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.
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1051
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 24 Feb 2017 22:13

I fail to understand why people are predicting a "collapse of India" after two piddly KT strikes when our experience of strategic bombing campaigns is clear that war time nations can sustain their economies and industrial production even after tremendous destruction has been visited upon them.

Even WW II Japan did not "collapse" after the two KT strikes. What people dont remember is that even before these nukes, virtually all Japanese cities had been fire bombed with casualties from massive single raids (some containing as many as a thousand large 4 engine bombers!) ranging from 20-150,000. Here is a list:

City Destruction:
oyama 99%
Fukui 86%
Tokushima 85.2%
Fukuyama 80.9%
Kofu 78.6%
Kuwana 75%
Hitachi 72%
Nara 69.3%
Tsu 69.3%
Okayama 68.9%
Mito 68.9%
Takamatsu 67.5%
Shizuoka 66.1%
Tsuruga 65.1%
Hachioji 65%
Nagaoka 64.9%
Maebashi 64.2%
Matsuyama 64%
Imabari 63.9%
Gifu 63.6%
Kagoshima 63.4%
Toyohashi 61.9%
Hamamatsu 60.3%
Yokohama 58%
Isesaki 56.7%
Ichinomiya 56.3%
Kobe 55.7%
Kochi 55.2%
Kumagaya 55.1%
Tokyo 51%
Akashi 50.2%
Wakayama 50%
Himeji 49.4%
Hiratsuka 48.4%
Tokuyama 48.3%
Sakai 48.2%
Saga 44.2%
Choshi 44.2%
Utsunomiya 43.7%
Numazu 42.3%
Shimizu 42%
Kure 41.9%
Sasebo 41.4%
Ujiyamada 41.3%
Chiba 41%
Nagoya 40%
Ogaki 39.5%
Shimonoseki 37.6%
Kawasaki 36.2%
Omuta 35.8%
Osaka 35.1%
Yokkaichi 33.6%
Omura 33.1%
Okazaki 32.2%
Kumamoto 31.2%
Aomori 30%
Oita 28.2%
Miyakonojo 26.5%
Miyazaki 26.1%
Nobeoka 25.2%
Fukuoka 24.1%
Moji 23.3%
Sendai 21.9%
Yahata 21.2%
Ube 20.7%
Amagasaki 18.9%
Nishinomiya 11.9%


Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic ... se_bombing

Casualties from these massive bombing raids were comparable to the nukes. A similar list can be made for Germany, and the reality is, that war time production and the fighting went on till the bitter end in Berlin...

Todays India is better organized than these economies and has much more resources. One or two KT strikes are not going to destroy India or an adversary. The only thing that can do so is multiple MT strikes at our mega cities. This is not to say that we (or others) will not be deterred by the thought of KT strikes.. But simply pointing out some facts which can be agreed upon without muddying the waters with analysis and interpretation.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1051
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 24 Feb 2017 22:23

My personal analysis from the above fact follows.

Given that:
1. KT strikes cant "destroy" India.
2. MT yields are "easily" achievable by India and others, (even primitive powers such as 1967 China were able to do it), were the present situation of deterrence to break down.
3. MT strikes can destroy India.
4. Our BMD system gives us a capability to reduce the number of Pak launches.
5. There is an assured retaliatory system in Arihant.

It follows, that absence of a proven MT Pak yield, our BMD system gives us room to initiate conflict with Pak and punish it for its subconventional strategies.

Further, given that MT weapons are easily achievable , anything that gives Pak the pretext to develop MT weapons will make our task extremely hard.

Let me illustrate with an example:
1. A single 20KT strike on Bangalore will kill or incapacitate perhaps 300,000 people, out of whom, say half are engineers.
2. Bangalore will still be able to carry on/recover in a post war situation. The number of skilled manpower destroyed will be recovered in an year or two.
3. A MT strike on Bangalore on the other hand, will destroy every one in Bangalore and we will never be able to recover from that loss of skilled manpower. Even the trainers who can train the next gen will be destroyed.

