Deterrence

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 09 Oct 2009 12:59

In order to arrive at appropriate tonnage on the list of cities I provided, please use the simulator to go over each of them covering to the outer radius. That is then averaged out. But this is my list and not the list. So please take that for what it's worth. If you come up with higher tonnage, then reduce number of cities we can hit by that much probably and note to self: increase Pu production.

Also, please note that it is a tad bit silly to insist on Pu weapons when we should be evolving more efficient means (the calculation still use 20% as efficiency), another direct conclusion of the numbers game, particularly as my post points out that the production needs will go up and matched with corresponding increase in powerplants etc. Oh, and it starts with just a quarter of that list today because we need to have running about 8000MW of power plants to meet full-up demand, and if it is up 20% from that 10000MW of nuclear power producing Pu (only in present 20% efficiency mode and Pu alone world).

So, to be sure, we are using Pu as an example in the absence of any other technology. I am hoping, not as the design configuration we are frozen to by our own harakiris. If that Pu is all we've got, 20% eta is all we've got then 20% up or down is meaningless and then the drama of the last few whatevers is far worse than I thought. What deterrence?

S

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 09 Oct 2009 14:41

most of china's population (over 70%) is concentrated in a region that occupies less than 1/3rd of it's land area.

Actually it's more, 95% of China's population stays in 1/3rd of it's present land area. Mostly on the Eastern part of China.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 09 Oct 2009 15:10

>>>the results will be spectacular.

Ahem...we are talking about killing people, isn't it? Let us use less 'spectacular' language, if I may say so.

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

viveks wrote:
shiv wrote:
Shivji...I would like to have a word with you. I tried sending a private msg but my account indicated that I was not authorized.

Can you plz provide an email?

pls send email to bennedose at hotmail dot com and leave msg here.

i will reply with my regular email id

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 Oct 2009 20:01

Dr.Shiv i dont know to mince words much, so i have a clear question for you, In your opinion does India need TN to deter China/Pak ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Oct 2009 21:40

suryag wrote:Dr.Shiv i dont know to mince words much, so i have a clear question for you, In your opinion does India need TN to deter China/Pak ?

Let me give a clear answer for the nth time and since you will not be the only one reading the answer I want to make sure that my words are not twisted out of their meaning as they have been by the usual culprits some of whom can do nothing more than foam at the mouth.

India does not need Thermonuclear bombs to deter China and/or Pakistan.

But Thermonuclear bombs are nevertheless a desirable goal.

The point here is that:

I am not saying that India does not need TN bombs
I am not saying that India must not make TN bombs
I am not saying India does not need nuclear bombs

I am saying that India does not need "thermonuclear" bombs for deterrence. Deterrence is, in my view NOT based on the difference in size of non TN and TN bombs as is believed by many on here, but capability and willingness to use what you have.

As far as I can tell a lot of people who believe that TN bombs are necessary seem to be hesitant, confused and just plain ignorant about the consequences of their use and non use. But that is a different subject that I intend to attack as soon as I have collected enough data points from views expressed on here.

Here is a cross post from the other thread.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/indi ... e?page=0,1

Even if India never tests another nuke, Santhanam's accusation that Pokhran II was a fizzle isn't as damning as it might sound. For nuclear scientists, fizzle is a technical term for detonations that yield 30 percent less concussive force than expected, and Santhanam himself acknowledges that India's thermonuclear device yielded an explosion equivalent to 15 to 20 kilotons of TNT — the rub is that it was intended to generate 45 kilotons. The minimum deterrent lobby argues that's powerful enough to dissuade Pakistan from getting any crazy ideas, and even if India's nukes pale in comparison with China's, they're still devastating enough to give any rational adversary pause.

But for others, the niggling fear remains that doubts about the capacity of India's nuclear bombs make it all the more likely that one day it may have to use them.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Oct 2009 22:45

Ouch. A data ppoint:

Time for India to wake up to China

The only difference was that while China showcased some five dozen indigenous conventional and strategic systems, India’s military might is still reliant on massive military imports, while its strategic capability has to catch up with China for deterrence to work.

??????

Secondly, China, like many other nations, has a unified military command under a Chief of Defence Staff. Its military is truly integrated into government decision-making and strategic deterrence.

In India, the picture is completely opposite — a civilian bureaucracy is the sole adviser to the government on military affairs, while the Nuclear Command Authority and the policy of “recessed deterrence” (i.e. all warheads and missiles are kept separate, under different authorities) does not contribute to deterrence as has been witnessed by Pakistan’s continuing India-policy of “death by a thousand cuts” and China’s policy of “hundreds of border pinpricks”. In contrast, Pakistan has an unambiguous “first-use” nuclear policy, while China has a “no first-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states” policy.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Oct 2009 22:46

As far as I can tell a lot of people who believe that TN bombs are necessary seem to be hesitant, confused and just plain ignorant about the consequences of their use and non use. But that is a different subject that I intend to attack as soon as I have collected enough data points from views expressed on here.

One correction Shiv-ji!

Use of TNs will have the same consquences as the use/non-use of a cobalt-fission weapon or as someone says GOLD-197

If the belief is that Indian use/non-use of a 25KT weapon invite any lesser response from the world powers than its use of 50KT TN weapon, then there is something wrong with the basic understanding of the nuke-war threat perspective.

I also see people accepting a >100KT boosted-fission weapon, but are against testing of TN weapons!

Does it mean all these people resigned to the fact that our TN weapon is a dud? Then why justifying and romanticising of fission weapons?

ss_roy · Post by **ss_roy** » 10 Oct 2009 01:32

Agree

I am saying that India does not need "thermonuclear" bombs for deterrence.

Agree, developing TN nukes is about making a bigger bang from the same amount of Plutonium- which is still a very desirable option.

Deterrence is, in my view NOT based on the difference in size of non TN and TN bombs as is believed by many on here, but capability and willingness to use what you have.

Cobalt/ Gold/ Zinc salted weapons have one peculiar advantage over conventional TN weapons (even those with a uranium tamper). The peculiar advantage: The living will envy the dead in a manner not possible with conventional nukes.

Even parts of cities not damaged by nukes will be hard to inhabit for years (in the case of Co and Zn). It would be almost impossible to reestablish an Economy or Administrative control. The chinese often boast about thinking in terms of centuries.. after enough cobalt salted weapons have been used, the concept of China will cease to exist.

Gold salted weapons, on the other hand, are an ideal way to make smaller nukes more damaging- The flux of Gold-198 radiation is so high that even parts of the cities not seriously damaged by the direct effects of a nuke will suffer mass casualties within a couple of weeks. Plus most casualties would have more visual impact than just being evaporated or buried under rubble.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Oct 2009 09:36

In the context of nuclear weapons "deterrence" is "You no use nukes on me and I no use nukes on you"

Technically deterrence can be more complex as in "If you use nukes on him, I use nukes on you"

If any nuke is used anywhere, deterrence has failed.

Imagine a scenario in which Nation X uses a tactical nuke against nation Y's forces. If nation Y is able to reply to that with another tactical nuke and hopes that nation X does not escalate it is not called deterrence. It is breakdown of deterrence. No real historical models exist of which way a breakdown of deterrence will head.

I believe it is important not to underestimate the power of a nuclear bomb.

The B-52 can carry 25 tons of bombs that can be dropped over an area in a matter of a few seconds.

A one kiloton nuke is the equivalent of 40 B 52 bombers exploding all their bombs simultaneously - so nuclear bombs are a game changer. If you can set off the explosive force of 400 B 52 bombers on an advancing enemy column you will defeat that column in one stroke and throw military plans into disarray.

Military plans are not made like kids going to the mall. There is a definite political or military goal and the people who make plans for a military to reach a goal are not planning to get defeated. If you nuke their column because you are losing the battle, they will not want to lose so easily. They will nuke you back - perhaps using enough tactical nukes to disable your entire defence along a 200 km front so that they can advance and fulfil their military goal without your stupid nukes.

But are you going to back out at this stage and say "Oops! Sorry!

I didn't mean that. Pliss excuse?" Even if you did it won't stop the enemy. You have to do something. And that something has to be done in the scenario where deterrence has already broken down. The situation is so desperate that desperate means have to be used and there is no greater move of desperation known to man other than a horrendous genocidal attack on civilian populations.

But wait. Once deterrence has broken down and nukes have been used - your own population centers cannot hope to escape. You will definitely get hit. As far as you are concerned you are already toast.

You could not defend, so you used a nuke. he nuked back and defeated your forces. If you nuke back his forces he may nuke your cities, now or later. If you nuke his cities first he will nuke your cities back. No matter what you do he is ready to hit you back. You and your cities are finished. You have to bid goodbye to the word "victory" and do whatever you can to ensure that the enemy is hurt as badly as he can be hurt.

That brings up the argument "How bad is badly hurt?". In a situation of gross asymmetry )such as between the US and China, or such as China and India, or Pakistan and India, or the US and North Korea - the planners who think of nuclear war have to reach some consensus on how badly the other party has to be hurt before it makes his war plans to costly. You cannot possibly hurt him as much as he can hurt you and if you have escalated to nuke war it is your fault anyway.

You need to have some idea of pain threshold for your adversary. The US for example would ideally not like to lose even one city to an enemy nuke. How many cities would the Chinese "like" to lose before they feel that military gain at the battle front is not worth the pain.

There are no definite answers to any of these questions but other than Mao boasting to Nehru if you go and ask a Chinese official how many cities he would like to lose to gain Arunachal Pradesh he is likely to say none.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 10 Oct 2009 14:53

NRao wrote:
RamaY wrote:NRao garu,

Today's FT has an article on railway systems, etc - China has invested $850 Billion to revive their economy, 35% towards infrastructures and a great %age of the 35% is towards high speed rail. As an ex transportation planner I am very, very impressed. And based on this current discussion I am that much more confident that China will try her best not to launch a nuclear attack - unless she is very, very confident that her first strike will result in India not even sending a single missile back.

This "rail" in china would also means road trasport infracstructure !! (by using electricity) I was there in china last year and surprised to see that they call Electric busses as "Rail Bus". It runs in specific routes like our normal city busses in India, (or famous kolcutta TRAMS) but fully operated and controlled by chinese railways !

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 10 Oct 2009 16:01

shiv wrote:If any nuke is used anywhere, deterrence has failed.

Shiv what is the best act a country can do to make sure that deterrance doesnt fail other than:
1. Showing capability i.e. testing warheads, testing accurate and adequate range missiles.
2. Showing political will by acting in a little unpredictable or crazy manner from time to time.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Oct 2009 16:47

Manish_Sharma wrote:
shiv wrote:If any nuke is used anywhere, deterrence has failed.
Shiv what is the best act a country can do to make sure that deterrance doesnt fail other than:
1. Showing capability i.e. testing warheads, testing accurate and adequate range missiles.
2. Showing political will by acting in a little unpredictable or crazy manner from time to time.

Your first point:
1. Showing capability i.e. testing warheads, testing accurate and adequate range missiles.

"Showing capability" usually means testing. How many tests? Does one show capability with one test? Does one have to do two, six, ten or three hundred tests to show capability?

As far as my reading goes Korea has shown capability. Capability can be shown by other means. Running and building your own reactors, openly (withing view of spy planes/sats) building a centrifuge plant, inviting a diplomat from a friendly nation to see couple of assembled warheads etc.

The other question is "To whom do you want to show capability?"

a) To other nations, friendly and unfriendly?
b) To your own people

What signs can convince other people? What signs will convince your own people?

Should there be an "open house" day when nuclear warheads are shown to visitors and school children to convince them that they exist?

If someone (either your people or a foreign nation) turns around and says "Ha Ha Ha

You don't have capability" - do you do one test to show them? Or do you test again to show them because they did not believe you after the last test and laughed and mocked?

How many times will you keep on testing just because people claim they don't believe you?

Ideally - if you have confidence in your capability you show what you have to the extent you want to show and then stop being taunted by skeptics because their skepticism does not make your deterrent false.

India is the first country in the history of the world where Indians are mocking their own government and scientists as traitors and liars despite having actually tested and shown capability.

Your second point is:
2. Showing political will by acting in a little unpredictable or crazy manner from time to time.

Suppose I say that Indian leaders have shown political will by acting crazy and pretending that there is a nuclear deterrent when we have no deterrence. It's all a big lie. There _are_no_nukes. Now they are being put under pressure by their own people to test and prove that they are not liars and traitors.

If they gave in to this pressure and tested it will only prove that the government has no political will to withstand a little pressure from some people when they have already been bluffing all these years. If they have been bluffing all these years do you think they will actually show any sudden patriotism, repent and test now because some people are acting crazy and unpredictable? Unlikely. They will keep up the pretence.

A government that gives into a little pressure from its own unarmed people whom they can arrest if necessary is hardly a strong government. They will capitulate to anyone when under pressure. So at least for appearances they will not give in.

It boils down to the same thing ultimately. You have a choice of either believing the government or not believing the government. You have to decide for yourself what you want to do.

In such situations - when it comes to national security - you do not hold too many cards. You can choose to disbelieve the government. The govt will not be bothered about you. But if you agitate and make too much noise you voice will be smothered. Only on internet fora you can make some noise - but if you go beyond a point it is possible to get someone into trouble.

After all separatism or terrorism in Kashmir is also a security issue against the Indian government. In the same way choosing to keep on chipping away in the media and attacking the government about deterrence via the media is OK until it starts hurting the government or security. When that happens they will take some action against you. They will not test just to please some skeptics. Such an act can also be called "political will" no? The problem is that political will in the case of nukes is "The government should do what I want, or I will say it has no will" The GoI does not give a damn as long as you don't hurt security.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Oct 2009 19:50

You see Germany's many deterrence is by proliferation.. without proliferation acts, they would not be able to deter seeking clandestine rogue nations.

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 10 Oct 2009 22:00

shiv wrote:
A government that gives into a little pressure from its own unarmed people whom they can arrest if necessary is hardly a strong government. They will capitulate to anyone when under pressure. So at least for appearances they will not give in.

Shiv,

The sad fact is that, in general, the GoI has not shown much political will in confronting Pakistani and Chinese aggression against India. Dismissing the concerns of one's own citizens does not require much courage or philosophical clarity; formulating and executing a strategy to defeat powerful and ruthless enemies, does.

It is a mistake to equate the two.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 11 Oct 2009 03:45

Sorry Shiv, I should have written in my question:
In general terms how does a country makes sure that deterrance does not fail?

It is obvious in our case that there is no way MMS govt. is going to test under any sort of pressure. I doubt even ABV govt. or even Advani govt. would have tested in present scenario. I think even Santhanam knows that there is nothing he or anybody can do to make govt. start testing again.

However very very sad but true

:
India is the first country in the history of the world where Indians are mocking their own government and scientists as traitors and liars despite having actually tested and shown capability.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 11 Oct 2009 04:38

[quote="Avarachan Dismissing the concerns of one's own citizens does not require much courage or philosophical clarity; formulating and executing a strategy to defeat powerful and ruthless enemies, does.

It is a mistake to equate the two.[/quote]

Its more like how many of the citizens care about mil strat issues. Even if these issues make a difference of 1% votes, you will see a huge change in our defence preparations.

Lets say if a certain party says that they will:
1. Triple the inventory of nuclear warheads if voted to power.
2. Equip the IAF with 63 squadrons if voted to power.
3. Create 20 Arihants and increase the missile inventory 5 times planned by current govt. if voted to power.

would that get them even 1% more votes?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Oct 2009 10:25

Manish_Sharma wrote:Sorry Shiv, I should have written in my question:
In general terms how does a country makes sure that deterrance does not fail?

Manish - that is a very interestingly worded question and a very valid one because most people ask the question in a different way.

They ask "How to make deterrence work?" The answer to that question is different (IMHO) from the answer to your question which is "how does a country makes sure that deterrence does not fail?"

There are two sides to the picture - as in it takes two to tango. If you have two nations A and B who believe that they are "deterring each other" either one can make deterrence fail by deciding one day that they are not deterred by the prospect of being hit by a nuclear retaliation. They can then resort to first use

So if India feels it is deterring China (and vice versa) that deterrence can be broken either by China nuking India or by India nuking China. So one part of the deterrence story is based on your question. "How can YOU ensure that deterrence will not fail?"

You can only ensure that deterrence will not fail _from_your_side_ by instituting mechanisms to prevent accidental usage, or making moves of sending signals that threaten usage.

You can look at nuclear tests in this context. Why would you do nuclear tests unless you are planning to use nuclear bombs? Testing sends a signal that you want to use your nukes which is also a signal that you may be preparing to make deterrence fail yourself. That signal will be read by others in the same way and they too may resume testing because you are signalling your possible intent to make deterrence fail. So testing itself is destabilizing to the concept of deterrence that is generally agreed upon in the world (as far as I can tell)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Oct 2009 19:49

It is obvious in our case that there is no way MMS govt. is going to test under any sort of pressure. I doubt even ABV govt. or even Advani govt. would have tested in present scenario.

How do you KNOW that India does not have a deterrence?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 11 Oct 2009 22:20

Where did I say that we don't have a deterrant?

disha · Post by **disha** » 12 Oct 2009 01:45

NRao wrote:How do you KNOW that India does not have a deterrence?

Just trying to answer this question: "How do you know that India has a deterrence?"

I would like to use some points

1. Demonstrating MIRV capability is no different from launching multiple satellites. I pointed that out earlier and the latest on commentary on Agni V in Business Standard points out to that. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/postin ... 3&p=753972

2. We have demonstrated control and guidance based on Star Sensor (Chandrayan-I), which leads to better CEP for MIRV.

3. Agni-V will be tested in 2011 with fully MIRV sometime in 2015/2016.

Drawing down on those two and adding the following points:

1. China's latest and most advanced ICBM is DF-31A which is fully caniterised and road mobile and last tested on 4th September 2006. Only 10 or so are deployed.

2. DF-31A is *not* MIRV'ed. China has not demonstrated multiple satellite launches.

3. No demonstration of stellar based guidance and control. Poor CEP.

Given the above, the missile technology assymetry between India and China is not that great. For a rational player to win a nuke dishum-dishum, it has to have atleast a great assymetry - first to take out most of the adversaries nukes, then ability to sustain a second strike and have the ability to inflict second and third strike. With technology or capabilities on par with the adversary, a rational player cannot enter into any dishum-dishum, nuke or conventional! (we are not talking about pakis here who claim successful downhill skiing as a success).

That to me is deterrence. Note Nuke size does not matter. Actually smaller the nukes, the deterrence is better! Hint: MIRV.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Oct 2009 08:53

Time and again - at an interval of about once in several day I find someone or the other on the forum express an opinion that suggests that "nuclear war" between two adversaries might involve the use of tactical nuclear power to knock out an enemy base or advancing column and defeat an attack (or alternatively aid an attacking force).

This appears like a good idea as long as the adversary who is nuked does not have the capacity to hit your mainland. China faced this dilemma wrt to the US for many decades and has only now acquired the capability to hit the US mainland. China was probably deterred by the possibility that tactical nukes could wipe out a Chinese attack on Taiwan, and a Chinese retaliation against US bases/forces could result in unacceptable damage to the Chinese mainland from the US. This is a valid "sword of Damocles" situation that China has lived under.

For years India too survived under the same disadvantage vis a vis China. Long before Pokhran II I have read articles about the need for India to go overtly nuclear because of the ludicrous possibility that the Indian conventional forces can get wiped out in a jiffy by Chinese nukes.

But the question is whether the overt nuclearization of India means that India can now thwart Chinese forces who nuke Indian forces with tactical nukes. Technically the answer is "yes", but the question that follows is what China will do. How long are two opposing armies going to slug it out using tactical nukes before one or the other - having already lost too much for playing a silly tactical nuke game finds that there is no option other than to lose the war and lose territory.

In what way would it be excusable for one nation to use tactical nukes and still allow the other country to win by failing to do what is needed to punish the other nation severely and cruelly? The thought of such a situation is so ludicrous and foolish that no nuclear planner in his right senses would want to be in this situation. There is absolutely no use exchanging a whole lot of nukes and then suddenly capitulating - having lost half of one's own armed forces.

The uncertainty in the use of tactical nukes is so great that I would say tactical nuclear warfare is completely pointless and naive - suitable only for the movies.

So, if tactical nukes are no use in a war, what good is it to have any nukes? The answer is simple - and that is to threaten a nuclear attacker with the terror of hitting his population centers with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are inherently attractive and cheap. If modern attack fighter can carry 6 tons of bombs you would have to send out 2000 fighters loaded with 6 tons of bombs each to achieve the explosive power of one 1974 style 12 kiloton device. One single nuclear bomb is more devastating than an entire Air Force. In fact more than several air forces.

Deterrence is not about one army deterring another army. Deterrence is about the leadership of one nation threatening untold misery on the population of another nation. It is a signal to the leaders of the opposing camp that if you try to defeat us we will ensure that you cannot declare victory and will shower death and destruction on your cities. With one 12 kt nuke giving the destructive power of 2000 aircraft - even the threat of 5 nukes on two of your biggest cities cannot be taken lightly - ten thousand aircraft worth of bombs dropped by just 5 aircraft or 5 missiles. One does not give away cities that easily.

When the use of nukes is looked at this way - i.e restricting their use to unleashing misery and death on civilian populations - it means that your armed forces in general do no have to actually wield nukes. Of course they have to be given protection in case the other guy uses nukes on them. They must have the means to survive and fight on in an NBC environment - but other than a core group of strategic planners, the armed forces in general do not need to do any detailed planning of whom they will nuke on the battlefront. They need the reassurance that if they are nuked - the cities and infrastructure of the attacking country will be hit.

The nuke user enemy too must understand that his attacking forces and his cities will both be hit by nukes in a swift retaliation and that the probability that your forces will survive are high so that while he is busy nuking our cities in retaliation, our armed forces will still be in a position to inflict defeat on what is left of his just nuked armed forces. He may be the biggest power on earth, But he won't win, once it comes to nuke use. It is another matter that you won't win either. And this must be understood when one talks of nuclear war and the meaning of "breakdown of deterrence".

disha · Post by **disha** » 12 Oct 2009 09:07

shiv wrote: He may be the biggest power on earth, But he won't win, once it comes to nuke use. It is another matter that you won't win either. And this must be understood when one talks of nuclear war and the meaning of "breakdown of deterrence".

I had pointed it out earlier in the thread, in a nuke slugfest the "winner" can at best claim pyrrhic victory. That is after declaring that they are the victors, they have to prepare for civilizational collapse. That is, there are no "winners" - only losers.

Pyrrhic victory = A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

Hence, when India

1. Declared NFU, it makes sense.
2. Put its nuclear assets under a core strategic group, it makes sense
3. Declares that it has achieved minimum credible deterrent, it makes sense

However the above stands true only against a rational player. I am still trying to understand how one can control a situation where Pak fails and nukes fall into hands of irrational jihadis who do not mind a "JDAM"?

nitinr · Post by **nitinr** » 12 Oct 2009 15:33

Isn't deterrence just a perception of what we think and what we make others think is deterrent enough for them.

Isn't deterrence about knowing your enemy and then deterring himw ith what they seem as deterrign enough. e.g. Israel and Iran. There is a perception that Iran might strike back which is deterring enough for everybody to pause and re-look at the situation.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Oct 2009 17:17

Deterrence can consist of many things/aspects. In some cases it is not even bi-state, a third or forth state can enter the equation and cause the deterrence to tilt (deterrence i snot in favor of a state, so tilt is within a state, not in between two (or more) states). Even the thought if this or that PM will act in some way (as in testing) can cause a deterrence to be considered as viable or not. Which is why: it is an art and a science. There is no good equation for it, but one can generalize enough to play a certain game and apply that game to many other situations.

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Oct 2009 20:09

disha wrote: China has not demonstrated multiple satellite launches.

This is not true; PRC has had this capability since 80's infact they injected 3 sats with a single LV back in September 1981.

And not surprisingly they already had a deployed MRV (3 warheads) capable missile DF-3A (evolution of the Ru supplied SS-4) back in 1971 .
ref: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/bmdo1995.pdf

No demonstration of stellar based guidance and control. Poor CEP.

Again thanks to Clinton Govt. and herrowism of Hughes systems and Lora duo the Chinese space programme was provided with key assistance in key areas of satellite launch .

Here url: http://198.62.75.12/www2/china/overview/pg3.html

Note Nuke size does not matter. Actually smaller the nukes, the deterrence is better! Hint: MIRV.

Yes and again the Chinese origin scientists in US have come to Lizard's aid; remember the Scientist from Los-Alamos caught for providing PRC govt. with details of US TN warhead (W-88 ?).

PS: Chinese might not have mastered or developed these on their own but they as on date have the capability in question and that is what matters as far as 'deterrence' is concerned

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Oct 2009 20:34

negi wrote:
disha wrote: .
ref: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/bmdo1995.pdf

Page three of that pdf has a nice world map with China's perceived threats: Russia, Japan + US forces, Taiwan, the US and India.

Their some 150-250 (today) has to cover ALL that.

I would not be that concerned about Chinese threat at this point. In fact I would argue that the threat has pretty much gone past.

IMHO, it would be nice for India to have TN capabilities, but not necessary at this point in time.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Oct 2009 23:10

Here is another strategic thinking, Bill Clinton on Saturday in Chicago:

'India must improve ties with Pak to overtake China'

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 13 Oct 2009 19:15

NRao wrote:Here is another strategic thinking, Bill Clinton on Saturday in Chicago:

'India must improve ties with Pak to overtake China'

Makes sense in theory, as long as west and other land of Saud is not bestowing unending financial aid on Pak. Pak lives on financial aid. So, in their spare time they get together somking Hukka and planning of blowing IN's b*lls and other nuance activities. Instead of lecturing IN, Mr. Clinton should instead persuade his wife Mrs. Clinton (Secretary of State) to stop aiding Pak and supplying weapons under the false pretense of war on terror because that aid and weapons gets used against IN. What a bunch of double talk!!

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 13 Oct 2009 20:39

Funny that India has the least percentage of GDP on defence among US, China, porkis. Still Clinton tells India to reduce the defence spending. Amazing thing is these two ombaba and clinton both sanctimonious guys are hardly doing anything to lessen the warheads or defence spending of their own country. Hmm another rotten article.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 13 Oct 2009 21:26

Just assembled this map to get an idea of targets regarding chipanda!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Oct 2009 22:42

disha wrote:..However the above stands true only against a rational player. I am still trying to understand how one can control a situation where Pak fails and nukes fall into hands of irrational jihadis who do not mind a "JDAM"?

Send US troops to Afghanistan, but largely stationed in Pakistan.. did you hear what Hillary Clinton said recently? She said, they are safe!!!. whenever akhans say that, it feels conformting ..btw.. that doest not deter terrorism by pakibans in India., where there is no MAD, NFU nor nukes invovled at all., and much more death happens in a certain strategic speak.

I do like Ombaba's move on AfPak.. we have to spend a million $$$ for those clout that lobbies in getting the khan forces be deployed in afpak area.. let me tell you.. a penny goes to getting the khan soldiers in afpack is worth a billion.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Oct 2009 07:15

I would have preferred to post this in the other thread, but since it could be considered OT , I am posting it here:

First I came across this:

Testing Diversion

In which I came across:

The fear, an American official told a New York Times reporter (July 10, 2006) was that there were no certainty that the North Koreans could be fully prevented from retaliating

Which of course, the snoop I am, led me to:

Bush's Shift: Being Patient With Foes

A Bushie:

"It sounds good," one of Mr. Bush's national security aides said at the time, "until you ask yourself the question, what good is a strike if it leaves their nuclear capability untouched?"

He was talking of a preemptive strike ....................................................

Deterrence.

And, Indians are scared that what India has is not deterring China?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Oct 2009 07:39

Thanks for posting nrao - perfectly appropriate here

I have put both articles in my personal archives

from the dna article:

the notion that warhead yield must be higher in order to deter effectively involves the unquestioning internalisation of American norms, which many Indian nuclear scientists and strategists tend to do.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Oct 2009 16:36

Cross post
http://nightwatch.afcea.org/NightWatch_20091014.htm

Russia: According to the secretary if the Russian Security Council, the Russian governments recently announced review of its nuclear weapons policy retains and expands the option of preemptive nuclear weapons use in war.

Analysts are again referred to the National Security Archive file of interviews with Russian senior officials about Soviet views of nuclear weapons. The documents show the Russians concluded that the threat of theater nuclear weapons was not real except as it made escalation to total nuclear war inevitable. Thus, theater use = global use.

The Russians have no new nuclear weapons doctrine. As during the Soviet regime, the Russians will use nukes when they conclude the enemy has begun preparing nukes or conventional forces capable of defeating Russian forces in a theater, such as the Far East. According to a BDM contractor study, this is “pre-emption” in Russian doctrine.

What it means and has always meant is that the Russians will not fire first but nor will they absorb a first strike without firing, nor will they absorb a conventional defeat without using nuclear weapons against the attacker, China.

Thus the doctrine is not new, only its public articulation. Russian strategists are telling the truth now, whereas they were evasive about pre-emption during the Cold War.

By definition, pre-emption means Russia will try to attack with nuclear weapons in the interval between the start of enemy war preparations and the launching of the attack. In the West this is described as launch on tactical warning (LOTW).

For China, the message is that that Russians want China to know that any border incursion risks all.

The not-so-new doctrine means almost nothing for NATO, unless NATO tries to use force to intervene in the Ukraine or Georgia. The National Security Archive documents establish that the Russians are bluffing because they know nuclear war is inherently not limitable.

Thus a Russian threat of theater use of nuclear weapons implies the Russians are prepared to accept 85% destruction in a nuclear exchange and are challenging a would-be enemy to examine whether he is prepared to accept the same. That is the essence of deterrence.

This fits in perfectly well with what I said about inevitable escalation of tactical nuclear war to all out MAD.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Oct 2009 20:02

shiv wrote:from the dna article:

the notion that warhead yield must be higher in order to deter effectively involves the unquestioning internalisation of American norms, which many Indian nuclear scientists and strategists tend to do.

Funny indeed. This way, we can adopt whatever standards that suit our beliefs and inaction. Good going!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Oct 2009 21:44

Credible in Indian CMD is meant ONLY for China (or Pakistan/etc). It is NOT meant for India/Indians. The C in Chinese CD is meant for India to gauge, monitor, etc.

China deployed her missileS and nukes in 1971. I am not sure when was the first time India had such a system, I assume sometime in the early 2000. What happened during all those tumultuous years?

Did Indian beliefs and in-actions negatively impact India?

1) So, China had BOTH nuclear capability and ability to deliver LONG before India had any capabilities

Then WRT large nukes, IF at all China seems to have moved away from large nukes (I suspect the others have too). My little research indicates today China deploys mostly 2-300 Kt nukes. She still has MTs - but it looks to me that they are leftovers or in the worst case they have very, very few new MTs.

2) China seems to be moving to much smaller nukes (bringing this up because some India/ns seems be arguing that India should move from smaller nukes to much, much larger nukes). I think all countries are moving to much smaller nukes.

Even missiles, they seem to have between 150-250 missiles. ALL those missiles are distributed between the US, RU, Taiwan, Japan and India!!!!

3) Entire Chinese capability, when considered in a bigger picture, is very diluted. Seems to me that theirs is a capability that is more/better designed for deterring the US/RU than designed to threaten India.

Comments?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Oct 2009 02:28

^^^

the reduction in KTs could be in relation to the CEP of the delivery systems. But the size stopped at 200-300KT region. We do not know if India has deployable systems of this size.

Smaller flowers are required even when we deploy 100s of MT bums. That doesn't mean 20-30KT flowers that we have will suffice.

JMT

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 17 Oct 2009 02:40

NRao wrote:2) China seems to be moving to much smaller nukes (bringing this up because some India/ns seems be arguing that India should move from smaller nukes to much, much larger nukes). I think all countries are moving to much smaller nukes.

Do you have any source which states that CHina is moving to much smaller nukes? Or is just based on your belief?

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 17 Oct 2009 02:43

chanakyaa wrote:
NRao wrote:Here is another strategic thinking, Bill Clinton on Saturday in Chicago:

'India must improve ties with Pak to overtake China'
Makes sense in theory, as long as west and other land of Saud is not bestowing unending financial aid on Pak. Pak lives on financial aid. So, in their spare time they get together somking Hukka and planning of blowing IN's b*lls and other nuance activities. Instead of lecturing IN, Mr. Clinton should instead persuade his wife Mrs. Clinton (Secretary of State) to stop aiding Pak and supplying weapons under the false pretense of war on terror because that aid and weapons gets used against IN. What a bunch of double talk!!

If you also consider that Obama is the first US president who refused to meet Dalai Lama, the picture is clear. US has selected a partner to maintain joint hegemony...the partner is China. In simple terms India has no one but itself in case China and Pakistan were to attack it.