Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 26 Sep 2010 21:05

koti wrote:It could make a lot of sense given that both Pak and China have the Nuke keys available at military levels.
So, the actions of any rouge general can be dealt with be ABM and thus avoid a full scale Armageddon.

This is over simplication of the issue and makes == between TSP and PRC.

One can assume the presence of "rouge generals" in TSPA; but not in PRC side. If there is a "rouge general" in PRC, he would have >50 nukes under his command and cannot be considered a non-state actor...

If and when someone (from India's side) observes a nuke coming from PRC, then it is safe to assume that atleast 10-20 more are following it.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 26 Sep 2010 22:37

>>>You have to read others post clearly first. In my post, I clearly mentioned that India will not be constrained by NFU and will be the first to launch a nuke strike. So PRC's retaliation would be their 2nd strike.

You don't seem to have understood what I said - When you say ABM is of no use against PRC's first strike, how is it ABM) going to be the security line for enemy second strike?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 27 Sep 2010 01:04

^ so you are "assuming" that there will be more surviving PRC nukes after an Indian first strike, than PRC would use in its first strike...

In such a scenario, the BMD is as useful in a first strike as it would be in a second strike.

P.S: I am not against a '000 unit BMD for India. I think India needs best of both (>100KT capacity nukes in '00s + '000BMDs; It can definitely afford them instead of CWG type events) I am questioning the extremes - that even a single nuke is unacceptible and that even unlimited nukes can offer pure deterrence. Shiv-ji oscillates between these two...

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 27 Sep 2010 04:13

Kanson wrote:Interesting to see Prithvi-II range quoted as 295 km, 5 km less than 300 km. Are they planning to export Prithvi? And the news also says,"The officials said range independent software for carrying out the two flight tests almost simultaneously was also validated." What it means?

just guessing, if by range they meant the test range then both missiles received the launch command with their corresponding target information and after that the launch sequence was automatic without depending on the range facilities for any coordination for salvo attack; so the command module was validated

we didn't sign MTCR and we limit the ranges to 295km onlee while China signed the MTCR and TSP has longer ranged M-11 missiles; US turned a blind eye then and it can do the same now if it is 'supporting' us; Entire Kunming region can be covered from Vietnam.

I like the Russian position though, China doesn't have the balls to touch Russia and neither is Russia a pawn of US; Of course Russia is NOT entirely immune to US coercing

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 27 Sep 2010 06:24

Yes, Army has been long advising govt. to sell Prithvi to Vietnam. Lets play the Chinese Checkers. With such a professional army at hand, even a dumb state head will make that move. Our politicians, are good at internal politics not on international affairs

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Sep 2010 08:59

With just 290 Km range that is not going to make any difference for Vietnam viz-a-viz china.

They are procuring Klub system with Kilo atleast being a mobile and covert system they will find some use.

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 27 Sep 2010 09:23

Add additional freebies just like Chinese feed Pak. Unless we surround them its not gonna help us.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 27 Sep 2010 21:58

What wonder what happened to impending 1.3 mt. Dia new Agni-II+ test that was supposed to happen in last week of Sept. There is no news about it.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Sep 2010 22:15

The disconcerting thins about DRDO missiles is that user trials are supposed to instill confidence and not other way round.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Sep 2010 02:18

These trials are conducted to fine-tune both user launch procedures plus determine missile readiness including whether real world performance corresponds to design aims, after being transferred to the user. That allows for any fault rectification also, whether in procedures, storage etc. The IAF discovered that its early batch of Russian radar guided missiles had constant failures after real world storage and had to be refurbished (CAG).

Either ways, its a given that a certain number of missiles will fail, given their complexity. Hence BM launch cases for retaliation or attack, normally assume a certain percentage as no gos. Even in tactical missile tests, in real world conditions, this is usually the case, hence multiple launchers are kept on hot standby. Also, the reason why there is a triad, since relying only on set of systems is risky. Spread the assets, systems, personnel and risk.

The constant tests of the inventory also mean we finally have a decent inventory of Prithvis, and Agni1/2s for tests as versus a handful of missiles carefully husbanded (source: CSIR news clip re:Kargil war in 1999). We can expect more user trials to be held every year as production keeps pace and this is a good trend.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Sep 2010 02:48

Austin wrote:Saraswat is doing a task mandated by GOI , so there is no point in me calling him a bluster or any thing as he is not extracting money for his own personal benefit. He is just showing big dream which I must say nicely over laps with US Missile Defence ppt may be just a coincidence or probably because what he has in mind must be the latest and greatest out there and that needs big funds which eventually the GOI may or may not provide that is another story.

As far as foreign seller they are already in our BMD system directly or indirectly, even the GP sale needed the approval of US although its an Israel system.

Austin, with all due respect, Saraswat & co were not born yesterday, or day before to "show a big dream" or take what the US said or you and I say on the internet and decide what to do and not to do. Their conclusions are based on a solid understanding of what India's needs are in the ABM area, a task which they were officially mandated to do in 1995 by the GOI, after India faced nuclear blackmail.

The current BM system is suited to what we can do today, and the team is working on increasing that envelope to match both future threats and what India now has the ability to work towards. That's based on a hard nosed estimate of technology. There are clearly entire teams of subject matter experts in multiple fields, working both in the Govt of India as well as academics, on this subject if you care enough to do some looking. Please look at NIAS studies.

So what is this constant and useless refrain about "American missile defence PPT"?

You have already been informed about how the Indian ABM system is a hybrid, with elements of what the US did, the Israelis, the Russians and our own innovation. Of course there will be discussions over what is being done where and exchange of views.

So all this American PPT business is useless and a waste of thinking power!! It is equal to people on youtube accusing each others nations of who copied the MiG-25 and who copied the F-15 and then writing "but it looks like..". Mao, said, Its not the cat's colour that matters if it catches the mice!!

The Russians have re-activated their Airborne Laser program, are they copying the Americans? The Americans are creating THAAD and what not, and the Russians have S-500, so who is copying whom?

Furthermore, you talk of destabilization and arms race. So far not a single armed forces personnel in any of the GOI institutes who has actively tracked and written on the topic, has spoken against the ABM system. There are many such public articles! They welcome it because it was required!

The Army has long said it can withstand a nuclear strike, and still do its job (see India Today, archive on a nuclear attack on armor formations and how few tanks are knocked out). The politicians have been deterred by attacks on metros and high value economic targets. It is civilian India which has been exposed far too much!!

The ABM system finally provides an option, and secondly, is ethical! The civilians are not left exposed to terror strikes by the Pak/PRC combine while a conventional war is waged, and the political leaders are taken to safety!

And it is also very useful as an additional lever, especially when it comes to Pak. For every x missiles they had dedicated to any Indian city, and thought they could cover ALL the Indian metros, now they can at best target one or two. And even there, not with any certainty of success. To build up missile inventory, and strategic warheads, they will have to divert money more from conventional arms. How much can they afford with economic collapse?

The ABM program is a huge strategic lever for India. Which is why Pakistan in particular, has been crying from the rooftops about it, since it takes their game away. What is worse for them, is that India is also moving on creating the Information-Sensor grid to target low flying cruise vehicles, which were their next big hope since Ballistic Missiles alone could not do the job. (See, press reports of Phalcon, AFNet)

And lastly, the GP sale may have required the approval of the US, but these were clearly used for speeding up the ABM development, while the LRTR program went on in parallel and is now ready (http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mi ... ssile.html) Point is US etc dont have any control over our BMD capabilities, we are sufficiently insulated where it matters and this has been well thought out.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 28 Sep 2010 07:14

Just one thing,

They may have resurrected one of the Beriev A-60s not so much to develop an operational laser BMD but to test procedures to harden their own ballistic missiles against future American airborne lasers.

Of course they might also be testing these in the original role that was envisaged for the flying laser testbed - incapacitating LEO sats.

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 28 Sep 2010 09:13

Does India's Interceptor missiles uses Cryogenic cooling system ? I believe its needed to protect from heat seeking missiles enemy may field to counter it. Since we have more than one enemy, we should go for many-on-many approach and deploy Multiple kill vehicles. We should make sure to deploy ABM across all our twenty-eight states and seven union territories.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Sep 2010 09:15

Karan-M no matter how you look at it an ABM development irrespective of the success it achieves , it will certainly prompt a reaction from Pakistan and the only reaction a country like Pakistan with no ability to develop an ABM is to increase the number of Warhead , Delivery System and Sophistication much cheaper than developing an ABM.

