Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread

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

Postby Arun_S » 25 Sep 2007 07:09

Rudradev wrote:
Arun_S wrote:
ramana wrote:Yes. Second Calvin.

Fully Agree.


I'm afraid I don't understand.

In simpler words, I agree with Calvin's response.
Calvin says:
Quote:
We've some workable bomb designs (but at the 200kt level?)

Yes

Quote:
So even in the worst case if we somehow get caught in the CTBT, FMCT kinda web, we'd still be ok?


Yes.


Eh?

As far as I know, "credible minimum deterrence" is NOT a concept that makes any sense devoid of context. It is only credible with respect to a particular foe or foes. If Y_P is the minimum guaranteed yield our arsenal must have in order to deter Pakistan, and Y_C similarly for China, then assuming that China and Pakistan are the only powers we want to deter, our total arsenal must be = Y_P + Y_C.

However, even assuming that our number of 200kt devices is enough to meet Y_P + Y_C; if we allow ourselves to be caught in the CTBT/FMCT web, we are effectively allowing our nuclear deterrent to be frozen at the point where it is credible for China and Pakistan as of DD/MM/YY when the cap was placed.

So unless we are (1) guaranteed that China and Pakistan will never require more than Y_C + Y_P as of DD/MM/YY to deter and (2) guaranteed that we will never have to think about deterring anybody else... which seem like extremely static assumptions to base the continuance of our national security upon...

In what sense does our deterrent retain any credibility whatsoever, under the circumstances Calvin has asserted we would "still be ok"?

For many people the credibility is only proven by mushroom cloud, for many others knowing the sign/symbol of capability (the "Linga") that only comes from having done/mastered it, is as solid a proof as reading the Richter scale from 5,000 Km distance. "Inviting guests to my son's birthday is sign of vitality that does not involve naked display of erectile function."

So for what it is worth to people like me the potency of Indian 150-200kt Fusion Boosted Fission (FBF) is as credible and real as it was in Dec 1995. Just that it requires lot much more WgPu (~17Kg) than the 250kt TN weapon (~2Kg). But China is in no illusion of Indian 150-200kt FBF weapon. Now for smaller missile (weight&size) that can deliver the 200kt punch to desired distance, the TN has to be proven to all Indian stakeholders. And to do that either test or build $30B laser ignition facility that is another "Lingam" to show the reality of the punch to any non-believer.

So there are some very hard numbers in terms of money and time line that India has to invest in before India even start discussing "shitty-bitty" or "fmtc".

[url=http://www.idsa.in/publications/strategic-analysis/2004/oct/K%20Sub.pdf]Narasimha Rao and the Bomb
K Subrahmanyam[/url]

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 25 Sep 2007 07:16


sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Postby sunilUpa » 25 Sep 2007 07:17

very good read on post cold war deterrence (Unclassified US Gov document). Interesting to read about deterrence against 'irrational' leaders and how deterrence plans change with country and leader. Please do read the full document.

Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 25 Sep 2007 07:20

NRao, I always knew that PRC will see the wisdom of KS garu(he is now honorary Andhraite) and see the error of their ways.

I didn't understand Pitamah's enunciation of how PRC will come around. He is the Hari Sheldon of India's Foundation.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 25 Sep 2007 07:25

ramana wrote:NRao, I always knew that PRC will see the wisdom of KS garu(he is now honorary Andhraite) and see the error of their ways.

I didn't understand Pitamah's enunciation of how PRC will come around. He is the Hari Sheldon of India's Foundation.


Hmmmm.... so there *does* exist a shadowy, mysterious second foundation (the real Kautilyas) that guides the first foundation (visible Indian Polity).

Aaah........ Mazel Tov, Asimov!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 25 Sep 2007 07:39

ramana, is there any KS auvacha on the Gandhian family?

Just curious.

