Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

koti · Post by **koti** » 22 Sep 2010 18:02

Any ways the whole idea to write the above was to take home the point that ABM system has its effect that can be cascading , we can certainly deploy ABM system and qualitatively improve it that is within our reach and our threat perception but we need to be equally prepared on exponentially increase in offensive potential of our enemy in ways that remains undefined and unknown.

In layman terms: The existence of a credible ABM system deployed in sensible areas will greatly increase the odds for a decision that calls for overwhelming areal strikes neutralizing enemy WMD delivering capability.
This in having the confidence that the existing ABM will be able to handle the remaining(hopefully few) delivery platforms.
It also acts very heavy in the minds of the adversary who plan to escalate the situation into a full scale war as they would be aware of the threat IAF poses for them given the existence of deployed ABM.

This will be more relevant for TSP.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 22 Sep 2010 19:13

I think without including China into the picture the story is not complete. Yes India developing ABM could increase the rate of nuclear bomb and BM product of TSP. But the real question is whether India not developing an ABM stop China from developing an ABM? In India at least there is a level of transparency on systems that is being built but can we say the same about China? Do we have reply yet to their ASAT test? If they throw us a surprise, our only way to counter them would be to increase our nuke warheads & BMs and that would directly trigger an increased rate of nuke weapon production in Pakistan.

So which is better an increased weapon production in Pakistan with or without us having an ABM?

I strongly support further development of an ABM especially if it could potentially prevent a Diwali fire work above my head and that is irrespective of how Pakistan may respond. I hope that soon some Genius in India will create technology to redirect back a BM to its launch area and explode.

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 22 Sep 2010 19:50

How many interceptor missiles can you fire before the fuel runs out ? 15 or 25 ? What if the enemy fires 80 missiles in a single point of time.
I agree having ABM deters the enemy just like having nukes but doesn't make you superior. Quietly built up Nuke Arsenal and pile up long range Missiles covering each and every nook of the enemy, what do you think can China do, If India points 1000 Missiles at each & every corner of china. They will come to the negotiation table, realizing the situation they are put up in.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Sep 2010 20:24

Austin wrote: Irrespective of the promised capability the ABM brings it tends to have a very destabilizing effect on Nuclear deterrent and not a stabilising one.

For one Pakistan would believe that as size and sophistication of Indian ABM system grows , its ability to deter India will lower down significantly and then it will take the easy way out which is to increase the number of deployed nuclear warhead and the number plus sophistication of delivery system BM , Cruise Missile and Aircraft to a level which makes them feel comfortable and that till date remains undefined.

I said easy because there is no way Pakistan will ever be able to compete with India in ABM domain so it will just increase its offensive potential.

The other player china who are much more sophisticated will too feel its deterrent getting watered down though not as greatly as Pakistan would feel will work on improving their own offensive and defensive system.

In the end if the whole ABM potential if fully unleashed we will end up with an arms race in the nuclear field and missile field that is not in our interest and something we may not be able control it will have significant impact on defense spending both in terms of import and locally developed system and we will be no better secured with zero ABM system today then what we plan to build and deploy in the next 10-15 years.

So what if it is destabilizing? I believe you are merely mouthing teh words of western observers.

Let it be destabilizing. Let them produce more nukes. We need to provoke an entirely new game and that will never come from listening to others who theorize bullcrap theories and mouth platitudes like "destabilizing"

Exactly what is stable about the current situation? We need every ABM we can lay our hands on.

I have deep disagreements with your post.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Sep 2010 20:28

Thomas Kolarek wrote:How many interceptor missiles can you fire before the fuel runs out ? 15 or 25 ? What if the enemy fires 80 missiles in a single point of time.
I agree having ABM deters the enemy just like having nukes but doesn't make you superior. Quietly built up Nuke Arsenal and pile up long range Missiles covering each and every nook of the enemy, what do you think can China do, If India points 1000 Missiles at each & every corner of china. They will come to the negotiation table, realizing the situation they are put up in.

What if India points 1000 nuke missiles AND keeps 25000 ABMs ready? That is a much better idea. I want to hit them but do not want to be hit by them. If China fires 80 missiles we need to fire 80 x 25= 2000 ABMs. Heck we will be able to handle 800 Chinese missiles.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 22 Sep 2010 20:33

Austin wrote: Manishw you are right there are plenty of other things I agree may be 100 more aircraft , 20 more submarine conventional dissimilarity etc etc.

How about 10 million hockey sticks, 5 million cricket bat's but no nukes and ABM.Great !!

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 22 Sep 2010 20:45

>>>I said our going nuclear did not change their behavior ( if that was ever expected ) on the contrary their terrorist have just got bolder under nuclear umbrella , dont expect we getting ABM will change their behaviour.

India went Nuclear a decade after China, and 3 years after Bhutto vowed to eat grass..so their behaviour was agressive before and after Indian Nuclear test and will continue like that. If we had followed the Gandhian philosophy, terrorists would have been even more agressive and probably China would have swallowed Arunachal by now. Are you trying to be a peacenik here?

>>>What you can be certainly assured that ABM will impact their ( China and Pakistan ) Nuclear deterrence in a way that remains unknown and not quantifiable.

Probably you have based your argument on the myth that Pakis and China are only capable of increasing their nuclear arsenel and India invariably sleeps. What if the enemy thinks that on an equal footing (ie, they throw 100 missiles on us and we throw back same numbers), if our ABM is better, there is a good chance that the collateral damage on the enemy is much bigger than that they can inflict on us. What if we perfect the ABM in future to such a high level of accuracy that almost every missile thrown on us invariably gets shot down? Will any enmy try their luck?

We can go round and round with these kind of arguments. Reality is somewhat different from what you say.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 22 Sep 2010 23:10

Austin wrote:Irrespective of the promised capability the ABM brings it tends to have a very destabilizing effect on Nuclear deterrent and not a stabilising one.

You have fallen prey to the western reasoning

1. A Never ending conflict: For example, communism cannot coexist with capitalism and one will struggle against the other till one is wiped off the face of the planet
2. To prevent massive population casualties in such a process, let us evolve concept of MAD such that nobody wins
3. Ergo we are "Stable"
4. Ergo if (2) is undermined, we are "Un-Stable"

My question is why does (1) hold for India? True stability is achieved only if the basic reason for never-ending conflict is resolved. Like Pakistaniyat. Or like Emperor Hu's delusions of Grandeur. And (1) will be resolved only if we keep on destabilizing (2) so that the very premise of (1) is questioned. Therefore, I argue that ABMs will usher in "true stability"

You have to understand that in the India-Pak equation, there is no scope for never ending conflict. Pakis make it appear so. A basket case with 1/5th the population and 1/6 the usable land mass can never take us on. You also have to understand that in the Indo-China equation, never ending conflict is a disaster. 1/2 of humanity would lock horns with each other. China makes it appear so because they want to appropriate all of world's resources for themselves and become "No 1" (whatever that should mean)

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 22 Sep 2010 23:13

Terrorists have gotten bolder because we are lobbing dossiers.

Lobbing are few artillery shells would have the desired effect. So will lobbing the swiss bank accounts of Jernails, Kernails, Lotas and Presidentes. One page with list of Swiss bank accounts will accomplish what no crate loads of bums can.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 22 Sep 2010 23:33

dinesha wrote: There is news about impending Prithvi-II test on 24th Sept.. whereas recently there were snippets about new 1.3 Mts dia, Agnii-II test on last week of Sept.
Next 2-3 days could be interesting. Let us all focus on that....

Good Idea.Interesting time ahead.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2010 23:49

shiv wrote:Let it be destabilizing. Let them produce more nukes. We need to provoke an entirely new game and that will never come from listening to others who theorize bullcrap theories and mouth platitudes like "destabilizing"

Shiv that is one option where we produce more nukes and they produce more and then we do not know where this end , probably the thinking is we can out live them in this race.

As far as destalising effect of ABM treat goes if history is any thing to go by the US and Soviet realised that with ABM development taking place concurrently with ICBM development there was no way they could control this race as for every ABM development there was counter offensive development , so they considered the it destabilising and signed the ABM treaty and settled down with MAD.

The current START recognises the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms,and has a unilateral withdrawal statement from Russia where qualitative and quantative build up deemed as threat to offensive system will invoke a withdrawal.

So in both new and old treaty the interrelationship between offensive and defensive system was well recognised.

Any ways in our context I think at the least it will provoke the Pakis to launch a early or perhaps pre-emptive opportunistic nuclear strike if they think Indian ABM advancement has reduced its offensive potential a sudden pre-emptive strike will give them better chance in penetrating our ABM and nullify our offensive system to the extent possible.

Although I am fine if we agree to disgree on this , in any case what ever the decision maker thinks is best in our national interest will be the path they will follow , we can just exchange our views and agree or disagree

Probably you have based your argument on the myth that Pakis and China are only capable of increasing their nuclear arsenel and India invariably sleeps. What if the enemy thinks that on an equal footing (ie, they throw 100 missiles on us and we throw back same numbers), if our ABM is better, there is a good chance that the collateral damage on the enemy is much bigger than that they can inflict on us. What if we perfect the ABM in future to such a high level of accuracy that almost every missile thrown on us invariably gets shot down? Will any enmy try their luck?

Geeth I do recognise and have mentioned in other post that it is logical for us to increase our offensive system in warheads and delivery system if either pakistan and china increase their offensive potential or chinese ABM is considered as reducing effectiveness of our offensive system.

Considering there is no quantifiable and verifiable mechanism on how much weapons/delivery system we have and how many pakis/china has this has all the potential to lead to an open ended arms race , will that be in our interest then ?

May be ABM will get better in the future so will be offensive system and so will the number of both ABM and Offensive system.

NOTE:If any of the members felt that I have made comments on VKS or Avinash Chander that were considered inappropriate ( though this was nothing personal against these two respected scientist ) then I submit my unconditional apology for the same.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2010 00:43

You can do one better and edit your old post. Thanks, ramana

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 23 Sep 2010 01:10

nuclear deterrence is ok as long as we have space to react conventionally wrt terrorist actions; Indian reaction on 26/11 showed we don't have that space since our pundits on esclation calculus deemed that TSP in retaliation could lob few missiles which could land on our population centers, ABM deployment would have countered that

In the recent Chinese incursion Gilgit-Baltistan area, heavy duty ram air parachutes with precision landing would have helped IA position themselves quickly in this Chinese GO game; so is the availability of C-17s

Incidentally heavy duty ram air parachutes are on DRDO's current roadmap

DRDO technologies at the operational level are trailing the threat developments while in comparison Israeli armed forces are proactive in their threat perception and their technology curve is helped by Americans

anyways, those latest P-15B destroyers if they can host the ABM interceptors its a good defense aganist SLBMs and SLCMs and hopefully they would also setup a long range over-the-horizon radar near the southern tip of the Indian peninsula

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 23 Sep 2010 04:52

shiv wrote:
Thomas Kolarek wrote:How many interceptor missiles can you fire before the fuel runs out ? 15 or 25 ? What if the enemy fires 80 missiles in a single point of time.
I agree having ABM deters the enemy just like having nukes but doesn't make you superior. Quietly built up Nuke Arsenal and pile up long range Missiles covering each and every nook of the enemy, what do you think can China do, If India points 1000 Missiles at each & every corner of china. They will come to the negotiation table, realizing the situation they are put up in.
What if India points 1000 nuke missiles AND keeps 25000 ABMs ready? That is a much better idea. I want to hit them but do not want to be hit by them. If China fires 80 missiles we need to fire 80 x 25= 2000 ABMs. Heck we will be able to handle 800 Chinese missiles.

I would rather prefer 1000 nuke missiles first, with out worrying about arms race in the region. Trying to match our 80 nukes, Porkistan is already bankrupt, so don't count them in. Challenge to India now is how to put china back in its place, before they try anything with their new found assertiveness. I don't see anything will deter them other than Missiles now.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Sep 2010 06:08

shiv wrote: What if India points 1000 nuke missiles AND keeps 25000 ABMs ready? That is a much better idea. I want to hit them but do not want to be hit by them. If China fires 80 missiles we need to fire 80 x 25= 2000 ABMs. Heck we will be able to handle 800 Chinese missiles.

I recommend 25,000,000 ABMs. This way we can preempt the entire known nuke-arsenal.

Stupid Americans, Russians, Chinese, British, French, Israelis, and Pakis

They didn't know how to become a super power....

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Sep 2010 07:21

There are many advantageous of developing BMD

1. BMD not only defends against Nuclear coercion but it also helps in non proliferation of N weapons. Its act as a deterrence against potential N weapon developer as it can convince him otherwise of its futility by its prowess. It can also helps in vertical non-proliferation. A country facing 100 N weapons need not develop 100 N weapons to attain MAD. With the mature BMD, a country could maintain their deterrent with lesser N weapons as ABM compliments in countering the aggression through BM and helps in vertical non-proliferation in enabling to maintain minimum credible deterrent posture.

- Maybe this the idea Indians sold to US in getting their benevolence on India-US N deal and their co-operation on developing desi BMD, who knows?

So it can also acts as diplomatic tool.

2. In Nuclear War, even after first shots are fired BMD gives enough room for bringing down the escalation.

So it acts as potent peace weapon.

3. BM tech is proliferating through out the world. In due course of time any nation, even small countries can acquire such weapon. It could be Srilanka, Bangladesh or Nepal. It need not to be Nuclear tipped BM. If its so, important cities like Delhi, Kolkata, Trivandrum, Madurai can be used as subject of targets, if there is any hostile regime which like to play games with conventional BM. Without ABM we will be reduced to treat them on even terms in finding a solution to any dispute. With ABM, we can play the game of coercion if any such disputes develop.

So it also acts as coercion weapon.

4. Needless to highlight its deterrence potential in case of Nuclear stand off, so a deterrence weapon.

It is not a surprise why India gave such high priority to develop such tech with no limits to its funding.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Sep 2010 07:25

No one says BMD is unimportant. However that cannot replace a nuke-arsenal.

Stupidity cannot replace wisdom, even though they may sound same...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2010 08:13

RamaY wrote:
shiv wrote: What if India points 1000 nuke missiles AND keeps 25000 ABMs ready? That is a much better idea. I want to hit them but do not want to be hit by them. If China fires 80 missiles we need to fire 80 x 25= 2000 ABMs. Heck we will be able to handle 800 Chinese missiles.
I recommend 25,000,000 ABMs. This way we can preempt the entire known nuke-arsenal.

Stupid Americans, Russians, Chinese, British, French, Israelis, and Pakis

They didn't know how to become a super power....

Absolutely correct. But I support making 100,000 nukes to back that up. Of course their design must be pir reviewed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2010 08:15

RamaY wrote:No one says BMD is unimportant. However that cannot replace a nuke-arsenal.

Stupidity cannot replace wisdom, even though they may sound same...

Do "stupidity" and "wisdom" sound the same to you?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2010 08:29

Thomas Kolarek wrote:. Quietly built up Nuke Arsenal and pile up long range Missiles covering each and every nook of the enemy, what do you think can China do, If India points 1000 Missiles at each & every corner of china. They will come to the negotiation table, realizing the situation they are put up in.

My response is OT for this thread

It is here:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 37#p945637

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 23 Sep 2010 09:29

No one says BMD is unimportant. However that cannot replace a nuke-arsenal.
Stupidity cannot replace wisdom, even though they may sound same...

The BMD is there to defend your own population. Even if one incoming missile is shot down, it saves thousands of lives. Nuclear weapons are to kill the enemy and BMD is to save your own population - Even nations without Nuclear weapons desire to have BMD to protect themselves - So, Nuclear weapons and BMD are totally unrelated. How could you miss the difference?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Sep 2010 10:14

Geeth if there was no relation between BMD and Offensive system why did countries having thousand of nukes decided not to pursue ABM or even new treaties acknowledge the relation between the two. Certainly these two things are not as isolated as it is made out to be.

I think one of the problem is no body knows in what state BMD will remain even if a single nuclear warhead penetrates through it , for eg will the BMD and its associated Early Warning/FC radar will remain operational post EMP effect of nuclear blast and even if they remain operational will they perform as effectively as it is designed to , can an atmospheric blast and consequent EMP effect create a window of opportunity if only temporarily for BM to get through ?

Unlike BM like Agni 3,2 and 5 which are true Fire and Forget a BMD has many components which are interdependent and even a breakdown of firecontrol radar or degradation can affect the effectiveness of BMD or a disruption of command and control can break the whole thing . A BM does not have to worry on those front once fired its truly on its own

I think BMD is good and effective as long as BM they intercept carry conventional payload even a miss wont have significant effect on BMD.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Sep 2010 10:17

ramana wrote:You can do one better and edit your old post. Thanks, ramana

Ramana point taken , Since there are some issues that I face editing old post I have requested mods help.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 23 Sep 2010 10:52

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote: Irrespective of the promised capability the ABM brings it tends to have a very destabilizing effect on Nuclear deterrent and not a stabilising one.

For one Pakistan would believe that as size and sophistication of Indian ABM system grows , its ability to deter India will lower down significantly and then it will take the easy way out which is to increase the number of deployed nuclear warhead and the number plus sophistication of delivery system BM , Cruise Missile and Aircraft to a level which makes them feel comfortable and that till date remains undefined.

I said easy because there is no way Pakistan will ever be able to compete with India in ABM domain so it will just increase its offensive potential.

The other player china who are much more sophisticated will too feel its deterrent getting watered down though not as greatly as Pakistan would feel will work on improving their own offensive and defensive system.

In the end if the whole ABM potential if fully unleashed we will end up with an arms race in the nuclear field and missile field that is not in our interest and something we may not be able control it will have significant impact on defense spending both in terms of import and locally developed system and we will be no better secured with zero ABM system today then what we plan to build and deploy in the next 10-15 years.
So what if it is destabilizing? I believe you are merely mouthing teh words of western observers.

Let it be destabilizing. Let them produce more nukes. We need to provoke an entirely new game and that will never come from listening to others who theorize bullcrap theories and mouth platitudes like "destabilizing"

Exactly what is stable about the current situation? We need every ABM we can lay our hands on.

I have deep disagreements with your post.

FWIW, I have complete agreement with yours.

sum · Post by **sum** » 23 Sep 2010 11:30

From Orbat:

#

India and the SAM-10 For years people have been saying that India has the SAM-10 (S-300) SAM/ABM. Three batteries are supposed to have been acquired, one for Delhi, one for Bombay, and a third battery no one knows where, but speculation is it has been disbanded and the equipment given to the India's defense R and D people to help develop an indigenous ABM.
#

Several years ago a very knowledgeable person told us India did not buy the SA-10 or anything like that from Russia. Yesterday another informed source said the same thing.
#

If anyone has any ideas on this, please write.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 23 Sep 2010 11:36

Geeth if there was no relation between BMD and Offensive system why did countries having thousand of nukes decided not to pursue ABM or even new treaties acknowledge the relation between the two.

My understanding is that, countries having thousands of Nukes did not pursue/restrict ABM development because of economics. They were already burdened with maintaining thousands of these nukes on 24 hr duty based on the philosophy of mutual destruction. Also, ABM tech was not matured enough to shoot down an incoming warhead at a few KM/Sec speed. But things have changed over a period of time. There are less number of warheads, but more accurate now (releasing some of the funds); the ABM tech (both missile and Radar) has advanced, vastly improving the probability of kill - so much so that, these very countries are deploying ABM systems and constantly improving them. They are more or less confident that knocking off some of the incoming warheads is definitely doable thing. So, what is happening now is reducing the number of warheads, at the same time seriously pursuing ABM deployment (vice versa of what was happening in the past). In that sense, these two issues (ie., Nukes and ABM development) are becoming more and more detached from each other. I agree with you that in he past, these two were linked, mostly because of economics.

Certainly these two things are not as isolated as it is made out to be.

If you take the case of Japan or any other non-nuclear nation (you can also take Israel, if you ignore their nukes and the fact that most of their projected enemies are non-nuclear states), then I would consider that these two things are unrelated. The only relation I can see is that, if the enemy is a nuclear state, then the 'receiver' nation would seek the most advanced system available.

I think one of the problem is no body knows in what state BMD will remain even if a single nuclear warhead penetrates through it , for eg will the BMD and its associated Early Warning/FC radar will remain operational post EMP effect of nuclear blast and even if they remain operational will they perform as effectively as it is designed to , can an atmospheric blast and consequent EMP effect create a window of opportunity if only temporarily for BM to get through ?

Nobody is claiming that the systems fielded so far are fool proof and cannot be penetrated at all. There is constant improvement going on and someday you may find that these systems have matured enough to shoot down most of the incoming warheads.

Unlike BM like Agni 3,2 and 5 which are true Fire and Forget a BMD has many components which are interdependent and even a breakdown of firecontrol radar or degradation can affect the effectiveness of BMD or a disruption of command and control can break the whole thing . A BM does not have to worry on those front once fired its truly on its own

Agree..that is why developing an ABM system is much more complex and we must complement our scientists for having reached thus far. Support them, and they will be able to improve upon the existing system. OR, Buy foreign maal and kill the whole ABM research in its infancy.

I think BMD is good and effective as long as BM they intercept carry conventional payload even a miss wont have significant effect on BMD.

That is not a good point...how can you design a system which is effective on conventional BM and fail on Nukes? Who will design a BM to deliver conventional weapons (except SRBM, which anyway an be shot down with existing technology? We are interested in a BMD which can shoot down long range nuclear missiles with a good probability of kill.

kit · Post by **kit** » 23 Sep 2010 13:06

shiv wrote:
RamaY wrote:No one says BMD is unimportant. However that cannot replace a nuke-arsenal.

Stupidity cannot replace wisdom, even though they may sound same...
Do "stupidity" and "wisdom" sound the same to you?

He is either a great philosopher or rather ".." but hey one should always see the brighter side !

tvsiva · Post by **tvsiva** » 23 Sep 2010 15:28

ramana wrote:You can do one better and edit your old post. Thanks, ramana

DO u know Vir chakar awardee Squadron Leader K L Narayanan?? DO reply

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Sep 2010 18:32

geeth wrote:My understanding is that, countries having thousands of Nukes did not pursue/restrict ABM development because of economics. They were already burdened with maintaining thousands of these nukes on 24 hr duty based on the philosophy of mutual destruction. Also, ABM tech was not matured enough to shoot down an incoming warhead at a few KM/Sec speed.

They realised that that producing ABM and Offensive system had got a life of its own as both parties got on developing ABM and BM to out do each other and it got unsustainable.When the relation got better they signed the ABM treaty restricting ABM deployment to one site. The 1972 ABM treaty has been the corner stone of all subsequent arm limitation agreement till US unilaterally withdrew from it in 2002

So, what is happening now is reducing the number of warheads, at the same time seriously pursuing ABM deployment (vice versa of what was happening in the past). In that sense, these two issues (ie., Nukes and ABM development) are becoming more and more detached from each other. I agree with you that in he past, these two were linked, mostly because of economics.

Just the contrary in the new START it does not change the original preamble that offensive and defensive system are interrelated to quote directly from new START text link

Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the
strategic offensive arms of the Parties

The key operative word is any defensive system should not undermine the offensive system effectiveness and Russia has added a withdrawal clause to move out if defensive system undermines offensive capabilities. ( something that is available to US if it feels like wise )

So the relation is there between offensive and defensive system , atleast for the two parties of START treaty it is part of the entire deal

If you take the case of Japan or any other non-nuclear nation (you can also take Israel, if you ignore their nukes and the fact that most of their projected enemies are non-nuclear states), then I would consider that these two things are unrelated. The only relation I can see is that, if the enemy is a nuclear state, then the 'receiver' nation would seek the most advanced system available.

Japan only concern is NoKo which has very few nukes and Israel too has concerns on Iran nuke , Israel is itself a covert nuclear power there is no doubt. More every US provides security guarantees to these two states

Nobody is claiming that the systems fielded so far are fool proof and cannot be penetrated at all. There is constant improvement going on and someday you may find that these systems have matured enough to shoot down most of the incoming warheads

If that day indeed comes then our offensive system and consequently deterrent will get blunted as well.

The fact is BM has progressed and will continue in that direction and ABM will have a life of its own.

More every the exchange ratio and economy of ABM vs BM race is very favoured with the latter assuming even if ABM remotely works as advertised in real environment.

Agree..that is why developing an ABM system is much more complex and we must complement our scientists for having reached thus far. Support them, and they will be able to improve upon the existing system. OR, Buy foreign maal and kill the whole ABM research in its infancy.

Depends on how well GOI will support such ABM research , right now its a honeymoon period for ABM and scientist has indeed done well , but there is much greater strategic impact beyond the sucessful test of ABM , once the parties like Pakistan and China react to our development in their own way GOI will realise the impact and the fertile ground that will sustain an uncontrolled arms race its very early days though.
Ofcourse the other extreme view will be we can sustain longer then Pakistan so lets continue with this race as it favours us.

That is not a good point...how can you design a system which is effective on conventional BM and fail on Nukes? Who will design a BM to deliver conventional weapons (except SRBM, which anyway an be shot down with existing technology? We are interested in a BMD which can shoot down long range nuclear missiles with a good probability of kill.

How does one verify the impact of Nuclear Warhead/Missile with ABM , how do we ever know that a nuclear blast and EMP impact will ever keep ABM operational or partly/fully/optimally ? all the test done with ABM is only with conventional warhead

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Sep 2010 18:49

sum wrote:From Orbat:
#

India and the SAM-10 For years people have been saying that India has the SAM-10 (S-300) SAM/ABM. Three batteries are supposed to have been acquired, one for Delhi, one for Bombay, and a third battery no one knows where, but speculation is it has been disbanded and the equipment given to the India's defense R and D people to help develop an indigenous ABM.
#

Several years ago a very knowledgeable person told us India did not buy the SA-10 or anything like that from Russia. Yesterday another informed source said the same thing.
#

If anyone has any ideas on this, please write.

Chacko was hinting on the other day about this SAM. There was always people saying Yes and No, kind of 50:50. Rather than trying to make perfect answers, why not we share what we know about this Indian procurement.

Though there is no word about this for delhi, there are some rumors of this SAM installed near Trombay. What is more intriguing is the maintained silence on this acquisition.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Sep 2010 18:52

From Orbat:

US working on using F-15 to intercept ballistic missiles

This is very old news and going rounds for several years. After the scrapping of ABL for Boost Phase Interception, this was resurrected, I guess.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 23 Sep 2010 19:00

How does one verify the impact of Nuclear Warhead/Missile with ABM , how do we ever know that a nuclear blast and EMP impact will ever keep ABM operational or partly/fully/optimally ? all the test done with ABM is only with conventional warhead.

You must heard the name KALI. When even tanks, planes & other weapons are designed to operate under Nuclear attack, why developers will not think for ABM ?
Saraswat gave reply to such questions as you raised. It spread over few interviews & articles. I post them when i get sometime.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Sep 2010 19:17

^^ Planes , Tanks and other weapons operate only offer very limited EMP effect and they are hardened accordingly.

Only Deeply buried Missiles silos and super hardened bunkers offer much better ability to cope with blast and EMP effect assuming there is no direct hit at them based on CEP

Most likely all the ground based communication equipment , radars and electronic will get roasted if they are within the blast and EMP impact radius.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Sep 2010 19:43

kit wrote:
shiv wrote: Do "stupidity" and "wisdom" sound the same to you?
He is either a great philosopher or rather ".." but hey one should always see the brighter side !

I am definitely the other type. I am aware of it

I am talking about things like below. Advanced apologies to TM, I could have found a quote from Shiv-ji himself but he has so many posts and it takes time to dig up. Will post a gem from him soon...

Meaning:

Auspiciousness (swasti) be unto all; peace (shanti) be unto all;
fullness (poornam) be unto all; prosperity (mangalam) be unto all.

May all be happy! (sukhinah)
May all be free from disabilities! (niraamayaah)

May all look (pashyantu)to the good of others!
May none suffer from sorrow! (duhkha)

Tony Montana in DDHL thread wrote this in the context of why India should not protect its interests "at the cost of others' lives" (I am paraphrasing it).

TonyMontana wrote: If you think killing innocent farmers down stream is good Karma you might want to re-read your epics. Also, I'm pretty sure thinking about it and gloating about it is bad karma. So you might want to help someone today.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 23 Sep 2010 19:52

How does one verify the impact of Nuclear Warhead/Missile with ABM , how do we ever know that a nuclear blast and EMP impact will ever keep ABM operational or partly/fully/optimally ? all the test done with ABM is only with conventional warhead

Once knocked off, there is no question of EMP or anything else..We can also not verify whether the enemy warhead will indeed explode or not!

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 23 Sep 2010 20:06

Austin wrote:......

1. The treaty between US and Soviet Union came into effect probably after long dialog and negotiation and to limit further increase of tension. Numerous dialog might have taken place just as a CBM. Also there was added cost benefit for both the parties as probably the technology itself had not matured.

When we look at China, Pakistan and India do we have that level of interaction between these countries or a desire for the three parties not to further heighten the tension? No.

Is there any issue with the level of funding for Nuclear bomb, ABM and BM that is constraining overall growth for these 3 parties? No.

Unlike the proxy war of US and Soviet on foreign soil, in the sub continent it is direct exchange, there is no sea separating the three parties and so direct conflict is unavoidable unless there is a real desire for peace. Does such a desire exist? No.

So the agreement that was derived between Soviet Union and US may not be exportable to South Asia. Since such an agreement does not exist between the three parties India have no choice but to master the ABM technology.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Sep 2010 20:39

tvsiva wrote:
ramana wrote:You can do one better and edit your old post. Thanks, ramana
DO u know Vir chakar awardee Squadron Leader K L Narayanan?? DO reply

I am sorry. No. I have no connections.

koti · Post by **koti** » 24 Sep 2010 00:26

JimmyJ wrote:
Austin wrote:......
Unlike the proxy war of US and Soviet on foreign soil, in the sub continent it is direct exchange, there is no sea separating the three parties and so direct conflict is unavoidable unless there is a real desire for peace. Does such a desire exist? No.

So the agreement that was derived between Soviet Union and US may not be exportable to South Asia. Since such an agreement does not exist between the three parties India have no choice but to master the ABM technology.

Adding to Jimmy's points, the cold was (mainly)between USA and USSR. Other factors were minimalistic.
But currently, TSP contends with India, India with China and China with USA.

Drawing treaties in this sort of diplomacy is not so easy as it would compromise other strategic priorities of the involved nations.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 24 Sep 2010 00:29

Any aggressor wants to inflict as much damage as possible on the defender without giving much warning and reaction time plus reduce retaliatory strike platforms (missiles, aircrafts etc) by knocking them out as well in the first move itself.
ABM puts a big question mark on the expected First-mover advantage when a potential aggressor sits down to plan. An unsure aggressor cannot make precise plans and will overcommit/undercommit his resources for his first move.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Sep 2010 01:14

the overwhelming amts of MIRV warheads and robust delivery systems in the hands of P2 made ABM systems even at today's tech levels useless to even try out.
the gorgon and galosh interceptor grid was more like a H&D thing imo around moscow.

ABM only started getting mindshare when IRBMs proliferated in small numbers everywhere courtesy the lizard. thats a more manageable problem than deciding what to do about 300 topol's rising steely out of siberia, each tipped with MIRVs.