Deterrence

[Manish_Sharma]

Ok Ramana jee !

No more from me on this.

[Amber G.]

About dirty bombs - For interested people very useful information:

I may have posted my views before let me link a very good article from Muller. (His thesis adviser Alvarez was the one who designed the US implosion device and witness Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings from B29 taking measurements). Muller is/was on the science-team which advises(d) Obama about such things. In his words - The biggest danger from radiological weapons is the misplaced panic that they would cause.

Here is the article: (posting in full)
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/29-Dirty_Bombs.htm

mirrored from
The Dirty Bomb Distraction
Technology Review Online

Technology for Presidents

June 23, 2004
Terrorists might attack the U.S. homeland again this summer, the Justice Department and the FBI warned last month. The same day, the Department of Energy announced a $450 million plan to counter terrorist nuclear weapons and dirty bombs. And shortly afterwards, the Justice Department released some details about Jose Padilla, the one-time street thug who had received extensive al Qaeda training and had hoped to explode a dirty bomb in the United States. But according to the Justice Department announcement, al Qaeda had doubted that Padilla’s proposal to build a dirty bomb was practical. They directed him instead to blow up two apartment buildings using natural gas. They apparently felt that such an action would have a greater chance of spreading death and destruction than would a radiological weapon.
Al Qaeda was right. Perhaps that should scare you. Al Qaeda appears to understand the limitations of these devices better than do many government leaders, newspapers, and even many scientists.

Our experience with radiological weapons—the fancier name for dirty bombs—is limited. They do not require a chain reaction like fission or fusion weapons, but instead use ordinary explosives to spread pre-existing radioactive material. Saddam Hussein reportedly tested such a weapon in 1987, but abandoned the effort when he saw how poorly it worked. In 1995, Chechen rebels buried dynamite and a small amount of the radioactive isotope cesium-137 in Moscow’s Ismailovsky park. They then told a TV station where to dig it up. Perhaps they recognized the truth: that the bomb’s news value could be greater if it were discovered before it went off. For such weapons, the psychological impact can be greater than the limited harm they are likely to cause.


I don’t mean to suggest that radioactive materials are harmless. Indeed, consider the story of scavengers in Goiania, Brazil, who found and dismantled an abandoned radiotherapy machine in 1987. The machine contained 1,400 curies of cesium-137. (A curie is the radioactivity of one gram of radium.) Two men, one woman, and one child died from acute radiation poisoning; 250 additional people were contaminated. Several of the 41 houses evacuated could not be cleaned adequately and were demolished.

Imagine now if that radiation weren’t confined to a few houses, but were spread over the city by an explosion. Wouldn’t fatalities be higher? The surprising answer is: No. If the radioactivity were dispersed in that way, larger area would have to be evacuated, yet in all probability no specific deaths could be attributed to the event.

To understand the details, let’s walk through the design of a dirty bomb similar to what Padilla wanted to build. I’ll assume the same amount of radioactive material as was in Goiania: 1,400 curies of cesium-137. Radiation damage is measured in units called rem, and if you stand one meter from that source, you’ll absorb 450 rems in less than an hour. That’s called LD50, for lethal dose 50 percent. Untreated, you’ll have a 50 percent chance of dying in the next few months from that exposure.

To try do enhance the damage, let’s use explosives to spread our 1,400 curies over a larger area, say a neighborhood one kilometer square. That will result in a radioactivity of 1.4 millicuries per square meter, and a careful calculation shows that residents will get a dose of 140 rems per year. But radiation illness is nonlinear. For extended exposures, the lethal dose increases by the fourth root of time, to approximately 1,250 rems for a one-year exposure and 2,500 rems for a 16-year exposure. So 140 rems per year is not enough to trigger radiation illness, even if you stayed there 24/7 for a decade. Radioactive contamination may be the one case for which the solution to pollution really is dilution.

There will be no dead bodies at the scene, unless someone is killed by the explosion itself. I suspect that’s why al Qaeda instructed Jose Padilla to abandon the dirty bomb concept and try to plan a natural gas explosion instead.

But even a dirty bomb without casualties could spread nuclear panic, based on the danger of long-term cancer. For doses in the 100-rem range, results from historical exposures suggest the increased risk of cancer is about 0.04 percent per rem. That’s a 6 percent increase in your chance of dying from cancer for each year you spend in the square kilometer. If the radioactivity were spread over a larger area, e.g., a 10- by 10-kilometer square, then the dose would be lower (12.6 rems per year) and so would the added risk of cancer: 0.06 percent per year of exposure. (I am assuming, conservatively, that risk is proportional to dose, even at low doses. With such contamination, would I evacuate my home? Not if I were allowed to stay. To me, the increased risk—from the pre-existing average risk of cancer of about 20 percent per year to, say, 20.06 percent—is not significant.

But I wouldn’t be given the choice. The exposure of 12.6 rems per year is 126 times more than the yearly limit allowed to the public. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency decontamination standard is 0.025 rems per year, meaning that 98 percent of the radioactivity would have to be removed before I would be allowed to return to my home.

In the September 11 attacks, the terrorists took advantage of U.S. policy and prejudices. They knew they didn’t need guns to take control because pilots had been instructed to cooperate with hijackers; nobody expected hijackers to turn planes into weapons. Similarly, a terrorist today might use a radiological weapon, not because of its actual damage, but in anticipation the out-of-scale panic and ensuing economic disruption that the weapon could trigger.

Could other radiological attacks be more potent than our hypothesized cesium-137 example? Electrical generators powered by the decay of radioisotopes, found in abandoned lighthouses in Russia, held 400,000 curies of strontium-90. But strontium-90 emits virtually no gamma rays; it is harmful only if you breathe it or ingest it. A cloud of aerosolized Sr-90 can kill—but it does not stay in the air for long. For the same reason, even a radiological bomb made using plutonium is unlikely to be dangerous. Anthrax would be deadlier, and much easier to obtain and transport. Nuclear waste storage facilities and nuclear reactors contain vastly more radioactivity, and the danger from them is substantial, if their radioactivity can be released.

If small dirty bombs threaten so little harm, why are they lumped in with true weapons of mass destruction? The reason is: it’s the law, as written in the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 104-201) and other places, including California penal code 11417. Defining them this way was a mistake that could lead to misallocation of resources and a general overreaction if such weapons were used. I hope, and expect, that most of the $450 million to be spent on the anti-nuclear initiative announced last month will be used to protect us from nuclear explosives and attacks on nuclear storage areas, and not specifically from radiological weapons.

If terrorists do attack this summer using a dirty bomb, the resulting death might come from automobile accidents as people flee. Dirty bombs are not weapons of mass destruction, but weapons of mass disruption. Their success depends on public and government overreaction. Beware not radioactivity but nuclear panic. The main thing we have to fear from a dirty bomb is fear itself.

[shiv]

It is you who is a pathetically butt-hurt jerk.

You had left this forum in a huff BUTT-HURT and joined DFI. If I remember correctly you had told Rohitvats that you are not coming back. But you crawled back in, nobody asked you to come back.

With pathetic excuse of BRF should be modeled like DFI, but you were totally rejected. And shamelessly you pathetic beggar had no choice but to stay.

I quoted usuf on his thread and opposed him but he never answered. I had made it a point to put it on BRF as soon as its up.

Its your personal view that BRF is like a personal club, you had wrote this in response to Sanku, and I quoted and threw that post on your face when you crawled back in from DFI to BRF saying BRF is like a private club. We should be open.

Usuf wrote:
I have a different take on how India should respond to a Pakistani first strike.

India does not have to respond with nuclear weapons to a Pakistani nuke strike.

------------------------------------
My Take:

It seems the writer Usuf is more worried about deaths of porkis. While casually drawing a picture of Delhi and Mumbai obliterated. It does not anger him that the Nation Bharat that has fed him, educated and gave oppurtunity to rise and prosper GETS NUKED by suar porkis.

Manish Sharmaji please post a link to the discussion on DFI so I can see it for myself.

You stated that you posted your views on DFI, Yusuf did not answer, but others opposed your views, so you came back to BRF and posted your views about a DFI discussion. And you accuse me of crawling back to BRF?

I know that club members often look for support among their own, expecting that their viewpoint will be more acceptable to a cosier group, but sorry I am unable to offer your views support on BRF. I would prefer to read the discussion on DFI and post my views there. You brought the subject up, so I repeat. Please post a link so that I can crawl back to DFI.

[Manish_Sharma]

As promised to Ramana ji, no more on this from me.

Here is the link to the page where I posted, my poster name is "Tripurantak" :
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... st-1182332

Usuf wrote:
I have a different take on how India should respond to a Pakistani first strike.

India does not have to respond with nuclear weapons to a Pakistani nuke strike.

------------------------------------
"Tripurantak wrote" :

It seems the writer Usuf is more worried about deaths of porkis. While casually drawing a picture of Delhi and Mumbai obliterated. It does not anger him that the Nation Bharat that has fed him, educated and gave oppurtunity to rise and prosper GETS NUKED by suar porkis.

Imagine Delhi and Mumbai 2 cities and surrounding area of 5 crore population dead, and Bharat's army moves to dismember porkistan that that land of inbreds marrying their own cousins and producing retarded inbred race don't get to face the radiation like us Bharatvaasis?

While such a big disaster has happened army will move to porkis as nothing has happened its supply lines unaffected and all.... waah kya baat kahi. Clap!

And what will dismemberment get us. Same as those inbred perverted bhooka bangladeshis did, burn our BSF jawaans alive during Vajpayee regime.

Same 4 - 5 muslim nations Baluch, Sindh, Punjab & Pakhtunkhwa will be doing.

Retardedness of the idea is that you take a bottle of poison wash its lable "pakistan" off. Divide the contents of the same bottle in 4 smaller ones with new lables AND THEN drink it down you will be all right. 'Poison' won't effect you. Haa haa genius Usuf.

This is how probably ISI's ghazwa e hind branch thinks.

Pakistan & Bangladesh muslim population was 6 to 7 crore in 1947 at partition time.

In Bharat muslim population was around 4 crore at that time.

Now porkis and bangladeshi populations are around 36 to 38 crores. That means growth of whopping 8 to 9 times.

After dismemberment bangladesh remains enemy to Bharat.

Same will be from dismembered porki nations.

Another weird thing Usuf says is that we can't obliterate the whole pakistan with nukes, so why use, just using conventional gola barood kill all porki army + those enemies inside porki land. THAT IS ALMOST WHOLE OF PORKLAND !!! How can conventional ammunition achieve what nucler can't?

And enemy china will be laughing seeing Bharat losing 2 biggest cities and weakened considerably.

Nope it seems under the garb of well wishing, Usuf is trying to save big chunk of muslim population on Bharatiya Upmahadweep.

Our nuclear retaliation should be on the dense part of population on this map:
http://www.bestcountryreports.com/media ... st_Pop.jpg

And pop goes porkis. And then we should also nuke Bangladesh as a weakened nuke Bharat will be easy prey for them too to eat up and mischief in our eastern borders.

This is the first page of that thread started by usuf himself :

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... ike.35091/

[shiv]

As promised to Ramana ji, no more on this from me.

Here is the link to the page where I posted, my poster name is "Tripurantak" :
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... st-1182332

This is the first page of that thread started by usuf himself :

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... ike.35091/

Thank you. I will read the thread on DFI and respond on that forum if I see fit

[Manish_Sharma]

Ok, I'll keep checking there!

[shiv]

This is the first page of that thread started by usuf himself :

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... ike.35091/

This post is the start of a 2012 discussion.

One of the accusations I have read (right or wrong) about nuclear war issues in India is the lack of discussion compared with the lengthy cold war discussions that were held in the US. Since that above post was made - Yusuf has written a formal "front page" article on DFI in 2014 - not a forum discussion.

I post the link here - with some excerpts - for discussion. Please read it all..

Reviewing India’s Nuclear Doctrine

To take into consideration the above and the prevailing threats, review of the Indian nuclear doctrine is most urgent.

*We have already changed our doctrine to no first use against non nuclear weapons state. But this was only via a statement issued by the former NSA. India will have to put it down in the revised doctrine or even totally do away with no first use as speculated although there is no need if NFU against NNWS is declared.
*Use of any other form of weapons of mass destruction like chemical or biological weapons by nuclear or non nuclear weapons state against India to be retaliated with nuclear weapons
* Article 2.3 of the nuclear doctrine states that such states shall be deemed nuclear weapons states if they ally with or assist nuclear-armed states against India, and/or assist them during hostilities. India can be more clear and explicit about this especially because of the threat the China-Pakistsn nexus poses for India, China’s proliferation to Pakistan and continues supoort to Pak nuclear program. India can declare that any nuclear weapons use by Pakistan against India will be seen as an attack by China and will be dealt with accordingly. This will force China to make Pakistan stand down from its reckless stand on nuclear weapons.
*Pakistan has started making battlefield nuclear weapons also known as tactical nuclear weapons. These weapons are aimed at stopping an armoured thrust into Pakistan by Indian Army in response to a terror attack like 26/11. Under current doctrine, it calls for a massive retaliation which means a counter value strike on its population center which will invite a similar strike by Pakistan on Indian cities. India will need to adopt a caliberated approach in this regard.
*There is a clear danger of nuclear weapons or radioactive weapons falling into the hands of Jihadis in the context of Pakistan or terrorists at large. This could be with active connivance of state actors wanting to maintain deniability. While that is uncertain to establish, it does not absolve state actors for explicit, implicit or negligent actions. Such actions should be punishable including punitive nuclear strikes on the enemy’s nuclear,terror and military infrastructure that aided these terrorists.
*India should shed its ambiguity about numbers and weapons yield and announce what it considers as a minimum credible number of nuclear weapons and its yield. This will let the enemy what it faces if it dared to strike India with nuclear weapons instead of a vague “unacceptable damage” postulation. It also serves to assure the Indian people about the credibility of Indian nuclear weapons. The number of nukes considered minimum credible is subject to review based on threat perception.
*Regular exercises by SFC, leadership and others involved to maintain operational readiness of the nuclear strike force under all circumstances including the breakdown of leadership and command structure in the event of a crippling first strike on India that wipes out its civil and military leadership.
*To keep the nuclear forces in a ready state by mating the warheads with the missiles and dispersing it across the country and on sea/undersea platforms.
*Preparing SOPs, command, control, communication systems for launch of nuclear weapons when India starts to keep its nuclear forces in a ready state.
*To continuously strive to create new weapoms designs and maintain the efficacy of warheads and missiles.
*Strive to strengthen the underwater arm of the nuclear triad with development and induction of intercontinental range submarine launched ballistic missiles and more numbers of nuclear powered submarines.
* In the event of deterrence breakdown, look to quickly terminate the nuclear exchange. While India may be in a position to impose unacceptable damage on the enemy, but any crippling strike that takes out India’s major population centers will set India back in a major way with implications that may last well beyond the nuke exchange and affect the very foundation of the country with respect to its unity, integrity and sovereignty.

Yusuf Administrator http://www.defenceforumindia.com

[Manish_Sharma]

Well as you see this is the 1st post of that thread, and seems written so differently :

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... ike.35091/

India's stated nuclear doctrine is that it's "deterrent" is a no first use and for inflicting unacceptable damage in retaliatory strikes.

I have a different take on how India should respond to a Pakistani first strike.

India does not have to respond with nuclear weapons to a Pakistani nuke strike.

Pakistans doctrine calls for use of nuclear weapons when
1) it looses a major chunk of its territory.
2) it looses a major chunk of its armed forces
3) there is severe economic and political hardship caused by ways of blockade.

Consider an all out war between India and Pakistan. Considering the above, it's most likely to use nuclear weapons when Indian armed forces capture cities like Lahore, destroy a major portion of the Pakistani fighting force.

In this scenario, pakistan has lost already lost the war and our troops are already in control of a lot of Pakistani territory. We cannot nuke our own forces.

In the scenario that Paksitan goes in for a first strike without any provocation or way below its threshold, India should still not retaliate with nuclear weapons.

India should come out with political and military goals for the next war which is likely to happen in the future.

Political goals.

India has to dismember Pakistan. We know of Sindh, Baloch, Pakhtun and Balwaristan movements.

If Pakistan has already gone nuclear and say destroyed Delhi and mumbai, it gives Indian forces free license to use disproportionate fire power to subdue, kill any opposition that comes in its way and together with local sympathetic forces, help them break away from the current republic of Pakistan as it stands. It should install regimes inimical to it and act as guarantor of future security. This means cities like Karachi, Hyderabad, Quetta cannot be nuked as it has people ready to break away from Pakistan and Indian forces will eventually be there. Again any opposition can be brutally suppressed as we have already suffered population losses due to Paki strike.

Military Objective.

Complete destruction of Paksitans war fighting capabilities. We capture/destroy their air assets and naval assets. With the break up of Sindh and Balocbistan, these assets can be provided to the new states under Indian protection.

There is the china factor in all this India clearly has to use the nuclear first strike threat against china for any interference and since we have already suffered a nuclear strike, it will not be prudent for china to interfere as it will have more to lose than India.

India retaliating in a "glass making" contest in a tit for tat attack will not help long term goals. We can kill those against us with guns and with all the brutality without bothering about human rights as we have already suffered population losses.

An Indian response to Paki nuke attack really does not have to be nuclear.

See I personally didn't know anything about usuf until I think Karan posted an video of his lecture.

So when BRF was down I was trawling through various forums, this thread caught my "Indian response to Pakistani nuclear strike" as I read, I felt this needs to be responded and thats when I used my regular email id to signup there to oppose him.

I had also made a mental note of bringing this to notice of brf on the lines of his thinking. Thats all.

[RoyG]

It is you who is a pathetically butt-hurt jerk.

You had left this forum in a huff BUTT-HURT and joined DFI. If I remember correctly you had told Rohitvats that you are not coming back. But you crawled back in, nobody asked you to come back.

With pathetic excuse of BRF should be modeled like DFI, but you were totally rejected. And shamelessly you pathetic beggar had no choice but to stay.

I quoted usuf on his thread and opposed him but he never answered. I had made it a point to put it on BRF as soon as its up.

Its your personal view that BRF is like a personal club, you had wrote this in response to Sanku, and I quoted and threw that post on your face when you crawled back in from DFI to BRF saying BRF is like a private club. We should be open.

Manish Sharmaji please post a link to the discussion on DFI so I can see it for myself.

You stated that you posted your views on DFI, Yusuf did not answer, but others opposed your views, so you came back to BRF and posted your views about a DFI discussion. And you accuse me of crawling back to BRF?

I know that club members often look for support among their own, expecting that their viewpoint will be more acceptable to a cosier group, but sorry I am unable to offer your views support on BRF. I would prefer to read the discussion on DFI and post my views there. You brought the subject up, so I repeat. Please post a link so that I can crawl back to DFI.

Tiff over nothing. Seriously, what's the point in even debating deterrence especially wrt to Pakistan. All this first strike, second strike, no strike is all nonsense. Post launch order will mark the most sadistic action packed 15-20 min the world has ever seen. The thought makes SPD sh*t their pants. In response they adopt some outdated NATO TNW strategy to hold themselves together as best they can while they implode. Isn't this fact alone enough to demonstrate failed deterrence on their end? They have become incredibly defensive in the past 5 years. They are waiting for us to do something. Not the other way around.

There has been a qualitative leap in our missile designs. This isn't for Pakistan. This is for those ******** upstairs. We should focus our attention on them and massa.

[shiv]

They are waiting for us to do something. Not the other way around.

And every minute they survive they think its a victory..

[RoyG]

They are waiting for us to do something. Not the other way around.

And every minute they survive they think its a victory..

Shiv,

Pakistan reminds me of the black knight from this scene from monty python and the holy grail

[Yusuf]

Just want to point out that Yusuf is a friend of mine. Of course if you have a disagreement with him - please keep it on DFI and don't port it to BRF

Thanks Doc.
Cross posting from DFI

Sir, no point arguing with people who go off tangent. In any case it's the official policy of India to react to a nuclear strike with a massive retaliation.

Two quick points.

1) Pakistan will use nukes if we ingress into Pak which means losing lot of territory. Means our troops may be in Lahore, Sialkot when Pak nukes us. Will we nuke Lahore, Sialkot where own troops have taken control & kill our own troops.

2) Point I made was having a strategic end point to the Pakistan problem. Bravado aside, we know that destroying Islamabad, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Karachi is not going to put an end to Pakistan. 160 million people are not going to be wiped out. Dismemberment of Pakistan, creating buffer/dependent states is how we can do it. In any case the majority problem comes from PakJab which will be land locked if we get Sindh & Balochistan to become independent countries under our protection.

[rsingh]

^^
Pardon!!
Pakistan will use nukes if we ingress into Pak which means losing lot of territory From where you got this? Baki's always belive in taking element of surprise. What makes you assume that rational forces will have control of baki nukes? Instead there are many reason why a weaker force can use nuke to destroy bigger force.

Same goes for your assumption that Baki can manage to survive even if its cities are destroyed? That is very very bold statement to make. Read more. Salam

[Manish_Sharma]

Just start to nuke the areas with "5000 people per square kilometer" then work your way down to "750 - 5000 people per square kilometer" to "550 - 749 people per square kilometer" to "400 - 549 people per square kilometer" to "200 - 399 people per square kilometer".

Leave the rest of lesser density population areas, Islamic State of Pakitan kaput. Balochistan rejoins Bharatvarsh.

[ShauryaT]

It is news to me that India is in the genocide business. The doctrine is counter value targeting NOT annihilation. Counter value is aimed at decapitation of the state, with a specific aim to disable the state to prosecute war. It does not involve a modern day round up and send the people to a gas chamber.

@Yusuf is one of the finest we have. Shame on someone questioning his patriotism just because of his faith. Disagree with his view points by all means but those comments were entirely out of place and all it has done is exposed the accuser's own bigotry.

[Bheeshma]

extermination of vermins is not genocide. Its pest control.

[RoyG]

It is news to me that India is in the genocide business. The doctrine is counter value targeting NOT annihilation. Counter value is aimed at decapitation of the state, with a specific aim to disable the state to prosecute war. It does not involve a modern day round up and send the people to a gas chamber.

@Yusuf is one of the finest we have. Shame on someone questioning his patriotism just because of his faith. Disagree with his view points by all means but those comments were entirely out of place and all it has done is exposed the accuser's own bigotry.

Er, counter value means targeting large populations centers to vaporize them. This is done on the basis of identity which makes the state. You are engaging in genocide if you do this. 80+ million > 6 million = state decapitation...right. May not be a modern day round up but hey its enough.

Just want to point out that Yusuf is a friend of mine. Of course if you have a disagreement with him - please keep it on DFI and don't port it to BRF

Thanks Doc.
Cross posting from DFI

Sir, no point arguing with people who go off tangent. In any case it's the official policy of India to react to a nuclear strike with a massive retaliation.

Two quick points.

1) Pakistan will use nukes if we ingress into Pak which means losing lot of territory. Means our troops may be in Lahore, Sialkot when Pak nukes us. Will we nuke Lahore, Sialkot where own troops have taken control & kill our own troops.

2) Point I made was having a strategic end point to the Pakistan problem. Bravado aside, we know that destroying Islamabad, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Karachi is not going to put an end to Pakistan. 160 million people are not going to be wiped out. Dismemberment of Pakistan, creating buffer/dependent states is how we can do it. In any case the majority problem comes from PakJab which will be land locked if we get Sindh & Balochistan to become independent countries under our protection.

Yusuf,

This magical land you inhabit...How do you distinguish between a fairy and a troll?

Anyway, India will not ingress that far into Pakistan. Everyone knows this will never happen. No point debating this.

The only time India will is if the state comes apart or to facilitate the break up of the state. If the latter, we'll be ingressing only 10-15 km in. In that case the nukes will eventually be recalled to Punjab itself.

This hardly provides the impetus to launch some sort of nuclear attack.

Pakjabis have huge drug empire, posh housing, businesses, vroom vroom, scotch, dogs, houris, etc. They have desires. These desires keep them tied to this existence.

[Gagan]

What makes the people in this forum assume that Pakistan has a working nuke?
Their nuclear tests were duds, their own commentators have said this.

Their Uranium enrichment program was a dud, their cheeni design didn't work when they tested it.

They want to move on to Poo from You, and that is when they will be a true N-power.

WRT numbers too, there are multiple non-american sources that talk of numbers, and they quote figures that are a quarter to half of what the american origin people say they are.

I am trying to relocate a Najam Sethi video that delved into this nuclear testing by Pakistan bit. The conversation went something like:

Pakistan ne kitta ke nahi kitta test, magar kehna te si na ki kitta hai (Weather Pakistan tested or not, they had to say that they tested)
Najam's Sidekick states:" Ki matlab nahi kitta, kitta te hai" (What do you mean we did not test, we did test)
Najam Sethi: "Haan kitta hai, chota ja, thusss" (Yes we tested, a small one, <makes a sound which in colloquial language indicates a fizzile>)

Pakistan is overtly lying when they say that Nasr is N tipped, that contraption is a possible beidu guided MBRL only. Pakistan just doesn't have the technical knowhow to go from extensive chinese hand holding for a you design to a poo design. The trigger is beyond them! Cheenis gave then the highly suspect uranium deuteride triggers too, not to mention the fact that they were never able to produce weapons grade you.

Mushy was gloating about this when he said, " our scientists are so good they've even made bums out of less enriched you". Yeah right !

[ShauryaT]

RoyG: Attacks on population centers is part of counter value however it is not killing for killing's sake. Counter value targets for Pakistan is in single digits.

[Manish_Sharma]

It is news to me that India is in the genocide business. The doctrine is counter value targeting NOT annihilation. Counter value is aimed at decapitation of the state, with a specific aim to disable the state to prosecute war. It does not involve a modern day round up and send the people to a gas chamber.

@Yusuf is one of the finest we have. Shame on someone questioning his patriotism just because of his faith. Disagree with his view points by all means but those comments were entirely out of place and all it has done is exposed the accuser's own bigotry.

Only someone like you supporter of gurmeet kanwal, mms & tyagi supporting vacating Siachin policy and dismissing the opinion of General Sh. V.K. Singh can give a twist like this.

Only someone like you who opposes massive retaliation policy of Bharatvarsh whilst advocating punitive response can give a twist like this.

Delhi, mumbai nuked means death of 20 to 30 million Bharatvaasis instantly, while don't know how many surronding cities and villages effected by radiation. Watching that many innocent Bharatvaasis dying doesn't boil your blood enough to end pakistan.

But just reading a post with map of pakistani destruction boils your blood to lable the poster a genocider a gas chamberer.

The idea of so many citizens of Bharat dying suffering and still you're thinking about safety of pakistan, but anybody from your circle questioned and you start abusing the poster as genocider?

What do you propose mr. tolerance, that my voice be suppressed violently? I should be jailed for writing a nuke retaliation idea against porkistan? That people like me should be killed?

[Amber G.]

I have reported this post to admins. The map displayed (with gross inaccuracy wrt to Kasmir) should never be allowed in brf.

Wrong depiction of India's map could bring a Rs 100 crore fine
Please look up The Geospatial Information Regulation Bill 2016 before disseminating, publishing or distributing any geospatial information of India.

Edited Later: Thanks Manish for your prompt action.

[venug]

What makes the people in this forum assume that Pakistan has a working nuke?
Their nuclear tests were duds, their own commentators have said this.

Gagan ji, if TSP maal is going to Noko. Noko's tests validate TSP nukes no?

[deejay]

I have reported this post to admins. The map displayed (with gross inaccuracy wrt to Kasmir) should never be allowed in brf.

Wrong depiction of India's map could bring a Rs 100 crore fine
Please look up The Geospatial Information Regulation Bill 2016 before disseminating, publishing or distributing any geospatial information of India.

I guess since no correct maps depicting Pakistan and Balochistan are available, we on BRF should not use maps? I have been trying to make my own maps to make up for this problem. For Eg: If I want to use Pakistan population density maps, there is no alternative but to use these maps or not have discussions using maps.

[Manish_Sharma]

RoyG: Attacks on population centers is part of counter value however it is not killing for killing's sake. Counter value targets for Pakistan is in single digits.

So a price is being put on lives of innocent Bharatiya Naagriks and that is in single digits. Hmmm I mean maybe I am prejudiced due to my family relatives friends living in delhi, mumbai, pune, meerut, ghaziabad etc. and the opposer lives in switzerland with his family so he can preach compassion and high moral values.

The question is why so much ANGER at :
1.) Obliteration of porki high density populations areas?
2.) Questioning of certain individuals like gurmeet kanwal, usuf etc.

while such a shoulder shrugging ... "so what?" , "big deal" (with roll eyes) on
a.) Act of nuking two most populated Bharatiya cities FROM PAKISTAN
b.) Death and mayhem to naagriks of Delhi, Mumbai and surronding areas.

[Manish_Sharma]

I have reported this post to admins. The map displayed (with gross inaccuracy wrt to Kasmir) should never be allowed in brf.

Wrong depiction of India's map could bring a Rs 100 crore fine
Please look up The Geospatial Information Regulation Bill 2016 before disseminating, publishing or distributing any geospatial information of India.

Thanks Amber ji for pointing it out, I have removed it. The thing is those areas are occupied by pakistani army and deploying nukes so they also need to be hit, If those areas are left then it would mean survival of highly dense cluster of porki army.

[RoyG]

RoyG: Attacks on population centers is part of counter value however it is not killing for killing's sake. Counter value targets for Pakistan is in single digits.

Countervalue targets in single digits? And you know this how? They have plenty of cities w/ a population over 200,000.

Countervalue is for killing. You are threatening to kill and will kill should deterrence fail. Simple.

Now who are you killing?

The other guy.

How do you define him?

In this case religious identity.

The intention may not be genocide, but the outcome is.

[Amber G.]

FWIW - If someone is just interested in technical details

What makes the people in this forum assume that Pakistan has a working nuke?

Gaganji - If we just confine to "nuke" part only - If one has fairy pure U235 in reasonable amount (say 50 Kg) a good gun worker in Peshawar can make a working nuke. Hiroshima bomb design was NEVER tested before yet they were confident that it will work. (They only tested Pu based design). Once Pakis had enough U235 (and they have it) no one seriously doubt that they can explode a fission bomb.

Now, of course, one can doubt if they are able to transport it to somewhere on their oont-ghadi, or have someone to fly a plane who can read a map ityadi but making a fission work is not really that difficult once you have U235. (Getting/producing/separating/ U235 is difficult.

(For Pu design, getting Pu is easier (terrorists can steal it from a nuclear reactor) but exploding it requires much sophistication)

[JayS]

And every minute they survive they think its a victory..

Shiv,

Pakistan reminds me of the black knight from this scene from monty python and the holy grail

[ShauryaT]

Countervalue targets in single digits? And you know this how? They have plenty of cities w/ a population over 200,000.

Countervalue is for killing. You are threatening to kill and will kill should deterrence fail. Simple.

Countervalue is to threaten strategic destruction. Destruction of assets and resources that are vital to the functioning of a state. Its objective is to end war not perpetuate genocide. The question them becomes what is this point, where the enemy state will no longer have the capability to wage war? If you have to go and nuke Sialkot and Larkana, it means the enemy still retains the capacity and will to wage war.

Beyond this point wherever that is, nuclear destruction becomes something else. Pakistanis are nationals of an enemy state till the point the state exists. What Pakistanis become once the state is no longer viable and has no capacity to wage war? It will be quite natural for India to restore its borders if that becomes the case as is likely in such an event. All the people in those lands now become India's responsibility.

Just extrapolating on the scenario being depicted, not expressing any desire for such outcomes.

How I know about the single digits? Take it as my assumption, how it became one is another story, so take it FWIW. Speak to non-ideological military folks who venture into this issue and see what they say.

[ShauryaT]

(For Pu design, getting Pu is easier (terrorists can steal it from a nuclear reactor) but exploding it requires much sophistication)

Pakistan has been at the Pu designs since before AQ Khan. A.Q Khan was peddling Chinese Pu designs in the market. Their ability to process unsafeguarded plutonium, since 2004 (thanks to China) virtually guarantees a Pu stockpile and some capabilities to produce a plutonium weapon by now. TSP maal may be fizzle but neither they nor we are taking it lightly. SPD has a dedicated force of 10,000 guarding these - with a life long (active service) commitment, means you can check in but never leave!! Some doubt their TNW capabilities but I do not think there is much doubt in Indian or western circles on this matter. I personally am ready to believe that they have reached the BF stage of Pu weapons, but have not seen this claim in public domain yet.

Future, expect them to be arming conventional subs with nuclear missile and even war ships and frigates. The PN will get their piece of share one way or the other in due course. In a decade or so if PN gets a "leased" nuclear sub from PLAN, do not be surprised at the turn of events. No one I know believes that TSP is nuke nude.

[ShauryaT]

Only someone like you supporter of gurmeet kanwal, mms & tyagi supporting vacating Siachin policy and dismissing the opinion of General Sh. V.K. Singh can give a twist like this.

Only someone like you who opposes massive retaliation policy of Bharatvarsh whilst advocating punitive response can give a twist like this.

Delhi, mumbai nuked means death of 20 to 30 million Bharatvaasis instantly, while don't know how many surronding cities and villages effected by radiation. Watching that many innocent Bharatvaasis dying doesn't boil your blood enough to end pakistan.

But just reading a post with map of pakistani destruction boils your blood to lable the poster a genocider a gas chamberer.

The idea of so many citizens of Bharat dying suffering and still you're thinking about safety of pakistan, but anybody from your circle questioned and you start abusing the poster as genocider?

What do you propose mr. tolerance, that my voice be suppressed violently? I should be jailed for writing a nuke retaliation idea against porkistan? That people like me should be killed?

Have you stopped beating your wife? I have called your statement as bigotry and articulating genocide. I have done so based on what you have posted on this thread. You can tell me, I have interpreted wrongly or gracefully admit the adjective given as a correct description of your articulation instead of trying to wiggle out.

If your blood boils for every disagreement, then good rule is to not post. Listen to what Sri Krishna says, if not anyone else.

krodhād bhavati sammohaḥ
sammohāt smṛti-vibhramaḥ
smṛti-bhraḿśād buddhi-nāśo
buddhi-nāśāt praṇaśyati

The safe thing for folks like me to do is put you on the ignore list, until sense is regained.

[SaiK]

Did anyone read this brilliantly written article?

https://majorgauravarya.wordpress.com/2 ... old-start/

[RoyG]

Did anyone read this brilliantly written article?

https://majorgauravarya.wordpress.com/2 ... old-start/

Bullsh*t article.

Cold start is one of those strategies in the back of the playbook marked in red. We'll never use it unless Pakistan is on the verge of collapse or collapsing and we need to capture territory before the Afghans or Iranians do.

Sending IBGs in and having strike corps blast there way through everything deep into Pakistan is a red line. The idea is so ridiculously stupid and risky. Why waste soldiers and military hardware when we can light fires within Pakistan and then rush in later?

IMO, Pakjabis themselves are doing most of the work for us already. Simply sit back and wait and when the time comes hit them. Of course, most of the nukes will probably be recalled to Punjab. There is a chance they all won't which poses an interesting dilemma for us.

Nibbling chunks of border areas on the other hand is actually a pretty good strategy especially if you want to speed fragmentation along.

[RoyG]

ShauryaT,

Incinerating millions of people is a genocide. You can call it whatever soothes your heart...collateral damage, strategic destruction, counter value, conflict resolution, incapacitation strike etc. The point is to not only destroy their war fighting capacity, but to finish them completely. This isn't a duel between two pluralistic democracies. This is a fight to death between two completely different ideologies. Preventing them from picking up the pieces probably found its way into the playbook. I'm sure the SFC will do the needful.

As far as talking to "non-ideological" military folks, how do you spot them? Better spoken English than the ideological ones?

[shiv]

he doctrine is counter value targeting NOT annihilation.

Over the years I have tried desperately and mostly failed to bring to the attention of people who are starry eyed about nuclear weapons the fact that it is impossible to wipe out a population easily with nuclear weapons. You can kill millions but wiping out is not going to happen (without wiping yourself out) because the world is bigger than most people imagine.

Once again let me post a table that I have posted 10 times before - the damage from nuclear bombs of different yields
http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k56 ... -table.jpg


If we assume that India uses only 200 kiloton bombs on Pakistan - we see that each 200 kt bomb causes heavy damage upto only 2.5 km radius where one can expect very heavy casualties (not 100%). 2.5 km radius is 20 square km. Pakistan has a land area of 800,000 sq km. If we assume that only 25% of the area (Pakistani Punjab's area) must be hit to kill all Pakis we will still need 200,000/20 = 10,000 bombs of 200 kiloton capacity. This is for Pakjab alone

With 50 to 100 bombs probably of less than 200 kt there is no way in which all Pakis can be eliminated. And I am not even talking about the radiation contamination that will kill most of our own Punjabis, Kashmiris, Rajasthanis and Gujaratis first before spreading to other areas. The idea that Pakjabis can be eliminated and then we can walk into Baluchistan actually reflects so much ignorance that it is not worth commenting upon.

If a war using nuclear weapons is fought - the maximum we can do is kill a few tens of millions of people. This is bad enough. Once again I will post my own article about the effects of one 50 kiloton bomb on Rawalpindi
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3JNY ... 2ZVWU9MQjA

[shiv]

And every minute they survive they think its a victory..

Shiv,

Pakistan reminds me of the black knight from this scene from monty python and the holy grail

LOL yes. This is pakiness.

[shiv]

Disagree with his view points by all means but those comments were entirely out of place and all it has done is exposed the accuser's own bigotry.

Saying the same thing earned me a mouthful of pleasantries..

[Manish_Sharma]

_()_
Beautiful post Roy ji, my pranaams, such clarity amazing.

One of the thing I have been saying for this "Deterrence" thread from beginning is that JUST Discussing deterrence leaves many aspects of nuclear buildup and nuclear war untouched.

What happens when deterrence breaks down? Would Bharatiya civilization have a chance for survival if we send china-pakistan to "Pashaan Yug" while we are sent to "Loh Yug".

Another thread is needed to find out the holistic picture in this regard.

[shiv]

The question is why so much ANGER at :
1.) Obliteration of porki high density populations areas?
2.) Questioning of certain individuals like gurmeet kanwal, usuf etc.

I don't think it is anger at harming Pakis. It is ignorance about what fallout from nuclear weapons on Pakistan will do to all Indians in the border areas of India and later deep inside India. People who live in Switzerland are also allowed to have relatives in India and are allowed to worry about them. Sindh, a name taken from the Sindhu river was the holy land of India and mass-nuking Sindh will contaminate that land for many centuries. Punjab is the land where the Vedas were born. After Muslim Pakjabis are dead and cremated, the original owners of that sacred land will not be able to live there.

Vehemently showing your love for India is very nice, but beyond emotion you do not seem to have put in as much reading about nuclear weapon fallout effects as you have about sharp pointed fast submarine designs on another thread. The words value and counter-value seem to me to have as much meaning for forum discussions as they have for nukes. Only vidya can achieve a link between patriotism and common sense

[shiv]

Below is a list of all Paki cities above 200,000 population taken from Wiki.

1. How many can we hit given an assumed arsenal of 80 nukes (reserving a few for China)
2. Which targets would most effectively Paralyse the Pakistani state as it is now
3. Which targets will affect India the least in terms if fallout if Indian occupation forces must enter