Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

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.
Y. Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 819
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Y. Kanan » 08 Jun 2011 06:21

Karna_A wrote:Offensive is to make sure for next 500/1000 years no one can touch indics again.


To be honest, that's probably the only way we can deter a nuclear attack. That is, having a massive nuclear deterrent force with global reach. If we had the capability to completely destroy the United States or China, I doubt we'd be sitting here fretting about Pakistan as they probably would have been reigned in a long time ago. If a nuclear strike on India meant the total destruction of the USA or China, they would have a very strong interest in making sure such a thing never happens.

This is why the US would never give nukes to Taiwan, for example.

Anyway for a variety of reasons there's just no avoiding it: we're going to have to build hundreds of nuclear weapons. We're just going to have to spend the money, sorry to say.

Vinit
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 01 Oct 2010 08:58

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Vinit » 08 Jun 2011 07:37

^^ Agreed, deterrence might work. That deterrence can take the shape of threats to destroy the attacker and X, Y, Z in addition, or even great diplomacy and strategy

Perhaps we should have a separate thread on deterring nuclear attack and the subsequent retaliation in which we take out everything mentioned above. And we leave this thread to discuss the impact of a nuke attack and what we can do in addition to retaliation?

Karna_A
BRFite
Posts: 432
Joined: 28 Dec 2008 03:35

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Karna_A » 08 Jun 2011 07:55

Y. Kanan wrote:
Karna_A wrote:A conventional 20 Agni missile strike on Dhahran, KSA to destroy most of the the oil industry there


I don't mean to sound dismissive here, but you do not appear to have a very good understanding of ballistic missiles and their effectiveness when armed with conventional warheads. You seem to have a very cartoonish view of what these weapons can do.

I assure you 20 conventionally armed Agnis would be a collosal waste of money and certainly would not "destroy most of the oil industry" in Saudi Arabia. I mean seriously? You really said that?

Now, 20 Agnis with nuclear warheads could do the job... :)


Kanan, You are partly right. 20 Agni will not destroy the oil industry. But cluster bombs can do a lot of damage in Oil and chemical industry since they have plenty of raw material to sustain and nourish fires and it would probably shut down main refinery/oil depots for few weeks.

But the whole point of this strike is deterrence i.e. not to destroy but just warn that the next strike would be 20 boosted nooks at similar places if TSP gets more adventurous. Indian threat would be then taken seriously.
Also Agni at 20 crore a piece, 400 crore is just a drop in bucket to stop a nook war.

Vinit
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 01 Oct 2010 08:58

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Vinit » 08 Jun 2011 10:11

Karna_A wrote:Kanan, You are partly right. 20 Agni will not destroy the oil industry. But cluster bombs can do a lot of damage in Oil and chemical industry since they have plenty of raw material to sustain and nourish fires and it would probably shut down main refinery/oil depots for few weeks.

But the whole point of this strike is deterrence i.e. not to destroy but just warn that the next strike would be 20 boosted nooks at similar places if TSP gets more adventurous. Indian threat would be then taken seriously.
Also Agni at 20 crore a piece, 400 crore is just a drop in bucket to stop a nook war.


Karna, I don't follow. Are you suggesting that the response to a nuclear strike on India is to lob 20 Agnis armed with conventional warheads at KSA? If so, I don't think this helps India in any way, nor does it punish Pak.

Or, are you suggesting that India lob 20 conventionally armed Agnis as KSA before a Pak nuke strike, as a deterrent? I don't know about the deterrence bit, but what this will surely do is upset the world economy, get everyone who depends on Saudi oil (ranging from the US to China) upset with India, and the Pakis will be jumping up and down in glee saying 'look at this irresponsible state, firing off missiles when we haven't done a thing'.

Vinit
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 01 Oct 2010 08:58

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Vinit » 08 Jun 2011 10:18

I'll play devil's advocate here, and say that this whole concept of deterring Pak by threatening to nuke other countries does not work, and in fact may actually strengthen Pak.

Let's say we somehow completely give up our peaceful-progressive-growth-economy image and make some extremely convincing threatening noises, e.g. if Pak nukes me I shall nuke China and ME.

First, think about where that would put us in the global order and the impact it would have on economy, investment, trade, and all that.

