to their response? then our govts will also factor in teh response of jnu/ju wallahs

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 24 Feb 2017 10:39

ranjan.rao wrote:
shiv wrote:The world survived 2 bombs on Japan. The world may well survive 20 bombs on Pakistan

Rest of the world may survive, but there will be a radioactive fall out on our plains in addition to their response? then our govts will also factor in teh response of jnu/ju wallahs

The larger the weapon, the larger the fallout on our lands.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 24 Feb 2017 10:42

Megaton weapons will do damage - so will large kiloton weapons But both will not necessarily touch underground nuclear bunkers. That requires a pinpoint strike of something like 10-20 kilotons accurately exploded just above the underground complex to achieve overpressures to collapse the underground tunnels and storage - like Chaklala or whatever. The fallout from that would be less sever than a single megaton device no matter how accurate that device might be.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 24 Feb 2017 10:54

sudeepj wrote:India will hardly collapse if a 20KT weapon goes off over, say, Jodhpur, or Bhatinda. (Both important military hubs) or even Delhi. It *will* collapse if a 3 MT weapon goes off over Delhi or Mumbai. In one shot, a vast percentage of our economic power, bureaucratic elite, economic elite, cultural elite etc. will be wiped out. A 20KT weapon over Delhi means about 150-300K casualties. It will be terrible, but its still a loss that Delhi would recover from, let alone India. But a 3MT weapon over Delhi/Mumbai means almost 10-15 million immediate casualties. The size of zone where thermal radiation would cause 3rd degree burns will extend from Noida to Gurugram.

To pretend that KT weapons are same as MT weapons is something that is frequently peddled, but is completely unbelievable to me.

I think we should have such weapons simply because the rest of the world has it. But if demonstrating these weapons means that PakJihadiMil complex ALSO ends up with them, then it actually ties down my own response to almost entirely 'non-kinetic' options.

I think the level of collapse India will face after a nuclear attack will not be based on the 0.2 seconds of energy release megaton or kiloton. It will be because of inability to handle the survivors in an urban environment. It will hardly make a difference whether we lose 1 million or 10 million immediately. It is the aftermath that is the problem

Also I repeat the damage done by 3 x 200 kt is more than 1 x 1 megaton - because most of the explosive power gets dissipated into the atmosphere. 6 x 200 kt do the same area of destruction as 1 x 3 MT - and 6 warheads are less easy to intercept

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 24 Feb 2017 14:42

Philosophically speaking "deterrence" is a two way affair. It is a sort of devil's agreement between two parties. One sided deterrence is not deterrence.

I have nukes to nuke you. If you do not want to nuke me because I have nukes, then you are deterred. But can I nuke you?
Well - if you have nukes to nuke me back, I am deterred. Now both you are me are deterring each other. It takes two hands to clap.

If you are already deterred by me but I have only kiloton nukes, would you get "more deterred" if I tested a megaton nuke? This is a tricky argument. There no such thing as "more deterred". Either you are ready to nuke me or you are not. If you are already deterred by my kiloton nukes you cannot be "more deterred" if I proclaim that I have megaton nukes now. If there was such a thing as more deterred by megatons it means that there was no deterrence previously with kiloton weapons.

Let me turn this argument around and say, "If I am deterred by kiloton nukes on your side, can I be "more deterred" when you openly test and announce megaton nukes?" That would be nonsense because it means that I am a cocky bugger who thinks your kiloton nukes can't hurt me much and I am was not deterred at all until I suddenly started shitting in my pants when you went ahead and tested a megaton nuke. That means that until you get megaton nukes I am not deterred by you. If I am not deterred by you why am I doing charity? I should hit you now and not worry about your laughable fizzles. Why am I not hitting you? Why am I even waiting and giving you time to work on your research and/or spying till you get a megaton nuke and then say "Oh now I am really scared". And then, now that I have allowed you to go so far and started browning my pants - what is the point in my doing belated testing with bigger nukes. Why would that scare you? I am only reacting to you out of fear - after not having any fear all these years thinking you had "only kiloton fizzles". My inaction for years and then my reaction of fear has just confirmed that your deterrent is worrying me. Good for you.

The point is that deterrence works on the presence or absence of nuclear weapons. Not yields. Why do Pakistan and China not laugh and mock India's fizzles? Low yields too have uses - and in fact they raise the risk or a nuclear exchange. We also must stop speaking with forked tongues and first claim that Paki nukes do not work and then say "Oh but China will give them nukes". This is a specious claim because it says "We are not deterred by Pakistan, but Oh wait! We are deterred"

The fact is that India, China and Pakistan are currently in a state of deterrence.

The state of deterrence is not totally stable. It gets upset by moves from any side.

China's development of new missiles upsets the calculation
Pakistan new missiles and its Chinese support causes instability of deterrence
Indian missiles and BMD also causes instability in deterrence.

Pakistan has openly reacted with fear to the Indian deterrent on several occasions. Their bravado about battlefield nukes is a game that they think will "stabilize deterrence" by scaring India into doing nothing. Pakis are saying "If India attacks - we will use tactical nukes, but India will not have the guts to use genocidal city busting nukes on us". This is where India can respond to make Paki shit in their shalwars.