What deeply morbid scenarios.. :-(

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10603
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 24 Feb 2017 22:26

If the shoe is on the other foot, the question is
1. What yield does India bring to the table?
2. How heavy are these physics packages? This has a direct bearing on the missile range and number of MIRVs carried
3. Then we can talk about what design they are, FBF or 2 stage TN.

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

Re: Deterrence

Postby LokeshC » 24 Feb 2017 22:37

I had a tubelight on why large MTs are ineffective.

Nuke explosions are almost spherically symmetric. So assuming energy per unit area are equally distributed on the explosive spherical fireball:

Surface area of a sphere is 4pi(r^2). The area of lethal radiation is however much much smaller than the surface of the sphere. It is the intersection of the ground plane that cuts the sphere depending on the height of explosion.

If you do the math, for the same height you need to put in at the minimum 4 times the energy to double the kill radius. That does not scale well.

So to be effective one has to shape the charges, and MIRV is the way to go for that.
Last edited by LokeshC on 24 Feb 2017 22:40, edited 1 time in total.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10603
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 24 Feb 2017 22:39

What about the shockwave?
Bigger explosion, larger shockwave? Bigger earthquake

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

Re: Deterrence

Postby LokeshC » 24 Feb 2017 22:41

It dies out by a power of the distance and > 50% is radiated out to space.
Last edited by LokeshC on 24 Feb 2017 22:41, edited 1 time in total.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1051
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 24 Feb 2017 22:41

Gagan wrote:If the shoe is on the other foot, the question is
1. What yield does India bring to the table?
2. How heavy are these physics packages? This has a direct bearing on the missile range and number of MIRVs carried
3. Then we can talk about what design they are, FBF or 2 stage TN.


1. A proven, miniaturized 15-25KT device, from the photographic evidence presented after the Shakti tests.
2. Around 500Kg, given the Prithvi was used as a nuclear missile. (Tally with the airforce version specs).
3. Certainly an FBF. [And an unproven 2 tonne TN device, such as the one demonstrated by the Chinese in 67].

The above is a worst case scenario. The best case and the likely scenario should be much better.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1051
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 24 Feb 2017 22:44

LokeshC wrote:I had a tubelight on why large MTs are ineffective.

Nuke explosions are almost spherically symmetric. So assuming energy per unit area are equally distributed on the explosive spherical fireball:

Surface area of a sphere is 4pi(r^2). The area of lethal radiation is however much much smaller than the surface of the sphere. It is the intersection of the ground plane that cuts the sphere depending on the height of explosion.

If you do the math, for the same height you need to put in at the minimum 4 times the energy to double the kill radius. That does not scale well.

So to be effective one has to shape the charges, and MIRV is the way to go for that.


All of that is true, but as much as 75% of the yield comes from the U238 tamper in the secondary. This is a pretty cheap (compared to Pu239 and U235) material! When most of your energy is coming from that, you can afford to waste it into space etc. Further, see for yourself the difference in destructive potential of MT vs KT at http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

A 4 MT device on Delhi will destroy everything from Noida to Gurugram.
A 20KT will destroye a small part of Delhi.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Deterrence

Postby nam » 24 Feb 2017 22:45

Gagan wrote:RAJ

India needs to stop overconfidence and test IMHO


We should be bombing the cr*p out of Pakis at this moment or targeting their nuke establishment.

Even if we test, what will do next? Twiddle our thumbs.

Our testing will give them a perfect excuse to test their PU devices at home and get away with it.

What is the point of testing again and continuing the status quo?

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

Re: Deterrence

Postby LokeshC » 24 Feb 2017 22:48

sudeepj wrote:A 4 MT device on Delhi will destroy everything from Noida to Gurugram.

Now try arranging 4×1MT side by side and compare it with 1x4MT.

You would see what i am talking about.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10603
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 24 Feb 2017 23:01

nam wrote:We should be bombing the cr*p out of Pakis at this moment or targeting their nuke establishment.

Of course.
But this weapons program is an extension of China.
The rationale put forward in the past was that, taking out Kahuta or Khushab in the very begining wouldn't have made much of a difference, as the chinese would simply give them ready made maal.

I feel we need to do both.
Degrade Pakistan's nuclear capability and eliminate it and at the same time Match the Chinese in every way.
Doing nothing means that there will be == with pakistan.

The next time NSG or even UNSC comes up, china will have ensured that Pakistan has everything that India does.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1051
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 24 Feb 2017 23:02

LokeshC wrote:
sudeepj wrote:A 4 MT device on Delhi will destroy everything from Noida to Gurugram.

Now try arranging 4×1MT side by side and compare it with 1x4MT.

You would see what i am talking about.


Everyone knows that, I am simply pointing out the qualitative difference in MT vs KT.

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

Re: Deterrence

Postby LokeshC » 24 Feb 2017 23:05

I agree saar. I said i did not realize why until now.

We are 1/5th of humanity. We cannot sit idle and wait for someone else to set our course or threaten us blatantly.

We have to take whatever steps it takes to protect such a large part of humanity, even if it means making 10MT mirved devices.

Sorry for sounding tripe.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10603
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 24 Feb 2017 23:07

Using the N blast radius calculator. Checking blasts in the middle of Connaught Place, New Delhi
A 20 KT blast in the middle of CP won't even reach the Parliament
A 200KT blast in the middle of CP will just about reach Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium
A 1 MT blast in the middle of CP will just about reach IGI airport, Greater Kailash.

Bigger is better it seems, if one is trying to disable a city.

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

Re: Deterrence

Postby LokeshC » 24 Feb 2017 23:09

5x200kt can destroy much more than 1x1MT

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10603
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 24 Feb 2017 23:12

It will be 3-5x expensive too no? Considering that the most expensive and challenging parts to make will have to be made 5x times instead of more LiD and a tamper.

I have no idea, which is more expensive, more N material on a single warhead or more precision made exotic parts.
Then the question of weight of the device. Is 5x200 KT heavier or a Single 1 MT heavier.

I feel that the 1MT will be lighter, use much less N material and only 1 set of precision built parts

Delhi is a big city, but to have 5 MIRVs land there at precise points

LokeshC
BRFite
Posts: 696
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 04:36

Re: Deterrence

Postby LokeshC » 24 Feb 2017 23:18

Yes, that's the key. It has to be precise. The height is also very important. At mach 24, the rv would cover about 600 meters is 0.1 seconds. That means your sensor equipment sampling rate and smoothing algorithms have to work at a millisecond rates.

Getting it right is difficult, but once we have it perfected (like PSLV). It can be extremely effective.
Last edited by LokeshC on 24 Feb 2017 23:19, edited 1 time in total.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Deterrence

Postby nam » 24 Feb 2017 23:18

Gagan wrote:
nam wrote:chinese would simply give them ready made maal.



It does not matter. Hoping India is not going to nuke China, when Pakis use the maail... well that is some trusting!

No country will tolerate even a Hiroshima level strike.

We tell the Chinese in simple words. Pakis use the maal, our flowers will be on their way to Beijing. They can give the Pakis 1000 nukes for all we care.

In meantime, we should have be been wiping their rent boy. No one would have given a sh** just like when Israel does "Gaza" on Gaza every couple of years.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4947
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Feb 2017 00:12

Gagan wrote:It will be 3-5x expensive too no? Considering that the most expensive and challenging parts to make will have to be made 5x times instead of more LiD and a tamper.

I have no idea, which is more expensive, more N material on a single warhead or more precision made exotic parts.
Then the question of weight of the device. Is 5x200 KT heavier or a Single 1 MT heavier.

