Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby Karna_A » 09 Sep 2011 08:56

gakakkad wrote:

The purpose of second strike would be to cause severe damage to the Paki's or lizard military/ economically important areas . In case of Pakistan it would mean a huge portion of their military and industry because not much exists in the name of it. In case of PRC it ll mean a sizeable portion of their economic regions and some military ones. In case of China that would be a good enough deterrent. Because they give importance to their economy unlike the Paki's . China's ultimate aim is to become a superpower. And beginning a nuclear war with India would be to destroy the aim forever without doubt even if it destroys India. A strike on their industrial districts could mean loss of trillions . So we have a deterrent . In fact one might argue that our deterrent is better against China than against pakistan. Because the Chines would be averse to an economic loss couple of trillion dollars . While Paki's have a suicide mentality in any case even if it means wiping out whatever rudimentary source of income it may have.

.


China is easy to deter as even 4 Hiroshima size nookes on their main cities will bring unacceptable loss to Chinks, and chinks are pragmatic about war consequences. For TSP, even 100 may not be enough unless KSA is taken down too as it's a suicide nation. Some comments from Yahoo point how to finish the source
http://news.yahoo.com/u-sees-credible-u ... 06574.html
I think the President should call Saudi Arabia and tell them that we are starting a new policy----if there are any extremist Muslim terrorist attacks on the USA, we will level one Major Mosque or City in their country of each terrorist captured or killed. You would see the tips pickup and the terrorism grind to a halt. No other way to deal with these crazies.

Just nuke the middle east. It's not our problem.

1998 TN may have been dud but this is 2011. No one doubts Israeli TN capability without any test and in 2011, any enemy that doubts TN capability of India is delusional.

gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4475
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby gakakkad » 09 Sep 2011 09:04



However there seem to be many methods of "almost getting there" - the "coitus interruptus" method of testing nukes. Karnad mentioned the fact that both the US and Russia are looking at triggering fusion with lasers, and he also mentined magnetic fields triggering fusion - but I have never heard of that.



magnetic fields are thought to be used as a strategy for controlling fusion rather than triggering it. ie for attempting a fusion based power plant. However it remains in the experimental stage . Work is even done at BARC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_c ... ent_fusion


Interview with a BARC scientist..

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GeorgeRthecoldfus.pdf


Somewhere down the line, I think it was in the mid-’70s, we realized that we had to get
into the fusion business in India. So we at BARC were looking for the right niche to enter. In the
area of fusion we have two approaches, as you know: magnetic confinement fusion and inertial
confinement fusion. We had in our center a group, a very good group, on lasers. They took up
this question of laser fusion for study, knowing very well that they could never build these
gigantic lasers, but they could certainly study the physics of laser plasma interaction. There was
a policy decision that our center would not enter magnetic confinement fusion, which was
allocated to a different institute in India. So we selected what is known as a plasma focus, which
is a variety of Z-pinch device, for investigation, trying to understand the phenomenon — and
through it the basic physics of fusioning plasmas

Last edited by gakakkad on 09 Sep 2011 09:07, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2011 09:07

gakakkad wrote:


However there seem to be many methods of "almost getting there" - the "coitus interruptus" method of testing nukes. Karnad mentioned the fact that both the US and Russia are looking at triggering fusion with lasers, and he also mentined magnetic fields triggering fusion - but I have never heard of that.



magnetic fields are thought to be used as a strategy for controlling fusion rather than triggering it. ie for attempting a fusion based power plant. However it remains in the experimental stage . Work is even done at BARC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_c ... ent_fusion


Yes -in fact I thought Karnad was a little weak in that area, but I did not want to enter into an embarrassingly detailed set of questions - knowing that I am myself such an expert. :D

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby ramana » 09 Sep 2011 09:13

If things were normal distribution then such percentages are meaningful. Otherwise its a shot in the dark like the 2008 meltdown.

Karna_A, The question was about the old tests not about now.

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2011 09:17

ramana wrote:If things were normal distribution then such percentages are meaningful. Otherwise its a shot in the dark like the 2008 meltdown.


Yes. A shot in the dark with only the 15-20kt "proven". By 2 (or 3?) tests.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby ramana » 09 Sep 2011 09:20

That was then.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby merlin » 09 Sep 2011 09:23

shiv wrote:
ramana wrote:If things were normal distribution then such percentages are meaningful. Otherwise its a shot in the dark like the 2008 meltdown.


Yes. A shot in the dark with only the 15-20kt "proven". By 2 (or 3?) tests.


For the pure fission weapon (apparently 15-20 KT) I think it would be a safe to assume that the design is way simpler than a TNW. So less tests should be adequate.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3678
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby Rudradev » 09 Sep 2011 09:25

X-posting from TSP thread as it is more relevant here.

ShauryaT wrote:BK is not saying 20 KT is all we have. What he is saying is 20KT is all we have proven and hence the most credible. GOI has been trying to avoid wars forever with TSP. Even when we have wars, these wars are more about a battle of maneuvers than wars with substantial geopolitical aims (except 1971). None of the wars with TSP (including 71) have been wars of attrition or decimation. So, while the IA arms for such an event, the political leadership has no intention of executing, even with the capability.




Shaurya,

We would not ask any jawan to fly in a chopper, fire a gun or even eat the contents of an MRE packet which had not been thoroughly tested and proven hundreds of times over. If the only N-weapons we have proven are 20 kT weapons, then the only N-weapons we have are 20 kT weapons.

I agree with your interpretation of what he is saying. To go further, I think that with his Prithvi criticism, he is saying that this recessed, nuanced posture based on dial-a-sub-KT yield weapons (alluded to by AM Asthana in his interview) is pointless. In fact even Asthana recognizes this and says a conventional retaliation is preferable.

It is easy to understand why. If we use a sub-kT tactical nuclear weapon on an LeT site in say Neelam Valley (as Asthana suggested in the event of a JDAM attack) and PLA troops happen to be in the vicinity... in fact they already ARE in the vicinity... then what?

Even if one accepts the argument that Pakistani terrorists are not non-state actors and a nuke retaliation on a Paki terrorist training camp was justified... we have "nuked first" against China no? Does this open the gates for China to use multi-MT warheads on us in retaliation? Reversing the positions, India has often said that even if Pakistan uses a tactical nuke on an advancing column of IA it opens the gates for a massive nuclear retaliation by us against Pakistan. So why could that same logic not be applied to China-India?

And after that, what next? BK is quite categorical in stating that our own 20kT weapons are a piffling nonentity compared to those Chinese warheads. Ultimately, to decry BK's views as "maximalist" is meaningless. Context is everything. In a conflict, context can change so fast that what was "maximalist" ten minutes ago is "minimum deterrent" against further escalation now.

We may think that picking up a stone is a "minimum deterrent" while pulling out a gun is "maximalist"... but once the first stone is thrown and the riot starts, once bones break and heads crack, how long does it take for people who have guns to pull them out?


What BK is saying, no point to build capabilities, that do not match likely political strategy. His missile threat comment (read Prithvi) was specifically in that context. He is a known propagator of the theory of predictability which promotes stability, when it comes to nuclear weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons promote instability.


We cannot afford to be in the position of not having a gun (a real gun that is KNOWN to work, not a dummy replica) because a stone can be thrown at us at any time. Replying to a stone with another stone is daft. And BK is absolutely right that having, or even talking about tactical nukes adds to instability. GOI spokesmen talking about our willingness to use "stones" against LeT camps, only adds to the likelihood that a "riot" will start... and then if we don't have a "gun" we're in real trouble.

There is no perfect deterrent but a gun that is known to work, is the closest we can hope to get. If our neighbours see it go off they will stay polite. OTOH, for us to brandish a stone may be worse than nothing... it may simply be better to keep walking and hanging our head humbly, in the hope that another stone doesn't get thrown at us.

gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4475
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby gakakkad » 09 Sep 2011 09:28

ramana wrote:If things were normal distribution then such percentages are meaningful. Otherwise its a shot in the dark like the 2008 meltdown.

Karna_A, The question was about the old tests not about now.



It is not normal distribution. Skewed to the right.

Data from a 150 kt test.

Image

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2011 09:34

merlin wrote:For the pure fission weapon (apparently 15-20 KT) I think it would be a safe to assume that the design is way simpler than a TNW. So less tests should be adequate.


Well the "boosting" seems to be merely a matter of putting something like Tritium in a hollow core with the hollow core itself being a convenient trick used for other reasons - with the resulting bang being 2x or 3x times the fission bomb. So getting bigger boosted fission bang from a "reliable" fission design is almost a certainty.

It is IMO not the impossibility of getting a big (100 kt plus) boosted fission bomb that is the problem. The problem is that with fission/boosted fission being used for "big bums" more fissile material is used up so we have fewer bombs. Using TN a small 10-15kt "trigger" can give anything from 200 kt to megatons. Also the famous "dial a yield". For the same amount of Pu you can get 3 times the number of weapons.

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby Sanku » 09 Sep 2011 09:45

Why are some Indians so eager to force India to not have the minimum required to defend itself? -- Why does their dhoti shiver.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby negi » 09 Sep 2011 09:51

Nuclear bum is an engineering marvel and first fundamental rule of engineering states if a device or prototype is not tested it simply does not exist; period.

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2011 09:55

negi wrote:Nuclear bum is an engineering marvel and first fundamental rule of engineering states if a device or prototype is not tested it simply does not exist; period.


That is for engineers though. Not everyone in the business is an engineer. There are gamblers, men of God and finger crossers as well, The world is not actually run by engineers. The first Plutonium bomb ever tested was tested on Nagasaki IIRC and it was never held back by this argument, and the only thing that "didn't exist" were the people who were vaporized by the bomb.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby negi » 09 Sep 2011 09:56

Btw as far as I am concerned I have kind of grown past this number of bums their yield and stuff; I am into mijjiles now. We need big fat MIRV capable ICBMs. 10 20kt MIRVs on a 10k range ICBM will make 100 suns shine in every nook and corner of earth.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby negi » 09 Sep 2011 09:59

Shiv that is why context is important , how many during the WW-II even knew about an entity called an atom bomb ? How many countries outside of USA had it ? USA experiments with a lot of unproven stuff in Afghanistan too , so what gives ?

As for Unkil's atom bomb they started building it in midst of the war they had no choice but to try the second design as the key thing was they had nothing to loose. Question is does India enjoy such luxury ?

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3062
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby Kanson » 09 Sep 2011 11:12

X-post: viewtopic.php?p=1160907#p1160907

Rudradev wrote:Now to Kanson's question about Taiwan. If PRC wanted a war, why would they pick India and not Taiwan? I think the answer is, they're still not sure (despite US' apparent weakness) that US and Japan will not rush to Taiwan's defense. However, they may calculate that this is not true of India. With Pakistan on their side, and US staying out of the conflict, the PRC Militarists may feel more confident of securing a military "victory" against India than one against Taiwan.
You argument is that, to monetize debt, war is a high return low risk option compared to other options for China. Based on that, I'm questioning, to have further high return with lower risk, is it not China should choose Taiwan than India for that? US and other powers can join India too if there is a conflict. What stops them? Already there are several joint exercises with US and other countries. Is it not Nehru requested US help during '62 war and US obliged? And if the luck turns other way, Tibet card can be played leading possibly to their liberation. And India is not a push over like Taiwan. So with such several more risks compared to attacking Taiwan and meager return, from your argument, why would China choose to attack India than Taiwan?


Rudradev wrote:Also, Kanson, about Agni V testing this year. If it happens, it is a good thing. It is a sign that we are not idly waiting with the axe over our heads, that we are trying to close the window of opportunity for China to prosecute a two-front war against us. Still, for the present Agni V is untested and I don't know if Agni III is even deployed. IF what Bharat Karnad says is true, 20kT weapons is the most we have. So the assessment, that GOI is trying very hard to avoid war by courting certain factions within Pakistan, holds good.

On Agni-III:
He said that the 3,000-km range Agni-III missile has already been inducted into the armed forces. “Agni-III is already inducted. Its development has been completed and is under production,” he said.
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article2073999.ece

Ok, If late K. Sub says, we have 80 KT weapon, then BK can't be true right? What is the premises of "most" here? If we go by the various statements/reports, these 20 KT most probably are air-droppable free falling bombs initially we have assembled. Missiles do have different warheads(again based on reports in public domain).

that GOI is trying very hard to avoid war by courting certain factions within Pakistan, holds good
I feel, this is mere a hypothesis. I couldn't see any substantiating facts to support this hypothesis. First you need establish it is GoI that is trying very hard and not Pak factions. Only if GoI is trying very hard then we have to find out why GoI is trying very hard. Of several reasons behind that, avoiding war is one possible ...possible reason. I couldn't agree with this angle of argument.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3062
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby Kanson » 09 Sep 2011 11:15

negi wrote:Shiv that is why context is important , how many during the WW-II even knew about an entity called an atom bomb ? How many countries outside of USA had it ? USA experiments with a lot of unproven stuff in Afghanistan too , so what gives ?

As for Unkil's atom bomb they started building it in midst of the war they had no choice but to try the second design as the key thing was they had nothing to loose. Question is does India enjoy such luxury ?


To see in context, how many modern Super computers and amount of scientific knowledge existed on the subject at that time?

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby merlin » 09 Sep 2011 11:26

shiv wrote:
negi wrote:Nuclear bum is an engineering marvel and first fundamental rule of engineering states if a device or prototype is not tested it simply does not exist; period.


That is for engineers though. Not everyone in the business is an engineer. There are gamblers, men of God and finger crossers as well, The world is not actually run by engineers. The first Plutonium bomb ever tested was tested on Nagasaki IIRC and it was never held back by this argument, and the only thing that "didn't exist" were the people who were vaporized by the bomb.


But the concept itself was tested in Trinity. For such a (relatively) simple device that was considered to be enough.

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2011 12:07

negi wrote:As for Unkil's atom bomb they started building it in midst of the war they had no choice but to try the second design as the key thing was they had nothing to loose. Question is does India enjoy such luxury ?

IMO India's situation today is exactly like ww2 USA in 1945. We need to test but no one should know. People can build parts, test parts and make extrapolations but we may have to use untested stuff if push comes to shove. In my view unless nuke war occurs somewhere the world is not going back to testing simply because the "haves" have realized that nations get dangeeous yields in their first test itself and that fissile material cutoff is the only way to maintain the current caste system of P5 while preventing dozens of new entrants. Testing only perfects designs and no nation can claim to be happy and safe because another country has done no tests.
Because of fallout concerns small bums make an attractive choice for starting nuke war. No one is sure how things will pan out after a limited nuke war when fallout starts getting spread around.

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby Sanku » 09 Sep 2011 12:19

IMO India's situation today is exactly like ww2 USA in 1945.


How can it be exactly like USA in ww2? USA did not have any overt nuclear armed adversary with proven multi-megaton weapons in state of constant deployment?

US had the advantage of being the first mover, we are the last movers.

shiv wrote:The days of overt live nuclear testing are over.


That is a incorrect statement, the correct statement is that P-5 having completed their overt testing needs have created a environment of extreme difficulty for new comers (unless they are coopted like Pakistan) -- in that scenario -- it is difficult -- to carry out overt tests.

However choosing the right moment, and right level of brazen-ness, a test can indeed be carried out, as per technical needs.

If the people who build it are able to say that it has a 99 % probability of yielding 25 kt, 90% probability of yielding at least 50kt and only a 60% probability of yielding 200 kt it would still have to be used if it came to that.


If it came to that we may all have to die rather than submit or <insert your favorite rhetorical rant here>. The whole point is to not let it come to that.

In any case if it was going to be used against Chinese city it would not be military planners planning specific goals. It would be a bunch of desperate people throwing whatever they have for whatever effect it can give them.


Fascinating, I thought it was basics of deterrence, that is what the large nuclear devices have always been for.

Let us remind ourselves what our second strike doctrine says -- I dont see any "military planning doctrine there"! Do anyone?

The WHOLE point is to remind others we can inflict 10x the pain that anyone else can inflict on us. So no one gets any ideas.

Some times the basics have to be remembered.

kumarn
BRFite
Posts: 479
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 16:19

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby kumarn » 09 Sep 2011 12:26

I have a question for the gurus: Is it possible to test, say a 200kt warhead underground, without anyone else knowing about it?

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby RajeshA » 09 Sep 2011 12:34

kumarn wrote:I have a question for the gurus: Is it possible to test, say a 200kt warhead underground, without anyone else knowing about it?

Like on the moon?! :)

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby Sanku » 09 Sep 2011 12:39

kumarn wrote:I have a question for the gurus: Is it possible to test, say a 200kt warhead underground, without anyone else knowing about it?


Potentially yes, some what like NK case where there is a confusion between a earthquake and a test. If we carry out a test and say its a earthquake onlee....

What can anyone do? Sure, they will "know" that a test was carried out, but there is no reason to agree. We can brazen it out. Its an option.

kumarn
BRFite
Posts: 479
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 16:19

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby kumarn » 09 Sep 2011 12:56

RajeshA wrote:
kumarn wrote:I have a question for the gurus: Is it possible to test, say a 200kt warhead underground, without anyone else knowing about it?

Like on the moon?! :)


Oh wise one! Unlike thou I don't have the knowledge beyond the basic school book definition of fission and fusion. I cannot even understand the tech stuff written on the various iterations of the nuke threads, though I have read them all. But I do remember another wise one talking about testing in the kolar mines, hence my question. Given my lack of knowledge, please forgive me for jumping into the discussion. But I have the interest of desh as much in my heart as anyone else here on the board, so my hope was someone wise enough would answer my query.

Also, from memory, Gen Musharraf claimed in 2002 that India had tested, which India denied.

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby RajeshA » 09 Sep 2011 13:03

kumarn ji,

relax, I don't have much nuke tech knowledge either.

kumarn
BRFite
Posts: 479
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 16:19

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby kumarn » 09 Sep 2011 13:45

It's ok.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3709
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby Neela » 09 Sep 2011 13:59


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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2011 14:53

Sanku wrote:
shiv wrote:The days of overt live nuclear testing are over.


That is a incorrect statement, the correct statement is that P-5 having completed their overt testing needs have created a environment of extreme difficulty for new comers (unless they are coopted like Pakistan) -- in that scenario -- it is difficult -- to carry out overt tests.

However choosing the right moment, and right level of brazen-ness, a test can indeed be carried out, as per technical needs.


This won't happen. Anyone is welcome to archive this statement of mine and then throw it back at me and make me eat humble pie. But it_will_not_happen,

The P5 will not test and will come down heavily on anyone who tests.

The road from testing to a working weapon is non trivial. The the test must work in the first place and if it does not the testing nation will have to wait for another "right moment" and another bout of brazenness. Even if the test works, making a working nuclear weapon out of one or two tests is a process that gives plenty of time for the haves to put all sorts of sanctions in place.

Oh I know. Sanctions don't work. But they don't work for nations like NoKo and soon Pakistan too. But sanctions will hurt India and an India that has to wait for the correct astral star line up, brazen mood and auspicious time for any testing is never going to do that. India's weapons (if any) for the foreseeable future are gong to be based on the 1998 fizzles, whatever simulation we can muddle up and some lucky espionage/tips we may get as scraps due to the right horoscope conditions.

Doing "ten times more damage to you" are brave words, but we don't even have the fissile material to do that to Pakistan. let alone China. Any hopes that we will "test again" or make "1000 or 10,000 warheads" are as realistic as the successful TN test of 1998.

The vast majority of our military do not do any planning for nuclear war fighting. That is left to the strategic nuclear command and in the event of India getting nuked that authority is NOT going to have tried and tested nukes of guaranteed megaton yield for all the reasons I have listed above. They will have something. They will be able to do something. But that's about it. "Deterrence" is based on that. Nothing more. It would be a fairy tale to imagine that there is any chance of India testing and fielding an arsenal designed to do "ten times more damage"

These are sad facts. I think we need to face up to that before we make nuclear war plans. Sometimes basics certainly have to be kept at the forefront of one's mind.

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2011 15:02

kumarn wrote:I have a question for the gurus: Is it possible to test, say a 200kt warhead underground, without anyone else knowing about it?


Since I am a guru here is my answer. It will be detected, unless there happens to be a huge earthquake somewhere nearby at the exact same moment.

My personal view on trying to hide nuclear tests is like trying to make love to your girlfriend in your parents' bedroom when they have gone out shopping. The opportunities will be limited and results unpredictable. Repeat performances may or may not be possible.

If we must test we must test openly. We will not do that. I guarantee that. So we are going to have to make do with what we have.

kumarn
BRFite
Posts: 479
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 16:19

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby kumarn » 09 Sep 2011 15:16

Yes, even I am certain India is not going to test anytime soon. It might happen when someone else in the P5 test, or India becomes so powerful internally and externally that she can withstand the pressure from the rest, or we are being taken down in a war. We have to be ready with improved designs when the opportunity presents itself, which again I am certain IT WILL.

In the meantime, we need to work on missile defence, nuke sub-launched detergent and improved weapon designs. I trust my government is doing precisely that, notwithstanding the claims of sell outs and what not.

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby Sanku » 09 Sep 2011 15:21

shiv wrote:This won't happen. Anyone is welcome to archive this statement of mine and then throw it back at me and make me eat humble pie. But it_will_not_happen,


It has to be made to happen. There is no option.

The previous times too the same issues applied, to a far greater degree, yet a combination of

correct astral star line up, brazen mood and auspicious time


has happened twice in 40 odd years (discounting first 20 Nehurvian nightmare years)

Once 20 years roughly; I would say in next 7 years we should be ready for the occasion. Give or take 3 years up down.

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby Sanku » 09 Sep 2011 15:23

kumarn wrote:Yes, even I am certain India is not going to test anytime soon. It might happen when someone else in the P5 test, or India becomes so powerful internally and externally that she can withstand the pressure from the rest, or we are being taken down in a war. We have to be ready with improved designs when the opportunity presents itself, which again I am certain IT WILL.


Or when we are desperate with our backs to the wall. That will quite easily happen sooner than later--

Because the following faith

In the meantime, we need to work on missile defence, nuke sub-launched detergent and improved weapon designs. I trust my government is doing precisely that, notwithstanding the claims of sell outs and what not.


I am afraid to say, is based on the actions taken in real world.

kumarn
BRFite
Posts: 479
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 16:19

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby kumarn » 09 Sep 2011 15:25

Sanku bhaiyya, which of the above in your opinion is not happening?

This very forum has covered intensely the PAD tests. Arihant has a separate thread if I am not mistaken. Regarding weapon designing, BARC is not going to announce what they are doing.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4746
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby Manish_Sharma » 09 Sep 2011 15:54

The thing to remember is nuke weapons are not just deterrents, but deterrent being a small part of whole equation.

When the nuke capability is thought through we should also take into account post nuke war scenario. Whether we have been nuked back to "kansya yug" and we have nuked adversaries to "pashan yug" should be the main base.

If you don't get just stuck on "deterrent" part then thermonuclears become a must.

Total Area of Mumbai : 440 sq. km.
Population of Mumbai : 18 million

Total Area of Shanghai : 6340.5 sq. km.
Population of Shanghai : Reaching 19 million in 2009

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Sep 2011 16:50

The difference between a test and not is one of political will. The political will is a matter of making choices. Choices with seemingly conflicting priorities. Vajpayee did not wait for an opportune moment, for stars to align or for "circumstances to provide opportunities". As soon as he had the power to order he did so. If it was up to him, he would have ordered a test, for the first time he became PM for 13 days. Vajpayee was not a freak individual with extra ordinary vision (not to take away his achievements). He was borne of a certain ideology in a certain organization. An ideology that seeks to see India strong and self sufficient.

A weak PM will see fears, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). The IUNCA has made things difficult for future PM's to test. It behooves a nation of 1.2 billion to have such a weak PM (shame on us).

A strong PM will have his priorities clear. The only thing this strong PM needs is a clear set of advisers. When an APJ makes a call to over ride the objections of an DRDO, it is difficult for a PM to intervene in these technical matters. ABV did not say, please test five bums only! An astute PM has to work towards creating circumstances for a test. The five bums only has a history of 30 years of political suppression and a culture which essentially said, please do not bother and make life more difficult for us. Go back to your lab and do your thing. We are not here to make our life more difficult and do not want to deal with "real" security issues - unless forced to.

But, not just the PM, the entire spectrum of designers, delivery vehicle designers, users, security advisers have to unite behind the need to test. A strong PM has to provide the confidence and create a culture that the nation needs these weapons of mass destruction for her security. A PM/organization with a clear conviction of India's security needs will make testing a priority. This PM will find a way and make it a priority. Our job is to elect such a PM - again!

So when one questions, if India will test again? One is really questioning the convictions of a leadership. The convictions of a people. These convictions have to flow from facts. Facts that shall from from the users, testers and designers. Once these facts are clear to such a leadership then the only decision to be made is when and not if. I will leave out why this "if" persists and what has to be done to remove the "if".

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2011 16:53

Sanku wrote:
shiv wrote:
has happened twice in 40 odd years (discounting first 20 Nehurvian nightmare years)

Once 20 years roughly; I would say in next 7 years we should be ready for the occasion. Give or take 3 years up down.

I don't want to argue with this for argument's sake. Maybe it will come to pass, though I doubt it.

But this is how I look at it. I look at the signal that the rest of the world gets from India starting to test again (without the provocation of others starting to test)

Scenario A: Suppose India does test as you predict, what will the world read from that act?
1. India needs to test because it is either not confident of its data or not confident of its designs or both
2. Since India is not confident of data/designs - intense pressure laced on India could greatly delay or thwart Indian plans to perfect and expand their arsenal, whose real (lack of) value has been revealed by the new tests.


Scenario B:But suppose we do not test it cold mean one of the following
1. There is confidence in the existing deterrent, whatever its size and yield
2. India is pretending that it's arsenal is adequate and fine because it does not want to send any signals that would indicate that India did not have the capability that others have.

Case 1:One might argue that the real safety and security of India would demand that we must test again. But that indicates lack of confidence in the arsenal and a signal that punishment could work. Testing would invite sanctions and punishment and perhaps provoke tests by others leading to an unpredictable but definite deterioration in economic and perhaps military security.

Case 2:On the other hand there is a possibility that the arsenal is far better than you or I might want to believe and that there is no need to test. This can be dismissed by cynics as nonsense as we often do on here - but if the cynics are wrong it would be a folly to test.

Case 3:The third possibility is that the arsenal is a complete bluff and only further testing would enable us to go forwards and build a real arsenal. Here again the signal that goes out is that we have been bluffing all these years and that even after new tests India may continue to bluff, and that conclusion would embolden some states to dismiss any "fear" of Indian arsenal and break down deterrence.


In case 1, testing would be an error. We could still do plenty of damage if it came to nuclear war, but would be revealing that we were bluffing by testing

In case 2: Testing would not be necessary

In case 3: the deterrence bluff would be maintained until a nuke war occurs - at which time we would not be able to retaliate. But by testing, we would lose by calling our own bluff and admitting that deterrence is inadequate
Last edited by shiv on 09 Sep 2011 21:39, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21310
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby Philip » 09 Sep 2011 17:33

The answer to anyone who questions India's future N-tests is very simple.We want to determine the "health" of our N-warheads! We do not have the luxury of countless tests by the superpowers,which they made over decades of testing,in the open and underground and underwater,and therefore "lab tests" are impossible for us to determine their status.India will simply be taking "random samples" for testing just as randoim missiles from the production lines of our arsenals are tested from time to time.We recently had the IA do live tests of our tactcial missiles ,randomly taken from stocks.What we worry?

In our tests,we revalidate our TN warheads of our choice.If Uncle Sam protests,let him fly a kite and we would be very happy to scrap the N-deal with him that will allow us to sell N-tech to the highest bidder worldwide.If the US could allow Pak and China to secretly proliferate,surely India can officially sell its N-tech to anyone!

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

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby shiv » 09 Sep 2011 17:36

^
+1 Philip

I did not think of that! :D

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby negi » 09 Sep 2011 18:04

Kanson wrote:To see in context, how many modern Super computers and amount of scientific knowledge existed on the subject at that time?

Hey why don't we simulate the war itself in a computer; hack it and win it everytime. :rotfl:

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Sep 2011 18:18

negi wrote:
Kanson wrote:To see in context, how many modern Super computers and amount of scientific knowledge existed on the subject at that time?

Hey why don't we simulate the war itself in a computer; hack it and win it everytime. :rotfl:
There is a star trek episode. Where they even sent the people who were killed to gas chambers - to make the computer war real but without the destruction!


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], sanjayc, sum and 64 guests