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

Postby Calvin » 25 Sep 2007 07:39

SunilUPA: That was a good document. Remember that the US' posture is not always applicable to other nations, although their thought process is instructive.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 25 Sep 2007 08:53

Its a case by case business. Totalitarian/authoritarian regimes need leadership to be targeted i.e. accurately delivered ordnance. Then there is counter value and counterforce business. And in case of neighborly challengers the payloads have to be usable to preclude vague generalizations of fallout and prevailing winds. And then there is the issue of non two person challenges.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 25 Sep 2007 09:01

sunilUpa wrote:very good read on post cold war deterrence (Unclassified US Gov document). Interesting to read about deterrence against 'irrational' leaders and how deterrence plans change with country and leader. Please do read the full document.

Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence


This is practically a NFU stand; I wonder being unclassified how real is the above text to the "real" thinking of the US establishment. After all they are the only powers to have used a nuclear weapon and that too in the first use.

However for whaterver the article is worth (which as I think may not be that much) In my reading I dont think the above in any case also bears out the statement that one nuclear strike > 100,000 == US deterrence. If anything it is a classical NFU strategy combined with elements of MAD; try and hit us once and we will lay your country down to dust.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Postby nkumar » 25 Sep 2007 10:09



Not gonna happen, PRC wil never ever let India get UNSC seat with veto. If it does, India will become a serious challenger to Chinese hegemony in Asia and Africa. Infact, US too will not allow India to get UNSC seat with veto unless India joins the US camp.

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

Postby Philip » 25 Sep 2007 10:09

Acharya,good info about the Air India "Kashmir Princess" bombing.I mentioned this many years ago ,about the CIAs actions against India.The bomb was sent from Delhi by the CIA to Hong Kong airport,to be placed aboard the aircraft by Nationalist Chinese agents (courtesy the British looking the otherway) and blow up the aircraft and Chou-En-Lai en-route to the conference.However,the Chinese penetration of Nationalist Chinese intelligence warned alerted them to the plot and Chou changed his travel plans.

It is imperative that at some opportune time in the future (before 2010)we conduct a series of further tests,as several of our key delivery systems (sub-launched cruise and ballistic missiles) are in the development stage.These have stringent dimensional parameters.TN warheads are essential for these delivery systems with their planned MIRVs,as we do not have the cash to build and operate a large number of SSBNs.Perfecting our warhead designs in tests are essential as we do not have the massive testing data thatthe major nuclear powers have after their decades of nuclear testing,allowing them to rely on simulators for refining their designs.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 25 Sep 2007 10:14

On deterrence:

There seems to be a bit of lack of clarity here on the word "deterrence" in context of nuclear power; of course according to the dictonary it means

to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting
or
the maintenance of military power for the purpose of discouraging attack

However what do we hope will Nuclear power deter--
1) A WMD attack on Indian soil or Indian assest?
2) A conventional attack?
3) A major conventional loss or casulatlies?
4) A geo-political disadvantage or a strategic bottle up?

It seems to me (INVHO) that during discussion on deterrence; different folks have different goals amongst the list in mind when they talk of it; hence the confusion.

Obviously whether we chose to go with a FU doctrine or a NFU one will impact on whether the nuclear power can be used for some or more of the above goals. Also making our posture clear; also lets others know of how much deterrence we have.

The above in turn will dictate the number of nuclear weapons we will need.
IMVVHO; if you have a FU doctrine; you actually need fewer nuclear weapons all you have to do is that the adversary is scared that the hit you may dish out will be UD (unacceptable damage) regardless of whether the second strike will wipe you out or not. I mean if you have lost your sons; the fact that the attacker is dead is poor consolation anyway. That is the thurst of Pakistani position. A element of irrationality or desperation has to exist in the first user in this case.

However NFU posture asks for a far greater arsenal: The first user against you has to not only worry that you may be able to pay back the gift; but also worry that your capacity for returning the love is undiminshed. Further in the calculus of mass destruction; what ever objectives were hoped to be achieved against you by the first strike; would pale in comparison the cost that will have to be paid by the first user for the price he extracted.

