ldev wrote: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.
So now it becomes a moving target? But I thought it has held so we know it will hold.
And the statement becomes "if the deterrence" from the deterrence has held (assertion) so you are not sure what the deterrence is based on? Yet is has held?
And we know the we have 200 Kt FBF nukes based deterrence, how (please quote a official source)? A little bit of a stretch from saying that "deterrence has held despite India being weaker"
Don't you think the much easier thing is to recognize that so far we have been never gotten to a crises situation, yet?
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.
Its 2050 is it? No I dont have a link handy, but hey 2050 it is, 5 new reactors every year right? Good, I hope that is a number we will both remember in future as being said without having to look for links.
We are as always needlessly multiplying issues unnecessarily -- there are simple fact
The draft nuclear doctrine states massive damage
The fact that our robust deterrence is based on Fusion and fission has been stated many times
There is very little publicly available evidence to support the fusion claim.
Thats it end of matter. The rest is mere semantics.