ShauryaT wrote:
Indian policy was stupid enough to enact as a reaction to Pakistan's nuclearization, when we had this capability to test in the 60's and appropriate threats too. What you are doing is asking for a continuation of a similar policy that holds our arsenal's evolution hostage to Pakistan's capability based on the fear that Pakistan too, will get an opportunity to level and enhance the credibility of their nuclear designs. Such an approach degrades India's capabilities yet ignores a critical "proven" fact that Pakistan has serious help from China in the area of nuclear warhead design and associated materials and technologies. The association of the triad is not some alleged conspiracy but a well proven fact for someone not to see the threat clearly. You CANNOT compartmentalize the threats in this way.
Shiv: Suffice to say, your position is far off from ANY serious practitioner of, what Indian needs are and how to go about them.
The part in bold letters above is a misrepresentation of my position.
I have been asking, "What will testing achieve with regard to
deterrence with regard to Pakistan. Somehow I suspect you and many others confuse deterrence with subjects unrelated to deterrence. I posit that testing will not do anything extra to deter Pakistan, but will still allow them to openly create the capability of hurting us more.
Your claim that Pakistan gets everything from China is an old one that is always held up to kill any sceptical views. Of course Pakistan gets technology and material from China. But if it gets everything what is the need for Pakistan to cooperate with Korea and get the designs of this new "Thermonuclear bomb" that Korea is claimed to have tested? If Pakistan has got it from China they should be sitting tight. If they have not - then the statement that they have got everything from China is a bogey.
Let me take up these two possibilities separately:
1. Pakistan has already got everything from China. they do not need anything from NoKo
- If this is the case why are we suddenly jumping up and down and howling that Pakistan is getting TN from Korea so let us test. Clearly that is a specious claim for a nation that should have tested long ago rather than riding on North Korea's back
2. Pakistan has not got refined TN designs from China and this Korean test has the signature of Pakistani cooperation:
- If this is true then what I say holds. By testing we are giving Pakistan a free hand to refine whatever they want whenever they want
In both cases our testing now does not aid deterrence in any way. If we must test we must test using a better excuse than Noko's tests. That is where this discussion started.
As regards the fact that I am not the expert and someone else is, to me it only means that I can freely voice my views and present them as forcefully as I can. No one is under any obligation to accept them. On those lines I am somewhat bemused by Nagal's alleged statement that scientists have been given too large a role in talking about nukes.
This is absolutely true for two reasons:
1. Nukes are all science. They are useful for military posturing. Military posturing is part of deterrence. The scientists talk about science and the generals must speak about military posturing
2. Generals are not allowed to talk much, so the media allow scientists to talk muchly about Indian nukes
Note that whenever scientists have spoken in India we have got a mixed picture of our nukes and their capability. That in fact is the genesis of the TN test debate. Whenever the generals (or other military people) have mentioned the use of nukes - their words have been taken very seriously
Maybe we need more people to talk and debate. The main argument against what I am saying is that I am status quo-ist and that I subscribe to old and invalid viewpoints and that a lot of people feel otherwise and they should know better than me. I am hardly disputing that, but when I ask questions that I want answers for, no one is able to offer answers other than the above rhetoric.
Nagal's views are something that I will not accept as correct especially his view that tactical nuclear weapons use by Pakistan should be met with a feeble response that does not escalate. I will not even bother quoting the other "experts" who say what I am saying. This is what Nagal says:
Nagal says India's 'response to a few or one (Pakistani) tactical nuclear weapons should not be disproportionate which could result in an all-out nuclear war', and 'escalation control should be practiced in conventional and nuclear war on moral and humanitarian considerations. The strategy is not rational, (and) our political leadership may not show resolve during crisis or at the time of decision'.
Here is another statement attributed to Nagal
“Beijing has long managed a thermonuclear program, and so this is one of many options India should push forwards with, as well as reconsidering our nuclear defense posture, which is outdated and ineffective. We have to follow the technological curve. And where China took it, several decades before us, with the hydrogen bomb, India has to follow.”
This statement means that India does not have "thermonuclear bombs" and needs to go that way by testing. This is what Santhanam and many others have asserted. It is so well known that all our discussion about deterrence are based on that. The question I am asking is what is the difference made to deterrence by the quest to change from the "low hanging technological fruit" of 150 kt boosted fission and a 250 kt" "high hanging technological fruit" thermonuclear bomb? Do we have any idea of the warhead weights and sizes we have managed given our technological abilities?
My judgement of Nagal's statement is that he is a wily old cat who is helping to add to the fog. However he has a view on deterrence that I do not agree with. He wants removal of NFU and I have reservations about that because removing NFU is an invitation for Pakistan to remove our chaddis. They will simply keep doing Mumbais and Pathankots and ask "Where is our FU policy?"
Back to topic: If we need to test to validate new designs or refine old ones, we need to do that without tying that to NoKo's tests. We need to test because we want to and not because NoKo did it and Pakistan may benefit. For that the benefits to us have to be clear and unambiguous.
I have a little more to say - but in a new post