Second, it gives Pak leverage - countries would be asking Pak to reduce their nuke program and give them more inducements in return- see NoKo. "Hey, Paks, how about 36 F-35s for 30 nukes"? So Pakis would be producing crude nukes and exchanging them for world-class armaments. They manage to 'negotiate' pretty well anyway.

Third, if Pak were to nuke India, the only course available to everyone else is to nuke India too! Say the Pakis lob a nuke at India. China will then say, uh-oh, these Paks sure are fools, but the Indians are going to nuke me in the next 30 min ... pre-emptive strike with all our resources right now!

Now back to the thread topic.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby RajeshA » 08 Jun 2011 11:47

A New Thread "Aftermath of Nuclear Attack: India's Civilizational Renewal" has been set up to discuss India's overall strategy to respond militarily to a nuclear attack on India.

I would request all posters to cross-post their posts on the issue in the this thread to the other thread as well, and to continue their discussions on the issue there.

We should revert this thread to its original purpose of discussing the humanitarian, safety, organizational and administrative challenges in the event of a massive nuclear attack on India.

Thank you!

Vinit
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 01 Oct 2010 08:58

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Vinit » 08 Jun 2011 15:13

Surviving an attack - a possible scenario
RajeshA, thanks for splitting the thread.

To put the word "surviving" into context, we need to do a quick exercise on what the actual impact of a massive Paki nuke attack would be. Only then can we determine what steps are needed to carry on (retaliation apart).

So here's a possible, military-oriented, nuke attack scenario.

Assume for a moment (and only for a moment) that I am the fanatic Supreme Undisputed Authoritarian Ruler of Pakistan, with the heartfelt wish to liberate the oppresed lands of Kashmir, and I am quite prepared to see millions of my countrymen achieve martyrdom for this holy objective.

I have about 40 reliable nukes, 30-odd Shaheens, and 10-odd Ghauris (imported maal, very leriable!). Plus several other relatively unreliable nukes and missiles of desi design.

Jokes apart, a sudden Paki attack by a fanatic leader, aimed at hitting India militarily can take this shape:

IAF - hit by 15 nukes. Damages: 400 frontline aircraft, 50% of transports.
Base--Distance from Pak Border--- (Squadron) and Type of Aircraft --- Est No. of Aircraft--- Weapon
Pathankot-----------50----------(108) Mig 21----------------------------16----------Shaheen
Adampur-------------90----------(47) Mig 29 (223) Mig 29--------------32----------Shaheen
Bhuj----------------120----------(15) Mig 21-----------------------------16----------Shaheen
Halwara-------------140----------(22) Mig 27, (31) SU-30-----------------32----------Shaheen
Sirsa---------------190----------(21) Mig 21-----------------------------16----------Shaheen
Jamnagar------------200----------(224) Jag (6) Jag (28) Mig 29---------48----------Shaheen
Ambala--------------250----------(5) Jag, (14) Jag, (3) Mig 21-----------48----------Shaheen
Chandigarh----------280----------(26) Mig-21-----------------------------16----------Shaheen
Jodhpur-------------280----------(10) Mig 27 (29) Mig 27 (32) Mig 21---48----------Shaheen
Hindon--------------380------------------------------------------------------------Shaheen
Agra----------------550------------------------------------------------------------Shaheen
Bareilly------------600----------(8) Su-30 (24) Su-30------------------36----------Ghauri
Gwalior-------------700----------(9) Mirage------------------------------18----------Ghauri
Lohegaon------------800----------(20) SU-30 (30) SU-30-----------------36----------Ghauri
Gorakhpur-----------1100----------(16) Jag (27) Jag----------------------36----------Ghauri

Indian Navy - Hit by two nukes. Damages: 12-15 surface combatants, 4 patrol aircraft
Base--- Distance from Pak Border--- Weapon
Mumbai--------------850------------------------------------------------------------Ghauri
Dabolim-------------1100------------------------------------------------------------Ghauri

Indian Army - Hit by 15 nukes. Damage to 6 infantry and 5 armoured divisions
Base----Distance from Pak Border--- Army Unit/s ------ ----------- Weapon
Delhi---------------320----------Army HQ-------------------------------------------Shaheen
Jodhpur-------------280----------XII Corps, 4th Armoured---------------------------Shaheen
Jodhpur-------------280---------- 340th Mech, 12th Inf-----------------------------Shaheen
Ahmedabad-----------120----------11th Inf------------------------------------------Shaheen
Jaipur--------------450----------SW Command----------------------------------------Shaheen
Mathura-------------480----------1 Corps-------------------------------------------Shaheen
Hisar---------------200----------33 Armoured---------------------------------------Shaheen
Bhatinda------------80----------X Corps-------------------------------------------Shaheen
Sri Ganganagar------20----------16th Inf------------------------------------------Shaheen
Patiala-------------180----------1st Armour----------------------------------------Shaheen
Meerut--------------450----------22nd Inf, 9th Inf---------------------------------Shaheen
Jalandhar-----------100----------XI Corps------------------------------------------Shaheen
Amritsar------------30----------15th Inf------------------------------------------Shaheen
Jaisalmer-----------120----------140 Armour----------------------------------------Shaheen
Firozpur------------20----------7th Inf-------------------------------------------Shaheen

All this is aimed at throwing the Indian armed forces into confusion and allowing Paki armed forces to roll into Kashmir plus occupy territory elsewhere.

Weapons used: 26 Shaheen, 6 Ghauri, 31 nukes each of 25kt.

Damage to India thus far:
400 combat aircraft, 50% of transport aircraft, 15 air bases, 9000 IAF personnel
12 surface combatants, 1 naval base, 1 naval airfield, 6 patrol aircraft, 3000 naval personnel
5 army hq destroyed, damage to 6 infantry and 5 armoured divisions (these divisions will not be destroyed, but will take 3-7 days to regroup and be available). Army personnel casualties: 25,000

Cities destroyed: 1 (Jodhpur is largely toast)

Severe damage to: (all these major cities will still be functioning, but with 15% - 30% of area destroyed) Delhi, Mumbai, Ambala, Chandigarh, Agra, Bareilly, Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Mathura, Meerut, Jalandhar, Amritsar). For the others, the bases attacked are far enough from the population centres that damage will not be that severe.

Civilian casualties: estimated dead - 700,000. estimated wounded - 1,000,000

You can add attacks on a few port facilities / population centres etc to create more chaos.

Questions:
- Actions for IAF, Navy, and army?
- Political leadership structure?
- Tending to the casualties?
- Preparing the remaining civilian population for likely further attacks?
- Dealing with panic / rioting / shut-down of our cities?
- Dealing with other nations (ask for help? threaten?)

Y. Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 819
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Y. Kanan » 08 Jun 2011 18:57

Vinit - the type of "counter force" strike you describe is a luxury afforded to nations with huge nuclear arsenals. Neither we nor the Pakis have enough warheads and delivery systems to strike each other in this fashion. Any nuclear war on the subcontinent is going to be targetted at each other's population centers. The Paki goal would be to do as much damage to India's civilization as possible, and to kill as many of us as they possibly can. They wouldn't waste their 50-100 warheads on military targets, except perhaps in those cases where a military base happens to sit precisely in the middle of a highly populated area.

You're certainly not going to see them lobbing nukes at military bases on the outskirts of cities, or trying to hit army formations in the field. You don't get enough horrific "bang for your buck" doing that. Why kill a few thousand Indian troops and equipment when you can slaughter millions of people and wreak untold economic damage by sending that same nuke into the heart of a major city? Indeed you'd probably see important cities like Mumbai and Bangalore get hit with multiple nukes.

Of course, after suffering such an attack, our retaliatory strike would be along the same lines. Knowing full well this would be our only chance at revenge, we'd try to nuke all their population centers and kill as many Pakis as possible. India's leaders would understand that we lack the ability to successfully invade Pakistan, so they'd have to satisfy themselves with nuclear strikes only. Pakistan would survive intact as a nation, and so would we. Minus a bunch of people and a hell of a lot poorer.

Karna_A
BRFite
Posts: 432
Joined: 28 Dec 2008 03:35

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Karna_A » 09 Jun 2011 02:14

Vinit wrote:I'll play devil's advocate here, and say that this whole concept of deterring Pak by threatening to nuke other countries does not work, and in fact may actually strengthen Pak.

Third, if Pak were to nuke India, the only course available to everyone else is to nuke India too! Say the Pakis lob a nuke at India. China will then say, uh-oh, these Paks sure are fools, but the Indians are going to nuke me in the next 30 min ... pre-emptive strike with all our resources right now!

Now back to the thread topic.


Vinit, your interpretation is right. The following can happen:
Third, if Pak were to nuke India, the only course available to everyone else is to nuke India too! Say the Pakis lob a nuke at India. China will then say, uh-oh, these Paks sure are fools, but the Indians are going to nuke me in the next 30 min ... pre-emptive strike with all our resources right now!

Therefore in real world politics there is need for lot of ambiguity. It's like Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled or determined.

When you apply Heisenberg uncertainty principle to Nook War, it means that India cannot and should not clearly define what India would do if India is nooked. The exact policy should be ambiguous. Because the day you put specific policy other countries start reacting to that specific policy. Instead of defining specific policy, specific Intent should be articulated. Intent could be that in case of a nook war India would react in such a way that India is not attacked again for a 1000 years. And on top of that India would act as a mad dog punishing random people so no one would dare to touch India again. That may or may not include X countries getting nooked, but would surely include someone apart from TSP in getting nooked. That someone will be decided by threat perception for next Y no. of years. No need to put in writing who the X countries are since they may be pretending to be friends today.

Vinit
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 01 Oct 2010 08:58

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Vinit » 09 Jun 2011 06:45

Y. Kanan wrote:Vinit - the type of "counter force" strike you describe is a luxury afforded to nations with huge nuclear arsenals. Neither we nor the Pakis have enough warheads and delivery systems to strike each other in this fashion. .


Kanan, the scenario is using 35-odd nukes and weapons, which is actually much smaller than all published estimates of Pakistan's nuclear and missile arsenal, which range from a low of 60 to a high of 135.

I don't think the "Pakistan can't do this" argument holds any water.

Y. Kanan wrote:Any nuclear war on the subcontinent is going to be targetted at each other's population centers. The Paki goal would be to do as much damage to India's civilization as possible, and to kill as many of us as they possibly can. They wouldn't waste their 50-100 warheads on military targets, except perhaps in those cases where a military base happens to sit precisely in the middle of a highly populated area.
.


Why do we keep assuming this? Why can't we look at alternative scenarios? What if they had a military objective in mind?

Even if Pak used 100 nukes, they can at most kill 3% of India's population, assuming each of those actually works and kills 3 lakh people each; this hardly achieves a "kill Indians" objective. Frankly, a military use of nukes is much more likely.

As for "not getting enough bang for the buck" - take a look at the damage I've outlined. 400+ aircraft, nearly half of India's navy, and several divisons out of action. More than enough "bang" I would think!

If you want - by all means extend the scenario by putting 3 nukes each into Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, and Bangalore. And let's discuss what happens next (not retaliation, but getting on - the questions I have listed at the end).

Y. Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 819
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Y. Kanan » 10 Jun 2011 20:48

Vinit wrote:
Y. Kanan wrote:Vinit - the type of "counter force" strike you describe is a luxury afforded to nations with huge nuclear arsenals. Neither we nor the Pakis have enough warheads and delivery systems to strike each other in this fashion. .


Kanan, the scenario is using 35-odd nukes and weapons, which is actually much smaller than all published estimates of Pakistan's nuclear and missile arsenal, which range from a low of 60 to a high of 135.

I don't think the "Pakistan can't do this" argument holds any water.

Y. Kanan wrote:Any nuclear war on the subcontinent is going to be targetted at each other's population centers. The Paki goal would be to do as much damage to India's civilization as possible, and to kill as many of us as they possibly can. They wouldn't waste their 50-100 warheads on military targets, except perhaps in those cases where a military base happens to sit precisely in the middle of a highly populated area.
.


Why do we keep assuming this? Why can't we look at alternative scenarios? What if they had a military objective in mind?

Even if Pak used 100 nukes, they can at most kill 3% of India's population, assuming each of those actually works and kills 3 lakh people each; this hardly achieves a "kill Indians" objective. Frankly, a military use of nukes is much more likely.

As for "not getting enough bang for the buck" - take a look at the damage I've outlined. 400+ aircraft, nearly half of India's navy, and several divisons out of action. More than enough "bang" I would think!

If you want - by all means extend the scenario by putting 3 nukes each into Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, and Bangalore. And let's discuss what happens next (not retaliation, but getting on - the questions I have listed at the end).



The military-oriented nuclear scenario that you highlighted would only work as a completely unprovoked surprise attack. Any buildup to hostilities would have resulted in Indian ships, aircraft and other forces being too widely dispersed to make an attractive target. The actual kill zone of your typical Indian or Paki nuke (20-30kt) is only about 1-2km from ground zero. Even within the kill zone, most aircraft in HAS's and personell in solid concrete structures would survive the blast. Ships fare even better - you have to get really close (practically on top of them) to take them out with a modest-sized nuke. Same with tanks and other armored vehicles. You're starting to see military forces actually make pretty lousy nuclear targets, unless you have thousands of warheads to throw around. The US & USSR didn't start taking "counter-force" nuclear warfare seriously until they'd built up huge arsenals.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1924
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby wig » 11 Jun 2011 15:53

article on starlite and the inventor maurice ward in the telegraph, uk. do read in full. interesting!
In early 1990, presenter Peter McCann introduced viewers to Starlite by means of an egg. Ward shows me the first videoed test of the oxyacetylene torch meeting a Starlite-coated hen's egg. Not only did a Starlite coating prevent the egg from combusting, it was also an astonishingly efficient insulator, as McCann demonstrated by cracking the egg, after five minutes of it being torched, to reveal a completely raw yolk. There are other thermal barriers, the presenter said, but none that resist heat and yet give off no toxic fumes, and can be easily moulded.

The defence establishment was watching. In July that year, Ward was invited to the British Atomic Weapons Establishment at Foulness, and the egg went nuclear. 'They'd been trying to get something to withstand a nuclear flash for 45 years, and we did it in five minutes.' Ward was reluctant to take part at first. 'I was happy with my egg. It was just a challenge and I didn't want to lose.' This was a different league. Starlite-coated eggs were subjected to light-energy sources that simulated a nuclear flash, equivalent to a temperature of 10,000 C. 'They did it twice and it was still there. Charred, but intact.' The Foulness equipment couldn't keep up. 'I said to one scientist, "Are we doing all right?", and he burst out laughing. He said, "Normally, we do a test every couple of hours because we have to wait for it to cool down. We're doing it every 10 minutes, and it's sat there laughing at us."' Most materials vaporise beyond 2,000 C. Pure carbon, which has the highest melting point of all elements, melts at 3,500 C. Starlite was withstanding temperatures and forces that physics and thermodynamics dictated it shouldn't. Even with tests from unquestionable authorities like AWE, people were sceptical. 'Some people called me a shyster. But they are blinkered. We've got video: We can show you.'

In tests at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment in Malvern, Starlite was pulsed with lasers that would normally have burned through polymer. Instead, as Pohling-Brown reported in a widely-read article in International Defence Review in 1993, 'Starlite showed little damage to the surface, merely small pits with the approximate diameter of the beam and with little evidence of melting.' Professor Keith Lewis, who led the RSRE tests, confirms that Starlite 'had unique properties which appeared to be very different to other forms of thermal barrier material available at the time.' It wasn't clear how Starlite worked: was it diffusing the heat? Absorbing it? Repelling it? 'Keith Lewis told me that it does all sorts of things,' says Ward. 'It's very complex. Millions of things are happening all at once.'

After that, the phones never stopped ringing. Ward may have been a canny businessman, but the thousands of aspiring investors were overwhelming. Greenbury came on board, and Ward 'separated the men from the boys' by insisting on a confidentiality agreement and £8,000 paid upfront. Keeping the formula secret was paramount, to the point of refusing to patent it. 'Everyone said they would invest and could they have a sample. No, they couldn't.' Visitors to the factory were deliberately diverted from Starlite by loads of other material left lying around. The formula was known only by Ward and his immediate family, though Pohling-Brown reported that it included 'up to 21 organic polymers and copolymers, and small quantities of ceramics'. 'It was put about that we never wrote it down but that's not true. I just didn't tell anybody.'

In fact, Ward let a sample out of his sight only once. In June 1991, a sample was sent to White Sands atomic weapons testing site in New Mexico, in the care of the SAS, and subjected to a simulated nuclear onslaught. 'It was classed as the biggest bang in town. I've seen a video [on which] it shredded forest to sawdust, rolled some tanks around, stripped an aircraft into pieces.' But Starlite survived. Further tests at Foulness had subjected it to the force of 75 Hiroshimas, and it survived that, too. NASA publicly raved about its potential, with spokesman Rudi Narangor revealing that 'We have done a lot of evaluation and … we know all the tremendous possibilities that this material has.' And yet still no agreement was signed. 'Maurice,' says Greenbury, 'is a one-man band. He's an inventor, and he has an unusual way of looking at things. It has proved to be very difficult to deal with large companies. There hasn't been a meeting of minds.'


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5 ... world.html

jagbani
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 07 Jun 2011 19:37

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby jagbani » 11 Jun 2011 19:56

Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into wrong hands a worry: Antony‎

ndia is worried over the threat of Pakistan's Pakistan nuclear weapons falling into the hands of militants and terrorists, but otherwise it is confident that it is prepared as Islamabad strengthens its nuclear arsenal.

This was stated by Defence Minister A.K. Antony during an interaction with journalists at a function to honour the Indian Air Force team that successfully climbed Mount Everest.

Vinit
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 01 Oct 2010 08:58

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby Vinit » 13 Jun 2011 09:29

Y. Kanan wrote:
The military-oriented nuclear scenario that you highlighted would only work as a completely unprovoked surprise attack. Any buildup to hostilities would have resulted in Indian ships, aircraft and other forces being too widely dispersed to make an attractive target. The actual kill zone of your typical Indian or Paki nuke (20-30kt) is only about 1-2km from ground zero. Even within the kill zone, most aircraft in HAS's and personell in solid concrete structures would survive the blast. Ships fare even better - you have to get really close (practically on top of them) to take them out with a modest-sized nuke. Same with tanks and other armored vehicles. You're starting to see military forces actually make pretty lousy nuclear targets, unless you have thousands of warheads to throw around. The US & USSR didn't start taking "counter-force" nuclear warfare seriously until they'd built up huge arsenals.


Yes, this scenario assumes a surprise nuclear attack, I believe I stated that. Of course there can be many scenarios, starting from a single nuke on Indian forces who have advanced into Pak territory, but this one fits the thread topic best.

I've also taken kill radius into account. How can I post images into this thread? I'll show my calculations of a 25kt nuke on an airbase and on a naval base - the damage is actually very severe, and based on those I can show that an airbase actually makes a worthwhile nuke target.

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

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby shiv » 13 Jun 2011 09:42

Vinit wrote:
I've also taken kill radius into account. How can I post images into this thread? I'll show my calculations of a 25kt nuke on an airbase and on a naval base - the damage is actually very severe, and based on those I can show that an airbase actually makes a worthwhile nuke target.


You can register with and use Photobucket. I have previously used Photobucket to upload picture of a similar genre such as these:

Image

deepan gill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 65
Joined: 07 Jan 2011 00:12

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby deepan gill » 05 Dec 2012 13:16

I am a bit confused. Is this thread about disaster management post nuke detonation or is this about nuke strikes and retaliation? Shiv thanks for pointing me to the right thread.

Anand, thank you for providing material on India's disaster management. After reading the document, now I have more questions:

1] Has anything been implemented?
2] Do schools, govt buildings, private building run mock drills?
3] Does the Delhi state run mock drills to see its preparedness?

It is an impressive document and plan, but I am wondering if it has been implemented. Is there a different dept created for this? If yes whats the name, whose running it? http://nidm.gov.in/PDF/guidelines/civil_defence.pdf

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

Re: Surviving a 50 to 100 nuke bomb attack on India

Postby shiv » 05 Dec 2012 15:03

deepan gill wrote:Anand, thank you for providing material on India's disaster management. After reading the document, now I have more questions:

1] Has anything been implemented?
2] Do schools, govt buildings, private building run mock drills?
3] Does the Delhi state run mock drills to see its preparedness?


I know that disaster management drills are carried out on a regular basis but not in schools. it is mostly government depts and hospitals. But then again its not specifically for nuclear war.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Balaji, saip, Yashu and 45 guests