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.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2982
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Deterrence

Postby Kanson » 15 Nov 2009 22:33

which the BARC dishonestly


As long as statements which riles up the emotions are appearing things are not going to be easy for anyside for longtime. It is the clear case of scandalous attempt by whoever writing the article, irrespective of who they are/were.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 935
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Deterrence

Postby sivab » 15 Nov 2009 22:48

Talking of dishonesty ...

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20091115/edit.htm#1

K. Santhanam and Ashok Parthasarathi wrote:
The writer then moves to our statement that had TN test really worked, the 120-meter deep shaft at the bottom of which the TN device was emplaced


http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... Pb0=&type=

V Sudarshan wrote:
The shaft ran more than a 120 metres into the ground. At the bottom it veered slightly to the left, making an ‘L’. After the turn it ran for a further five metres, called an adit.

V Sudarshan is the Executive Editor of ‘The New Indian Express’

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16411
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 16 Nov 2009 00:16

Ah. Thanks sivab - for that 120-meter. I missed that data point on Oct 3, 2009.

However, as Ramachandran is viewed as a front to BARC, V Sudarshan can be seen as a front to Santhanam.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6723
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Amber G. » 16 Nov 2009 01:20

... A-bombs (which cannot yield more than 80 kt max)


The statement coming out from a scientist is, at best, extremely sloppy. It gives an appearance as if author is a getting this from a basic natural law which controls this yield (akin to some one saying something like "Maximum energy liberated from one U235 fission is 200 Mev" ). It is, however, demonstrably false. 10 Hiroshima size bombs will yield more than 80Kt. Unless one twist oneself in a knot to define what a "A-bomb" is, this kind of statement is nonsense. There is no fundamental law in nature which prevents oneself to make a device and call it a "A-bomb" which has 10 Hiroshima sized U pits inside.

Of course, there is no such limit as 80Kt (or any similar arbitrary number) for FBF type devices. Heck if some one gives oneself enough TNT one can even make a chemical bomb of 80kt+ size.
Last edited by Amber G. on 16 Nov 2009 01:25, edited 1 time in total.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6723
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Postby Amber G. » 16 Nov 2009 01:24

Kanson wrote:
which the BARC dishonestly


As long as statements which riles up the emotions are appearing things are not going to be easy for anyside for longtime. It is the clear case of scandalous attempt by whoever writing the article, irrespective of who they are/were.

My impression is, looks like S1 yield in that article is not the main issue.. it is attack on DAE as a whole.. IMO can't be good..
Have not seen anything academic, or new technical information/arguments from this paper.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby Johann » 16 Nov 2009 02:24

shiv wrote:Nrao - I was reading a very interesting article from 1980 which basically argued that the "counter force" doctrine (of knocking out an enemy's nuclear forces) was complete rubbish because the missiles (up to time of writing - 1980) were too inaccurate to be relied on to actually destroy an enemy's nuclear force even with megaton warheads. (The article is here - kelik). The author argued that ships and subs need to know their exact position at launch to achieve accuracy and that was the problem (then)

Obviously the problem has now been solved (for the US) with GPS. But if you cannot rely on GPS you have little chance of hitting a known silo, and less chance of hitting a mobile enemy warhead in a counter force strike especially from a mobile launch platform whose launch coordinates are themselves not exactly known.


Shiv,

That article was in some ways already behind the times when it was written. Advances in computing and radar technology were revolutionising terminal guidance on nuclear missiles in the 1970s and early 1980s, and I am not speaking of GPS.

Cruise missiles were the most obvious area of improvement through terrain matching, but ballistic missiles like the Pershing II had *extremely* accurate radar based terminal guidance.

Of course the real problem with any counterforce method is the problem of time sensitive intelligence.

Between SSBNs, road and rail mobile missiles, and the redundancy built in to most strategic C4ISR there was never any serious hope you could avoid retaliation that resulted in unacceptable damage, even if you struck all-out from the blue.

The real attractiveness of the weapons that a counter-force strategy demanded was the idea that decision-makers would have a wider choice of targets in the event of a breakdown in deterrence, and maybe, just maybe avoid total mutual assured destruction. Of course there were plenty of others who saw this desire as dangerous undermining of deterrence.
Last edited by Johann on 16 Nov 2009 02:26, edited 1 time in total.

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Deterrence

Postby surinder » 16 Nov 2009 02:26

Shiv, Rudradev, Johann & Others,

You guys have been talking of deterrence in terms in terms of a direct nuclear attack by PRC. But it seems to me that PRC is more likely to use Nuclear weapons on India indirectly, not directly. The indirect route is through TSP. In fact, PRC is the major reason behind TSP's nuke capability. We may be lost on in thinking of deterrence scenarios which envisage a direct PRC strike on India, but we need to think more in terms of an indirect strike. This is much more likely scenario.

