Strategic Implications of India's ABM Test

menon
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 02 Dec 2005 09:23

Postby menon » 03 Dec 2006 10:48

SriKumar wrote:
abhischekcc wrote:

**********
Summary:
The test is important because it forces our adversaries' to increase expediture by several orders of magnitude to maintain the same threat level to us. ************

I am wondering though, how does this really help India? Pakistan knows that they cannot wage a conventional war without getting their butts handed to them; and after Kargil they know they cannot win even a 'semi-conventional', deniable war. So now they send their terrorists across the border or activate their cells to blow up trains/people. Pakistan can very well stay with this 'tactic' whether or not India has a missile shield. I don't see this missile shield stopping Pakistan from doing this. What would India do with a missile shield that it would not do now? (I agree it would deter China from threatening a conventional war and any escalation beyond that).

Another point (not new, obviously), the fact that India will have a ballistic missile shield would only encourage them to look for other ways of delivery- high-tech or low tech. Finally, on the topic of kill ratios, is India willing to take a hit of even 1 (or 2) nukes on a major city? Is this a cost India is willing to bear? Under what circumstances? If war is thrust upon India, I'd say yes. I think there may be a Laxman rekha India will not cross (unless public opinion changes in the future).


Well!! whether anyone likes it or not, once a credible ABM or TMD is in place India's policy will and should change. It should become more like the Israeli one. There should be retaliations. We restrain ourselves a lot. But Track II can be used and we MUST tell Pakistan that the restraint will no longer be there.
Since they are a people who LOVE to protect their musharaffs, they will understand when the game has become too dangerous and then they will be FORCED to stop.
The feeling that they can keep sending jihadis must stop.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 03 Dec 2006 12:34

Somewhere up above, I saw this :eek: :eek: quote from ramana:

Someone will pick up the N^3 assessment and run it.


What assessment? ME? U don't mean the collision theory post in Youm-e-Gulami thread? 8)

I can post my cynical take on this: DRDO must be in real trouble if they had to unveil this Ultimate Weapon (I mean to defend their budgets - they should hence name this "Brahmastra"):

V r dephending Our Capital onlee


But the demo is awesome. 1 test, 1 hit with an exoatmospheric kinetic kill (assuming / stretching things here a bit, maybe). Why exactly is this problem so much simpler than the THAAD problem, or themid-course intercept problem for US-DPRK? It seems instead to be a very tough problem, because the angular/ azimuthal variance is much greater for Paki-launched missiles, since they can come from anywhere along a 1500-mile border, and be aimed at Delhi, Mumbai etc. etc.

Anyone here know the Sergeant York demo story? (Just kidding..)

Also, someone pointed out the obvious. If u can hit something coming that fast, with such accuracy, then u can also hit, say, a slow-moving business jet carrying Paki Jarnails away from 'Pindi at the terminal stage of a dictatorship. So this weapon really puts a dent in the success probability of that exit to the Cayman Islands with the loot. Talk about a Strategic Weapon...

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 03 Dec 2006 20:29

the media is twisting Saraswat's words. There was no Green Pine used in the interception! it was a programmed intercept test with an active seeker. It demonstrates a very high level of command over the inertial guidance used in the prithvi and a very high level confidence in the active seekers developed for other applications.

Raj Malhotra,

> ABM system far superior to SAM...

Shhh..

Disha

Bhai, I am now waiting for our Jernails on the other side to start shouting Allah ho Akbar!

If you saw the last ding dong test, the missile was already gyrating, the Pakistanis will claim that they are capable of making it gyrate on the downward leg also.

They will claim they have W88 from China.

As Kgoan suggests and Hnair echoes, the Kidwai line can now be put away with the cutlass and the long bow.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 03 Dec 2006 20:50

Vijay J wrote:the media is twisting Saraswat's words. There was no Green Pine used in the interception! it was a programmed intercept test with an active seeker.


so only half of the problem is solved? ... is it the easier half? ... IMO, detection and tracking is the critical aspect ... of course, the seek and kill aspect is a complex task and this achievement is very important ... however, I assume that since the "programmed intercept" had no error in the predicted trajectory, in reality everything will depend on efficiency and resolution in trajectory determination ...

when I first heard this news, I was impressed by the tracking aspect ... now you are telling us that no tracking was involved ...

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 03 Dec 2006 21:06

Alokji,

Tracking is a hard problem that requires extremely fast electronics that at present cannot be developed in country. A system of this sensitivity should not be imported.

For our launcher tests in the past we have used active telemetry, transmitters on the launchers and tracked the signal from those with imported passive trackers, but it is a big leap from there to a platform that can track a missile launched from even a known location, it is currently beyond what we can manage locally. I am sure you know our ability to produce mircowave devices especially tunable ones is quite pitiful and this is not a deficiency that we can make up quickly or with imports.

Extracting an intercept from the tracking data is quite difficult also this is something that is putting the Americans with their infinete cash reserves to considerable trouble. So even if we want to import that we can't.

Yes, we have solved half the problem, and that is an achievement in itself. As you point out there there is much more to this puzzle, and that is something I hope that young graduates joining DRDO will spend their lives working on.

I am not trying to run down DRDO's achievement, but I do want to prevent the NPA from overprojecting our achievements. Our technology is in its infancy and we are not at a stage where it can significantly affect the deterrence regime vis-a-vis Pakistan. Although it will put a significant crimp on Pakistani bragging rights on nuclear issues.

As the NPA parasites and these South Asia prostitutes have devoted their lives to ensuring that the Pakistanis can pretend that they have a viable nuclear deterrent, I anticipate a range of NPA activity aimed at curbing our access to this technology as Kgoan has said.

You see by showing our hand we have effectively killed any attempt to sell us the Arrow or the Patriot systems.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 03 Dec 2006 21:11

Alok_N wrote: when I first heard this news, I was impressed by the tracking aspect ... now you are telling us that no tracking was involved ...


Alok, I think Vijay has overlooked this from Raj Chengappa's report:

The test was short but decisive. At 10.15 on a blustery winter morning off the east coast of Orissa, a conventional Prithvi missile posing as an enemy weapon was launched. Within seconds after its take-off, a sophisticated, long-range radar picked up the signals, analysed its flight path and sent an electronic command to an interceptor missile stationed at Wheeler Island. Almost immediately, the interceptor codenamed pad01 lifted off with a roar and plume of smoke.


The long range radar mentioned here is believed to be a modified Green Pine.

It's possible that since the time of launch and the trajectory of the target Prithvi was known, the radar pickup was redundant to the launching of the interceptor, but from the article that does not appear to be so. Other reports also speak of extending the radar's range to 1000 km, so it appears that it is a serious component of the success of the BMD.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 03 Dec 2006 21:21

Vijay J wrote:Tracking is a hard problem that requires extremely fast electronics that at present cannot be developed in country.


yes, you know why I was impressed ...

Anoop,

Vijay is saying that it is a DDM effect ...

in any case, there are other ways to solve this problem ... for example, working with a finite solution space ... if the goal of each battery is to determine whether a missile is headed for its limited protection zone or not, it is a much easier problem than solving for a general trajectory ...

a battery assigned to defend a 50 km radius centered at Rashtrapati Bhavan, for example, will be able to take early radar data and query all possible trajectories that would provide a solution that lands the missile in this zone ... if none exist within the errors, pass on the problem ... if there is any possibility that the trajectory can end up in its zone, it can take extreme measures and fire interceptors to work with a family of solutions ... once the KVs get close enough they can start their RF seeking trackers ...

I believe that this last aspect was indeed tested and IMO, that is a very important achievement ...
Last edited by Alok_N on 03 Dec 2006 21:29, edited 1 time in total.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 03 Dec 2006 21:28

Alok_N wrote: Vijay is saying that it is a DDM effect ...


Could be, though Chengappa doesn't quite qualify as a DDM.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 03 Dec 2006 21:32

Vijay,

you will appreciate this ... the problem is very similar to HEP triggers on impact parameter from heavy quarks ... the decision making time is typically 100 microseconds ...

the problem is that it works only for limited zones (beamline constraint in the case of HEP) ... how much moolah can GoI spend on defence batteries? ... knowing packees, the missile they aim for New Delhi will land in Meerut ... tough for folks in Meerut or Patiala or Mathura ... :(
Last edited by Alok_N on 03 Dec 2006 21:37, edited 2 times in total.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Postby TSJones » 03 Dec 2006 21:33

I'm calling bull***t on some of this commentary.

1. The claim that this system can "look down-shoot down" over the horizon such as a relatively low flying Packee corporate jet filled with Packee jarnails.

2. Correspondingly, the assumption that cruise missiles have been negated. Packeeland has at least one cruise missile that we know of.

3. That an attractor signal device was not used in this test. I mean, the US uses them all the time to test their systems and any new modification or performance improvements. But not India? Yeah, I know brilliant test takers don't need to test things in graduated stages.....geezus..

Admins, if I have violated opsec please do the needful and delete. Thanks, TJ

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 03 Dec 2006 21:36

TSJones wrote:3. That an attractor signal device was not used in this test.


what else is an "rf-seeker"? :roll:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 03 Dec 2006 22:08

several tomahawks landed in paki-ban land during the amrik's afghan campaign... and their staunch ally terror friend xerox khan would have gotten the designs copied from amrikaan xerox operations, while his boss mush must have been busy copying tomahawk tech from the unbroken pieces that failied to explode nor continued to reach the destinations, landing docile bare chested live, bush calling mus, indirectly allowed to do it, from MuNNA relationships.

They may call it baboor or chinkiboor, or ameri-bore, you know what i mean.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 03 Dec 2006 22:17

working further with this ... the problem is greatly simplified if a lot of data are available on the specs of enemy missile ... if a ghauri dingdong is well calibrated, then its velocity at varius stages is known ... this helps in constructing the look-up tables that can contain the space of all possible trajectories ... initial data on angles and velocity can then be quickly crunched out into a family of solutions ...

given that packees have to inform India about missile tests in advance, one would assume that tracking aircrafts were deployed by India to collect data ... plus thire are the asets in space ... so, how well are dingdong parameters already entered into DRDO database? ... comments?

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 03 Dec 2006 22:52

Here is something intersting.
JCage wrote:The news video shows Dr Saraswat saying that a Endo-plus a Exo combined, against a target missile give a 99.8 % Pk (theoretical)

The compere says 4 missiles together (indicating that either he made a mistake or that they edited the tape when Saraswat clarifies the number of missiles).

So, taking the higher figure - 4 Missiles (2 Endo + 2 Exo)- are to give a 99.8% Pk.

Basically, a baseline of what we want to achieve. Note saraswat repeatedly clarifies that its early days yet, and that assistance/ other systems havent been ruled out.

Using four missiles for a success rate of 99.8% means each missile has an individual success rate of 80%.

But then I also saw this.
disha wrote:Assuming that 6 PADE ABMs achieve 99% kill, then the probability of each comes to 50%. That is from the above eqn. probability of miss = (0.50)**6 = 1% => prob of kill with 6 = 99%.

First thing: a hit ration of 50% with 6 missiles equals a success ratio of 98.4375%, not 99+ spoken of by Sarawat. You need a minimum of 54% individual missile success rate with 6 missiles to achieve 99% (actually, 99.05257%) :).


SO, the question that comes up is which is the correct combination:
1. 4 missiles with individual success rate of 80%.
2. 6 missiles with individual success rate of 54%.

I think it is option 1. Because I find the said number 99.8% closer to the calculations (which is 99.84% to be precise). Also note the bold part in JCage's quotation. DRDO is again playing smoke and mirrors. Maintaining ambiguity as usual. I think it is good place to express my sneaking suspicion that the past 'failures' of Akash and Trishul tests were also lies. IMHO, these tests succeeded, but DRDO released the news of failure so that it does not excite people across the borders (and the seas :) ). Now, they have incorporated those successes into this missile. And they are still keeping quite about the real success rate of the missile.

If true, it makes one wonder about the sacrifice of the DRDO. They endured all those years of slander by the anti national mediamen (and women), just so that they could keep this project under wraps.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 03 Dec 2006 22:54

srikumar wrote:Abhisheckcc, if I understand you right, the core of your argument seems to be that for Pakistan or China to reliably penetrate India's missile shield, they would need to drastically increase the number of missiles they have; and doing that would be cost-prohibitive, potentially leading them into financial problems or even bankruptcy.


You are on the right track. But you missed the final point. The efficiency of our missile defence will open up the possibility of bankruptcy. Adversary still has to walk through that door. But he won't. So, what are the other options available to him?Suing for peace means coming closer to India's position which is status quo.

Also, note kgoan's thesis. That this changes the game during war time as well. If we can strike without the same fear of being struck back, then we will have a more open hand in the next war.

---------------
Anoop, chill man. This is a discussion forum. Differences of opinions are welcome. Criticisms also. The qstns you raised to which I have answers:

Q. If the USSR's economy had been healthy would they have caved in to the threat of SDI?
A. No.

Q. How much credibility did SDI have among military planners at the time, given the 1000s of warheads they had aimed at each other?
A. Acd to reports which I have read, they were shit scared.

Q. Is either Pakistan or China in a competition with India to divide the world into two competing camps with different economic and political ideologies? If not, does it have the same compulsions to enter an arms race to draw new allies/retain old allies by showing how much better it is over the other in every sphere of scientific, military and economic endeavor, much like the Cold War was?
A. No, and no. But they have intense hatred for India which can only be seen if you provoke it out of them. Otherwise they are all sugar and honey.

Q. If none of these are true, then might we not be disappointed when neither China nor Pakistan fold in response to India's BMD capabilities?
A. Are their missiles aimed at us? If yes, then these tests will have an effect on their strategic posture.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 03 Dec 2006 22:55

We are still not discusing the fourth horseman - US.

We need to know what capabilities US has deployed against this region, and what is the extent to which they are willing to go. If 1971 is any indication, Indian sub-continent is not a major area of concern to them (like ME). So, they are not likely to escalate beyond a point. Their main source of worry in this part of the world are the paki nukes (and an unwillingness to let them fall into jehadi hands), and the situation in Afghanistan (and an unwillingness to let them fall into jehadi hands :) ).

But we still need to know how does this test affect them materially.

Arun_S, can you list those missiles in paki and chini inventory, which can be stopped by this missile? Also, US missiles. Thanks.

-----------------------

Regarding China, keep one thing in mind: all their four principle enemies have a BMD now. US, Russia and Japan already had them. Now India has got it too. Now only two countries remain which do not have the same system, and against whom the possibility of war remains - Vietnam and Taiwan.

One theoritical question: What happens if and when Taiwan acquires BMD? :mrgreen:
Will beijing explode with hot air?

----------------------

An important country we are missing is Israel. Since the radar is based on green pine, have we shared data with them? If yes, then does this success strengthen Israel against Iranian (and Saudi) missiles?

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 429
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 03 Dec 2006 23:36

abhischekcc wrote: Q. How much credibility did SDI have among military planners at the time, given the 1000s of warheads they had aimed at each other?
A. Acd to reports which I have read, they were shit scared.


I'd really like to see those reports. The collapse of the USSR came as a surprise to the West and a large number of theories have been put forward post facto to rationalize the collapse. Among them have been the self-serving accounts of Bryzinski that the Afghan war caused the collapse. Theories about Soviet fears of the SDI have likely originated from Soviet defectors - the quality of intelligence that emergences from such sources is suspect - case in point, OIF.

A lot of information about Soviet nuclear posture has come as a surprise to Westerners - case in point being the number of nuclear weapons expected to be used in a tactical scenario on the Czech front (13!)

A. No, and no. But they have intense hatred for India which can only be seen if you provoke it out of them. Otherwise they are all sugar and honey.


I have interacted with enough Pakistanis to know what they think of us 8).

That doesn't answer the question of whether they would certainly investing in increasing their missile delivered nuclear inventory - there is a hard upper limit to their inventory (command and control issues, apart from the cost). When the Pakistan Army can get away with bluster for their domestic audience, why would they bankrupt themselves to achieve parity? Again, a second look at Pakistan's aims in acquiring a nuclear weapons capability is in order.

A. Are their missiles aimed at us? If yes, then these tests will have an effect on their strategic posture.


No doubt, but it will be well short of the scenario that you predicted.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 03 Dec 2006 23:56

Anoop wrote:I'd really like to see those reports. The collapse of the USSR came as a surprise to the West and a large number of theories have been put forward post facto to rationalize the collapse. Among them have been the self-serving accounts of Bryzinski that the Afghan war caused the collapse. Theories about Soviet fears of the SDI have likely originated from Soviet defectors - the quality of intelligence that emergences from such sources is suspect - case in point, OIF.


OIF???

Yes, I agree that the collapse of ussr was a surprise to the west. But the decline was not a surprise. CIA is notorious for missing the big picture :)

Another theory, which has some credibility in my eyes, is that the USSR didn't actually collapse. But the state's assets passed into private hands. Boris Yeltsin clique, Viktor Chernomyrdin, etc. When this class felt secure enough in its new role as capitalists, they simply pulled the plug on the USSR. Yeltsin was the guy who truly caused the 'collapse' of the USSR by declaring the independance of the Russian Federation (then Russian SSR). It was this step which the bheshtern untelligent agencies could not predict.

Yes, I admit that most of my readings has been of defectors. Not a reliable source I know, but better than nothing. I read another account of the same in one of the books by Alvin Toffler. It has a little better credibility, I think. :)


No doubt, but it will be well short of the scenario that you predicted.

If you are refering to the collapse-and-bankruptcy scenario, then if you read my posts carefully, you will find that I am not saying that these scenarios will come to life. I am emphasing on the fact that the fear of these scenarios will modify chini and paki behaviour towards India.

It was to that end that I gave the example of USSR. And the fact that the SDI did indeed modify the behaviour of USSR.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 03 Dec 2006 23:57

with almost a trillion dollar forex reserve reaching chinese would get bankrupt? i have to take certain arguments here with andhra-pickles.

if chinese designs are regional supremacy, and they would do that even putting their citizens into permanent poverty or get them gassed, they would merrily do it, even if that means keep their paki batteries active.

hence, if we are talking ABM, we can't ignore china-paki hyphenations, and strategies should be a joint one. that means, our air-space-defense, must ensure a global perspective or rather at least a semi one, that should cover entire europe, china, and asia pacific islands [ref: NFU].

unless our sensor packs includes, space based IRs, advanced GaN radars and wideband systems, that feeds into an array-missile-defense system that works with live feeds including AWACs and other air-borne systems, and large ground based or mountain based installations [ref: alaskan or japanese systems].

also we should consider our kali-5000. what happened to it? can it be stretched to AXO and EXO soft-killers, as the primary defense, and the actual PADEs , AADEs, and SADEs as secondary defense systems.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 04 Dec 2006 00:03

SaiK wrote:also we should consider our kali-5000. what happened to it?

kali-5000 always looked like a big toy to me. I wonder if it was meant for practical applications. Or maybe DRDO is going to pull another surprise to make us all happy. :D

Sai, I never said that China is going to bankrupt if it gets into an arms race with us. (sigh).

What I have always said (and which always ignored) is that the costs of countering an ABM are much larger than building an ABM. Hence, it gives us an advantage over china and pak.

It is possible for pak to become bankrupt. China is less likely. What china will go through is a rethink of its anti India policy. See how they have changed since the time we became buddy buddy with the yanks - only to prevent us from falling into the American camp.

I am hopeful that the ABM system will prompt another rethink on the part of the chinese, and get us another round of strategic concessions from them.

Note that India is a status quo power. If we hold onto our position and chinese give up theirs, we will win.
Last edited by abhischekcc on 04 Dec 2006 00:09, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 04 Dec 2006 00:08

The cold gas thruster could be same as the error correctig package on Agni RV. That makes the chotus also strategic.

SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2047
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Postby SriKumar » 04 Dec 2006 00:17

abhischekcc wrote: You are on the right track. But you missed the final point. The efficiency of our missile defence will open up the possibility of bankruptcy. Adversary still has to walk through that door. But he won't. So, what are the other options available to him?Suing for peace means coming closer to India's position which is status quo.
Pakistan may look for ways to avoid an arms race, but does that automatically mean Pakistan will sue for peace? I doubt it. They may continue with the status quo. India has a sort of 'peace' today where there is no war with Pakistan, but they support terrorists who kill about a couple hundred of Indians per year. I do not see the missile shield changing that (bar one circumstance). The missile shield does have implications for a nuclear war, and therefore, a conventional war (since a conventional war can escalate to a nuclear one).

The only way I see the missile shield having an impact on today's terrorism is if it increases India's willingness to launch a conventional attack in response to terror. That, IMHO, has more to do with what Indians will consider as an 'unacceptable' level of terror. I don't know if having a missile shield will change that.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 04 Dec 2006 00:33

Is it necessary for a pre-emptive strike against Pakistani's nukes to be nuclear in nature? If the answer is no, then, the ABM destroys whatever status quo the Pakistanis and Chinese have relied on, without even changing the GOI's fundamental doctrine.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Few points

Postby Prem » 04 Dec 2006 00:43

The conventional response is the one Baki fear.
Tomorrow Afghanistan wish to have border with India alongside Northern Areas or CAR energy sources need to access Indian Market, BMd will help in securing these goals.
We should agree with Baki Jernails, Indians need to think proactively.

Just like Indian ocean, 1000 Km radius will become Indian spaceyard.
Did not IAf want Aerospace command?
Bakis will keep the title of Eternal Dhimmi to survive.

SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2047
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Postby SriKumar » 04 Dec 2006 00:44

Calvin wrote:Is it necessary for a pre-emptive strike against Pakistani's nukes to be nuclear in nature? If the answer is no, then, the ABM destroys whatever status quo the Pakistanis and Chinese have relied on, without even changing the GOI's fundamental doctrine.
Not sure if this was in respose to my post. Assuming that it is, I don't know that missile shield does anything to guarantee a successful, pre-emptive strike against nukes in Pakistan (I dont think this has much to do with the nature of the warhead- let's assume conventional). The relative success of such a strike would be a function of India knowing where the nukes sit, and having a conventional strike capability with a reasonable CEP, which India had several years ago. ABM technology may increase the accuracy but the other problem of locating *all or most *of Pakistan nukes is still an issue. Which is why, in assessing the ramifications of this sheild, I believe that it is a relevant question to ask: Is India willing to 'take' 1/2 nukes on a major city.
Last edited by SriKumar on 04 Dec 2006 00:50, edited 3 times in total.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 04 Dec 2006 00:45

abhischekcc wrote:What I have always said (and which always ignored) is that the costs of countering an ABM are much larger than building an ABM.


abhishek,

why do you say so? ... conventional wisdom has always maintained the opposite ... the union of concerned scientists in the US has published a video and accompanying report called "countermeasures" which claims that fooling an ABM is much cheaper than the cost of the ABM ...

Apu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 34
Joined: 10 May 2006 11:02
Location: UK

Postby Apu » 04 Dec 2006 00:51

I feel that the missle shield should it become operational will dent a major tool of paki foreign policy...Nuclear blackmail, up till now a major obstacle impeding Indian action on paki land was the nuclear card (providing the political will is there), with a reliable missle defence India can now use conventional force more assertively without the fear of mumbai being nuked...

Paki options now include:
1) bump up the missle count to counter the shield....but with a projected 99% hit rate it would have 2 b a huge arsenal of sophisticated missles....can the pakis afford it? Probably not especially if US funding dries up...

2) Bump up their conventional forces....this can be likely especially with unkils freebies....it is for india to not only control arms supply to pakistan diplomatically but also to speed up the system of Indian military acquisition and indigenisation...

SHould the shield become active in the projected 3 years it will substantially negate the paki threat of nuke strikes on Indian cities....tactical nuke strikes are a different affair..........

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 04 Dec 2006 00:55

Srikumar - India has always been willing to be nuked. This is why we have the NFU. Remember, the real fear is not that of a Pakistani attack on an Indian city as much as a Pakistani attack on Indian troop concentrations in Pakistan.

Consequently, the strategic import is driven by mathematics of successful pre-emption multiplied by effective shielding. If the number likely to break through is small enough (i.e., 1-2), India may well be more comfortable launching Cold Start, and baiting Pakistan to nuke Indian troops on Pakistani soil.

SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2047
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Postby SriKumar » 04 Dec 2006 00:56

Apu wrote: SHould the shield become active in the projected 3 years it will substantially negate the paki threat of nuke strikes on Indian cities... ...
Exactly. It will 'substantially' negate, and not completely eliminate. It is perhaps impossible to ask for a total guarantee. So, the policy planners have to assume that a couple of nukes might sneak in, inspite of having a high probability of kill. (I am not taking the 99+% number to the proverbial bank, battle conditions are different). So, the question is: Can GOI fashion a policy based on a possibility that a city will get hit with 1 nuke rather than 5.

kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 264
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby kgoan » 04 Dec 2006 01:02

In our standard Yindoo style of arguing amongst ourselves, it seems we failed to notice the pindrop silence on this in PakeeLand.

That (shocked?) silence is certainly drawing a lot of wondering attention from others.

What they do and don't say when they start barking will tell us a lot more soon enough.
Last edited by kgoan on 04 Dec 2006 01:03, edited 1 time in total.

Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby Kumar » 04 Dec 2006 01:02

It is premature to be too jubilant about the missile interception capability. The test was a great feat, but still 'dilli door ast'.

SaiK wrote:with almost a trillion dollar forex reserve reaching chinese would get bankrupt? i have to take certain arguments here with andhra-pickles.


Given time, Chinese can surely make their own missile interceptors. They have the money and engineering manpower.

But this chinese '1 trilion dollar forex reserve' is not their father's money to spend as they wish. It would be a foolish bank-executive who would think that just because his bank has huge deposits, he can spend them as he wishes. The money is not his. It is just temporarily in his care.
Last edited by Kumar on 04 Dec 2006 01:04, edited 2 times in total.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 04 Dec 2006 01:03

Srikumar - the strategy already exists - its called NFU. India expects to be nuked first. Wht deterred india in 2002 was the possibility that a riposte may not be possible without a NCA and effective CoC. That has been mitigated now.

SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2047
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Postby SriKumar » 04 Dec 2006 01:06

Calvin wrote:Srikumar - India has always been willing to be nuked. This is why we have the NFU.
I agree, but the situation you refer to is in the endgame. If Pakistan launched a nuke, everyone knows it is all-out war and the final battle has begun. What I am refering to is whether the shield has any bearing on the current situation (low-intensity warfare in India) a.k.a terrorism.

Consequently, the strategic import is driven by mathematics of successful pre-emption multiplied by effective shielding. If the number likely to break through is small enough (i.e., 1-2), India may well be more comfortable launching Cold Start, and baiting Pakistan to nuke Indian troops on Pakistani soil.
I guess I had Cold Start in mind, and I have no idea what kind of an event is currently considered a trigger to initiate hostilities. The next question is whether this shield would actually lower that threshold. If yes, why and by how much? What factors would come into play there?
Last edited by SriKumar on 04 Dec 2006 01:09, edited 1 time in total.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 04 Dec 2006 01:07

the union of concerned scientists in the US has published a video and accompanying report called "countermeasures" which claims that fooling an ABM is much cheaper than the cost of the ABM


The question is whether the country launchng the weapon agrees with these scientists, or whether they believe they need to have more nukes "just in case" the "countermeasures" are not adequate.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 04 Dec 2006 01:07

Alok_N wrote:
abhischekcc wrote:What I have always said (and which always ignored) is that the costs of countering an ABM are much larger than building an ABM.


abhishek,

why do you say so? ... conventional wisdom has always maintained the opposite ... the union of concerned scientists in the US has published a video and accompanying report called "countermeasures" which claims that fooling an ABM is much cheaper than the cost of the ABM ...


I was refering to the amount of new infrastructure involved. Also, my words in Indo pak and Indo-Chinese context. The scientists you refer to probably talked in the US-Russia context. And russia does not need to increase its nuke building infrastructure. Russians anyway say that they can counter anything the Americans can develop in the next 10-15 years. Can the pakis and chinese say that about us?

One question, did this union of concerned scientists have anything to do with some peacenik activity? Because the argument sounds a lot like what a liberal peacenik would use.

JMT.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 04 Dec 2006 01:17

Kumar wrote:Given time, Chinese can surely make their own missile interceptors. They have the money and engineering manpower.


Given time, the chinese can always steal the design from someone :mrgreen:

The chinese have never developed a major weapons system on their own. We certainly can't expect them to do so with some more complex than a fountain pen.

Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby Kumar » 04 Dec 2006 01:21

kgoan wrote:In our standard Yindoo style of arguing amongst ourselves, it seems we failed to notice the pindrop silence on this in PakeeLand.

That (shocked?) silence is certainly drawing a lot of wondering attention from others.

I have been scanning Paki news sites for the same and the silence is deafening.

How long will it take the Pakistanis to realize that their window of strategic weight/parity against India will close down on them in a few years. Would Musharraf or a successor take the bait and go for a decisive one before India becomes too powerful to handle? Unkil is the wild card. If he stays put in Pakistan, then options for the jernails are limited.

P.S. There is also the curious case of silence of the Indian Al-Expressatians, compared to the frenzied howls just a week ago.
Last edited by Kumar on 04 Dec 2006 01:31, edited 3 times in total.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 04 Dec 2006 01:23

abhishek,

yes, the union of concerned scientists are mostly peacenik ... but that doesn't make them stupid ... a dude named Ted Postol at MIT has made a career out of critiquing the NMD ... also, the countermeasures included discussions in the context of an enemy that had a profile of "China" ...

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V120/N29/postol.29n.html

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 04 Dec 2006 01:31

here's the link to UCS website containing countermeasures:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/m ... sures.html

This report examines in detail whether the planned NMD system would work against real world missile attacks. It focuses on the effectiveness of the system against the most commonly cited (and presumably the least sophisticated) threat: attacks by emerging missile states.


Our analysis of the effectiveness of the NMD system assumes it has all of the sensors and interceptors planned for the full system to be deployed only by 2010 or later. However, countermeasures could be deployed more rapidly and would be available to potential attackers before the United States could deploy even the much less capable first phase of the system.

The contributors to the study are all physicists or engineers. Our analysis is based on an understanding of basic physics and technology and uses only information available in the open literature. This detailed analysis is possible because the United States is now so close to potential deployment that it has selected the specific interceptor and sensor technologies that the NMD system would use. We do not believe that access to classified information would in any significant way alter our study or its conclusions.


you can bet that bakis are reading this report and scratching their musharrafs ... they'll give up soon and ask for some counter-baksheesh ...

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 04 Dec 2006 02:07

I don't want to disagree with Chengappa, but I point out that what tracking technology was used cannot be made indigenously. So I cannot say with confidence that it is reliable.

I don't know what Chengappa is talking about. This mid course correction as far as I know had nothing to do with any tracked trajectory of the target. Computation of an intercept from a tracked trajectory is resource intensive and cannot to the best of my knowledge be approached within our current capabilities.

I do not see this technology we have right now as being very advanced and I certainly don't think that it actually poses a proliferation threat of any sort.

It represents a major advance for our scientists but I very very strongly caution against overplaying this as an unbelievable technical advance.

There are certain implications of the advance for SAM systems, I refrain from voicing them until someone in a place of authority decides to be more open about it.

It is not my desire to fill fertile Pakistani minds with unnecessary ideas of a Jewish-Hindu-American conspiracy against their national interests.

Neither do I wish to suggest that India seeks to find ways of carrying out decapitation strikes on Pakistan.

Please let me be very clear, this was a programmed intercept test. It has set a baseline for future tests and sales and many people in the media continue to doubt whether an actually deployable system is possible with these tests. I think such deployability doubts exist everywhere in the world, I cannot tell the Pakistanis with a straight face that I have such doubts. I cannot pretend to know whether Postol believes what he is writing or whether Postol is merely pulling the wool over America's adversaries eyes.

Does this change things vis a vis Pakistan? only to the extent that they have no bragging rights. Their silence is proof that they have no answer to this advance on our side.

Pakistan should just give up all notions of competing with India right now. Look Syed Adnan Kakakhel has already stated that they should follow India's example when it comes to democracy. The Pakistanis should now focus their attention on building a positive growth of their nation and not on devising ways of murdering millions of Indians, Afghans etc...


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests