Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36076
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby SaiK » 19 Jun 2008 18:49

coming to our neighborhood we need different strategies.. its not enough to keep say, we can hit beijing, new york or moscow with megatons.. what actually is required is the political will to go after MAD doctrine.

This NFU is like a transient deterrence that may not last long.. and that the whole world should come to know, that our investments into mega ton testing has a moratorium and that we are only saber rattling the whole deterrence value.

you can see incursions from both north, north-eastern, north-western and western sectors... just to prove that our deterrence value has no meat., and that our SDR theology supports only NFU and that it has high tolerance value, with bigger threshold coming onlee from baboodom la la land at the supreme chai-biskoot HQ.

we need a strong backing from baboo prescriptions that gives them the vi-agra to even take a "talk the walk", or even just having to pay a visit to this thread or similar thoughts.

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

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 19 Jun 2008 19:09

Learn from the Chinese on these things. Example:
Incursion in Sikkim? PRIVATE wholesalers and retailers and their customers boycott Chinese goods for 1 month.
Another incursion? Another month. Dockyard workers refuse to unload ships from China. Doint 1MT tests does nothing to help in these things.

saik, AFAIK, no one except the idiot nutcases is saying that the Indian deterrent is in any way aimed at anyone other than TSP and China, or maybe at future nutcase regimes in the MidEast that may decide to line up fedayeen mijjiles. In fact there are no missiles in present or planned Indian inventory, AFAIK, that have any more than 5000km range with any warhead.

So please think a bit b4 posting. China and Pakistan are scary enough as "neighbors" without adopting a stupid posture at all the nations around the world.

Also, I like your idea of hypersonic cruise missiles at 10 m above sea level. It should be easy to design one with a range of, say, 500 meters. Please check the drag at 10m vs. 100,000m for the same speed. Great idea for the Pakistani Deterrent.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36076
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby SaiK » 19 Jun 2008 22:13

yuppudie yup.. for our near neighborhood, what IAF is thinking is very valid indeed. They have categorically stated they would use mig25 kinds or su-mkis and mirage5n, as man piloted cruise missile delivery pods. A concentrated attack with 100s of nuke air fleet supported by AWACs and mid air refuelers, can do the job effectively erasing the dangerous north-western frontier.

for chinks, we are stuck between various options, and few of those are yet to take off or being deployed. a mirv option is extremely nice, and that should cover the whole mongo-land, in terms of independent targets that needs to be programmed to be delivered from re-enty, basically covering the whole land with 6 MIRVs for 6 targeted cities per missile. If we launch, 25 such BMs, then we should cover 150 mongo-cities in one launch. keeping 5% of them gets ABMed, we still achieve the strategic goal.

as suggested by br-perts here, simple flare and chaff and perhaps a high frequency radar jammer (an AESA radar that sends high power radiation), could also serve as dual purpose to deflect the ABM and terminally home on the target even more precise.. lets say, the exact agni-v-epicenter.

btw, thinking about what mr. kill bill does here, that is expected cross mach 5, with KE kill strategy, we could add much more to our nose and teeth by those exotic chemicals (chromium) and thermal or plasma based drag reductions, our A5s could feature these, keeping the best BM on the planet. drdo's hypersonic engine is what we need for A5-third stage or final stage rentry vehicle or for each MIRV engine. whatever minature engine that we used for ground testing our mach-6 achievements, could be the same or reconfigured one that could go into our MIRVs. Each MIRV should be a X-51 type or an enhanced augmented specialized brahmos type vehicle that could carry 100-200KTs. 6 mirvs sounds like 600 - 1200 KTs total payload for 6 mongo-cities.

merging hypersonic cruise features into MIRVs in BMs, would maketh the greatest detterent in the current minds. btw X51 has a 1000km range.. could be reduced for our case, since its rentry vehicle, and all that space could be used for explosion package.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6125
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Amber G. » 20 Jun 2008 03:55

For those of us who do not run into KT or MT energy in our morning walks and are curious to check some numbers ....(It Can be found in any elementary physics or wiki but for continence here are some numbers for quick reference..)
(= here is just approx... one or two significant figures only)

1 KT (or TNT - explosive power when 1000 Tons of 2-methyl-1,3,5-trinitrobenzene Burn) = 10^12 cals
= 4.18 x 10^12 joules
= 1.2x 10^6 KWH = 4x10^9 BTU
= 2.62 x 10^25 MeV
= 1.45 x 10^23 Atoms fissioning = 0.241 Moles of the matter
= 57 gm of material fissioning (U235/Pu etc)
= 47 mg of matter turning into energy
= 12 gm of Deuterium fusing (or 15 gm of LiD) fusing ..
From above from fisson (U235/Pu etc) one would get (Theory - upper limit - 100% efficiency) about 17KT/Kg, from Fusion about 82 KT/Kg (For Pure Deuterium) to 64 KT/Kg (for Li(6)D) and about 21470 KT/Kg from anti-matter/matter bomb.
Last edited by Amber G. on 20 Jun 2008 04:44, edited 2 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50763
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby ramana » 20 Jun 2008 03:58

How about at partial burn? 8)

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6125
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Amber G. » 20 Jun 2008 04:36

R. as you know ... - Above was just from very basic formula (E=mc^2) and conversion of units... theoretical numbers.
Of course, for partial (or any other kind, for that matter) burn .. just count the number of atoms which went into fission and multiply that by 200 MeV (Or if it is fusion, multiply that by 17 Mev) and one will get a pretty good value. :)

(I am sure.. you, and many others here, know much better values ..reflecting various designs etc ... I was just putting those numbers for quick reference..)
(For example, Hiroshima Fission bomb, as well known, had about 50x times U than the theoretical value)

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

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 20 Jun 2008 06:05

Thanks! That's enough numbers to write my next proposal. I'll take the antimatter one. 8)

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6125
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Amber G. » 20 Jun 2008 07:22

N^3 0 Sorry can't edit the post above, but it looks like I made a mistake and the number would be 21 MT ( or 21481 KT or 9x10^16 joules) for 1 kg of matter/antimatter bomb..... just wanted to make sure you do not use more than what you really need. :)

Admin - can the above post be edited?

BTW one can type (kg)*(c^2) in calories in google to get the answer you want...
link

or if you want the answer in jules:
type: (kg*c^2)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS177US231&q=kg*c%5E2&btnG=Search

8)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby shiv » 20 Jun 2008 07:41

Post edited as requested AmberG

I read that Hiroshima was 4% efficient fission

Apparently the most efficient fission bombs are about 14% efficient.

Also, if LiD is compressed enough and heated to 30 million deg C, 80 % of it is consumed in fusion in a 20 nanosecond period. And "80%" is considered a "complete" burn.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6125
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Amber G. » 20 Jun 2008 08:11

shiv - FYI from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
Little Boy, the Hiroshima bomb, used 140 lb (64 kg) of Uranium with an average enrichment of around 80%, or 112 lb (51 kg) of U-235, just about the bare-metal critical mass. (See Little Boy article for a detailed drawing.) When assembled inside its tamper/reflector of tungsten carbide, the 140 lb was more than twice critical mass. Before detonation, it was separated into two sub-critical pieces, one of which was later fired down a gun barrel at the other. About 1% of the uranium underwent fission..


Also as you know, the numbers are just theoretical (giving total energy - eg I assumed, for example, 200 MeV per fisson- I think about 30 MeV would escape through photons (gamma rays - which may not add much to blast damage) ... similarly for fusion, portion of the energy escapes as neutrons which may just go without doing much damage unless used to fission Uranium shell... then it may give another 200 MeV for each fission it triggers...etc..)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36076
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby SaiK » 20 Jun 2008 23:46

doesn't partial burn even more dangerous and harmful than full burn? in the sense, it has got better deterrence value!?!? :twisted:

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

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Arun_S » 21 Jun 2008 23:15

Folks,
Increasing work load and family commitments preclude me from active participation in the forum threads. However I will continue to monitor on an inactive basis.
-Jai Bharat.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2008 10:03

As of today we have two possible future scenarios to look at

1) The deal is signed
or
2) The deal is not signed.

In each of these cases India will have to look at the options available to best take advantage of what we have.

If the deal is signed, it will definitely hamper any plans of testing soon (not that such plans have existed IMO). But we cannot sit back and tear our hair and wail. We could break the deal and test. The other alternative is to look at what options India has in the absence of overt testing

If the deal is not signed we can celebrate our true freedom to test any time, but given the statements made in this forum about the status of the Indian bums, I would have thought that it is incumbent upon us to test.

Overt testing and refinement would address many concerns expressed on here.

However if we are NOT going to do overt testing, it would sound silly (to me at least). After fighting tooth and nail to get the deal cancelled because it would stop us from testing it would be hideously funny if we did not test. Especially in the light of the fact that any "deterrent" we have today will take at least 10 years to upgrade after any successful tests.

I sincerely hope that if the deal is not signed, all the powers that be who lamented that the deal would not allow us to test can get together and actually test rather than giving excuses and laying themselves open to the accusation that it is now their turn to please America by not testing.

krishnasr
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 23:25

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby krishnasr » 22 Jun 2008 21:25

I agree after reading quite a bit, that the deal should not be signed in its current status, i.e, restricting our requirements that we have to set and not by any P5 nation.

On a condition, that if the treaty is signed, there should be clause introduced that the following reasons on which the supplies can't hamper even if we test. The reason to test has to be a strong one, and it has to be mutual as well, where in which it is between USA and India to decide that tests were done with in the context of the agreement.

How much of USA's agreement is OK should be seen in the agreement itself. If they have any indirect reference that they would withdraw supplies and pursue sanctions, then signing the deal is a mute point.

On the other hand, I do see a candid weakness in our nuclear projections and requirements for civilian power generation. I am surprised that the deal as to be accepted just because that we are still not mature in our technology to handle the largest thorium reserves. Whatever said and done, we require them to be considered.

If the civilian deal is 100% must to have the third stage program to go successful, then there should be written clause that support our vision in the nuclear deal. Why not get IAEA, USA and other NSG to accept our Three stage program, and they would sign the deal such that they support the 3stage program and its technology that we come up with. That makes it a no road block condition to sign the deal without any hassle, and since, it would be under our control.

I am also feeling that having to smother our emergence, USA must be planning hard to stop BARC forging ahead in technology and more so, enable their industries to survive rather ours. This is pure american capitalism. They would buy you out, and throw you in the ocean.. and ensure, whatever technology they supply is the best.

We need an organic approach to this deal as well.

Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Karan Dixit » 23 Jun 2008 07:14

doesn't partial burn even more dangerous and harmful than full burn? in the sense, it has got better deterrence value!?!? :twisted:


Well, if the purpose is to do a structural damage then the partial burn will not be effective. But if the purpose is to torture living beings in the radius then may be you are correct.

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

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby satyarthi » 23 Jun 2008 09:31

shiv wrote:If the deal is not signed we can celebrate our true freedom to test any time, but given the statements made in this forum about the status of the Indian bums, I would have thought that it is incumbent upon us to test.

Overt testing and refinement would address many concerns expressed on here.

However if we are NOT going to do overt testing, it would sound silly (to me at least). After fighting tooth and nail to get the deal cancelled because it would stop us from testing it would be hideously funny if we did not test. Especially in the light of the fact that any "deterrent" we have today will take at least 10 years to upgrade after any successful tests.

1. Vajpayee declaring moratorium after 1998 tests, can be interpreted to mean Indian scientists needed time to prepare for the next round of tests.

2. Advani's question to MMS asking whether whatever NDA govt had initiated was still intact, can also mean that NDA had plans for improvements in design and for future tests.

3. Testing can cause short term damage to the economy. But China calling India's bluff in a nuclear exchange can threaten India's survival as a civilization. Nehru's 1962 blunders will pale in significance. One can do a cost benefit analysis and a probability analysis. But for a >6000 year old civilization, civilizational survival should carry much more weight than a decade of economic deprivation. JMHO.

4. So yes, tests should happen, sooner than later, but not too soon or too late.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby shiv » 23 Jun 2008 10:36

satyarthi wrote:4. So yes, tests should happen, sooner than later, but not too soon or too late.


I will not argue with this.

But I will point out (yet again) that:

A) India never tested when every nation with capability (other than India) were testing
B) India has always hesitated a great deal before testing and has either tried to hide the purpose of the test (peaceful NE) or has declared that we will test no more like guilty rats.

India has never ever shown the behavior that is required of a nation that will test its nukes boldly. This does not give me any great deal of confidence that India will test again soon (or later for that matter).

If we assume that much of what has been alleged on here is true then we are currently stuck with the following additional facts:

1) India's deterrent is no deterrent
2) Only testing can remedy this
3) The testing will have to be done by the same governmental body and scientists whose credentials in terms of nuclear testing are in dispute. Any tests will be subject to the SAME doubts and lack of peer review because the mechanism does not exist.
4) The only political party that has shown the will to test is the same political party that declared India to have viable deterrent and it will have to get into power and have a solid mandate before it can choose to go back on its own words.
5) After a series of successful tests it will require at least a decade to re equip our missiles with the new designs rather than the old duds.

If tests must be "satisfactory" AND meet demands for peer review, a mechanism needs to be set up for that by a government that will do that. In my humble view the process of proving new satisfactory designs and putting them on warheads after suitable peer review will take at least 15 to 20 years from today if all the preconditions are met.

Note that we managed with the pretence of a deterrent from 1974 to 1998
We managed with a pretence of a deterrent from 1998 to 2008.
We will have to manage the same pretence of deterrent up to about 2025 in my view and hope that China does not develop something new and deadly, in order for us to feel satisfaction that we are at least equal to China.

The overall sense I get is that India is continuously pretending to have a deterrent and even the calls for further testing can only lead to more bluff and pretence despite the best efforts of all patriots. Clearly this has been the case for the last 35 years and will continue for the next 20 years even if we test again, and longer if we do not test.

This is totally unsatisfactory and we will have to find a more effective method of doing what we want to do. And we still have not done that after all these decades. We're jut not there are we? Who are we trying to fool thinking that some new and effective overt testing is going to occur.

Unfortunately, the only answer that is possible is "Just wait and see. I have hope". But history shows that such hope is misplaced but are we, as usual, failing to learn from history?

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

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby satyarthi » 23 Jun 2008 20:42

BJP has clarified its stance unambiguously:

N-deal should have option for Pokhran III
"We are in favour of strategic relations with US unlike the Left. What we oppose is the clause which prohibits the right to test," Advani said talking to reporters on the sidelines of a book release function here on Monday.

Pokhran I happened during Indira Gandhi's regime and Pokhran II happened during Atal Bihari Vajpayee's. There should also be a scope for Pokhran III in the country," he added.
...
"We would go for renegotiation and remove the Hyde Act," he said.


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

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby satyarthi » 23 Jun 2008 21:31

shiv wrote:India has never ever shown the behavior that is required of a nation that will test its nukes boldly. This does not give me any great deal of confidence that India will test again soon (or later for that matter).

Well, Advani has mentioned Pokharan-III more than once by now. BJP has been in power only for one full term, and they tested. Rest of the years of non BJP rule shouldn't be construed as a precedent for BJP's behavior.

1) India's deterrent is no deterrent
2) Only testing can remedy this
3) The testing will have to be done by the same governmental body and scientists whose credentials in terms of nuclear testing are in dispute. Any tests will be subject to the SAME doubts and lack of peer review because the mechanism does not exist.
4) The only political party that h Leftisas shown the will to test is the same political party that declared India to have viable deterrent and it will have to get into power and have a solid mandate before it can choose to go back on its own words.
5) After a series of successful tests it will require at least a decade to re equip our missiles with the new designs rather than the old duds.

1. India's tests compared to other P5 are negligible in number. In no other enterprize, anything is declared operationally reliable with so few tests.

2. Regarding peer review, a 300kt or 1MT blast doesn't depend too critically on reviewers' judgements. The peer reviewers get their chance to play around when yields are modest, say 45kt.

3. I am not disputing the Vajpayee govt or the scientists claims. It is quite convincing that a fusion "device" of ~45kt was tested. The question is about reliability of the weaponized version of the device, and reliability of a scaled version of the device. The "reliability" can ONLY be demonstrated by multiple tests, not by mere claims.
If tests must be "satisfactory" AND meet demands for peer review, a mechanism needs to be set up for that by a government that will do that. In my humble view the process of proving new satisfactory designs and putting them on warheads after suitable peer review will take at least 15 to 20 years from today if all the preconditions are met.

A series of tests showing primaray, primary+spark plug, primary+sparkplug+fissionable tamper, as Ramana suggested, will be convincing enough. A total yield of 300kt or 1mt doesn't depend crucially upon peer review. There is not much that can be disputed with a 1mt beast. So, 15-20 years time-frame is not necessary Presuming that NDA govt had set up some structures to further improve the designs, India could be ready for tests pretty soon, or may already be sitting on testable designs. after the tests, assuming them to be successful, putting them on missiles may take several years, may be even 10 years. But so be it.
Note that we managed with the pretence of a deterrent from 1974 to 1998
We managed with a pretence of a deterrent from 1998 to 2008.
We will have to manage the same pretence of deterrent up to about 2025 in my view and hope that China does not develop something new and deadly, in order for us to feel satisfaction that we are at least equal to China.
IMHO the time frame is not 2025 but < 2013. As far as effectiveness of warheads goes, there is not much China can do beyond what it has. There is a plateau out there after 1MT. They can of course improve their missiles and missile defenses etc.
Unfortunately, the only answer that is possible is "Just wait and see. I have hope". But history shows that such hope is misplaced but are we, as usual, failing to learn from history?

I think we are refusing to learn from the history. Barbarians have destroyed many an illustrious civilization. Ours has survived the longest. But that doesn't mean it will automatically survive into the future. In the recent history, Gandhi's idealism was blasted in 1947 and Nehru's in 1962. Although just prior to 1947 and 1962, a huge majority of Indians put their complete faith in these lords. Unfortunately, when dealing with barbarians, one needs to fight, not just plead or preach.

People may be watching the European and American experience with he nukes so far, and prematurely believing that the worst is imagined, and just like the cold war, the nightmare has passed.

Not for India. I venture to say that biggest barbarians today are China and Pakistan. And given the great military advantages this combine has over current Indian capabilities, must make us pause and think. There are today two kinds of opinion in India on this. Instead of using rightists, hindutvavadis etc, I would use the term "civilizationists". The other major grouping is "pragmatists", who want to survive physically and want to live in better conditions, but don't care that much for the civilization per se. Leftists are "subversives".

The civilizationists care a lot whether Indian civilization survives or not, which doesn't preclude survival of people and their better living conditions. The pragmatists care a lot whether people survive or not and whether they have better living conditions or not, but are not so passionate about the civilization.

The pragmatists want to believe that it is possible to bluff around the nuclear question,and hold the deterrence with a very small capability. But this works only as long as the nuclear deterrence holds. If the deterrence breaks down for whatever reason, then if India is caught with a relatively miniscule capability, then that will be the end of Indian civilization as we know it. Either India will have to abjectly surrender, or fight a nuclear war with miniscule capability and get mauled severely. A large number of people may survive, but the civilization will be done for. Just think about the nature of the powers that will step in to save the remaining Indians, and also by splitting India into regions they control, and the consequences of that.

One way to avoid this calamity is to ensure that the deterrence holds. And lets not fool ourselves into thinking that this calamity is extremely unlikely. Of all the countries in the world, at present it is India that is most likely to be turned into a nuke fried chicken.

The deterrence is much more likely to hold if Indian arsenal is credible wrt China and Pakistan. Otherwise if the deterrence breaks, India must have the capability to neutralize both China and Pakistan. For both these options enhancing the Indian arsenal is the only way to go.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36076
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby SaiK » 23 Jun 2008 23:14

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030528.htm / dated article /
A nuclear interceptor used above the sensible atmosphere has only two kill mechanisms available: its x-ray flash and the neutrons from the nuclear explosion. In the absence of an atmosphere, the characteristic fireball and thermal flash are not produced. Neither is there any blast or shockwave. The x-ray flash destroys the warhead in an interesting way: the radiation is absorbed quickly in the outer skin of the warhead, causing a thin layer of structure to vaporize essentially instantaneously. This is called x-ray ablation. The vaporized material recoils from the reentry vehicle, producing an intense shock to the structure. At high enough x-ray fluences the shock is able to destroy the components (nuclear, high explosive, and electronic) of the target and may even shatter the reentry vehicle (RV). At lower fluences the radiation may simply destroy the electronics required to detonate the nuclear weapon via the mechanism of source-generated electromagnetic pulse (SGEMP).


Space based tests can be highly plausible if it can be made possible, by compartmentalized assembly of these tests.


While the laws are applicable to everyone except the real super power:-

"U.S. is not developing, testing, or producing any nuclear warheads and has not done so in more than a decade." Still, the renewal of pit production could be interpreted as the production of nuclear warheads.


bringing back the neutron bomb
since its not for bunker busting, and it would largely used against chinpak armies, it is essential that we have neutron bombs aplenty.

Buttressing Deterrence .. Why would these options improve deterrence? ..Unclassified estimates peg the B83's maximum yield at 1,200 kilotons and the B61's maximum yield at 170 kilotons. The B61 and B83 may also have the capability of a dial-a-yield feature that could permit a yield as low as 0.3 kilotons.[18] For comparison, the Hiroshima bomb had a yield of about 15 kilotons.


Actually speaking, the higher the tonnage, will lower the deterrence.. since it is highly unlikely to use a mega ton bomb [politically speaking], for say destroying thickly populated chinpak cities. strategic targets are the vital aspects that must be only considered for NFU, that we don't have an option for the "third strike".


Additionally, if a nascent nuclear nation actually used a nuclear weapon against the United States or its allies, the United States would likely seek to destroy with sufficient force the remaining nuclear weapons in the other nation's arsenal while also likely striving to minimize the collateral damage done by U.S. nuclear weapons.


This is very interesting thought our doctrine would adapt to for capable ..optimized ..matured deterrence values. Since this is well understood by chinpaks, its very important that our second strike is largely sub-surface base and the amount of investment we are thinking for that is peanuts. Our SSNs are still in the docks.. once we mark its arrival, its important that we have sufficient numbers to do the strike. It would take atleast another 50 years to produce a force of 12 such subs that can stand for the doctrine., and just imagine the nature of deterrence then.. it might have actually collapsed, or people have moved on further, with peace bombs.


Code: Select all

Pure Fusion Weapons


say football sized arse-nals to produce the flowers enough to all the 1.8 billion chinpaks... Regardless of any claimed advantages of pure fusion weapons, building those weapons does not appear to be feasible...but, what if some nascent country like surprises the world?

we have all the counter arguments, but again, we have the very same technologies to act as deterrence. The mere point of researching into un-feasible weapons is in itself a detterrence value, much greater than having one. The Indians are working on it!.. sounds terrifying to any nation.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Sanatanan » 24 Jun 2008 07:27


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50763
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby ramana » 24 Jun 2008 08:28

the wonk is disingenuous. The testing agencies had said it was 'weaponisable' design. An Indian test would be conducive for stability which trumps his NPA desiderata.

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

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 24 Jun 2008 08:42

I think what this thread proves is that political loyalties will trump reason, logic and national interest every time. I won't say ******* ********** 8)

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby pradeepe » 24 Jun 2008 10:38

Sanatanan wrote:What the Wonk says:

Here is the link



I have a sneaking suspicion that the US-India nuclear deal is a license for India to conduct another round of nuclear tests, the Hyde Act be damned.


Its the ayotullahs wonk anyway, but its interesting thats the ayotullahs read exactly the opposite of what our test now junta read of the deal :rotfl:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36076
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby SaiK » 24 Jun 2008 16:26

make it so!~ and this time, it would be a gala affair, like any fair in yindutivic celebrations. perhaps, the distinguished NPAs can be the taking VVIP seats along with MaMoSe and the other super delegates!.

Pok3 to its fully glory! damn they hyde.. yeah!. BTW, ensure you put the smiling buddha on the invitations. its important., and perhaps a booklet on bhagwat geeta, especially to quote what NPAs will definitely understand.. since, they know it from father of atomic bomb.

.... "If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst forth at once in the sky, that would be like the splendour of the Mighty One."..

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

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 24 Jun 2008 16:54

Why only POK-3? We are needing POK-4, 5, 6 ...... upto 1,700,000,000 onlee! :roll:

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2316
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Katare » 24 Jun 2008 23:55

1) 45KT bomb exploding in Shanghai, Beijing etc
2) 200KT bombs exploding in Shanghai, Beijing etc
3) 1MT bomb exploding in Shanghai, Beijing etc

Do you think in today’s world, option one would be an acceptable damage while option two would be unacceptable?

All three of these would have similar effects on China, its economy, environment and world economy.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20908
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Prem » 25 Jun 2008 03:09

enqyoob wrote:I think what this thread proves is that political loyalties will trump reason, logic and national interest every time. I won't say ******* ********** 8)


This is gross misreading of the sentinments and apprehensions of many BRakshaks. Truth must be known beofore the trumpest or the nose is blown . The fact is no one here knows the state sexcrets and we are just churning little public information. :|


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests