Deterrence

[abhiti]

Dr.Shiv i dont know to mince words much, so i have a clear question for you, In your opinion does India need TN to deter China/Pak ?

I am not saying that India does not need TN bombs
I am not saying that India must not make TN bombs
I am not saying India does not need nuclear bombs

I am saying that India does not need "thermonuclear" bombs for deterrence. Deterrence is, in my view NOT based on the difference in size of non TN and TN bombs as is believed by many on here, but capability and willingness to use what you have.

Well I am totally confused now...I know of no use of TN bombs except deterrence. How else are you suggesting TN bombs could be used?

[Sanku]

Thanks for posting nrao - perfectly appropriate here

I have put both articles in my personal archives

from the dna article:

the notion that warhead yield must be higher in order to deter effectively involves the unquestioning internalisation of American norms, which many Indian nuclear scientists and strategists tend to do.

Indeed I found it funny too, but I suspect my reasons are rather different.

[Manish_Sharma]

Above I have just tried to get an idea of How many missiles/warheads would be needed to send the lizard back economically by 100 years. In this my idea was to hit industrial cities/refineries/ports.

As you can see that A SINGLE YELLOW STAR IS EQUIVALENT OF 3 WARHEADS OF 40KT EACH (Salted of course 2 warheads with Gold isotops and one warhead with cobalt 60). So each STAR means 1 missile with 3MIRVs.

Now on the map ONE DARK GREEN DOT means one type of industry if you see many bunched together that means that many types of industries. The list of type of industries you can see on the top of the map.

So as I counted in end it came to 35 STARS WHICH EQUALS TO 105WARHEADS AND 35MISSILES(3MIRVD ON EACH MISSILE OF COURSE).

Since somebody had mentioned that Army is factoring in failure rate of 50% warheads. If we add to that failure of missiles and ABM too then I have to increase the number 3 times.

This way the number that comes is 315 warheads + 105(3 warhead MIRVd) Missiles to ensure 80-90% destruction economywise.

I have here discounted the army targets totally 'cause I don't know where and how many of them are there. Secondly the idea was to hit economic + population targets. This way a partly dying chipanda could have also a window to hit other enemy targets of its own, like Japan US and RU etc. thus inviting their retaliation+preventive strikes too.

Since we consider testing too expensive because of sanctions, the least can be done is to make missile launch sites buried deep in mountains far away from the population centers. With ABMs on top of mountains to protect them from pre emptive strikes. Also this way the enemy has to use SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS ARSENAL ON TRYING TO TAKE OUT THESE SITES RESULTING IN LESS WARHEADS FOR POPULATION CENTERS OF OUR COUNTRY.
Then the other part is ON trains, mobile launchers + Arihants.

For now I think China wouldn't want even 10% of this to happen for getting Arunachal Pradesh, but few years from now some unforeseen situation may change it some water issue......... something.

So 315 warheads for Chipanda +105 Agnis.

And around same number for Porkistan, BD & SA.

[D Roy]

may change it some water issue......... something.

This in my opinion is a big isue not just in India-China , but Russia-China as well.

[NRao]

Manish_Sharma,

I did not find the word "deter*" in your post. So, your proposal - as you state - is for destruction ONLY. Which is OK, nothing wrong with that.

I just saw a program on the History channel - Mega Disasters. Topic: DC is nuked by a 10 Kt suitcase bomb. He extrapolates based on what happened just after 911 - 24-48 hours after.

For sure the US does not want to get into any such situations (as shown in the NYTimes post in last page). I am more than confident that China will not want to get into such a situation either - it does NOT mean that China cannot or is unwilling to take a huge loss once a nuclear war is triggered for some reason.

Forget a nuclear situation, just check out how much the US and all are spending (in open source that is - there is a ton more that does not appear in any record anywhere) because of 911!!!!

Nuclear deterrence is far more clear-cut.

[NRao]

^^^

the reduction in KTs could be in relation to the CEP of the delivery systems. But the size stopped at 200-300KT region. We do not know if India has deployable systems of this size.

Smaller flowers are required even when we deploy 100s of MT bums. That doesn't mean 20-30KT flowers that we have will suffice.

JMT

No problem when you say JMT. But, why that thought is what i am interested in. Why do people want MT? I am interested in the thinking or reasons, NOT as a challenge - I could be wrong too (but tell me why).

On CEP vs. Kt, that is true. BUT in the case of China it relates mostly to the US and RU, not so much India (I have given my reasons for my thinking).

[NRao]

2) China seems to be moving to much smaller nukes (bringing this up because some India/ns seems be arguing that India should move from smaller nukes to much, much larger nukes). I think all countries are moving to much smaller nukes.

Do you have any source which states that CHina is moving to much smaller nukes? Or is just based on your belief?

1) I did say "seems"
2) I did post a few pages ago (could be in the other thread) how I came to that conclusion - provided cut-and-paste stats

I am seriously thinking of starting my own blog (only so I can refer to that every time someone asks such questions).

BUT, it is ALL out there - only if people either read posts (granted one cannot read everything, but I am getting the feel that the most important ones are missed out) OR google.

[Patrick Cusack]

Ravi Sharma wrote
"Above I have just tried to get an idea of How many missiles/warheads would be needed to send the lizard back economically by 100 years. In this my idea was to hit industrial cities/refineries/ports....."

why have you included Taiwan?

[NRao]

Well I am totally confused now...I know of no use of TN bombs except deterrence. How else are you suggesting TN bombs could be used?

PNE!!!!!!!!

Dig the next Panama canal - Toman, et al.

Recall that some of the nuclear test sites were in use - for training for the moon walk - within 24 months or so!!

[Patrick Cusack]

"If you also consider that Obama is the first US president who refused to meet Dalai Lama, the picture is clear. US has selected a partner to maintain joint hegemony...the partner is China. In simple terms India has no one but itself in case China and Pakistan were to attack it."

Abhiti - you are absolutely right. India really does not have any friends. All so called friends are using India to keep their factories open. The sooner India realizes this the better - unfortunately corruption in India is not helping.

[Manish_Sharma]

Manish_Sharma,

I did not find the word "deter*" in your post. So, your proposal - as you state - is for destruction ONLY. Which is OK, nothing wrong with that.

I just saw a program on the History channel - Mega Disasters. Topic: DC is nuked by a 10 Kt suitcase bomb. He extrapolates based on what happened just after 911 - 24-48 hours after.

For sure the US does not want to get into any such situations (as shown in the NYTimes post in last page). I am more than confident that China will not want to get into such a situation either - it does NOT mean that China cannot or is unwilling to take a huge loss once a nuclear war is triggered for some reason.

Forget a nuclear situation, just check out how much the US and all are spending (in open source that is - there is a ton more that does not appear in any record anywhere) because of 911!!!!

Nuclear deterrence is far more clear-cut.

N Rao as far as I see:
"Showcasing the ability to destroy is the best deterrence"-Manish Tzu

Upto now indian policy of deterrance is very vague and the most unclear. In the case of Russians and Americans they were openly letting each other know the capacity of missiles, subs and the warhead tests. Every Tom Clancy or Forsyth new that russians had 1500 missiles pointed at US. But regarding us the statements are very vague and mixed up. Examples:
1. "India has the capacity to make 200kt weapon"- kakodkar, RC
2.Minimum credible deterrent or minimaly credible deterrent kind of statements from govt. india.
3. "2 warheads of 20kt over beijing aren't going to deter chinese" by santhanam.
4. 300 to 500kt warheads statements by Arun prakash or Mallik.

I am not saying that it is wrong of us to do things the way we are doing for NOW. Presently I think the Govt. is sure that whatever we have is enough to deter chipanda to make it not worthwhile regarding taking over of AP.
But suppose some years from now just like Kosi river changed its course a similar kind of calamity happens in China creating suddenly huge shortage of water, threatening 10 million people. Then China may not be deterred by something like what we have today.

But surely when their satellites will give them images of missiles being lowered in deep bunkers under mountains, or occasionally catching and train or mobile launcher here and there. Then that will be "THE DETERRENT" for bigger unforeseen issues other than Arunachal.

I think around 2021 or so we will see an Indian Prime Minister looking down at Chinese leaders pointing finger and saying "behave". Until then humbly indian govt. absorbs the conventional weapon techs and giving the time for Scientist and Engineers to prepare more potent Agnis and warheads.

Also I would like to add that I don't think TNs are that much necessary. In fact salted warheads of around 40-50kt would suffice. Shiv has created a monster

[NRao]

With a Unity name: Manish Tzu, there is really no need for any armed forces. Perhaps Chinese should take on an Indian name and Indian a Chinese and call it a day.

[NRao]

That is my question: Does the deterrence have to be in the open?

I would think it would suffice that each side knows what the other side has. Not think it has.

Besides that MS, how about the time when China HAD missiles and MT class nukes and India had nothing?

[shiv]

Regarding showcasing the ability to destroy - I am reminded of my nephew who decided to study for his exam reading BRF alone. He failed because he assumed "open" means its on BRF and "secret" means its off BRF

Anyhow here is a data point from Karnad about the year 1996. Maybe Karnad has no idea what is right an wrong and in any case I have disagreed with his views on some things - so take it FWIW

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/ ... _2891.html

1996
<snip>
The weapons in India's inventory include 20-100kt nuclear warheads and gravity bombs weighing 200-300kg. Tritium boosted fission weapons are also available. Despite the absence of field tests, the Bhabha Atomic Research Center has high confidence in the reliability of its weapon designs.
<snip>

[Manish_Sharma]

Ravi Sharma wrote
"Above I have just tried to get an idea of How many missiles/warheads would be needed to send the lizard back economically by 100 years. In this my idea was to hit industrial cities/refineries/ports....."

why have you included Taiwan?

O My God! I thought it was Hong Kong. Apologies. Although you have punished me enough by calling me Ravi Sharma who was a much hated jholawala DDM.

Apologies again!
MANISH Sharma

[shiv]

Upto now indian policy of deterrance is very vague and the most unclear.

Manish once again - if you have the patience to read through all the archived news snippets on nti.org that I have linked from 1995 onwards as well as the KSub article linked by verak you find that one of the reasons for hesitation and not revealing one's hand (as expressed by PVNR) is the fact that nobody wanted to show off what existed without having sufficient numbers and some proof that the designs will work although nukes were available for delivery from the 1980s. PVNR and Deve Gowda were both thwarted from testing - but ABV did it after which the nuclear policy at least became open.

Even now the exact nature of the arsenal is totally secret apart from isharas. Santhanam has stated that 20-30 kt bombs have been "perfected". I have already posted what Bharat Karnad said about the state in 1996. In the last 2 weeks (I will locate he link) one GoI statement mentioned 200 kt.

One of the reasons I have been doggedly speaking of an Indian deterrent with 25 kt bombs alone is because this is BRF and I have a great time playing with "satya" (truth)

What is "sayta"?

Satya is India has only tested and proven 15-25 kt fission bombs. Nothing else. Therefore it is impossible for the Indian arsenal to have anything else that works. Everything must revolve around 25 kt fission warheads alone.

[Manish_Sharma]

With a Unity name: Manish Tzu, there is really no need for any armed forces. Perhaps Chinese should take on an Indian name and Indian a Chinese and call it a day.

These three Enlightened Masters: Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu and Lih Tzu have been my favourites so I took the name. I think they were the masters of same height like Mahavir or Buddha.

Infact enemy is not China but Chinese Communist Party. Otherwise Chinese would have been studying J Krishnamurty and Maharishi Raman by now just like they were learning from Buddha and Tamil prince Bodhidharma.

[shiv]

Here is some news but there is no proof that it is satya
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3c9a78941abc. ... ck_check=1

India announces capability to build high1yield nuclear arsenal
By James Lamont in New Delhi and James Blitz in London
Published: September 28 2009 03:00 | Last updated: September 28 2009 03:00

New Delhi's senior atomic officials said India had built weapons with yields of up to 200 kilotons,

[shiv]

When "Who is Sita" starts on this thread better to go back to Ramayana

Here is a post I made earlier on this thread. I repeat FWIW

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 64#p745564

The www via Google uncle has quite a few references to Chinese nuclear weapons.

I chose one at random - based on language that I can understand.

http://www.nti.org/db/china/wdepdat.htm

This source says China has 400 nuclear warheads. But another source - the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has revised that estimate to about 250 or so.

Also from the above source (which please see)

China has tested and deployed six nuclear warhead designs:
a 20-40 kiloton (kT) fission gravity bomb
a 20 kT missile warhead
a 3+ megaton (MT) thermonuclear missile warhead
a 4-5 MT warhead for the DF-5 ICBM
a 3+ MT thermonuclear gravity bomb;
a 200-300 kT warhead possibly for the for the DF-31 and DF-41 and JL-2 SLBM.

China apparently has about 300 gravity dropped bombs to be delivered by aircraft ranging from 10 kt to 3 MT

The same source says China has about 90 missiles capable of carrying one warhead each of 3.3 megatons, and 500 missiles capable of carrying 50-350 kt warheads.

All sources about this are Western and they tend to count only what is aimed at the US. Technically all can be aimed at india, although China IMO is likely to "reserve" some to be aimed at the US. China's biggest headache

The same source has tables that show China as possessing some 600 odd missiles of which 50 have ranges of 200 to 600 km. These would have to be fired from the border into India - and would have to be moved into Tibet - to target areas in India which are 200-400 km from the border China has about 150 missiles that can hit any part of India.

It also has 150 nuke capable bombers that can drop gravity bombs =- but in terms of hiting India they would have to take off from Tibet bases - or inland bbases and be refuelled.

From all this is is difficult to reach a precise estimate of megatonnage that can be used against India. For reasons that I have mentioned in earlier posts calculating area of damage by megaton bombs gives smaller values than if you use kiloton bombs - i.e Ten 100 kt bombs can take out a greater area than one 1 megaton bomb - so it would be worth the effort to calculate exactly what China may have to throw at India and exactly where it would hurt most.

Here are some stats

India total land area 3.3 million sq km. When I start looking at the individual areas of 20 major cities I find that the total areas are huge with Delhi being listed as 1800 sq km and Greater Mumbai as 480 sq km. For ease I am assuming 20 biggest Indian cities to have a core central area of 200 sq km and that leaves 4,000 square km of area to be hit Using my own paradigm that only 25% of a city area needs to be hit to cause unbearable pain, China still needs to destroy 1,000 sq km of city area. Taking 1 megaton nuke as capable of destroying 120 sq km we get an estimate of about 40 x 1 megaton nukes to be aimed at 20 cities in India to take 25% of the central areas of those cities. To destroy completely the major central areas of 20 cities in India, China would need 4 times that number - i.e 160 x 1 megaton nukes - which is a number that puts China's total arsenal and long range missile force under some stress.

Note that all this destruction would leave central areas of 20 Indian cities totally destroyed even as China uses up much of its arsenal. Still only about 4,000 sq km of India would have been destroyed - representing less than 1% of India's land area. Assuming 100 million dead and injured India would still have 90% or more of its land area safe for inhabitation and 90% of its population alive. And none of India's retaliatory nuclear force will be based in the centers of cities - leaving them largely intact.Chances are that China will reserve only 25% of its force for cities and maybe another 25% or more to target Air bases ad missile sites. But each of those form smaller targets and using 1 MT bombs would be a waste and China would rapidly run out of bombs and still not be able to hit much. If India's retaliatory forces are dispersed in 150 different locations outside cities, China will have to hit all of them and would have to know their precise locations. Each hit with a nuke on the wrong location is one nuke less for them - because any Indian nuke that survives is destined only for the center of a Chinese city.

That begs the questions

1) Just how much damage can anyone hope to achieve with nukes?
2) Just how much damage does one need to achieve?
3) What does one need to deter?

The expression "Glass parking lot" is great rhetoric - just like "rolling thunder" and "carpet bombing". Interestingly all are imported from the US.

JMT in a hurriedly compiled post

[Manish_Sharma]

Shiv where can I find these links you have put from nti.org?

[shiv]

Shiv where can I find these links you have put from nti.org?

This is the 1995 page. You can link to all other years from the top right side of the page

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/ ... _2887.html

[Manish_Sharma]

Thanks !

[Manish_Sharma]

That is my question: Does the deterrence have to be in the open?

I would think it would suffice that each side knows what the other side has. Not think it has.

Besides that MS, how about the time when China HAD missiles and MT class nukes and India had nothing?

If you prepare the ability to destroy the other side, then other side is bound to notice. Then it becomes deterrence. Let's say you moved to a new village and you are reasonably rich. Now in this new village their is a rogue landlord who is known to land grab and loot people in other ways using muscle power. But when you move their you let him catch a glimpse of one of your brother cleaning & oiling a rifle, while the other brother fires away at the birds. Also from time to time you show the signs being violent by beating up some people unpredictably. This gives the idea to rogue landlord that you are not to be taken lightly. He has to be ready to lose most of his family if he does any mischief. That will deter.
Secondly, China was building itself economically it had to make foundation for a strong economic future. Just last week there was an editorial in TOI that Jiang Zemin had offered India in 1980 to convert LAC into accepted border for both countries. The offer was declined by India. What would China have gained by attacking India and taking over Arunachal? Their priority was economic resurrection. Just like Indian Govt. is buying time now so it can fully deploy MIRVd Agnis, Arihants & BARC continuosly improving warheads. So the soft approach for now.

[Manish_Sharma]

Happy Deepawali everyone, I would like to specially mention Bhagwan Mahavir who is the only one known to have realized his enlightenment on Amavasya (No Moon Night) on Deepawali night. Most have become enlightened on Full moon night including Buddha!

[abhiti]

PNE!!!!!!!! Dig the next Panama canal - Toman, et al. Recall that some of the nuclear test sites were in use - for training for the moon walk - within 24 months or so!!

So you think Shiv was proposing that India should have TN bomb just to dig Panama canal? Then we should have millions of mini nukes - how else will you build houses for billions of Indians.

[abhiti]

This way the number that comes is 315 warheads + 105(3 warhead MIRVd) Missiles to ensure 80-90% destruction economywise. So 315 warheads for Chipanda +105 Agnis. And around same number for Porkistan, BD & SA.

Good diagram. Is these stars to scale or just place holders? Also how many do you expect China will send back at India?

[abhiti]

Here is some news but there is no proof that it is satya
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3c9a78941abc. ... ck_check=1

India announces capability to build high1yield nuclear arsenal
By James Lamont in New Delhi and James Blitz in London
Published: September 28 2009 03:00 | Last updated: September 28 2009 03:00

New Delhi's senior atomic officials said India had built weapons with yields of up to 200 kilotons,

Since they are only announcing "capability" it is quite clear that they don't have 200kt weapons today. It actually seem to prove India's lack of TN capability.

[abhiti]

China would rapidly run out of bombs and still not be able to hit much.

It is interesting to see people want to have the cake and eat it too. I see two contradictory claims:

1) China with 400+ nukes will run out of nukes and not be able to hit much
2) But India needs only a couple of hundred 20-30kt nukes to destroy China.

Only one can be true...I suspect it is the first. No wonder nuke arsenals for China are rapidly growing.

[abhiti]

1996<snip>
The weapons in India's inventory include 20-100kt nuclear warheads and gravity bombs weighing 200-300kg. Tritium boosted fission weapons are also available. Despite the absence of field tests, the Bhabha Atomic Research Center has high confidence in the reliability of its weapon designs.
<snip>

The snippet says it all about attitude of nuclear scientists, doesn't it? I hear it all the time from developers, I have completed my coding and unit tested. And guess what happens when that code hits QA, nothing works! It goes to say what kind of confidence you can have about a complex system working the first time as designed without testing - ZERO.

[shiv]

The snippet says it all about attitude of nuclear scientists, doesn't it? I hear it all the time from developers, I have completed my coding and unit tested. And guess what happens when that code hits QA, nothing works! It goes to say what kind of confidence you can have about a complex system working the first time as designed without testing - ZERO.

Well the developers whose work you deal with and Indian nuclear scientists sure have a lot in common don't they? Superpower in every way - IT superpower and nuclear armed superpower.

As I pointed out earlier - this is about the level of competence you can expect from a nation where the people are in such a bad state anyway - so no surprises.

[Manish_Sharma]

This way the number that comes is 315 warheads + 105(3 warhead MIRVd) Missiles to ensure 80-90% destruction economywise. So 315 warheads for Chipanda +105 Agnis. And around same number for Porkistan, BD & SA.

Good diagram. Is these stars to scale or just place holders? Also how many do you expect China will send back at India?

1 Star = 1 Agni MIRVd with 3 warheads of 40kt each (Salted of course).

Regarding how many China will send back at India? At least around 300-400. I can't imagine China with Megalomania of building huge things like China wall and other Megastructures would be having anything less than 900-1000 warheads. Having gone nuclear since 1964. For such a strategic thing they would put their maximum capacity to make the warheads. Unless some solid proof is given that this the number of their plants which could only have churned out this amount of fissile material. The rest would be for Japan, US and RU.

[NRao]

I hear it all the time from developers, I have completed my coding and unit tested. And guess what happens when that code hits QA, nothing works!

OT perhaps, but check the design doc.

2) But India needs only a couple of hundred 20-30kt nukes to destroy China.

IMHO, to deter China. Not destroy China.

A couple of hundred 20-30kt nukes could make china go from #2 economy to 50th economy or worse.

Please check out the article I posted. The US was scared of a 10 Kt (or so) nuke from NoKo. Just one of them.

[Rien]

China would rapidly run out of bombs and still not be able to hit much.

It is interesting to see people want to have the cake and eat it too. I see two contradictory claims:

1) China with 400+ nukes will run out of nukes and not be able to hit much
2) But India needs only a couple of hundred 20-30kt nukes to destroy China.

Only one can be true...I suspect it is the first. No wonder nuke arsenals for China are rapidly growing.

The Cake gets even better than this. China has hundreds more of weapons classed as "tactical nuclear weapons". A lot of them are much bigger in yield than 25 KT. Again, I have a simple question, and I still haven't heard an answer from the Praful Bidwai camp yet. How do you keep >70 30 kt missiles alive? China has at least over 400 nukes, some of which are 3.3 megatons. For people at home, this means that 1 Chinese warhead is more powerful than the entire Indian arsenal.

3 300 kt > 2 100 kt.

http://www.fas.org/news/russia/1995/druma229_s95008.htm

Incidentally, the probability of destruction of mobile systems that are located in garrisons or on patrol routes is approximately identical both with the employment of Trident-2 SLBMs and with the utilization of the less accurate Trident-1 SLBMs. We must also take into account that the resistance to damage of SS-25 ICBMs (the predictions of American experts) to the destructive effect of the strike wave is low, much less than the similar American Midgetman system (0.3 and 2.0 kg/cm, respectively). The explosion of a warhead with a yield of 0.5 megatons is capable of putting an SS-25 out of commission at a distance of approximately seven kilometers from the epicenter...

Simply put, a 3.3 MT Chinese monster can easily destroy an Indian missile while not even being within 20 km's of it. But wait, there's more. So that "analysis" about how difficult it would be for the Chinese to destroy India's arsenal is very wrong. So much for numbers and megatonnage not mattering. Nothing is more important than numbers and megatonnage.

using super-EMI [electromagnetic interference], that is, powerful pulses of electromagnetic radiation that arise during high-altitude explosions. By way of illustration, a 10 megaton explosion at an altitude of 300-400 kilometers over the geographic center of the state could disable the operation of all territorial electronic systems...

With just 3 Chinese missiles, all of India will be dead. Not one plane will fly, not one car will move, the electricity will be gone, and there will be no communications. Super EMI cannot be shielded against, this isn't regular jamming, this is like jamming turned up to 11. Only radiation hardened electronics might function(maybe).

When their TEL's won't even start, their GPS broken, and their missiles already mission killed, if they are not already just radioactive fallout, what can India hit back with? Also, one big difference between a Chinese 1MT monster, and even 12 of India's 30 kt firecrackers. A 1 MT nuke is guaranteed to start a firestorm. So in reality, one Chinese nuke = 1 dead Indian city. They can kill 500 million Indians, and that's before we even start factoring in fallout. And the Pakistani's, the Chinese SLBM's and their hundreds of tactical nuclear weapons haven't even joined the party. What is true is that there is NO MAD. Only Assured Destruction .. of India!

[shiv]

Here's a hilarious news item

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 132024.cms

'Worried' China says Agni V can reach Russian border

China is worried about the Russian border? I wonder why. They can stop all communications no?

BTW India is totally connected up by underground fiberoptic cable which is totally immune to nuke generated EM pulses.

I was doing a totally theoretical gigaboomer calculation of how far apart 100 puny 25 kt Indian warheads + 200 dummy warheads will be from each other. They will be separated by at 100 km or more from each other and those China megatons will have to put 10 of her megaton warheads to take out one missile launch site with a 2/3 chance that they will hit a dummy.

And none of those will be in cities.

So China either has to hit cities or hit missiles. If they use up 50 on cities and 350 on missiles sites they will hardly get 20% of India's missiles, leaving 80 India missiles to be launched. No India missile will be aimed at anything but Chinese cities - so take 100,000 deaths per 25 kt nuke x 80 - that is 8 million bodies rotting in Chinese city centers and 20 million injured. Talk about "world leadership".

And by then China will have used up all her "nearly more than 400 nukes" They will be nook nude like their fav whore Pakistan

500 million deaths is an overestimate. 3 million sq km of India with 70% (750 million) occupying 2.5 million sq km rural areas . Those Chinese bombs will hardly take out 25 million people. Will live to fight another day.

[NRao]

Only Assured Destruction .. of India!

OK. Fine.

So, why is that China did not use ANY of those things when India supposedly did not even have a nuke? Or a missile to deliver if she had a nuke?

Talk first about deterrence THEN about destruction. What has prevented China - so far - from using her might when Indo-Sino relationships have never were top of the line (today in fact the trade is like never before).

Or, what makes you think China will use or under what circumstances will China use all these powerful devices to subdue India?

What is preventing China from just taking AP or doing whatever she wants? For ALL these years - from 1971.

I am just curious.

(I have not read the articles you referred to - so, am assuming at this point in time that India is very, very, very vulnerable.)

[shiv]

Do a thought experiment.

Imagine 2 nations A and B - each is big enough to have more than 100 cities.

If nation A gets exactly one 1 megaton nuke and nation B gets exactly one 25 kt nuke, will either be deterred?

Perhaps B is willing to lose 1 million people and A is willing to lose 100,000 so you can say "Deterrence does not work with one nuke on each side"

Now suppose A gets two 1 megaton nukes and B gets 2 x 25 kt nukes? Will deterrence work? Perhaps not


Suppose A gets 10 x 1 megaton nukes and B gets 10 x 25 kt nukes. Maybe now B gets deterred, B says "I am not willing to lose 10 cities with 1 million deaths each. So B is deterred. But is A deterred? Well perhaps A will say "OK - I am still willing to lose 100,000 per city in 10 cities from B's 10 X 25 kt nukes.

But the 10 x 1 megaton nukes that A has is already deterring B. Even if A gets 100 or 1000 or 1 million x 1 megaton nukes - he cannot deter B any more because B is fully deterred by merely 10 X 1 megaton nukes.

Now we can start ignoring any number of nukes that A has (over and above the basic deterrent number of 10) because they are more than enough to deter B, but B's 10 X 25 kt nukes are not enough to deter A.

Now suppose B has 20 nukes of 25 kt each. Does that deter A? Perhaps A will say "I am willing to lose 200,000 per city in 10 of my cities.

But B goes on to build 100 nukes of 25 kt. Now A was not deterred by the idea of loss of 100,000 people nor by the idea of loss of 2 million. But will he like the idea of losing 10 million across 20 cities?

Sooner or later the pain that B can inflict on A will cross a threshold that A cannot accept. It does not matter that A has 1000 or 10,000, or 1 million nukes of 1 megaton each. B was already fully deterred by only 10 of those and B has decided not to attack A. But after B crosses the threshold of pain for A , country A gets deterred by B even if country A is armed with 100,000,000 gigabooms. A will then hesitate to attack B even though he enjoys superiority in numbers because he is unwilling to accept the pain that B can inflict.

That is deterrence. That is all that matters.

[NRao]

Any way to display tables out here? (Not lists. Or Code.)

[abhiti]

So, why is that China did not use ANY of those things when India supposedly did not even have a nuke? Or a missile to deliver if she had a nuke? Talk first about deterrence THEN about destruction. What has prevented China - so far - from using her might when Indo-Sino relationships have never were top of the line (today in fact the trade is like never before).

By your logic you China will never attack India, anyone who suggests otherwise is plain war monger. This does explain your opposition to any nuclear test by India.

Or, what makes you think China will use or under what circumstances will China use all these powerful devices to subdue India?What is preventing China from just taking AP or doing whatever she wants? For ALL these years - from 1971.

You need to look...don't expect to be spoon fed.

[abhiti]

Do a thought experiment. Imagine 2 nations A and B - each is big enough to have more than 100 cities.

Do a little thought experiment and explain to me why speed of light will be the same no matter speed and direction of your motion? You are trying to propose your own theory of deterrence to replace a cold war tested theory of deterrence.

[shiv]

explain to me why speed of light will be the same no matter speed and direction of your motion?

er - You need to look...don't expect to be spoon fed.