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: 10995
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 23 Oct 2017 09:01

Big huge difference between real life and its inherent challenges as compared to claiming to be a Nuclear power based on underground testing in a controlled environment
Now what to say about claims based on a single round of testing hain ji?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 23 Oct 2017 09:39

Gagan wrote:Now what to say about claims based on a single round of testing hain ji?

Rhetorically speaking single round is no different form zero testing of new designs implemented after 30-40 year old test data and designs become obsolete.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10995
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 23 Oct 2017 09:47

Shiv-ji
The P-5 are in a different level altogether. India can't claim equivalence.
Those guys have tested, refined and retested, until they were completely satisfied with their technology and weapons designs.

The US's rona-dhona has to do with stewartship programs, not initial R&D.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 23 Oct 2017 12:25

I dont think it is that simple. Many materials tested and used in the past are no longer available and human skills have degraded. That means simulation and new untested designs. Since 1998 only NoKo has joined the club. There must be at at least 20 countries in the world now who can build up a nuclear arsenal within months or years with no testing and we are not going to find the P5 dancing with joy saying "Oh we are safe. They have not tested"

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1535
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Deterrence

Postby wig » 02 Nov 2017 10:47

http://tribuneindia.com/news/comment/tr ... 90819.html

Trapped in the nuclear web by G Parthasarathy

excerpts
India crossed the nuclear threshold only after it received a veiled nuclear threat from Pakistan during tensions over military exercises named “Operation Brasstacks” in January 1987. Instructions were issued in 1988 to nuclear scientist PK Iyengar and scientific adviser VS Arunachalam to assemble a nuclear arsenal. India’s distinguished strategic thinker, K Subrahmanyam, provided the strategic rationale for the nuclear weapons programme

on the cability of pak nuke delivery systems
India is today confronted with a situation where China has not only provided Pakistan with designs and equipment for manufacturing nuclear weapons, but has also given Pakistan the knowhow and materials for manufacturing missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons to every part of India, including the Andaman islands.

the source of pak nuke program
American nuclear analyst Gary Milhollin has perceptively noted: “If you subtract China’s help from Pakistan’s nuclear programme, there is no Pakistani nuclear weapons programme.”
While Zulfikar Ali Bhutto moved to establish a nuclear weapons capability within weeks of the Bangladesh conflict, his prison memoirs suggest that he was guaranteed of Chinese assistance after his meeting with Chairman Mao in 1976. China, with antiquated uranium enrichment facilities, benefited from designs stolen by AQ Khan from European (URENCO) enrichment facilities


so much for the pious proponents of non proliferation

Experts estimate that Pakistan’s stockpile could potentially grow to 220-250 warheads by 2025, making it the world’s fifth-largest nuclear weapons state. Pakistan’s missiles, with ranges up to 2,750 km, are all of Chinese design and produced at the National Defence Complex facilities in the Kala Chitta Dhar mountain range to the west of Islamabad. The development, production and test launching of missiles is done at locations south of Attock, using road mobile Chinese-designed missile launchers, produced in Fatehjang.
According to former US Air Force Secretary Thomas Reed, himself a designer of nuclear weapons at America’s Los Alamos Laboratories: “The Chinese did a massive training of Pakistani (nuclear) scientists, brought them to China for lectures, even gave the design of the CHIC-4 device, which was a weapon that was easy to build as a model for export. There is evidence that AQ Khan used Chinese designs for his nuclear designs. Notes from those lectures later turned up in Libya. And the Chinese did similar things for the Saudis, North Koreans and Algerians.”


what to expect in the future
Xi Jinping’s recent enunciation of Chinese global ambitions at the Party Congress, that missile and nuclear proliferation by China to Pakistan will continue in its efforts to “contain” India. Pakistan has already tested a sea-based missile and China is set to strengthen Pakistan’s navy with substantial supply of submarines and frigates

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Deterrence

Postby ashish raval » 02 Nov 2017 12:58

It is time for India to store weapons in Vietnam and make Vietnam a nuclear power in south China sea as part of Pacific big (4) + (1) I should say alliance strategy. Americans should be told in explicit terms that it's strategy of not allowing peopled make n bum is not working and hence they should create more countries with n bums to counter China as what they have don't with puke and NoKo...

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 02 Nov 2017 15:07

ashish raval wrote:It is time for India to store weapons in Vietnam and make Vietnam a nuclear power in south China sea as part of Pacific big (4) + (1) I should say alliance strategy. Americans should be told in explicit terms that it's strategy of not allowing peopled make n bum is not working and hence they should create more countries with n bums to counter China as what they have don't with puke and NoKo...


Not just Vietnam. Give Abe some time and he will upturn japan s pacifism and a nuclear Japan is probably the worst scenario China can face. Good for India i say !

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 02 Nov 2017 15:10

shiv wrote:
Gagan wrote:Now what to say about claims based on a single round of testing hain ji?

Rhetorically speaking single round is no different form zero testing of new designs implemented after 30-40 year old test data and designs become obsolete.


one would hazard a guess that the next round of tests would be subcritical ones more easily camouflaged. The trick is doing the tests without getting found .

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 02 Nov 2017 15:12

I am not so convinced that you need the Tsar Bomba vaporising everything in sight test is required to fail proof a nuclear weapon design. The fault is in that logic.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10407
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 02 Nov 2017 17:59

kit wrote:
ashish raval wrote:It is time for India to store weapons in Vietnam and make Vietnam a nuclear power in south China sea as part of Pacific big (4) + (1) I should say alliance strategy. Americans should be told in explicit terms that it's strategy of not allowing peopled make n bum is not working and hence they should create more countries with n bums to counter China as what they have don't with puke and NoKo...


Not just Vietnam. Give Abe some time and he will upturn japan s pacifism and a nuclear Japan is probably the worst scenario China can face. Good for India i say !

Not sure where but heard/read recently that the options before Japan and SoKo to some extent are being discussed openly in the the public / by the public for the first time in both countries it seems. That's supposed to be a big change.

NoKo antics will most likely ensure that Japan at least crosses the threshold. BTW NoKo has been quite for a while now. Guess China has dialed down waiting Trump visit to be over. I don't for a second believe that NoKo acts independently.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10995
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 02 Nov 2017 20:01

Japan probably has a bomb in the basement or a disassembled one.

China was threatening India's security matrix with proliferation to Pakistan, and India responded. The chinese did the same to Japan via NoKo.
Very likely that Japan has done the same too

The plan by Shinzo Abe to change the pacifist constitution is a hint.
They have most probably gone nuclear.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 02 Nov 2017 23:21

I think we should stop deluding ourselves and other Indians.

That donkey has bolted.

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Deterrence

Postby ashish raval » 03 Nov 2017 04:21

ramana wrote:I think we should stop deluding ourselves and other Indians.

That donkey has bolted.

True !! I believe Japan can assemble a bum in a month if they decide. I truly thought it was an idiotic move to sit on backside thinking nkorea will not be able to make bum..they might do away with American shield, however they may just make it adequately clear that their strategy on nkorea has failed spectacularly and Japan can't sit on guarantee of Americans for ever.

Although I am very surprised that till date China are not accused of any proliferation of missile or n bum technology by any nation!! They must be very strong at concealing their tracks by the looks of it.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 03 Nov 2017 06:39

Or like a thug Zamindar who.controls the dacoit and the Panch Parameshwar look askance for they fear loss of largesse!!!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 03 Nov 2017 07:59

From Gsponer
... considerable research is underway in all five
nuclear-weapon States (as well as in several other major industrialized States such
as Germany and Japan) on ICF and on many physical processes that provide the
scientific basis necessary to develop fourth generation nuclear weapons. Substan-
tial progress has been made in the past few years on all these processes, and the
construction of large ICF microexplosion facilities in both nuclear-weapon and
non-nuclear-weapon States is giving the arms race a fresh boost. The world runs
the risk that certain countries will equip themselves directly with fourth genera-
tion nuclear weapons, bypassing the acquisition of previous generations of nuclear
weapons.


“The thermonuclear warheads developed by the U.S. and USSR in
the 1950s were huge, heavy and designed for delivery by large air-
craft rather than missiles. It was through an extensive nuclear testing
program that thermonuclear warheads were made lighter and more
deliverable. Without nuclear testing, it is probable that a prolifer-
ator would not be able to develop a highly deliverable thermonu-
clear weapon, but depending upon its motivations for developing the
weapon, the proliferator may not require long-range deliverability. A
modern, sophisticated proliferator with access to ICF computer codes
and today’s computer workstations would have far more tools for de-
signing a secondary than the U.S., U.K. or USSR had in the 1950s
or France and China in the 1960s. Furthermore, many of the basic
concepts have been declassified”21 [158, p.27].


In conclusion, the construction of large ICF microexplosion facilities such as
NIF and LMJ will give the arms race a fresh boost. It must be understood that, as a
result, there will be considerable follow-on effects within other countries. Japan24
and, to a lesser extent, Germany25 already possess ICF and other thermonuclear
fusion facilities of comparable quality to those of the United States and France.
These countries will certainly increase the power of their laser- and particle-beam
ICF-drivers. India26 , Israel27 and Korea [518] are close behind. The world runs
the risk that certain countries will equip themselves directly with fourth genera-
tion nuclear weapons, bypassing the acquisition of the preceding generations of
thermonuclear weapons.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 03 Nov 2017 22:53

Does the Gsponer book talk about how North Korea could come up with a (4th generation) a large yield nuke?
Does NoKo have ICF, Computer codes, computers etc.?

Can you x-post the ref to Korea in last para?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 04 Nov 2017 17:12

ramana wrote:Does the Gsponer book talk about how North Korea could come up with a (4th generation) a large yield nuke?
Does NoKo have ICF, Computer codes, computers etc.?

Can you x-post the ref to Korea in last para?


China does :mrgreen: . Did Pakistan have all that anyway

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 04 Nov 2017 21:58

ramana wrote:Does the Gsponer book talk about how North Korea could come up with a (4th generation) a large yield nuke?
Does NoKo have ICF, Computer codes, computers etc.?

Can you x-post the ref to Korea in last para?

Korea
518. H.J. Kong, High-power Nd 3+:glass laser system in KAIST (Sinmyung I),
Laser and Part. Beams 15 (1997) 317–324.


India:
143. T.S. Shirsat et al., A simple technique for laser-induced ablation pressure
measurement, Pramãna 30 (1988) 549–555.
198. L.J. Dhareshewar et al., Studies on laser-driven shocks using a Nd:glass
laser, Laser and Part. Beams 15 (1997) 297–316.
199. K.R. Rao, High pressure research, Current science (India) 73 (1997) 1038–
1041.


Re lasers - here is some science gyan people need to know
[211, 213].
ICF facilities can be used to measure high-pressure, high-temperature equa-
tions of state in a regime which was previously achievable only in underground
nuclear explosions [21, 208, 211]. Lasers of relatively modest size, such as those
existing in Israel [193], India [143, 198, 199] or Korea [518], for example, already
provide very significant data of this type [193, 210]. However, the development
of high power ICF facilities enables improvement of the quality of these data
beyond [213] what could previously be done with relatively small lasers [208] or
underground nuclear explosions [201, 205, 207, 198].12


No mention of North Korea but
According to reference [207, p.1124], reference [201] is the “the first open publication of the
measurements of the compressibility (of condensed materials) under the conditions of underground
nuclear tests.”

201. C.E. Ragan III et al., Shock compression of molybdenum to 2.0 TPa by means
of a nuclear explosion, J. Appl. Phys. 48 (1977) 2860–2870.
207. R.F. Trunin, Shock compressibility of condensed materials in strong shock
waves generated by underground nuclear explosions, Physics–Uspekhi 37
(1994) 1123–1145.


kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 05 Nov 2017 20:23

One of the pioneers in Inertial confinement fusion (ICF) lasers in the US is an Indian.He made significant contributions to building the Shiva laser.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Deterrence

Postby kit » 05 Nov 2017 20:26

copied from an old posting .. current is more advanced

India is conducting inertial confinement fusion experiments both on direct drive and indirect-drive targets which includes random phase plate , spectral dispersion , induced spatial incoherence etc for direct drive and ion beams to X-ray conversion for uniform radiation conversion for indirect drive experiments.

The Laser matter interaction Group of BARC, has been involved in studies of extremely high temperature laser-produced plasmas and ultra-high pressure laser-driven shock waves.

Barc has developed LTE and non-LTE models for radiation hydrodynamics. Radiation opacities and emissivities are essential data for any high density high temperature plasma

simulations and have developed computational model for themwhich are used to investigate the opacities of composite targets . The mixing of two high

Z materials (the high Z material like gold are widely used for the hohlraum walls although, recently, composite materials are also proposed for this purpose) can lead to a enhancement in the Rosseland means which is of direct interest in indirect-drive inertial confinement fusion and has developed semi analytical model to analyze the growth of RT ( Rayleigh Taylor )instability. Radiation hydrodynamics and the computations of the frequency dependent radiation opacities for composite material hohlraum has already been developed.


Various teams have also investigated the effects of different parameters like mesh size, number of frequency groups used in radiation transport and equation of state (EOS) models on the results obtained from simulations obtained .

Barc uses intense Nd:Glass laser chain capable of producing laser pulses of 300-800

picoseconds duration and maximum single pulse energy the focused laser intensity on targets is in the range > 10 ^15 W/Cm2 which enebles us to study the hydrodynamic phenomena and diagnostics used to study such plasma have sub-nanosecond temporal resolution and micrometer spatial resolution.


This LASER is used for two dimensional codes are widely used for simulations of soft x-ray driven to look into the effects of number of frequency groups and the wall mesh spacing on radiation temperature inside the hohlraum.


The internal energy, the material temperature , material pressure from equation of state has been calculated


This laser will be upgraged to 10 ^ 20 W / Cm2 in the next 6 to 7 years for full three dimensional operation for HEDP studies high Z materials of Hoahlraum.

Only 3 countries in Asia ( India , China and Japan) and 6 countries all over the world have such facilities

courtesy- BARC research papers

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 10 Nov 2017 21:06

Shiv, ShauryaT et al..

USI Journal has an entire issue devoted to Paki nukes:

http://usiofindia.org/Publications/Jour ... x/?jno=604


Take a look and critique the conclusions.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2017 20:07

ramana wrote:Shiv, ShauryaT et al..

USI Journal has an entire issue devoted to Paki nukes:

http://usiofindia.org/Publications/Jour ... x/?jno=604


Take a look and critique the conclusions.

Sitting in London the lady has some book knowledge and has cooked up a paper with references but not insight

There article has a few interesting questions about the practical aspects of Pakis using TacNukes.

But there are 3 mystery statements:
a small but steady stream of calls for India to broaden its nuclear options for greater flexibility,
Who is making these calls? None I have seen in public and none in articles from the armed forces that i have seen. Could it be closed door discussions between these scholars?

(Prahaar)often touted as India’s response to Pakistan’s short-range Nasr missile.

Who is saying this? BRF and the press yes. But no one else. So what is the lady talking about?

ensure that scientific endeavour does not push India down the tactical nuclear route, as arguably occurred with India’s drift towards the ballistic missile shield, which has caused its own doctrinal headaches.

How does BMD make India drift towards the TacNuke route?

That aside there is a statement that makes me feel, as we all have felt for too long that people simply do not understand Pakistan. This author also does not:
Ambassador to the US, Maleeha Lodhi has argued – and her thesis is fairly representative of this strand of thinking across the border – Pakistan needs to counter Cold Start with Full Spectrum Deterrence; however, given ‘the subcontinent’s volatile environment where a crisis can emerge quite quickly from a terrorist attack or another Kashmiri “spark” there is urgent need for a new understanding between Pakistan and India’, which, she goes on to argue, can only be addressed by ‘dialogue and mutual understanding.’22 She ends her opinion piece, for good measure, by wondering why the international community has ‘done little, if anything, to insist on and promote such an understanding.’23

This argument is not subtle but it is effective. Whatever current domestic opinion on engaging Pakistan, constant communication is the only way forward.


A basic understanding of Pakistan should make every Indian aware that talking with Pakistan has only one end point "Give us Kashmir". So people who write papers should start talking of "what next?" rather than droning on and on and on about "We must talk"

I give the paper 6 on 10

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22947
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 12 Nov 2017 20:41

I have not yet read that aricle, but I am going by Shiv's last quote from that article.

India cannot have an independent ‘dialogue and mutual understanding’ with Pakistan in vacuum and isolated from the dyadic nuclear enemies it is facing. The Pakistani weapons and their delivery platforms are completely Chinese. There is overwhelming evidence that the two countries are tag partners vis-a-vis India in every realm of activity. China has been constantly endeavouring to bracket us with Pakistan in nuclear matters in the fond hope that at some point of time, enough drivel can be generated and then pushed through with its diplomatic clout to defang India of its nuclear weapons. Its NSG strategy is as much a part of this long-term project, as it is an effort to give India a slap across its face and put her in her place and make her understand the clout of China.

The Pakistani argument could be 'subtle' but I do not know on what basis the author says it is also 'effective' because Pakistan is an untouchable (I am not demeaning any people or groups) all over the world in nuclear matters and practically none believes that India and Pakistan could be equated. None also believes that a great power like India which faces a rampaging China would denude itself of its nuclear weapons by entering into any sort of deal with a terrorist piddly nation such as Pakistan. Mere possession of n-weapons by Pakistan does not invest it with any power to take on India diplomatically or doctrinally on this issue.

This, in addition to what Shiv has said about where the dialogue will end up if one is started, "Give us Kashmir or else . . .".

The author may be swayed by the Maleeha Lodhi argument because she may be seeing it in a stand-alone mode shorn from the larger and specific context, but not the rest of the world, as they have demonstrated so far.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10407
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby pankajs » 13 Nov 2017 19:00

As SS saar has rightly pointed out while this lady might find the baki arguments "effective" Ms Lodhi herself admits that "the international community has ‘done little, if anything, to insist on and promote such an understanding.’"

See it another way, only the Indians find any merit in the baki argument while the rest of the world does not. It is Indians who have singlehandedly kept the baki arguments alive by writing such trash and repeated calls for dialog. But for these strange fellows bakis would have no argument to make. What fate!

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 23 Nov 2017 20:58

nuclear-stability-conventional-instability-north-korea-lessons-pakistan
Indeed, the lesson of India and Pakistan suggests that these advocates are relying on flimsy theoretical and empirical logic. Pakistan’s attempts at revising the status quo with India were both short-lived and futile. And even if North Korea attempts similar types of behavior, history shows that Washington and its allies can adapt to, deny, and deter Pyongyang, as Delhi has successfully done with Islamabad.

Do not think the article captures Indian military views well but this approach does have legs in the civilian parts of the administration. Its primary argument is that Pakistan's attempt at gaining parity with India and driving a revisionist agenda has failed and Washington should take a page from it. While Washington could afford that approach, Seoul or Tokyo cannot.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 23 Nov 2017 21:23

In modernizing nuclear arsenal, US stokes new arms race

The most expensive bomb ever

Now, the Air Force has transformed it into a controllable smart bomb. The new model has adjustable tail fins and a guidance system which lets bomber crews direct it to its target. Recent models of the bomb had already incorporated a unique "dial-down capacity": The Air Force can adjust the explosion. The bomb can be set to use against enemy troops, with a 0.3 kiloton detonation, a tiny fraction of the Hiroshima bomb, or it can level cities with a 340-kiloton blast with 23 times the force of Hiroshima's. Similar controls are planned for new cruise missiles.

The new B61 is the most expensive bomb ever built. At $20.8 million per bomb, each costs nearly one-third more than its weight in 24 karat gold. The estimated price of the planned total of 480 bombs is almost $10 billion.


Our infamous weapons designer Sikka, claims a similar design to provide a variable yield capability for our arsenal. That is good to know.

Russia's new ICBMs have room to add additional warheads, in case the New START treaty expires or either side abrogates it. The United States by its own decision currently has only a single warhead in each of its ICBMS, but these too have room for more.
The above is important to remember. While the official START numbers limit both sides to about 1550 warheads, 1000's more are there in the reserve, being upgraded and ready to be put on existing launch vehicles fairly quickly.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 25 Nov 2017 01:28

Shaurya, The dial a yield is baloney from war use perespective. What if the dial is set wrong way?

Also it breaks consensus on low yield weapons.

Such flexibility allows threshold breach.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Nov 2017 21:15

ramana wrote:Shaurya, The dial a yield is baloney from war use perespective. What if the dial is set wrong way?

Also it breaks consensus on low yield weapons.

Such flexibility allows threshold breach.
Agree, the US approach of "technological overreach" across all areas is deeply questionable for nuclear warfare. India should be wary of copying this approach not only for nuclear warfare but in other areas too. Also, another thing to realize is what constitutes a "tactical" nuclear weapon has different and changing definitions for the US, USSR/Russia and indeed Pakistan. India so far has not bitten on the bullet of TNW's and better off for it. Another matter that there always was a set of strategists who never bought into the TNW theories, I am biased towards the theory that there is no such thing as tactical between two nuclear-armed enemies.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 26 Nov 2017 13:24

Dial a yield is a hyped up name for a design feature that is part of most bombs as per open source information.

There is a primary which is a lump of Pu with a little hole in the center to hold a little Tritium. The Tritium goes in via a bottle just before arming. If the Tritium is not injected into the hole, the bomb will give a fizzle subkiloton yield. With Tritium it will give a yield in kilotons - say 10-15 kt. This primary is supposed to set off a secondary fusion bomb. If that goes off the final yield will be 100s of kilotions. But if the secondary is stopped from exploding (Not sure how - may be a simple physical barrier to radiation implosion) then you get 3 possible yields
1. Subkiloton fizzle
2. 10-15 kt
3. Several 100 kilotons

That is "dial a yield" . Even NoKo can do it

The reason the US now finds subkiloton attractive is the extreme accuracy now achievable

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22947
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Deterrence

Postby SSridhar » 26 Nov 2017 18:22

Pak nukes surest route to escalate nuclear-level war: US think-tank - PTI
Pakistan's tactical nuclear weapons programme is not only dangerous for the safety and security of the region, but is also the surest route to escalating conventional war to the nuclear level, according to a report by an American think-tank+ .

In its report 'Asia in the Second Nuclear Age', the Atlantic Council, however, said Pakistan does not appear to have operationalised its tactical nuclear-warfare plans yet+ .

"Pakistan's tactical nuclear-weapons programme is dangerous for safety and security reasons, and also because it is the surest route to escalating conventional war to the nuclear level. However, Pakistan does not appear to have operationalised its tactical nuclear-warfare plans yet," said the report released this month.


The greatest threat in the region comes not from the development of large, sophisticated, and diversified nuclear arsenals, but from the continued stability of the institutions guarding them. "In this regard, the future stability of Pakistan remains a wild card," said the report.

In the last four decades, the Pakistani deep state's pursuit of low intensity conflict in Afghanistan and India, via the vehicles of radical jihadi non-state actors, has produced terrible blow back effects on Pakistan itself.

Noting that both the Pakistani state and civil society have become the targets of terror attacks, it said some of the attacks have occurred, with insider help, on sensitive military bases where nuclear weapons are likely stored.

"The possibility that Pakistan's nuclear weapons could be stolen - or that schisms in Pakistan's military might cause nuclear command-and-control failures - is not as fantastic as it once seemed," said the report.

Authored by Gaurav Kampani and Bharath Gopalaswamy, the report concludes that in the nuclear dynamic in the Indo-Pacific region, India and Pakistan are novice developers of nuclear arsenals; the weapons in their inventory are first-generation fission weapons.

Likewise, their delivery systems are the first in the cycle of acquisitions, the report said, adding that their hardware acquisitions generate outside concern because of the scope of their ambitions.


Observing that both nations plan to deploy a triad capability, the report said nonetheless, this ambitious goal and the selection of technologies underline the central lesson of the nuclear revolution, which is force survival (to enable an assured second-strike capability).

It said force survival through secure second-strike capabilities is also China's goal.

"It is the only nuclear power among the three that is actually modernizing, i.e., replacing aging delivery systems with newer and better designs," the report said.

"Thus far, the evidence suggests that Chinese and Indian explorations of multiple-reentry vehicle technologies are aimed at reinforcing deterrence through the fielding of more robust second-strike capabilities," the report said.

It said that this conclusion is also supported by the fact that neither India nor China has, nor is developing, the ancillary intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems necessary to execute splendid first-strike attacks.


periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: Deterrence

Postby periaswamy » 26 Nov 2017 21:49

Summary of the US "think tank" article seems to be "pakistan has nukes and China and India do not have first-strike but only second-strike capability" --- a restatement of Paki nuclear blackmail threats that usually emanate from american mouthpiees, except both China and India are now allegedly vulnerable to pakistani nuclear blackmail.

A new restatement of "Cashmere is nuclear flashpoint in sooth asia" that was repeated often for many decades by US think tanks, and the likes of Stephen Cohen. So US has now decided to use "paki nuclear flashpoint" as a talking point against both China and India, and the rentier state will only be too glad to oblige.

Coincidentally, Hafiz saeed has just been released to assist pakistan with its "Cashmere solution", while the white house puts outs some useless statement on how this is all not acceptable at all, while stopping short of declaring pakistan a state sponsor of terror, which was done so easily with North Korea a week ago.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 05 Dec 2017 09:31

Shiv,

Check her out lol.

https://twitter.com/srianjalidevi75/sta ... 8198352896

BRF invite?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 05 Dec 2017 10:05

RoyG wrote:Shiv,

Check her out lol.

https://twitter.com/srianjalidevi75/sta ... 8198352896

BRF invite?

I bet the profile and pic are fake :D

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 05 Dec 2017 10:22

shiv wrote:
RoyG wrote:Shiv,

Check her out lol.

https://twitter.com/srianjalidevi75/sta ... 8198352896

BRF invite?

I bet the profile and pic are fake :D


I think she's a source for Vipin Narang. She has some sort of expertise in underground detonations and shaft design. She may be able to plug some knowledge gaps regarding indian weapon designs and validation.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 05 Dec 2017 14:22

RoyG wrote:
shiv wrote:I bet the profile and pic are fake :D


I think she's a source for Vipin Narang. She has some sort of expertise in underground detonations and shaft design. She may be able to plug some knowledge gaps regarding indian weapon designs and validation.

I had a short exchange with "her". Looks like "she" has knowledge gaps. May be a moderately informed pretender

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 05 Dec 2017 16:41

RoyG wrote:Shiv,

Check her out lol.

https://twitter.com/srianjalidevi75/sta ... 8198352896

BRF invite?

Incidentally you have rediscovered Sunil Sainis in that thread
https://twitter.com/30de2e4d6c4f416/sta ... 5997110272

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 05 Dec 2017 22:50

A couple of articles that Philip posted that give an insight into Indian development of deterrent.


The author is Vivek Prahaladan.


First : Walking between Raindrops[/ur]


Second: [url=http://katehon.com/article/russian-indian-nuclear-cooperation]Russian and Indian Cooperation

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 06 Dec 2017 01:35

Had a few more thoughts on battlefield nuke strategy that Pakistan is employing against IBG.

Besides deterring adjoining territories from leaving Pakistan, they may serve another asymmetrical/preemptive function against India.

If they can miniaturize to the size of w48, they can maybe backpack it and hit strategic targets/metros within India or maybe even preempt an attack by hitting IBG's/airbases stationed close to the border. They could even do it by constructing a mortar type device and clocking targets from a distance.

Regardless, once that happens there is no stopping the escalation ladder.

I'm also wondering if the EMP from the explosion could cause more extensive damage to IBG's and aircraft.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 06 Dec 2017 08:49

RoyG wrote:If they can miniaturize to the size of w48, they can maybe backpack it

RoyG - a bare minimum of 12-13 kg of Plutonium alone is needed. More if Uranium. None of these were anything less than 40 kg weight. This could be the backpack of a mule. Not a human.

It is much much much more cost effective and less dangerous to send 10 soosai bombers with 5 kg RDX soosai belts each.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 13 Dec 2017 20:04

https://twitter.com/Austin_Joseph/statu ... 5022349312

Nukes are here to stay.
Read interview.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 20 guests