Time to rethink NFU

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19366
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Philip » 12 Mar 2003 22:48

The sooner that we acquire long range Backfire bombers,Akulas and test and build ICBMs the safer will we be thanks to an enhanced deterrence that will deter any potential agressor.The hilarious US posturing,with Gen.Powell standing on his head like a circus buffoon with regard to N.Korea's nuclear sabre rattling,while roaring like a tiger at Saddam's rapidly diminishing ability to defend himself speaks for itself! The moral of the story is that if you have nukes you're safe and if you haven't got them,expect two hundred thousand US "tourists" in camouflage clothing arriving by land sea and air without any hotel bookings!

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 308
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Anoop » 12 Mar 2003 23:04

Leaving aside the agenda for now, there are some inconsistencies in Pravin Sawhney's article.

First, his recommendation that India adopt a Parliamentary resolution condemning the impending U.S. action in Iraq. Earlier in the article, he notes how India did not gain anything substantial from the U.S. for it's restraint during Parakram. One could easily ask what India can hope to gain from a Parliamentary resolution that seeks to align itself with 'world opinion', particularly when 'world opinion' itself is hiding behind the U.N. mandate. Which is exactly what India is doing too, to quote

PM in Parliament

Prime Minister Vajpayee today clarified India's stand on the war and said that the country will oppose unilateral military action against Iraq.

"We hope that the issue will be solved through the framework of the United Nations," hoped the Prime Minister.
This link from the Hindu

suggests that the Parliamentary resolution that Sawhney is plugging is merely another instance of the Opposition doing it's job - trying to put the ruling party in a spot. Nothing to do with national interests.

Secondly, Sawhney contradicts himself when he says

Unfortunately, this does not seem probable as the defence services are willing to play the Government line on the issue of nuclear deterrence.
and follows it up with

He expressed happiness with the existing chiefs of staff committee system, something which has unequivocally been dubbed unsatisfactory by the Government's Group of Minister's report.
How is it that the government is going to be happy at the recommendations of it's Group of Ministers being ignored?

Sawhney's articles seem to be an outlet for views which oppose the government.

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

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby svinayak » 12 Mar 2003 23:47

Sawhney's articles seem to be an outlet for views which oppose the government.
Recntly Sawhney moved to The Hindu. He has taken the pacifist and anti-govt line of discussion. His views are more towards reconciliation towards Pak and nuetral to freindly to China.

IMO he seems to be a plant to create this kind of views with a credibility of a specialist.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 308
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Anoop » 13 Mar 2003 00:00

Originally posted by acharya:
Recntly Sawhney moved to The Hindu. He has taken the pacifist and anti-govt line of discussion. His views are more towards reconciliation towards Pak and nuetral to freindly to China.
Acharya, you aren't confusing him with Praveen Swamy by any chance, are you? Swamy writes for Frontline, which is a Hindu publication.

Sawhney's articles are a curious mix - on the one hand he calls for a 'credible' deterrent to Pakistan, whatever that means. He decries the Indian 'lack' of nuclear missiles force as compared to Pakistan's. Then he urges India not to depend too much on the U.S. (is that what you meant by the pro-Chinese angle, Kgoan?).

The problem with all this is that he doesn't offer alternatives - the plug for the CDS post is an exception. He merely points out inadequacies.

My reading of the deterrence vis-a-vis Pakistan is that we don't have to demonstrate any further our capability to destroy Pakistan in detail after taking a first strike from them. Pakistan is counting on the unacceptability of casualities in the first strike itself to dissuade India - no matter what happens later.IOW, our second strike capability has been demonstrated to Pakistan as clearly as possible. What has not yet been demonstrated is our ability to limit the casualities of a Paki first strike to a minimum through the use of a ABM shield or AWACS type system. In this context, what alternative is there to continue to remain friendly with U.S. and Israel while we develop this much needed capability?

kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby kgoan » 13 Mar 2003 05:12

Anoop, as we all know, there's a very strong pro-Chinese group around that wants to see India become China's chamcha and together take on the evil US hegemonist.

This grouping works on a single point agenda because they've learnt something: The US its opinion makers and its public take critism from India quite seriously. i.e. It p!sses them of in a major way. Chinese criticism doesn't. This is for the astonishingly simple reason that the US accepts China as an enemy/competitor/rival and therefore any form of criticism is simply par for the course.

India is different. The US public tends to have a fairly benign image of India, (nerdie computer programmers simply don't hack it in the "threatening" stakes, despite the ranting on slashdot) in the odd moments when any of them even think of us.

Consequently, any criticism from us brings out an emotional reaction, of surprise, hurt and real annoyance. It's taken as a form of betrayal.

In all our "geopolitical" stuff we tend to forget these ordinary things. The pro-Chinese, and the Chinese themselves are well aware that one of our biggest assets in the US is our "benign/non-threatening" image.

Damage or remove that non-threatening image, especially now, when a paranoid US and its public is looking for support and any criticism will be taken to heart, and the chances of an Indo-US "understanding", (not alliance) disappears.

Thats Sawhney's game.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 308
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Anoop » 13 Mar 2003 05:25

Kgoan, thanks. I hadn't thought of it like that. On the other hand, consider that India is probably the only country (excluding China where demos are a no-no) in the world which hasn't seen mass public demonstrations against the U.S. designs on Iraq. Don't know if that's a good thing or bad, but it does have its uses in soothing jangled nerves, wouldn't you say? Something to remind Mr. Blackwill of.

kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby kgoan » 13 Mar 2003 14:36

As a sort of cross-post from the US thread, another point thats worth noting is that the pro-Chinese lobby in India are at a crucial stage because of the possible US-Euro breach.

For the for next decade or two, India's primary playground will be the Asian regon and secondary in the IOR. We're not going to go seeking "strategic" understanding with Latin American countries. And in Asia it's China that's the competition.

Within the Indo-China competition, the only country that can make a real difference is the US, which has a number of possible strategic "clash" points with the Chinese. We don't. We may get annoyed with them and their policies with, say Pakistan, but there is no equivalent in the Indo-US relationship of Taiwan. As a consequence, the "potential" for an Indo-US "understanding" with respect to China is quite high.

The Europeans and the Russians don't really come in here. They'll try hard to maintain equal "distance" from India and China. The Russians especially, regardless of their relation with us are not going to favor any situation that may cause a potential conflict with the Chinese. They'll sit anything like that out. The Europeans will, as usual, try and play both every side they can.

The down side seems to stem from the rather uncomfortable role the US is acquiring with its unilateralism. i.e. That the only possible "ally" with any real weight is starting to seriously p!ss of all the other major powers. That's an obvious point of "caution" for India because it's not clear what US help against the Chinese may involve.

I'd be fairly certain that a cooling of the US/Europe relationship, let alone a serious breach, would make an Indo-US "understanding" inevitable. After all, even the US needs allies, and without the EU, who else is left? (The question of what we might have to do in these circumstances to cement such an understanding is a different point.)

But it means that the pro-Chinese lobby are going to be frantic to try and stop this. They're going to move and heaven and earth, if possible, to ensure that China's security is not compromised. (They don't seem to be terribly concerned about our security.) In the current context, where China risks being out-flanked quite comprehensively, we can expect quite a lot of pressure on GoI to go back to the standard anti-US posture is so beloved of this lot.

They'll be aided in this effort by the US itself as US policies in Pakistan may have a seriously debilitating effect on our security. So expect a lot of the Swahney type stuff from this lot whose primary function is to scotch any possiblity of an Indo-US alliance.

Raj Singh
BRFite
Posts: 101
Joined: 23 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Raj Singh » 16 Mar 2003 22:48

" http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=40459175

Asked if India should go for making inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMS), Fernandes said, "we have not given a thought to it but I personally feel that there shall be reduction in making bombs and other warheads in the changed scenario."

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50059
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby ramana » 21 Mar 2003 21:33

From TOI 3/21/03.....
3 nuke command, control structures in Rajasthan

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 2003 08:00:10 AM ]

Rajasthan will figure prominently in the nuke map, once the country is capable of establishing a credible nuclear command and control structure. The decision to establish nuclear command-and-control structure has already been taken on January 4 this year by the Cabinet Committee on security. The Nuclear Command Authority (NCA) with the Prime Minister as its chairman, formally puts the nuclear button in the hands of Prime Minister.



The nuclear command structures will be set up at three places in Rajasthan. In all probability, the sources said, they would be set up at Alwar, Jodhpur and Pokharan besides, a place near Delhi and in Kargil. These command structures would retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons if attacked with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.



Since India and Pakistan carried out nuclear tests and proclaimed themselves nuclear powers, the nuclear world started speculating that India will definitely set up nuclear command structures. Defence minister George Fernandes also categorically stated that India would do so, but without elaborating as to how it would undertake such an expensive proposition.



The nuclear structure would cost at least Rs 10,000 crores. The cost would include procurement of anti-missile systems from abroad, land-and-sea-based nuclear delivery systems, a nationwide command, control, communications, computers and intelligence system.



It is learnt that the nuclear structures to be set up at Alwar, Jodhpur and Pokhran will be anti-missile centres. These centres will not only be able to detect missiles, but would be ready to diffuse the enemy’s missile in mid air.



Pokharan has already earned a name for itself globally as being a safe haven for nuclear tests. India’s two nuclear tests were conducted on the sandy tracts of Pokharan. Whereas Jodhpur and Alwar has been chosen for strategic reasons. The significance of Alwar is because of its proximity to Delhi.



The entry of an enemy’s missile into Indian territory would be thwarted from several points and the strategic points will be in Rajasthan. Thus any war heads directed towards India carrying nuclear weapons could be destroyed by a counter missile from any of these three centres. In future, these centres will become important from the defence point of view. These structures will have most of its operations underground as it was done during the nuclear tests at Pokharan.



India will seek Israeli and Russian aids to set up command and control structures, but how will India be able to spend so heavily on nuclear structures, that’s going to cost Rs 10,000, is a trillion dollar question. While defence budget for the financial year is $ 13 billion, the sum required for nuclear structures alone would be close to $ 20 billion.



Transforming the plan into reality will not be an easy task as there are numerous political implications involved with the issue.



Both Russia and Israel have these technologies, but will they sell it to India without dwelling upon the technical and political compulsions? For both India and Pakistan setting up such structures are unaffordable.



India has earmarked $five billion for weapon and equipment procurement and diverting funds to the nuclear command structures will result in pruning spending for weapon purchases. But creating a credible nuclear command is the need of the hour.



The Rajasthan Atomic Power Project at Rawatbhata has become the biggest generation centre producing 810 MW of nuclear power and if plans for capacity additions are undertaken, it could become world’s biggest centre for producing nuclear power.
------------------
The report is garbled and so need to study in detail and draw conclusions.
* Three command centers to be set up.
* Anti-missile systems to be deployed to protect those systems and Delhi. Why Kargil? Is he talking about the Green Pine radar at Kargil?
* Great nuggets are embedded in this article. Underground warfare command structures etc. About three years ago Rahul Bedi wrote in JDW article Unclear Doctrine" some of the concepts being talked about here.
* Considering the whole gamut of technologies 10,000 crores is inexpensive and could be spread over four years.

johnkrishna
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 07 Mar 2003 12:31

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby johnkrishna » 31 Mar 2003 01:05

how will India be able to spend so heavily on nuclear structures, that’s going to cost Rs 10,000, is a trillion dollar question. While defence budget for the financial year is $ 13 billion, the sum required for nuclear structures alone would be close to $ 20 billion.

-----

mmm... special nuke taxes I guess!!!

kautilya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 46
Joined: 11 Apr 2001 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby kautilya » 31 Mar 2003 01:30

Originally posted by Krishna, L. Jean:
how will India be able to spend so heavily on nuclear structures, that’s going to cost Rs 10,000, is a trillion dollar question. While defence budget for the financial year is $ 13 billion, the sum required for nuclear structures alone would be close to $ 20 billion.

-----

mmm... special nuke taxes I guess!!!
10,000 crore = $2000 million = $2 billion. I assumed an exchange rate of Rs 50 = $1 to make the calculation easier

Prateek
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Prateek » 31 Mar 2003 01:35


Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Calvin » 31 Mar 2003 02:03

The article quotes Karnad is most dorky fashion. To put words in Karnad's mouth - yes, we need more nukes, bigger nukes, and longer range delivery systems.

One does not quibble with Karnad. The only thing to be added to that is more accurate delivery systems. Clearly, GPS based systems cannot be relied on, so India needs precision guidance provided by other than GPS or laser.

Above all, it needs the resolve.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Arun_S » 31 Mar 2003 06:01

Ramana:
Kargil is most important since its most suitable ABM defense site for India. The reason is that majority if not all TSP's natioanl assete are little protected in the mountaineous Northern fortier areas. TSP missiles fired from Northern area on Indian political and military centers. Kargil happens to the closest place to detect & intercept the missile in flight. Also the high peakes near Kargil provide the most vantage (alta Vista) point for long range ABM radar.

Jodhpur is the other site most useful for ABM base to take care of Puki missiles coming from extermities of Baluchistan.

Arun A
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 13 Jul 2001 11:31
Location: Fairfax, VA, USA
Contact:

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Arun A » 31 Mar 2003 06:08

Yeah baby yeah...go on..just do it..upset the old world order...
Pyongyang's belligerence forces Japanese to think nuclear

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Vick » 01 Apr 2003 20:26

A credible nuclear deterrent?

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2007/stories/20030411003009700.htm

Sanjay, what would your comment on this be? Same stuff as the JDW article I fwded to you. I/We would love to read your critique of this and JDW article(s).

johnkrishna
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 07 Mar 2003 12:31

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby johnkrishna » 02 Apr 2003 23:47

http://www.kimsoft.com/2003/us-nukes-sk.htm

American Nukes in South Korea
US military planners have kept up nuclear attack plans even after the 1992 and 1994 denuclearization agreements and Jinhae may be the main US nuclear weapons depot.

The US navy has 71 submarines, all of which are nuclear.

Jinhae - US Nuclear Sub Base

US subs are 7,000+ ton giants.

Does Nuclear Subs in Korea Violate the Nuclear-Free Korea Agreement?

US Threats of Nuclear Attacks Violate the 1994 Agreement

Nuclear safety inspection and nuclear safety exercises are conducted per specific attack targets. What targets? The document states: "The 4th Fighter Wing's combat mission was to support the Southeast Asia Operational Plan (OPLAN)". The OPLAN has several war scenarios: #5051 for a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido, #5052 for war in Japan, #5053 for central east, and #5027 for war in Korea. The OPLAN was based on the US war doctrines of 1980. The plan calls for tactical nukes on fighter planes.

The US nuclear war doctrine is: "US policy concerning nuclear warfare is to deter it by maintaining a strong nuclear capability and, if deterrence fails, to terminate the conflict at the lowest possible level of violence consistent with national and allied interests. The US position is that deterrence is achieved if the threat assesses the outcome of war to be so uncertain and so debilitating under any circumstances that the incentive for initiating a nuclear attack is removed. This policy does not preclude the first use of nuclear munitions by US forces."

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50059
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby ramana » 25 Apr 2003 22:48

Movement on SFC front. Groundwork begins for aerospace command
-----------------------
Groundwork begins for aerospace command
RAJAT PANDIT

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 2003 12:05:00 AM ]

NEW DELHI: With the Strategic Forces Command finally being set up to handle the country's nuclear assets, initial exploratory work for setting up an aerospace command in the IAF is gathering momentum.



At present, the work is only at the conceptual level as crucial elements like dedicated military satellites, or even AWACS (airborne warning and control systems), are not available with the armed forces.



"As the US has shown in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations, its doctrine is centred around domination through aerospace power. The US Air Force is now fully integrated with space systems and called an ‘expeditionary force'. This is where the future lies," said an IAF officer.



The IAF believes it can utilise developments in space technologies in several ways. The first is to assist in ballistic missile defence and the second is to build "real-time situational awareness" through space communication and space sensors.



A third is to link communication networks throughout the country. Besides, there is the need to prevent the enemy from using its space assets by resorting to jamming.



The IAF is closely studying the impact of "smart" weapons, used during the Iraq operations, like JDAMs which use signals from satellites for almost pinpoint accuracy in all-weather conditions.

The armed forces will have to go in for greater integration with the ISRO to effectively meet future challenges.

Kaushal
BRFite
Posts: 442
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: SanFrancisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Kaushal » 25 Apr 2003 22:57

There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the Iraqi invasion. For one thing the US has moved away from the overwhelming force concept with the use of airpower and precision munitions.With a 2 front border to defend and inability to field more than a 1.2:1 advantage over the Pakis, India has to move in this direction and put a lot of emphasis on integrated use of air power. Air Power may not win wars, but it certainly can help make it a damn sight easier to bring the enemy to his knees.

AWACS, satellites, GPS guided munitions,aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines & SLBMs the list is long and getting longer ...

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Calvin » 27 Apr 2003 08:40

Has the US really moved away from overwhelming force? It appears that the US has employed force multipliers and precision munitions to create the effect of overwhelming force, even in the face of apparent numerical deficiency.

Anindya
BRFite
Posts: 1539
Joined: 02 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Anindya » 27 Apr 2003 09:11

AWACS, satellites, GPS guided munitions,aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines & SLBMs the list is long and getting longer ...

I would add to this list an intense capability to wage "asymmetric warfare" - the special forces played a key role in preparing the battle-field. Their success has been underplayed.

India needs to develop this offensive capability as a key part of its armoury - there have been some statements in this direction, but in future this needs to be strengthened at least as much as our submarines or PGM capabilities.

There are a few other weapon categories that I would rather not discuss at this point. :eek:

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Calvin » 22 Sep 2003 10:26

What are the challenges of SF operation in Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh etc? Given the similar ethnic and linguistic background we should be at a tremendous advantage compared to our US counterparts. Is the challenge economic?

Sunil
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 21 Sep 1999 11:31

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Sunil » 13 Oct 2003 23:58

Rudra Singha
Member
Member # 3011

posted 13 October 2003 06:18 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so there goes one of S2's conspiracy theories of
harpoon size missiles with nooks fired blindly on Mumbai.

next!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP: Logged

sunil s
Member
Member # 1433

posted 13 October 2003 08:12 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi GD,

per my kooky theory - the harpoon on the _sub_ was not the delivery vehicle. the vehicle was _the_ _sub_ that would evade detection and make it into the harbor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP: Logged

Rudra Singha
Member
Member # 3011

posted 13 October 2003 08:18 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
presumably Pak could rig up a nook on one of its
midget subs or release a nook carrying chariot off
a regular sub. so I think your theory still stands
as you pointed out.


nitin
Member
Member # 2408

posted 13 October 2003 11:30 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sunil s:
Hi GD,

per my kooky theory - the harpoon on the _sub_ was not the delivery vehicle. the vehicle was _the_ _sub_ that would evade detection and make it into the harbor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whats friggin' scary is that the theory is hardly kooky.Getting a nuke on a sub and into Mumbai Harbour is something no Arrow etc can protect against.Conceivably,such stuff is what gives even the US the full heebie jeebies and hence the kid gloves treatment of Musharraf and gang.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP: Logged

sunil s
Member
Member # 1433

posted 13 October 2003 12:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Rudra Singha:

> presumably Pak could rig up a nook on one of its midget subs or release a nook carrying chariot off a regular sub. so I think your theory still stands as you pointed out.

No No No.. Boss that is not my scenario. My story is a lot simpler technically. In my scenario a PN captain skillfully weaves through the anti sub defences in Bombay Harbor or near Bombay High and turns on what he thinks is a brand new elint device. The device is a 15 kT nuclear explosive that is placed inside his submarine which goes off taking him to meet his maker. But the explosion sets back ONGC ops by a few years and cripples the domestic ONG supply for a few months or possibly even obliterates the better part of the queens necklace.

You are making my scenario sound like the beginning of Shah Rukh Khan's hit movie - Darr. Much as I like the movie the beginning part with the Zodiac to Minisub transfer was disgusting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP: Logged

cy
Member
Member # 1892

posted 13 October 2003 12:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does this sound so fimiliar .. Hmm part III of a controlled release saga.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP: Logged

Rudra Singha
Member
Member # 3011

posted 13 October 2003 12:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S2, isnt bombay high a fairly largeish area of tens of km in length and breath ? a undersea explosion in deep water of only 15KT is unlikely to cause tsunami effects or destroy anything beyond immediate blast zone. it will cause some poisons in the sea water but the sea is vast, 100s of atmospheric tests right over the sea in bikini didnt cause much issues (afaik).

most of ONGC platforms are likely to survive this damped blast, a couple within blast area might buckle and sink.

so physically the effects imo are minimal. and it would cause a open war for sure. if they want to cause some real blood to flow, their cells could just smuggle a nook into nariman point and light the match...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP: Logged

arvind_r
Member
Member # 5115

posted 13 October 2003 01:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, even easier. When overflights resume, one of PITA's new Boeing 777s converted to cargo--ostensibly bound for Nepal, explodes a 15-20kt over Delhi with pilot playing the role of the sub-commander (unknowing). Airburst effect?

Anything can happen if they are suicidal enough.

Kindly move this part of the discussion to an appropriate thread - Admin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunil
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 21 Sep 1999 11:31

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Sunil » 14 Oct 2003 00:02

GD,

Yes BBay high is a largish area, but I don't know what will happen when the rigs are plastered with irradiated water. It will take weeks before they a cleared up of the fallout and made safe for human operation.

Look through testing data corresponding to Hardtack Umbrella and Hardtack I for comparable scenarios.

Even assuming that they survive the destruction from the waves and any fires that may start in the process, EMP considerations may rended them unusable for a time. Cost of repair will affect existing ONGC projects and defraying lost production time could cause serious setbacks. One can expect serious shortages for a period lasting many months due to loss of 25% of national ONG production.

Arvind_r

The sub scenario is much easier to implement. Having it on board the PA 7X7 would entail more series modificiations for power and it would not be as unobtrusive. Even a crude device could be placed on a submarine.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Time to rethink NFU

Postby Calvin » 25 Jan 2004 23:25

sunils: If D-company is one of the middlemen in the proliferation efforts of the Pakistanis, what are the chances that there is a pre-positioned nuke in India courtesy of D-company?


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest