Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread

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

Post by svinayak »

Rudradev wrote:
I don't think the importance of 1962 can be stressed enough in this context. 1962 admittedly had nothing to do with nuclear deterrence per se, but it completely, utterly changed the way the rest of the world viewed India... particularly vis-a-vis China.

Before that, the western world (whether they admitted it or not) viewed the Indian military as the only other Asian combatant of consequence, other than the Japanese, to have fought in WW II. It was Indians who cleared the Germans out of North Africa and pushed the Japanese out of Southeast Asia.
Very good post
Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Post by Shankar »

Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2006
China designation U.S./NATO designation Year deployed Range Warhead x yield Number deployed Warheads deployed
Land-based missiles
DF-3A CSS-2 1971 3,100 km 1 x 3.3 Mt 16 16
DF-4 CSS-3 1980 5500 km 1 x 3.3 Mt 22 22
DF-5A CSS-4 Mod 2 1981 13,000 km 1 x 4-5 Mt 20
20
DF-21A CSS-5 Mod 1/2 1991 2,150 km 1 x 200-300 kt 35 35
DF-31 (CSS-X-10) 2006? 7,250+ km 1 x ? n.a. n.a.
DF-31A n.a. 2007-2009 11,270+ km 1 x ? n.a. n.a.
Subtotal 93 93
Submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs)**
JL-1 CSS-NX-3 1986 1,770+ km 1 x 200-300 kt 12 12
JL-2 CSS-NX-4 2008-2010 ? 8,000+ km 1 x ? n.a. n.a.
Subtotal 12 12
Total strategic ballistic missiles 105 105
Aircraft***
Hong-6 B-6 1965 3,100 km 1-3 x bomb 100 20
Attack (Q-5, others?) 1 x bomb 20
Subtotal 40
Short-range tactical weapons
DF-15 CSS-6 1990 600 km 1 x low ~300 ?
DH-10? (LACM) 2006-2007 ? ~1,500 km ? 1 x low ? n.a. n.a.
Total ~1
To give the discussion some data to figure out extent and anture of deterance we may need to have/prove
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4226
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Post by Rudradev »

ldev wrote:
Israel is seen as a state which will not only take the fight to much larger enemies without hesitation, but win every time. If there is the barest suggestion that Israel might possess nuclear weapons, nobody but nobody is going to make the mistake of assuming in their calculus that Israel wouldn't use them.
And Israel has managed to build this deterrence without a single explicit nuclear test!!! Why does Israel have credibility?
Because they have demonstrated something much more convincing than a mushroom cloud. Political will.

Again, I will annoy the admins by bringing up 1962 in this thread :) . India did not have some rag-tag army in 1962. It may have been underfunded and ill-equipped (thanks to Krishna Menon) but it was a very professional, disciplined and experienced fighting force. We had Gurkhas, certainly better suited to mountain fighting than any Han Chinese hordes from the plains. We had just pushed the Pakis out of mountainous territory in '47-48.

If you look at some of the accounts of that war, it is amazing what small detachments of 50-odd Indian troops accomplished at places like Yomtsu La, holding off 1,000 plus Chinese in human wave assaults, inflicting heavy casualties and fighting to the last man until overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers. Surely they were no less brave or professional than any Israeli.

Even on an operational level, Brij Mohan Kaul had done his homework and interdicted major Chinese supply lines. However, conflicting and delayed orders from above failed to consolidate the tactical and operational successes that many brave men fought and died for.

The Sino-Indian war was not lost in the mountains of Ladakh or Arunachal. It was lost in New Delhi, where the institution that ought to have provided strategic leadership bumbled around aimlessly, in the thrall of Communists like Pannikar and Krishna Menon, reluctant to give clear direction or authorize the fullest use of air-power assets.

That was the perception conveyed to diplomatic parlours and policymaking circles around the world. 1971 may have been an important victory and successful projection of our regional power, but it made absolutely no difference in this context; if anything, it relegated India to the Pakistan-level club while China was elevated to the status of America's junior partner against Soviet communism.

So the fact remains... we can test a 250kt thermonuclear device tomorrow or a Teraton Bhasmasur Megadookie next year... or we can build a laser ignition facility and sign the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement...or we can make educated guesses and extrapolate from what data we already have. If people and nations don't believe we have the political will to use what we have in our national interest, none of the above will do us much good.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

SaiK, It has to be funded under military separation plan. Any other way wont add to credibility of the deterrence.

Rudradev I have been posting oyu views in the Indian Interests thread. Please continue the line of thought there. However where it is relevant please cross post here also to preserve continuity of thoughts.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

It was lost in New Delhi, where the institution that ought to have provided strategic leadership bumbled around aimlessly...
2007, .......................

What else is new?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

If people and nations don't believe we have the political will to use what we have in our national interest, none of the above will do us much good.
the lack of political will is mainly due to a total lack of a strategic thinking. I feel they have done a good/decent job with nukes, where they lack is in the non-nuke fields, which compels them to push decisions until something breaks or is about to break.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

NRao wrote:
If people and nations don't believe we have the political will to use what we have in our national interest, none of the above will do us much good.
the lack of political will is mainly due to a total lack of a strategic thinking. I feel they have done a good/decent job with nukes, where they lack is in the non-nuke fields, which compels them to push decisions until something breaks or is about to break.
Which means that the adversary reads the actions of Indian political leaders in respect to the non-nuke fields and could extrapolate them to the possible lack of will to use of nuclear weapons by Indian leaders.

Deterrence messages can be sent in various creative ways as this excerpt from the link given earlier by SunilUpa vividly illustrates:

Post Cold-War deterrence
The story of the tactic applied by the Soviets during the earliest days of the Lebanon chaos is a case in point. When three of its citizens and their driver were kidnapped and killed, two days later the Soviets had delivered to the leader of the revolutionary activity a package containing a single testicle- that of his eldest son-with a message that said in no uncertain terms, never bother our people again." It was successful throughout the period of the conflicts there. Such an insightful tailoring of what is valued within a culture, and its weaving into a deterrence message, along with a projection of the capability that can be mustered, is the type of creative thinking that must go into deciding what to hold at risk in framing deterrent targeting for multilateral situations in the future
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

ramana, sure.. btw, there is no stopping
Civilian astrophysics studies in mil labs as well.
Are men restricted to work in mil labs if part of civilian studies? I have not read it yet.

btw, high pressure physics and plasma works has dual benefits.. how are we going to address these type of separation?

Is the India specific safeguards prevents IAEA RFID-ed personnel to cross civil/mil lines?
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Raj Malhotra wrote:Arun you seem to believe that India tested the neutron bomb also.It is my guess also! Is there any public source on the issue?
No. I know that India did not test Neutron B. All that I am saying that NB is much simpler compared to doing a very advanced TN design that S-1 was. Yes data for material used in NB was collected, and making NB depends on need. Post cold war the scenario has much changed that NB IMHO does not play a role in the calculus of Russia/US/PRC.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Shankar wrote:
Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2006
China designation U.S./NATO designation Year deployed Range Warhead x yield Number deployed Warheads deployed
Land-based missiles
DF-3A CSS-2 1971 3,100 km 1 x 3.3 Mt 16 16
DF-4 CSS-3 1980 5500 km 1 x 3.3 Mt 22 22
DF-5A CSS-4 Mod 2 1981 13,000 km 1 x 4-5 Mt 20
20
DF-21A CSS-5 Mod 1/2 1991 2,150 km 1 x 200-300 kt 35 35
DF-31 (CSS-X-10) 2006? 7,250+ km 1 x ? n.a. n.a.
DF-31A n.a. 2007-2009 11,270+ km 1 x ? n.a. n.a.
Subtotal 93 93
Submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs)**
JL-1 CSS-NX-3 1986 1,770+ km 1 x 200-300 kt 12 12
JL-2 CSS-NX-4 2008-2010 ? 8,000+ km 1 x ? n.a. n.a.
Subtotal 12 12
Total strategic ballistic missiles 105 105
Aircraft***
Hong-6 B-6 1965 3,100 km 1-3 x bomb 100 20
Attack (Q-5, others?) 1 x bomb 20
Subtotal 40
Short-range tactical weapons
DF-15 CSS-6 1990 600 km 1 x low ~300 ?
DH-10? (LACM) 2006-2007 ? ~1,500 km ? 1 x low ? n.a. n.a.
Total ~1
To give the discussion some data to figure out extent and anture of deterance we may need to have/prove
To analyze further, PRC has around 20 weapons (DF-5A) that can reach continental US for its deterrent. The rest are in a regional context.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

To analyze further, PRC has around 20 weapons (DF-5A) that can reach continental US for its deterrent
And the warheads are kept separately from the missiles.
The missiles themselves are kept unfuelled, in hard rock bunkers that may not even survive an American strike.
Yet that deters America....
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Gerard wrote:
To analyze further, PRC has around 20 weapons (DF-5A) that can reach continental US for its deterrent
And the warheads are kept separately from the missiles.
The missiles themselves are kept unfuelled, in hard rock bunkers that may not even survive an American strike.
Yet that deters America....
All weapons deter, to a degree, including nuclear. It is only a matter of thresholds. The thresholds are differrent, if China has 20 or 2000, or are they the same? Assuming, all other factors, such as political will remain equal.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

China could have built 100 such ICBMs, yet they did not.

They claim to have the smallest arsenal amongst the NWS...
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Gerard wrote:China could have built 100 such ICBMs, yet they did not.

They claim to have the smallest arsenal amongst the NWS...
Yet, retain the capability to do so and therein lies the message. One does not have to actually build these weapons, without reason. But, ensure that one can build it, with adequate strategic space, if desired.

China is estimated to have enough WgPU and HEU, to produce about 2000, such weapons.

Any confirmations on low burn or conversion of our RGPu stockpile, yet?
emsin

Post by emsin »


China could have built 100 such ICBMs, yet they did not.
Till 1994 China was a 550 Billion USD economy. Nothing much. To support an ICBM arsenal like that is expensive. Now as a 2.2 t USD economy they are raising the bar. They do have the capability to do so at least now.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Rudradev wrote:
ldev wrote: And Israel has managed to build this deterrence without a single explicit nuclear test!!! Why does Israel have credibility?
Because they have demonstrated something much more convincing than a mushroom cloud. Political will.
Rudradev: Not to disagree, with your point on political will. But, political will can be changed light years faster than capabilities can be built.

In fact, political will starts with the build up of capabilities. It is not what a country does in war time or imminent war situations, it is the capabilities, built during peace times, when threat perceptions are low that largely determine the outcomes of war and geo-political situations and dare I say, even the political will to wage war.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

Pakistan and Israel cannot be our role model both have a limited kind of deterance against India/Middle east asia and that is it
Both Pakistan and Israel demonstrate the asymmetry of deterrence against the parties they need to deter.

It seems strange that after much discussion (nearly a decade worth, on this forum) we still have a number of people that appear to not understand the basic, fundamental aspects of nuclear deterrence. Occam's razor suggests that there may be less benign underpinnings to the purported faithlessness in the Indian deterrent. This is no different than the doubt sowed by many of the NPAs when they discuss the Indian tests - except we all understand their agenda.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

Till 1994 China was a 550 Billion USD economy. Nothing much. To support an ICBM arsenal like that is expensive.
The goal posts in this conversation continually move. CHina has never let "cost" come in the way of anything else they have done - why let "cost" define why they didn't build a larger deterrent?

The answer is obvious, they didn't need to. The chinese may "upgrade" their delivery systems, but they are not going to build 40,000 weapons. Think about why this might be.
All weapons deter, to a degree, including nuclear. It is only a matter of thresholds. The thresholds are differrent, if China has 20 or 2000, or are they the same?
The Indian threshold is a first use by the Chinese or Pakistani forces. This threshold is independent of how many nukes that Chinese have, because this is not a counterforce strategy.