PRC has attempted to counter US nukes by an innovative & bold approach of nuclear proliferation. TSP & N. Korea being the more overt examples of that. Iran, Libya are also an indirect result of PRC. THis seems to have worked, as US is made to distract & fritter away its energy fighting nuclear fire in TSP, N.Korea, & Iran.

Given this track record & tendencies, in case there is Indo-TSP war, or an Indo-PRC war, it will encourage TSP to nuke India. It might fool TSP, and embolden it on a path if TSP dithers. What would India do? Will it restrict its nuclear retaliation to TSP? Or will it retaliate against PRC as well? Will it equate an attack on India by TSP to be an attack by PRC itself?

I think Indo-PRC deterrence is more about answering & exploring this indirect path. India's red-lines & nuclear doctrine, and stance must ultimately be designed to deter PRC from even using TSP to attack India. Your comments on this are welcome, Shiv & Johann & others.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2009 06:43

I think we need to set at rest a few things about nuclear weapons and the megaton-kiloton argument which IMO is a bogey that has been introduced for the specific purpose of proving that India has no thermonuclear weapons and therefore no deterrence If "Step 1=proving that India has no thermonuclear weapons", "Step 2" is to state that India has no deterrence. This has been done by no less a figure than Santhanam himself. This is a scurrilous claim that can only do damage to Indian deterrence as stated by Adm Arun Prakash in the article I have linked earlier. And Arun Prakash was himself in the thick of things managing Indian arsenal and deterrence as the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Commitee

What has been left out by Santhanam and co is the gap between fission and thermonuclear weapons and I will merely post quotes from 2 links - it is up to those people who are interested to actually read them - the topic is boosted fission weapons

Gsponer ITER paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401110
Page 25
3) The most important technical aspects of boosting ....can be tested without actually starting
fission or fusion reactions. This can be done outside of the scope of the CTBT, and
only requires conventional equipments that are available in most high-explosive
research laboratories.
4) Using boosting, it is straightforward to build highly efficient and reliable
fission weapons using reactor-grade plutonium. In particular, the possibility of
a preinitiation of the chain reaction, which creates difficulties in making a non-
boosted fission bomb [24, 25], is no longer a serious problem. In fact, two of
the five devices tested by India in May 1998 are believed to have used plutonium
that was not classified as weapons grade [26]. Moreover, independently of the
type of fissile material used, the construction of “simple” and “deliverable” tritium-
boosted nuclear weapons can be easier than the construction of primitive Hiroshima
or Nagasaki type atomic bombs: the main problem is to acquire the few grams of
tritium that are needed for every weapon
(see Fig.1).


and

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sci ... ission.htm
Boosted Fission Weapons
The earliest application of fusion to useful weapons was the development of boosted fission weapons. In these weapons a few grams of a deuterium/tritium gas mixture are included in the center of the fissile core. When the bomb core undergoes enough fission, it becomes hot enough to ignite the D-T fusion reaction which proceeds swiftly. This reaction produces an intense burst of high-energy neutrons that causes a correspondingly intense burst of fissions in the core. This greatly accelerates the fission rate in the core, thus allowing a much higher percentage of the material in the core to fission before it blows apart. Typically no more than about 20% of the material in an average size pure fission bomb will split before the reaction ends (it can be much lower, the Hiroshima bomb was 1.4% efficient). By accelerating the fission process a boosted fission bomb increase the yield 100% (an unboosted 20 kt bomb can thus become a 40 kt bomb). The actual amount of energy released by the fusion reaction is negligible, about 1% of the bomb's yield, making boosted bomb tests difficult to distinguish from pure fission tests (detecting traces of tritium is about the only way).

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2009 06:49

It is well worth reading and archiving adm Prakash's article that was written after the Santhanam imbroglio had hit the fan

http://www.maritimeindia.org/pdfs/STRAT ... MAKING.pdf

While the rationale as well as timing of Mr. Santhanam’s melodramatic
pronouncement about India’s thermo-nuclear prowess will remain a subject
of speculation for a long time to come, there can be little doubt that it is an
indiscretion of monumental proportions. In the midst of the current
brouhaha, we need to retain clarity on one issue; given that deuterium-
tritium boosted-fission weapons can generate yields of 200-500 kt, the
credibility of India’s nuclear deterrent is not in the slightest doubt.
However, the same cannot be said about our scientific community, whose
credibility has been the biggest casualty of the unseemly squabbling
amongst the nation’s senior-most scientists.

< snip>

By their ingenuity and intellectual skills, India’s scientists have scaled
tremendous technological heights in the past 62 years, and given the
nation a great deal to be proud of. However, with the best possible
intentions and the most patriotic motives, it is possible for the scientific
community to go off track in their enthusiasm, and divert considerable
resources to scientific pursuits with uncertain benefits to national security
.
The only way to guard against this is to ensure that decision-making
regarding major scientific initiatives takes place under close political
guidance with military advice.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2009 07:57

Johann wrote:The real attractiveness of the weapons that a counter-force strategy demanded was the idea that decision-makers would have a wider choice of targets in the event of a breakdown in deterrence, and maybe, just maybe avoid total mutual assured destruction. Of course there were plenty of others who saw this desire as dangerous undermining of deterrence.


Exactly Johann. Exactly. The "counter-force" theory was a "high hopes" idea that was expected to work on the following two "let me keep my fingers crossed" assumptions:

1) If I can take out all his nukes he can't hit me
2) Hopefully, while I am busy hitting his nukes onlee, he too will see the light and not attack my cities since I have not attacked his cities.

So "counterforce" was an "Inshallah (God willing) I will win both ways" doctrine. Where it failed was the guarantee that anyone else's nuclear force can be taken out in its entirety considering that you need direct pinpoint hits with megaton weapons to take out one underground silo. Near misses are not good enough and at the end of it all are you willing to have "failed" and lose 500,000 dead in even 2 cities? Or worse, depending on how badly your counterforce fails.

The most robust counter to counter force is assured counter value. An attacker is guaranteed to lose his cities. Unlike naive suggestions made on this thread, civilizations, leave alone economies are marked by the cities they build and it is not OK to lose cities. The national leader who accepts that it is OK to lose his cities is an an irrational person who will be the cause of breakdown of deterrence against you and lead to a war in which he may lose all his cities - but you are not going to win that war - after losing too much yourself.

So one of the aims of deterrence should be to promise to destroy in a nuclear war what the leaders of any nation hold sacred and valuable to themselves - the icons and targets of value that they will need to continue their leadership and power in their countries after a nuclear war.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby Johann » 16 Nov 2009 11:49

Shiv,

Counter-force also has the distinction of being the most mind-bogglingly and obscenely expensive nuclear option.

Only the United States and the Soviets have ever embraced it, and it helped destroy the Soviet economy, the Soviet Union and the CPSU.

Every one else has been content to rely on counter-value. The UK for example shaped its entire deterrent posture in the Cold War on what it called the 'Moscow Criterion' - what would guarantee the destruction of the greater Moscow area. The French did something very similar.

The Russo-American arms control agreements from SALT to the dramatic post cold-war cuts in stockpiles have everything to do with a common agreement that the cost was simply too high to be worth it. Their stockpiles will continue to shrink.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby Sanku » 16 Nov 2009 11:57

NRao wrote:Ah. Thanks sivab - for that 120-meter. I missed that data point on Oct 3, 2009.

However, as Ramachandran is viewed as a front to BARC, V Sudarshan can be seen as a front to Santhanam.


So the equations now agree dont they NRao?

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby Johann » 16 Nov 2009 12:09

surinder wrote:Shiv, Rudradev, Johann & Others,

...Given this track record & tendencies, in case there is Indo-TSP war, or an Indo-PRC war, it will encourage TSP to nuke India. It might fool TSP, and embolden it on a path if TSP dithers. What would India do? Will it restrict its nuclear retaliation to TSP? Or will it retaliate against PRC as well? Will it equate an attack on India by TSP to be an attack by PRC itself?


There's nothing in the current Indian nuclear doctrine that would rule out that option.

In a situation where deterrence seemed to be eroding, and there seemed to be a real and imminent threat of Pakistani nuclear use, it would be a good idea to put some fear in to Beijing in order to get them to use their influence to reign back the PA.

Whether or not such warnings should be public I think depends on the situation.

India has strong communications intelligence ability, particularly against Pakistan, and if the GoI at any point had reason to believe that the PRC was encouraging the PA to employ the nuclear option, Indian nuclear threats against China would have to be very public and emphatic.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby Sanku » 16 Nov 2009 12:16

Johann wrote:
surinder wrote:Shiv, Rudradev, Johann & Others,

...Given this track record & tendencies, in case there is Indo-TSP war, or an Indo-PRC war, it will encourage TSP to nuke India. It might fool TSP, and embolden it on a path if TSP dithers. What would India do? Will it restrict its nuclear retaliation to TSP? Or will it retaliate against PRC as well? Will it equate an attack on India by TSP to be an attack by PRC itself?


There's nothing in the current Indian nuclear doctrine that would rule out that option.

.


Correct, the question is whether the capabilities match the draft doctrine. The Doctrine is very good. Can we pony up on that is the question.

And no 1 50 Kt nuke jokes are not going to cut it. PRC does not play games, if it precipitates a situation where Nuke use is being considered, its leadership is not composed of jokers who think India wont be able to hit back at all.

They fully expect some damage but will go ahead regardless in that situation.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 16 Nov 2009 12:19

Sanku wrote:
NRao wrote:Ah. Thanks sivab - for that 120-meter. I missed that data point on Oct 3, 2009.

However, as Ramachandran is viewed as a front to BARC, V Sudarshan can be seen as a front to Santhanam.


So the equations now agree dont they NRao?
The last shoe has dropped. BK was right all along. The shaft was a little over 100 meters deep as India lacked the requisite technology when the shafts were dug.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby Sanku » 16 Nov 2009 12:28

ShauryaT wrote:
Sanku wrote:
So the equations now agree dont they NRao?
The last shoe has dropped. BK was right all along. The shaft was a little over 100 meters deep as India lacked the requisite technology when the shafts were dug.


Expect character assassination to resume in full swing now.

Already the neutral peer reviewed SRR has given the verdict (much before data was available) -- its all petty jealously only -- of course there is nothing else to the matter.

Expect more muck throwing on K Sanathanan and resumption of the spin cycle. (Which began with "he only was digging what does he know")

Its all simple petty jealously -- this is the esteemed analysis of the great thinkers.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby svinayak » 16 Nov 2009 12:49

Johann wrote:
There's nothing in the current Indian nuclear doctrine that would rule out that option.

In a situation where deterrence seemed to be eroding, and there seemed to be a real and imminent threat of Pakistani nuclear use, it would be a good idea to put some fear in to Beijing in order to get them to use their influence to reign back the PA.

Whether or not such warnings should be public I think depends on the situation.

India has strong communications intelligence ability, particularly against Pakistan, and if the GoI at any point had reason to believe that the PRC was encouraging the PA to employ the nuclear option, Indian nuclear threats against China would have to be very public and emphatic.

You have few info on the thoughts of Indians and their world view on their land and nation let alone on what they look for from other neighbouring countries. These nations for Indians do not have a history from Indian point of view.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16411
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 16 Nov 2009 17:47

Sanku wrote:
NRao wrote:Ah. Thanks sivab - for that 120-meter. I missed that data point on Oct 3, 2009.

However, as Ramachandran is viewed as a front to BARC, V Sudarshan can be seen as a front to Santhanam.


So the equations now agree dont they NRao?

Sanku,

I do not know at this point in time.

Added later:

Only because at 120 Mt depth the equation changes and I do not have that equation with me to try out what the radius would be.

(The result/s I provided on the previous page assume it to be granite, but I doubt that it is granite at 120 Mt deep.

BUT, IF at 120 Mt it is granite then Santhanam is off by 2x.)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16411
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 16 Nov 2009 18:17

ShauryaT wrote:
Sanku wrote:So the equations now agree dont they NRao?
The last shoe has dropped. BK was right all along. The shaft was a little over 100 meters deep as India lacked the requisite technology when the shafts were dug.


Can someone help me with a URL for this (BK and 100+ meter depth). TIA.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2009 18:26

surinder wrote:You guys have been talking of deterrence in terms in terms of a direct nuclear attack by PRC. But it seems to me that PRC is more likely to use Nuclear weapons on India indirectly, not directly. The indirect route is through TSP. In fact, PRC is the major reason behind TSP's nuke capability. We may be lost on in thinking of deterrence scenarios which envisage a direct PRC strike on India, but we need to think more in terms of an indirect strike. This is much more likely scenario.

PRC has attempted to counter US nukes by an innovative & bold approach of nuclear proliferation. TSP & N. Korea being the more overt examples of that. Iran, Libya are also an indirect result of PRC. THis seems to have worked, as US is made to distract & fritter away its energy fighting nuclear fire in TSP, N.Korea, & Iran.

Given this track record & tendencies, in case there is Indo-TSP war, or an Indo-PRC war, it will encourage TSP to nuke India. It might fool TSP, and embolden it on a path if TSP dithers. What would India do? Will it restrict its nuclear retaliation to TSP? Or will it retaliate against PRC as well? Will it equate an attack on India by TSP to be an attack by PRC itself?

I think Indo-PRC deterrence is more about answering & exploring this indirect path. India's red-lines & nuclear doctrine, and stance must ultimately be designed to deter PRC from even using TSP to attack India. Your comments on this are welcome, Shiv & Johann & others.


Surinder every country other than India seems to have used chamchas and/or proxies to extend their nuclear and/or conventional clout. It's back to that Venn diagram that shows proliferation of nukes from the US to France and the UK, and the USSR to China. Later it was China to Pakistan to Korea, Iran, Libya and KSA

India is definitely up a gum tree. If we allow Pakistani nukes to degrade us, we give China a walkover. China has everything to gain by seeing India nuked by Pakistan. But in my view the US bears part of the responsibility. As you know the common view on the forum is that the US would like to see India down and out which is why they were happy to see Pakistan get nukes from China.

I think India's path forward has not been easy and is not going to be easy either in future. I believe it is most important for India, first and foremost to get deterrence to hold. Our visible and invisible actions are very important.

If we openly start testing and saying the we want to refine our nuclear weapons we are sending the signal to our nearest adversaries that we are looking at breaking deterrence ourselves. That is the excuse they need to start openly increasing their arsenal and start proliferating to others. A "wink wink nudge nudge Al Qaeda" nuke on India can theoretically be done in the same way that terrorism is used. Let me explain. "LeT" explodes a nuke in India. India wants to retaliate while Pakistan says that they know nothing and that it may be an Indian nuke that has accidentally gone off. China supports Pakistan as says that "Poor Pakistan" is being made a victim when incompetent Indian forces have exploded their own nuke. China then reserves the right to nuke India is India chooses to break deterrence and nuke Pakistan.

Whichever way you look at it India is up a gum tree. Testing is not a happy option for the above reasons, but not testing will no guarantee that it will not occur anyway. Is there any way out?

One way out would be to quietly manufacture as many nuclear weapons as possible. India has demonstrated "some capability". I personally have no doubts about capability up to 200 kt given that it is easier to make a boosted fission bomb explode than a pure fission bomb, But I am less concerned about that than total numbers of weapons. India really should end up with at least 400 warheads and means of delivering them, but this development should be deliberately kept under wraps and revealed only as leaks to interested foreign agencies so that the potential receivers of nukes know, while India behaves holier than thou in public.

In other words, in case of breakdown of deterrence India really needs to prepare for a general nuclear war in which India can be expected to be heavily damaged but neither Pakistan nor China will get away. And no question of fooling around and wasting warheads trying to get enemy silos in mountains. They should all be blasted off at cities. Nuclear war is not nice and both China and Pakistan will have to find out just how "not nice" it is.

And of course, development of missile defence is an absolute must.

A rational China will realise that even if 20 Indian nukes fall on China they will have to use up a sizable portion of their arsenal against India leaving them essentially naked against the US. So India bandwagoning with the US is actually a great idea, despite earlier US perfidy.

Whatever happens Pakistan's capacity to keep making nukes needs to be degraded by degrading her economy and Balkanizing Pakistan. Here again bandwagoning with the US is a good idea, because the US does not need a nuclear armed Pakistan to help its cause against anyone. The US has enough nukes to take on the whole world and Paki nukes are only a complication.

Finally - it matters little whether any Indian believes that Indian nukes work or not - as long as the Pakis an Chinese know. In that sense Santhanam is doing some damage. Arun Prakash has tried to set that damage right in a public article - but I suspect that Santhanam is now being sidelined by the establishment (or he is being utilized as a person whose views will be taken for further testing if required.) Even apart from all this he is beginning to look more like a irascible retiree with a chip on his shoulder because the story has now lost steam and those 500 scientists who agree with him are keeping mum after he stuck is neck out.

Just some random impressions...

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2009 18:32

NRao wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:The last shoe has dropped. BK was right all along. The shaft was a little over 100 meters deep as India lacked the requisite technology when the shafts were dug.


Can someone help me with a URL for this (BK and 100+ meter depth). TIA.


I believe there is no BK-100 meter article. Shaurya may be wrong there but I am willing to be corrected. The earliest references to 120 meters were from Santhanam - as opposed to the 200 plus of Chengappa and the more recent 230 meters from someone else. I believe I have read and saved all refs in this regard. But I have no BK ref.

In fact I don't think either BK or BC have actually entered into the specifics of the controversy with new data of their own. They have only stated their views on the need for large TN basing their fresh doubts on Santhanam's revelations.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16411
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 16 Nov 2009 19:10

Sanku,

Did some very rough calcs - based on the Toman curves (alluvium (NE)) in Sunder's article on BR. @ 120 Meters deep, with either 45 or 20 Kt I do not get even close to the 70 meter radius. Having said that it would be nice if some two/three others do the same - just to make sure that I did not goof up.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16411
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 16 Nov 2009 19:17

Shiv,

I am more interested in what (IF AT ALL) BK has to say about the 120 meter (that ST mentions).

Let us see.

__________________________________________

I cannot say if it is a fraud or not. But for it to be a fraud there has to be plenty to cook (in terms of technical information) and everyone involved has to have a hand in it at THAT point in time. Is it possible, yes it is. Probable? IMVVVHO I do not think so. But, ..............

Let us see.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 16 Nov 2009 20:23

shiv wrote:I believe there is no BK-100 meter article. Shaurya may be wrong there but I am willing to be corrected. The earliest references to 120 meters were from Santhanam - as opposed to the 200 plus of Chengappa and the more recent 230 meters from someone else. I believe I have read and saved all refs in this regard. But I have no BK ref.

In fact I don't think either BK or BC have actually entered into the specifics of the controversy with new data of their own. They have only stated their views on the need for large TN basing their fresh doubts on Santhanam's revelations.
You are most probably right. There is no BK-100 meter article. I read this in his latest (2009) version of his book on Indian nuclear policy. It is also there in the earlier version of his "realist foundations". I am at work now and do not have the book next to me. I will post the page numbers, when i get next to the book.

Also, I do not know, what do you mean by BK or BC having "data of their own". They play the role of full time strategic analysts of our security establishments and do not work in the security establishment themselves, to "have their own data". Their credibility comes from the effort they put in to the issues, the number of people they speak to on the matter and their interpretive judgment on issues and data they collect, which a government and the larger public may accept or reject. Mature strategic security establishments have institutionalized the role of such "outside" analysts.

A good reason for BK not to write a direct article on the DOB issue is because his source on the issue did not want him/herself to be revealed. BK respects that.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2009 20:28

I have said they have no new data of their own.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 16 Nov 2009 20:35

NRao wrote:I cannot say if it is a fraud or not. But for it to be a fraud there has to be plenty to cook (in terms of technical information) and everyone involved has to have a hand in it at THAT point in time. Is it possible, yes it is. Probable? IMVVVHO I do not think so. But, ..............

Let us see.
Fraud or not, these things happen all the time. The scientist or the developer is eager to show his success. Certain data is collected on a given invention. The developer being eager to prove success errs not on the side of caution but relies on those fragments of data that support his case. As time goes by the institutional paradigm kicks in, especially in an environment with a severe lack of checks and balances.

By the time, the truth is uncovered, efforts are made by all interested institutions to perpetuate the false conclusions, in their view of the larger national interest. Until, such time a whistle blower or other interested parties aided by other parts of the institution come in and blow the entire edifice away.

It may not have been fraud at that point in time, even if you discount that possibility, it became a fraud, the moment the designers knew that their design had failed. The only question that remains in my mind is, when did they know?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 16 Nov 2009 20:45

shiv wrote:I have said they have no new data of their own.
That is obvious, for they do not represent any single institution of the establishment. They collect data points from multiple sources to arrive at judgments.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby samuel » 16 Nov 2009 20:46

I really don't think there is any fraud going on either. The experiment is fundamentally ambiguous from measurements if you are outside the circle where differences between the S's cannot be resolved. Could it have been designed that way with the ambiguity in mind in the first place; may be, but why bother focussing on that?
In my mind the simultaneous testing throws a lot of outside judgements out, unless there are interesting phase relationships between these waves that could be used to resolve them distally (which is possible in principle though I don't know how practical). Which is why the ARC gives me pause, though I am rather unsure what it recovered. Irrespectively, inside the circle, there shouldn't be ambiguity, but the fall of the single voice raises it. May be the conclusions are ambiguous there too, but that would still be a far fetch from fraud.

What's Ironic is that those who should be clueless outside the circle are quite sure of their numbers, and those who must inside the circle voice disagreement.
They need to huddle and fix.

S
Last edited by samuel on 16 Nov 2009 20:49, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby Sanku » 16 Nov 2009 20:49

samuel wrote:What's Ironic is that those who should not know outside the circle are quite sure of their numbers, and those who must inside the circle voice disagreement.
They need to huddle and fix.


Indeed and it should have never come to such bitter disagreements if the powers that be had shown some maturity while handling the issue and not started off with "maverick" type statements, this then led to calling others as "economical with truth" and thus the matter degenerated....

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16411
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 16 Nov 2009 20:59

ShauryaT,

Instead of just the page number/s, could you please post the associated concerns he may have in the book?

TIA

ShauryaT wrote:
NRao wrote:I cannot say if it is a fraud or not. But for it to be a fraud there has to be plenty to cook (in terms of technical information) and everyone involved has to have a hand in it at THAT point in time. Is it possible, yes it is. Probable? IMVVVHO I do not think so. But, ..............

Let us see.
Fraud or not, these things happen all the time. The scientist or the developer is eager to show his success. Certain data is collected on a given invention. The developer being eager to prove success errs not on the side of caution but relies on those fragments of data that support his case. As time goes by the institutional paradigm kicks in, especially in an environment with a severe lack of checks and balances.

By the time, the truth is uncovered, efforts are made by all interested institutions to perpetuate the false conclusions, in their view of the larger national interest. Until, such time a whistle blower or other interested parties aided by other parts of the institution come in and blow the entire edifice away.

It may not have been fraud at that point in time, even if you discount that possibility, it became a fraud, the moment the designers knew that their design had failed. The only question that remains in my mind is, when did they know?


ST,

I agree with you thinking.

However, imagine 1) what kind of fraud needs have taken place and 2) EVERY member needs to sing the same tune.

IF the depth was fraudulent, then EVERYTHING associated with it needs to be matched perfectly (within range).

Then EVERY member of the team needs to sing the same tune in unison.

Then to convince the world. This includes people like Changappa, perhaps the entire US team under the Bush regime, every armed force member who "thinks" that such-a-such nuke is on an Agni ..........................................

That is something. Imagine. .................. I used to be impressed by the Great Train robbers.

______________________________________________________________________

Having said that we need to remember this is an issue related only to the TN, not with the non-TN nuclear weapons.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby ldev » 16 Nov 2009 21:25

Shoe!! Sorry, looks more like a chappal to me - a chappal with a broken strap which cannot be worn and hence is being discarded :lol:

This constant :(( from some is truly baffling. Deterrence has held. Shiv's post in which he talks about a counterstrike targetting cities of any attacker on India is the best strategy and one which India has at the heart of its doctrine. And I too have no doubt based on various open source information that India has 200kt warheads. So why this huge angst and desire to run down everything and anything associated with BARC and DAE?

Sorry for intruding on pisko territory but this constant self flagellation probably stems from a gigantic inferiority complex :idea:

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2009 21:28

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:I have said they have no new data of their own.
That is obvious, for they do not represent any single institution of the establishment. They collect data points from multiple sources to arrive at judgments.


Well then we need to see the source and significance of any statement of DOB by BK in his book if you manage to find the quote. I am particularly interested in the date and the source claimed by BK if any.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 16 Nov 2009 21:35

ldev wrote:Shoe!! Sorry, looks more like a chappal to me - a chappal with a broken strap which cannot be worn and hence is being discarded :lol:

This constant :(( from some is truly baffling. Deterrence has held. Shiv's post in which he talks about a counterstrike targetting cities of any attacker on India is the best strategy and one which India has at the heart of its doctrine. And I too have no doubt based on various open source information that India has 200kt warheads. So why this huge angst and desire to run down everything and anything associated with BARC and DAE?
ldev: Can you hold on to your views of what constitutes deterrence for some time. There is new information from KS, let that be dissected first. If you already believe in the BARC story, then simply state it so, without the use of smilies and an attempt on character assassination. Can I request admins to hold the line on the debate not getting personal or inspired by vendetta, even by implication.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 16 Nov 2009 21:40

ShauryaT wrote:There is new information from KS, let that be dissected first.


With respect Shaurya where were you when 150 pages of dissection took place in the three fizzle threads? I recall that until I started acting up nobody took umbrage at the language in those threads. This thread is to discuss deterrence. There is no new information from Santhanam. Yet. There is nothing that has not been said before except for the dimensions of the A-frame. Did you want a list of links to what has been said by Santhanam in the recent past?

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby Sanku » 16 Nov 2009 21:47

shiv wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:There is new information from KS, let that be dissected first.


With respect Shaurya where were you when 150 pages of dissection took place in the three fizzle threads? I recall that until I started acting up nobody took umbrage at the language in those threads. This thread is to discuss deterrence. There is no new information from Santhanam. Yet. There is nothing that has not been said before except for the dimensions of the A-frame. Did you want a list of links to what has been said by Santhanam in the recent past?


There are a few new points

1) Claim that DRDO carried out CORRTEX as well
2) Clarification of role of ARC
3) Depth in addition to crater size formal statements.

Yes you are right, no one took a issue with the language till you started acting up, and I support you for that. Character assassination is NOT the way to go. For anyone.

Yet having made that standard we should all stick to it and not have two standards should we?

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby ldev » 16 Nov 2009 21:50

ldev: Can you hold on to your views of what constitutes deterrence for some time. There is new information from KS, let that be dissected first. If you already believe in the BARC story, then simply state it so, without the use of smilies and an attempt on character assassination. Can I request admins to hold the line on the debate not getting personal or inspired by vendetta, even by implication.


ShauryaT,

Sorry, but the fact that deterrence has held for all these decades inspite of India being weaker then is something that cannot be wished away by those wanting to cast doubts on BARC. As far as your request to admins to hold the line on getting personal, I think that sometime in the recent past another member was called a "moron and a troll". I did not see anybody who is worried about character assasination jumping up and down and crying SOS to admins then. One cannot be selective in crying to admins.

As far as new information is concerned, parse that KS article line by line and see if there is any really new data there suportable from any other credible source.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 16 Nov 2009 21:50

shiv wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:There is new information from KS, let that be dissected first.


With respect Shaurya where were you when 150 pages of dissection took place in the three fizzle threads? I recall that until I started acting up nobody took umbrage at the language in those threads. This thread is to discuss deterrence. There is no new information from Santhanam. Yet. There is nothing that has not been said before except for the dimensions of the A-frame. Did you want a list of links to what has been said by Santhanam in the recent past?
With respect Shiv, All I saw was noise and hence did not feel the need to participate. S1 DOB view of KS is new information. CORRTEX being under the control of DRDO is new info. RC analysis as not the final word on measurements is new info. Chengappa being led down the garden path is new info (as per V. Sudarshan). Also, a reiteration of many previous assertions of KS. It may or may not have been said before but I treat that as new info based on info primarily from KS.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby Sanku » 16 Nov 2009 21:55

ldev wrote:
ldev: Can you hold on to your views of what constitutes deterrence for some time. There is new information from KS, let that be dissected first. If you already believe in the BARC story, then simply state it so, without the use of smilies and an attempt on character assassination. Can I request admins to hold the line on the debate not getting personal or inspired by vendetta, even by implication.


ShauryaT,

Sorry, but the fact that deterrence has held for all these decades inspite of India being weaker then is something that cannot be wished away by those wanting to cast doubts on BARC. As far as your request to admins to hold the line on getting personal, I think that sometime in the recent past another member was called a "moron and a troll". I did not see anybody who is worried about character assasination jumping up and down and crying SOS to admins then. One cannot be selective in crying to admins.

As far as new information is concerned, parse that KS article line by line and see if there is any really new data there suportable from any other credible source.


Well Idev the fact that Nukes haven't been used so far is REALLY OBVIOUS to everyone dont you think.

That is a different matter totally from
1) Saying that nuke usage situation happened but was deterred.

2) Sufficient Deterrence exists for FUTURE too.

On the basis of "since it has not happened in past it wont happened in future" nothing new would happen isnt it?

Anyway you once claimed we would have 200 Nuke plants by 2010 or something post the Nuke deal -- your current set of statements remind me strangely of similar line of thinking.

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

Re: Deterrence

Postby ldev » 16 Nov 2009 21:59

2) Sufficient Deterrence exists for FUTURE too.


Deterrence is a moving target. But if deterrence is based on countervalue targetting of cities then 200kt FBFs are enough provided the quantities of warheads and delivery systems are adjusted up to maintain future deterrence.

Anyway you once claimed we would have 200 Nuke plants by 2010 or something post the Nuke deal -- your current set of statements remind me strangely of similar line of thinking.


Sure, I must have said that but for the year 2050 not 2010. Do you happen to have a link handy for me saying 2010? I doubt it.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5235
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 16 Nov 2009 22:00

ldev wrote:As far as new information is concerned, parse that KS article line by line and see if there is any really new data there suportable from any other credible source.
ldev: First thank you for a straight response. My view is KS does not need "an other credible source" for he is himself one.

The Moron and Troll comment was by Rudradev, when he felt that his view was being grossly misrepresented by Kanson. I agreed with that view and hence did not object. But, where is my raising an objection or deciding to participate is a case for angst.

Now, if you think I am being a moron and a troll and am grossly misrepresenting the case let me know and give it to me straight. I simply do not want the discussion to be about characters. If you and others feel that it needs to be go right ahead. I have said what I wanted to.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashok Sarraff, Avinash Rav, jivana, mahadevbhu and 70 guests