Some interesting cost benfiet analysis tables may be drawn as a result; to illustrate

China FU/India NFU

Prize -- All Indian metros -- Cost Shanghai -- Acceptable?
Prize -- do -- Cost Bejing and Shangjai --??
Prize -- Only Calcutta :lol: -- Cost the entire chinese costal belt -- would Chicom settle :twisted:

In the cold calculus of world geo-power it will be a mistake to assume that humanitarian grounds of losing a mega city with all its attendant courses will be of import; for if the world was so huminitarian; no nuclear weapons would be needed in the first place correct?

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

Postby Arun_S » 25 Sep 2007 10:42

Philip wrote:It is imperative that at some opportune time in the future (before 2010)we conduct a series of further tests,as several of our key delivery systems (sub-launched cruise and ballistic missiles) are in the development stage.These have stringent dimensional parameters.TN warheads are essential for these delivery systems with their planned MIRVs,as we do not have the cash to build and operate a large number of SSBNs.Perfecting our warhead designs in tests are essential as we do not have the massive testing data that the major nuclear powers have after their decades of nuclear testing,allowing them to rely on simulators for refining their designs.


Philip & All: Let it be clear to all that Pok-II generated very clear data and with that India has all the necessary data for simulation based design of ALL types of nuclear weapons (TN and Neutron bum included). One does not require hundreds of test when the data you seek is accurately obtained from one set of well designed experiments in a test series.

1998 was very unlike old times of N5 in many very significant aspects; including testing weapon concepts that were ahead of the best in vishwa stockpile. RC wasn't kidding when he teased US counterparts that Indian weapons are of more modern 95 vintage than your old designs.

I fully agree that we should spend good cash for good reason and build just adequate # of SSBN for deterrence. Yet it should be clear that the prime reason for $30B Laser ignition facility is to ensure goodness of Indian weapons as it ages; so that it usability is not under any doubt and the new crop of nuclear weapon designers and stakeholders keep sharp their skills for a very long Indian innings at the top.

It so happens that the same $30B facility also allows India to validate efficacy of its TN weapons to stakeholders is a #2 benifit.

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

Postby Arun_S » 25 Sep 2007 11:01

ramana wrote:NRao, I always knew that PRC will see the wisdom of KS garu(he is now honorary Andhraite) and see the error of their ways.

I didn't understand Pitamah's enunciation of how PRC will come around. He is the Hari Sheldon of India's Foundation.


KS garu with an annoymus BRFite.
Image

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 25 Sep 2007 11:12

Shankar: This is absolutely untrue. The US will be deterred by a single nuclear weapon falling on a single moderately sized city (~100,000 people). Have you read anything on deterrence at all
?

- why did then US has 10000plus nuclear weapons and so does Russia. By your logic they should have been happy with couple of hundreds or for that mattero tens of advanced weapons and thats it .

Cavin- the real world deterance does not work that way .The possibility of an assured hit has to take into consideration the effect of first surprise hit assuming it will be a massive strike desigend specifically to take out your entire capability many times over and make access impossible to whatever is remaining .

When we get into a test moratorium/fissile material cut off etc through back door we get into a situation like in 62. Trying to cover up lack of capability/resources with empty rhetoric .

When you say you have an effective nuclear deterance it simply means you are sure your nuclear strike capability under any situation and in the face of concerted attack still can instill fear in the mind of adversary,not to use the nuclear option

In my mind we today are no where near that kind of true deterance.Just having tens or even hundreds nukes does not create a nuclear deterance on a global scale . There is no pakista n or china centric deterance like our
leaders think or would want us to believe - it has to be on a global scale
and sadly we are even today far far from that objective

Just look what kind of resources went to make the US-Soviet deterance to work and yhe answer will be obvious

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 25 Sep 2007 11:19

Arun_S wrote:
. Yet it should be clear that the prime reason for $30B Laser ignition facility is to ensure goodness of Indian weapons as it ages; so that it usability is not under any doubt and the new crop of nuclear weapon designers and stakeholders keep sharp their skills for a very long Indian innings at the top.

It so happens that the same $30B facility also allows India to validate efficacy of its TN weapons to stakeholders is a #2 benifit.


Arun_S two questions;
1) Why are not simulations good enough to verify the good ness of weapons with age? Especially if they are good enough to help design new weapons or perfect existing ones.
2) Will the laser ignition facility also help in designing new weapons?

Sorry for the dumb questions; many things I can not understand as well as you.

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

Postby Arun_S » 25 Sep 2007 11:27

Sanku wrote:1) Why are not simulations good enough to verify the good ness of weapons with age? Especially if they are good enough to help design new weapons or perfect existing ones.
2) Will the laser ignition facility also help in designing new weapons?

Sorry for the dumb questions; many things I can not understand as well as you.


For Q#1: I would rather have you mull over it for a day to figure it out.

As for Q#2: Yes, it can be used to verify the design of new weapon.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 25 Sep 2007 12:17

Arun_S wrote:
Sanku wrote:1) Why are not simulations good enough to verify the good ness of weapons with age? Especially if they are good enough to help design new weapons or perfect existing ones.

For Q#1: I would rather have you mull over it for a day to figure it out.
.


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.

I also did some googling (long live the net) and the following were interesting articles on the same; seems to confirm my thoughts.

The Mission of the Advanced Simulation and Computing Program (ASC)

Maintaining Nuclear Weapons in the Age of Supercomputers
Last edited by Sanku on 25 Sep 2007 12:32, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Arun_S » 25 Sep 2007 12:30

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?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 25 Sep 2007 13:01

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.

However I am exteremly sorry to say that I am still clueless as to the simpler answer :oops: dots not connecting. Also looking at the pieces that are needed for the stewardship program; the need to achieve a deterrence without test; needs a whole bunch of labs above and beyond an LIF. These include

Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility

Off hand if 40b$ is the cost of a LIF; the overall cost of the labs is likely to be far higher.

Wiki says the cost of Stewardship program is 4B$ ANNUALLY; given that it seems to be on since 1992 at this rate of funding is already something like 60B$!! And growing!!

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

Postby Calvin » 25 Sep 2007 16:08

- why did then US has 10000plus nuclear weapons and so does Russia. By your logic they should have been happy with couple of hundreds or for that mattero tens of advanced weapons and thats it .


You are going to have think this through on your own.

In my mind we today are no where near that kind of true deterance.


The key phrase here is "in my mind" - Please try and understand how the calculus of deterrence works. The deterrence capability that Israel and Pakistan have, are extremely instructive in this regard.

the real world deterance does not work that way. The possibility of an assured hit has to take into consideration the effect of first surprise hit assuming it will be a massive strike desigend specifically to take out your entire capability many times over and make access impossible to whatever is remaining.


The solution to this is survivability, and command and control - not numbers of weapons.

If the US is convinced that at least one effectively deliverable weapon, the will to use it, and the command to execute that will exists - it will deter them from launching the attack in the first place. This is what deterrence against the US is all about. Against other countries the numbers may be different, but they will not be orders of magnitude different.

When we get into a test moratorium/fissile material cut off etc through back door we get into a situation like in 62. Trying to cover up lack of capability/resources with empty rhetoric .


What does this mean? Are you suggesting that we dont have the requisite number or effective weapons? If you are, then this discussion is over - because your agenda is not benign.

emsin

Postby emsin » 25 Sep 2007 16:39

I wonder if India has signed this treaty..( i reckon it must have though..)

And i wonder even if it has signed what will be the consequences of it's violation? (I doubt any sanctions will be involved..)

The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law. Among its principles, it bars States Parties to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV).


Else we could have tested all our nukes whatever next year itself.. Chandrayan could have carried a good strategic payload on Chandrayan..

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 25 Sep 2007 17:06

NRG seeking license to open first US nuke plany in 28 years.

Marketwatch

WSJ

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

Postby Calvin » 25 Sep 2007 17:41

Else we could have tested all our nukes whatever next year itself.. Chandrayan could have carried a good strategic payload on Chandrayan..


What is keeping us from testing "all our nukes" is not any treaty obligation.

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

Postby Philip » 25 Sep 2007 18:32

Arun,yes,one knows that our designs weren't Hiroshima vintage,but feel that we cannot be 100% sure about everything and may want to test in the future.Relieved to know that NB testing especially is not neccessary.However,because of the virtual impossibility of using any NWeapons in a spat,we must concentrate harder and faster with our delivery (land,sea and air) systems for PGMs.The US has converted an old SSBN into an SSGN with a massive arsenal of conventionally armed missiles.The US may even be tempted to use micro-nukes,excerpts given below.Any info on our ability to develop them?

http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... 1/10/47319

Though large "theater" thermonuclear devices -- doomsday bombs -- don't fit the Bush administration's war on terrorism, smaller tactical nukes do not seem out of the question in the current mindset of the Defense Department.


The most likely candidate is a tactical micro-nuke called the B61-11, an earth-penetrating nuclear device known as the "bunker buster."

The B61-11 was designed to destroy underground military facilities such as command bunkers, ballistic missile silos and facilities for producing and storing weapons.

However, it could be used against the warren of tunnels and caves carved under the Afghan mountains that are often cited as a potential refuge for the U.S. government's prime suspect, Osama bin Laden.

According to an article in the May 1997 edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: "The B61-11's unique earth-penetrating characteristics and wide range of yields allow it to threaten otherwise indestructible targets from the air.

"The 1,200-pound B61-11 replaces the B53, a 8,900-pound, nine-megaton bomb that was developed as a 'city buster'..."

The B53 was deliverable only by vulnerable B-52s; In contrast, the smaller and lighter B61-11 can be delivered by the stealthier B-2A bomber, or even by F-16 fighters.

The B61-11 is the most recent device added to the U.S. nuclear arsenal since 1989, according to the story.

It was developed and deployed secretly. The U.S. military sneaked it past test and development treaties, as well as public and congressional debate, by defining the B61-11 as an adaptation of a pre-treaty technology rather than a new development.

The B61-11 is designed to burrow through layers of concrete by way of a "shock-coupling effect."

The design directs the force of the B61-11's explosive energy downward, destroying everything buried beneath it to a depth of several hundred meters, according to a story in the March 2, 1997 issue of Defense News.

The B53, on the other hand, with a force equal to 9 million tons of TNT, penetrates the earth simply by creating a massive crater, rather than the more precise downward blow of the B61-11.

Depending on the yield of the bomb, the B61-11 can produce explosions ranging from 300 tons of TNT to more than 300,000 tons. This is significantly less than the B53, but still far larger than even the greatest conventional non-nuclear device in U.S. stockpiles. And it is several times more powerful than the atomic weapons dropped on Japan in 1945.

Studies by the Natural Resource Defense Council estimate that more than 150 B61-11s are currently in the U.S. arsenals, scattered among NATO aircraft carriers and planes on bases in Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Turkey, Belgium, Netherlands and Greece.

emsin

Postby emsin » 25 Sep 2007 18:43

Calvin, i am sorry if my post appeared that way. Obviously no treaty obligation prevents us testing. It's just that there is this coterie of nations that make it difficult to do so here. Secondly if we do test here, Pakistan will immediately follow.

I was thinking on the lines of testing on the moon. China also violated the outer space treaty by destroying a satellite that shattered into thousands of pieces of debris. Testing a few devices on the moon won't harm anyone. And we could point to China also..

Added benefit is if TSP starts to clamor for a test..i'm unsure, but would they be told something to this effect..you do so on the moon, not on this planet if you don't want to be sanctioned?

I mean think of it another way..think the headlines in NYT..India Launches spacecraft to moon..explodes TN weapons..the impact will be awesome. It's psychologically quite a deterrent..if India can explode a TN weapon the moon..whats China, Timbuktu or US?

I'm not sure of the sanctions part though in the event. These are nukkad thoughts anyways. :-?

PS: Personally i'm convinced that RC, Sikka and co have ensured our BFDs will run full up to the 200 KT mark. Fact is even if there was a slight hitch in the TN one, they'd have recitified it. We need a good economy to support the lab simulation facilities..and put it up pronto.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5200
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Sep 2007 19:19

Calvin wrote: The counterargument that you are trying to set up is still born.
Explain MAD. Explain, China's quest for parity with the US - in the realm of potential capability. Also, explain, START I, II and the recent 2002 SORT treaty, all predicated on MAD and mutual gradual withdrawal, with parity as its chief benchmark, long after they have ceased to be active enemies. Also, explain, Japan, unwilling to submit, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, until the knowledge (right or wrong) that the US had 20-30 more such bombs and intends to use them, and send the Japanese to annihilation, if necessary. Nuclear war is not a sane game, never has been. You do not even need a mad man at the helm, just enough madness in a leadership to cross the thresholds of human loss to achieve their aims - which has been done.

An India with a 200 weapon arsenal, with NFU, will be no match with a China, under a Mao type personality, with a 1000 weapon arsenal. Where both have deployed BMD's and SLBM's. A first strike from China, may take out 30% of our arsenal, in such a scenario.

It is true that even 10 large reliably deliverable war heads, maybe sufficient to deter. Although, deterrence has thresholds. Once these thresholds are crossed, arsenals to match and exceed the enemy's are needed. That is my point. The numbers in your inventory, determine these thresholds. Does the Indian doctrine reflect that reality, is the question? Will we have enough time and political space to build these capabilities, as needed?

Also, I understand India's well articulated CMD stance, What is missing is the translation. What does CMD translate to in terms of quantity, type and delivery options, under current perceptions of threat scenarios. World of a difference between a theoretical policy and a practised one.

There is a condurum coming, where the world is moving towards FMCT - which means finite limits of available fissile material against India's flexible oriented CMD stance. The question is, will the upper limits of India's fissile material cover all possible scenarios, under a FMCT constrained, India. Going by Indian sources, it seems, the potential exists, but its translation to actual fissile material, has not been given effect.

Also, you seem to dismiss the concept of nuclear parity, but this is exactly what potential adversaries practice or seek to practice. The best example you have given, in the past is, N. Korea and Israel and Pakistan now. If enough US interests are on line then, N. Koreas, minuscule arsenal, will not be in the way. The end of the cold war, and the thaw with China, N. Korea ceased to be of active interest, to the US. What the US faces in N. Korea is a mad man. What the US does to states such as N. Korea and Iran, is to squeeze them out, with carrots and sticks.

Even TSP, seeks parity, with the Indian arsenal. Going by your logic, TSP just needs a handful to ensure that an India with its values on life and a perceived lack of an ability to be ruthless and brutal to achieve its goals and objectives, has deterrence against, India, if it can assure that at least a handful, will get through. But, this is not, how they plan and think of Indian arsenals - they seek parity in the area. Plain and simple.

We can dismiss the concept of parity of nuclear arsenals, only at the risk of assuming that deterrence thresholds, will not be crossed. Our deterrence, cannot assume an adversary with the same outlook on life and civilization, as ours.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 25 Sep 2007 20:48, edited 2 times in total.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3238
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Tanaji » 25 Sep 2007 19:24

How do you instrument on the moon?

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Postby rocky » 25 Sep 2007 19:30

Just the fact that India's posture is that of NFU, it's nuclear weapons are not for deterrence, but for war-fighting. That requires sheer numbers.

emsin

Postby emsin » 25 Sep 2007 19:41

How do you instrument on the moon?


Tanaji..tidal wave deflection measurements on Earth..once our Jingo's really quake the moon with a few thousand MTs of TN explosions on the moon..it's orbit will get quaky causing tidal wave deflections that can then be measured here on Earth....anyways the truth is i have no clue if and how instrumentation or measurement of explosive power can be done on the moon without instrumentation on the ground or off the moon.

I liked SRajs argument which was well put..whether any consideration is being paid into obtaining non-NSG fuel from countries like Niger etc.

Also since we're having the 2nd stage FBR coming up soon in 2010 which will require Pu as fuel..why not negotiate with UK, US, Russia for used Pu from dismantled weapons for that stage? Obviously if they want the fuel back we return them the exact quantity after use, weighed by taraju till the nearest micromilligram.

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

Postby svinayak » 25 Sep 2007 20:58

Philip wrote:Acharya,good info about the Air India "Kashmir Princess" bombing.I mentioned this many years ago ,about the CIAs actions against India.The bomb was sent from Delhi by the CIA to Hong Kong airport,to be placed aboard the aircraft by Nationalist Chinese agents (courtesy the British looking the otherway) and blow up the aircraft and Chou-En-Lai en-route to the conference.However,the Chinese penetration of Nationalist Chinese intelligence warned alerted them to the plot and Chou changed his travel plans.

THe Bandung conference was threatening to the Western Elite in 1955. If India and China came up together that would change the world order.

This incident of bombing the Kashmir express is the biggest strategic event they have accomplished which resulted in 1962 war and 40 years of no trust between India and China - the largest two nation in the planet.

This has given them pivotal role in the future of bith India and China

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3128
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Postby Rudradev » 25 Sep 2007 21:08

Thanks for the reply and the very pertinent link, ArunS.

Arun_S wrote:For many people the credibility is only proven by mushroom cloud, for many others knowing the sign/symbol of capability (the "Linga") that only comes from having done/mastered it, is as solid a proof as reading the Richter scale from 5,000 Km distance. "Inviting guests to my son's birthday is sign of vitality that does not involve naked display of erectile function."


Agreed :D By the same token as we threw a birthday party... the North Koreans, for instance, attempt to demand respect by exposing themselves in public. The Pakis at Chagai unzipped their fly and exposed a prosthetic made in China (and the Americans applauded and winked to restore their H&D).



So for what it is worth to people like me the potency of Indian 150-200kt Fusion Boosted Fission (FBF) is as credible and real as it was in Dec 1995. Just that it requires lot much more WgPu (~17Kg) than the 250kt TN weapon (~2Kg). But China is in no illusion of Indian 150-200kt FBF weapon. Now for smaller missile (weight&size) that can deliver the 200kt punch to desired distance, the TN has to be proven to all Indian stakeholders. And to do that either test or build $30B laser ignition facility that is another "Lingam" to show the reality of the punch to any non-believer.

So there are some very hard numbers in terms of money and time line that India has to invest in before India even start discussing "shitty-bitty" or "fmtc".


[url=http://www.idsa.in/publications/strategic-analysis/2004/oct/K%20Sub.pdf]Narasimha Rao and the Bomb
K Subrahmanyam[/url]



Yes, this is exactly how I understand it (particularly the part of your quote that I have bolded.

That is, we may very well have all sorts of capacity and it is up to people of various levels of expertise to make educated guesses and derive our actual ability via conjecture. However, to prove it to Indian stakeholders that we can make a nice compact warhead which our missiles could neatly deliver as far as Harbin, we need to either test more (show the TN in action) or cough up the $30 B for laser ignition facility.

But, that is quite different from what Calvin said to VSudhir... which is that we are ok if we get inviegled into signing CTBT or NPT at this stage, when the most we have proven (to ALL stakeholders) is a 200kt FBF device. From your post, which I agree with, it appears we are at least $30B short of being ok.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3128
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Postby Rudradev » 25 Sep 2007 21:58

Calvin wrote: Please try and understand how the calculus of deterrence works. The deterrence capability that Israel and Pakistan have, are extremely instructive in this regard.

.


Calvin,

Pardon me for butting in here, but I would submit that you can't really apply Israeli (or Pakistani, such as it is) models of deterrence where India is concerned.

The key differences here are a demonstrable lack of political will to use military means of any kind, and the cumulative perception of being a soft state, which are very much India's cross to bear.

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.

So terrified were the Western powers of an independent India, rich in resources and equipped with a proven, battle-hardened military that they undertook to partition the country... and then, made sure we would be kept out of a potential Central Asian staging area in undivided Kashmir. China, by contrast, was viewed as a sort of France... a nation divided, easy to cow and quick to surrender.

The idea of India as THE bulwark of continental Asian political power was smashed, ridiculed, and derided as myth following our defeat by the Chinese in 1962. Up to that point, foreign policy establishments in the west were divided as to how to factor India into the equations of cold war calculus. Some, like John Foster Dulles, under the influence of British India-baiter Philip Noel-Baker, had already decided that India could not be trusted for its socialist leanings; others, including many in the JFK administration, still saw India as a potentially valuable ally. Meanwhile, Mao's China was still seen as some sort of rabid, Taliban-ish pariah state... and after the disaster of the Great Leap Forward, many in Western capitals were proclaiming its imminent collapse.

After the Sino-Indian war, all that was turned on its head. India became the paper tiger, incapable of even defending its own borders against a nascent state with a poorly-equipped army. India became the country that everyone was betting would fall apart any minute. This new perception of India defined ALL cold war and post-cold war calculus with regard to India until Pokhran II.

Which says something... namely, that the onus of proving ourselves a nation with the political will to develop, deploy and use nuclear weapons in self-defense is entirely upon us. Until P2 a lot of lips were still flapping with the Kissinger/Zbignew dogma of a useless, weak, failing India compared to an all-powerful China. Even now, nobody is going to make any favorable assumptions on our behalf about our deterrence capacity. We have to flash the cash if we want to do business.

We cannot even compare our situation with Israel's. 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.

As for Pakistan... really, what deterrence do they have? They have a deterrence capacity that is 400% India specific, guaranteed by the US and China... the US will take the locks off Pakistan's official nuclear arsenal if it thinks Islamabad would be justified in using that arsenal against India, and for no other reason. And then they have the spectre of that lone back-Paki nuke making its way into Times Square... really not a suitable model from an Indian point of view.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 25 Sep 2007 21:59

What does this mean? Are you suggesting that we dont have the requisite number or effective weapons? If you are, then this discussion is over - because your agenda is not benign.


Cavin what is adequate number is a highly relative term and depends on what kind of threat we perceive and more important from whom?

Pakistan and Israel cannot be our role model both have a limited kind of deterance against India/Middle east asia and that is it

we need a broad based deterance based on ur present and future threat perceptions which may or may not include a super power which we always try to gloss over in our daily security matrix.We are not pakistan or china ,we are a as some say an about to be superpower and will be asking for our share of worlds resources on a level playing field with the requisite military strength to back up that demand and to preserve that vital national interest at any cost -just like china

China may be realistic role model for kind of nuclear military capability we need at minimum ,not china of 2007 but of 2020 plus

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 25 Sep 2007 22:24

Shankar wrote:

we need a broad based deterance based on ur present and future threat perceptions which may or may not include a super power which we always try to gloss over in our daily security matrix.


It is expensive and silly to consider an event horizon at infinity when it comes to threat perception. India can only plan for the threats we foresee, not for "unforeseeable circumstances"..

The threat event horizon only needs to be in the order of decades -- anything beyond that is a waste of money. And the planning only needs to ensure that India's weapons during that time will take care of the present threats, and future threats will be computed/recognized at least X years in advance, to ramp up planning for the new threat(s) or removal of old threat(s).

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 25 Sep 2007 22:46

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?

Also this means that India has fusion data from boosting TN trigger, TN second stage and neutron bomb which means more data then has been believed in BR

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Postby ramdas » 25 Sep 2007 22:47

Arunji,

To what extent was Shakti-1 successful ? Was its yield the expected ~40-45kt as some (incl. DAE and BR) have argued or was it <=30kt as NPA's said ? I was convinced by the ~45kt point of view, when RaviCV came around saying that the secondary essentially had negligible yield.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 25 Sep 2007 22:49

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?

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Postby ramdas » 25 Sep 2007 22:50

Arunji

I also gather that the primary need for stockpile stewardship is to understand aging effects on the primary side.... In our case, if a 200kt weapon was built on the basis of Shakti 1 , right now, could we be confident of its yield ? Or is it that more has to be done to be confident about getting the secondary to work properly ?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35698
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 25 Sep 2007 22:53

I think we need to focus on the answer Arun saab gave on the need for the ignition test facility (we can bill it under Indian Astrophysics R&D ).
Last edited by SaiK on 25 Sep 2007 22:55, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests