Deterrence

[Sanku]

2) Sufficient Deterrence exists for FUTURE too.

Deterrence is a moving target. But if deterrence is based on countervalue targetting of cities then 200kt FBFs are enough provided the quantities of warheads and delivery systems are adjusted up to maintain future deterrence.

So now it becomes a moving target? But I thought it has held so we know it will hold.

And the statement becomes "if the deterrence" from the deterrence has held (assertion) so you are not sure what the deterrence is based on? Yet is has held?

And we know the we have 200 Kt FBF nukes based deterrence, how (please quote a official source)? A little bit of a stretch from saying that "deterrence has held despite India being weaker"

Don't you think the much easier thing is to recognize that so far we have been never gotten to a crises situation, yet?

Anyway you once claimed we would have 200 Nuke plants by 2010 or something post the Nuke deal -- your current set of statements remind me strangely of similar line of thinking.

Sure, I must have said that but for the year 2050 not 2010. Do you happen to have a link handy for me saying 2010? I doubt it.

Its 2050 is it? No I dont have a link handy, but hey 2050 it is, 5 new reactors every year right? Good, I hope that is a number we will both remember in future as being said without having to look for links.

We are as always needlessly multiplying issues unnecessarily -- there are simple fact

The draft nuclear doctrine states massive damage
The fact that our robust deterrence is based on Fusion and fission has been stated many times
There is very little publicly available evidence to support the fusion claim.

Thats it end of matter. The rest is mere semantics.

[ldev]

ShauryaT,

Forget the moron and troll business. It is irrelevant.

Irrespective of whether the TN test was a dud or not, my point is that nobody outside the political authority and the design team actually knows the brief/mandate given in May 1998 e.g.

Was it to validate the fission warhead

Was it also to get data for refining a TN design

On the basis of the above did ABV rush to declare TN weapon's capability? And then did he kind off retract his statement? What was BARC to do in such a situation? What kind of a stance could it adopt it public?

Has anybody who gave the authorization to test or those from the design team ever spoken about these parameters? Not to my knowledge. In the absence of this, I think this wholesale rush to heap the blame on BARC is wrong and maybe even politically motivated.

[ldev]

So now it becomes a moving target? But I thought it has held so we know it will hold.

Sanku,

Dont have time to get into an extended session with you right now. But this one point:

Deterrence is always a moving target isnt it? I mean if you adversary increases his warhead and delivery systems you always want a survivable second strike capability for targetting his cities so maybe instead of one Arihant you may decide to go for two or three, ditto for the cannister launched roadmobile Agni V etc. etc.

[Sanku]

Deterrence is always a moving target isnt it? I mean if you adversary increases his warhead and delivery systems you always want a survivable second strike capability for targetting his cities so maybe instead of one Arihant you may decide to go for two or three, ditto for the cannister launched roadmobile Agni V etc. etc.

Yes, deterrence is a moving target, however it is my thinking that we are not even at the "aim" level yet.

We will worry about the moving part once we get the gun on the shoulders.

[ShauryaT]

Kalam’s dual standards

Do not go by its title only, read the whole thing.

[NRao]

As far as new information is concerned, parse that KS article line by line and see if there is any really new data there suportable from any other credible source.

I do not think we can expect that under the circumstances. Technically Santhanam is the only source. On what was said in private conversations we should expect more than him.

What we can expect, even from Santhanam, is consistency and to some extent open-source based verifiability.

[Amber G.]

There is new information from KS, let that be dissected first.

With respect Shaurya where were you when 150 pages of dissection took place in the three fizzle threads? I recall that until I started acting up nobody took umbrage at the language in those threads. This thread is to discuss deterrence. There is no new information from Santhanam. Yet. There is nothing that has not been said before except for the dimensions of the A-frame. Did you want a list of links to what has been said by Santhanam in the recent past?

One of the new information from KS is 80kt "Max" limit put there. It is very curious. Given that this is energy released by less than 5Kg of Pu (Or U) fissioning (Not to mention that tested fission bombs (eg MK13 with yield about 500Kt)). Where does KS come out with that figure?. It certainly brings questions to his credibility.

And Shaurya's what is the basis of

The shaft was a little over 100 meters deep as India lacked the requisite technology when the shafts were dug.

(India certainly had technology)
Who is claiming that one could not dig a deeper shaft?
Ldev - Have to agree with your shoe/chappal comment.. as much as I respected KS, that article by him is very disappointing as it contains (as far as I can see) little new information and valid scientific arguments.

[NRao]

And Shaurya's what is the basis of

The shaft was a little over 100 meters deep as India lacked the requisite technology when the shafts were dug.

(India certainly had technology)
Who is claiming that one could not dig a deeper shaft?

BK is referring to digging the shaft (IIRC) during the time of Indiraji - when India did not have TN capabilities.

So, per his thinking since India did not have TN capabilities then they did not seem to think that they need to go too much more deeper than some 100 meters.

which makes sense.

However, that cannot be the end all of it I would think (I could be wrong).

[ShauryaT]

Who is claiming that one could not dig a deeper shaft?

BK is referring to digging the shaft (IIRC) during the time of Indiraji - when India did not have TN capabilities.

So, per his thinking since India did not have TN capabilities then they did not seem to think that they need to go too much more deeper than some 100 meters.

which makes sense.

However, that cannot be the end all of it I would think (I could be wrong).

There is also a date for it in the new article above. The date is 1981. Again, the reference to the lack of technology is in BK's book. I will get more details, in a few hours, when I get next to that thing.

[Amber G.]

^^^ Kolar gold mines, (and underground elementary particles physics lab - which I visited as a young student in late 60's) shafts go down more than 2000m (or 3000+) down so it would be surprising to me if digging 100m+ would really be that big an issue..unless I am missing something...

[NRao]

I believe there is no BK-100 meter article. Shaurya may be wrong there but I am willing to be corrected. The earliest references to 120 meters were from Santhanam - as opposed to the 200 plus of Chengappa and the more recent 230 meters from someone else. I believe I have read and saved all refs in this regard. But I have no BK ref.

In fact I don't think either BK or BC have actually entered into the specifics of the controversy with new data of their own. They have only stated their views on the need for large TN basing their fresh doubts on Santhanam's revelations.

You are most probably right. There is no BK-100 meter article. I read this in his latest (2009) version of his book on Indian nuclear policy. It is also there in the earlier version of his "realist foundations". I am at work now and do not have the book next to me. I will post the page numbers, when i get next to the book.

St,

Do you have a copy of "Realist Foundations"?

[ShauryaT]

OK. Page 66 of India's Nuclear Policy.

In any case the hydrogen bomb design could not have been tested at full strength (100-300 KT) because the only shafts available were those dug many years earlier and were 100 meters deep, while the depth of the L shaped shaft needed to be at least 300 meters. At 100 meters, it would have set off destructive seismic tremors over a large part of the surrounding countryside. Deeper holes could not have been dug because the country did not possess the technology to drill below 100 meters.

Source: A.N Prasad in an interview with him in July 2007.

NRao: Do not have copy of the realist foundations, but was told by the author that the answers are there too, to a set of questions, I wanted KS to answer.

[ShauryaT]

^^^ Kolar gold mines, (and underground elementary particles physics lab - which I visited as a young student in late 60's) shafts go down more than 2000m (or 3000+) down so it would be surprising to me if digging 100m+ would really be that big an issue..unless I am missing something...

No clue, on why A.N Prasad would say that the tech was not there, in light of the depth of Kolar mines. Do you know, how were these dug and if the same was available to the Indian army, who dug the test shafts in 1981. Also, it seems the shafts were originally for a BF weapon test, requested by Raja Ramanna.

[shiv]

With respect Shiv, All I saw was noise and hence did not feel the need to participate. S1 DOB view of KS is new information. CORRTEX being under the control of DRDO is new info. RC analysis as not the final word on measurements is new info. Chengappa being led down the garden path is new info (as per V. Sudarshan). Also, a reiteration of many previous assertions of KS. It may or may not have been said before but I treat that as new info based on info primarily from KS.

Shaurya thank you for admitting that you did not join the fun as it were, but I believe you are confusing data with information. "Information" that BARC is full of liars or that CORRTEX was owned by someone does not equate to data. When you missed the fun you missed the obvious conclusion - there is insufficient data to say that one or the other is wrong, and the only new information is that one person is a liar and the other is a maverick.

As far as I am concerned - the topic is dead for want of data - although I tend to get surprised by the vehemence and with which some people seem to imagine that not accepting one person's statements is equal to accepting the other party's statements unconditionally. That was part of the "fun" of course because it was possible to switch on (or switch off) people's moods by swinging statements one way or the other.

I am out of that game on this thread. If you have any new data - please dissect and post. Thanks

[NRao]

Thanks ST.

OK. Page 66 of India's Nuclear Policy.

In any case the hydrogen bomb design could not have been tested at full strength (100-300 KT) because the only shafts available were those dug many years earlier and were 100 meters deep, while the depth of the L shaped shaft needed to be at least 300 meters. At 100 meters, it would have set off destructive seismic tremors over a large part of the surrounding countryside. Deeper holes could not have been dug because the country did not possess the technology to drill below 100 meters.

Source: A.N Prasad in an interview with him in July 2007.

This is very interesting. Is he saying that India did not possess that tech in "many years earlier"? Even that I find very hard to believe. It was only a matter time and casings (and of course tremendous noise pollution) to drive rather deep piles in the 60s - 70s. Perhaps I am missing something.

Is it possible to scan that one page and post?

NRao: Do not have copy of the realist foundations, but was told by the author that the answers are there too, to a set of questions, I wanted KS to answer.

This is even more interesting.

The Policy book was in 2008

The "Realist Foundation" seems to be in 2002, both these at 100 meters (or so).

And, Chengappa in 2000 @ around 200 meters.

[vsunder]

A 20kt device that explodes at 120m will produce a crater. More so if the material is sandstone. But
S-1 did not produce a crater. In fact the film that Sudershan describes is a classic description
of the formation of a retarc. Santhanam states that the device had a yield of 20kt and was emplaced
at 120metres. So then where is the crater, even in granite there will be a crater. 113 Army Engineering group dug the shafts in 1981, not DRDO and not BARC. Chengappa spoke to the person (retd.) Col. S. Jagannathan who was tasked to dig the shafts. Chengappa also writes a Maj.-Gen came by to inspect the shaft and fainted peering down and had to be pulled back. So BARC did not supply the shaft depth information to Chengappa, but the Army did.

There are several technical points that Santhanam is wrong about and also other issues that people are discussing indicate categoricallly no knowledge of shock waves and their formations, modelling shock waves, conservation laws etc etc. Actually very recently I had put up notes for my students for a course on a certain web page where all this and Hugoniot relations etc are discussed and DERIVED for one space variables. You will see there already the complexity in one space variable of modelling these things. So when people do it in two it is not because they are dumb, but the mathematics is simply not there to say that the numerical scheme will converge. This will become obvious if one reads the end parts of my notes, see the section on entropy condition and Oleinik's theorem. Unfortunately no analog exists of the entropy condition in two space variables leading to the immense difficulty of lack of uniqueness and the attendant prolem of numerical schemes failing to converge. In fact in the Pramana paper of 1985 describing the rock mechanics of POK-1 that none here have even read, Sikka, Chidambaram use one space variable.
Even in 1985 they could not model shocks in 2D at BARC. Leave alone 3D. So saying XYZ is dumb because they use 2D codes indicates not knowing basics of the problem, the so-called Riemann problem, READ MY NOTES. I will fail you if you come unprepared for class and dont ask me for a link, y9u wont get it only the brave will find the link!!

Only the brave will find where I have placed the notes and marvel how by a simple non-linear PDE in one space variable all the complex phenomena of shocks has been so easily explained. In fact the mathematics in two space variables was only in some small part a recent discovery of Alberto Bressan and he was rightly awarded the one of the highest prize of the American Mathematical society, the Bocher prize for 2008. The prize is given once in 3 years and earlier once in 5, since 1923. Interestingly enough the 2008 prize went to two other people and one of them has co-authored two articles with me (2008).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B4cher_Memorial_Prize

A look at previous winners will tell you what this is all about.

[samuel]

You know Fefferman!?

(Any chance you know Stan Osher?)

[shiv]

http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdatauplo ... 5a_461.pdf
Indian Journal of History of Science, 1992, page 473

At present capability exists in the country for drilling to 1000m depth for solid minerals

Assam Oil exploration got a boost in the 1970s after the oil shock. The first Bombay High well was sunk in 1974. It's not as though the technology to drill beyond 100 meters did not exist in 1998. The 1974 test was at 107 meters and if you have ever had a borewell drilled (as I had at home in the 1990s) there is no difference between drilling to 100 meters and 150 or more meters other than time.

[shiv]

This is even more interesting.

The Policy book was in 2008

The "Realist Foundation" seems to be in 2002, both these at 100 meters (or so).

And, Chengappa in 2000 @ around 200 meters.

Ramachandran in his 2009 article
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2620/stories/2 ... 003800.htm

At these depths a great amount of broken rock is produced, which was seen in the Pokhran-II thermonuclear explosion, whose DOB was about 230 metres compared with Pokhran-I’s 107 m.

[shiv]

Can I request admins to hold the line on the debate not getting personal or inspired by vendetta, even by implication.

Shaurya this is a valid request for BRF, but outside of BRF I am sure there can be no objection to character assassination, getting personal or inspired by vendetta even by implication.

I am of course referring to:

Kalam’s dual standards

Do not go by its title only, read the whole thing.

I quote from the article after reading the whole thing

Now, of course, Chidambaram sings another tune.

Here he gave a cock and bull explanation that there was a good chance the device might destroy the other shafts, and therefore the tests were better done simultaneously. When the explosion leaves even the thermonuclear shaft largely untouched Chidambaram comes up with disingenuous and lame post facto rationalisations.

Was A P J Abdul Kalam among them? Certainly, his silence at that moment is most curious.
It is in inverse proportion to the decibel level he hits now, shouting that the device did not fail.

To think that Chidambaram is science adviser to our Prime Minister. How cute is that?

A careful reading tells me that the article is funny, and is full of personal insinuations and the language of ridicule. Whether there is vendetta involved or not is another matter - but if you look at the reactions after the article it seems that a dead horse is now being flogged.

The language that Sudarshan (and Santhanam in other articles) have used may be normal in other countries - I don't know, but will do their credibility no good in India.

[NRao]

In happier times I too smile.

VS,

Is it possible to elaborate on the "several technical points" ......................... in a simple way?

TIA.

[ramana]

VS, Deleted.

[Sanku]

The language that Sudarshan (and Santhanam in other articles) have used may be normal in other countries - I don't know, but will do their credibility no good in India.

And how about the other half of GoI Shiv? Do you want me to do the same exercise for other articles disparaging KS etc?

I am okay with rules of the game, my pain is only when they are selectively used, either on the board or off it.

[shiv]

Do you want me to do the same exercise for other articles disparaging KS etc?

I am okay with rules of the game, my pain is only when they are selectively used, either on the board or off it.

What you do is your business Sanku. I have no control or choice over your actions. I may have opinions though. Feel free to quote all the terrible things that have been said about Santhanam. Links to such statements must appear to make a balanced picture don't you think? Since I have most of the articles saved up I am be eager to find any new insulting remarks that have been made about KS in the media. I would love to see what you can ferret out to back up the confident statement that you make about articles disparaging KS etc.

But perhaps not on this thread. Feel free to post your comments on my SRR article.

[Sanku]

Do you want me to do the same exercise for other articles disparaging KS etc?

I am okay with rules of the game, my pain is only when they are selectively used, either on the board or off it.

What you do is your business Sanku. I have no control or choice over your actions. I may have opinions though. Feel free to quote all the terrible things that have been said about Santhanam. Links to such statements must appear on here to make a balanced picture don't you think?

That has already been done, about twice, as I mentioned before, and I see no need to dredge it up. I agree with you in one respect though, there is no point dredging over the material, however I say that since people have already made up their mind about who to believe, it has unfortunately stopped being a matter of factual debate for some time.

My statement about taking a balanced picture was an expectation that senior BRF posters would actually continue to exhibit the qualities they have in the past, that is neutrality and sticking to a set of standards irrespective of their belief (that is for example if they talk about how RC has been pilloried they will also talk about the attempts by GoI to diminish KS stature and address the concerns he raised through that route)

Whether or not my expectations about my fellow posters on BRF would be met or not is of course not in my hands either. However I believe I am allowed to make a post or two from time to time hoping for a certain method in board discussion, just like you have time and again many posts asking for a certain standard of discussion.

[Kanson]

As long as statements which riles up the emotions are appearing things are not going to be easy for anyside for longtime. It is the clear case of scandalous attempt by whoever writing the article, irrespective of who they are/were.

My impression is, looks like S1 yield in that article is not the main issue.. it is attack on DAE as a whole.. IMO can't be good..
Have not seen anything academic, or new technical information/arguments from this paper.

He is doing this not for the enlightment of scientific peers in the community. That's obvious. I assume, our discussion is more about analyzing and debating the scientific value in his article. But i guess it wont be anymore. The "shoe-dropping" he mentioned (in Business Standard?) is about the second-round. This second round is more about provoking a individual/public response, shaping a public opinion and keeping the discussion allive, as per my understanding. It is interesting to see, someone still saying, if Anil K got extensions till and served in GoI why to think Santhanam cant be. My simple answer is I dont know. But the recent news on CTBT is quite interesting.

I'm relatively certain, there wont be any new data. So any response will be exactly falling for their trap, so to say. Let see where this debate goes.

[Kanson]

This is hilarious.

Those who witnessed the US IN N deal debate in this forum very well know that, some members and some ex-members, citing Bharat Karnad, argued that the depth of the shaft suggests that the TN device tested is meant for the full-up design including the tertiary stage. And some suggested that in 80s it was dug to test the 150/200kt boosted device.

I now see 100 m. Quite interesting.

How is that, with 107m dob for PoK-I, one can think the shaft depth meant by Karnad for a full-up design could be just 100m?

[Kanson]

I agreed with that view

ShauryaT

I think you know that, it will be naivete on your part to think that invoking my name will go without a response. I may let it pass for the benefit of this thread not without telling who the troll is. As per wiki,

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community.

we can throw chappals at them too.

This sentence at the midst of serious discussion involving Nation and Security suggests trolling.

[shiv]

Apart from Santhanam's declaration of 25 kt yields for India's deterrent, here are other reports that talk of yields. In the spirit of "Let us not give extra weightage to only one side of the issue" I post the links/information

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090903/edit.htm#6

Fission weapons of 60-80 kilotons have been successfully fabricated and standard thermonuclear warheads of today are neither in megatons nor in hundreds of kilotons. Our fission weapon capabilities are not under question. So long as the adversary believes that the nuclear explosions in his cities will cause him unacceptable damage he will be deterred.

http://www.maritimeindia.org/pdfs/STRAT ... MAKING.pdf

In the midst of the current
brouhaha, we need to retain clarity on one issue; given that deuteriumtritium
boosted-fission weapons can generate yields of 200-500 kt, the
credibility of India’s nuclear deterrent is not in the slightest doubt.
However, the same cannot be said about our scientific community, whose
credibility has been the biggest casualty of the unseemly squabbling
amongst the nation’s senior-most scientists.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3c9a7894abc.. ... ck_check=1

New Delhi's senior atomic officials said India had built weapons with yields of up to 200 kilotons, which they said would be considered a "proper strategic deterrent" by the global community. A nuclear weapon above 50 kilotons is considered high yield. India's enhanced capability gives it a considerable edge over Pakistan, its nucleararmed archrival.

[NRao]

There are two points that need to be clarified: the trend towards smaller (non-MT) nukes and the number of larger (Mt) nukes.

From what I can see there is a clear trend towards the smaller nukes. Cannot find a single citation of a new MT nukes. The last refurbishment in the Mt range seems to have been done by China in the 80s when they replaced 17 of the 3.3 Mt weapons with 17 3.3 Mt weapons of a newer design.

On numbers, China as far as I can count has about 30ish in the Mt range. So, I am not sure where Santhanam got his for us to deter even China having 200 deployed H- bombs of 3.3-5 megatons yields each.

[ShauryaT]

Irrespective of whether the TN test was a dud or not, my point is that nobody outside the political authority and the design team actually knows the brief/mandate given in May 1998 e.g.

We do not have to look far. The claim after the tests was that India is an NWS. We can derive from that statement that the mandate was to weaponize. The question remains, what weapons do we feel we need.

Was it to validate the fission warhead

Absolutely and should have been more. There are upto a dozen more weapons designs ready in BARC, which have not been tested and are being sold to the armed forces as something that can work, based on simulations. There was only one weapon tested in POK2. S6 was another weaponized design.

Was it also to get data for refining a TN design

RC was confident that the TN did not need a test. He was over ruled by a BARC board in 1996, led by A.N Prasad.

On the basis of the above did ABV rush to declare TN weapon's capability? And then did he kind off retract his statement? What was BARC to do in such a situation? What kind of a stance could it adopt it public?

Your above construction is NOT what I believe happened. It is the technocrats (BM/APJ/RC) that led ABV to make the statements he made. More like BM believing APJ, APJ believing RC.

What you can legitimately hang ABV/BJP for is the early moratorium declaration, before the complete analysis of the test results were in. There are fundamental structural issues, in our strategic security setup. Structures, that were bound to give a wrong conclusion, is my understanding.

Has anybody who gave the authorization to test or those from the design team ever spoken about these parameters? Not to my knowledge. In the absence of this, I think this wholesale rush to heap the blame on BARC is wrong and maybe even politically motivated.

If it is politically motivated then you will have to make a credible case for it, for I do not see one. Much of this, has not been in the public eye but the people, who are doubting, have been saying pretty much the same things for over a decade now. If BARC claims to be the be all and end all of our nuclear weapons (more so, if OSA and secret weapon design arguments are used) and if there are doubts on the matter, then there is no choice but for the finger to go on them. In my view, there is no wholesale rush, if there is consistency in the allegations by the same people for over a decade.

[ShauryaT]

On numbers, China as far as I can count has about 30ish in the Mt range. So, I am not sure where Santhanam got his for us to deter even China having 200 deployed H- bombs of 3.3-5 megatons yields each.

He is talking about the bombs numbers and yields by themselves, not necessary the type of delivery vehicles. Also, consider, that he is likely including reserves also. To what degree are the western numbers on China's arsenal are reliable is anyone's guess. Consider this information as a view of the RAW.

[shiv]

Consider this information as a view of the RAW.

Shaurya those figures are very different from what is available in public. On what basis do you say that Santhanam is revealing RAW figures? I for one do not believe that.

One page 1 of this thread I had made a post about Chinese nuclear weapons with links.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 64#p745564

[ldev]

Your above construction is NOT what I believe happened. It is the technocrats (BM/APJ/RC) that led ABV to make the statements he made. More like BM believing APJ, APJ believing RC.

ShauryaT,

Ultimately it is all speculation until sombody directly in the chain decides to speak on the record. Has ABV ever said that he was wrongly lead to believe on the record? If not then how can one conclude that BM/APJ/RC misled ABV?

[shiv]

Links to China nuclear forces

http://www.nti.org/db/china/wdepdat.htm
http://cns.miis.edu/archive/country_chi ... depdat.htm
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2008/04
http://www.levinger.net/josh/files/writ ... ckpile.pdf
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/nuke/index.html
http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/ ... norris.pdf

[ShauryaT]

Consider this information as a view of the RAW.

Shaurya those figures are very different from what is available in public. On what basis do you say that Santhanam is revealing RAW figures? I for one do not believe that.

One page 1 of this thread I had made a post about Chinese nuclear weapons with links.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 64#p745564

It is either his view, which i consider synonymous with those of the RAW, or he is playing games or he is a fool. Take your pick.

[ShauryaT]

Links to China nuclear forces

http://www.nti.org/db/china/wdepdat.htm
http://cns.miis.edu/archive/country_chi ... depdat.htm
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2008/04
http://www.levinger.net/josh/files/writ ... ckpile.pdf
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/nuke/index.html
http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/ ... norris.pdf

Here is my bottom line understanding of China's arsenal. The western numbers are all over the map. Ranging from 200-800 weapons. Most of the analysis is focused on delivery vehicles, which can land up in their back yard. Very few, if any, provide a real understanding on all the configuration of weapons, that may be used to target India. In this India focused estimate, I essentially include ALL of their weapons, except for the few that are operationally deployed on long range missiles targeted on the west. So, KS estimate of 200 MT range weapons, that can be used against India is entirely believable, based on known estimates, CEP of the weapon delivery platforms and my understanding of chinese defense preparedness pre-dispositions.

[NRao]

On numbers, China as far as I can count has about 30ish in the Mt range. So, I am not sure where Santhanam got his for us to deter even China having 200 deployed H- bombs of 3.3-5 megatons yields each.

He is talking about the bombs numbers and yields by themselves, not necessary the type of delivery vehicles. Also, consider, that he is likely including reserves also. To what degree are the western numbers on China's arsenal are reliable is anyone's guess. Consider this information as a view of the RAW.

THAT is my problem. For an ex-RAW, scientist, he is all over the place!!! No consistency other than "it failed".

However, like I said before, he needs a ghost writer.

On "anyone's guess" that is true for all of us. All sleuths have their own masala in what they say.

That said I can only go by what is out there. Santhanam included.

I have a flight to catch ...............

[samuel]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage ... 77407.aspx

Press Trust Of India
Washington, November 17, 2009
First Published: 22:34 IST(17/11/2009)
Last Updated: 22:54 IST(17/11/2009)

Pakistan has more nuclear weapons than India: report

Pakistan is estimated to have more nuclear warheads than India and the two Asian neighbours along with China are increasing their arsenals and deploying weapons at more sites, two eminent American nuclear experts have said.

While Pakistan is estimated to possess 70-90 nuclear weapons, India is believed to have 60-80, claims Robert S Norris and Hans M Kristensen in their latest article 'Nuclear Notebook: Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2009'.

The article published in the latest issue of Bulletin of the Atomic Science claimed that Beijing, Islamabad, and New Delhi are quantitatively and qualitatively increasing their arsenals and deploying weapons at more sites, yet the locations are difficult to pinpoint.

For example, no reliable public information exists on where Pakistan or India produces its nuclear weapons, it said.

"Whereas many of the Chinese bases are known, this is not the case in Pakistan and India, where we have found no credible information that identifies permanent nuclear weapons storage locations," they said.

"Pakistan's nuclear weapons are not believed to be fully operational under normal circumstances, India is thought to store its nuclear warheads and bombs in central storage locations rather than on bases with operational forces. But, since all three countries are expanding their arsenals, new bases and storage sites probably are under construction," the two nuclear experts said.

[shiv]

It is either his view, which i consider synonymous with those of the RAW, or he is playing games or he is a fool. Take your pick.

Thanks

This what I mean. There is a choice of meanings available to pick from. This is what I have said time and again and there is absolutely no clear indicator apart from what one wants to believe. Of all the countries with some nuclear capability India has been the most cagey, next to Israel. And if you believe the Venn diagram, India tops the list of cagey nuclear weapons wielding powers.