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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 11 Nov 2009 17:20

Sanku wrote: So preparing for war is deterrence.


Preparing for war is necessary. Calling it deterrence is just imagination. One imagines that the other person is deterred and feels a bit more comfortable. That is all. In fact if the possession of X nuclear weapons of Y yield was "deterrence" there would be no need to prepare for war. War preparations occur only because there is not enough confidence that deterrence is working. The difference between deterrence and war is the difference between possession and use. You are saying that possession of more means use will be less. I don't believe that. if you are making more weapons, you should make them to use them. If you are not going to use them, why make them?

The meaning that I am trying to convey is that we should be talking about nuclear war with all those gigabooms that are being recommended on here - but more on that subject below.

Sanku wrote:The answer is self evident, from above can China really defeat India should it chose to? Yes, unless we develop a capablity to have more bums than their bums such that we can inflict MAD on them.


:D Whee! I love this "scenario building"

I have taken the liberty of highlighting a part of your sentence.

You say that China can defeat India unless...< details snipped out >

You are stating here that there is, in your view, a situation in which China cannot defeat India. And you are saying that making more bombs than the Chinese will get us to a situation in which China cannot defeat us in a nuclear war.

Are you saying that China will not drop a single nuclear bomb on India after we get more nukes than them? Does that mean that we can then go ahead and nuke China without fear of being nuked back (because we now have more bombs that them)? Is this your idea of victory? How can you be sure of this?

Or, do you mean to say that India, having more nukes than China can take out 60 China cities in response to China taking out 30 Indian cities. Is this the victory you are seeking?

Could you expand a bit on the nature of victory India would win in a nuclear war with China, if India had more nukes than China?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 11 Nov 2009 21:25

Rudradev wrote:
Umrao Das wrote:Simple pooch
Why is PRC interested in AP when It has trouble in Ughiristan and Tibet?


PRC thinks that seizing AP will help to consolidate Tibet and end its troubles there.
.


:roll:

"South Tibet" has been an issue prior to Indian independence!!!!!! Even prior to Tibet becoming a part of China!!!!!!

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby svinayak » 11 Nov 2009 21:26

NRao wrote:
"South Tibet" has been an issue prior to Indian independence!!!!!! Even prior to Tibet becoming a part of China!!!!!!

PRC came to power in 1949

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 11 Nov 2009 21:59

Acharya wrote:
NRao wrote:
"South Tibet" has been an issue prior to Indian independence!!!!!! Even prior to Tibet becoming a part of China!!!!!!

PRC came to power in 1949


Acharya,

(Thanks for that assist.) The point being that "PRC thinks that seizing AP will help to consolidate Tibet and end its troubles there." cannot then be right. Chinese idea that AP belongs to them predates (by a few decades) the current troubles in occupied Tibet and the associated troubles there.

Just googled. The problem arose in 1914, the problem of AP/ST predates even PRC. Actually it has nothing to do with PRC.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 11 Nov 2009 22:25

So unclear on the nuclear front

K. Santhanam & Ashok Parthasarathi

Nov 11, 2009.

G. Balachandran's article `Splitting atoms, not hairs' (Sept 23) on the yield of Pokhran Il s thermonuclear (Sept 23) on the yield of Pokhran II's thermonuclear (TN) device (hydrogen bomb) tested on May 11, 1998, requires several corrections and detailed comments.
Balachandran wrote that there was "no confusion about the design/planned yield of 1998-TN test: it was 45 kilotons".
This is not in dispute. What is in dispute if whether the TN device actually recorded the designed yield.

The US National Security Agency and US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) weapons laboratories placed the yield at 20-25 KiloTonnes, not 45 KT (1 KT is the energy release equal to 1,000 tonnes of TNT). Balachandran is totally unaware that apart from yield measurements made by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) team led by Santhanam, comprehensive experimental data was collected by the Aviation Research Centre (ARC), a highly specialised science and technology agency of the government. The ARC used its state-of-the-art seismic array, tailor-made for detecting and measuring the yield of nuclear tests. Independent of both the DRDO and the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre (Barc), the ARC unambiguously established in its classified report to the government the following: 1) the yield of th TN device was substantially lower than 45 KT; 2) An atom bomb, also separately tested and the firststage `trigger' of the TN device, had a yield of 20-25 KT. Thus, the TN device yield would, at best, be 20 KT only.

A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and R. Chidambaram officially designated the DRDO to be solely responsible for all-site instrumentation for yield measurement of the Pokhran II tests.
The DRDO's instrumentation fully met international standards. Barc was fully satisfied with its performance. On no occasion did Barc express any doubts. Barc also gave the DRDO its expected ground acceleration and movement figures from the TN test to measure against. Unfortunately, measurements conclusively proved that the TN yield was substantially lower than Barc-projected pre-test figures. So Balachandran's statement that Barc questioned the sensitivity of the DRDO instrumentation is baseless. This came up only after Santhanam questioned the yield of the TN device as an afterthought to defend the indefensible.

The DRDO's site instrumentation included its own CORRTEX system, accelerometers, ground motion sensors and high-speed imaging systems. Recording and processing of readings from this comprehensive instrumentation package was undertaken by special DRDO computers. The CORRTEX system also gave a far lower TN yield than the Barcclaimed figure of 45 KT.

As for Balachandran's Barc­fed contention of radiochemical (RC) method-based analysis being the most accurate method of estimating the yield of a device, the considered view of nuclear experts is that any estimation of yield made by the mass spectrometry (MS) method is far superior to the RC method. Raja Ramanna insisted that MS be used in the 1974 Pokhran I test yield analysis. The head of the RC Division in Barc gave a detailed report to Ramanna personally show ing that the Pokhran I yield was lower than claimed by Barc.

Ramanna had accepted the report's scientific results -- but not its politics. He admitted this to Parthasarathi in 1994.

Thus, the report was quickly and quietly buried.

Why was the MS method not used by Barc in Pokhran II? Or was it used and its results again suppressed -- this time by Chidambaram because they were `inconvenient'?
Balachandran says the DRDO used only the seismic method in its yield measurements. We conclusively rebut this. He also states that "the DAE had used all six methods of nuclear yield estimation, whereas the DRDO used only one." The methods used by Barc were 1) two seismic methods for ground acceleration and ground movement 2) CORRTEX 3) Radiochemical. That's four methods. What about the other two? The truth is that no other methods were used. Santhanam's team saw no Barc-CORRTEX system anywhere at the site.

The DRDO used two seismic methods, plus CORRTEX and FORRTEX. This also adds up to four methods, not six. Further, both alleged Barc seismic methods were undertaken using a 30-year-old seismic array at Gauribidanur in Karnataka, over 1,500 miles away from Pokhran. Both the DRDO's seismic methods involved `close in-field' (right close up to the TN device-containing shaft).

Balachandran then says that no critic presented any scien tific argument in support of their case. This is false. As early as end-1998, Santhanam's DRDO team presented a detailed, classified report to the government, including a telling com parative table of Barc-predicted ground acceleration and movement numbers against actually measured ones.

The NDA government and its successor the UPA blindly endorsed -- and continue to endorse -- the Barc claim. This attitude has seriously compromised our national security.

Balachandran also conveniently `forgot' to mention that Barc used data from DRDO's instrumentation for its estimate of yield of the atom bomb. However, when the same instru mentation showed the yield of the TN device was far lower than Barc readings, he chooses to claim that the instru mentation was faulty! Barc speaks with a forked tongue.

K. Santhanam was Chief Adviser (Technology), DRDO and Programme Director, Pokhran II Ashok Parthasarathi was Science and Technology Adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi The views expressed by the authors are personal.
Last edited by NRao on 11 Nov 2009 22:31, edited 1 time in total.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby svinayak » 11 Nov 2009 22:27

NRao wrote:
Acharya,

(Thanks for that assist.) The point being that "PRC thinks that seizing AP will help to consolidate Tibet and end its troubles there." cannot then be right. Chinese idea that AP belongs to them predates (by a few decades) the current troubles in occupied Tibet and the associated troubles there.

PRC goes to British China agreements to justify its claims. They pick and choose what they want.
They are creating a new country out of old agreements.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 11 Nov 2009 22:31

Acharya,

Let us drop it. we are not on the same page.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3510
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby Rudradev » 11 Nov 2009 22:35

NRao wrote:
Rudradev wrote:
PRC thinks that seizing AP will help to consolidate Tibet and end its troubles there.
.


:roll:

"South Tibet" has been an issue prior to Indian independence!!!!!! Even prior to Tibet becoming a part of China!!!!!!


Try reading the question I was responding to with my statement.

Umrao Das wrote:Simple pooch
Why is PRC interested in AP when It has trouble in Ughiristan and Tibet?


Is it your contention that PRC existed prior to Indian independence? :mrgreen:

Claims made by the ROC against the validity of the McMahon line in British NEFA are of no consequence. They are merely a pretext with which PRC justifies its expansionist designs.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 11 Nov 2009 22:40

R,

I did.

However, let it slide.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Deterrence

Postby Jarita » 11 Nov 2009 22:41

NRao wrote:(Thanks for that assist.) The point being that "PRC thinks that seizing AP will help to consolidate Tibet and end its troubles there." cannot then be right. Chinese idea that AP belongs to them predates (by a few decades) the current troubles in occupied Tibet and the associated troubles there.

Just googled. The problem arose in 1914, the problem of AP/ST predates even PRC. Actually it has nothing to do with PRC.



Problem for whom? China did not have "tibet" then. The folks in AP don't have any problem. Every country will have some narrative or another about regions.
So what are you trying to say?

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby Johann » 11 Nov 2009 23:05

Rudradev wrote:Did you ever consider why, for instance, the Chinese stole the W88 warhead design from the Americans? The Chinese already had megaton weapons, after all. It wasn't about the capacity for more boom... it was because W88s were small and lightweight and could be moved from one storage place to another easily if there were any suspicion that their location had been compromised by enemy intelligence. Weaponizing their warheads as W88s instead of large, cumbersome older models, actually protected the Chinese arsenal from being taken out by American or Russian pre-emptive strikes.

It is for all these reasons that further R&D and further testing to vastly improve our nuclear arsenal are absolutely necessary if we want to achieve anything resembling actual deterrence. It's not just about building a huuuuuuuge TN that yields X number of megatons, but making sure that the TN works, that it is weaponizable, that it can be MIRVed, that the IA can safely and easily transport and store it in response to potential threats. That it is a weapon which we can secure perfectly until it is needed for use, and ready it for use in very short order when necessary. Not some ancient hand-carved musket that we hang up on the living room wall to scare daakoos.

This will not require one more or two more chupa-rustom tests. It will require commitment to a long-term plan of research, development and repeated tests of everything from TN explosions to MIRV delivery systems. We need to make sure every single aspect of our strategic arsenal works successfully with repeatable results, and that's only possible if we tell the rest of the world to mind their own damn business while we run every conceivable test in the book.


China's nuclear forces are somewhat like their conventional forces - there's a decades long gap between the technology theft, which is conducted on a massive and comprehensive scale with real urgency, and the actual fielding of equipment built with that technology, which is usually drawn out, and often in surprisingly small numbers.

What is interesting is the extremely slow rate at which these solid-fuelled missiles with advanced warheads are replacing their older liquid-fuelled missiles.

It has less than 30 road-mobile ICBMs, and none of them are MIRVed as far as its known.

The bulk of the PRC's missiles in the that can reach either Moscow or Washington DC remain incredibly vulnerable.

It also does not have the nuclear forces to devastate their 'b country' as you put it, and never did, and shows no sign of acquiring such a capability.

The PLA, like many large militaries would like to be in the nuclear war-fighting business. The civilians of the CPC Politburo do not. There were similar dichotomies in the Soviet Union and (on and off) in the US.

What the Politburo has approved is massive, massive numbers of increasingly accurate short ranged conventional missiles that are meant to cripple Taiwan, and US bases in Korea and Japan if need be without the need to achieve air superiority. The anti-ship ballistic missile currently in development against US carriers falls in to the same category.

Unless there is a dramatic shift in the PRC's power structure, it is the Politburo, not the PLA that must be deterred. Given that damage inflicted in *any* nuclear exchange will utterly dwarf that of a major conventional war, what has been sufficient to deter the CPC Politburo from engaging in major conventional war in 30 years?

The confrontations between India and China in the 1980s up to the early 1990s should be studied closely for lessons.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Deterrence

Postby Sanku » 11 Nov 2009 23:20

shiv wrote:
Sanku wrote: So preparing for war is deterrence.


Preparing for war is necessary. Calling it deterrence is just imagination.


Saar Cost benefit analysis is basic building block of human behavior.

Deterrence is its application in the Nuclear world.

Nothing is my imagination.

Sanku wrote:Could you expand a bit on the nature of victory India would win in a nuclear war with China, if India had more nukes than China?


Hmm, I will tell you what the victory would be, the victory would be not a defeat where :
-- India, can take out 3 * 1/2 Chinese cities in response to China taking out 30 Indian cities. This is the victory I am seeking!!

I will leave it to China to worry about the whether they want to impose the cost of 30 Indian cities to defeat them.

Thats what I would do.
:lol: :lol:

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Deterrence

Postby Sanku » 11 Nov 2009 23:31

Johann wrote:Unless there is a dramatic shift in the PRC's power structure, it is the Politburo, not the PLA that must be deterred.


This is OT, but in the secretive country like China where the Politburo decides how to use Mil manpower in industries and Mil bosses have stakes in private enterprise, if there is so much of a dichotomy.

In my view the Politburo and PLA are the Bhutto-Zia pair.

Depending on which side the coin lands on, heads we attack India, tails we get India to attack us scenario exists.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: Deterrence

Postby samuel » 12 Nov 2009 00:50

I wonder if India's Mutually Assured Existence and the West's Mutually Assured Destruction are the yin-yang of deterrence.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3510
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby Rudradev » 12 Nov 2009 01:09

Johann wrote:Unless there is a dramatic shift in the PRC's power structure, it is the Politburo, not the PLA that must be deterred. Given that damage inflicted in *any* nuclear exchange will utterly dwarf that of a major conventional war, what has been sufficient to deter the CPC Politburo from engaging in major conventional war in 30 years?


On what grounds do you assert that the Politburo were *deterred* (i.e. prevented under duress by threat of external punishment) from prosecuting any major conventional war in 30 years?

It seems to me the Politburo under Deng made a conscious decision to seek an economic path to empire-building, 30 years ago. Engaging in conventional wars would have been detrimental to this programme until its goals: economic prosperity, large-scale industrialization, a favourable trade balance with the West, extensive buildup of infrastructure and a global trade presence were fulfilled. China wanted to be seen as a guarantor of trade and economic security, winning the confidence of east and south-east Asian trading partners; not a bully which started wars and disrupted international commerce.

In spite of this there were instances where the PLA's true colors showed through the new benign mask of economic expansion: Sumdorong Chu 1987, the grab for Johnson Reef in 1988, Kargil 1999 (when the PLA engaged in aggressive posturing in the Ladakh sector). So clearly, when the Chinese perceived a core interest as being threatened (as with the resource-rich Spratlys, or the chance of India overwhelming Pakistan with a cross-IB assault) they were quite ready to take military action... and hence, were not "deterred" in any commonly understood sense of the term.

If India's policymakers honestly believe that the Chinese have been "deterred" for 30 years by our arsenal of 25-kt weapons, they may be in for a rude shock, because it seems that calculations in Beijing are changing. The Chinese have come a long way... a lot further than us... in establishing themselves as a global economic power. Their clout in this arena has grown so much that even the US is now appeasing and placating them in return for assistance with managing the world economic crisis. The Russians, meanwhile, are wooing the Chinese to set up a counter-bloc against the West, currently known as the SCO.

So the Chinese can rest assured that now of all times they are unlikely to face US or Russian interference (conventional or nuclear), with any military adventures they might be plotting against India. Possibly less likely than at any time over the last 30 years.

However, the Chinese also see that with the rise of India, their window of opportunity to resolve the border issue in their favor (and reiterate their predominance as THE uncontested supreme power of Asia) might be limited. The Indo-US strategic partnership, the nuclear deal, the advent of Arihant and Agni and even Chandrayaan all point to this inevitable reality.

I think there is a substantial chance that China will, over the next four years, escalate hostilities with India to the level of a conventional war in order to resolve its border issues and demonstrate its regional military supremacy.

Unless we substantially improve our conventional warfighting capability (including logistics and infrastructure), or upgrade our nuclear arsenal to the point where we can inflict damage on them that is comparable to their capacity for damaging us... the Chinese may decide that the potential costs of such escalation are well worth it.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Deterrence

Postby Jarita » 12 Nov 2009 01:19

Rudradev wrote:Unless we substantially improve our conventional warfighting capability (including logistics and infrastructure), or upgrade our nuclear arsenal to the point that we can damage them to an extent comparable to their capacity to damage us in a nuclear war... and hopefully both of these things... the Chinese may decide that the potential costs of such escalation are well worth it.


Would'nt the nuclear capability supercede the conventional warfare capability? Should India be focussing on one or the other, or is there little choice!
We need 1 MT HB right? What else would bridge the gap and make a war a losing proposition for the master copiers

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby svinayak » 12 Nov 2009 03:16

NRao wrote:Acharya,

Let us drop it. we are not on the same page.

It is OK. All will be in the same page eventually

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Deterrence

Postby Jarita » 12 Nov 2009 03:37

Wondering what is the bulls eye for India? We have multiple enemies but from a prioritization perspective, where do we focus to unravel the ball of wool?
Weakening CHina will weaken Pakistan and the red menace in India for sure.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3510
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby Rudradev » 12 Nov 2009 04:01

Jarita wrote:Wondering what is the bulls eye for India? We have multiple enemies but from a prioritization perspective, where do we focus to unravel the ball of wool?
Weakening CHina will weaken Pakistan and the red menace in India for sure.


Jarita, one bit of good news for us. The Chinese do overmatch us in terms of their nuclear arsenal BUT they need their nuclear arsenal to deter (and possibly fight) several potential enemies. They need to conserve their longest range warheads for the US, Russia and possibly European capitals; and many of their short and medium-range warheads for Russian Central Asia/Far East, American assets in Japan and South Korea, and possibly Taiwan. India is just one of the targets they have to keep in mind ... so, they too have multiple enemies and a finite number of strategic assets.

Meanwhile, we today have only two potential enemies with whom we would consider fighting a nuclear war... China itself, and Pakistan.

If we simply start increasing our nuclear arsenal in terms of number and yields of warheads to pressure China, they will probably respond by proliferating to Bangladesh, Myanmar and other governments in our neighbourhood so that we, too will have to distribute our finite arsenal among more potential targets. Giving 10-20 kt warheads to these countries is cheaper for China, than researching/designing/testing/building large numbers of MT warheads is for us.

So we do have to consider carefully what the best way is to go.

I'm a big advocate of defensive deterrence... maximizing an enemy's cost in strategic assets to cause a given quantum of damage to us.

There is reason to believe that defensive measures... ABMs, early warning systems and so on... can drastically increase the redundance an enemy must build into his offensive arsenal in order to offer us the same threat level.

For example: (from http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/n ... e_102.html)

Key point here on the efficiency of defenses. In the 1950s, the UK V-bomber fleet was assigned to hit over 200 targets in the Western USSR.

As the 50's turned into the 60's the ability of the V-bombers to penetrate Soviet airspace came under increasing doubt. The UK shifted to Polaris - one submarine at sea, 16 missiles, three warheads per. Total of 48 targets assigned.

But the USSR started to install an anti-missile system that was reasonably capable against the early Polaris-type missiles.

So the UK modified Polaris in a thing called Chevaline. this took one warhead from each missile and replaced the load with decoys - then targeted all 16 missiles onto Moscow. ONE target. In effect, the Soviet defenses had reduced the UK attack plan from 200 targets to one. In other words, it was 99.5 percent effective without firing a single shot (bad news for Moscow but great news for the other 199 cities with targets in them).

That's why so many devices are needed - the inventory evaporates very fast. Thats also why defenses like ABM are so important... The defenses don't have to be very effective to work ... its the complexity they throw into the planning process. As long as we can assume that if we get a warhead on its way to its target, that target is going to be hit, then planning is relatively easy and the results predictable. If, however, we can't make that guarantee; if we have to factor in a possibility - perhaps a good one - that the outbound warhead will be shot down, then planning becomes very uncertain. Now put yourself in the position of somebody planning a strike - do you wish to gamble your nation's change of survival on something that MIGHT work. Of course not. So Strategic Paralysis strikes again. A defense system doesn't have to work against an attack to be effective because it works on the minds of the people who make the decisions.



So we need a balanced mix of developing bigger and better warheads that can damage the Chinese to an equivalent extent as they can damage us. Plus, we need to massively accelerate the development and acquisition of defense systems: ABM systems like PAD and AAD and also things like Phalcon that will give us plenty of warning when something is incoming.

Defense systems, also, can be acquired and tested openly without as much trouble as it would be to develop and test nukes. They are defensive after all. Yet the act of testing them would send a message as powerful in its own way, as testing a 1MT thermonuclear device.

Such systems will put pressure on China to assign more warheads to targets in India to increase the possibility of hitting them. But on the other hand, the Chinese can't afford to point more than a very limited number of their warheads away from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Russia and other multiple enemies they must take into account. Check! Now that's what I'd call deterrence.
Last edited by Rudradev on 12 Nov 2009 04:09, edited 1 time in total.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 536
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby V_Raman » 12 Nov 2009 04:07

Acharya wrote:
Umrao Das wrote:Thanks Acharya.

That PRC can go into contentions and make threats, trasparent,, physical by encroaching, strategic entrapment in international fora, demographic and cartographic aggression relentlessly, be in SIberia or AP or Burma Or Tibet or in Nepal, is clear indication of its intent overt and covert.

But thing is that it is doing what Uncle/Aunty wants it to do. It is not apparent from outside but closer info gives a different picture.

That PRC is able to do this vis a vis India is an indication that PRC is not detrred but just waiting for the right opportunity to stage a conventional move, to overtly test our capability to flex Nuclear dterrence. Should AP fall to them are we going to abondon the use of MIRVs of 8 Kt to 20 Kt {certified by Wallce & co} as FU? Since we dont have TNs ( Tactical and Thermo?)

I dont have any answer for your questions.
China military modernization gives a scary picture


this is a very interesting exchange. our nuclear capability or deterrence is there to deter the other side from launching nukes at us. not to deter a conventional strike. what deters prc today from conventional war is our conventional capability. the moment we get into using our nuclear capability for conventional deterrence, then our nuclear capability is not for deterrence anymore. it is an offensive capability we are willing to flex if pushed. equal-equal onlee from that point.

in my view, india will lose AP if it comes to that if china does not launch nukes at us first.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Deterrence

Postby Jarita » 12 Nov 2009 04:15

Why are we not using propaganda as a deterrance tool?

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 536
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby V_Raman » 12 Nov 2009 04:20

PRC not able to threaten us with nukes itself could be a conventional deterrent for them.

How do we know GoI is not using propaganda to good effect vis-a-vis PRC? The dalai lama visit, in my view, is to show the world that people of AP are with india and PRC cant do anything about it.

in this day and age, that is the best deterrent.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Deterrence

Postby Jarita » 12 Nov 2009 04:21

V_Raman wrote:PRC not able to threaten us with nukes itself could be a conventional deterrent for them.

How do we know GoI is not using propaganda to good effect vis-a-vis PRC?



Need the evidence. Don't see it. PRC has a lousy reputation in ROW. We need to get working.
Remember for them perception is very very very important

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 536
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby V_Raman » 12 Nov 2009 04:23

if indian nuclear capability was perceived as an offensive capabilty for conventional deterrance, we would not have gotten IUCNA.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3510
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby Rudradev » 12 Nov 2009 04:28

V_Raman wrote:if indian nuclear capability was perceived as an offensive capabilty for conventional deterrance, we would not have gotten IUCNA.


Hence, NFU :mrgreen:

The Pakistani nuclear arsenal in fact IS, and IS perceived as an offensive capability for conventional deterrence against India.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Deterrence

Postby Jarita » 12 Nov 2009 04:29

[quote="Acharya"]But thing is that it is doing what Uncle/Aunty wants it to do. It is not apparent from outside but closer info gives a different picture.

[quote]


Please elucidate. Understand the PRC and unkil/aunty equation from the 1940's but it is hard to envisage PRC as unkils poodle in this day and age. A more powerpul PRC can end up being a big threat to unkil and aunty unless it goes the Korea way(which seems to be running into hot water from the looks of it).
What is the benefit to unkil/aunty and how do the interests converge?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby svinayak » 12 Nov 2009 04:50

Please read the PRC economic thread

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2009 06:10

Rudradev wrote:If India's policymakers honestly believe that the Chinese have been "deterred" for 30 years by our arsenal of 25-kt weapons, they may be in for a rude shock, because it seems that calculations in Beijing are changing.


Rudradev - apologies. I do read your views but since i believe that you are a coherent thinker I am going to challenge you on a couple of points

You seem to be quite confident about how the "calculatons in Beijing" work and change. Can I ask you to say what degree of confidence you have that India has only 25kt weapons? There is a BRF disease that started with Santhanam and his forum support from he who must not be named to assume 25 kt.

Suppose you heard it from some other figure of authority that India actually has - say 250 kt weapons (OK perhaps tested designs stolen from someone), how would that change your calculus. I see a lot of scenario building that assumes whatever yield/thought process that is convenient (for the argument) for the Chinese or other adversaries, but restricts India to a 25 kt box.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2009 06:12

Jarita wrote:Why are we not using propaganda as a deterrance tool?

Do you know if we are not using propaganda to give the impression of being weak in terms of nuclear weapons?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2009 06:40

Sanku wrote:Hmm, I will tell you what the victory would be, the victory would be not a defeat where :
-- India, can take out 3 * 1/2 Chinese cities in response to China taking out 30 Indian cities. This is the victory I am seeking!!

I will leave it to China to worry about the whether they want to impose the cost of 30 Indian cities to defeat them.


Ok thanks for spelling that out. If that is your view it is fine. You have at least bothered to state that the Chinese may view the loss of "3 * 1/2 Chinese cities" as a cost. In my view that earns you points because you are seeing the loss of even one Chinese city as a high cost to them

When one calculates that China can destroy 60 India cities and claims that China will not feel pain by losing even 5 cities, then the war is already lost (as I stated earlier). One is then talking about fighting nuclear war against an adversary who will laugh at several tens of millions dead and injured. That is an irrational enemy and it matters little whether you have more or less weapons than that irrational enemy - you (India) are going to feel unacceptable pain even if you have destroyed him at the end of the exchange.

The expression "MAD" is used very loosely. If people take time out to see what MAD means - you find that only the US and FSU were seriously capable of nuking every square centimeter of habitable ground in the other country (or any other country). MAD does not exist and has not existed between any two countries other than US and FSU and it is worth getting one more source of fog out of one's mind. All this talk of China making "B country unlivable" in India etc is technically unsound rhetoric considering that they do not have more than 400 weapons (probably fewer) and not more than 50 (perhaps less) are in the multimegaton range.

And that in fact is the worry. If India was totally destroyed - there would be less for India to worry about (few Indians left alive) than having even two cities or more destroyed. That is unbearable pain for any civilised nation. Indians must not take the loss of cities lightly. The loss of even a small sized town should be seen by India as the trigger for nuking any adversary with all that we have got. A nation that seeks to nuke any Indian entity must never get the feeling that "we are willing to lose 2 or 3 or 30 cities" and absorb the pain. We need to respect ourselves first and vow that we will react disproportionately to the first nuke launched against us. A nation with 1000 nukes is no use if it is not willing to employ them in war. But a nation with 20 nukes or even 5 nukes is a big threat if they are always ready to use them. Deterrence is more about readiness to use your nukes and clearly defined red lines and automatic use of nukes when those red lines are crossed.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Postby ramana » 12 Nov 2009 07:09

shiv, Are you now after me?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2009 07:17

ramana wrote:shiv, Are you now after me?


ramana there is no need for this message, but since you have posted it I will reply.

Five minutes ago I reported your post in the Pakistan thread because you had posted an entire article from the Pioneer with no url.

This is the link to the post that I reported
viewtopic.php?p=770693#p770693

And now you ask me on this thread if I am after you.

ramana - you decide whether I am after you or not. If I ever go after someone it will never be without strong reason. If you give me reason to go after you I certainly will. When you post entire news items without urls - that is a good enough excuse for me to go after you - since many others, philip in particular (a former BRF admin) is constantly told off for posting entire articles.

You know damn well that your public question to me and my reply is OT. I recall that you once pointed out on this forum that of the two of us, you and me, you are the admin. Of course you are sir. You should know what is right and what is wrong shouldn't you. Sir.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby ldev » 12 Nov 2009 07:21

Acharya wrote:
Umrao Das wrote:Simple pooch
Why is PRC interested in AP when It has trouble in Ughiristan and Tibet?

It shows that nuclear deterrence has not worked. Not with 25kt


As far as I understand, "Deterrence", is the ability to deter an adversary from launching a *nuclear attack*. It is not some magic wand that you wave around and hey presto, everyone becomes all goody-goody and does not covet any other country's territory.

The US having megaton class weapons did not deter the Soviets from trying to push their own nukes into Cuba and the Soviets having megaton class weapons did not deter the Chinese from pursuing the Soviets at the Ussuri river. But everyone has been deterred from starting a *nuclear war*. That is the whole purpose of deterrence and it has worked even with China and India. Because there is a certain degree of rationality involved. If irrational players enter the picture, then ofcourse all bets are off. Hence the worry over control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
Last edited by ldev on 12 Nov 2009 07:27, edited 1 time in total.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Deterrence

Postby negi » 12 Nov 2009 07:24

Everyone can build scenarios no big deal. Point is what is safer/prudent thing to do i.e. to build them around 25kT nukes (250kT is not yet tested) or around higher yield weapons say in mega tonne range ?

We on the internet don't risk nothing by building seemingly intelligent scenarios around low yield weapons that is why deterrence based on low yield weapons sounds credible.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby svinayak » 12 Nov 2009 07:33

ldev wrote:
As far as I understand, "Deterrence", is the ability to deter an adversary from launching a *nuclear attack*. It is not some magic wand that you wave around and hey presto, everyone becomes all goody-goody and does not covet any other country's territory.

Are we going to start with definition of deterrence now after tens of pages in the forum.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 12 Nov 2009 07:38

Acharya wrote:
ldev wrote:
As far as I understand, "Deterrence", is the ability to deter an adversary from launching a *nuclear attack*. It is not some magic wand that you wave around and hey presto, everyone becomes all goody-goody and does not covet any other country's territory.

Are we going to start with definition of deterrence now after tens of pages in the forum.


The forum has hundreds of members. Why not allow people to state their views? I don't recall you posting any of your views on deterrence although you seem willing to make rhetorical points about someone else's view. That IMO is far easier than defining deterrence.

At least ldev seems to have put in some original thought. If you happen to have done that why don't you post it on here?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby svinayak » 12 Nov 2009 07:40

shiv wrote:
The forum has hundreds of members. Why not allow people to state their views? I don't recall you posting any of your views on deterrence although you seem willing to make rhetorical points about someone else's view. That IMO is far easier than defining deterrence.

At least ldev seems to have put in some original thought. If you happen to have done that why don't you post it on here?

I did not reply to you. Ignore my post. Namaste

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby ldev » 12 Nov 2009 07:41

Acharya wrote:
ldev wrote:
As far as I understand, "Deterrence", is the ability to deter an adversary from launching a *nuclear attack*. It is not some magic wand that you wave around and hey presto, everyone becomes all goody-goody and does not covet any other country's territory.

Are we going to start with definition of deterrence now after tens of pages in the forum.


I think we should, because the traditional definition of deterrence as viewed in the context of deterring nuclear war has been misused by various people including you.

But since it has been asked by another member, "What is your defintion of deterrence in the context of nuclear warfare?" Remember - the context - we are not talking about border skirmishes, or covert operations, or piracy or terrorism but nuclear warfare.
Last edited by ldev on 12 Nov 2009 07:44, edited 1 time in total.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4225
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Deterrence

Postby Manish_Sharma » 12 Nov 2009 07:44

shiv wrote: And that in fact is the worry. If India was totally destroyed - there would be less for India to worry about (few Indians left alive) than having even two cities or more destroyed. That is unbearable pain for any civilised nation. Indians must not take the loss of cities lightly. The loss of even a small sized town should be seen by India as the trigger for nuking any adversary with all that we have got. A nation that seeks to nuke any Indian entity must never get the feeling that "we are willing to lose 2 or 3 or 30 cities" and absorb the pain. We need to respect ourselves first and vow that we will react disproportionately to the first nuke launched against us. A nation with 1000 nukes is no use if it is not willing to employ them in war. But a nation with 20 nukes or even 5 nukes is a big threat if they are always ready to use them. Deterrence is more about readiness to use your nukes and clearly defined red lines and automatic use of nukes when those red lines are crossed.

But Shiv wouldn't it be a victory to Chinese civilization in long run, as even after going through the pain of losing 10 cities they will be back on the climb in 100-200 years while, Indian civilization would cease to exist. Shouldn't the NW stockpiling take into consideration post deterrent post nuclear war vision. On how our civilization survives?

Personally all that matters to me about india is how country survives as land of Hindu, Budhhist and Jainas.

I am not even sure how more TNs or stockpile would help in this, just part of your post triggered this question in me.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby ldev » 12 Nov 2009 07:51

But Shiv wouldn't it be a victory to Chinese civilization in long run, as even after going through the pain of losing 10 cities they will be back on the climb in 100-200 years while, Indian civilization would cease to exist.


Manish_Sharma,

From what little I know and from a very cursory analysis, even if the Chinese throw everything they have at India, Indian civilization will still exist. Yes the infrastructure of India will be devasted and there will be tens of millions of casualties but Indian civilization will still exist. The only country which today IMO has the ability to wipe out entire civilizations with its stockpile is the US. The Russians have the stockpiles but their delivery systems are no longer capable of causing civilizational extinction.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: vinod and 53 guests