Deterrence

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 23 Apr 2010 06:49

x-posting

This article is from NYTimes and is a HUGE food for thought!!

U.S. Faces Choice on New Weapons for Fast Strikes

* President Obama will decide whether to deploy a new class of weapons capable of reaching any corner of the earth from the United States in under an hour and with such accuracy and force that they would greatly diminish America’s reliance on its nuclear arsenal.

* concerns about the technology are so strong that the Obama administration has acceded to a demand by Russia that the United States decommission one nuclear missile for every one of these conventional weapons fielded by the Pentagon. That provision, the White House said, is buried deep inside the New Start treaty

* In theory, the weapon will hurl a conventional warhead of enormous weight at high speed and with pinpoint accuracy, generating the localized destructive power of a nuclear warhead.

* Senator John McCain of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said at a hearing on Thursday that Prompt Global Strike would be “essential and critical, but also costly.”

* It would travel through the atmosphere at several times the speed of sound, generating so much heat that it would have to be shielded with special materials to avoid melting. But since the vehicle would remain within the atmosphere rather than going into space, it would be far more maneuverable than a ballistic missile

* Mr. Obama himself alluded to the concept in a recent interview with The New York Times, saying it was part of an effort “to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons” while insuring “that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Apr 2010 07:37

So Shourya on a larger scale!

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 23 Apr 2010 07:50

Ramana-ji

US had 3 choices to implement this. Conventional warheads atop ICBMs. During Bush era, the Russians had warned that it would set off their early warning systems. The second option was to station rods in space. However, that contravenes the treaty against weaponizing space. The last option was a hypersonic vehicle which would be atop a first stage rocket and would fly inside the atmosphere.

In short, More like our hypersonic vehicles (Avatar/HSTDV)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Apr 2010 07:52

Think baaz.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 23 Apr 2010 08:10

Thanks Shiv. It is clear who Magoo is.

(109)Lt. General K. Sundarji recently wrote that "For emplacing a minimum deterrent posture against China, it would be necessary for India to deploy land based IRBM's with fusion warheads or boosted yield fission warheads, partly in soft overground sites and partly rail-mobile, along with some SLBM capabilities...

The Indian SSN Project: An Open Literature Analysis

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Apr 2010 08:22

shiv wrote:
This is their core group
http://www.sasfor.com/index.php?option= ... 2&Itemid=8

Includes Santhanam

Brigadier Vijai K Nair,VSM (retd).

Retired from the Indian Army in 1991, having been awarded the VSM for distinguished service. Besides three tenures of combat duty, in service experience includes: instructor - Defence Services Staff College, and, Deputy Director General Strategic Planning at the Directorate of Perspective Planning at Army Headquarters [conceptualisation of threat in the perspective period; forecast future battlefield milieu and generate philosophy papers for future weapon systems; develop military strategic options based on National Security Objectives and threat assessments; evaluate futuristic force level imperatives; assist in defining Operational Requirements; and, co-ordinate the formulation of financial planning in support of Army's Five Year Plans].

Currently Managing Director, Magoo Strategic Infotech Pvt Ltd. An information service providing daily intelligence updates and analyses on ‘Nuclear Agenda’s: International & Regional,’ and ‘Daily Terrorism Watch.’ Also a Consultant for the Journal - Defence & Technology.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 23 Apr 2010 15:01

Shiv: Sasfor was a good find. I am dovouring the material there, even if most of it is old.
China’s Strategic Capabilities: Doctrine, Concept & Force Structures Part I

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 23 Apr 2010 18:26

IMVHO, Brig. Vijai K. Nair (retd) uses the alias of Magoo or Magoo Nair.

Some pertinant links to prove my assertion :
1) In an email (from 01/19/1999) Brig Nair wrote to Jacqueline Cabasso - Exec Dir. (The Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland, CA) & founding member of the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons and signed as Magoo. Link (search for Magoo on the page) : Link

2) In an email pointing to a Hindu editorial from 07/05/1997, Brig Vijai K Nair enclosed his email signatrure as :
Brigadier Vijai K Nair VSM, [Retd] Ph.D
Executive Director
Forum for Strategic & Security Studies
Room 2, Administrative Building
Safdarjung Airport
New Delhi 110 003
Tele: 091 118 525411 & 091 11 4628366 Fax: 091 118 523119
E-mail: [email protected]
Link : link

3) On 11/20/2006, Brig Vijai Nair of NOIDA 201303, India wrote a comment on a WaPo article where he put his name at the end of the note but signed as magoo
Link : link

4) He appeared on X News TV show Representing South Asia Strategic Forum and this link has his picture : link

5) This is a think tank he is associated with : link

6) Quick Bio : link

7) An article by the Brig "NO MORE AMBIGUITY: INDIA’S NUCLEAR POLICY" : link

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Apr 2010 18:31

OK. Enough. The essence is he stated that Gen Sundarji had revised upwards the weapons needed and also the yields. And he said that in a NPA blog.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Apr 2010 20:13

ShauryaT wrote:Shiv: Sasfor was a good find. I am dovouring the material there, even if most of it is old.
China’s Strategic Capabilities: Doctrine, Concept & Force Structures Part I

Shaurya - I have registered for the forum. But I will wag my tongue only after reading a bit..

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 23 Apr 2010 22:21

The Indian SSN Project: An Open Literature Analysis

Excerpts from a 1992 study authored by Brigadier Vijai Nair

The desired weapons capability needed by India have been calculated and presented by Nair.

According to him targets in Pakistan should include: "Six metropolitan centres including port facilities; one corps sized offensive formation in its concentration area; three sets of bottle necks in the strategic communication network; five nuclear capable military airfields; two hydroelectric water storage dams. A total of 17 nuclear strikes."

For China he made the following recommendation: "Creation of a weapons capability to pull out five to six major industrial centers plus two ports designed to service China's SSBN fleet. This makes a total of 8 nuclear strikes."

"The ideal configuration of warhead numbers and yield would be: Two strikes of one megaton each for metropolitan centres and port facilities; two strikes of 15 kt each for battle field targets; one strike with a yield between 200 and 500 kt each for dams; one strike of 20 to 50 kt each for military airfields; and, one strike each of 15 kt for strategic military communication centres."

Note the numbers and the yields required circa 1992. It will be interesting to get Brigadier Nair's recommendation for strikes recommended during the present time based on Chinese and Pakistani advances in military force and industrial progress.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 24 Apr 2010 00:51

The Nuclear Threat to India: Past, Present and Future

Written by Brigadier. Vijai K Nair, rtd. In Consultation with General K K Hazari rtd. and Dr. K. Santhanam

------------------------
This analysis was written in 2006 and will be updated later in 2010 once issues involving the U.S.-Russia START, Obama's April 2010 Nuclear Summit, the April 2010 Iran Nuclear Summit, US Nuclear Posture Review and the NPT Review Conference in May 2010, and the ripples and counter ripples they cause play out.
------------------------
The debate in both the domestic and international fora tends to be fixated on doctrines, concepts and structures and systems limited to a narrow spectrum of issues whereas the strategy has to cope with the demands of a multidimensional threat that *varies in nature*, substance and the quarter from which it emanates. Consequently the deliberations tend to oversimplify a Byzantine potpourri of strategic imperatives resulting often in unrelated deductions that do not lend themselves to the formulation of a coherent nuclear strategy that would meet India’s short, mid and long term security imperatives.

Before addressing the threat(s) per se it is important to note that the global nuclear weapon environment has a vibrant dynamic of its own that needs recurring assessment so that the national nuclear weapons doctrine results in a nuclear strategy that can cope with the evolutionary effects of the dynamics peculiar to fielding strategic forces. Therefore the strategy has to be designed with an in built stretch potential to cope with the evolving nature of the threat. In other words the very nature of the threat is undergoing an evolution that demands a commensurate progression in strategic thought and capabilities. This progressive moderation of perceptions and abilities would be designed to meet all possible contingencies along the vertical and lateral axes so that unexpected tangential developments can be met through existing programmes.

Definitely, Nair, will make an assesment on Indian arsenal commensurate with the current threat assesment which will be different to the earlier one.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 24 Apr 2010 01:02

On the number game, Sumit Ganguly, adds more to what was not said in the FAS site on the thought process behind the 135 weapon mark set by Brig. Nair. (Should read in continuation with 'The Indian SSN Project: An Open Literature Analysis' assessment)

"After reliability parameters are factored in, at the rate of two weapons for each autonomous strike, with 20 per cent of the entire force structure maintained as a postwar reserve, the 25 designated targets in China and Pakistan are calculated as requiring an overall Indian arsenal of 132 weapons of varying size and yield."

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 24 Apr 2010 01:23

ShauryaT wrote: Thanks Shiv. It is clear who Magoo is.

The Indian SSN Project: An Open Literature Analysis

I find this very tempting to highlight.

(87)Lastly work has been conducted on the design of earth penetrating warheads. This work was carried out at the Armament Research and development Establishment, Pune. Computer codes have been developed which model various aspects of warhead and target interaction.

References:
87. Defense Science Journal, 1985, Vol. 35, p401-9, P.K. Roy

Computer Code for Evaluation of Design Parameters of Concrete Piercing Earth Shock Missile Warhead

Defense Science Journal, 1987, Vol. 37, p347-360, P.K. Roy

Penetration Dynamics of Earth Penetration Warhead into Composite Target Media

As well as the post from D Roy. Pls note the timeline.

New Technologies and the Qualitative Arms Race
Working Paper submitted by the India at the Third Special Session
of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to disarmament, 1988

Concurrently more accurate and precise modes of delivery of nuclear warheads are being explored to avoid the large collateral damage, inevitable in less accurate delivery. The maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV) is one such technology that is likely to dramatically increase the ability to deliver nuclear weapons with pin-point accuracy. The Earth-penetrating nuclear warhead design is another example of militarily usable nuclear explosions.

I see myself a year back or so 'hallucinating myself' with other biggies of this forum that India was developing bunker buster type Nuclear warhead. I guess if i have to 'hallucinate' now, i have to say, India already completed the developement of Earth penetrating N warhead.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 24 Apr 2010 14:06

Boss, what are you talking about. You know that we Indians have no strategic vision, no grand worldview, and just stumble from crisis to crisis willy nilly. These are just papers that were written, probably plagiarized in parts. We can't even make a proper weapon, let alone an earth penetrating one.

Why do you think the major problem Mullen and so on face is that we become "more transparent" - as if we can become "more transparent" than we already are!!! I mean, we are literally see-through, if you go by the assessment of Western strategic community. And yet they ask for more transparency. Can't they believe that all we want is peace on earth and goodwill to all men? That that is, in fact, the grandest strategy of all?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Apr 2010 22:38

This is what I wrote in 1999 in BR Monitor!

What Next? Way to a credible deterrent

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 24 Apr 2010 23:06

gentlemen,

The Republic of India did not get to where it is today simply by being a follower or by lacking the much lamented "strategic vision" ....

yes things could have been smoother, but then that is what patriots everywhere would say ..

Its not "inspite the gods" rather " its with the blessings of the Gods" .

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Apr 2010 23:13

ldev wrote:The Indian SSN Project: An Open Literature Analysis

Excerpts from a 1992 study authored by Brigadier Vijai Nair

The desired weapons capability needed by India have been calculated and presented by Nair.

According to him targets in Pakistan should include: "Six metropolitan centres including port facilities; one corps sized offensive formation in its concentration area; three sets of bottle necks in the strategic communication network; five nuclear capable military airfields; two hydroelectric water storage dams. A total of 17 nuclear strikes."

For China he made the following recommendation: "Creation of a weapons capability to pull out five to six major industrial centers plus two ports designed to service China's SSBN fleet. This makes a total of 8 nuclear strikes."

"The ideal configuration of warhead numbers and yield would be: Two strikes of one megaton each for metropolitan centres and port facilities; two strikes of 15 kt each for battle field targets; one strike with a yield between 200 and 500 kt each for dams; one strike of 20 to 50 kt each for military airfields; and, one strike each of 15 kt for strategic military communication centres."
Note the numbers and the yields required circa 1992. It will be interesting to get Brigadier Nair's recommendation for strikes recommended during the present time based on Chinese and Pakistani advances in military force and industrial progress.

we should also keep in mind that the accuracy of BM's were considered very poor in those days, so there may be a cause for downward revision of the yield figures.

just FWIW, this was my uneducated estimate for PRC :
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 82#p709182

So what constitutes MCD wrt PRC ?
I would humbly suggest that credible ability and intent to destroy at least 5-6 cities including shanghai, beijing, tianjin, shenyang, guangzhou, chengdu and xian or changchun in case of a nuclear attack on India would deter any PRC glorious leader.
these cities constitute the very heart of china's economic and industrial prowess as also most of the major institutes. they have a larger than proportional importance to the overall PRC sense of nation that would mean that a threat to these would serve as enough of a deterrent.

and for that ability to be credible you must have at least one SSBN in the oceans at all times armed with something like 10-12 long range SLBMs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Apr 2010 23:43

D Roy wrote:gentlemen,

The Republic of India did not get to where it is today simply by being a follower or by lacking the much lamented "strategic vision" ....

True. BUT was it because of foresight or because of being reactive? Was a situation anticipated and a solution formulated or was a solution formulated after a situation was encountered (and there was enough time to react)?

yes things could have been smoother, but then that is what patriots everywhere would say ..

Smoother? Only if they were better. And, they will not be "better" only because they are all reactive.

I for one would be inclined to see what their thinking is today. What we are seeing seems to be from years ago - and that is fine, not a knock on anyone.

Its not "inspite the gods" rather " its with the blessings of the Gods" .

True for anyone and everyone.

My feel is that India is reactive, with some sprinkling of foresight.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Apr 2010 21:36

JE Menon wrote:Boss, what are you talking about. You know that we Indians have no strategic vision, no grand worldview, and just stumble from crisis to crisis willy nilly. These are just papers that were written, probably plagiarized in parts. We can't even make a proper weapon, let alone an earth penetrating one.

How true... our gentle neighbor is also saying the same.

The powerful flame of Shaheen was indicative of its thrust and power. The combination of Shaheen's lightening speed, terminal guidance system and solid fuel have made it the most state-of-the-art, fastest and deadliest missile of South Asia. All these capabilities have not been integrated in any one of the missiles of South Asia.

On the night of April 15 an analyst who is the Director of the Institute of Strategic studies, Quaid-e-Azam University, endorsed on Pakistan television that these three capabilities are not integrated in any other missile of South Asia. This writer has found from reliable sources that though Agni is heavy and has a longer range, due to its heavy weight its speed is very slow and it does not even have a terminal guidance system. That is the reason that although India announced the test-firing of Agni-II, it did not divulge its circular error probability. It has kept it secret and at the same time has not revealed whether it fell on target or not. In contrast, the hundred percent target-hit for Shaheen has been ascertained. The missile hit its target on Thursday and on the same day its warhead was found from the target area in Chaghi. The warhead went 15 to 20 meters deep into the ground and created a crater of 10 to 12 meters radius.

See how they marked the impact point so that they are offering conclusive proof to kafir Indians about their missile's superiority and poor Indians hide their missile below the sea. And also an imbedded meaning they are developing ~~earth penetrating~~ earth shattering warhead...hmm all par for the course, na.

Why do you think the major problem Mullen and so on face is that we become "more transparent" - as if we can become "more transparent" than we already are!!! I mean, we are literally see-through, if you go by the assessment of Western strategic community. And yet they ask for more transparency. Can't they believe that all we want is peace on earth and goodwill to all men? That that is, in fact, the grandest strategy of all?

Whether it is Mike Mullen or mike-less Collin Powell all want to be on the side of Musharraf(pun).

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 27 Apr 2010 22:42

Quick note on the history of nuclear arms control negotiations between Washington and Moscow;

- From Khrushchev to Putin, Moscow's foremost goal has always been the appearance of strategic parity with the US. America is Russia's benchmark.
- The upper bound of nuclear forces during negotiations has largely been determined by what Russia can afford to maintain at a given time
- The lower bound of nuclear forces has been largely determined by what the US [DoD+DoE+DoS+intel community+White House] thinks it needs to deter (and in previous eras take on) Russia, plus all other hostile states.

Thus the Russian/Soviet economy, and whatever nuclear doctrine is in vogue in Washington are the chief factors that go in to the blender to produce SALT, START, ABM, Prague, etc.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 May 2010 19:24

Nuclear submunition or Nuclear percision guided munition.

Is there such term used or any knowledge of such weapon exists? We have often seen fictions movies involving aliens where a submunition size weapon was shown which act as Nuclear/Neutron bomb. Maybe in future we may see such use.

A conventional submunition size varies from less than 2 inches to as big as 6 inches in diameter.

Nuclear core used in artillery shells developed in 60s measures 6 inches in diameter.

David Crockett, considered as world's smallest N bomb measures..

The W54 core, based on the available photos (particularly of the Davy Crockett) was neither spherical nor elliptical. The best interpolated photographic match to its external dimensions is a center cylindrical section 11 inches in diameter and 5 inches long, with roughly 5.5 inch radius hemispherical ends.

These are 1960s stuff. With the advancement in MEMS, NEMS and materials and with no restriction from CTBT in testing such sub KT weapons we can reasonably expect that in a future Nuclear war, we can expect to see the usage of Guided Nuclear submunition which could measures well below 6 inches.

Even the David Crockett with its lowest yeild could cranck out 20 tons equi of TNT and as high as few hundred tons. Whereas, the mighty B-52 could drop a max of 60+ ton only.

This Nuclear submunition if developed going to do more harm than conventional N bomb and serve as very good battlefield weapon to help to wage a realistic Nuclear war.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 May 2010 07:03

cross post

Pakistan tests missiles as U.S. lectures them about terrorism

Granted, the maximum range of the Shaheen-I ballistic missile is only 400 miles and the Ghaznavi ballistic missile can only travel up to 185; however, what these projectiles can do is travel a sufficient enough distance to strike India and trigger a nuclear war, which would not be in the best geopolitical interests of anyone.

This is an example of Pakistan negotiating with a gun held to its own head, and a revelation of how effective that can be as a strategy.

But what has that got to do with deterrence? The only connection is one I made in the first few pages of this thread - i.e the breakdown of deterrence is a massive blow to all Western efforts at non proliferation. And India Pakistan nuclear exchange and its aftermath will send a signal to every country in the world that the world order and the "security council" and the non proliferation lobby and "nuclear umbrella" and concepts of "deterrence" as defined all do not work.

After that nobody on earth will believe anything that existing nuclear power say about deterrence. A new world order will really come about albeit at India's expense and a few dead Pakis.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 May 2010 08:06

shiv wrote:cross post

Pakistan tests missiles as U.S. lectures them about terrorism

Michael Hughes is, for sure, improving and getting better educated I would say. A year ago we had to conduct Jihad to get this guy to see options in thinking on this subject.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 May 2010 09:16

shiv wrote:
But what has that got to do with deterrence? The only connection is one I made in the first few pages of this thread - i.e the breakdown of deterrence is a massive blow to all Western efforts at non proliferation. And India Pakistan nuclear exchange and its aftermath will send a signal to every country in the world that the world order and the "security council" and the non proliferation lobby and "nuclear umbrella" and concepts of "deterrence" as defined all do not work.

After that nobody on earth will believe anything that existing nuclear power say about deterrence. A new world order will really come about albeit at India's expense and a few dead Pakis.

Shiv-ji,

Are you saying that India should start a nuke-dhamaka with paki's to prove western nuke proliferation and deterrence perfidy?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 May 2010 10:51

RamaY wrote: Are you saying that India should start a nuke-dhamaka with paki's to prove western nuke proliferation and deterrence perfidy?

I am not.

But I have worse thoughts

All this breakdown of world order can occur only if Pakistan attacks us with a nuke and we hit back

What will happen if we take a nuke hit and do not hit back?

It will, in fact (IMHO) "support the existing world order" and help a nuclear-wounded India to claim that we have made deterrence hold by not attacking despite taking a nuclear hit. In making this mistake, India will be helping the old order survive despite getting hit by a nuke. And the "old order" is designed in a way that ensures that we are always at risk of being hit by a nuke by one of the nuclear haves or their whores.

So my contention is that the old order can break down only if Pakistan nukes us and we nuke them back. India will have to either use nukes first or in retaliation. Pakistan using nukes will not upset the world order if we don't nuke back. After such a war - the whole world will tut tut in sympathy for India. They will provide medicines for the injured and sanction Pakistan and then ask both countries to give up nukes. That is the same as now. Same ol' same ol' "world order". No other country in the world will nuke Pakistan and have the guts or justification to break the old world order.

But if we kick the shit out of Pakistan in nuclear retaliation after taking a hit, every country in the world will learn that deterrence as advertised has ended. That is sure to change the world order.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 May 2010 13:15

According to him targets in Pakistan should include: "Six metropolitan centres including port facilities; one corps sized offensive formation in its concentration area; three sets of bottle necks in the strategic communication network; five nuclear capable military airfields; two hydroelectric water storage dams. A total of 17 nuclear strikes."

I can try and guess the targets here.

Please add to this or suggest changes.

Note: Jacobabad is with the US forces, so that one is ruled out for now.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 11 May 2010 17:06

Just 17??? Pakhanastan will be up in no time again. While our nukes take out their AFB in no time they will be flooded with Military Aid by their Arab Breathrens with M2ks, Rafales etc. While Western world takes care of food/medicine/economic aid. While pagan majority india will be left tattered:

Manish_Sharma wrote:
^
I have not taken the army locations in the above map as I could not get them and it was getting too much congested anyway. So what I have taken is POPULATION, INDUSTRIES AND AIRBASES.
Yellow STARS are = 6 warheads of 25kt each.
Blue STARS are = 3 warheads of 25kt each.
[UNSALTED OF COURSE BECAUSE OF CLOSE PROXIMITY TO US & THERE IS NO HIMALAYAN LIKE CHINA BETWEEN US TO PROTECT].

Above in case of SA I have taken the AIRBASE TARGETS as their AF is going to come helping porkis.
Each Orange Star = 2 warheads of 25kt. One Cobalt and One with Gold 197 isotop.

The whole point of making these maps was to get an idea of number of targets + number of missiles and warheads would be needed. Perhaps it may help if someone writes a scenario.

Special note to Shiv: I have taken the figure of 25kt just to be on the safe side to factor in 50% failure of warheads missiles. Not because I am ahead of curve!

^ I think it all came to around 310 or 315 hits by mixture of 25kt & 50kt.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 11 May 2010 17:47

While this was the idea for chipanda:

Manish_Sharma wrote:

Above I have just tried to get an idea of How many missiles/warheads would be needed to send the lizard back economically by 100 years. In this my idea was to hit industrial cities/refineries/ports.

As you can see that A SINGLE YELLOW STAR IS EQUIVALENT OF 3 WARHEADS OF 40KT EACH (Salted of course 2 warheads with Gold isotops and one warhead with cobalt 60). So each STAR means 1 missile with 3MIRVs.

Now on the map ONE DARK GREEN DOT means one type of industry if you see many bunched together that means that many types of industries. The list of type of industries you can see on the top of the map.

So as I counted in end it came to 35 STARS WHICH EQUALS TO 105WARHEADS AND 35MISSILES(3MIRVD ON EACH MISSILE OF COURSE).

Since somebody had mentioned that Army is factoring in failure rate of 50% warheads. If we add to that failure of missiles and ABM too then I have to increase the number 3 times.

This way the number that comes is 315 warheads + 105(3 warhead MIRVd) Missiles to ensure 80-90% destruction economywise.

I have here discounted the army targets totally 'cause I don't know where and how many of them are there. Secondly the idea was to hit economic + population targets. This way a partly dying chipanda could have also a window to hit other enemy targets of its own, like Japan US and RU etc. thus inviting their retaliation+preventive strikes too.

Since we consider testing too expensive because of sanctions, the least can be done is to make missile launch sites buried deep in mountains far away from the population centers. With ABMs on top of mountains to protect them from pre emptive strikes. Also this way the enemy has to use SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS ARSENAL ON TRYING TO TAKE OUT THESE SITES RESULTING IN LESS WARHEADS FOR POPULATION CENTERS OF OUR COUNTRY.
Then the other part is ON trains, mobile launchers + Arihants.

For now I think China wouldn't want even 10% of this to happen for getting Arunachal Pradesh, but few years from now some unforeseen situation may change it some water issue......... something.

So 315 warheads for Chipanda +105 Agnis.

And around same number for Porkistan, BD & SA.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 May 2010 19:31

shiv wrote: But if we kick the shit out of Pakistan in nuclear retaliation after taking a hit, every country in the world will learn that deterrence as advertised has ended. That is sure to change the world order.

A better idea could be that we kick the shit out of pakistan on one or the other pretext. We may not have to take the initial hit (assuming that our kick in the ba**s will saturate pakistan of all pakiness).

The nuke-deterrence as advertised (== nuke deterrence by evil empires

) will end.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 May 2010 19:39

Manish_Sharma wrote: ^ I think it all came to around 310 or 315 hits by mixture of 25kt & 50kt.

why do you want to waste 300+ nukes on pakis Manish-ji?

There are better ways. Spend your astras wisely and get maximum benefit.

Don't forget the possible response of 3.5 friends. As they say in "family" movies; write up what is in your mind and put it in "safe" place. God forbid something happens to you, your family, or your friends, these letters will be delivered at predetermined places in 3.5 friends.

I recommend 5-10 multi-megapetal flowers for each one of the 3.5 friends (must eliminate 1.5 friends completely and leave the reminder for the 2 friends of what happens if someone plays with mother Kali)

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 11 May 2010 21:31

RamaY wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote: ^ I think it all came to around 310 or 315 hits by mixture of 25kt & 50kt.
why do you want to waste 300+ nukes on pakis Manish-ji?

OK, If I get into trouble then you are responsible for this question of yours:
Actually it stuck me while reading Shiv's Book [might as well make him responsible for monster in me

]
"Pakistan a Failed State". In that he has given some very shocking stats. Like the porki population at time of partition was 3 crores and now it is 17 crores

that means growing at 5 times the speed. Same about the bangladesh. Now India's pop was 33 crores and grown by 3 times to 110 crores by now.

Now here I see many gurus N Rao etc. refering to inevitable implosion of pakhanastan but they always avoid the question what will happen then. Let's say porki state implodes then what happens to all those India hating people. Nobody wants to discuss it. In Sanku's word it is 'verboten'.

Imagine MMS' grand idea of making soft border with porkis in Kashmir. All those parasites from across the border who got 30% land of India and only 15% population and now have grown 5 times more will come tumbling in, just like BDshies.

The ratio of majority will change dramatically and Bharat will be on its way to become Isalimistan in next 70-80 years.

So I would happily use up all the NW stock on porkis and borrow some from Russians/chinese to use more.

China I hardly see as a threat, let them have soft borders with us and it will be a different story.

PS: I have an OT question is 'ji' from Indic roots or somewhere else?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 May 2010 03:39

Aarya Manish

Your strategy will create post-war humanitarian nightmares for India.

There are better ways to solve the socio-ideological issues. For example; the silent majority in pre-WWII Germany was in support of Nazi ideology/methodology during WWII. But after the war this problem was solved with limited human costs. There are many other examples throughout history.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 12 May 2010 06:16

RamaY wrote:Aarya Manish
There are better ways to solve the socio-ideological issues. For example; the silent majority in pre-WWII Germany was in support of Nazi ideology/methodology during WWII. But after the war this problem was solved with limited human costs. There are many other examples throughout history.

Can you please point to me where it is explained in detail? Or explain it yourself, we can go to proper thread for this. I would love to learn the better solution.

Thanks for sparing me that horrible 'ji' which I don't think comes from our own roots.

Aarya Manish

hmmmm thanx Shriman RamaY !

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 May 2010 06:57

We will definitely discuss all the options at an appropriate time.

At one plane (dimension) it is close to how corporations transform the organizational cultures during corporate takeovers and mergers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 May 2010 19:17

ICBM to be a reality by next year: Saraswat

Commenting on the Indian missile programme, Mr. Saraswat said, “the success of Agni-3 and other tests have confirmed India’s strategic deterrence capability, which could not have been possible without the preceding developmental efforts in these programmes.”

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 28 May 2010 19:09

Threat to destroy Indian N-plant stopped attack on Kahuta

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan had warned India in the early 80s that an attack on nuclear assets in Kahuta would evoke a retaliatory strike on its Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Trombay.This has been revealed by the then Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal M. Anwar Shamim, in his book “Cutting Edge PAF” launched here on Thursday.

Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar, former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of the Staff Committee Admiral (retd) Iftikhar Ahmad Sirohey, former Air Chief Air Marshal (retd) Tanvir Mahmood Ahmad, Lt-Gen (retd) Kamal Matinuddin and former foreign minister Gohar Ayub Khan attended the ceremony.

According to Air Chief Marshal (retd) Shamim, he was called by the then president Gen Zia Ul haq in 1979 to discuss air defence of the nuclear assets in Kahuta. Gen Zia had reliable information that India was planning to attack and destroy Kahuta.

He says he told the president that Kahuta was an indefensible site because it was at three minutes flying time from the border. The reaction time was about eight minutes and by the time the PAF aircraft would reach the area the enemy would have completed the job and would be safe in their territory.

Gen Zia asked how could the most vital deterrent in the country’s armoury be defended and the answer was to acquire most modern aircraft and advanced weapons and the PAF would destroy India’s advanced nuclear facility at Trombay, if they embarked upon this rash course of action.

“We will inflict more damage to them than they can do to us”.

He says he told the president that the multi-role F-16 aircraft with the latest weapons were the best and most suited to meet PAF’s needs.He says that in 1981 the US administration offered F-5Es to be later augmented by F-5Gs, but Pakistan refused to accept any aircraft other than F-16s. This was finally accepted by the United States.

Pakistan received the first batch of F-16 aircraft in January 1983, and he wrote a letter to the president about the task given to him.

“I am now in a position to confirm that Indians will not attack Kahuta because it is amply clear to them that we will retaliate and launch an attack on their atomic station in Trombay, and knowing that they will suffer much more devastation than us, will desist from taking any unwise action”.

He says he told the then secretary of science and technology, Munir Hussain, who was going abroad to attend an international conference on atomic energy, to inform his Indian counterpart of consequences of any adventure to attack the nuclear assets of Pakistan.

When he talked to his Indian counterpart, he said: “No brother, we know your capability and we will not undertake such a mission.”

He says that he also requested Lt-Gen Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, the foreign minister at that time, to declare at an appropriate time the intention of retaliating if any action was taken against the country’s nuclear assets.

“I think he did that while he was in New York. I also invited senior editors of newspapers to inform them of the capability that we had acquired and safeguarded our nuclear assets. They asked pertinent questions and I answered them. As expected the news was published in Indian newspapers next day”.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 May 2010 20:14

chaanakya wrote:Threat to destroy Indian N-plant stopped attack on Kahuta

Perhaps this story is true. Perhaps it is not. Pakistanis have a long history of making unprovable claims that are supposed to have had an effect on India. Most people on BRF know that India probably would have done nothing anyway despite no threat from anyone. So such stories should be taken in that context

A series of Pakis are in te ebusiness of making claims of how they won stuff for Pakistan. Which reminds me - I have a book review coming up..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 May 2010 20:47

From what I deduce, India concluded that Kahuta is a shell and the stuff will come in anyway, from outside. So no point in destroying an empty building. Eventually TSP tested PRC made bombs in 1998 proving this conclusion. recall the Pu particle in Chagai!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 May 2010 06:32

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/721 ... t-311.html

US can manage with just 311 warheads
Gary Schaub and James Forsyth, NYT

The Pentagon has now told the public, for the first time, precisely how many nuclear weapons the United States has in its arsenal: 5,113. That is exactly 4,802 more than we need.
<snip>
Considering that we face no threat today similar to that of the Soviet Union 45 years ago, this should be more than adequate firepower for any defensive measure or, if need be, an offensive strike. And this would be true even if, against all expectations, our capacity was halved by an enemy’s surprise first strike. In addition, should we want to hit an enemy without destroying its society, the 311 weapons would be adequate for taking out a wide range of ‘hardened targets’ like missile silos or command-and-control bunkers.

The key to shrinking our nuclear arsenal so radically would be dispersing the 311 weapons on land, at sea and on airplanes to get the maximum flexibility and survivability.

Ideally, 100 would be placed on single-warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles, like the Minuteman III systems now in service. These missiles, which have pinpoint accuracy, are scattered around the country in such a way that only one potential enemy, Russia, would have any chance of rendering the arsenal impotent with a surprise strike. Equally important, these missile sites are easily detected and monitored, which would reassure our friends and provide a credible threat to our enemies.

The sea leg of the plan would involve placing 24 Trident D-5 missiles, each with a single nuclear warhead, on each of our Ohio-class submarines. Today’s fleet of 14 can be cut to 12, with eight on patrol at a given time, together carrying 192 missiles ready to launch. The Tridents are extremely effective, as they can be moved around the globe on the submarines, cannot be easily detected and present a risk to even hardened targets. And should any of our allies feel that our cuts in seaborne missiles are worrisome, we can remind them that the British and French will keep their complementary nuclear capabilities in the Atlantic.

Finally, for maximum flexibility in our nuclear arsenal, each of our B-2 stealth bombers could carry one air-launched nuclear cruise missile. While we have 20 such bombers, we assume that one would be undergoing repairs at any given time, giving us the final 19 warheads in our 331-missile plan. Our B-2 fleet is more than adequate for nuclear escalation control and political signaling, and giving it an exclusive role in our nuclear strategy would allow us to convert all our B-52H bombers to a conventional role, which is far more likely to be of use in our post-Cold War world.