You nuke us - we will first take out strategic pinpoint targets with accurate low yield nukes that will leave your defences in tatters. You escalate after that and you will get hit with city busters. Don't even think about staring nuclear war. We don't even need to test nukes for this. Just accurate missiles.

With China it is different. Cockiness in Beijing may have felt that Indian nukes on Chengdu or Lhasa may not be a big deal - especially if Indian missiles have to be launched from land locations in North or East India. But with longer ranged weapons Indian missiles stand a much greater chance of staying hidden in central, south or western India from where the politburo in Beijing can be targeted directly for fuking around in mountainous Arunachal Pradesh 5000 km away.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 24 Feb 2017 16:09

shiv wrote:Philosophically speaking "deterrence" is a two way affair. It is a sort of devil's agreement between two parties. One sided deterrence is not deterrence.

I have nukes to nuke you. If you do not want to nuke me because I have nukes, then you are deterred. But can I nuke you?
Well - if you have nukes to nuke me back, I am deterred. Now both you are me are deterring each other. It takes two hands to clap.

If you are already deterred by me but I have only kiloton nukes, would you get "more deterred" if I tested a megaton nuke? This is a tricky argument. There no such thing as "more deterred". Either you are ready to nuke me or you are not. If you are already deterred by my kiloton nukes you cannot be "more deterred" if I proclaim that I have megaton nukes now. If there was such a thing as more deterred by megatons it means that there was no deterrence previously with kiloton weapons.

Let me turn this argument around and say, "If I am deterred by kiloton nukes on your side, can I be "more deterred" when you openly test and announce megaton nukes?" That would be nonsense because it means that I am a cocky bugger who thinks your kiloton nukes can't hurt me much and I am was not deterred at all until I suddenly started shitting in my pants when you went ahead and tested a megaton nuke. That means that until you get megaton nukes I am not deterred by you. If I am not deterred by you why am I doing charity? I should hit you now and not worry about your laughable fizzles. Why am I not hitting you? Why am I even waiting and giving you time to work on your research and/or spying till you get a megaton nuke and then say "Oh now I am really scared". And then, now that I have allowed you to go so far and started browning my pants - what is the point in my doing belated testing with bigger nukes. Why would that scare you? I am only reacting to you out of fear - after not having any fear all these years thinking you had "only kiloton fizzles". My inaction for years and then my reaction of fear has just confirmed that your deterrent is worrying me. Good for you.

The point is that deterrence works on the presence or absence of nuclear weapons. Not yields. Why do Pakistan and China not laugh and mock India's fizzles? Low yields too have uses - and in fact they raise the risk or a nuclear exchange. We also must stop speaking with forked tongues and first claim that Paki nukes do not work and then say "Oh but China will give them nukes". This is a specious claim because it says "We are not deterred by Pakistan, but Oh wait! We are deterred"

The fact is that India, China and Pakistan are currently in a state of deterrence.

The state of deterrence is not totally stable. It gets upset by moves from any side.

China's development of new missiles upsets the calculation
Pakistan new missiles and its Chinese support causes instability of deterrence
Indian missiles and BMD also causes instability in deterrence.

Pakistan has openly reacted with fear to the Indian deterrent on several occasions. Their bravado about battlefield nukes is a game that they think will "stabilize deterrence" by scaring India into doing nothing. Pakis are saying "If India attacks - we will use tactical nukes, but India will not have the guts to use genocidal city busting nukes on us". This is where India can respond to make Paki shit in their shalwars.

You nuke us - we will first take out strategic pinpoint targets with accurate low yield nukes that will leave your defences in tatters. You escalate after that and you will get hit with city busters. Don't even think about staring nuclear war. We don't even need to test nukes for this. Just accurate missiles.

With China it is different. Cockiness in Beijing may have felt that Indian nukes on Chengdu or Lhasa may not be a big deal - especially if Indian missiles have to be launched from land locations in North or East India. But with longer ranged weapons Indian missiles stand a much greater chance of staying hidden in central, south or western India from where the politburo in Beijing can be targeted directly for fuking around in mountainous Arunachal Pradesh 5000 km away.



Thinking that Pakistan can nuke India and *then* we will do something is a *real* bad ideology .. period


Find the very first sign of a nuclear missile firing from any where in Pakistan or from any of their ships or subs .. India should retaliate massively .. strike at all their military and political command centres including submarines ..wipe put in one crippling blow .. one strike ..must be truly and massive .

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 24 Feb 2017 16:15

There definitely needs to be a very articulate nuclear war policy by India on this .. this by itself is a deterrent

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 24 Feb 2017 16:20

Let us not be the sort of people who do not care for our future generations .. if we want to survive as a race . this forum needs to lose the thought that India can survive a few nukes here and there .. we might .. but not in the way you think ..it will set us back for decades ..the loss will be immeasurable

and definitely there are options that India should realize to prevent that. a pro active capability to neuter pakistan should be in place and well funded

nam
BRFite
Posts: 466
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Deterrence

Postby nam » 24 Feb 2017 16:44

The nuke deterrent across the globe is akin to "apple cart".

There can never be only "India-Pak nuke war". If Pak nukes us, it would be silly to assume that we wont nuke China.

If we are going down, why should be let China who is the source of Pakis nuke survive? In fact our missiles could go anywhere...depending on our mood on the day we get nuked.

The same applies for China, if it going down, why will let US survive?

So if you take one apple from the cart, you bring down all the apples down.

Russia wanted to nuke Lop Nor. But it could not before US agrees. So it asked US for a joint strike on Lop Nor! US refused.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60269
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Deterrence

Postby Singha » 24 Feb 2017 17:11

60cm diameter means TSP has a tested and proven design on all its SRBMs too

Image

Image

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... v=top-news

North Korea calls this its first miniaturized nuclear warhead, small enough to fit on a missile. Analysts call it the disco ball.

Jeffrey Lewis, an analyst at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, used the photo to estimate the device’s size, from which he deduced its weight — a few hundred kilograms — and its destructive yield, about 20 kilotons, roughly equivalent to the atomic bombs that the United States dropped on Japan.

But more important than yield was its small size – about 60 centimeters in diameter – which appears to match North Korea’s claim that it can fit on their long-range missiles, a major leap forward for the country’s nuclear prowess.

Analysts are unsure about the metal plug. It could be a routine component to trigger detonation or it could be used to inject gas, making the device more efficient. This would allow North Korea to build more warheads out of limited plutonium supplies, multiplying the size of its arsenal.

There’s also disagreement over the nozzle. Some suspect it’s a safety feature used to enter the nuclear “pit” just before detonation, others say it could be used to arm the warhead. Analysts hope new images will emerge that will help them solve these riddles.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 24 Feb 2017 17:16

kit wrote:Let us not be the sort of people who do not care for our future generations .. if we want to survive as a race . this forum needs to lose the thought that India can survive a few nukes here and there .. we might .. but not in the way you think ..it will set us back for decades ..the loss will be immeasurable

No one can argue with this sentiment - but by itself it cannot work

Do the Chinese think they will get away lightly after being nuked? Do Pakis think they will get away lightly after being nuked?

What, in the estimation of forum members is the amount of damage that they think that China can "get away with" and what makes them think that X damage would be acceptable to China. Ditto for Pakistan. Whether China or Pakistan really feel that way is a different question but what do people in general think?

I ask this question because everyone agrees that we don't want to be nuked. What then would be the basis for an idea that China or Pakistan might "want" to be nuked?

May I add an additional factor? Part of deterrence and scaring the shit out of the other guy is to accept that we will get hit if need be but will hit him back and cause unbearable pain. Talking about how much it will hurt us is civilized and sensible, but talking about what will hurt them is pragmatic.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 24 Feb 2017 17:19

Singha wrote:60cm diameter means TSP has a tested and proven design on all its SRBMs too

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... v=top-news


Jeffrey Lewis, an analyst at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, used the photo to estimate the device’s size, from which he deduced its weight — a few hundred kilograms d.



NoKo bomb 60 cm diameter should weigh 500 kg. or so What is their mijjile throw weight?

Image

Calculation for the above:
http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k56 ... 2ilpqe.jpg
Last edited by shiv on 24 Feb 2017 20:12, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33459
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 24 Feb 2017 17:39

Please see above in conjunction with this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxJvLNrZzdU

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 24 Feb 2017 19:01

shiv wrote:
kit wrote:Let us not be the sort of people who do not care for our future generations .. if we want to survive as a race . this forum needs to lose the thought that India can survive a few nukes here and there .. we might .. but not in the way you think ..it will set us back for decades ..the loss will be immeasurable

No one can argue with this sentiment - but by itself it cannot work

Do the Chinese think they will get away lightly after being nuked? Do Pakis think they will get away lightly after being nuked?

What, in the estimation of forum members is the amount of damage that they think that China can "get away with" and what makes them think that X damage would be acceptable to China. Ditto for Pakistan. Whether China or Pakistan really feel that way is a different question but what do people in general think?

I ask this question because everyone agrees that we don't want to be nuked. What then would be the basis for an idea that China or Pakistan might "want" to be nuked?

May I add an additional factor? Part of deterrence and scaring the shit out of the other guy is to accept that we will get hit if need be but will hit him back and cause unbearable pain. Talking about how much it will hurt us is civilized and sensible, but talking about what will hurt them is pragmatic.


I am saying India s threshold of a nuclear retaliation should be much less than what has been declared !!
India needs the ability ( and costly ) to monitor TSP , its subs on a 24 * 7 basis .. the very first sign of an attack must India retaliate .. not after a nuke explodes inside !!

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10578
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 24 Feb 2017 22:02

RAJ
‏@rajfortyseven

#Pakistan #Nuclear constructing what looks like Tritium extraction/purification plant at #Khushab.Used for compacting nukes.GE12/2&6/16TS8&9

Image

Image

Image

India needs to stop overconfidence and test IMHO


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pravula and 32 guests