Can nuclear deterrence survive on a bluff?

[Sanku]

Thus though you may have your PoV that TNs are not needed,

In no thread at any time have I said that India does not need Thermonuclear weapons.

I know Sir, I do not attribute that PoV to you, only assume and say that I assume that as your PoV for the further point I wish to make. Small difference, but I assure you it was not for semantics.

I am aware of some of your thoughts, as well as the fact that you post a variety of thoughts to explore ideas without necessarily ascribing to them as your believed point of view, more in a open ended manner.

I have merely sought to comment on why people ask for the TNs and why many 25KT weapons are not considered frightening enough (note the stress on enough)

I hope I was been able to credibly demonstrate that I had no intentions of misquoting you or your POV.

[Rishirishi]

Only 12 devices aimed at Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Shenzen, Xiamen, Don Guang, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Nanjing, Forshan, Hong Kong, and Chengdu, will destroy the economic miracle. Further 40-60 devices aimed at industrial clusters and centres and you have a cost that is unacceptable.

Can you please outline the number of warheads to achieve those? Please also calculate the number of delivery vehicles too.

And note since it is second strike it means we will be doing what you say AFTER Delhi and Mumbai and ..... are all hit already hit by MULTIPLE 300 KT thermonukes. Also keep in mind that many of our strike assests would have by then already degraded.

Some may claim that India is too reluctant to use force and the armed forces. I cannot see when that has been the case.

1947, 1962, 2008.

The nuclear assets are not likely to be stored in Mumbai or Delhi. Most probably they will be stored in some secret place.

You need 24 vehicles, each with the capacity to carry 2-3 warheads of 50KT each. Each of the main targets would require to be hit with 2 missiles.

With 24 AGNIS and 50-74 50KT China will pay a very very high price. All of their main industrial, financial and econimical sentres will be eliminated. Why on earth would China want to take such a risk?

I have been several times to China and have started to understand Chinease nationalism. The communist government has already presumed that they will become the next super power. They have started to view them selfs as undefetable in commerce. But to their horror they are realising that low cost manufacturing can only get them so far. They have huge huge bad loans problems, they are wasting vast summs of money on semi government PSU's, their workforce is shrinking and worst of all, They are dependant on exports wich they have to finance. A major part of their economy depends on huge governement spending.

Compared to the dragon, India is well managed, economically speaking. India has managed to grow its economy without depending on exports, Indians get far better payed for their exports,wages are rising much faster in India, compared to China. Indian professionals earn more then the Chinease. But above all, India has become the choosen country by US and EU to counter China.

What to expect from china.
*They will try to split India
*They will try to stop economic progress, by forcing it to spend more on the military.
*They will try to humiliate and hinder economic development of its rival.
*Expect them to play TSP against India.

Giving up the dream of superpower is too hard for the chinease. They are playing to win the world, they are in a battle mindset.

Hopefully the Chinease bubble will burst before they manage to make life too bad for India. India can help with the situation by demanding a free revaluation of the RMB and push for economic sanctions against dictator governments.

[John Snow]

Can nuclear deterrence survive on a bluff?

Yes it can and depends upon the Bluff Master.
Deterrence will survive till its broken.
It may be Blind mans bluff to fool around dterrence but the opponents may not be blind sighted or foolish.
To think you can fool your enemies is foolish and confirms that one who tries is foll and enemies will certainly fool around with him.

[Karna_A]

All I am saying is that the absence of thermonuclear weapons does not mean that deterrence cannot exist. You are welcome to join the entire bunch of people you have named in disagreeing with me - but kindly do not misquote me to disagree with a strawman that you have created.

I agree with Shiv 100%. Now suppose a robber comes to your house.
(a) Will he get scared if you show him a revolver? Sure, a little bit. That's equivalent to a Standard Conventional Army
(b) Will he get scared if you show him an AK-47? Sure, now he knows he can't avoid the volley of Bullets. That's equivalent to a well equipped Conventional Army. But maybe he has come with AK-47 also so it may be equal.

(c) Will he get scared if you come to him an 75mm Field Gun at your home? Hell Sure, now he knows not only he, but his getaway car with his friends and on-lookers/neighbors all will die. This is like having a Nuke.
(d) Will he get scared if you come to him an 155mm Field Gun(Bofors!) at your home? Definitely Hell Sure, now he knows not only he, but the entire city block will go in smoke. This is equivalent to a TN.

Arguing over whether option c is not sufficient enough over option d is meaningless hair splitting and only a precision oriented Scientist can argue over it.
There is enough deterrence in option c and option d does not markedly improve it.
What the robber needs convincing is that option c WILL be exercised, no matter the consequences.

[svinayak]

Our credibility is injured every time some Karlos Santanam comes out of the woodwork making claims about how nothing worked in 1998 even though we always claimed it did. This is true even if Karlos Santanam is telling the truth and the GOI is lying, or vice versa... either way, the blow to institutional credibility of our national strategic defense and policymaking apparatus is arguably more damaging to our deterrence posture than an actual fizzle of the TN device might have been.

This entire episode cannot be blamed on KS (Please use correct names and spelling).
This is a result of policy making for more than 20-30 years. Several govt neglected the threat perception for many years.
The deterrence requires sufficient facts to create an image with the adversary. Credible Minimum Deterrence is such a policy that it may be insufficient to create the image of 'credible'

China may be working on so that nothing which India does will be 'credible'

[Lalmohan]

technically i believe India's nuclear stance is described as recessed deterence - meaning something like - call our bluff and see what happens? therefore whilst there is demonstrable capability to cross the threshold, there is plausible deniability and sufficient doubt as to the totality of the capability. this is meant to convince pakistan that 'there is no point', and to convince china that 'best not to try and find out'. no one else is directly and intentionally threatened by the Indian state. ambiguity is part of the game.

for more details, read tellis - india's emerging nuclear posture

the hoo haa about TN is a ploy to resist CTBT pressure. there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a TN weapon is entirely feasible - does anyone really want to find out if it does or not in a hot situation? also, TN's are china specific, there is enough to smack down pakistan.

i also want to disagree with the person saying that israel's conventional strength is sufficient deterrent... was not true at yom kippur war time. the egyptians got very close to a decisive break through. running out of ammo and not being resupplied by the USSR was the problem, plus some last ditch defense by the IDF - i believe it was the 'battle of the chinese farms' where the stalemate was reached. and someone said israel feared invasion from the USSR... i tried hard but could not get that to compile in my cpu boss...

[John Snow]

To think that we can asemble a thermo or even a fission bum after we are hit ( second strike ) with very few tests is very very high risk game.
God forbid that we have to launch a strike with one test or two and a half test proven stuff, we should for sure do so with a prayer on a lip or even better prayer on bitten lip.

"Whatever can go wrong will go wrong, and at the worst possible time, in the worst possible way."

The proof of the above is our H bum test itself and the subsequent political bungling...

Need say more?

[ramana]

Mumbai terrorist attack must have crossed several agreements leading to this Kilkenny cat fight.

[shiv]

To think that we can asemble a thermo or even a fission bum after we are hit ( second strike ) with very few tests is very very high risk game.

This is true.

But nobody generally takes the "highest risk" unless there is some payoff for taking some other route which is less risky. We could assume that GoI may be playing this high risk card because its risks are lower than testing repeatedly and deploying validated weapons of all types.

The question everyone is asking is "What risk could be greater than the risk of salami slicing of Indian territory and constant terrorism supported by nations with nuclear arms, who are deterring us from responding to either salami slicing or to terrorism"

The answer to this question is what GoI should provide - but the only answer that seems to be coming out is a rhetorical one that says "We do not need repeated testing or demonstrated thermonuclear capability. Our deterrence is adequate"

But this reply does not answer the fundamental question. The government is saying that our deterrence against nuclear attack is assured. But the question is why that deterrence is not working against nuclear armed foes who are salami slicing and sending in terrorists. What sort of deterrence is this?

If nuclear weapons are not going to deter nuclear armed foes, what is the GoI proposing to do other than sit on its backside and bleat that deterrence is adequate?

[shiv]

I just had an "aha" moment and will post my thoughts - which really will add only 2 paise to the various voices that we hear.

India's doctrine revolves around "CMD" (Credible Minimum Deterrence" and "NFU" (No First Use) of nuclear weapons.

What this means is:

"We will have the minimum number of survivable weapons to retaliate against you if you attack us first, and we promise not to attack you first with nukes"

In response to this China and Pakistan are saying "OK you stupid Indian twits By all means keep your CMD and NFU. What we will do is to needle you with terrorists and grab your territory now that you have yourself reassured us that you will not attack us first. Furthermore we will keep on needling you and keep on grabbing territory without using nukes so that you don't even have a chance to use those idiotic fizzles that you have"

The Indian government has NO (read as "zero, zilch, shunya, cipher") response to this.

This has been understood by a large bunch of people - with Santhanam and at least one Armed Forces chief among them and the overall thrust of their statements would lead to the following conclusions (IMHO)

Dear Government of India

1) Do no be so stupid as to stop at 2 tests of fission weapons
2) Test and test again till you can get huge thermonuclear weapons and you will not be restricted in yield or number
3) Rethink your cowardly NFU and stingy CMD doctrine. You should be able to tell Pakistan and China "OK you stupid gits. You needle us and we will reserve the right to nuke you for merely needling us and we will still maintain enough nuclear weapons to destroy you even if you attack us back with nukes."

Hoping you can get this into your thick heads.

Yours frankly

etc

India's NFU and CMD doctrine leave huge holes in our security. NFU and CMD are fine as long as your nuclear rival does not share a border with you.

[Philip]

Shiv,have you been advising the ungodly two entities ,enemies of India who have been nibbling at our Himalyan ice lollies? You are spot on as to their machinations.With our MEA,the " Ministry of Eunuchs and Appeasers",what else can we expect? This morning's New IEx had a fine piece by the editor Sinha,on the GOI imagining that by singing the N-deal with the US we would "sit at the high table".He has coincidnetally used the very same words which I wrote about months ago ,that the only way India/MMS would be allowed in was as their flunkey,their be-turbaned "butler",to pick up the crumbs from the table.He says that the key indivuidual promoting the thesis that we should sign away and compromise our N-policy and get into Uncle Sam's bed, is Montek ("the monkey") Singh! With these two "singing and signing" away India's strategic deterrent,it's time we all started building nuclear shelters in our back gardens.

[arunsrinivasan]

@ Shiv, thats good. Even if we get rid of the NFU policy, I think culturally we dont have it in ourselves to be the aggressor ... for a example, we have not even actively provided arms & training to Tibetans. After all the nuclear proliferation that China has done & undermined our security, that is the least we could do. We had IK Gujral, shutting down RAW's covert ops in TSP, I also found that PVNR also shut down RAW's Covert ops in China / East Asia. Who is going to be afraid of us even if we change the NFU policy ... we have to put the fear of God in others by our actions & not by just by policy changes.

[SSridhar]

That is what I meant in my post earlier that 'GoI had not sufficiently thought through' the strategic posture that should be assumed by India once the Shakti series was through with. That posture should reflect in every sphere of our political activity. Did our rulers past and present think that simply detonating devices, building a delivery mechanism and announcing our committment to CMD, NFU and recessed deterrence were enough ? They were for starters. We simply cannot sit back on our haunches after these. We thought of nukes as status-enhancers which by themselves alone would help us regain our rightful place in the world order. However, our pacifist tendencies and inability to retaliate against any nation for any atrocity committed against us do not let the others think of us as anything other than cowards who can be pushed around. The possession of nuclear weapons can only be a base but a whole edifice needs to be built on top of that if we are to be taken seriously. This means that a strategic thinking and resolve consistent with our goals and ambitions must be exhibited in all our actions. Today, we are approaching all our issues piecemeal and on an ad-hoc basis.

[Vishal_Bhatia]

Note for mods: If my post is OT, kindly delete it or move it to the appropriate thread.

deterrent... was not true at yom kippur war time. the egyptians got very close to a decisive break through. running out of ammo and not being resupplied by the USSR was the problem, plus some last ditch defense by the IDF - i believe it was the 'battle of the chinese farms' where the stalemate was reached.

I'll reiterate again: A nuclear deterrent is meant to prevent a nuclear (and not conventional) war. In the Yom Kippur War, Israeli nukes were not confirmed and the Egyptians had no nukes. Further, the Egyptians were limited by their SAM cover; once outside it, the IsAF was free to harass them. The stalemate had been reached before the events at the Chinese Farms.

and someone said israel feared invasion from the USSR... i tried hard but could not get that to compile in my cpu boss...

That someone would be me. The following references will confirm what I said (that the Soviets planned to intervene; note that this was in 1967):

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2000/issue4/jv4n4a5.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle ... RTID=27182

[ramana]

I think John Snowji had posted the "I told you son" sequence from Blitz of yesteryears. Seems its needed here also.

[Karna_A]

To think that we can asemble a thermo or even a fission bum after we are hit ( second strike ) with very few tests is very very high risk game.

There in lies the importance of ATV. ATV theoretically will have assembled fission bums ready for launch just needing the launch codes. And it could then be launched from anywhere say from Sea of Japan.

[nachiket]

I just had an "aha" moment and will post my thoughts - which really will add only 2 paise to the various voices that we hear.

India's doctrine revolves around "CMD" (Credible Minimum Deterrence" and "NFU" (No First Use) of nuclear weapons.

What this means is:

"We will have the minimum number of survivable weapons to retaliate against you if you attack us first, and we promise not to attack you first with nukes"

In response to this China and Pakistan are saying "OK you stupid Indian twits By all means keep your CMD and NFU. What we will do is to needle you with terrorists and grab your territory now that you have yourself reassured us that you will not attack us first. Furthermore we will keep on needling you and keep on grabbing territory without using nukes so that you don't even have a chance to use those idiotic fizzles that you have"

The Indian government has NO (read as "zero, zilch, shunya, cipher") response to this.

This has been understood by a large bunch of people - with Santhanam and at least one Armed Forces chief among them and the overall thrust of their statements would lead to the following conclusions (IMHO)

<snip>

India's NFU and CMD doctrine leave huge holes in our security. NFU and CMD are fine as long as your nuclear rival does not share a border with you.

Shiv saar,
Needling us with terrorists is one thing, but if they are able to grab our territory without using nukes, the its a failure of our conventional forces not our nuclear policy.

What you said

3) Rethink your cowardly NFU and stingy CMD doctrine. You should be able to tell Pakistan and China "OK you stupid gits. You needle us and we will reserve the right to nuke you for merely needling us and we will still maintain enough nuclear weapons to destroy you even if you attack us back with nukes."

is akin to the paki sabre-rattling about using nukes which they indulge in every time there is even a slight chance of an Indian attack because they know that their conventional forces would lose.

Having said that even I feel our NFU policy is utterly ridiculous considering that we have two hostile nuclear neighbours who do not have a NFU policy.
Our stance should ideally be something like "If we feel that our sovereignty is under threat and that the only way to retain it is by using nukes then we will use them even if our enemies haven't"

[John Snow]

Once upon a time in India there was tabloid magazine published from Bombay in English, which most people read from the back page to front, and that was BLITZ of RK Karanjia ( I was too young to really grasp the picture of the semi nude lady, but still I used gaze at it).

In that Magazine there used to be a column called

"I told you Son"

Here is modern version ie 2009 of the same column.

Father
Yes son
I heard India has launched a Nuclear Submarine is it true.
It is true son, our PMs wife did the cermonial coconut breaking.
Father, but now I hear that India's nukes are not that powerful?
No son, they are powerful but ours is Minimum Credible Nuclear deterrent.
But father how can we have minimum Credible Nuclear deterrent if we dont have proven Hydrogen bomb?
Why son we have Fission bombs which can be bunched together and give the same effect.
But Father then we have to bunch many of them so then it wont be minimal but be maximal numbers no? and then it can only be minimally credible Nuclear deterrent?
Hmm son you are making me think hard.
Father...
Yes son, go on I am still thinking
We have now Arihant which needs to be effective second strike platform because of our no first use policy.
That is correct son.
Father, if it is correct then the space for weapons and missiles is limited in submarines no?
That is again correct son
Father, then is it correct to say India can not efford many subs and many fission bombs and many missiles, because of economics and few resources?
Yes son that is also correct
Father...
Yes go on son you are making me think twice already
Father, then it is better to develop few Hydorgen bombs and conserve resources than make many Fission devices.
You are correct again son.
So father with out Hydrogen bomb,and a NFU policy,what deterrent should we call it and against whom is this deterrent?
Now Son you are making me think thrice hmmm....
Father,
yes son go on
Is it then Arihant is just a Nuclear powered submarine but not a Nuclear Armed submarine for Second and decisive strike against enemy?
I DONT KNOW SON!
Thank you father

[Lalmohan]

Vishal
we're probably in violent agreement about nuclear deterence. i see israel going overtly nuclear POST yom kippur war, not pre. i think the status quo now is about - if our existance is threatened then we will nuke you. pakistan is playing the same game.
i also seriously don't think the USSR would have directly intervened - to them this was another proxy theatre

on the broader topic, NFU, etc., was probably designed to keep Unkil calm and peace with the Dragon until there was credible delivery capability. we can keep NFU, etc., but we should change it to be NFU against China only. We should formally declare a pakistan specific first strike policy if we feel they are being annoying.

[brihaspati]

Increasingly - I am beginning to remember the words of a dear senior told to me many decades ago. He used to characterize "communists" as "hahakaarvadis". Later on it extended even to me if on those very rare occasions, I would also say something like "everything negative - nothing can be done - no hope".

We have probably had enough of analysis. Can we have an alternate nuclear weapons programme and policy statement please? It may seem fantasy. But imagine you are framing policy for an alternate GOI. One that is ready mentally to support and initiate policies which are not shy of expanding Indian influence and power.

Only when we begin to think it can be done, will things happen.

[ramana]

Arun_S has been advocating such a program in the mil forum and gets constantly put down.

[brihaspati]

Was it Churchill who said that war is too important to be left to the generals? Arun_S may be put down on technicalities - tech details that appear to the professionals to be hare-brained and out of sync with ground realities. I don't know. But on strat forum, I think we can very well think ahead and set objectives.

Think like a government, not like a military commander. Or better still, like a LOI. It is the task of the LOI to set objectives. The professional can fight us and take us a peg or two down. But it is the task of the LOI to set targets and ask the professionals what they need to achieve this target. LOI's task is then to prepare thec onditions asked fro by the professionals.

[shiv]

[quote="nachiket"][/quote]

Nachiket I am posting a reply without specifically quoting your response.

I believe that India's drive towards acquiring nuclear weapons was prodded initially by China and jolted into action by Pakistan.

In the old days the argument I used to hear was "How can you expect our armed forces to fight a war against a nuclear armed adversary when they do not have nuclear weapons?"

India seems to have acquired nukes to send out various signals. The signal to the Indian people seems to have been "Don't worry, we have nukes too. We are also running in the race"

The signal to other countries was "If you nuke us we will nuke you back"

Other countries are not stupid. Their reply to India has been "OK we will needle you but not nuke you and we know damn well that you will not nuke us for needling you with conventional attacks. That is your declared policy" And we are having various unglis shoved up our backside.

What we need is to raise the threat level where we retract the promise that we will never nuke anyone until he nukes us (NFU). This change of policy does not demand that we actually nuke anyone - but at least we are not making any assurances that we will never nuke anyone over a conventional attack. It raises the level of uncertainty and risk for a country who decides to needle India. When you salami slice or send in terrorists - your safety from nuclear attack will no longer be guaranteed by India.

India'a NFU nuclear policy right now guarantees that we will never nuke any nation for terrorism or salami slicing. It is a highly stupid policy given our neighborhood and it is like saying "I will punish you only if you sleep with my wife. As long as you restrict yourself to molesting her and touchy-feeling her I promise never to punish you" This is the idiotic policy maintained by this "5000 year old custodian of dharm"

[ramana]

India was always considered at the forefront of nuke powers based on its scientific contributions to nuke theory before Independence. The many books of 1950s all say its a matter of when and not if India will become a nuke power. It had noting to do with PRC or TSP. Good you are thinking but please don't spin in a vacuum.

[svinayak]

India was always considered at the forefront of nuke powers based on its scientific contributions to nuke theory before Independence. The many books of 1950s all say its a matter of when and not if India will become a nuke power. It had noting to do with PRC or TSP. Good you are thinking but please don't spin in a vacuum.

The diff is the capability vs reality.
Now it is not about when but how capable and credible.

[Karna_A]

I believe that India's drive towards acquiring nuclear weapons was prodded initially by China and jolted into action by Pakistan.

Shiv,
Entirely agree with your belief. The entire Indian Nuclear weapon program was due to the reason of India being in a tough neighbourhood with China and TSP. It's misunderstanding of global ground situation to think otherwise.

Question is: Had India been geographically situated in place of Australia, with New Zeland as the neighbor, and no boundary conflicts would India have developed Nukes inspite of having the capability to do so? The answer is a big No. It would have surely developed Nuclear power but with it's "Non Alignment and Ahimsa" stance would never have developed nukes. Just as when you are facing a fast bowler you need a helmet and body armor, similarly when you are in a tough neighborhood like India or Israel, you have to rely on Nukes and even Samson option.
The only reason South Africa gave up Nuke option(inspite of the capability) is that it's a a much militarily safer neighborhood than India or Israel.
The only thing missing in India is embrace of the Samson option in nuke policy and tit for tat terrorism in conventional realm.

[Raj Malhotra]

The whole point of having a nuke is that it should never be used. Having a doubtful nuke actually increases the risk that bluff will be called by some mad man in the adversorial nation. Therefore we must have a very very clear demonstration of capability of TN of upto 200-500kt several times.

[shiv]

The whole point of having a nuke is that it should never be used. Having a doubtful nuke actually increases the risk that bluff will be called by some mad man in the adversorial nation. Therefore we must have a very very clear demonstration of capability of TN of upto 200-500kt several times.

Raj - any country with fissile material and 1960s tech can make a working (fission) nuke. It is a myth to say that this is not easy. It is easier than claimed. What we do with that capability is another matter

[Raj Malhotra]

There have been reports that Pak has 90 nukes. We ALL know Pak cannot make 90 nukes. Is this one way of China + USA telling us that if you get into conventional scrap with Pak we will nuke you and tell the world pak did it!!!!!!!!!!


Remember Clinton era which was not far away, he was using Pak, Bangladesh & China to break up India. Are our memories on BRF so short that we forget what USA been upto just decade back?????????

[Raj Malhotra]

The whole point of having a nuke is that it should never be used. Having a doubtful nuke actually increases the risk that bluff will be called by some mad man in the adversorial nation. Therefore we must have a very very clear demonstration of capability of TN of upto 200-500kt several times.

Raj - any country with fissile material and 1960s tech can make a working (fission) nuke. It is a myth to say that this is not easy. It is easier than claimed. What we do with that capability is another matter

I wonder why P-5 did not go with your theory. Only South Africa and Israel who had recessed capability were nations that were superior in conventional forces AND did not face nuclear adversay AND had de-facto USA nuclear umbrela.

India has China & Pakistan on its borders who attack our borders everyday and launched commando raid on Mumbai to murder innocent Indians.

Yes, nukes will not stop terrorism but if Pak pushes us enough then we hit back and tell the world that anybody who supports them goes down with them

Our deterrant is not sufficient till we have capabilty to wipe China of the face of the world in second strike and this requires clear belief of China in our TNs.

India is facing existential threat from Pak & CHina and US is ready to sell us down the river.

[Karna_A]

There have been reports that Pak has 90 nukes. We ALL know Pak cannot make 90 nukes. Is this one way of China + USA telling us that if you get into conventional scrap with Pak we will nuke you and tell the world pak did it!!!!!!!!!!

Remember Clinton era which was not far away, he was using Pak, Bangladesh & China to break up India. Are our memories on BRF so short that we forget what USA been upto just decade back?????????

There are a lot of people who strongly disagree with you on both the points.
(a) TSP does have sufficient material to create around 90 nukes, as India proably has for aound 400.

(b) At no point did anyone I know felt that during Clinton era, he was using Pak, Bangladesh & China to break up India. It is debatable how you came to such a conclusion. In fact it was during Clinton era that the Nixon era Tilt was finally rectified.

[Karna_A]

Our deterrant is not sufficient till we have capabilty to wipe China of the face of the world in second strike and this requires clear belief of China in our TNs.
.

Today's China is not Mao's China that was ready to sacrifice 30% of it's population in lieu of communist victory. Moreover, the real China is in Chinese 10 or so major cities, whereas the real India is it's in 600K villages.
Loss of Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong would result in end of Modern China, whereas loss of Delhi, Mumbai, calcutta would just result in loss of the corrupt elite class as India as a civilization is indestructible.
You could see it in NRI vs NRC. The NRC(Non Resident Chinese) do not have any common meeting points, agendas, meetings whereas NRIs have the civilizational unity manifested in common programmes cultural or otherwise.

[shiv]

I wonder why P-5 did not go with your theory.

What do you mean P5 did not go with my theory. Could you explain that. The P5 have recognized and implemented countermeasures to that theory long before I even thought of it. It is not even my theory - although you seem to have heard it first from me and are crediting me with it. Far from that.

The P5 have checkmated or taken on board most countries in the world and stopped them from making nukes. Only India, Pak and NoKo are the stragglers.

[SSridhar]

NSA dismisses Santhanam's claim and calls it 'horrific'

National Security Adviser M K Narayanan has termed a former DRDO scientist's claims on Pokhran II nuclear tests as "horrific" and asserted that India has thermonuclear capabilities which have been verified by a peer group of researchers.

He said that the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which comprises a peer group of scientists, had last week come out with the "most authoritative" statement on the efficacy of the 1998 nuclear tests and no more clarification was required from the government on the matter.

"They (AEC) were satisfied in 1998 and they were satisfied in 2009. Now what are you going to discuss?" he said to a news channel.

[amit]

NSA dismisses Santhanam's claim and calls it 'horrific'

National Security Adviser M K Narayanan has termed a former DRDO scientist's claims on Pokhran II nuclear tests as "horrific" and asserted that India has thermonuclear capabilities which have been verified by a peer group of researchers.

He said that the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which comprises a peer group of scientists, had last week come out with the "most authoritative" statement on the efficacy of the 1998 nuclear tests and no more clarification was required from the government on the matter.

"They (AEC) were satisfied in 1998 and they were satisfied in 2009. Now what are you going to discuss?" he said to a news channel.

Sridhar,

I see you've posted this here, I just quoted the same paragraphs on the other thread.

Wouldn't this count as a peer review that is being demanded after KS' allegations?

[Raj Malhotra]

I wonder why P-5 did not go with your theory.

What do you mean P5 did not go with my theory. Could you explain that. The P5 have recognized and implemented countermeasures to that theory long before I even thought of it. It is not even my theory - although you seem to have heard it first from me and are crediting me with it. Far from that.

The P5 have checkmated or taken on board most countries in the world and stopped them from making nukes. Only India, Pak and NoKo are the stragglers.

I think there is some mis-understanding here, I meant to say that P-5 did not limit themselves to fission bombs and went for TNs

[Sanku]

Wouldn't this count as a peer review that is being demanded after KS' allegations?

I think the entire article bases itself not on any responses to the issues raised but on attacking KS as a person.

NKN says that KS does not know a whit. That's the lynchpin of the argument. If true everything he says is right, if not everything he says is wrong.

As to what KS did during Pokhran, he has told the world, if KS does not know anything despite being in that role, I think I will have a Building to sell, white marble onlee.

[Karna_A]

I think there is some mis-understanding here, I meant to say that P-5 did not limit themselves to fission bombs and went for TNs

Fission bombs did not stop Berlin Blockade, TNs did not stop the Berlin wall. TNs are more like the icing on the cake, but not the cake itself.

[AdityaM]

Had to get this what-if scenario out of my head..

What if its not India that does a first strike on china but actually pakistan that does it from Kashmir...Who will wait for our pleas of ignorance... it will be assumed that its us...and the bluff or not will be called.

There, i feel much better now.

[vera_k]

Wouldn't this count as a peer review that is being demanded after KS' allegations?

The AEC has issued a statement that they are confident about the claimed yields. But that statement relies on two meetings in 1998 and 1999. Further, the statement attempts to grant these meetings credibility based on the fact that Raja Ramanna was a member of the AEC at that time.

So, this doesn't count as a peer review, especially not one that happened after KS' allegations. In fact, IMO, it means that a) either the NSA doesn't know the state of affairs with the TN or b) he knows, but has other goals in mind which need this question be put to rest.