Deterrence

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11438
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Post by Amber G. »

Manish_P wrote: 02 Sep 2025 09:24 .
And the opponent didn't have even first strike capability...

No matter what you think your opponent may or may not have or use, always keep the big stick handy. And an even bigger stick in the store room
Better than hoarding big sticks and stones, why not learn from the Mahabharat — Arjun didn’t carry a pile of clubs, he had the Gandiv bow and sharp arrows. In modern terms, a precise automatic weapon is far better for defense than lugging around a warehouse of sticks.

(In any case as said above - serious scientists/engineers/military_experts today do not suggest multi-MT (let alone 100 MT) bombs are necessary. In fact, both physics and strategy communities view them as - wasteful of fissile material and .logistically impractical) I agree with current India's thinking/strategy about having multiple options about manageable sizes
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14097
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Deterrence

Post by Vayutuvan »

Let us not forget mace of bheemasena. It is a massive weapon that can break chariots and can kill elephants.
pravula
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Deterrence

Post by pravula »

Amber G. wrote: 03 Sep 2025 04:41
Manish_P wrote: 02 Sep 2025 09:24 .
And the opponent didn't have even first strike capability...

No matter what you think your opponent may or may not have or use, always keep the big stick handy. And an even bigger stick in the store room
Better than hoarding big sticks and stones, why not learn from the Mahabharat — Arjun didn’t carry a pile of clubs, he had the Gandiv bow and sharp arrows. In modern terms, a precise automatic weapon is far better for defense than lugging around a warehouse of sticks.

(In any case as said above - serious scientists/engineers/military_experts today do not suggest multi-MT (let alone 100 MT) bombs are necessary. In fact, both physics and strategy communities view them as - wasteful of fissile material and .logistically impractical) I agree with current India's thinking/strategy about having multiple options about manageable sizes
Actually, he carried a MT yield version of Brahmastra, ala Brahmashirastra, which was used as a MAD. Without it, that story would have ended differently...
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6818
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Deterrence

Post by Manish_P »

That's the point

Amber ji, like Arjuna, can see only the eye of the fish, and wants the appropriate precision arrow

But the Mahabharata is so much more than even Arjuna....
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11438
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Post by Amber G. »

Actually, he carried a MT yield version of Brahmastra, ala Brahmashirastra, which was used as a MAD. Without it, that story would have ended differently.
Nice to read Mahabharata...:) !

The Ashwatthama–Arjuna clash with the Brahmastra / Brahmashirastra is a perfect analogy for today’s ‘100 MT bomb’ talk. Two ultimate weapons facing off nearly destroyed the Earth, until wisdom intervened. Arjuna showed discipline and withdrew — Ashwatthama couldn’t, and his rage only brought tragedy to innocents. Likewise, massive doomsday bombs look impressive, but in practice they’re more dangerous to everyone, including their own side. Real strength lies in precision, restraint, and credibility — not in weapons that can’t be controlled once unleashed.

Building 100-MT bombs is like Ashwatthama firing a Brahmashirastra — impressive in rage, disastrous in reality, and no wiser than throwing fire in your own house.

Ashwatthama went for the Brahmashirastra — world-ending overkill. Arjun used Gandiv with precision. In today’s terms: why dream of 100-MT craters (Not to mention deadly fallout which does not respect national borders) when a precise missile does the job far better (and without burning down your own house)...

--- From Mahabharata, who might not be familiar with the whole story ..
(Reading the Mahabharata and understanding is quite useful - Brahmashirastra, which was considered catastrophic even then by epic standards...then .. see/read Vyas and other sages saying.."firing a Brahmashirastra in the middle of a crowded village — sure, it proves you have it.., but nobody sane thinks that’s the way to win"....Arjuna, with discipline and humility, withdrew his weapon as instructed..Ashwatthama, however, could not fully recall his, as he lacked the training ... Instead, he redirected it — tragically — in an attempt to wipe out the Pandava lineage. Krisna somehow saves Parikshit .. ityadi .... Moral was 'supreme weapons are a burden .. without discipline.. they cause devastation even to the wielder’s own side...)

---
महायुद्धास्त्रविनियोगो हानिप्रधानः।
गाण्डीवसदृशं तु लक्ष्ये निशितम् एव श्रोत्रियः।।

Transliteration:
"Using a supreme weapon in anger brings mainly destruction. Like the Gandiv bow, a precise strike at the target alone achieves purpose safely."
pravula
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Deterrence

Post by pravula »

Amber G. wrote: 03 Sep 2025 07:42
Actually, he carried a MT yield version of Brahmastra, ala Brahmashirastra, which was used as a MAD. Without it, that story would have ended differently.
Nice to read Mahabharata...:) !

The Ashwatthama–Arjuna clash with the Brahmastra / Brahmashirastra is a perfect analogy for today’s ‘100 MT bomb’ talk. Two ultimate weapons facing off nearly destroyed the Earth, until wisdom intervened. Arjuna showed discipline and withdrew — Ashwatthama couldn’t, and his rage only brought tragedy to innocents. Likewise, massive doomsday bombs look impressive, but in practice they’re more dangerous to everyone, including their own side. Real strength lies in precision, restraint, and credibility — not in weapons that can’t be controlled once unleashed.

Building 100-MT bombs is like Ashwatthama firing a Brahmashirastra — impressive in rage, disastrous in reality, and no wiser than throwing fire in your own house.

Ashwatthama went for the Brahmashirastra — world-ending overkill. Arjun used Gandiv with precision. In today’s terms: why dream of 100-MT craters (Not to mention deadly fallout which does not respect national borders) when a precise missile does the job far better (and without burning down your own house)...

--- From Mahabharata, who might not be familiar with the whole story ..
(Reading the Mahabharata and understanding is quite useful - Brahmashirastra, which was considered catastrophic even then by epic standards...then .. see/read Vyas and other sages saying.."firing a Brahmashirastra in the middle of a crowded village — sure, it proves you have it.., but nobody sane thinks that’s the way to win"....Arjuna, with discipline and humility, withdrew his weapon as instructed..Ashwatthama, however, could not fully recall his, as he lacked the training ... Instead, he redirected it — tragically — in an attempt to wipe out the Pandava lineage. Krisna somehow saves Parikshit .. ityadi .... Moral was 'supreme weapons are a burden .. without discipline.. they cause devastation even to the wielder’s own side...)

---
महायुद्धास्त्रविनियोगो हानिप्रधानः।
गाण्डीवसदृशं तु लक्ष्ये निशितम् एव श्रोत्रियः।।

Transliteration:
"Using a supreme weapon in anger brings mainly destruction. Like the Gandiv bow, a precise strike at the target alone achieves purpose safely."
The point I was trying to make was that without that brute/crude capability, there would not have been a MAD and the wise sages might not even have intervened and the weapon would not have been redirected.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11438
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Post by Amber G. »

Largest Brahmashirastra planned/announced by Edward Teller was a 10,000 MT. Wise sages intervened and it was never made. One was enough for whole Germany (instantly igniting everything within 400 kilometers).

People here talk about 100MT casually .. do they even realize dropping it, say in Lahore will also has vast devastation in Indian Punjab too..
Last edited by Amber G. on 03 Sep 2025 10:32, edited 1 time in total.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6818
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Deterrence

Post by Manish_P »

Simply put the white sages don't think that SDREs have the discipline to control the use of their WMDs
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6818
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Deterrence

Post by Manish_P »

Amber G. wrote: 03 Sep 2025 10:31 Largest Brahmashirastra planned/announced by Edward Teller was a 10,000 MT....
Amazing. So it can be developed right.

Might be useful to try and knock off a large asteroid threatening a dinosaur extinction scale event.
pravula
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Deterrence

Post by pravula »

Amber G. wrote: 03 Sep 2025 10:31 Largest Brahmashirastra planned/announced by Edward Teller was a 10,000 MT. Wise sages intervened and it was never made. One was enough for whole Germany (instantly igniting everything within 400 kilometers).

People here talk about 100MT casually .. do they even realize dropping it, say in Lahore will also has vast devastation in Indian Punjab too..
That was also so big that it could not be moved. IIRC, it weighted as much as a Shield Carrier :twisted:

Personally, he would have been at home in this current WH
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11438
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Post by Amber G. »

^^^ Most of the details are classified.. from unclassified details/rumors we do not know even the exact type(design)..or even weight (estimated in hundreds of tons). Largest bomb yet tested - Tsar Bomba (Soviet hydrogen bomb) was 58.6 Mt yield weighing about 27 tons. Largest U.S. (I Think - can easily be checked) nuclear test was the Castle Bravo -- which yielded 15 megatons.
pravula
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Deterrence

Post by pravula »

Amber G. wrote: 03 Sep 2025 10:56 ^^^ Most of the details are classified.. from unclassified details/rumors we do not know even the exact type(design)..or even weight (estimated in hundreds of tons). Largest bomb yet tested - Tsar Bomba (Soviet hydrogen bomb) was 58.6 Mt yield weighing about 27 tons. Largest U.S. (I Think - can easily be checked) nuclear test was the Castle Bravo -- which yielded 15 megatons.
Yes, its classified, and so is the weight of a Shield Carrier...Its all hypothetical...That was my point. It never moved past than a random remark/dong measuring comment with other bomb makers...
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2603
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Deterrence

Post by srin »

Regarding how much bang our nukes should have, there is one thing I haven't seen in this discussion - MIRVs.

Assuming that our primary delivery system is going to be ballistic missiles (instead of manned aircraft) and assuming that MIRVs are going to be deployed on all the K-* and Agni missiles, it'd mean that we won't be delivering a single big fat MT range warhead. Instead it is going to be many (6 ? 10 ?) smaller warheads.

I know next to nothing about the nuke design, so does decreasing the warhead size decrease the yield correspondingly or will it cause a drastic reduction in the design yield ? Aka will having 10 petals on missile mean that instead of 1MT payload, we can do a max of 100 KT each ? Or will it be much less ?

Assume a thermo-nuclear (or boosted fission - or whatever the heck we tested in Shakti tests) bum.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3310
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Deterrence

Post by VinodTK »

Amber G. wrote: 03 Sep 2025 10:31
People here talk about 100MT casually .. do they even realize dropping it, say in Lahore will also has vast devastation in Indian Punjab too..
What will India do if Delhi and/or Bombay are vaporized! as history has shown the other side does not care.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6818
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Deterrence

Post by Manish_P »

VinodTK wrote: 03 Sep 2025 18:44
Amber G. wrote: 03 Sep 2025 10:31
People here talk about 100MT casually .. do they even realize dropping it, say in Lahore will also has vast devastation in Indian Punjab too..
What will India do if Delhi and/or Bombay are vaporized! as history has shown the other side does not care.
Don't worry Vinod ji, the all knowing, all powerful white sages are in charge.

And some of them can be made to look uber cool just by quoting a line or two from the Bhagavad Geeta
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5039
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Deterrence

Post by Tanaji »

At the risk of sounding like Grandpa Simpson, please do look up the old nuke threads in the archived. Huge amount of gyaan, learning to be had and will answer a lot of questions…
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5039
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Deterrence

Post by Tanaji »

VinodTK wrote: 03 Sep 2025 18:44

What will India do if Delhi and/or Bombay are vaporized! as history has shown the other side does not care.
Saar I assume you mean they are hit by “big bum”. Why is it different to being hit 4 x 100KTs to those dying? So why the fixation on big bomb?

As an aside destruction as function of yield is not linear, so multiple smaller ones will do more damage and have more probability of hitting the target than one big one.

If your question is irrespective of the bomb size, then trust GoI that vengeance will be delivered and if you are unlucky enough to be in vicinity of these cities, commit suicide ASAP. I would do the same
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6818
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Deterrence

Post by Manish_P »

Tanaji Sir, I fear I am the culprit who started the stick measuring contest.

I should have clarified early on that the big stick mentioned by me was alluding more to the length (range) than the payload.
(though I firmly believe that both should be decided by us - as indeed is happening now)

That way everyone else should know the reach of our vengeance and be ready to take up your suggestion of committing suicide themselves if they think they can just kill a whole lot of us without getting hit back.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3310
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Deterrence

Post by VinodTK »

Manish_P wrote: 03 Sep 2025 20:17
That way everyone else should know the reach of our vengeance and be ready to take up your suggestion of committing suicide themselves if they think they can just kill a whole lot of us without getting hit back.
100% agreed
MegaT boys might not be used;
however the fear of them being used will give the other side many a sleepless nights.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60314
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by ramana »

AmberG, Is you point that Harry Truman had the wisdom to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
One can be debated but to use two weapons because you have it?
This is what caused the quest for nuclear weapons by other nations.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14097
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Deterrence

Post by Vayutuvan »

ramana wrote: 04 Sep 2025 00:11 One can be debated but to use two weapons because you have it?
There were reports that Japanese actually were waving to the airplanes as they thought the war had already ended. What they got was a big surprise dhamaka followed by a second one.

The US simply tested what the effects of Nucs would be on people using Japanese as the lab rats.

IMHO and all that.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11438
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Post by Amber G. »

ramana wrote: 04 Sep 2025 00:11 AmberG, Is you point that Harry Truman had the wisdom to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
One can be debated but to use two weapons because you have it?
This is what caused the quest for nuclear weapons by other nations.

Ramana, NOnot remotely my point. I was not commenting on Truman’s “wisdom” or the debate over one vs. two bombs. My focus has been singular and very clear: 100 MT-class weapons are redundant and unnecessary for all the reasons given above a consistent view I’ve expressed here since the late 1990s.

---

If you want my perspective on Truman’s use of atomic weapons, let me know — I can share.

To be clear, it wouldn’t be about judging his “wisdom” or offering my personal verdict on what he should or shouldn’t have done. Rather, I would provide the historical perspective — what is known and accepted by most reputable accounts, well documented in serious scholarship.

I bring this with the background of expertise in nuclear physics, a longstanding interest in the history of the Manhattan Project, and connections through study, reading, and conversations with people like Hans Bethe and others who were directly involved.

That said, I would only do so if there is genuine interest, and if the thread continues to remain a place where such discussions can proceed without unnecessary or deliberate trolling.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11438
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Post by Amber G. »

Tanaji wrote: 03 Sep 2025 19:26
As an aside destruction as function of yield is not linear, so multiple smaller ones will do more damage and have more probability of hitting the target than one big one.
Yes! The radius of a nuclear fireball (and other destructive effects) scales approximately with the cube root of the yield, that is, ∝ (Yield)^(1/3).

In practical terms:

(if) A 100-megaton bomb would flatten almost everything within a radius of ~20 km.

The same total yield spread across 1,000 bombs of 100 kilotons each (since 100 MT = 1,000 × 100 KT) would instead produce ~1,000 circles of destruction, each with a ~2 km radius.

Think about the difference.
pravula
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Deterrence

Post by pravula »

I don't think anyone disputes that. Although, what would it cost to build/maintain a 100 MT single vs 100 single 100KT shots? (100 shots since it would be the same area)
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5039
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Deterrence

Post by Tanaji »

pravula wrote: 04 Sep 2025 03:39 I don't think anyone disputes that. Although, what would it cost to build/maintain a 100 MT single vs 100 single 100KT shots? (100 shots since it would be the same area)
The probability of a single big bum getting intercepted is higher than all of multiple small ones getting intercepted. That alone makes 100 x 100 KT worth it even with higher cost.

The additional damage is a bonus.
pravula
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Deterrence

Post by pravula »

Tanaji wrote: 04 Sep 2025 03:58
pravula wrote: 04 Sep 2025 03:39 I don't think anyone disputes that. Although, what would it cost to build/maintain a 100 MT single vs 100 single 100KT shots? (100 shots since it would be the same area)
The probability of a single big bum getting intercepted is higher than all of multiple small ones getting intercepted. That alone makes 100 x 100 KT worth it even with higher cost.

The additional damage is a bonus.
There would not be any additional damage. 100 * 100KT covers the same area per the numbers above (20 sq km). I am sure this has been gamed/optimized to the extreme by the forces...
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11438
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Post by Amber G. »

Meanwhile, the current news:
Lasers, hypersonic missiles and the ‘nuclear triad’: China flexes its military muscle]

Key Highlights from this and some other media (WSJ etc)

China showcased the DF-5C liquid-fueled ICBM in a grand military parade l strike range of up to 20,000 km, effectively covering the entire globe.

The DF-5C’s warhead ( ~ few MT total - MUCH smaller than 100MT ) an extremely potent delivery system - multiple MIRVs
- A starlight-assisted inertial guidance system, enhancing precision, and can be transported in three modular vehicles, streamlining deployment and reducing launch time.

Global Reach + Precision: The combination of extremely long range and precision targeting (via MIRVs) elevates China’s strategic deterrent significantly—and complicates adversary defense planning.

Public Signaling of Strength: This public disclosure appears aimed at demonstrating China's modernization and readiness, sending a clear strategic message both domestically and to foreign audiences (e.g., Washington).


Modern Nuclear Triad - This reveal underscores China's advancing nuclear triad (land-, sea-, and air-based delivery), while addressing gaps in reliability, deployment speed, and warhead capacity.

(And let’s be clear—this is a far cry from the kind of 100-MT nonsense people sometimes float.”)
Last edited by Amber G. on 04 Sep 2025 05:48, edited 1 time in total.
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5039
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Deterrence

Post by Tanaji »

Its 1000 x 100 KT not 100 x 100 KT if we are aiming 100 MT…
The damage with former is much higher.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11438
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Post by Amber G. »

Just a gentle reminder on basics:

100 MT = 1000 × 100 KT, not 100.
The area of a circle with a 20 km radius is not the same as 1000 circles of 2 km radius (/sigh/).
More importantly, the number of people (or houses) within a 20 km radius of a typical city center is nowhere near 1000 times that within a 2 km radius—or even 100 times. /sigh - houses/people do not spread uniformly from a city center/)
--
Fireball radii, material needs, and design trade-offs are the kind of things you’ll find in any good nuclear physics text — worked out and re-worked for 70+ years now.

So yes, plenty of knowledge in the archives already…(even in BRF archives) no need to reinvent the mushroom cloud every few posts.

I also kep noticing quite a few elementary slips in math and mis-understanding basic physics being repeated — I won’t comment on each, but just a gentle reminder: it helps if we all keep attention to the basics, so we don’t have to keep correcting the same points.

Rather like in the Mahabharata — Arjun didn’t need to be taught each morning how to string his Gandiva; once learned, it was enough.

Additionally, making unnecessary comments or mocking the poster, rather than focusing on the subject, is unhelpful and can discourage others from sharing their expertise.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14097
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Deterrence

Post by Vayutuvan »

pravula wrote: 04 Sep 2025 03:39 I don't think anyone disputes that. Although, what would it cost to build/maintain a 100 MT single vs 100 1000 single 100KT shots? (100 shots since it would be the same area)
That is an interesting metric. I don't know the answer to that. But the other metric is as important, if not more, is survivability of one big bum vs. 1000 distributed over a large geographical area - both in storage and when they are delivered to the targets. The latter has degrades finer than the former. Single point of failure.

The second point is that it is easier to optimize the latter vs the 100 MT bomba. The smaller the yield, more the number of bombs one requires. In terms of desirability (back of the envelope calculations and intuition coming from several years of R&D into optimization algorithms of yours truly)

1 x 100 MT << 1000 x 100 KT << 5000 x 20 KT (20 KT were the bombs exploded by the US in Japan).

Maintenance cost increases would be incremental is my WAG. One also has to consider delivery platform capabilities and their chances of survivability.

MY two naya paisa and all that.

(Not trolling anybody here. I don't claim to be an expert)
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11438
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Post by Amber G. »

@Srin – we’ve previously discussed MIRV (even just a few posts above).
These are good questions, though I think standard sources (e.g., a quick search) can provide the answers.

If you have any specific questions, such as about payloads vs MT, I’d be happy to share what I know.
pravula
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Deterrence

Post by pravula »

Amber G. wrote: 04 Sep 2025 04:37 Just a gentle reminder on basics:

100 MT = 1000 × 100 KT, not 100.
The area of a circle with a 20 km radius is not the same as 1000 circles of 2 km radius (/sigh/).
More importantly, the number of people (or houses) within a 20 km radius of a typical city center is nowhere near 1000 times that within a 2 km radius—or even 100 times. /sigh - houses/people do not spread uniformly from a city center/)
--
Fireball radii, material needs, and design trade-offs are the kind of things you’ll find in any good nuclear physics text — worked out and re-worked for 70+ years now.

So yes, plenty of knowledge in the archives already…(even in BRF archives) no need to reinvent the mushroom cloud every few posts.

I also kep noticing quite a few elementary slips in math and mis-understanding basic physics being repeated — I won’t comment on each, but just a gentle reminder: it helps if we all keep attention to the basics, so we don’t have to keep correcting the same points.

Rather like in the Mahabharata — Arjun didn’t need to be taught each morning how to string his Gandiva; once learned, it was enough.

Additionally, making unnecessary comments or mocking the poster, rather than focusing on the subject, is unhelpful and can discourage others from sharing their expertise.
Gentle reminder of math. The area inside a 20km radius is the same as 100*2km radius circle. Please reread them numbers.../sigh/ only...and as I wrote,
100 single 100KT shots? (100 shots since it would be the same area)
I was throwing a bone by reducing the number of arrows by one order of magnitude to equalize area of destruction...Otherwise 1000 bums is always going to cause more damage than one 100MT bum

and this is rich...
Additionally, making unnecessary comments or mocking the poster, rather than focusing on the subject, is unhelpful and can discourage others from sharing their expertise.
:roll:
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6818
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Deterrence

Post by Manish_P »

Vayutuvan wrote: 04 Sep 2025 00:58
ramana wrote: 04 Sep 2025 00:11 One can be debated but to use two weapons because you have it?
There were reports that Japanese actually were waving to the airplanes as they thought the war had already ended. What they got was a big surprise dhamaka followed by a second one.

The US simply tested what the effects of Nucs would be on people using Japanese as the lab rats.

IMHO and all that.
Funny how they didn't think of testing it on the Berlin Brahmins - ze Germans

Effects on different altitudes, climate, skin type, hair texture and all that could have been validated.

Oh well the white sages are all above questions
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6818
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Deterrence

Post by Manish_P »

pravula wrote: 04 Sep 2025 06:27 ...I was throwing a bone by reducing the number of arrows by one order of magnitude to equalize area of destruction...Otherwise 1000 bums is always going to cause more damage than one 100MT bum
...
:shock:

Why are you suggesting just one bum, Pravula ji.

Taking away a chance for the babus across the nation's to have multiple meetings and discussions and chai biskoot sessions over years to make all sort of alphabet soup treaties (which can be promptly discarded at the first sign of trouble)

Sir Arnold would be aghast - This in the thin edge of the wedge!
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11438
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Post by Amber G. »

..One also has to consider delivery platform capabilities ..
Good Point. Some optimization are easy to compute, even with basics.. eg..How to deliver it..

--Tsar Bomba was originally designed for a 100 MT yield, but that proved too heavy and impractical, so it was tested at about 50–57 MT. Weighing roughly 27 tons and measuring around 8 meters long, it was carried by a specially modified Tu-95V bomber, with a parachute to slow its descent. Its enormous size and weight make it completely impractical for deployment on modern missiles like the Agni—essentially, it was a test of maximum yield rather than a battlefield weapon...

Let me quote a well-known story Teller (whom I referenced in Brhamastra)':

At Los Alamos, Edward Teller wrote a list of nuclear weapon designs on his blackboard. Each entry represented a potential bomb, and at the very end he wrote one word: “Backyard.”

“Backyard” was not a real weapon; it was a theoretical concept, an extremely powerful bomb that would be too large to transport and could destroy everything in its vicinity - and needed no delivery. You can store in your backyard , and it can strike/destroy any enemy anywhere on the earth. Teller’s colleagues recognized the dark humor in the idea, but also the serious implications of the power he was exploring.

The first actual hydrogen bomb he helped develop was “Mike,” a 10-megaton device tested in the Pacific. While “Backyard” was never built, it remained on the blackboard as a reminder of the extreme possibilities Teller and his team were studying. The list stands as a record of ambitious nuclear designs and the immense destructive power that scientists were considering.
williams
BRFite
Posts: 1614
Joined: 21 Jun 2006 20:55

Re: Deterrence

Post by williams »

The point I was trying to make was that without that brute/crude capability, there would not have been a MAD and the wise sages might not even have intervened and the weapon would not have been redirected.
Everything depends on the threat perspective and how much geopolitical price you are willing to pay to conduct further raw tests and maintain these weapons. Right now Bharat decided to fine tune the delivery system and triad capability. We have not even declared MAD against the western powers explicitly. ICBMs are getting recategorized as IRBMS as of now. As our comprehensive national power grow, and as our delivery technologies mature, there will be a debate on what is the right size of individual petals for MAD against any power in the planet. Remember we need to right size our systems to maintain MAD at a reasonable cost. Sages and heros of Dvapara Yuga maintained their weapons for free. That logic might not work in Kali Yuga :D
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6818
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Deterrence

Post by Manish_P »

williams wrote: 04 Sep 2025 09:14
Everything depends on the threat perspective and how much geopolitical price you are willing to pay to conduct further raw tests and maintain these weapons. Right now Bharat decided to fine tune the delivery system and triad capability. We have not even declared MAD against the western powers explicitly. ICBMs are getting recategorized as IRBMS as of now. As our comprehensive national power grow, and as our delivery technologies mature, there will be a debate on what is the right size of individual petals for MAD against any power in the planet. Remember we need to right size our systems to maintain MAD at a reasonable cost.
+1 very well put
Sages and heros of Dvapara Yuga maintained their weapons for free. That logic might not work in Kali Yuga :D
Humbly disagree. WMDs were not free even then.

Deep and rigorous penance was required to acquire them and a high state of capability was constantly required to maintain them. :)
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60314
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Deterrence

Post by ramana »

Amber G. wrote: 04 Sep 2025 02:42
ramana wrote: 04 Sep 2025 00:11 AmberG, Is you point that Harry Truman had the wisdom to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
One can be debated but to use two weapons because you have it?
This is what caused the quest for nuclear weapons by other nations.

Ramana, NOnot remotely my point. I was not commenting on Truman’s “wisdom” or the debate over one vs. two bombs. My focus has been singular and very clear: 100 MT-class weapons are redundant and unnecessary for all the reasons given above a consistent view I’ve expressed here since the late 1990s.

---

If you want my perspective on Truman’s use of atomic weapons, let me know I can share.

To be clear, it wouldn’t be about judging his “wisdom” or offering my personal verdict on what he should or shouldn’t have done. Rather, I would provide the historical perspective — what is known and accepted by most reputable accounts, well documented in serious scholarship.

I bring this with the background of expertise in nuclear physics, a longstanding interest in the history of the Manhattan Project, and connections through study, reading, and conversations with people like Hans Bethe and others who were directly involved.

That said, I would only do so if there is genuine interest, and if the thread continues to remain a place where such discussions can proceed without unnecessary or deliberate trolling.
Please do.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6818
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Deterrence

Post by Manish_P »

williams wrote: 04 Sep 2025 09:14 ...individual petals for MAD ...
This is very creatively put.

Could i have your kind permission to use this term in future - 'Individual petals of the MAD flower, with blessings from the smiling Buddha'
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11438
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Deterrence

Post by Amber G. »

@Ramana – I’m traveling right now, but I’ll do the write-up you’re interested in within a few days.
Post Reply