I feel that the 1MT will be lighter, use much less N material and only 1 set of precision built parts

Delhi is a big city, but to have 5 MIRVs land there at precise points
Definitely cheaper and better chances of success to have a MIRV than not. More carriers, more cost and maintenance. Without MIRV and improving CEP''s all the START treaties would have never materialized. Without MIRV India will need much more than 3 SSBN's and our SSBN's are midget sized compared to the crazy guys who have these toys.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6037
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Deterrence

Postby disha » 25 Feb 2017 00:32

In so many pages., nobody asked the question (and I cannot have any more patience!)

What is the most important component of a weaponized nuke!?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10603
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 25 Feb 2017 00:42

nam wrote:We tell the Chinese in simple words. Pakis use the maal, our flowers will be on their way to Beijing. They can give the Pakis 1000 nukes for all we care

The Chin-Pak axis will be present as long as Pakistan exists, as long as they have a 'border'
As long as POK reamins under Pakistani control.

The same story happens on the other side of Cheen, with NoKo. NoKo can be flattened and their crazy leadership eliminated very swiftly, but is not done. Dunno why?
Instead Japan and SoKo endure NoKo-Cheen's haramigiri 24x7
Here we endure Pakistan's pakistaniyat 24x7.

Nam,
I don't think India officially says that China will be targeted if Pakistan uses nukes on India.

Pakistans solution is to increase its costs multifold. They like to spend on their military and N weapons development - they should be given ample freedom to do so.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Deterrence

Postby nam » 25 Feb 2017 01:05

Gagan wrote:I don't think India officially says that China will be targeted if Pakistan uses nukes on India.

Agnis can fly west.. or east. The Chinese know very well.

US had India as one of the nuke targets, because it was considered a staging area for Soviet forces post nuke strike on USSR!
Such is the thinking. Everyone is a target.

NOKO is not actively attacking SOKO or Japan. In our case thousands have died under a nuke blackmail. That is the difference.

My theory. It is cheaper to carry out regular whipping of Pakis, then to maintain defences like we are doing now. And Pakis have to regenerate their forces every time we do a Gaza, very expensive.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2055
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 25 Feb 2017 01:30

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/defining-rivalry-south-asia

Bizarre Foreign Policy Triangle

In fact, the growing tension between India and China in 2016 roughly coincided with the flare-up between India and Pakistan in Kashmir. Pakistan is an important economic and strategic partner for China. The CPEC, which will connect China's underdeveloped Xinjiang province with Gwadar port in Pakistan's Balochistan province, will offer China another export outlet to the Arabian Sea. China recognizes, moreover, that its strategic alliance with Pakistan makes any military threat from India easier to manage for the simple fact that two nuclear powers are stronger than one. With that in mind, China started supporting Pakistan's nuclear weapons program in the 1980s.

So long as China is pursuing enhanced ties with Pakistan, it will continue to block India's requests to blacklist Azhar, admit it to the Nuclear Suppliers Group and modify the CPEC project. Beijing understands that yielding to the pleas from India and the United States to sanction Azhar, a proponent of Kashmiri secession, would hurt Pakistan's interests. Similarly, China vetoed India's accession to the Nuclear Suppliers Group in part to protest Pakistan's exclusion from the organization. (China cited India's failure to sign on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as the official reason for its vote.) It is unlikely that Jaishankar managed to sway Beijing on any of these issues during his talks with Chinese leaders Feb. 22.

Furthermore, the matters that Jaishankar raised in the strategic dialogue are only a few of the factors straining India's relationship with China. As part of his "Make in India" campaign to boost manufacturing in his country, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi introduced the "Neighborhood First" policy to strengthen India's trade ties with its neighboring countries. Interregional trade accounts for just 5 percent of total economic activity in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, a bloc that comprises India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, the Maldives, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. (By comparison, trade among the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations accounts for 25 percent of the organization's trade, and EU members conduct 60 percent of their trade within the bloc.) Modi hopes to increase trade with countries in South Asia, not only for economic gain but also to counter China's economic influence in the region.

Putting the Neighborhood First

China's sway in Sri Lanka has been increasing since 2005, when it increased its military aid to the island nation's government in Colombo. The support eventually helped the Sri Lankan government win its decadeslong civil war against the Tamil Tigers in 2009. Sri Lanka returned the favor by granting China control over key port projects, including the Hambantota port and the surrounding 6,000-hectare (15,000-acre) industrial zone. But as recent protests against the project revealed, many Sri Lankans are wary of China's growing involvement in their country.

India hopes to launch infrastructure projects of its own in Sri Lanka to offset China's endeavors in the country. To that end, India's Export-Import Bank granted Colombo an $800 million loan for the Northern Railway Rehabilitation Project. The initiative is part of New Delhi's effort to help members of the ethnic Tamil community living in Sri Lanka's northern and eastern regions, many of whom are still struggling after the war. Like China, however, India will have to navigate the delicate balance between Sri Lanka's Tamil minority and its majority-Sinhalese government — a challenge Jaishankar gamely accepted on his visit to the country. Meeting with leaders of the opposition Tamil National Alliance on his first stop in Sri Lanka, Jaishankar urged them to soften their calls to join the northern and eastern provinces into a Tamil-majority province. The party has been lobbying Colombo to include the merger in the country's new constitution, which aims to balance the competing demands of Sri Lanka's various political and ethnic groups.

On the last leg of his trip, Jaishankar stopped in Bangladesh, another South Asian country where China and India are investing in infrastructure. Chinese President Xi Jinping signed $24 billion in agreements with the government in Dhaka in 2016. Among the 27 deals he clinched was an agreement for a thermal power plant in Patuakhali district. India, meanwhile, has projects of its own in Bangladesh, including the Indo-Bangla Rampal plant, a 1,320-megawatt coal-based power plant close to the Sundarbans, the world's largest mangrove forest. In addition, Modi granted Bangladesh a $2 billion line of credit during a visit to the country in 2015.

Jaishankar's visits to Sri Lanka, China and Bangladesh touched on important themes in Indian foreign policy and highlighted the areas in which they run up against China's priorities. Though Modi regards South Asia as India's neighborhood, China — which borders five countries in the region — has made it increasingly clear that it feels the same way. The mounting competition between the two powers will doubtless continue to shape South Asia's strategic and economic trajectory for decades to come.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33473
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 25 Feb 2017 08:03

Gagan wrote:Using the N blast radius calculator. Checking blasts in the middle of Connaught Place, New Delhi
A 20 KT blast in the middle of CP won't even reach the Parliament
A 200KT blast in the middle of CP will just about reach Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium
A 1 MT blast in the middle of CP will just about reach IGI airport, Greater Kailash.

Bigger is better it seems, if one is trying to disable a city.


Gagan the suffering is from the burned and injured at the periphery and lack of services to attend to them. The dead are dead - nothing will affect them. I have always said that if you drop 2-3 x 50 kioton weapons over 3 spots on a large city you will have burned and dying people rushing out towards what they think is safety, only to meet another set of burned and dying people coming from their quarter of the city that also got nuked. Yes it sounds cruel but nuclear bombs are not like Led Lips massage parlour.

If you see the size of Chinese cities even 10 x 4 megaton will not cut it. Will post a graph below

I must post my 50 kiloton bomb on Rawalpindi scenario - please read if you have not read it - I actually researched the effects based on Hiroshima/Nagasaki reports. Posting for the 4th-5th time on this thread
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3JNY4 ... sp=sharing

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33473
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 25 Feb 2017 08:20

Using Google :
Area of the city of Shanghai: 6.340 sq km
Area of the City of Beijing: 16,411 sq km

Using the table below to calculate
Area of heavy damage with one 4 megaton bomb: 144 sq km - So 4 x 4 megaton bombs will destroy 576 sq km

Look at how we underestimate the size of cities and overestimate the damage caused by bombs

Out of a total area of 6400 sq of Shanghai less than 10% will actually be destroyed by 4 x 4 megatons bombs. OK double that and make it 20% and still 80% of Shanghai survives. For Beijing - Only 5-10% will get destroyed.

There is no point imagining that big bums are going to be that effective. Peppering with multiple small bums would be equally effective/ineffective. People consistently overestimate blast and underestimate long term fallout effects. Long term fallout takes a long long time and will not affect the outcome of war

Image

pravula
BRFite
Posts: 106
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Deterrence

Postby pravula » 25 Feb 2017 08:35

^ Whats the obsession with blast damage? If you want civilization collapse, you need radiation fallout. AFAIK, big MTs do it cheaper than small KT shots.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4947
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Feb 2017 08:45

This is what a modern megapolis looks like, do not believe Mumbai is the only one. Now calculate what it would take to put one like this down? If folks do not like this example, take New York or Shanghai, it does not matter, you will get the scope of the problem.

The total area of Mumbai is 603.4 km2 (233 sq mi). Of this, the island city spans 67.79 km2 (26 sq mi), while the suburban district spans 370 km2 (143 sq mi), together accounting for 437.71 km2 (169 sq mi) under the administration of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM).
This does not include what is known as Greater Mumbai, including Thane & New Mumbai.

Added: OK< Shiv has provided the Shanghai example. Either ways, the answer is not in small KT bombs but at least 10-20 bombs with each yielding 300-500 KT, for a total of 6-10 MT to effectively bring a city down. US/Russia/China can do this with 2 missiles.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33473
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 25 Feb 2017 08:54

If anyone is interested please look at this graph
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-conte ... weight.png

Most new US warheads made in the 80s are from 100 kt to 1 megaton. The multimegaton warheads are being retired or have been retired

Also see this weight to yield image:
Image

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33473
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 25 Feb 2017 08:56

pravula wrote:^ Whats the obsession with blast damage? If you want civilization collapse, you need radiation fallout. AFAIK, big MTs do it cheaper than small KT shots.

Radiation damage takes a long long time, civilizational collapse takes even longer. ISIS and Pakistan are fighting wars that are designed to cause civilizational collapse. Nukes is for quick results. You don't use nukes and say "Now just wait 500 years and China will be gone"

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33473
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 25 Feb 2017 09:04

ShauryaT wrote:at least 10-20 bombs with each yielding 300-500 KT, for a total of 6-10 MT to effectively bring a city down. US/Russia/China can do this with 2 missiles.


200 bombs of 500 kt will get you how many Chinese cities?
China has more than 100 cities over 1 million. What is this rubbish I hear about about "civilizational collapse"


The US has 300 cities with populations of 100-200,000.
50 kiloton bombs on 200 cities will finish the US off.

How many countries even have arsenals of that size?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1051
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 25 Feb 2017 09:14

shiv wrote:Using Google :
Area of the city of Shanghai: 6.340 sq km
Area of the City of Beijing: 16,411 sq km

Using the table below to calculate
Area of heavy damage with one 4 megaton bomb: 144 sq km - So 4 x 4 megaton bombs will destroy 576 sq km

Look at how we underestimate the size of cities and overestimate the damage caused by bombs

Out of a total area of 6400 sq of Shanghai less than 10% will actually be destroyed by 4 x 4 megatons bombs. OK double that and make it 20% and still 80% of Shanghai survives. For Beijing - Only 5-10% will get destroyed.

There is no point imagining that big bums are going to be that effective. Peppering with multiple small bums would be equally effective/ineffective. People consistently overestimate blast and underestimate long term fallout effects. Long term fallout takes a long long time and will not affect the outcome of war

Image


This table only presents the blast damage to structures, but does not include the radius in which 3rd degree burns will be inflicted on anyone caught in the open. Also does not include the damage caused by fires... Much of the energy from MT thermonukes comes out as intense Infra red radiation.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4947
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Feb 2017 09:15

shiv wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:at least 10-20 bombs with each yielding 300-500 KT, for a total of 6-10 MT to effectively bring a city down. US/Russia/China can do this with 2 missiles.


