Indian Nuclear Submarines -3

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 07 Mar 2016 23:40

The entire rationale of an assured 2nd strike capability via the submarine carried leg of the triad translates into mated warheads ready to fire on submarine launched missiles. The number of such mated/mounted warheads and/or submarines on patrol may differ from country to country but without such ready to fire missiles, there is no 2nd strike capability. The cost of that nuclear deterrent will escalate as the number of mated warheads or submarines on patrol rises as they have to be periodically dismantled, electronics, cores etc. That is what the Americans call "stewardship" of their deterrent.

If there are going to zero mated warheads why have the submarines on patrol at all? Have them sitting in the docks and then load them up when tensions rise? By definition then all nuclear submarine patrols will be training patrols. A deterrent patrol by definition needs ready to fire missiles.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Mar 2016 00:18

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 08 Mar 2016 00:45

Shiv,

First of all, I think this is a very pertinent debate we are having, well timed as Arihant may be commissioned soon. Members of the Forum certainly need to get our head around this subject as our opinions will seed questions in the public at large.

I believe deterrence does not come from doctrine alone, but our readiness level as well. Our doctrine dictates Massive Retailiation (MR) via second strike. Pakis have their own redlines including naval blockade, economic strangulation etc. The perception of deterrence from Paki nukes is higher as they have claimed to mount nukes on a tactical ballistic missile distributed at corps level
(or will do it) and oft stated willingness to use them in scenarios which India itself will not (due to NFU).

If India does not put out nukes out on submarine patrol, then I believe it erodes the deterrence value of our nuclear options as:

a) the enemy will not believe we have the wherewithal to complete the nuclear arming and strike back
b) the enemy may risk a chance of taking out our C&C and nuclear forces rendering us incapable of MR

[II] Onto tsarkar's point that we will have time to arm the warheads, but in the fog of escalation it will leave scope for politicos to dither from issuing the orders to even arm fearing loss of control. Imagine if Dec-13 happened when Arihant was in commission. When would Atalji have ordered arming the nukes? We were close to war in Jan first week - enough time to recall our subs from far reaches of the ocean and send them back? Did our IW assets tell us that jehadis were going to hit the parliament?

[III] Looking at this from numbers perspective. Say the country has 100 nuclear warheads in total. Of which say, 33 are ear marked for delivery by submarine force (our warheads maybe common with army so there is no ear marking at all - we don't know). As per published and practiced policy the air and army weapons are kept in demated state, so thats settled and we have to figure out how to manage the rest.

We need not put all 33 warheads out at sea. But I could have 1 submarine with 8 warheads on patrol, and another 16 in various readiness states, and remaining on shore. The complete navy, MoD, PMO will have to train themselves and practice deterrence over years to get it right. If there is war upon us, will we rush to dust off those books with protocols, arming warheads, replenishing submarines, getting the DSRVs out etc etc to suddenly reach a level of readiness which they are not used to?

We may not even have a SSBN on patrol all 52 weeks, but I would certainly like to have one a certain number of weeks in an year.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Mar 2016 01:21

If Arihant's base gets n-attacked where will we have the time to arm? Like it or not, deterrence patrols will likely be carried out with missiles onboard.
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/04/ssbnpatrols/

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Mar 2016 04:23

^^^

That's why "multi-role SSBN" doesn't make sense. The sole purpose of "SSBN" is for nuclear deterrence and not much else. Yes, they are expensive to keep on constant patrol and maintain and whose real use may never come, but that is the price of becoming a nuclear-armed state with mutually-assured-destruction (MAD) policy.

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Mar 2016 04:39

According to the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) research paper on UK maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent, India's Arihant would fall under option three: A ‘Dual-Capable’ Submarine Force. Read the highlighted text below.

Successor to the UK Trident System: Alternatives

...
The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a British defence and security think tank, released a paper in July 2010 assessing "four possible options for maintaining both an effective nuclear deterrent and also reducing costs in light of anticipated budget restrictions." These proposals were motivated by the fact that funding for the Trident renewal programme must now come from the core MoD budget.

The paper outlined four options consistent with the purposes of cost reduction:

A ‘Normally-CASD’ Submarine Force: "Under this option, the UK would maintain Trident missiles and submarines, and CASD [Continuous At-Sea Deterrence] would be maintained as normal operating practice. But the MoD would accept an increased risk of short interruptions in CASD in the event of unforeseen, and low-probability, mishaps or accidents."

A ‘CASD-Capable’ Submarine Force: "Under this option, the attempt to maintain CASD in normal circumstances would be abandoned, and replaced by an assumption that it would only be necessary to have the ability to reconstitute CASD if required, and then to maintain it for a significant (though not indefinite) period...In order to maintain a credible reconstitution capability, it would be necessary to maintain submarine patrols. But these would not necessarily have to be on a continuous basis."

A ‘Dual-Capable’ Submarine Force: "This would maintain the plan to build new submarines, but with only four missile tubes (compared with the twelve currently planned) and with an explicit design mandate that asked designers to allow them also to perform conventional roles...It would not be possible, however, for potential adversaries to detect whether or not a particular boat was nuclear-armed when it went on patrol. Such an arrangement could, in time, combine increased survivability for the nuclear force while also holding out the possibility of further reductions in the size and readiness of the nuclear deterrent."

A Non-Deployed Strategic Force: "A more radical option would be to abandon submarine-based nuclear weapons altogether, relying instead on a non-deployed arsenal to provide deterrence of future nuclear attacks...The key to an effective UK nuclear deterrent based on this option would be guaranteed, but not prompt, retaliation." Although concluding that "such an option is probably too radical to be politically acceptable at present...It should not be ruled out as a longer-term option, however, perhaps as part of a multilateral agreement to move to lower states of nuclear readiness."

...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Mar 2016 05:00

ideal against mad pakis and chinese. of course this is utilized only when all our ~~nuke-proof~~land based silos and road based canisters become non-functional due to first strike.

btw, is there anything called nuke-proof launch facilities?

member_20067 · Post by **member_20067** » 08 Mar 2016 06:42

SaiK wrote:ideal against mad pakis and chinese. of course this is utilized only when all our ~~nuke-proof~~land based silos and road based canisters become non-functional due to first strike.

btw, is there anything called nuke-proof launch facilities?

Has anyone thought of secretly basing warheads in the hostile country itself? Like smuggled in real warhead and keeping them a secret and let the cat out if needed? just kidding though

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Mar 2016 07:01

and

that is exactly the reason we have treaties for such that no paki mullah gets his whimscial chippanda friend hiring him one to test a bum on their enemy lands.

if you want to do it, now is the time to do so at noko

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Mar 2016 08:41

geeth wrote:If missiles are never going to be mated in peacetime, why is that guy walking behind the PM with a suitcase aĺl the time? You cant fool the public all the time!. If there going to be sufficient warning and time for launch, I would say such an elaborate set up with multiple safety keys is not required

.
It has a towel.and lungi for travel.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Mar 2016 08:43

the suitcase usually houses a folding bullet proof blanket and sometimes a additional weapons for quick use like a MPx.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2016 08:45

geeth wrote: What you say doesn't sound logically correct. The very idea of having a nuclear submarine force is to have a strike capability even if we have to bear a surprise first strike..in such a scenario, if you say "the reality is that submarines sail with their tubes empty", then that submarine force doesn't become part of the nuclear triad. So, it is not wet dreams or masturbation if someone says they expect the submarines sail with ready to fire missiles. If that is not trues, then having such a submarine force is a waste. Cost, technogy or any other bla bla cannot and should not be the reason. Simply put, if it is not the case, then we simply do not have the so called nuclear triad complete.

ldev wrote: If there are going to zero mated warheads why have the submarines on patrol at all? Have them sitting in the docks and then load them up when tensions rise? By definition then all nuclear submarine patrols will be training patrols. A deterrent patrol by definition needs ready to fire missiles.

Karan M wrote:If Arihant's base gets n-attacked where will we have the time to arm? Like it or not, deterrence patrols will likely be carried out with missiles onboard.
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/04/ssbnpatrols/

All perfectly correct.

But let me state the problem. Other than our own personal conclusions that it is desirable and logical and necessary to have ready and mated warheads, which Indian official policy statement has ever deviated from the openly proclaimed norm that India's fissile material will be kept in a de-mated condition under the control of the Atomic Energy dept away from the rest of the warhead?

Overnight, I got an interesting link on Twitter from a BRF lurker. Actually the link is terrific and worth watching - a very lucid 2014 talk by Adm (retd) Vijay Shankar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZpIrZvP0Co
Starting around 41:30 as the message to me mentioned, the Admiral says that the mating process in canisterized submarine missiles is not one of "using a wheelbarrow to cart the warhead to the missile and using wrenches to do the mating" but the mating is electronic.

While the Admiral's words are very reassuring, I believe that he is referring to security locking of a warhead that is already mated with the delivery system. He speaks generalities and may or may not be referring to India's specific policy.

What I have been going on about is India's stated policy of keeping fissile material away from rest of warhead so that the warhead itself cannot be placed on a delivery vehicle until the fissile material, under control of dept of Atomic Energy is put inside the warhead. In short - Pu cores and Tritium are kept separate from warheads in storage and if nuclear war is likely to occur those cores will be put into warheads and those warheads delivered to teh appropriate end user. Naturally everyone will ask "How can this be a safe policy of deterrence". Well you folks need to answer that one. I am doing the asking because I have not seen any statements of change of policy

I would be happy to see any statements that this policy has changed. I repeat that I am unhappy and unsatisfied by statements that "It is logical" to have them mated or that 'it is a no brainer that they must be mated" etc. these are simply assumptions. No one. I repeat NO ONE seems to have pointed out this huge anomaly between earlier policy statements and the reality of deterrence. I am only seeing assumptions that make us imagine that al iz vel. To quote Shreeman on this

"You're only saying that to reassure us"

I am asking: "What if all your assumptions about what is logical, or desirable, or obvious, are wrong and India's policy of safety in deterrence enters around keeping fissile material out of warhead and warhead out of missile holds true until someone feels that the threat is high enough to actually have working ready to use nukes?"

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Mar 2016 08:54

ballistic briefcase - quick deployment shield to protect VVIP against small arms in a shooter situation as s/he is hustled to safety. some also carry compact assault rifles and sawn off shotguns for heavier punch to supplement usual revolvers and pistols carried on person. its kept inside a briefcase to not look unseemly in formal gatherings.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2016 08:55

Singha wrote:ballistic briefcase - quick deployment shield to protect VVIP against small arms in a shooter situation as s/he is hustled to safety

In other words the briefcase is only ballistic. No mijjile

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Mar 2016 08:56

we shall see...we shall see...more clarifications will come once the arihant and aridaman joins service .

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 08 Mar 2016 09:16

[quote]
I am asking: "What if all your assumptions about what is logical, or desirable, or obvious, are wrong and India's policy of safety in deterrence enters around keeping fissile material out of warhead and warhead out of missile holds true until someone feels that the threat is high enough to actually have working ready to use nukes?"/quote]

Then we are no different from bakis in bluffing. I always wonder what Chidambaram is doing in PMO...why he is not being relieved even after so many years?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2016 09:22

geeth wrote:
I am asking: "What if all your assumptions about what is logical, or desirable, or obvious, are wrong and India's policy of safety in deterrence enters around keeping fissile material out of warhead and warhead out of missile holds true until someone feels that the threat is high enough to actually have working ready to use nukes?"
Then we are no different from bakis in bluffing. I always wonder what Chidambaram is doing in PMO...why he is not being relieved even after so many years?

Given the question I asked, your conclusion is correct. I believe this needs to be discussed out in the open. With italian and mouse at the helm I am not at all certain that warheads would be kept mated and ready, mouse actually went to Bush and cried after 26/11, maybe because so many foreigners were killed by misguided youth. But sorry. I digress. No more. better in the deterrence thread

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Mar 2016 10:35

Warheads and missiles will be mated when the SSBNs go out on patrol.However,if you've seen a few HWood films,Crimson Tide(?) being one,there is a multi-layered procedure before a sub can launch any of its missiles and USN subs now have to get the Pres' authorisation first. IN SSBNs will similarly -as do all SSBNs in other nuclear navies,go through this most secure process before they can launch anything. The same will go for land-based and air-launched/dropped warheads.

If you want a few nightmares and a belly-full of laughs,pl watch Dr.Strangelove,with the unmatchable Peter Sellers at his best in his triple-act role.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Mar 2016 11:15

there is a less wacky movie named "fail safe"(1964). worth a watch imo. a grizzled old vietnam era vet lent me the B&W video unasked when he found out I was interested in mil stuff.

a troop of US B36 type bombers with live warheads were in one era always kept flying in the sky for a instant "go" decision and target list already handed out. one such unit receives a garbled go order, and despite some doubt decides to press on to bomb the USSR, attempts to recall them are rebuffed as fake deception attempts by the pilots.....I wont spoil the ending
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmw91o4OAfA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail_Safe_(1964_film) <=== spoiler alert

the same premise of a garbled "go" order and its interpretation is the story in crimson tide.

our planners and society will also have to deal with these questions soon.

ssaravanan · Post by **ssaravanan** » 08 Mar 2016 12:13

I have a question. If our nuclear submarines are going to sea with out the missiles loaded, will it not affect its under water performance because of the empty missile tubes?

On the other hand if we load a dummy missile with an equivalent weight of the original one during patrols, in case of war, is it not going to be a time consuming exercise to remove the dummy first and then load the actual missile when we are pressing for time to send the submarines to sea at the earliest to ensure the second strike capability?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Mar 2016 12:24

Shiv,

>>>But let me state the problem. Other than our own personal conclusions that it is desirable and logical and necessary to have ready and mated warheads, which Indian official policy statement has ever deviated from the openly proclaimed norm that India's fissile material will be kept in a de-mated condition under the control of the Atomic Energy dept away from the rest of the warhead?

Where has India ever stated how its warheads will be kept and what business is it of ours to tell the world this?
Following common sense practice (costs/missile maintenance etc), I suspect the Arihant will do a few deterrence patrols per year, some with warheads, some without, but IN and DRDO/DAE will sit down with SFC and work out whether they can "activate" or "load up" the missiles in quick fashion post a strike on our facilities. If not possible quickly, then a call has to be taken if the Arihant has to be permanently deployed with onboard missiles and the missiles refurbished after x time.
For the Prithvi, once fuelled, the missile could be deployed IIRC for some 5 years before it would have to be brought back for refuelling and maintenance, though i am going purely by memory here and it could be even more years.

I must be one of the few (or only ones on this board) who was completely dismayed by that video of the good Admiral. Sorry to say this, but he appeared way too diffident and ready to portray a good boy image of India and its deterrence. Perhaps that was just him being too civilized. I wait for the day when an Indian Admiral or civilian would be brutally blunt at any such discussion and tell everyone repeatedly that any attack would be met with disproportionate retaliation, come what may. Instead of invoking Gandhi, non violence etc. When he mentioned asking the PM for his guidance and direction, I literally cringed because this is/was the fundamental weakness of our system, that the military has to depend on the political executive for direction, even on such issues as versus their being a process purely driven by cold hearted realism, and given what we know of our erstwhile PM, one may well wonder how wishy washy the direction was, which would limit the resources available to SFC or even their mandate. Karnad (who can be as wrong as he is right) does state though that MMS's govt was all but dependent on the tacit US nuclear umbrella, which if true, is a telling admission of our failure to adequately weaponize even if Saran says all iz well and then promptly calls his own judgement into contrast by posting glowing reviews of his trip to TSP. All said and done, we have a new Govt in power and I hope (that's all I can do) that Modi is sufficiently aware and does not rely on anyone else's borrowed strength and gives the right support to our SFC and its personnel.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 08 Mar 2016 16:44

All we can do is speculate. We are not going to hear anything public on this. That being said, we can assume a portion of the warheads will always be ready to use.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 08 Mar 2016 16:57

Karan M wrote:I wait for the day when an Indian Admiral or civilian would be brutally blunt at any such discussion and tell everyone repeatedly that any attack would be met with disproportionate retaliation, come what may.

General Paddy! I once touched his feet, when I ran into him at a wedding he was attending in Chennai years after his retirement.... Am not a touching feet type, but a fearless general deserves unconditional respect

I agree that Cheen's first strike might obliterate a facility that can physically mate a DAE package. The boats have to go out with full primed mijjiles, if the intention is anything more than a floating harbour barge.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 08 Mar 2016 17:06

I just replied in Deterrence thread. Some members are using their awesome imagination to defy logic and analytical thoughts, I ask them " In near future even our land based mijjiles would be canasterized, how their imaginations permit to demat such mijjile" for operational use.

Don't tell me that we have stated policy of filling the tubes and hermatically sealing them when ballon goes up.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Mar 2016 18:05

do any of the other nuclear powers including noko and israel follow this new concept of DD (dharmic deterrence)?
and this despite not having cheen breathing down their neck.

maybe DD was semi-viable against cheen being a 'rational actor' but with a nutcase like TSP also in the ring, nothing less than keeping 20% of our holding all warmed up and ready to cook gives a comfortable feeling in my lungi...and vs Cheen, another 30% has to be ready to roll out very fast within 1-2 days.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 08 Mar 2016 18:13

That is exactly what I have been thinking that they are electronically demated with an extremely regulated mating process to avoid accidents. The idea of a SDRE in his dhoti or mundu running to the AEC with his fissile core and other stuff under his cycle after a first strike and trying to assemble a warhead that will be transported by IR at 70 kmph to the naval base is not very encouraging.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Mar 2016 18:24

why go ballistic to dabao buttons? multi-factor keys are needed. pm sahibs finger print, retina scan and his secret password part with RSA scheme to open the device. pm sahib can do this all from his pocket dedicated mobile device.

again, this is a pre-launch go ahead signal onree. the afsars on arihant have their code to finish the bijnej.. to stop the launch, he has to enter the same protected device, and send abort launch code. if it is already in mid-course, then an oppty to make it remain dormant orbiting the earth at geo is a possibility. there would be enough fuel to survive 100 years in space, and the nukes don't dissipate that fast.

and who says space-based delivery is impossible?

this technology will not send shibbers to the neighborhood, but big honcho P5 nations as they would feel it might drop on them anytime. so, the deterrence value is huge! they will think billion times before first launch against such mid-course correction tech. yahoo! the noose will tighten on pakis, chips and noko entities with such tech. bring it on!

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Mar 2016 18:51

Aditya G wrote:Imagine if Dec-13 happened when Arihant was in commission. We were close to war in Jan first week - enough time to recall our subs from far reaches of the ocean and send them back?

Actually both during Kargil in 1999 and 2001-2, Indian Navy deployment was far effective and efficient than Indian Army or Air Force. Operation Talwar was the IN operation in 1999. Here is its effectiveness from Pakistani Navy Cdr (Retd) MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN at http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/apr/seaspark.htm

If memory serves us right (since we are a nation bereft of any useful memory), in its final stages it was the “threat of blockade” that eventually pulled the curtains down on Kargil and the then able-minded Prime Minister dashed to Washington to receive the concluding bashing from our masters in the Oval office.

From Transition to Guardianship: The Indian Navy 1991–2000 by Admiral Hiranandani, I am typing the relevant text

On 25th May, IA launched Operation Vijay, IAF launched Operation Safed Sagar and IN launched Operation Talwar.

However, on 20th May itself, IN missile boats were deployed at Ohka

On 23rd May, NHQ directed Pakistani fleet movements to be monitored

By 25th May, Western Fleet had sailed from Mumbai. NHQ ordered missiles to be operationalized and also ordered tight control over forward deployed forces to avoid trigger happy misadventure.

By 27th May, Western Fleet was forward deployed "off Saurashtra". Coast Guard placed under IN control.

By 29th May, Eastern Fleet started fully combat ready

PN HQ issues directive "to keep well clear of Indian Navy"

Second week of June PN disperses its fleet to Pasni, Ormara, Gwadar & Jivani and starts escorting its tankers from Gulf

Third week of June Pakistan announces deploying nuclear missiles. IN missile armed ships move closer to Pakistan in reaction.

By 30th June, Amphibious Brigade is moved from Port Blair to Goa. IN apprehends North Korean ship carrying missile component to Pakistan.

So coming back to the point, a non warhead mated policy will factor the time required to deploy the live missiles on submarines.

Aditya G wrote:Did our IW assets tell us that jehadis were going to hit the parliament?

Which DEFCON level a jihadi attack triggers is for policy makers to define. Or whether we retaliate nuclear for a jihadi strike.

Aditya G wrote:When would Atalji have ordered arming the nukes?

Would Atalji have given the order to fire the missiles if they were on 24 x 7 alert? Even if missiles are on 24 x 7 alert, giving the order will be a leadership prerogative.

Aditya G wrote: the enemy may risk a chance of taking out our C&C and nuclear forces rendering us incapable of MR

This brings to the fore possibility of a situation called Dead Hand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)
Read how the Soviet thought of an automatic system and then realized how crazy it was.

As Shiv said, the possibility of 100% decapitating preemptive strike does not exist.

Aditya G wrote:The complete navy, MoD, PMO will have to train themselves and practice deterrence over years to get it right.

Correct

Aditya G wrote:We may not even have a SSBN on patrol all 52 weeks, but I would certainly like to have one a certain number of weeks in an year.

Yes, that will happen. Submarines will practice taking missiles to sea and firing them, just like SFC fires Agni missiles occasionally. Without nuclear warheads with instrumentation monitoring the triggering.

Like the RUSI document posted by srai says, while Indian Second Strike Doctrine is guaranteed & massive, however, no where does our doctrine says it'll be prompt.

Please also note that until 2015, Chinese Type 91 and Type 92 submarines never went on deterrence patrols. It was a non deployed Strategic Force as described in srai's post.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2016 18:52

India's policy according to a large number of sources has been to keep de-mated warheads with fissile cores care of AEC. But all recent articles say that this will change/must change with Arihant. But that also tells you what the current state of readiness might be like. Details and links in the deterrence thread in strat forum if anyone is interested.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 08 Mar 2016 19:01

^^ None of your so called sources are credible. The capability didn't exist in past that we have now with cannestarized Mijjile in land bases avatar and sea bases ones. We now have the capability period

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2016 19:29

krishna_krishna wrote:^^ None of your so called sources are credible. The capability didn't exist in past that we have now with cannestarized Mijjile in land bases avatar and sea bases ones. We now have the capability period

Fair enough. The references are there for people to read and people will read and believe them. I didn't write them though I have read references to them from time to time. If you think they are "not credible" that is your prerogative. Belief is a choice.

The other question that "cannestarized Mijjile" raises is "What is the use of Air Force deterrent?".How many Air Force delivered nuclear bombs exist? Will they be subject to the old "de mated treatment"? And what happens to Agni I, 2 and 3? No references that I know of. But that should not be a problem for anybody when we all have the choice of rubbishing any references that anyone quotes. Rubbishing references is a self goal - makes it easier to say things without quoting any source.

But these are OT for this thread - will cross post in the deterrence thread.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 08 Mar 2016 19:32

Correct. Unless you claim to have inside source it is mere speculation based on early 2000s announcements.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 08 Mar 2016 19:42

Gents,

I have it from a VCOAS in 2013 that warheads are not released to SFC. He said a couple of other things which I have very briefly alluded to earlier in context of us not having robust decision making and firing systems to withstand a first strike. Now things may have changed or with the third part of the triad ready we may release warheads for Arihant - I don't know.

But none of us can seriously doubt that when it comes to using weapons of any kind our political and bureaucratic class shies away. So with dues respect to posts from TSarkar sir I have to say I worry that if we don't have ready and mated warheads with the SFC our babu/neta class might get another excuse to do nothing after a first strike. Aided ably by DDM of course.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 08 Mar 2016 19:47

Akshay all I am saying is that will change or has already changed with induction of cannestarized Agni series and sea based k series. And there is no reasons to doubt it, in the deterrence dhga I have pasted yell from admiral Prakash alluding the same

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Mar 2016 20:15

krishna_krishna wrote:Akshay all I am saying is that will change or has already changed with induction of cannestarized Agni series and sea based k series. And there is no reasons to doubt it, in the deterrence dhga I have pasted yell from admiral Prakash alluding the same

You have not even bothered to read, or not understood the Arun Prakash article you posted and that is shameful. Adm Prakash says much of what I have said and more. He criticizes the policy of demated warheads But you have not understood. You are allowed to bluff yourself, but don't expect that others will necessarily join you in your joyful comfort zone.

Details in the deterrence thread.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 08 Mar 2016 20:38

Take it what is its worth .. during 1999 ... there was night delivery of some basic stuff at least at a forward base not so close to the border. It could have been at more then one place but not so sure.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 08 Mar 2016 20:45

@Krishna

There are two things here - doctrine & technology.

Why is there an assumption that canister is hermetically sealed at factory and cannot be opened for maintenance or other purposes?

Or that introducing canister will change maintenance norms or doctrine.

Supratik · Post by **Supratik** » 08 Mar 2016 20:49

The Adm Prakash article is from March, 2014. That posture is nothing new and has been in effect since the early 2000s. Usually Indian govt takes decision when they really have to or forced to. Now that Arihant has fired SLBMs they will have to take a decision on whether to deploy or not. There are two possibilities 1) they are carried on submarines but electronically demated, 2) they are stored near the submarine base and can be loaded on short notice. Similar decision needs to be taken on the phase 1 ABM deployment which I believe was scuppered by the UPA under US pressure. We may or may not know the exact status. The Indian nuclear program is very opaque e.g. no one knows how many warheads we have. So the level of deployment status may remain a secret.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Mar 2016 20:52

tsarkar wrote:[

Like the RUSI document posted by srai says, while Indian Second Strike Doctrine is guaranteed & massive, however, no where does our doctrine says it'll be prompt.

Local assembly elections will decide the timing of the response.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Mar 2016 20:55

sealed or not, it must open the seal at launch