And why is counterforce not the strategy of choice? Because it is inherently destabilizing.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

the lack of political will is mainly due to a total lack of a strategic thinking
Of course, this is why we decided to pursue the 3 stage nuclear power program, the IGMDP, the ADS, LCA, Kaveri, PSLV, GSLV and other critical technology areas, despite fundamental technology denial regimes.

This is also why we are one of very few nations with *excess* refining capacity

This is why we were one of the first nations to invest in LNG.

Yeah, its a lack of strategic thinking. Its particularly easy to engage in "strategic thinking" when your life is not affected by the constraints imposed by reality.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Arun_S; I am no wiser to the simple answer even after a day; some light will help.
:-?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

You don't know how the primary ages unless you conduct test right? So simulations will get you first cut but for stewardship you need aging data. The only data point is that the press conf on May 16th 1998 included refs to aging studies as part of the tests. CRM confirmed at U Penn that S-2 was a weapon from inventory from first batch. This at least gives an idea that aged material still works. More importantly it shows that India could design and field something that didn't require a test but was confirmed later. All the components were robust and put together without need for a test. Shades of RRW philosophy before its time!
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Gerard wrote:
To analyze further, PRC has around 20 weapons (DF-5A) that can reach continental US for its deterrent
And the warheads are kept separately from the missiles.
The missiles themselves are kept unfuelled, in hard rock bunkers that may not even survive an American strike.
Yet that deters America....
We do not know if America is deterred yet; all we know is that China thinks that it will deter America; also we do not know what China wants to deter; a nuclear strike from America? Or is it a first use weapon with a Mao like mad (as in pagal not MAD) posture; which will prompt PRC to launch when the chips are down.

"Ham to doobnge sanam; tum ko bhee le dobenge"

Given that both the nuclear posture of China (may use first) as well as its polity makes the nature of deterrence rather different from Indian.

Please not I am not saying whether Indian deterrence is sufficient or not; all I am saying is that it does not make sense to draw our deterrence calculations based on China's for important reasons.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Calvin wrote:
It seems strange that after much discussion (nearly a decade worth, on this forum) we still have a number of people that appear to not understand the basic, fundamental aspects of nuclear deterrence. Occam's razor suggests that there may be less benign underpinnings to the purported faithlessness in the Indian deterrent. This is no different than the doubt sowed by many of the NPAs when they discuss the Indian tests - except we all understand their agenda.
All the more reason to continue the debate in a sane manner; such that folks who dont know learn; and not take antagonistic positions by imputing motives to perfectly jingo folks eh?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

All I can say is that India-TSP- and India-PRC standoffs are not two - person games.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ShauryaT wrote:
Gerard wrote: And the warheads are kept separately from the missiles.
The missiles themselves are kept unfuelled, in hard rock bunkers that may not even survive an American strike.
Yet that deters America....
All weapons deter, to a degree, including nuclear. It is only a matter of thresholds. The thresholds are differrent, if China has 20 or 2000, or are they the same? Assuming, all other factors, such as political will remain equal.
When considering America; for folks who want to deter America it makes no sense to deter a Nuclear strike from US. Since US is unlikely to use a nuclear force before using it massive conventional and geo-strategic advantgae to achieve its goal 95% and perhaps make the country nuke nood before considering the N option.

Chinese nukes are piffles for US if China does not use them first; or use the threat to use them first in a war of nerves with US; sort of like; we are willing to go but how much are you willing to pay to take us down.

it makes no sense what so ever to cosider the nuclear equation in isolation without factoring in political; conventional mil and economic factos.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ramana wrote:All I can say is that India-TSP- and India-PRC standoffs are not two - person games.
Completely agree; so a deterrence if any should also be ready with that context in mind? Such that any of the parties does not think lobbing one at India is a shirt cut to take us out of the equation and then proceed with its usual games with others.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Sanku wrote:
ramana wrote:All I can say is that India-TSP- and India-PRC standoffs are not two - person games.
Completely agree; so a deterrence if any should also be ready with that context in mind? Such that any of the parties does not think lobbing one at India is a shirt cut to take us out of the equation and then proceed with its usual games with others.
Pls think of the meaning of "are not two - person games"? It has a very specific and enlightening meaning. Hint when my two cousins gang up on me, when the guns are pulled you don't just take down one cousine, you take down both.

When China is taken down like it or not Unkill also gets taken down too. By Whom? Well China also doesn't know with absolutely certainly who "did not" hit him... the house of cards falls.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Arun_S wrote: When China is taken down like it or not Unkill also gets taken down too. By Whom? Well China also doesn't know with absolutely certainly who "did not" hit him... the house of cards falls.
Arun_S; with all due respects; the above is a conjecture; while certainly possible; it is certainly not the only possible way dominos fill fall.

What is also possible is that in the above scenario; China first decides to remove the Indian irritant by crippling us with a massive nuclear strike; followed by negotitations with US to restore its peace on favorable terms.

Also how w.r.t your scenario; how will know who hit us?

Hence the need to have a strong enough nuclear force; such that when the cold calculus of trading cities and assests begins; any potential adversary knows that India will not be able to dish out more pain than they are willing to pay even for Indian annihilation. Do we have enough for that? I dont know.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

The answer I thought of was lack of data to verify the models for aging; so while we can create close approximate models from first principles (like flow modeling software -- something I know of); to verify that we have got all the constants right needs data; which will either come from more tests in future; say one every 5 year. Or the laser ignition facility.
Sanku wrote:
Arun_S wrote:Answer is more simpler;

but to make it more confusing here is the "Kunji"/Guide: What is the purpose of US Stewardship program and the role of National Ignition Facility under the program?
Well the purpose of the Stewardship program is to take care of the existing stock pile of nuclear weapons; make sure they can be used for a period beyond their initial design life and assure the reliablity and safety of the weapons.
Stockpile stewardship refers to the United States program of reliability testing and maintenance of its nuclear weapons without the use of nuclear testing.
The NIF is to achieve fusion under controlled (!?!) conditions; i.e. achieve fusion with a very small mass of nuclear material; wiki also says
However, in 2001 it was learned that LLNL was pursuing a method to allow the use of plutonium and uranium in experiments on NIF[15]; this would allow a direct examination of equation of state parameters for these materials at extremely high pressures and densities not currently allowed by subcritical experiments which compress the fissile material using conventional explosives. The decision does not appear to be finalized at this time though.
So may be IF can be used to directly get the science info to be plugged into models without any tests whatsoever.
In simple terms the material that was tested, over time transforms materially into something else. Thus the test condition is no more valid. The simple solution of reconstituting the pit is very expensive and logistics nightmare; so the simpler solution is to keep testing the inventory.

Wg Pu is a mixture of various isotopes with different half life. As a pit ages it undergoes two major changes that affects it EOS (Equation of State).
1. The ratio of isotopes changes
2. The radio active decay (its energy, its interaction with other elements and its byproducts affects the grain in the pit)

Since the Nuke test was done for a certain age after reprocessing and after molding. So parametric verification of a stockpile sample piece of the core and fitting it back to simulation tells the effect of aging, and decision can then be taken to melt and reconstitute the pit again.

And yes NIF allows EOS determination of both fusion and fissile material. So NIF is the nuke test ground for quantum above brahmins. The unwashed stay trapped in the MATRIX of "shitty bitty".
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Thanks Arun_S;

I thnik I see; beautiful explanation; so essentially LIF is a for all practical purposes "virtual" explosion based testing to replace "real" bum bursting. And its gives the science info at the same time to boot.

Very nice; no wonder they are happy with Shitty-bitty.

Will Dr Singh cough up 4B$ a year investment for the Indian stewardship program.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS> On a related but different note; are there attempts to model the state of the pit w.r.t. age mathmatically? So once you have done enough LIF tests and/or real ones and have data; both kinds of tests are not needed and the health of the pit can be known from first principles themselves?

I though the stewardship program was also trying to achieve the above.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Sanku wrote:
Arun_S wrote: When China is taken down like it or not Unkill also gets taken down too. By Whom? Well China also doesn't know with absolutely certainly who "did not" hit him... the house of cards falls.
Arun_S; with all due respects; the above is a conjecture; while certainly possible; it is certainly not the only possible way dominos fill fall.

I don't want to be argumentative. Bharat's leading strategic affairs analyst and Ramana garu are giving clear message: Samajdaar ko ishara bahut. Take it for what it is worth. One can only take horse to the water, ... .. .

Recall a saying in my dehatee village: "Jadoo Woh Jo Sir Chad Boley"

When China mends its ways with India, not to opposed UNSC seat for India. The truth of India's leading strategic affairs analyst words/Jadoo is reality not conjuncture.
Last edited by Arun_S on 26 Sep 2007 11:30, edited 1 time in total.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Sanku wrote:Will Dr Singh cough up 4B$ a year investment for the Indian stewardship program.
Array bahi thoda to socho. Weekday lunch in India does not cost $10, there is something called "purchasing power parity" :( cost of running a facility in India is not same as California.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Arun_S wrote:
Sanku wrote:Will Dr Singh cough up 4B$ a year investment for the Indian stewardship program.
Array bahi thoda to socho. Weekday lunch in India does not cost $10, there is something called "purchasing power parity" :( cost of running a facility in India is not same as California.
Fair enough; actaully I did think of that before you mentioned. Really!! But a lot of building items for the above may need to be imported (I could be wrong) if done ASAP; if we develop the werewithal totally internally using domestic industry and at domestic rates; this may take longer than we have; especially w.r.t. 123 and/or the geo-pol situation and the "real" restricitions on testing. While I am certain that we can do the same far more cheaply than the west (given our track record of developing high techonology from scratch at laugable investment levels) I wonder if we can afford the time; this time around.

Again it is not that "nahi soch raha hoon" but I of course do not know enough or all variables.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Arun_S wrote: When China mends its ways with India, not to opposed UNSC seat for India. The truth of India's leading strategic affairs analyst words/Jadoo is reality not conjuncture.
Since you have clearly mentioned the need to be not argumentative; I will stop on this issue here (though being a argumentative Indian; I must say I find it exteremely difficult :-o ).

In any case; those straws in wind are certainly good indicators to watch out for; I will keep my eyes open for the same (when it actually happens on the ground)
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

so a deterrence if any should also be ready with that context in mind? Such that any of the parties does not think lobbing one at India is a shirt cut to take us out of the equation and then proceed with its usual games with others.
It is. The DND was quite clear in this regard. This is why the longer range Agni came before the medium range Agni.
China first decides to remove the Indian irritant by crippling us with a massive nuclear strike;
The day the "indian irritant" can be "removed" - is the day the deterrent becomes completely unstable. The key here is survivability.
Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 487
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Post by Sanatanan »

This is an article published in The Hindu today (29 Sept 2007). I have quoted only parts of the article here. (Emphasis in the quoted text, mine)
Opinion - News Analysis
Down the garden path
By Aaron Tovish

Good leadership looks as far down the road as possible to anticipate obstacles and detours. On the nuclear deal, a combination of U. S. and Indian hubris has led India down the garden path without any clear strategy for reaching the ultimate destination other than economic enticements and intimidation.

. . .

Indian government leaders have made a major mistake thinking the United States could be their battering ram to break out of their nuclear isolation. Although many illusions have been carefully cultivated, the final result will be an embarrassing failure. It is time for the leaders to look for face-saving ways out of this debacle.

. . .

This Additional Protocol cannot, therefore, look anything like the nuclear-weapon states’ Additional Protocols, which deal almost exclusively with export matters. India cannot expect to negotiate with the IAEA on an equal footing with the nuclear-weapon states where there is no pretence even of establishing a firewall between the peaceful and military programmes. {PM has given his word in the Parliament that India will ejoy the same benefits as US. Will this pledge get broken? What are the likely consequences of not meeting the promise? Privilege motion?} If India forces this issue, it might succeed in getting its way with the IAEA, where a majority of the Board of Governors can help force the issue, but it will set itself up for a fall in the NSG, where any single member can veto it.

. . .

(Aaron Tovish, a disarmament expert, is former Director of Peace and Security Programs with Parliamentarians for Global Action in the 1980s and 1990s. He worked closely with Indian government officials on two major arms control initiatives: the Six Nation Peace Initiative and the Partial Test Ban Treaty Amendment. He now works for the Mayor of Hiroshima, President of Mayors for Peace, and is responsible for the main activity of the organisation: the 2020 Vision Campaign, which is akin to the Rajiv Gandhi Peace Plan. The opinions expressed in this article are his own.)
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Calvin wrote:
China first decides to remove the Indian irritant by crippling us with a massive nuclear strike;
The day the "indian irritant" can be "removed" - is the day the deterrent becomes completely unstable. The key here is survivability.
Thank you for the responses; however what I had in mind while making the second point was not the survivabilty of the nuclear assests themselves; but of the country itself allow me to explain:

It is at the moment clear that India does indeed possess the ability to hit back in case of a nuclear strike. That is the base assumption here; the question is what does it do to the calculations now?

The first possibility is that no one really wants a nuclear exchange; therefore as long as it is assured that "some" Indian nuclear assests will survive a first strike (quite possible) no one will really get into a slanging match for the fear that India can at least make two-three nuclear strikes on the attacker. This is what I call the optimistic scenario.

Then there comes the paranoid scenario; this has shades of Humpery Hawksley's fictional work (which as you can see I am quite fond of):

Things have to be bad enough that a nuclear exchange is being contemplated isnt it? So lets make it an additional base assumption; now China (say) could decide that India does not have enough assests such that a significant number will survive a first strike. Also there is a question of national will and the nation itself. It may call for a strike on 8 Indian cities simultaneously; also while targeting important command and control centers; including the PMs office etc. What is banks on is that the resulting mayhem plus decaptiation will leave very few of the Indian nuclear assests operational to be able to strike post the event (consider that many assests; such as sub may actually be cut off).

Even if hit by what ever remains of the Indian strike capability; may be a price China is willing to pay for what it has achieved is the complete annihilation of India as a nation.

Frankly though the above is a little extreme; I still dont think it is paranoid; paranoid would be if I added two other countries hitting India into the mix. :D

You may say that the above scenario is too fictional or extreme to be pay the readiness cost for; I dont think so; bottom line is I think if a nuclear exchange threshold may be breached if India does not have the capability of dishing out unacceptable damage to the adversary; and we dont know yet what the Chicom's threshold is.

Our deterrence will work only if Chicom (or xyz) gets nightmare about "what happens if" scenario and not if they think that they will be able to tolerate a few blows that India may land
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

India cannot expect to negotiate with the IAEA on an equal footing with the nuclear-weapon states where there is no pretence even of establishing a firewall between the peaceful and military programmes.
INFCIRC/66 will do just fine....

These disarmament types are just terrified of the prospect of acceptance of the Indian arsenal from the IAEA and the general public. The Profool has been writing similar stuff.
Last edited by Gerard on 26 Sep 2007 16:29, edited 1 time in total.
Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Calvin »

What is banks on is that the resulting mayhem plus decaptiation will leave very few of the Indian nuclear assests operational to be able to strike post the event (consider that many assests; such as sub may actually be cut off).
So, its survivability *and* "command and control". Neither of these are being affected by any agreements presently being negotiated.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

Will Dr Singh cough up 4B$ a year investment for the Indian stewardship program.
It would be far cheaper to simply create an additional Plutonium foundry and machining facility to remanufacture any pit older than say 15 years. India doesn't have a massive arsenal and periodic pit replacement would not be burdensome.
Locked