200 bombs of 500 kt will get you how many Chinese cities?
China has more than 100 cities over 1 million. What is this rubbish I hear about about "civilizational collapse"


The US has 300 cities with populations of 100-200,000.
50 kiloton bombs on 200 cities will finish the US off.

How many countries even have arsenals of that size?
I have not spoken about civiliational collapse. I was talking of an ideal would be to effectively destroy a single city with two missiles about 10 MIRV on each missile of 300-500KT each.

Disagree that 50 KT bombs on 200 cities will "destroy" US off. The word destroy to me means the inability to respond. Do not think that would be the case.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33473
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 25 Feb 2017 09:18

ShauryaT wrote:Disagree that 50 KT bombs on 200 cities will "destroy" US off. The word destroy to me means the inability to respond. Do not think that would be the case.

Shaurya - you did not say civilizational collapse - that was in response to another post - but "I will get back to you" :D because you have asked an interesting (to me) question

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4947
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Feb 2017 09:22

^Also, I think this city destruction idea works for small states, where a few large cities effectively is the state. For Pakistan, In my estimate this is true and hence have argued that the number of targets for an effective destruction of Pakistan is probably between 10-20. Taking into account key command and control sites.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33473
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 25 Feb 2017 09:24

sudeepj wrote:This table only presents the blast damage to structures, but does not include the radius in which 3rd degree burns will be inflicted on anyone caught in the open. Also does not include the damage caused by fires... Much of the energy from MT thermonukes comes out as intense Infra red radiation.

Here you go
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downlo ... ULE_20.pdf
From page 10
Most damage caused by a nuclear weapon comes from the explosive blast. The blast causes a
shock wave of air to radiate outward, producing changes in air pressure that can crush objects
and high winds that can knock objects down. Direct radiation occurs at the time of the explo
sion. Although it can be very intense, its range is limited. Approximately 35% of the energy
from a nuclear explosion is in the form of an intense burst of heat. Skin burns caused by the
intense heat can occur as far as five miles from the blast. When an A-bomb is detonated, the
blast creates a large crater. Some of the material that was in the crater is carried up into the air.
This material is made radioactive by the explosion and returns to the earth as radioactive fall
out. Particles may be carried by the wind for long distances, depending on weather conditions,
before falling to the ground. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, death and injury were caused by both
the immediate (blast, heat, direct radiation) and delayed (fallout) effects of the A-bomb attacks.


Tables 1 and 2 show the deaths that occurred in the two cities immediately after the blasts.
Deaths caused by the blasts continued to occur in the months following the bombings. These
deaths were mainly due to radiation, burns and mechanical injuries such as fractures. It has
been estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 people died before the end of 1945 in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a direct result of the bombings. These deaths are referred to as acute
deaths.


Also in the same paper
In 1950 a national census was conducted in Japan, and 284,000 survivors of the A-bombs were
identified. A survivor was defined as someone who was in Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the time of
the bombs. A sample of the survivors was selected, and this group has been followed for studies
of life span, pathology, adult health and in utero exposure. About 20,000 of the survivors have
undergone a detailed medical examination every two years since 1958. In addition, the offspring
of some of the survivors are being followed for studies of mortality, biochemical genetics and
cytogenetics.


There is a lot of material online - a serach will show you plenty of studies - most of which say the same thing

Immediate deaths in Hiroshima/Nagasaki were blast and burns and blast damage to buildings - about 33-50% of people in those cities. Many died later - but about 50-60% people survived at least till 1950.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33473
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 25 Feb 2017 09:31

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml
The relation of total casualties to distance from X, the center of damage and point directly under the air-burst explosion of the bomb, is of great importance in evaluating the casualty-producing effect of the bombs.
[..]
It seems almost certain from the various reports that the greatest total number of deaths were those occurring immediately after the bombing. The causes of many of the deaths can only be surmised, and of course many persons near the center of explosion suffered fatal injuries from more than one of the bomb effects. The proper order of importance for possible causes of death is: burns, mechanical injury, and gamma radiation



90% of those who are not vaporized will die of burns
Last edited by shiv on 25 Feb 2017 09:46, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33473
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 25 Feb 2017 09:43

shiv wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:Disagree that 50 KT bombs on 200 cities will "destroy" US off. The word destroy to me means the inability to respond. Do not think that would be the case.

Shaurya - you did not say civilizational collapse - that was in response to another post - but "I will get back to you" :D because you have asked an interesting (to me) question

Whenever anyone talks of nuclear war the debate gets filled up with myths, superstition, hype and semantics.

The effects of nuclear explosions are known only from 2 sources
1. Hiroshima and Nagasaki
2. Tests done and published by the US

There is a lot of information available and I have myself read a lot - especially before I wrote that bomb on Pindi piece

If you ask my opinion - any city that suffers 100,000 deaths in an instant will be thrown out of gear for many years - even if it is a mega city
Suppose the initial impact kills 100,000 (Hiroshima sized 20 kt fizzle) - there will also be 200,000 injured. These people will move out seeking help and fill up hospitals - which will not be able to cope. Roads will get clogged with rescue services moving towards the disaster zone and panicked and injured people moving in the opposite direction. No city in the world can cope with a sudden load of 50,000 or 100,000 people with burns. Burns require special care and many will die slow painful deaths. Once the hospitals of the city are full people will start dying on the streets even as highways get choked with feeling people and incoming relief

The treatment of burns is very specialized surgical care. Severe burns require intensive care. The whole of the US (I once estimated) cannot handle more than 35,000 cases of severe burns. I am saying the whole of the US. No hospital keeps 100 beds for burn patients. At most a burns unit may have 2-10 beds. Every city bombed by a 20 kt fizzle will have more than 50,000 people with burns - most of whom will die from lack of attention as they flee into undamaged parts of the city. Those undamaged areas can hardly function normally as the city is thrown out of gear. Rotting bodoes will have to be diposed off. How do you bury or cremate 100,000 dead people? Who would do that? What resources would be needed?

Because of this a city of ANY size will get instantly paralyzed for a period of weeks even with a 20 kiloton blast killing a "mere" 100,000 people.
Last edited by shiv on 25 Feb 2017 09:55, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33473
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 25 Feb 2017 09:50

The richest countries have 6 hospital beds for 1000 people. For a city of 1 million there will be 6000 hospital beds. The US has 3.3 beds per 1000

What will that city do if it gets 100,000 people with burns in one day?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33473
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 25 Feb 2017 10:04

LokeshC wrote:5x200kt can destroy much more than 1x1MT

No city of any size can cope with 100,000 dead in one day along with 200,000 injured. The entire city will be thrown out of gear. Even NoKo can achieve that in the USA using 20 kiloton bombs.

If I live in a city of 10 million - 15 km away from a 20 kt blast that killed 100,000 people - I am not going to be getting up and going to work normally the next day. All roads will be clogged with survivors or rescuers. There will not be enough medicines for the injured. Existing survivors like elderly will not get medicines for diabetes or BP and will have to flee the city or live among people dying in the streets as the walking wounded move out seeking help that is unavailable

I think too many people underestimate (or simply do not know/have not read) what happens to a city if 100,000 die suddenly leaving 200,000 with burns.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1051
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby sudeepj » 25 Feb 2017 10:16

1. A casualty model that ignores thermal radiation and takes only blast effects into account will not be accurate.
2. How did Germany and Japan continue their war effort after the strategic bombing campaign?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests