Deterrence

[RamaY]

I would put India's stockpile at this level.

100 Qty at MT size as Trinetra option. In this case Nandi will be AIII and above
100 Qty at sub-Kiloton size as Veerabhadra option. His vampire would be Nirbhay
50 Qty at 20-100 KT size as Kali option. Mata's lion will be Shaurya

Brahmastra, Trishul, Pasupata, and everything else will remain conventional onlee.

[NRao]

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

Just to be very sure, that is an op-ed from today's NY Times.

It is NOT a US position paper or an article from any US official entity.

-----------------------------------------------

It would have been nice if the two had provided a split by Kt/MT AND MRVs.

"Warheads" really has no meaning.

Also, a meaningful goal would be to reduce the total MT capability and not warheads. Let them have a gazzilion warheads, but reduce the total MTage.

[Rien]

It's kind of funny how people keep citing America as an example for India to follow by saying that the States is leading the way to fewer warheads.

UNITED NATIONS -- Shattering a taboo dating from the Cold War, the Obama administration revealed Monday the size of the American nuclear arsenal -- 5,113 weapons -- as it embarked on a campaign for tougher measures against countries with hidden nuclear programs.

In addition to the functioning weapons, thousands more have been retired and await dismantlement, the Pentagon said. Analysts estimate that number at about 4,500.

Total number of warheads: 9,613 warheads.

[Manish_Sharma]

^Exactly Rien, the US reducing its stockpile which consists most warheads of 375-400kt or in MTs is no example for India to follow. India's decision must come from calculation of the area/assests/population to be annihilated of our enemies not from US and others.

Which I think we have enough in China's case:
To take out Shanghai, 10 Refineries + surrounding areas, 3 gorges dam.

It is for porkis we need more:
To clear out the area for Akhand Bharat from Gwadar to unified bengal.

[jamwal]

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..

You wrote a book saar jii ? Any details ?

[shiv]

You wrote a book saar jii ? Any details ?

Nothing apart from my ebook on pakhanastan that has been online for 3-4 years. I was referring to a book review of Sajad Haider's "Flight of the Falcon" which I have since done.

[shiv]

This deserves a post here
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Strategic ... 99141.aspx

Strategic Command to acquire 40 nuclear capable fighters
Press Trust Of India
New Delhi, September 12, 2010
First Published: 11:54 IST(12/9/2010)
Last Updated: 12:23 IST(12/9/2010)
With an aim of increasing its lethal power, India's tri-services strike force is planning to acquire 40 fighter planes capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The Strategic Forces Command (SFC) has submitted a proposal to the Defence Ministry for setting up two dedicated squadrons of fighter
aircraft which will act as "mini-Air Force", ministry sources said.

This will be the first time that SFC, which at present depends on the Indian Air Force for delivering nuclear weapons under its command, will have its own aerial assets, they said.

The SFC does not want untested fighters but the ones which are battle proven and have capabilities to deliver nuclear-tipped missiles, the sources said.

The aircraft planned to be procured are part of efforts to strengthen the nuclear delivery system which right now is based on land-based ballistic missiles such as the Agni and Prithvi and nuclear-capable fighters such as the Mirage 2000, Su-30 MKI and Jaguars.

Why aircraft?

I see three reasons:
1) In case of possible nuke war the aircraft can be up in the air and flying and less vulnerable to counter force
2) They do not give a "missile launch" warning
3) They can be called back if need be.

[svinayak]

No country rely on Missiles alone for strategic forces.
Bombers are the tool of the last resort.

[Austin]

Talk of Tactical Nukes , I was looking at the number of tactical nukes that the Russians have ( deployed and storage ) and the number and yeald of these weapons makes any START agreement a child play.

The most interesting part about the classification of Tactical Nukes is that the yeald of the weapons does not matter much nor does the range of the platform that carries it , so any weapons deployed on SLBM or ICBM will be classified as Strategic Weapons no matter what the yeald are , so a Shipwreck long range anti-ship cruise missile are still classified as tactical nuke although the yeald is ~ 550 Kt

For some figures on Russian Tactical Nukes



Breaking the U.S.-Russian deadlock on nonstrategic nuclear weapons

* Currently, the United States maintains around 1,100 nonstrategic nuclear warheads and Russia about 5,000 such warheads.
* Although these weapons aren't subject to any legally binding limits or verification, meaningful negotiations on reducing them haven't taken place since 1991.
* Even today progress won't be easy, but Washington could take the lead by withdrawing the 200 or so nonstrategic nuclear weapons it continues to keep in five European countries.

Thats a big number of tactical nukes deployed by both sides.

[Vril]

What is Deterrence???

some random thoughts on Indian deterrence and if it even exists as we know it.

Deterrence would be willingness to exercise unacceptable force on the aggressor (conventional/nuclear) if our strategic interests are compromised with. Usually it would mean flashing newer deadlier weapons systems to let the enemy states know what wrath awaits them. In our case we have for the moment two distinct enemies in form of Pakistan and China.

Let us first examine deterrence for us going aggressive on either of the two

Pakistan
1. range of missiles: ghauris, hatf, shaheens, babur raad etc.
2. ever hanging sword of nook bum.
3. newer more potent f - 16s

China
1. Wide range of ding dongs and sing a song missiles,ICBMs etc
2. Bigger and more powerful nook bums.
3. larger army,air force and navy; aggressive intent

all these combined have had considerable effect on shaping our military decisions against both of them.

Now Indian deterrence

1. Prithvi, Agni, Shaurya, Brahmos I & II ...
2. MKI, Arihant, Aircraft Carriers...
3. Reasonably large nook bumb to cause significant damage.

but what is the effect on any of the neighbours?

1. Pakistan continues to sponsor terrorism unabated and all we do is send dossiers.
2. unrest caused in Kashmir; proxy war by Pakistan and China.we do nothing
3. China undermines Indian position by issuing stapled visas, calls Indian Occupied Kashmir, claims Arunachal. we do nothing
4. Covert support to naxals, jehadi groups etc.

with our super missiles and nuke bums, adversaries should have thought twice before engaging in above mentioned acts of war but some how our deterrence fails.

so am asking, Where is Our Deterrent???

apologies for long rant but am losing pride and confidence in any of our new defence weapons.what is the use of spending so much if it doesnt serve the purpose it is supposed to??

[shiv]

1. Pakistan continues to sponsor terrorism unabated and all we do is send dossiers.
2. unrest caused in Kashmir; proxy war by Pakistan and China.we do nothing
3. China undermines Indian position by issuing stapled visas, calls Indian Occupied Kashmir, claims Arunachal. we do nothing
4. Covert support to naxals, jehadi groups etc.

with our super missiles and nuke bums, adversaries should have thought twice before engaging in above mentioned acts of war but some how our deterrence fails.

so am asking, Where is Our Deterrent???

What do you suggest that India should do?

[ShivaS]

Deter

[shiv]

Deter

How John Snow? How? How can you convert deterred gents into deterrents? What would Spinster (copyright) have said in 1979?

[Vril]

1. Pakistan continues to sponsor terrorism unabated and all we do is send dossiers.
2. unrest caused in Kashmir; proxy war by Pakistan and China.we do nothing
3. China undermines Indian position by issuing stapled visas, calls Indian Occupied Kashmir, claims Arunachal. we do nothing
4. Covert support to naxals, jehadi groups etc.

with our super missiles and nuke bums, adversaries should have thought twice before engaging in above mentioned acts of war but some how our deterrence fails.

so am asking, Where is Our Deterrent???

What do you suggest that India should do?

I wish I could answer you Shiv but since you believe in the chankianess of our government, I' am sure you can help them come out of this one too.

I ' am just doing equal equal. if pakistan and china are not deterred by India's bum, why do Indian's get scared of their bum???

[shiv]

I wish I could answer you Shiv but since you believe in the chankianess of our government, I' am sure you can help them come out of this one too.

I ' am just doing equal equal. if pakistan and china are not deterred by India's bum, why do Indian's get scared of their bum???

So your excuse for not saying anything is what you think I think.

Which Indians are scared of Pakistan's and China's bombs? Are you speaking for all Indians? Maybe your lack of any answer applies to all Indians too?

[Austin]

What do you suggest that India should do?

Well there are few ways to deal for some one who does not gets deterred

1 ) Give them what they want so that they are happy , much like the saying goes if you cant fight them you befriend them.

Since what they want is Kashmir and that has been their demand for past 50 years we as might as well give them under UN supervision and UN gurantees that they will stop supporting terrorism of any form in india , will no more claim any part of territory from india and the relationship will be back to normal.

The above option would mean we give up all claims on Kashmir , loose our self respect and forget about all the sacrifices soldiers and citizen have done.

Its a bitter medicine but it could prevent the regular slaughter of citizen of this country by the hands of terrorist and even the killing of jawans/officer that takes daily in Kashmir.

2 ) The second option is to fight , we wont budge an inch but would neither tolerate the slaughter of our citizens which means we will to confront and if necessary to fight Pakistan , which mean it may escalate into full fledge nuclear conflict.

We can start a war but we may not be able to control it or even end on our own terms if this gets escalated into full blown nuclear conflict , in worst case paksitan will be wiped from the face of the earth but it would also mean we could loose top 25 cities taking us back to stone age.

3 ) Third option is to endure , let them send terrorist or kill people or jawans but we wont budge an inch , sort of war of attrition ...assuming we can out live ,out spend them in this kind of attrition war.

This is more of a favorable terms for Pakistan as they can find jihadi dime a dozen for such cause , but we will loose our citizen , our soldiers and even business interest in india will be affected , essentially all the soft targets will take a hit.

Right now we have chosen the third option , perhaps an easier choice amongst the three like do nothing take no decision and just endure , like Narsimha Rao once famously said , No decision is itself a decision.

[ShivaS]

Just ignore is the best policy.

[Vril]

I wish I could answer you Shiv but since you believe in the chankianess of our government, I' am sure you can help them come out of this one too.

I ' am just doing equal equal. if pakistan and china are not deterred by India's bum, why do Indian's get scared of their bum???

So your excuse for not saying anything is what you think I think.

Which Indians are scared of Pakistan's and China's bombs? Are you speaking for all Indians? Maybe your lack of any answer applies to all Indians too?

we have elected governments and they are representatives of the people.if they are scared, so yes in effect so are all Indians.

Let me give you an example of government cowardice in handling and spinning theories on Kashmir problem where terrorists are caught and released. so what's the excuse " how does it matter.they are non entities.if we arrest or take action it will only make them stronger" !!!! yeahh right. they should follow such reasoning dealing with all terrorists and criminals.

so i ask you, where is the deterrent

[RajeshA]

Its a bitter medicine but it could prevent the regular slaughter of citizen of this country by the hands of terrorist and even the killing of jawans/officer that takes daily in Kashmir.

There is no guarantee of that!

We can start a war but we may not be able to control it or even end on our own terms if this gets escalated into full blown nuclear conflict , in worst case paksitan will be wiped from the face of the earth but it would also mean we could loose top 25 cities taking us back to stone age.

1. Taking a war from conventional to nuclear is a big decision. The Pakistanis may decide not to go there, despite a hot war.
2. If India prepares itself for a nuclear war and its aftermath, including with a tested BMD, Pakistanis would not like to take a chance of shooting at India without the intended consequences, but getting a full volley in return.
3. With a clever use of our mutual friend Mr. Sam, we could influence their decision, not to go nuclear.
4. We do not go all out, which could destroy Pakistan, so they too do not feel compelled to retaliate.
5. There needs to be a discussion between non-military Indians and Pakistanis about what a nuclear exchange entails, and when it would make sense for Pakistan to go nuclear.

This is more of a favorable terms for Pakistan as they can find jihadi dime a dozen for such cause , but we will loose our citizen , our soldiers and even business interest in india will be affected , essentially all the soft targets will take a hit.

Right now we have chosen the third option , perhaps an easier choice amongst the three like do nothing take no decision and just endure , like Narsimha Rao once famously said , No decision is itself a decision.

If we choose this strategy, then we should be at the same time be active in a sub-conventional war with Pakistan, which quickens its demise.

[Austin]

There is no guarantee of that!

Sure its a risk but there is always a risk that you take with any decision either a war or peace .

[*] Taking a war from conventional to nuclear is a big decision. The Pakistanis may decide not to go there, despite a hot war.
[*] If India prepares itself for a nuclear war and its aftermath, including with a tested BMD, Pakistanis would not like to take a chance of shooting at India without the intended consequences, but getting a full volley in return.
[*] With a clever use of our mutual friend Mr. Sam, we could influence their decision, not to go nuclear.
[*] We do not go all out, which could destroy Pakistan, so they too do not feel compelled to retaliate.
[*] There needs to be a discussion between non-military Indians and Pakistanis about what a nuclear exchange entails, and when it would make sense for Pakistan to go nuclear.[/list]

If we were that clever we probably would not have reached this stage.

The problem with war is we cannot be for sure what direction it takes , much like you start it but you never know how it ends and where it ends.

There is no guarantee that Pakistan will not use Nuclear Weapons.

If we choose this strategy, then we should be at the same time be active in a sub-conventional war with Pakistan, which quickens its demise.

This strategy protects the Top Leader ship but has a devastating impact on the country citizen and defence forces as we have seen so far. So far as I see it we have just chosen this strategy and we have seen in past 20 years it has taken a terrible toll on the Army and people of this country , but the establishment has remain unaffected.

[ShivaS]

Deterrence works till it fails.

only surgical introspection of the elite in India and BRF can tell if it still works or failed.

[Vril]

^^ the cost of sub war has been tremendous.jihadis come for free but the amount we have spent has been astronomical and is still going on.

the question still remains..if we are afraid of loosing a few cities, do you think pakis are not afraid of getting wiped out completely??? but why is that its only we who chicken out? why not raise the stakes. let next round of loc breach/firing be greeted by testing of brahmos on area commander's office. we need to heat up their a**e a little.let them know we mean business and ready for showdown.

untill then...where is the deterrent??

[Vril]

Deterrence works till it fails.

only surgical introspection of the elite in India and BRF can tell if it still works or failed.

read the points above. the deterrence hasnt deterred pakis or chinese to stop their war against us. was the deterrence even there??

[shiv]

so i ask you, where is the deterrent

There are two groups here
1) Us
2) Them (Cheenis/Pakis)

Are we scared of their nukes? Yes because we do not retaliate.
Are they scared of our nukes? No because they keep needling us.

So we are deterred by them. They are not deterred by us.

Therefore we have no deterrent.

So what do we do?

1) Ignore them
or
2) Deter them

We are currently ignoring them.

Do you see any way in which we can deter them? It is clear that GoI cannot see any way of deterring them. You cannot deter anyone who does not want to be deterred.

Some people have suggested that we change from NFU to FU policy. I think that is absurd because we will have to take a decision to nuke them for needling us. If we nuke them, they will nuke us back and as you know we are already scared of being nuked by them (see above - we are deterred by them). So we will not nuke them first. They know we will not nuke them first, and they know that nuclear war will not start unless they nuke us first. So they keep needling us.

Other people have suggested that we test again, and we develop huge megaton bums and manufacture 2000 or 5000 bombs and an equal number of ICBMs.

Will that deter them? I don't know. We are already scared of their nukes. We are already not retaliating against their needling because they have nukes. Why would they stop needling us if we had more and bigger nukes? After all we have a NFU policy and we will never nuke them unless they nuke us, whether we have more and bigger nukes or not. .

So people have suggested that India should test, build more and bigger nukes and ICBMs and discard its NFU policy. But if we discard NFU we have to take the decision to nuke them first. And if we nuke them, they will nuke us back. We are deterred by them even though we may have FU policy and more nukes. It's not our nukes that is stopping us from acting. It's their nukes that are stopping us from acting.

Whichever way you cut the cake, we are deterred by them. No matter what we do with our nukes. Destroy them, eat them or store them, it is their nukes that scare us and therefore the fact that we are deterred has nothing to do with our nukes. Because we are deterred by them we do not hit them back conventionally either. After all, if they are not deterred by our nuclear weapons, why would they be deterred by our conventional forces? So we have to sit back an get hit. Pakistan knows this. China knows this.

We have discovered this now and blame the government for being impotent. But if you were government what would you do to make us more potent? Nothing deters the Pakis and Cheenis from needling us.

One solution is to put everyone out of his misery and nuke them first and then check what happens. OK we get nuked back. So what? We knew that and let us be prepared to get nuked back. I think if Indians are prepared to face nuclear war we need to say so openly. Lets have a war where we lose all our major cities (like Mao suggested) but we would have started the war and finished nuking major centers in China and Pakistan. That would be a consolation to those left alive in India. And India is a big enough to have people left alive after such a nuclear war. Only we should not worry about who is left alive and what is left intact. Personally I see this as an attractive way out. it is exactly the sort of game that China and Pakistan play.

We should, as a nation not worry about being nuked. We should not worry about who or what is left as long as we can fire off nukes at China and Pakistan. In many ways it would be a real laugh if we did that. Those countries who thought we were too scared of them will have their asses cooked, even if many of us are not alive to see them screaming and thinking that they made a mistake with India.

But for that we have to think irrationally. We have to think "Let us be ready for nuclear war. Let us be ready to get nuked". After thinking along these lines we can make nuclear threats and then hope that our irrationality deters them. If it deters them, fine. If it does not deter them we have to nuke them. If we threaten them and then allow them to needle us repeatedly without nuking them they will soon realise that we are not serious and that we don't want to start nuclear war. That would be as bad as doing nothing (which we are doing now).

Most people I meet think I am mad when I say we should fight nuclear war and to hell with who survives and who dies. But what solution do we have if we don't want to start that nuclear war and we want to remain rational?

One solution is to try and hit them by conventional means. We have to hit them first and see if they stop. If they stop, fine. What if they don't stop needling us? We hit them again. If they still don't stop what do we do? Nuke them?

Or maybe we can aim to hit them so hard conventionally that they are thoroughly beaten and are forced to stop. So maybe we can postpone nuclear war by beating Pakistan and China conventionally? Would that be an option?

[Austin]

^^^ That is one of the reason I like the way Israeli think and act , they tend to nip it in the bud and take pro-active steps rather then be reactive and wait for events to take over and then regret.

The way they went about bombing the Iraqi Osirak reactor and the present posturing viz a viz Iran is a good national security policy.

Most people I meet think I am mad when I say we should fight nuclear war and to hell with who survives and who dies. But what solution do we have if we don't want to start that nuclear war and we want to remain rational?

Well I do not think there is any thing mad about fighting a nuclear war , it is just a question of choice.

I remember during cold war a very high ranking US personal mentioned in a senate hearing that a nuclear war between US and Soviet will kill some x million population of the world but that world will still have many millions left.

So a nuclear war with pakistan will wipe out 10's of millions of Indians but we still are a billion strong nation.

[Kanson]

What is Deterrence???

some random thoughts on Indian deterrence and if it even exists as we know it.

Deterrence would be willingness to exercise unacceptable force on the aggressor (conventional/nuclear) if our strategic interests are compromised with. Usually it would mean flashing newer deadlier weapons systems to let the enemy states know what wrath awaits them. In our case we have for the moment two distinct enemies in form of Pakistan and China.

..............

Now Indian deterrence

1. Prithvi, Agni, Shaurya, Brahmos I & II ...
2. MKI, Arihant, Aircraft Carriers...
3. Reasonably large nook bumb to cause significant damage.

but what is the effect on any of the neighbours?

1. Pakistan continues to sponsor terrorism unabated and all we do is send dossiers.
2. unrest caused in Kashmir; proxy war by Pakistan and China.we do nothing
3. China undermines Indian position by issuing stapled visas, calls Indian Occupied Kashmir, claims Arunachal. we do nothing
4. Covert support to naxals, jehadi groups etc.

with our super missiles and nuke bums, adversaries should have thought twice before engaging in above mentioned acts of war but some how our deterrence fails.

so am asking, Where is Our Deterrent???

apologies for long rant but am losing pride and confidence in any of our new defence weapons.what is the use of spending so much if it doesnt serve the purpose it is supposed to??

What is deterrence?

Anything that deter what you plan to do is deterrence. This is the simple definition. What you are trying to relate is the "Deterrence theory" involving Nuclear weapons. This is used to deter an aggressor with swift mass casualities.

Deterrence are of different types and vary from context to context. For example, Will you burn your house in trying to kill a rat criss-crossing your room? Or, you simple try to beat or drove them out of your home?

Strong intelligefnce and swift punishments act as deterrent against terrorism. De-recognizing Tibet as part of China might act as deterrent against stapling visas. Raising war cry to nuke at the drop of hat is not solution to every problem. Remember the rules & regulations mentioned in using the weapon 'Brahmastra' in Mahabarath epic? Same applies in using N weapon.

[Austin]

Well Strong Intelligence and Swift Punishment is a very nice reactive approach , It wont deter any body.

Hitting terrorist camp located at places where these terrorist are fed and trained with regularity is more like deterrent , thats what the Israel and Americans do besides having strong intelligence and swift law system.

[Kanson]

Even hitting a terrorist camp needs strong intelligence, isnt it? Do we have to copy whatever Americans do ?

[Austin]

Kanson the point I was trying to make is we cannot and should not be passive and reactive in our approach.

Eventually Intelligence fails even the best one fails , our intelligence too have been a case of spectacular failure and each failure can lead to loss of hundreds of life during devastating terrorist strike , the kind of stuff we have seen from 93 Mumbai Bomb blast to 26/11 and all that took place in between leading to loss of life of thousands of innocent civilians and military personal alike.

The question to ask is will we show the courage to be pro-active and take on the incubator where these terrorist get hatched,fed and trained and do so persistently or just continue to be passive and reactive in our approach even after 20 years of devastation , the next round of spectacular terror strike and equally spectacular intelligence failure is not far off

[ramana]

Nightwatch 9/13/2010

India: India's Strategic Forces Command plans to create a fighter force with nuclear capabilities, according to a report by the Press Trust of India on 12 September, which cited an official in the Indian Defence Ministry. The Strategic Forces Command has sent a proposal to the Defence Ministry about forming a force of two squadrons of 40 fighter aircraft, which would be capable of carrying missiles armed with nuclear warheads.

Comment: India is well on the way to developing a "traditional" nuclear triad of nuclear threats from bombers, ground-launched missiles and surface and submarine systems. India possesses several types of nuclear-capable attack fighters, but they are not subordinate to the Strategic Forces Command.

The statement suggests India wants a more agile nuclear "quartet' that enlarges options for decision makers and establishes its own path for Indian strategic planners. Indian planners perceive a set of conditions in which India might need tactical nuclear attack options for use against close neighbors.

Couldbe mirroring analysis but means TSP is in the cross hairs.

Kanson, Its not helpful to throw in America once in a while. All thinking doenst coem form there and its an insult to members intellgience to throw that as a conversation breaker. You know very well Austin does not think like that.

[csharma]

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers ... r4041.html

Intresting point about testing and nuclear deal with Japan

Indians are not much too worried on this count. The reason is simple: because Indian strategists are NOT going to test another nuclear bomb. In this age of advanced technology, there is no need for testing a nuclear device – be it on land, in air or under water. At the same time, the nuclear tests have been going on the world over -- in laboratories. This is precisely what the Indian nuclear scientists plan to do – and perhaps are doing.

[Vril]

Thanks Austin, Kanson, Ramanna.

The deterrence can be obtained through two means. military & diplomacy.

through military we should have the necessary means and more importantly intent to inflict pain ( not necessarily nuclear) on the aggressor.

diplomacy would be giving back in kind. if pakistan can raise issue of human rights violation in kashmir, why has there not been a single word from us on HR violation in POK, baluchistan, KP etc.why dont we raise the stakes for them??

similarly when china is issuing stapled visas, organising incursions in AP, debating war with India in leading papers etc..why do we remain silent on Tibet, Taiwan, Uighers etc.

It is our silent suffering which is emboldening them. we need to start hitting them on their ears (diplomacy) with adequate warning that we are ready to hit on your knees as well (military).

how this can be done.may be media psy ops and counter propaganda. will post my points in that thread.

[Karna_A]

We should, as a nation not worry about being nuked. We should not worry about who or what is left as long as we can fire off nukes at China and Pakistan. In many ways it would be a real laugh if we did that. Those countries who thought we were too scared of them will have their asses cooked, even if many of us are not alive to see them screaming and thinking that they made a mistake with India.

Just China and TSP are not enough. China has never attacked India in its 2000 years, but for last few decades, and TSP is our own misguided junta being used against us.
Every country that has attacked India in last 1000 years has to be wiped off. That includes most of ME. That's the need for 1-2K TNW.
If Qasim can come and conquer Sind in 7th century boats, a nooked India would be a target of all even BD.
That means the target is anyone who attacked India in last 1000 years + anyone who can attack in next 1000 years.
That'll give indics 1000 years of relative peace like before 7th century.

[shiv]

Thanks Austin, Kanson, Ramanna.

The deterrence can be obtained through two means. military & diplomacy.

through military we should have the necessary means and more importantly intent to inflict pain ( not necessarily nuclear) on the aggressor.

diplomacy would be giving back in kind. if pakistan can raise issue of human rights violation in kashmir, why has there not been a single word from us on HR violation in POK, baluchistan, KP etc.why dont we raise the stakes for them??

similarly when china is issuing stapled visas, organising incursions in AP, debating war with India in leading papers etc..why do we remain silent on Tibet, Taiwan, Uighers etc.

It is our silent suffering which is emboldening them. we need to start hitting them on their ears (diplomacy) with adequate warning that we are ready to hit on your knees as well (military).

how this can be done.may be media psy ops and counter propaganda. will post my points in that thread.

Many people seem to be perfectly clear in their minds that we (India) are deterred by Pakistan and China and that Pakistan and China are not deterred by us.

But will tough statements start deterring them when the actual presence of nukes in the Indian arsenal does not deter them?

Or are you trying to suggest that we try the "tough posturing" approach first and then see what happens.

I don't think that is a bad idea. Let us start talking tough. But I think it is a good idea to start planning on what to do next if tough talk does not work and the Pakis and Chinese are not deterred by Indian talk and posturing. Should we not have to actually use nuclear weapons at some stage?

After all Pakistan started Kargil predicting that India would hesitate to punish Pakistan for fear of a nuclear backlash. And the Pakistanis were right. So clearly the contempt with which Pakis and Chinese hold Indians is well known. What next?

[Kanson]

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers ... r4041.html

Intresting point about testing and nuclear deal with Japan

Indians are not much too worried on this count. The reason is simple: because Indian strategists are NOT going to test another nuclear bomb. In this age of advanced technology, there is no need for testing a nuclear device – be it on land, in air or under water. At the same time, the nuclear tests have been going on the world over -- in laboratories. This is precisely what the Indian nuclear scientists plan to do – and perhaps are doing.

hmm.... We need to move forward from this 'Nuclear opacity'...pls no more ambiguous sentences like... "plan to do - and perhaps are doing". These statements only weakens our belief on our capabilites.

During the 1980s, India established an inertial confinement fusion programme to study high-density physics associated with thermonuclear weapons. In 1989, then CIA director, William H Webster, told the US Senate that several other indicators pointed to India's interest in acquiring a thermonuclear weapons capability, including the purification of lithium, production of tritium, and the separation of lithium isotopes.

There are many famous anecdotes in this article....i guess it will be good regurgitating experience to read them again.

Although several experts in the US nonproliferation community believed that India had the scientific expertise to build a hydrogen bomb, the critical breakthrough in a thermonuclear weapon design came in the mid-1990s. According to Indian scientists, if India had tested in 1982-83 as planned originally, it would have involved the validation of miniaturised fission and boosted-fission designs.

It was confirmed by other sources including Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that Indians researching on new designs from late 70s in miniaturizing fission weapon.

It was Rajiv Gandhi, according to the famous Indian defence analyst, K Subrahmanyam, who finally authorised weaponisation in 1988. Shortly afterwards, in 1990, a secret Indian nuclear arsenal came into existence -- eight years before the current series of tests.
.....
And by 1989, the Indian air force modified combat aircraft and perfected techniques for the aerial delivery of nuclear munitions.

If i'm not wrong, I think the date 1990 is correct against the date 1994 mentioned in Weapons of Peace.

Weaponisation was also accompanied by the establishment of a rudimentary command, control, and communications structure to manage contingencies arising from nuclear war planning. In the winter of 1990, the former director of DRDO, V S Arunachalam, apparently told Harvard academic Stephen P Rosen, that the civilian leadership in New Delhi fought a difficult struggle with the military over custody of nuclear weapons. That struggle was finally resolved in favour of civilians. Apparently, the military was told neither of the exact number of nuclear weapons that India might have, nor how they would be employed in a nuclear war. But the civilians drew up detailed instructions to deal with problems in the absence of a formally articulated nuclear doctrine. These instructions were given to a certain theatre military commander with instructions to open them in the event of a nuclear war.

Many military commanders till this day show their angst for this.

In his book, Societies and Military Power: India and Its Armies, Rosen quoted Arunachalam as saying, "If New Delhi goes up in a mushroom cloud, a certain theatre commander will go to a safe, open his book, and begin reading at page one, paragraph one, and will act step by step on the basis of what he reads...." Arunachalam later denied making that statement. However, Abdul Kalam recently affirmed that India had indeed instituted measures to manage its incipient nuclear weapons capability. Kalam told a press conference on May 17, 1998 that "the [nuclear] command and control structure which had been existing in various forms is now being consolidated."

Besides building air-deliverable fission weapons, BARC also focussed attention on the design of light and compact warheads for ballistic missiles. In the late 1980s, an Indian scientist told a Western observer that BARC had designed a light fission warhead with a mass of 200kg. In this context, it should be noted that analysts had long doubted DRDO's assertion that the Prithvi and Agni would deliver conventional munitions. Cost-benefit analysis of the range, payload, and accuracy indicated that ballistic missiles of that class only made strategic sense if deployed in a nuclear mode.

What is the secret nuclear arsenal, that this article referring, came to existence in 1990? It could be the light fission warhead of mass 200 kg for Prithvi missile.

Cognisant of India's nuclear neighbourhood, successive governments sought to provide insurance against nuclear blackmail. India's "option" strategy was not a policy of bluff. If current reports attributing the weaponisation decision to the Rajiv Gandhi government are true, then India actually exercised its "option" as early as 1988.

Lets reiterate that point. Though we are continuing the opacity, we are not bluffing. We are not saying something that we don't have. Pakis do as they believe that they can get it from China. Is it not China delivered Shaheen missiles to Pak right during Op Parakram?

http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/aug/25atom.htm

[Kanson]

Kanson, Its not helpful to throw in America once in a while. All thinking doenst coem form there and its an insult to members intellgience to throw that as a conversation breaker. You know very well Austin does not think like that.

Appreciate your reply, but you want to say, its helpful to throw in America once in a while?

All thinking doenst coem form there

Definitely... i guess that is the messg i'm trying to put. We have our own problems. We can't quick fix our problems with American solutions.

[Kanson]

Kanson the point I was trying to make is we cannot and should not be passive and reactive in our approach.

Definitely a valid point. BTW, intelligence is not just reactive, it is actually proactive. There are many instances where we eliminated the terrorist before he could act.

Eventually Intelligence fails even the best one fails , our intelligence too have been a case of spectacular failure and each failure can lead to loss of hundreds of life during devastating terrorist strike , the kind of stuff we have seen from 93 Mumbai Bomb blast to 26/11 and all that took place in between leading to loss of life of thousands of innocent civilians and military personal alike.

The question to ask is will we show the courage to be pro-active and take on the incubator where these terrorist get hatched,fed and trained and do so persistently or just continue to be passive and reactive in our approach even after 20 years of devastation , the next round of spectacular terror strike and equally spectacular intelligence failure is not far off

Nice points...

Now how many of the major terrorists acts committed were done by non Indians who came across the borders? Even in Mumabi 26/11, NIA was hinting there could be local support after its interrogation with DH. So how you solve this problem by hitting the terrorist camp?

If you can't solve your own problem in your area of jurisdiction with courage and determination, what you gain by hitting the terrorist camp in another country? Lets *show* that we take the culprits including the political class...*show* that you can do, then there is any meaning in the statements like hitting the terrorist camp. Unless you can strengthen the internal security, there is no point of eliminating terrorism by hitting terrorist camps.

[ramana]

Kanson, Its not helpful to throw in America once in a while. All thinking doenst coem form there and its an insult to members intellgience to throw that as a conversation breaker. You know very well Austin does not think like that.

Appreciate your reply, but you want to say, its helpful to throw in America once in a while?

All thinking doenst coem form there

Definitely... i guess that is the messg i'm trying to put. We have our own problems. We can't quick fix our problems with American solutions.

If you don't get it I can explain it more. I think you do know what I mean.

[Kanson]

^ hmm..you are hinting something. If you think that is important, pls do.

[Austin]

Definitely a valid point. BTW, intelligence is not just reactive, it is actually proactive. There are many instances where we eliminated the terrorist before he could act.

Eliminated yes but that still does not take care of the hub that nurtures ,feed and train the terrorist , they keep coming in numbers and then there are many instances where intelligence had no clue and thousands of indian lost their life.

Can you get back the life lost ? No
Can you hit the terrorist and their bosses and the terrorist camp ? Yes

Now how many of the major terrorists acts committed were done by non Indians who came across the borders? Even in Mumabi 26/11, NIA was hinting there could be local support after its interrogation with DH. So how you solve this problem by hitting the terrorist camp?

It does not matter if these acts where done by Indians and Non-Indians , the fact still remains that they (Indians and Non Indians ) have been trained across the border from 93 till 26/11 and we have done precious little may be zero is a better word to eliminate these breeding grounds.

We need a combination of eliminating local support and overseas bases , just eliminating one of these wont solve the issue , shying away from doing the latter will kill more Indians

If you can't solve your own problem in your area of jurisdiction with courage and determination, what you gain by hitting the terrorist camp in another country? Lets *show* that we take the culprits including the political class...*show* that you can do, then there is any meaning in the statements like hitting the terrorist camp. Unless you can strengthen the internal security, there is no point of eliminating terrorism by hitting terrorist camps.

Internal security is one part of the matrix not the only part , you can never wait for the day when internal culprits are completely eliminated and then take the next step , you need to work on both fronts in tandem and simultaneously.

If you dont take on the breeding ground then there is no way you can ever effectively deal with this issue and it just keeps growing in size ,boldness and sophistication as we have seen from 93 to 26/11.

If we pussy foot on taking the hub across the border , we will just stand taller over more slaughtered Indian bodies.