Future Nuclear Testing: Pros and Cons-1

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 04 Jun 2008 02:09

Just a point of technical observation. "Einhorn" in Pingreji would be "Ekmijjile"? :?:

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Jun 2008 03:01

Acharya wrote:
surinder wrote:
ramana wrote:Its not just to assure yourself that it works but to let others know you have it too. The whole idea of deterence is that to ensure no one thinks of nuking you without fear of retalation. So testing wtihout others know wont add credibility to the posture.


So Israel has no credible deterrance?

It uses other means to convey the concept of credibility. The entire episode of vonunu and keeping secrecy is part of the psy ops of showing high capability. They have the proven 'will' to use power when they want to intervene and pre-empt threat is itself high credibility among its adversaries.
Also, what is the corresponding capability levels of Israel's opponents to demand, an open test. Also, do not forget the test off the shores off SA. The Israelis also have had French help. It is not apples - apples.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Postby arnab » 04 Jun 2008 05:21

Sanku wrote:Arnab; many thanks; some question I have --

1. I guess the impact of the tests was seen the fiscal year 98-99 correct?

arnab wrote:1. Rate of growth of the Indian economy (did the nuke test trip the growth trajectory?)
http://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Publica ... /80415.xls


The GDP from the above chart went from 4 in 97-98 to 6.4 in 98-99 column 2. So it seems to me that the GDP growth actually went up post test? Evidently you are saying the opposite? I am confused.


.


As far as I recall the Asian financial crisis and a domestic drought (?) and an appreciation of the Rs vis a vis $ contributed to the decline in 1997-98. The recovery in 1998-99 off a low base is not unexpected, but growth over the next 4 years continued to be low.

Regarding whether the fall is 'sharp' or not depends on your perspective. My take would be to analyse the marginal benefit of testing compared to the marginal cost.

As I see it the 1998 tests conferred a huge marginal benefit. It provided proof of a viable nuke weapons system in our possession (so in that perspective the fall did not matter). The Govt also in its nuke policy suggested the NFU principle. In other words the Govt wished to maintain the status quo with respect to the balance of power or any territorial disputes it currently has(my opinion). In a game theoretic principle - (no use, no use) is the Nash equilibria.

Now, the question is - does testing a 100 kt weapon alter this equilibria in any way? does the marginal 'increase in deterrence' (a questionable assumption considering our NFU policy and also considering we would never be put in a situation of 'existential' threat) justify the 'cost' to the economy that would surely be imposed?

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jun 2008 05:29

Acharya wrote:The level of discussion about the economy in this thread shows how simple charts will tell that long term affects of sanctions do not matter.


This is a relative statement.

Do not matter to whom?

The LCA was certainly delayed by the 1998 tests and it caused heartburn among jingos and great joy among detractors, but it did not appear to matter to aam junta.

Simple charts can be simply made to look good or bad depending on the chart maker.

However every decade we delay our own technological ability in other fields is a decade wasted. Imagine if India had been exporting aircraft or jet engines 20 years ago. Our aam junta would have been that much better and w could have spoken of testing with that much more confidence.

Do I want to see decade after decade wasted for the sake of proving that our bombs can go @ 150kt "bang" versus 40 kt "phut". NO.

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jun 2008 05:55



The article says:

He (Einhorn) felt "the May 1998 test series fell short of achieving India's weapons development goals and so India's nuclear establishment strongly wishes to conduct more nuclear tests."


Now why would a non proliferation ayatollah say the same thing as jingos on this forum?

Is it because forum jingos and a non proliferation ayatollah have the SAME goal? Or could it be because making such a statement has an advantage for the non proliferation lobby? Or both?

In fact the non proliferation lobby and forum jingos do have the same goal in some ways. Both would like to be right. Both would like to goad India to test again.

Sri Einhorn speaks of :"non proliferation pessimism".and complains that sanctions were removed too soon. What the non prol lobby would like to see is sustained decades long punishment of India after a test.

Away from the non prol lobby - the forum jingos have themselves recognised that the US - by means of its new clear accord seeks to impose the same goals as the non proliferation lobby and the US would certainly throw its weight behind the non prolotullahs should India test.

So we have strange bedfellows here - forum jingos and the non proliferation lobby saying EXACTLY the same thing.Each group sees some advantage to their viewpoint by goading India to test and they are saying the same things.

If I put myself in a group that is neither "forum jingo" nor "non proliferation lobby" I get suspicious of the motives of one of the groups (the non prol lobby) and I think that forum jingos may be inadvertently encouraging India to blindly walk into a trap. Caution, I say. The "Towel throwing" may be to throw us off guard.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 04 Jun 2008 06:11

Our PMs said we want Peace, so did our aggresive neighbors west and north.

Our PM and the presidents of USA (have set precedents) saying we are democracies we are natural allies....

But we are not allies or peaceful? no?

same difference, the NPA has different agenda, the section of Indians ( including ex Army chief) think we need to go ways to say we have the maal) no?

Just a bit confused

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jun 2008 06:22

John Snow wrote: the section of Indians ( including ex Army chief) think we need to go ways to say we have the maal) no?

Just a bit confused

Er - you need to re read what the ex army chief has said. He does not say "test again" which is what I was talking about here.

link

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6944
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Postby Anujan » 04 Jun 2008 06:28

shiv wrote:Now why would a non proliferation ayatollah say the same thing as jingos on this forum?

shiv-ji,
I respectfully disagree that NPA and Jingo objectives are the same.

I dont count myself as a forum jingo, neither do I claim that I completely understand the pros and cons of testing, nor do I have a suggestion to either test or not. Having said that, you cannot group the jingos and NPA. Here is my own opinion based on reading his article and the posts in this forum

Ekmijjile (thanks N^3) says "India tested, world response was not robust, penalties were low, NPT was trashed, India might test again": thereby implying that the international community should be ready for this possbility (and not be slack assuming that we got what we wanted and wont test again) and so have a list of well thought out punitive measures, and not be slack in monitoring nuclear activity in India. From the perspective of the international community, "should long term punitive sanctions be imposed on India if she tests again" is a very troublesome question (I would imagine). If unkil sanctions us, we would simply deal with the russies and chinis. If unkil wants russie support in sanctioning India, russie would demand a commensurate pound of flesh. If unkil wants chini support, chinis might think of building a partnership with Indians (forgo the pakis) strike up a deal the SDREs against Japan, taiwan and Unkil and hence demand their pound of flesh from Unkil to do otherwise. So deciding to sanction India cannot be done in the 12 hours after the test.

On the other hand, Jingos on the thread want to set off 100 mega bums to show everybody "look at us, we have the megabum without any doubt, dont mess with us". Interpreted charitably, jingos want unambiguous proof of our capability.

In summary, Ekmijjile is raising the possbility of India's tests to garner press and to goad people into thinking about that eventuality (while secretly hoping India doesnt test), jingos want india to test and are debating pros and cons.

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

Postby svinayak » 04 Jun 2008 06:35

shiv wrote:
Acharya wrote:The level of discussion about the economy in this thread shows how simple charts will tell that long term affects of sanctions do not matter.


Do I want to see decade after decade wasted for the sake of proving that our bombs can go @ 150kt "bang" versus 40 kt "phut". NO.

Sorry, Not enough meat in your argument.

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jun 2008 06:43

Acharya wrote:
shiv wrote:
Acharya wrote:The level of discussion about the economy in this thread shows how simple charts will tell that long term affects of sanctions do not matter.


Do I want to see decade after decade wasted for the sake of proving that our bombs can go @ 150kt "bang" versus 40 kt "phut". NO.

Sorry, Not enough meat in your argument.


Agree 400% - but my argument carries exactly the same amount of meat as the one you made earlier. Both sparse and cachectic in the meat of real information and heavy on the skin and bones of rhetoric.

That in fact sums up a lot of what we have seen on here.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 04 Jun 2008 06:47

Now why would a non proliferation ayatollah say the same thing as jingos on this forum?


The goals are different. NPA make such statements as a warning and to get enough people to pressure India from testing ..... perhaps even thinking of testing.

Jingo's goal is to test.

Both agree that the tests were a failure.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Postby arnab » 04 Jun 2008 06:50

lakshmic wrote:[From the perspective of the international community, "should long term punitive sanctions be imposed on India if she tests again" is a very troublesome question (I would imagine). If unkil sanctions us, we would simply deal with the russies and chinis. If unkil wants russie support in sanctioning India, russie would demand a commensurate pound of flesh. If unkil wants chini support, chinis might think of building a partnership with Indians (forgo the pakis) strike up a deal the SDREs against Japan, taiwan and Unkil and hence demand their pound of flesh from Unkil to do otherwise. So deciding to sanction India cannot be done in the 12 hours after the test.

.


Fair enough. Let us assume Unkil, her poodles and the holier-than-thou Nordic Nations will sanction us. What are the consequences of that?

Dealing with the nations that don't sanction us will not be a cost-less exercise either. Russia would demand her pound of flesh from India (probably ask us to singlehandedly resurrect Mig and bid adieu to Tejas).

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

Postby svinayak » 04 Jun 2008 06:52

shiv wrote:

That in fact sums up a lot of what we have seen on here.

Not really.

Decade after decade of slow growth is a policy problem. Indian policy makers could have made the Indian economy more productive and competitive in the 80s and 90s. Even now in the last 4 years and in the future Indian economy can withstand all the pressures and still move on robustly with correct policies. The demand for growth and demographics is in India's favor. Check out the few books listed in the book folder to understand the favorable time for Indian economy now in the world.


The War for Wealth: The True Story of Globalization, or Why the Flat World is Broken
by Gabor Steingart (Author)

Futurecast: How Superpowers, Populations, and Globalization Will Change the Way You Live and Work
by Robert J. Shapiro (Author)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 04 Jun 2008 07:20

One cant help it if jingos are clubbed with NPAs. I thought I hard this remark before. :)

I guess its time for sunset. I dont agree that jingos are pushing for tests. What is being said is that the option to test should not be foreclosed as what was done earlier wasnt enough.

Just because a NPA comes to same conclusion doesn't mean that jingos are in league. It could be the facts speak for themselves.

Anyway looks like once Chandni Chowk is overrun they will test. Just like in Abdali's time. But then an iron fence cant stop the termites inside.
Last edited by ramana on 04 Jun 2008 10:12, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 04 Jun 2008 07:22

ramana wrote:Its not just to assure yourself that it works but to let others know you have it too. The whole idea of deterence is that to ensure no one thinks of nuking you without fear of retalation. So testing wtihout others know wont add credibility to the posture.

I agree.. but this whole deterrance idea -is not- driven by the fear factor alone.. For the expected fear factor enemy demographics, we have got that already covered by our 45KT Pok 2 weapons that were tested.

If I am getting this clear, we have two prong strategy to be achieved. One that was achieved by Pok2 [nearest neighborhood deterrance factor], and the farthest deterrence can't be established just by the same measure.

Hence, its important, that we have onleee one candid exposure of a massive megatonner [or a quarter tonner], after hundreds of series of stealthy shock wave negated that satisfies our tech community.

Why would any desi cast any doubt on RC or any super head if we have the test data that we rest upon based on the lab tests, test facilities, subcritcals and those stealthy tests.

One massive test.. and many stealthy tests, answers all deterrance factors. Of course, we have the right to information act pressed on to come out how we went about with only one test, and went all successful later on, perhaps 10 years after a big test.. perhaps, a million $$ story line that many hot authors would be lining to write and publish.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Jun 2008 07:26

ramana wrote: But then an iron fence cant stop the termites inside.
Arun Shourie. 8)

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jun 2008 07:40

NRao wrote:
Now why would a non proliferation ayatollah say the same thing as jingos on this forum?


The goals are different. NPA make such statements as a warning and to get enough people to pressure India from testing ..... perhaps even thinking of testing.

Jingo's goal is to test.

Both agree that the tests were a failure.


Two lobbies agree on one idea on the basis of certain assumptions that are convenient for both those lobbies in different ways.

Unfortunately for both these lobbies who share a data point for different stated goals, there are other lobbies too whose voices will be heard and noted who disagree for reasons that are convenient to their own viewpoints.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 04 Jun 2008 07:43

shiv wrote:
John Snow wrote: the section of Indians ( including ex Army chief) think we need to go ways to say we have the maal) no?

Just a bit confused

Er - you need to re read what the ex army chief has said. He does not say "test again" which is what I was talking about here.

link


but but

I did not say test anywhere, in the above

( Iam reminded of our puranas...

Viswamitra did all penenaceand was addressed by the almighty as Raja Rishi, but Viswamitra was not happy because, vasishta was addressed by one and all as Brahma Rishi, so Viswamitra went again into big time penance and again the almighty said this time you are brahma rishi, then viswamitra said no I want Vasishta to call me Brahma Rishi, then when he went to Vasishta he again addressed him as Raja rishi.... then Viswamitra said dont you know the almighty called me Brahma rishi?
Vasishta replied cooly do you feel Brahma rishi?
Viswamitra realised and walked away smiling :wink: )

So if the armed forces feel they have been given what is required and is demonstrated to them then Equation of the (union of) states called Bharat nation is fine, no need of this testing debate.

Om Shanti Shanti

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jun 2008 07:49

lakshmic wrote:In summary, Ekmijjile is raising the possbility of India's tests to garner press and to goad people into thinking about that eventuality (while secretly hoping India doesnt test), jingos want india to test and are debating pros and cons.


LakshimC I hear you and accept your view as a valid one to hold.

I currently hold the view that the NPA's are not in the business of secretly hoping for anything, but are actively in the business of subterfuge and psy-ops.

Logically if they did not want India to test they would seek to mollify and say 'OK fine - everything has worked perfectly well. Please let us get on with real non proliferation now"

But no.

That is not what they are doing. They are challenging the yield in order to create doubt and a fresh demand for testing. And should India be trapped into testing while the P5 are not testing they will use their power within the US to slam down hard on India. Last time around, Pakistan rescued India by testing. And Al Qaeda broke the sanctions for Pakistan in 3 years (9-11-2001). I see no guarantee that Pakis will do that again. The NPA seek to punish India and are hoping that India will step into their parlor.

Chandi Prasaad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 11:50
Location: Triveni

Postby Chandi Prasaad » 04 Jun 2008 07:59

shiv wrote:[/In fact a lot of the arguments made on here about fizzled bombs could be fed to the armed forces to reduce their morale and confidence in the Indian deterrence. And the Indian population can then be told "Your beloved armed forces cannot protect us because our bombs are a fizzle unlike earlier claims. Therefore we need to test now. Hindustan khatrey mein hain" But I believe the first step towards testing soon is to damage India's nuclear credibility in the eyes of our own armed forces and to kill their morale and confidence.That would put us on a one-way path towards testing, no matter what. And everyone would be happy with sanctions, big or small.

The other point that I would like to make about "when to test" is something I alluded to earlier. Testing new designs today means that it will take us ten years before the new designs translate into warheads that are usable. That means that any testing today is not going to be useful for any nuclear war that occurs in the time frame 2008 to 2018. Testing today may produce a more powerful bomb design for a nuclear war that India foresees fighting AFTER 2018.

So we have to manage with low morale and the existing fizzles till 2018 no matter what. And we have to decide whether we are going to accept a "mariginal" lowering of economic growth as a result of sanctions. I personally suspect that those "margins" will involve military technology, but would be happy to read counter arguments.


Army fight with what it has in hand. You tell them they have no nukes they will factor that in their war-fighting scheme of things. You give them nukes that are actually geela fataka, what can be better recipe for grand scale disaster and defeat? High moral notwithstanding.

How do you propose to Circle the Square while keeping high moral? The route you suggest is IMHO pessimistic. IMV tested weapons become usable in air delivered within months, given that medium yield weapons are already weaponized that way.

The missile delivered credibility IMHO is a clean case of preparing and integration testing with the targeted form factor, mass and center of mass dummy with all the sensors and interlocks. It certainly does not have to have a real one. When the real one comes that anyway cant be tested atop missile with the sookha masala. So I am of firm belief that the timescale to be credible is much shorter.
Last edited by Chandi Prasaad on 04 Jun 2008 09:49, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jun 2008 08:11

Chandi Prasaad wrote:Army fight with what it has in hand. You tell them they have no nukes they will factor that in their war-fighting scheme of things. You give them nukes that are actually geela fataka, what can be better recipe for grand scale disaster and defeat? High moral notwithstanding.

How do you propose to Circle the Square while keeping high moral?


You CANNOT circle the square.

You must tell the armed forces that their deterrent will not work @ 200 kilotons. You must also tell them more of the truth. All of it in fact.

You must tell them that in order to take their deterrent from 40 kilotons to 150 kilotons we will have to perform many tests on new designs and on modified old designs so that they are not the fizzle that some jingos are saying that they were.

If the first set of tests work - it may be fine. But in order to really prove them we will need a second series of tests. If that works - fine. If the first series does not work we will have to keep re testing till things work

After we are sure that everything works we will then have to modify all our existing warheads or make new ones.

That means that a series of tests and the manufacture of new warheads will take at least 12 to 15 years from the date of the first test.

We need to tell our armed forces that after the first series of tests - all new conventional arms equipment will face delays and sanctions - so they can kiss goodbye to their timelines regarding MRCA, LCA, Howitzer, AWACS and Submarines. But we can reassure them that we the civvies are quite happy because our economy will be unaffected by sanctions. The Armed Forces will have to somehow cope with waiting 15 years for 150 kiloton warhead while facing a conventional equipment crunch indefinitely or until the same agencies that made the alleged fizzle learn to manufacture real arms rather than duds.

Tell the armed forces to face the truth and then go ahead, be bold and test to get 150kt instead of proven 40kt

There are no "happy choices" here.
Last edited by shiv on 04 Jun 2008 16:50, edited 1 time in total.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 04 Jun 2008 09:12

ramana wrote:I dont agree that jingos are pushing for tests. What is being said is that the option to test should not be foreclosed as what was done earlier wasnt enough.


This point needs to be emphasized. Somewhere along the line, opposing the deal - in its present form - seems to have become the same as asking for immediate testing.

The two are not the same.

Perhaps Shiv can clarify whether he believes the two are the same.
OR
if they are not the same, whether everyone participating in this thread agrees that the deal - in its present form - should not be signed, and the debate has moved on to what is the most appropriate time to test and what should be the objectives of such tests.

sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Postby sauravjha » 04 Jun 2008 09:39

deleted
Last edited by sauravjha on 04 Jun 2008 09:41, edited 1 time in total.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Postby arnab » 04 Jun 2008 09:40


if they are not the same, whether everyone participating in this thread agrees that the deal - in its present form - should not be signed, and the debate has moved on to what is the most appropriate time to test and what should be the objectives of such tests.


I believe that if India tests - there would be sanctions imposed irrespective of whether India signs the deal or not. The deal does not (cannot) preclude India from testing in the future. IMHO there can be various reasons to oppose the deal (and many reasons have been provided), but it should not be due to the fact that it takes away India's right to test nukes in the future.

sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Postby sauravjha » 04 Jun 2008 09:40

look at the funny forms that mahishasur has assumed

1. Khetolai will be damaged ... eek! don't test. Looks like Arundhati roy has some following on this forum after all.

2. Greenhorn makes a statement sometime in the last decade and forum jingos seem to echo his conclusion. yeah right .. Biss be on the souls of all those poor jingos who have fallen into the NPA trap.

why don't we reverse the reverse psychology. Einhorn is making that statement precisely so that BRF piskologists will jump to the conclusion that whoever (forum Jingos) is asking for renewed testing is making a mistake. Since they are inadvertently supporting the position of a green horn .

At the risk of being hauled away to Mars , I would just like to remind the forum that jingo analists call for greater yields because of the simple fact that the blast effect of a 1 kiloton nuke is less than the blast effect of 1kt TNT. these are energy equivalents not blast equivalents . on the other hand a pure fusion weapon will go a long way in changing this age old distinction.

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jun 2008 09:41

sraj wrote:
ramana wrote:I dont agree that jingos are pushing for tests. What is being said is that the option to test should not be foreclosed as what was done earlier wasnt enough.


This point needs to be emphasized. Somewhere along the line, opposing the deal - in its present form - seems to have become the same as asking for immediate testing.

The two are not the same.

Perhaps Shiv can clarify whether he believes the two are the same.
OR
if they are not the same, whether everyone participating in this thread agrees that the deal - in its present form - should not be signed, and the debate has moved on to what is the most appropriate time to test and what should be the objectives of such tests.


Valid points and questions.

In my opinion (and, as I believe that of most others) testing by India and a civilian nuclear deal cannot be linked on any paper or treaty signed by India.

But the principle that we should retain a right to test is a simple one for many reasons that go beyond the fact that five tests were not enough or one was a fizzle or that people involved were less upright than you or I. The need to test is one that we must retain without vilifying people involved and uninvolved with the deal in public and making more enemies within and subsequently speaking of termites within.

We need to test because testing is an absolute necessity and a right. Not because a democracy like India has people who can be dubbed less than patriotic by some others. There is a fundamental difference in the two approaches. Opinions and views may differ and we need not beat down people who hold different opinions with insults in order to prove that the right to test must be inalienable. It is inalienable with or without those people, their views or their actions.

It is wrong to convert an inalienable right to test into a tug of war by alienating people who really should be on board. This is a matter of simple diplomacy and good politics.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 04 Jun 2008 09:51

One dilemma is that the moratarium was declared on the basis of feedback that the five tests were sufficient. Hence all this heartburn.

sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Postby sauravjha » 04 Jun 2008 09:54

India is a country where there is no real right , left or center. Our people tend to be all over the place and that is precisely why the oft used term "issue based support" crops up.

it is therefore not really surprising when various xullahs in this forum switch to peacenik , conciliatory mode . "oh this is a democracy , we must take them along , everybody has a point." but unfortunately , the xullahs have completely misplaced priorities. when dealing with more technocratic issues that directly impinge on strategic security they go soft, but when dealing with people issues they take an "informed , I know it all" hardline stance. Following which they Label the other as a peacenik and question their motivation.
Last edited by sauravjha on 04 Jun 2008 14:52, edited 2 times in total.

sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Postby sauravjha » 04 Jun 2008 10:10

To me, the deterrence issues are:
1) Does India possess nuclear weapons? i.e., things that CAN cause instant, massive destruction?
2) Does India have systems deployed to deliver these a) with rapid response, b) survivability to pre-emptive surprise attack c) reliably and d) accurately enough to hit within the CEP of the weapons?
3) Does India have the command and control structure to ensure swift and certain response that survives a decapitation strike on its political and military leadership?
4) Does India have the WILL to ensure swift and massive response?

If all 4 are "YES", then I ain't messing with India. Better to go invade or terrorize Antarctica or Nauru or some place like that instead. IED-Mubarak a couple of glacier overhangs - they make spectacular pictures in National Geographic along with the nekkid wimmen pictures.

Item 1) here is a "CAN" not a "WILL". Because I am NOT going to bet on the warhead not exploding, or of only burning me to a nice lump of carbon, instead of 99.97% gaseous state CO2 + H2O that glows in the upper atmosphere. That's as stupid as playing cricket with a hand grenade, and there's nothing to prevent India from over-compensating for a 50% fizzle probability by dumping 6 warhead on me.

So the argument for LIVE NUCLEAR TESTS beyond the ones in 1998 is completely bogus. Not sinister, just stupid. Item 1 is demonstrated. Period. Move on to the bigger things.

Items 2 through 4 can be refined very substantially, and the very fact that there is effort to refine these continually is very deterring. It shows that there is real thinking behind these issues, and that scares the heck out of me as a potential invader. So it is real deterrence.

Every refinement in Items 2 through 4 by India vastly increases the cost to the adversary to try to counter that, so the deterrence value is much greater. "More data on weapon yield" is by far the lowest priority.

Items 2 and 3 involve large improvements in the economy, distributed throughout the country. Robust power systems, transport systems, emergency response systems, food growth, manufacturing capability, options for massive resistance even if all the tanks and fighter bases are knocked out.

Item 4 is somewhat inversely related to economic development, but with good public threat awareness, which means good communication to counter the propagandoos, the public will maintain a sense of outrage that will ensure the will to go to all-out war against any enemy that inflicts massive damage. Massive damage is easier to empathize for the population if they see well-dressed aadmi-aurat lying dead and wounded, and nice makaans damaged or destroyed, than by images of poor Kashmiri or Northeastern citizens killed.

So beyond a basic level, economic development in the hinterlands of India INCREASES the empathy of the elite in the cities, and kindles some slight realization that the same could happen to them if they don't get off their musharrafs and hit back at the enemy.


the only stupid things I have seen thus far in this debate is the way you like to talk and the pleasure that you derive out of it.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 04 Jun 2008 10:21

ramana wrote:One dilemma is that the moratarium was declared on the basis of feedback that the five tests were sufficient. Hence all this heartburn.

Irrespective of the feedback, declaring a moratorium in 1998 (and all that talk about signing CTBT once a domestic 'consensus' was achieved -- we all know how hard it is to get consensus on these issues) may have been a good tactical move to draw away some of the international pressure.

By definition, a moratorium can be withdrawn at any time. Perhaps all references to the moratoium can be quietly dropped in the next version of our nuclear doctrine, and lo and behold, J18 becomes null and void! Which may not be such a bad thing; we need to start all over again with a clean slate (many commentators - most recently Dr PK Iyengar - have diligently chronicled the slippery slope down which we have been sliding since J18).

I agree with Shiv that we should be able to make our case without "alienating people who really should be on board". Just a thought: could such desperate actions have been triggered by a conviction that this GoI was about to willfully ignore the views of a majority in Parliament as it rushed to sign a deal with far-reaching ramifications?

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

Postby Sanku » 04 Jun 2008 10:51

shiv wrote:That is not what they are doing. They are challenging the yield in order to create doubt and a fresh demand for testing. And should India be trapped into testing while the P5 are not testing they will use their power within the US to slam down hard on India. Last time around, Pakistan rescued India by testing. And Al Qaeda broke the sanctions for Pakistan in 3 years (9-11-2001). I see no guarantee that Pakis will do that again. The NPA seek to punish India and are hoping that India will step into their parlor.


I see Shiv continues his experiment of asking the right questions and letting the forum brainstorm; nice one Guide :wink:

Ok here goes mine--

Does NPA have the same goal as to make India test? May be may not be. It could be just that they are just trying to read the contours of Indian capabilities in case the India tests or does not test.

At the same time they are outlining what the strategy would be in case India runs afoul.

So I don't think its a clear cut matter of them pushing us to ONE goal; they are trying to encircle and hedge the bets all ways.

But yes; it does tell us what are the main challenges would be while testing; and what the game would be.

So this basically tells us that we cant test when we want -- we essentially will have to look for a suitable geo-pol situation or create one when we test -- but by no means it means that testing is a foreclosed option.

sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Postby sauravjha » 04 Jun 2008 11:02

once we break into the brave new world of better and more reliable weapons. the west will be presented with a fait accompli , because we would *already have the capability* . A few NPAs may bitch but my expectation is, we will subsequently be presented with an even more honourable deal and even more FDI than ever before.


the way Noko is being rewarded clearly shows that being a bad boy and having the right slingshots count. India's total war making potential is massive. I don't see why we need to be scared of some green horn somewhere.

Chandi Prasaad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 11:50
Location: Triveni

Postby Chandi Prasaad » 04 Jun 2008 11:03

Shiv saar,
Ref deleted.
shiv wrote:
Chandi Prasaad wrote:Army fight with what it has in hand. You tell them they have no nukes they will factor that in their war-fighting scheme of things. You give them nukes that are actually geela fataka, what can be better recipe for grand scale disaster and defeat? High moral notwithstanding.

How do you propose to Circle the Square while keeping high moral?


You CANNOT circle the square.

You must tell the armed forces that their deterrent will not work @ 200 kilotons. You must also tell them more of the truth. All of it in fact.

Precisely. I am in utmost agreement with above.
20 and 40kt yield is quite usable and credible to take care of many scenarios if not all, & provide substantial relief if push comes to shove.

You must tell them that in order to take their deterrent from 40 kilotons to 150 kilotons we will have to perform many tests on new designs and on modified old designs so that they are not the fizzle that some jingos are saying that they were.

Once more of the truth is told to them (all of it in fact), Jigoes fizzle claims become all irrelevant. I hope it is realized that Jingoes are not precipitating this issue. The issue is simply rooted in defense forces knowing that they are not in the circle of truth, and they are not drinking from the watering hole there are being lead to (that is grounded in nothing but personal assurances of DAE big wigs that high yield maal set aside from them is kosher). Jingos did not indoctrinate Gen Malik and other senior officers, or the DAE scientist, who have raised this issue. How are jingos stopping "more of the truth is told to them, All of it in fact." from happening?

If the first set of tests work - it may be fine. But in order to really prove them we will need a second series of tests. If that works - fine. If the first series does not work we will have to keep re testing till things work

After we are sure that everything works we will then have to modify all our existing warheads or make new ones.

Precisely.

That means that a series of tests and the manufacture of new warheads will take at least 12 to 15 years from the date of the first test.

Yield and credibility of of 15kt/20kt Fission/Boosted fission weapon is not doubted. So if the new test series proof test these pre-98 design again there is no cost/delay in recasting these weapons.

As for adding high yield weapons based on new designs tested in the new series of test (recall that for 100-200 weapons fissile material is not an issue, based on spent fuel already available in hand). The new 150kt weapon will reduce the fissile material per warhead (as against old design of 200kt), & increase the capability both qualitatively and quantitatively. The choice and schedule to phaseout the 40 kt weapons in inventory becomes non-critical.

We need to tell our armed forces that after the first series of tests - all new conventional arms equipment will face delays and sanctions - so they can kiss goodbye to their timelines regarding MRCA, LCA, Howitzer, AWACS and Submarines. But we can reassure them that we the civvies are quite happy because our economy will be unaffected by sanctions. The Armed Forces will have to somehow cope with waiting 15 years for 150 kiloton warhead while facing a conventional equipment crunch indefinitely or until the same agencies that made the alleged fizzle learn to manufacture real arms rather than duds.

Tell the armed forces to face the truth and then go ahead, be bold and test to get 150kt instead of proven 40kt

I think one of the anguish of armed forces is due to the "stay away from nuclear weapons" dictate since 1998, while being called to mat/war in Kargil and Op-Parakram, and told to deliver victory against Puki army (and also Chinese army in 1998) that clearly and unambiguously wields nuclear weapons. (May be because powers to be didn't want to spill the beans to its military customers)

If armed forces are co-opted as equal partners in this nuclearization process based on mutually verifiable & truthful basis of Indian nuclear arsenal, I think they are realist enough to reconcile to what the reality is, and build from there. Else the agony will continue and become worse when ATV take to sea, and but wander the sea with piddly potency.
Last edited by Chandi Prasaad on 04 Jun 2008 11:37, edited 1 time in total.

sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Postby sauravjha » 04 Jun 2008 11:13

This ," testing will diminish the confidence of the armed forces" , in someway assumes that the new series of tests will be failures. Because routine testing for maintenance after random sampling has been done the world over. why would the Indian forces get demoralized if the series of tests included:


1. Older design to full yield. random sample for maintenance.

2. new design with improvements .

and both series were successful?

A successful no.1 test will give them even more confidence in their inventory.

A successful no . 2 test will make BRF jingos super happy.

Every nuclear weapon will have an accepted failure probability. if the weapons tested conform to accepted parameters , confidence will only increase.

Oh by the way , those pointing to the war on terror and saying that nooklear weapons aren't helping , seem to forget that it is not India's war on terror. India has a different list of potential and actual adversaries than the U.S and therefore has different needs.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 04 Jun 2008 11:57

India has a different list of potential and actual adversaries than the U.S and therefore has different needs.

really? you are politically correct though. realities are different. one has to get to the dirty core to see things where the real enemies live.

We have different needs, but I would say our needs are not a sub set of what unkil needs, very soon this would be a reality. Though we have constrained ourselves with is outlook of projecting the smaller "circle" in the circler mapper, but our doctrine is a sound proof that should speak volume of the needs.

We can live in the current politically correct assumptions, till everything matures. And thanks, I verified my thoughts as well by this post. We need to test and nobody should know that we did it/are doing it.

sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Postby sauravjha » 04 Jun 2008 12:12

our circle is actually bigger because it includes the United states itself. And i guess i am not being politically correct here. The united states has the capability to hold the entire world at risk. while it may be finding it difficult to defeat elusive enemies in some insurgencies, it continues to possess the ability to take out any comers who may wish to "intervene". we have to ensure that we have sufficient deterrence vis a vis this Leviathan as well. we have both macro and micro targets. For example if the survival of the U.S was at stake it could nuke all comers.

Moreover this war on terror is also a great way to let America keep its "military keynesianism" going. In the post cold war world much the same arguments that are being advanced here by various Faislabadis were made in America. Big ticket items became difficult to justify and smaller war zones had to be created to keep the MIC show running . however we should not suddenly start seeing ourselves as part of the same show and forget that we still have state level entities to deter.

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jun 2008 16:53

sauravjha wrote:
the only stupid things I have seen thus far in this debate is the way you like to talk and the pleasure that you derive out of it.


sauravjha - your conduct on this forum does not help friendly discussion, and you will not be missed. I had warned you against trolling earlier, but I think you will do better elsewhere on the WWW

I shall be banning you shortly after this post.

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jun 2008 17:50

Chandi Prasaad wrote:Once more of the truth is told to them (all of it in fact), Jigoes fizzle claims become all irrelevant. I hope it is realized that Jingoes are not precipitating this issue. The issue is simply rooted in defense forces knowing that they are not in the circle of truth, and they are not drinking from the watering hole there are being lead to (that is grounded in nothing but personal assurances of DAE big wigs that high yield maal set aside from them is kosher). Jingos did not indoctrinate Gen Malik and other senior officers, or the DAE scientist, who have raised this issue. How are jingos stopping "more of the truth is told to them, All of it in fact." from happening?


Interesting train of thought.

I personally believe (and I have no inside information) that when the scientific establishment create a little space in the missile nosecone (or musharraf or wherever they create spaces) for a warhead - they have to ask someone in the nuclear establishment the size and shape and weight and where all the electronics and wires need to go.

I also believe, without proof or inside information that when the army takes delivery of such a missile, they have some idea of
a) what type of warhead the missile can have (conventional or nuclear)
and
b) What targets they may want to hit with the said missile.

I personally do not believe that the army is so dumb as to not ask about the size and type of warhead that they will get and its yield. their entire plan of using a nuclear warhead is dependent on knowing its capability. I believe that you are alleging here that they have been told lies and that you, Shri Chandi Prasad knows this but the army does not know this.

To my mind, the idea that nobody in the army is in the circle of truth can at best be a myth, unless the Indian army consists of phenomenally stupid people - which I doubt. Somebody, somewhere in the army will know the truth and the capability and will have readied plans based on that capability and not necessarily on what is open source information. The same argument will hold good for the Air Force, planning the delivery of a warhead. The idea that nobody in the Indian army will ask how a given warhead can be 200kt when the announced yields were far less sounds far fetched to me. If unknown entity Chandi Prasad knows this and announces it to the world, the idea that the army is being told lies and they believe it is hard to swallow.

Once we accept that someone in the army and air force knows the real truth, one could ask the question why the army is not openly revealing the fact that the warheads are 20-40kt and not 200 kt like we brahma satya speakers are doing on Bharat Rakshak forum?

"Official secrets act" is the most likely explanation. But even if it is not the right explanation. how would it serve the army's interest to openly reveal as we do on here that there are only 20 kt warheads and not 200 kt warheads? Would that be wise or desirable for the army?

So just because the army does not say it does not mean that the army does not know it. To that extent I find myself hard pressed to accept this ""Army outside the circle of truth" argument.

I wholly accept that the jingo fizzle claim is irrelevant and therefore should not be used at all to either defame or blame anyone, which is pointless, or to use as a single plank reason to ask for testing because testing is essential in many other ways anyway, and for many other reasons. We can ask for it without getting into a dirty blame game and bringing ourselves down and creating new opponents on our own side in the process of defaming someone.

Since jingos did not indoctrinate anyone or stop the whole truth from being told, jingo should equally abstain from blaming someone or the other.


Chandi Prasaad wrote:I think one of the anguish of armed forces is due to the "stay away from nuclear weapons" dictate since 1998, while being called to mat/war in Kargil and Op-Parakram, and told to deliver victory against Puki army (and also Chinese army in 1998) that clearly and unambiguously wields nuclear weapons. (May be because powers to be didn't want to spill the beans to its military customers)

If armed forces are co-opted as equal partners in this nuclearization process based on mutually verifiable & truthful basis of Indian nuclear arsenal, I think they are realist enough to reconcile to what the reality is, and build from there. Else the agony will continue and become worse when ATV take to sea, and but wander the sea with piddly potency.


I think you appear to have inside information about what the armed forces do and do not know about the nuclear forces, and the fact that they were specifically held back in Kargil and Op Parakram and the fact that they are not equal partners in the truth. You may be privy to information of the ATVs likely deficiencies.. I cannot therefore comment on this.

What surprises me is why you should want to post your inside knowledge on an open forum like this rather than writing about your concerns privately to the chief of Army staff or even to retired personnel whom you might know - who might be able to find some contacts for you. Even I have such contacts in the armed forces and I could help in making such contact. If you have already shared your concerns at the highest level I would be curious to find out their reaction. What could be your motivation to share what appear to be secrets that are kept away from the army with everyone reading this forum, instead of telling the army, which should be your first priority IMHO.

Or is your knowledge open source and you are posting it here to make a public criticism of the system? But how can it be open source if the Army is not into all this in a mutually verifiable and truthful basis as you have stated? You know about it, but not the army? Strange.

satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Postby satyarthi » 04 Jun 2008 20:05

1. Scientists involved in the 98 tests knew what their expected yields were. And a fizzle would be known to more than a couple of scientists and would be known to the government. It is not completely certain that the armed forces would be in the loop about the fizzle. But the forces would surely know what kind of warheads are available to them in usable condition.

2. Even if the TN device underperformed, under normal circumstances, their is no reason to publicize it. As long as R&D for rectifying those continue and future avenues for tests and deployment are not blocked.

3. An abnormal situation was created by the nuclear deal. MMS led govt singularly failed to carry a majority of public opinion with it. Assuming political parties as representatives of public opinion, the failure to take along leftists and BJP was a blunder in making. It was likely that if BJP had been kept in the loop, its objection would have been taken care of and the final drafts would not have been reduced to a take it or leave it scenario for the BJP.

4. With majority of MPs (BJP+left) opposed to the deal, an extremely divisive and damaging situation was created, for which the present govt led by MMS is primarily to blame. Since in the past a consensus of sorts was supposed to be built crossing party lines on such strategic issues.

5. It is the fallout of that divisive and damaging situation that has been seen in the umpteen bickering threads related to the nuclear deal. And even the claims and counterclaims of fizzle can be traced to that.

6. A question which rarely got answered convincingly was what was USA getting from the deal. The urgency with which US has pushed for the deal, didn't show up in commensurate US possible gains. Someone mentioned US could sell reactors. Someone else pointed out US has not been making reactors for decades, so is highly unlikely that US would do that. Similarly with fuel. US is unlikely to gain from any fuel deals, since supplies are unlikely to come from it. Someone mentioned US wants to engage a rising India strategically, and that engagement is prize enough for the USA.

7. The messy political handling of the nuclear deal by the GOI, along with known peacenik tendencies of Dr. MMS, created an uneasy situation for many people who thought that this deal might be foreclosing the option, or at least making it even harder, for India to test. Now as I mentioned, under normal circumstances, there is no need to publicize whether TN device was a fizzle or not. But it seems people who wanted India to have TN capability, were bothered by the possibility of the actual fizzle, and avenues for its rectification becoming remote. And since the DOE or GOI couldn't possibly issue statements in that regard, they were left with a very uneasy feeling.

8. One realization was that if India's TN capability can be capped, then that would be prize enough for the unkil. So this added to the unease, since this was a reasonable gain unkil could have hoped for.

9. IMHO, naming individuals whose actions are not available for public scrutiny and who can not respond publicly, is a desperate measure. But situation arising from imminent signing of the deal perhaps justified such desperate measure to some people. But now that the signing is not as imminent as it appeared some time ago, the desperate measures IMHO need a rollback.

10. Dr. MMS and his govt's actions are available for public scrutiny, and therefore I see no harm in calling their actions to question. And IMHO this whole mess deserves to be laid at their doorsteps. People here are just responding, some with desperate measures, to this messy creation.
Last edited by satyarthi on 04 Jun 2008 20:12, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 04 Jun 2008 20:12

No. As has been laid out all are above any blame- scientists, government officials, politicians. All have acted honorably and above reproach. Only jiingos are not exempt. They are same as NPA mullahs.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest