Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 06:05

Keeping some salt is perhaps advisable:

IAF wants 50 more Sukhois to counter China, Pakistan

India's "dissuasive deterrence" military posture against China, after all, revolves around the Sukhois as well as the 3,500km nuclear-capable Agni-III missile, which will be ready for operational deployment by 2011, and the 5,000km range Agni-V missile in the pipeline.

Very interesting term. Deterrence itself should be "dissuasive". But .................

Assuming all this is right, then it gives us a decent picture of what is considered to be a deterrent WRT China.

One more item of interest. There seems to be a new trend in that India seems to be seeing a greater tandem threat.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2009 06:14

Military capability is proved on the battle field. Everything else is shadow play.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 Oct 2009 06:14

Nrao, honestly I do not even worry about deterrence as in whether it exists or not. Either the outcome of having never to use it or having used it, resulting asymmetric losses does not give much pleasure either for scoring points.

But the pretense of working towards a deterrence has more value. The enemy knows that you are working on something which it does not know. It is not a 10Mt TN technology necessarily, but having funded weapons labs for all kinds of devices others have not thought about is what gives you the real edge. The other side is kept guessing always, which is much better than having an unstable equilibrium of traditional kind of deterrence.

The fear of the US might was built on a lot such pretense programs (star wars) over the years. Some of it will become real, but most won't. As always, should be willing to shed blood if necessary in large numbers to back up the might with, before deterrence of any kind really works. India has shown it in parts, still not yet at the level of other powers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 06:19

Acharya wrote: It is not about these numbers but about the perception inside the mind of the Chinese elite. They have been known to agree to sacrifice 100s of millions of chinese citizens to further their goals.
Any indication of lack of credibility or smaller size of the yield in their eyes will bring down the deterrence value. Chinese Han homogeneous social group have their own hubris which looks down on other cultures. Other societies are considered weak societies. Military capability is the only perception

true.

BUT, what if they cannot achieve their goals after a nuclear retaliation? Which is perhaps what a retaliation would/should do. IF indeed that is a major issue, then forget the millions of deaths, India should figure out what that "goal" is and threaten that specifically.

However, IF what you say is true/right WRT thinking in New Delhi, then they are basing a deterrence on old data - I would actually argue meaningless data/information.

A deterrence would be a deterrence ONLY if in every game they enact they come to the decisive conclusion that it is not worth starting a nuclear war. Even if there is a slight loop hole the deterrence can cease to be one.

So, in the case of the Chinese, from what you are saying, that is very good. I do not know what the "goal" you are referring to is, but for sure (based on your post) the Indian deterrence cannot be a Mt to kill millions of people. So, in theory perhaps a TN is not required for this purpose.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 06:30

Bade ji,

The more I think the more I am convinced (based on what is out there) that Santhanam does not have a case WRT "deterrence" - China centric. He has an open case WRT the TN only. CTBT is not an issue right now and I doubt that it will be in the near future.

Those were his three item.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2009 06:32

The impression I get from general reading is as follows. I think every person who works on nuclear bombs seriously knows that getting a TN bomb to produce an exact yield (at least one within pre-defined limits) takes a fair amount of practice. But at the same time everyone knows that getting some bomb to explode and produce a humongous bang of uncertain yield is not that difficult.

So most non Indian commentators were clearly skeptical that India could get a TN right in the first shot but at the same time people did not rule out the possibility that it night have been done and dismiss the possibility completely. It is chancy business at best and requires repeated tests to make it consistent and reliable.

The way I see it is that if Pakistan is working on Thermonuclear weapons and claims to have made 8 x 200 kiloton warheads I would not laugh it off and dismiss it - or even enjoy a joke about it and say "Hey they say they can certainly build - but it might fizzle" . I would worry that even on their own they might pull it off and China may have given inputs.

The same sort of fear is likely to hold true wrt to China looking at India. They would not be able to dismiss things that easily. They know damn well that they proliferated to Pakistan and they can never be sure that some "international peer" from the former Soviet Union or the US has not passed on some gems of info to India. It is certain (to the Chinese) that Indian scientists slobber over their international counterparts like many Indians slobber over what is not Indian. Only Indians will not believe that. We dismiss our efforts as totally indigenous (see Venn diagram) and totally incompetent

We may not believe RC but we certainly tend to perform poojas to his Venn diagram, but nobody else considers that Venn diagram as god even if we believe in it. For us the Venn diagram is right, and perhaps therefore our science is not world class. No other nation really believes that Venn diagram. Pakistan has openly pooh poohed it. That may not make our science better but it certainly produces doubt in the minds of those who are watching India's nuclear program as that of an enemy.

amit · Post by **amit** » 02 Oct 2009 06:45

ramana wrote:El-Baradei was in New Delhi getting an award from GOI for the NSG waiver etc.
>
>
>
>
So see the recent outbursts from this POV. There is pressure on the CTBT. A guest getting an award from GOI is saying this!

If GOI says the POKII were enough then the corollary is why do you need to keep option open?

Ramana,

Can GoI afford to say POKII was not enough? Let's forget all this discussion on fizzle ya sizzle for the moment and accept it was a fizzle.

Now even if GoI knows it's a fizzle do you think it will publicly disgrace RC and hand him a public whipping as one former stalwart has thundered here?

I don't think that how real politic works. What GoI will do IMO is keep the pretense of POKII being a success, stick with RC et al and make sure that the option to test in future is not given away.

In fact I get a sense that Gol does not/will not give up the test option even if POKII was a resounding success. There will be another round of tests for sure. At a point of time when the Indian economy will be too big for anyone to sanction it and remain relatively unscathed by doing so. I personally reckon sometime after 2016-2017 or so (provided Munna on the western border is not goaded to start a war to hit the Indian economy before that).

Hence in all this confusion what needs to be looked at carefully is the noises that come out from GoI regarding CTBT. Note Krishna's comments and also note MMS comment that India will adhere to voluntary moratorium. Voluntary moratorium only comes to play if India does not sign CTBT - once you sign up there's nothing voluntary about not testing.

It would be naive to expect El-Baradei to say anything (about CTBT) other than what he said in New Delhi, that's his job actually. I think what is far more significant is the fact that he let it slip that the international committee has resigned itself to the fact that India will not sign NPT. That means India will have to be accepted into P5 - by making it P6 - before NPT talks can start. And NPT loses its teeth as long as India stays outside the tent. I think that's a tremendous plus.

So bottomline, don't listen to what international experts (we seem to adore them, right from the former AEC boss down to the hoi polli on BRF) say India should do or is about to do regarding CTBT.

Instead look at the noise bytes that come out from Naya Dilli regarding the shitty bitty. IMHO I haven't yet seen anything which shows that India's position has changed from what that fantastic lady A Ghosh outlined all those years ago.

JMT

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Oct 2009 07:13

NRao wrote: The more I think the more I am convinced (based on what is out there) that Santhanam does not have a case WRT "deterrence" - China centric. He has an open case WRT the TN only. CTBT is not an issue right now and I doubt that it will be in the near future.

Nrao guru

Dr. Sanathanam ji is a Scientist first and then everything else ; for some one associated with the nuclear weapons programme to design a working TN is a very obvious and significant goal; China or no China.

This talk about deterrence based on weapons of 'x' kilotons or 'n' number of warheads is completely outside the purview of the weapons design and development team ; however they may have to throw some numbers in public in order to justify their quest for more powerful and better designs .

The fact that a TN device was tested as a part of POK-II tests should clear doubts in minds of everyone about a TN weapon's role in India's nuclear doctrine (some things are too obvious to be drafted in black and white).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2009 07:26

The ability to get precise and predicted yields from thermonuclear warheads and yet keep them light and efficient can be compared to the relationship between F-16 and LCA. One has been flying for decades, and the other needs more testing.

In all the links I followed up during the past few weeks - one link was about a CTBT dialog between Russia (or maybe FSU - can't recall) and the US. I had in fact linked that very article in one of the earlier pages of this thread - but it moves too fast.

As part of the validation methods the US agreed to test a bomb of around 150 kt in the US while both Russia and the US set up their own CORRTEX monitoring for that test to validate them. The US tested and the US CORRTEX registered 150 kt while the Russian one registered 160 KT. But a nearby US seismic station reported 120 kt. This anomaly raised doubts about the system and the US finally resolved to use radiochemistry to figure out the exact yield. However the US (as usual) clearly stated that radio chem analysis would not be published or shared.

The point of course is that the 120 kt report from seismology in a fully surveyed and much used geological area queered the pitch and raised doubts as to whether he US had really exploded a 150 kt device. This from a nation that has seemingly "tested to perfection"

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 07:31

For the past day or two I have been collecting as much of his actual quotes.

So, I am not convinced based on those finds.

Actually I have been after his partner - Parthasarthi too. Sounds like I am targeting him!!

What I am willing to accept is that they did not package it properly. But, they still have time to do that. For every word they say matters and need to be thought through.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2009 07:41

NRao wrote:For the past day or two I have been collecting as much of his actual quotes.

So, I am not convinced based on those finds.

Actually I have been after his partner - Parthasarthi too. Sounds like I am targeting him!!

What I am willing to accept is that they did not package it properly. But, they still have time to do that. For every word they say matters and need to be thought through.

NRao garu. I collected up most of his reported quotes and that is why it made the job of criticising Santhanam easy. But that is not the point. As you say he has been consistent since 1998 in questioning the result of the S1 test. he is too clever to give out insider information.

And as I see it - it is not a question of yield but more one of physics. Unfortunately reality is hidden behind two cloaks - a burqa inside a tent. The first is the esoteric nature of nuclear physics which is clear only to insiders and the second is the fact that next to nothing in terms of hard data has been made public in this area.

Everything from both sides is nudge-nudge wink-wink. Nothing is provable from publicly available information. After all these pages "Choose whichever side you want. Take your pick" still holds true.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 02 Oct 2009 07:58

Regarding the Venn diagram, with so many people in high places at most scientific institutions in India having spent sizable parts of the their early careers abroad and getting groomed in their disciplines, it would be unbelievable isn't it ? A academic genealogy trace downwards from key players of the 1940's and onwards should reveal connections easily.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Oct 2009 08:51

NRao wrote:
So, in the case of the Chinese, from what you are saying, that is very good. I do not know what the "goal" you are referring to is, but for sure (based on your post) the Indian deterrence cannot be a Mt to kill millions of people. So, in theory perhaps a TN is not required for this purpose.

Not convincing logic for this conclusion.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Oct 2009 10:32

Karsten Frey " India's Nuclear Bomb and National security" Routledge 2009

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2009 14:11

An unrelated data point. Sorry to digress.

I have been scouring all my saved articles and the net but I am completely unable to find any news source that categorically states the size of Indian warheads - other than what Santhanam has stated - i.e 25 kt or so. I vaguely recall some earlier ref to air delivered Indian warheads of 20 kt - but am unable to find it.

Neither K Subrahmanyam nor Arun Prakash have categorically said that India has warheads of 60-80 kt or 200 to 500 kt. They only speak of capability and possibilities. Hilariously Subrahmanyam refers to the "fabrication" of 60-80 kt warhead. Never again in my life will I be able to read the word "fabricate" without remembering Santhanam and having a laugh.

If we are to believe the released information India cannot be assumed to have anything more than 25 kt warheads. Any scenario building IMO should not assume anything bigger without teh possibility of GIGO being kept in mind.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Oct 2009 14:23

shiv wrote: If we are to believe the released information India cannot be assumed to have anything more than 25 kt warheads. Any scenario building IMO should not assume anything bigger without teh possibility of GIGO being kept in mind.

Absolutely.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Oct 2009 15:13

harbans wrote:While we are at it, just curious if Chinese will be able to take the loss of 3 gorges? What kind of havoc will that create? How many nukes needed for that? All in case of a nuke war scenario obviously, because it is detestable thinking IMHO..

harbans et al, the question is not whether they will be able to "take it", horrendous though the concept is, some things are pretty clear (at least to me) realistically

1) India will never be the agressor
2) A nuclear conflagration will be started by China

Given that, China will be prepared to accept certain amount of damage, probably including three gorges, I am sure they will have a battery of ABM SAMs for this eventuality too.

In my view we have to create a condition where the entire existence of their "civilization" is threatened not not merely the current state of their nation. Remember the Chinese are like us Indians in the sense that they have long memories and long terms vision and plan and view of life.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 02 Oct 2009 15:56

I meant damage that can be caused by a Nuclear strike on 3 gorges. If i am not mistaken their economy would be finished.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Oct 2009 16:00

harbans wrote:I meant damage that can be caused by a Nuclear strike on 3 gorges. If i am not mistaken their economy would be finished.

Response in the Deterrence thread harbans.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2009 16:09

harbans wrote:I meant damage that can be caused by a Nuclear strike on 3 gorges. If i am not mistaken their economy would be finished.

Harbans I think those dams can't be destroyed so easily by nuke hits.

Frankly when it gets down and dirty (nuclear war) it is best to take out what is easiest to target and hurt - groups of people aka cities.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2009 16:17

I pulled up that chart that illustrates the radius of damage by nukes of varying yields and based on that I created an image of circles of damage in a city being hit by a 1 megaton nuke or multiple 25 kt nukes.

The magenta circles are 25 kt and the yellow circles are 1 megaton. The circles illustrate radius of total destruction and heavy damage Areas of moderate and mild damage will be wider. I haven't bothered to illustrate them. Reach your own conclusions

kelik on thumbnail

Heavy damage radius for 1 megaton: approx 4.5 km
Heavy damage radius for 25 kt: approx 1.3 km

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Oct 2009 16:21

X posting something from Rudradev which I have been saying in my own pathetic way for sometime

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 41#p748441

2) The whole Santhanam episode appears, at first light, to be an extremely ill-conceived, ill-timed and ill-executed protest. Even if it IS true that India's nuclear deterrent needs a great deal of further testing for it to inspire confidence, one would think that breaching the subject publicly as Santhanam did (thereby reducing whatever credibility our deterrence presently has, in the eyes of the world) was an extremely self-defeating maneouvre.

Unless Santhanam and the nuclear "hawks" did it this way only because they believed that the Core Delhi Leadership was so compromised, that proceeding to advance their case along official channels or through any less public means would have been a completely futile exercise. That's the only scenario in which I can see a scientist who dedicated his entire career to national security, taking the risky choice to go public rather than trust the core Delhi policymakers to do the right thing.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Oct 2009 18:35

shiv sayabre, the link is filtered out by many controled entities. wish it may be given as image here. thanks.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2009 18:42

SaiK wrote:shiv sayabre, the link is filtered out by many controled entities. wish it may be given as image here. thanks.

saik - the inline image will screw up form formatting - but let me se what I can do

kittoo · Post by **kittoo** » 02 Oct 2009 18:50

Sanku wrote:X posting something from Rudradev which I have been saying in my own pathetic way for sometime

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 41#p748441

2) The whole Santhanam episode appears, at first light, to be an extremely ill-conceived, ill-timed and ill-executed protest. Even if it IS true that India's nuclear deterrent needs a great deal of further testing for it to inspire confidence, one would think that breaching the subject publicly as Santhanam did (thereby reducing whatever credibility our deterrence presently has, in the eyes of the world) was an extremely self-defeating maneouvre.

Unless Santhanam and the nuclear "hawks" did it this way only because they believed that the Core Delhi Leadership was so compromised, that proceeding to advance their case along official channels or through any less public means would have been a completely futile exercise. That's the only scenario in which I can see a scientist who dedicated his entire career to national security, taking the risky choice to go public rather than trust the core Delhi policymakers to do the right thing.

IMVHO, Santhanam Sir sure has that much sense. Maybe he was trying to convey it from past few years but New Delhi just wasn't listening. Or maybe signing the CTBT was actually being pondered by MMS etc.
He must have had good enough reasons to come out in public, IMHO.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 19:32

Acharya wrote:
NRao wrote:
So, in the case of the Chinese, from what you are saying, that is very good. I do not know what the "goal" you are referring to is, but for sure (based on your post) the Indian deterrence cannot be a Mt to kill millions of people. So, in theory perhaps a TN is not required for this purpose.
Not convincing logic for this conclusion.

Let me tackle your issue first, then I would like to bring to the forefront a clash of views.

Per your earlier post, I understood it to mean that the Chinese really do not care for how many people die in a nuclear attack (perhaps in any event). True or not let us assume that for the sake of discussion. Is that right?

You mention that their leaders have some "goal" that is mor eimportant to them, important enough that they do not care for millions dieing. Correct?

IF that is true, then an Indian deterrence WRT china cannot be built around a instrument that kills millions of Chinese. Since the Chinese leadership does not care for millions dieing, such an instrument will not impact them in their decision making (to launch or not to launch nukes against India). So, India building Mt class nukes will not make a difference IF they are used to decimate the population of China.

India would be FAR better of to build an instrument that knocks the "goal" (that you mention - whatever that is) out in the event of a nuclear war.

It is rather simple logic.

Next WRT Santhanam:

Now, if you look at the statement made by Santhanam: "It would be farcical to use a 3500-km range Agni-3 missile with a 25 kiloton fission warhead as the core of our CMD", he is stating that a 25 Kt fission warhead is not enough for the purpose of a CMD. Then: "A couple of 20-kiloton bombs over Beijing are never, never, never going to bring China to its knees."

He seems to, very clearly, think that the number of Chinese deaths DOES make a difference to the calculus of the Chinese leadership.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 19:34

Next WRT Santhanam:

Now, if you look at the statement made by Santhanam: "It would be farcical to use a 3500-km range Agni-3 missile with a 25 kiloton fission warhead as the core of our CMD", he is stating that a 25 Kt fission warhead is not enough for the purpose of a CMD. Then: "A couple of 20-kiloton bombs over Beijing are never, never, never going to bring China to its knees."

He has already gone from 25 to 20 Kt.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Oct 2009 20:07

if we are talking about real effective killer a better WMD for 5K wala and beyond would be biological. .. i know, I am bad. but think about detterance value!?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 02 Oct 2009 20:19

ramana wrote:El-Baradei was in New Delhi getting an award from GOI for the NSG waiver etc.

dhu wrote:
So now the "debate" is being framed as CTBT versus NPT!!!

Do not expect India to sign NPT in present form: ElBaradei

quote]International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohammad ElBaradei has said that he does not expect India to sign the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, but feels the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty could be more "acceptable".

"I do not expect India to sign the NPT in its present form...Maybe the CTBT would be more acceptable," he told in an interview to a television news channel.

His remarks assume significance in the wake of the United Nations Security Council adopting a resolution asking all non-NPT states, including India, to sign the NPT.

India has made it clear that it will not sign the pact as a non-weapon state as atomic arsenals are integral to its security.

The IAEA chief said India has to lead efforts for complete nuclear disarmament, an idea it first mooted as far back as in 1948.

ElBaradei, who received the Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, said the world was looking to India for the future of nuclear energy research and development, according to a press release issued by the news channel.

On reports of Iran ../quote]

So see the recent outbursts from this POV. There is pressure on the CTBT. A guest getting an award from GOI is saying this!

If GOI says the POKII were enough then the corollary is why do you need to keep option open?

ElBaradei was in India as private citizen (not official UN visit) and giving him Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace was decided long before Santanam's expose of the R Chidambrum fizzle and LIES (in caps as Santhanam is quoted in mainstream media). And MMS Govt has its orifices sealed and no rebuttal to ElBaradei's statement that seriously undercut's Indian public position and national security.

That shows to ordinary Indians MMS real position w.r.t CTBT, (foreclose possibility to wield TN weapon), and that can only be sustained if Chidambram and Sikka's lies are upheld as fully successful TN test. Nailing this lie was essential to prevent MMS to give away the store. Usual Indian modus operandi to live in fools paradise.

If Santhanam's expose had not occurred, ElBaradei who received the Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, would instead be commending India for agreeing to CTBT.

{Such is MMSingh's Indian hospitality that guests are invited to honor and the guest hits his host country with Chappal and Jootaa, and the Indian hosts takes it as fruit of friendship and honor; unless MMS indeed wants what his guest is delivering.}

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 02 Oct 2009 20:37

The 20 kT NoKo nuclear test on 25 May 2009 was join testing by NoKo and TSPakistan, where Pu came from TSPakistan, and it was a boosted fission device. That joint test erodes any semblence of Boosted fission advantage that India might have had w.r.t. TSP (what to speak of China).

India thus must formally announce its position that:
"Any further North Korean test will be considered a Pakistani test, and if Pakistan tests, India will test.".

It is believed by some that NoKo will test again in 3-6 month time. Thus now is the time start a campaign in Pakistan to create fissure between "People who got rich Baksheesh" and the Ummaa of true believers. Quetta and Peshawar is capital of true believers.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 Oct 2009 20:46

NRao wrote:IF that is true, then an Indian deterrence WRT china cannot be built around a instrument that kills millions of Chinese. Since the Chinese leadership does not care for millions dieing, such an instrument will not impact them in their decision making (to launch or not to launch nukes against India). So, India building Mt class nukes will not make a difference IF they are used to decimate the population of China.

True. What made sense to me was the argument that Indian nukes have to be able to reach into any hardened shelters that may exist in Beijing to protect the Chinese leadership. It seemed that would require yields greater than the 25KT.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 02 Oct 2009 20:46

Arun_S wrote:The 20 kT NoKo nuclear test on 25 May 2009 was join testing by NoKo and TSPakistan, where Pu came from TSPakistan, and it was a boosted fission device.

Via China I presume? It can't go the other way due to US, Yindu's etc.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2009 20:57

vera_k wrote: True. What made sense to me was the argument that Indian nukes have to be able to reach into any hardened shelters that may exist in Beijing to protect the Chinese leadership. It seemed that would require yields greater than the 25KT.

Instead of taking out the leaders who will no doubt hide like rats - it is essential to take out their support.

They need to come out of their bunkers 3 weeks after nuke war to find 10 million bloated, rotting dead bodies and 20 million people dying without any medical care and 100 million people angry and asking exactly what the communist party meant when it said "We can rule so well" in their 60th anniversary celebrations.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Oct 2009 21:20

vera_k wrote: True. What made sense to me was the argument that Indian nukes have to be able to reach into any hardened shelters that may exist in Beijing to protect the Chinese leadership. It seemed that would require yields greater than the 25KT.

Deterrence is supposed to PREVENT "Indian nukes have to be able to reach into".

That a nation has to consider and plan for such an eventuality is fine - something one must do. BUT, a deterrent - IF well designed - will prevent that eventuality. For that matter ALL eventualities.

And, again, does India have - right now - instruments that will prevent either China or Pakistan from resorting to a first strike?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 02 Oct 2009 21:21

shyamd wrote:
Arun_S wrote:The 20 kT NoKo nuclear test on 25 May 2009 was join testing by NoKo and TSPakistan, where Pu came from TSPakistan, and it was a boosted fission device.
Via China I presume? It can't go the other way due to US, Yindu's etc.

Why China?
Via China, versus overflying China are two different thing, former will imply TSP giving it to China and Chine relaying it to NoKO. The latter mean the Pu is in hand of TSP all the way till it is hand delivered to NoKo.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Oct 2009 21:23

Arun_S wrote:If Santhanam's expose had not occurred, ElBaradei who received the Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, would instead be commending India for agreeing to CTBT.

Arun , Well for argument sake

Lets say what Santhanam say is true and we do not have a weaponised TN , the GOI along with its principle opposition party BJP agree to sign the CTBT , and BARC/DAE sticks to its usual stance that TN is sucessful and that they can weaponise it and armed forces tend to toe the GOI line.

So if GOI , BARC , and Oppositon claim and agree that all the 5 test were spectacular success and agree on India joining CTBT with no further test possible , what can anybody do about it ?

The GOI decision is the final word Truth or Lies , isnt it ?

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 Oct 2009 21:36

shiv wrote:Instead of taking out the leaders who will no doubt hide like rats - it is essential to take out their support.

They need to come out of their bunkers 3 weeks after nuke war to find 10 million bloated, rotting dead bodies and 20 million people dying without any medical care and 100 million people angry and asking exactly what the communist party meant when it said "We can rule so well" in their 60th anniversary celebrations.

For one, using MKN's figures, these numbers are more than the casualties that can be expected from 100 Indian weapons. And being an authoritarian government they don't depend on the people for support. If much of the power structure is intact, the angry people will soon enough be brought to heel by the PLA and party cadres.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 Oct 2009 21:40

NRao wrote:And, again, does India have - right now - instruments that will prevent either China or Pakistan from resorting to a first strike?

Yes for Pakistan. For China, the answer depends on the state of the Chinese people. If their economy is in the doldrums and people are angry at the CPC, the leadership will have little to lose from a first strike on India given the current state of the Indian deterrent.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2009 21:51

vera_k wrote: If much of the power structure is intact,

For this we need to define what is meant by "the power structure"

The definition I have in mind is likely to be different from yours and I would like to hear yours since you state that their power structure might be intact.

My figures of 10 million dead and 20 million wounded are not even guesswork - they have been pulled out of a hat. I will have to make a better guess If you hit 20 of China's top cities with 3 x 25 kt nukes each - I would expect 100,000 to 150,000 casualties per nuke - so the immediate figures would be 2 to 3 million dead in the area of total destruction. But peripheral areas would have larger numbers from burns, flying debris etc and the secondary deaths would start later due to mass exodus from the cities, lack of food and water and resulting deaths of vulnerable people like the elderly and children from that. Overall - in a span of 15 days - a figure of 10-12 million dead and injured is not at all unrealistic. These city people are the people who run services in a city, water supply, transport, catering, shops, electricity, garbage, banks, hospitals etc. Even callous commies and their cronies need these services to make things run.

Have a look at the scenario I wrote in 2000 about a nuke attack on a city:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 25#p746825

Finally I believe that putting 3-4 smaller nukes on different areas of a city will cause more suffering as people fleeing one area will meet people fleeing another area head on.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 Oct 2009 22:03

shiv wrote:For this we need to define what is meant by "the power structure"

The PLA, PLN, paramilitary, communist party members. Using Wiki's numbers of CPC membership, totally about 70 million people.

shiv wrote:Even callous commies and their cronies need these services to make things run.

Since they are callous, what would force them to make things run?

shiv wrote:Finally I believe that putting 3-4 smaller nukes on different areas of a city will cause more suffering as people fleeing one area will meet people fleeing another area head on.

I don't doubt that. I just wonder if fear of civilian causualties alone is enough to deter the Chinese leadership given their past and ongoing track record.