Ultimately this will lead to an arms race since the increase of warhead and delivery vehical will prompt an equal increase in Indian Offensive system. Its this kind of Arms race in Nuclear Domain that no body wants nor can we or them afford to have or should have it.

A 300 Nuclear Warhead Pakistan with 300 IRBM is a far dangerous enemy to India then a Pakistan 60 Warhead and Missile irrespective of the status of Indian ABM development.

Since any ways in the continent there are no defined numbers to warhead or delivery vehical and at best its a guessing game on either side it and neither we are talking across this , this is a far dangerous game something best avoided.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Sep 2010 09:19

er, pakistan has increased its armed might in all aspects regardless of level of indian threat. any period of 'peace' is just seen as a window to bulk up before the next war.

pakis will continue to increase missiles and nuclear warheads as long as they can afford to - doesnt matter what we do unless we let the green flag fly over Lal Quilla.

60 working warheads are enough to gut the indian top20 cities and wipe 25% of our GDP off the map and 50% of our elites. so its not as if they arent a naked threat now itself.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Sep 2010 09:34

Singha , an ABM will accelerate that further.

Its not that they keep on building warhead and its not the same for us either because it costs a lot of money and other resources to dedicate to it , deterence is based on the concept that you need x amount of warhead/delivery vehical to hit y city. Say if x for pakistan is 60 warhead and y is 20 top cities then thats good enough to deter.

Now if ABM comes in the picture they are not confident that they can hit that 20 city with 60 warhead with high probability becuase an ABM will nullify some of the offensive system , they will logically increase the number of warhead and delivery vehical to offset that depending on how much they think an ABM will offset their offensive system and how much they will need to compensate it.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 28 Sep 2010 09:41

Austin-> one thing I have learnt, Pakistan is going to do its best to increase its nuclear weapons no matter what we do, they have never restrained themselves, India has always sufferred when we restrained ourselves. i.e 1974- 89 not developing Nukes and delivery systems until the pakis got them from China really cost us. So we have no choice to keep developing ABM tech, and as we research and keep building systems, our tech will only improve.

Moreover, an increase in Paki nukes, can always cause the Pakis to divert some material to third party who can do damage to 3.5. Our only hope with 3.5 fully backing the Pakis, is that the Pakis do somthing stupid that the alliance gets broken.

So anyway you look at it, it is imperative India develops Nukes.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 28 Sep 2010 10:02

>>>Singha , an ABM will accelerate that further.

Your theory doesn't hold good because they (Pakis) have limited supply of bomb material...they will make bomb with whatever material they have, whether India develops ABM or not. If they get material help from outside, that also will continue whether India develops ABM or not.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Sep 2010 10:17

^^ The problem is there are many guesses and any bodys guess is as good as any one.

Right now no body knows how many weapons pakistan has 10-50-100-200.... neither do they know how many weapons we have 200-500-1000

Since we have never spoken across and ever tried to address the issue of nuclear deterence or how to stablize it.

In absense of such information both parties would just assume the worst and will work accordingly.

Unless and until we do not talk to them and the other stake holders and figure out how best we can address the situation its all but a guessing game and with nuclear weapons it does not get any better.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 28 Sep 2010 10:30

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent op-ed piece about Indo-China strategic posturing. One of the interference being India as well as China do not have confidence in each other no-first use policy. ABM systems and their relevance becomes much more important in the given environment.

The Next Nuclear Arms Race
China and India are raising the stakes by modernizing and deploying more forces along their shared border.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 38530.html

By TIM SULLIVAN AND
MICHAEL MAZZA
India and Pakistan are the two countries most likely to engage in nuclear war, or so goes the common wisdom. Yet if recent events are any indication, the world's most vigorous nuclear competition may well erupt between Asia's two giants: India and China.

Both countries already house significant and growing arsenals. China is estimated to have approximately 450 warheads; India, roughly 100. Though intensifying as of late, Sino-Indian nuclear competition has a long history: India's pursuit of a weapons program in the 1960s was triggered in part by China's initial nuclear tests, and the two have eyed one another's arsenals with mounting concern ever since. The competition intensified in 2007, when China began to upgrade missile facilities near Tibet, placing targets in northern India within range of its forces.
Yet the stakes have been raised yet again in recent months. Indian defense minister A.K. Antony announced last month that the military will soon incorporate into its arsenal a new intermediate-range missile, the Agni-III, which is capable of reaching all of China's major cities. Delhi is also reportedly considering redeploying survivable, medium-range Agni-IIs to its northeastern border. And just last month, India shifted a squadron of Su-30MKI fighters to a base just 150 kilometers from the disputed Sino-Indian border. An Indian Air Force official told Defense News these nuclear-armed planes could operate deep within China with midflight refueling.

For its part, China continues to enhance the quality, quantity and delivery systems of its nuclear forces. The Pentagon reported last month that the People's Liberation Army has replaced older, vulnerable ballistic missiles deployed in Western China with modern, survivable ones; this transition has taken place over the last four years. China's Hainan Island naval base houses new, nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines and affords those boats easy access to the Indian Ocean. China's military is also developing a new, longer range submarine-launched ballistic missile which will allow its subs to strike targets throughout India from the secure confines of the South China Sea.

No single event has stoked this rise in tensions. China, already concerned about India's growing strength and its desire to play a greater role in Asia, is even less enthused about the burgeoning strategic partnership between Delhi and Washington. While Beijing has learned to live with American forces on its eastern periphery, the possibility of an intimate U.S.-India military relationship has generated fears of encirclement. The ongoing Sino-Indian border dispute, as well as India's position astride China's key maritime shipping lanes, has made the prospect of a Washington-Delhi axis appear particularly troubling.

India likewise feels encircled by China's so-called "string of pearls"—a series of Chinese-built, ostensibly commercial port facilities in the Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea. Beijing's military ties to Pakistan, interference in the Kashmir dispute and references to Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian state, as "Southern Tibet" have done little to reassure New Delhi of Chinese intentions. The rapid growth of China's conventional military might in recent years—between 2000 and 2009, China's military spending more than tripled—and the lack of clarity as to its intentions, has spurred India to pursue its own military modernization.

These shifts in India's and China's nuclear force postures thus represent only the latest and most serious efforts to constrain and convey dissatisfaction with the other's perceived regional ambitions. But they are more troubling than conventional redeployments.

First, these developments suggest that neither country has confidence in the other's "no first use" policy. India has good reason for concern: The number of missions attributed to China's deterrent—responding to nuclear attacks, deterring conventional attacks against nuclear assets, providing Beijing freedom from nuclear coercion and otherwise "reinforcing China's great power status"—were enough to make the authors of the Pentagon's annual report on China's military power last year question the country's commitment to its "no first use" policy. India, for its part, relies on its nuclear forces to offset gaps and imbalances between its conventional military capabilities and those of China.

Second, there is a point at which efforts to enhance deterrence can foster an arms race. Any attempt on the part of China to increase its own defenses necessarily weakens, or is perceived to weaken, the security of India, thus spurring further defense build-ups; the opposite is true as well. Shifts in nuclear force posture can be particularly disruptive, and have been known to precipitate crises. Upon the discovery of Soviet efforts to deploy missiles to Cuba in 1962, for example, the U.S. responded militarily with a naval "quarantine" of the island, bringing Washington and Moscow as close as they have ever come to a nuclear war.

Finally, the redeployments of India's and China's nuclear forces suggest that there is deep-seated and growing discord between the two Asian giants. This is troubling news for a region whose future peace and prosperity depends heavily on continued comity between Delhi and Beijing. It is only a matter of time before the China-India military competition begins to affect neighboring states. China's nuclear force modernization, for instance, stands to threaten not only India, but also Korea, Japan and other U.S. partners in Asia. A dramatic defense buildup in India, meanwhile, will no doubt leave Pakistan feeling less secure.

Tensions are unlikely to ease any time soon. The two countries appear much closer to the brink of an all-out arms race than they do to any resolution of their differences. While each profits from the other's economic growth, it is that very growth—which finances military modernization and which is so dependent on potentially vulnerable overseas trade—that creates the conditions for heightened insecurity.

Mr. Sullivan is research fellow and program manager at the American Enterprise Institute's Center for Defense Studies. Mr. Mazza is a senior research associate at AEI.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Sep 2010 10:43

India has been at the receiving end from China again and again.Therefore it has no alternative but to boost its military forces and S-deterrent.

Reg. Brahmos complex.tx Austin.Some xcellent pics and chronology of the project's development.Two Qs.One,production of just "100" missiles per year is inadequate.5 years ago,PRC missile production of tactical missiles was estimated as "500".We therefore need to double B'Mos's production to a min of 200 per year if we also expect to export the same.The second Q is about airborne platforms which can carry the missile.in the text,it was mentioned...

Aviation version of the rocket is planned to be used on Su-30MKI fighters, as well as the Tu-142 (?) And IL-38 aircraft of the Indian Navy.
- Су-30МКИ - в разных вариантах проектов 1 - 3 ракеты под фюзеляжем и под крылом; - Su-30MKI fighters - in different versions of projects 1 - 3 missiles under the fuselage and a wing;
- Ту-142 - 6 ракет под крылом; - Tu-142 - 6 missiles under the wing;
- Ил-76 - 6 ракет под крылом; - IL-76 - 6 missiles under the wing;
- Ил-38SD - 4 ракеты под центропланом; - Il-38SD - 4 missiles at central plane;
Иллюстрации : Illustrations:

...that the IL-76s would also carry the missile.Is this being planned for Indian IL-76s too or is it for Russian planes only? There have been other reports that both our TU-142s being upgraded and the IL-38s too will carry the air-launched version.Very reassuring as our planned P-8s cannot but carry only inferior Harpoon ASMs!

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 28 Sep 2010 10:55

self-deleted

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 28 Sep 2010 11:13

>>>In absense of such information both parties would just assume the worst and will work accordingly.

So, what is wrong in developing the ABM?

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Sep 2010 11:44

Why not have a nuclear weapons treaty with china limiting the number of warheads each can possess ? It would contribute tremendously to the relationship between them and be a bellwether for the Asian century.The Anglosaxon powers would hell bound oppose it (not directly)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Sep 2010 12:18

geeth wrote:>>>In absense of such information both parties would just assume the worst and will work accordingly.

So, what is wrong in developing the ABM?

There is nothing wrong in developing ABM system or Offensive system thats our sovereign right but Lack of transparency on offensive system , coupled with ABM development means a fertile ground for Nuclear Arms Race , a race we should just avoid getting into.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Sep 2010 12:43

Philip wrote:Two Qs.One,production of just "100" missiles per year is inadequate.5 years ago,PRC missile production of tactical missiles was estimated as "500".We therefore need to double B'Mos's production to a min of 200 per year if we also expect to export the same.The second Q is about airborne platforms which can carry the missile.in the text,it was mentioned...

Philip , the new production complex of Brahmos in India will take care of number of missiles per year plus exports order.

I certainly doubt the IL-76 will ever carry those Brahmos as these are pure transport aircraft.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Sep 2010 10:15

David's Sling Short Range Missile Defense Systems Enters a New Stage

Israel and the U.S. reiterated the agreement to continue their cooperative development of the David's Sling weapon system (also known as Magic Wand), extending the agreement signed in 2008, paving the way for the development of a Short-Range Ballistic Missile Defense Project. The new agreement provides the necessary funding for continued development of the system, considered imperative for Israel’s defense.

According to the Missile Defense Agency announcement, the David’s Sling Weapon System Project Agreement will advance efforts to develop Israel’s capability to intercept short-range and theater ballistic missiles, large-caliber rockets, and cruise missiles. It is capable of intercepting ballistic targets fired at distances of 70-250 km range. Developed as a relatively low cost weapon (compared to the Arrow 2 alternative) Rafael's Stunner missiles, which are part of the system, are designed with dual seeker enabling the missile to detect, track and home-in on its target under all visibility and weather conditions, within and beyond visual range. The new system will become the lower tier of the multi-layered missile defense system, integrating the Iron Dome Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar (C-RAM) system, David's Sling, Arrow II Endo-Atmospheric missile interceptor and Arrow-3 Exo-Atmospheric missile interceptor, providing the upper-tier layer. Both Stunner and Arrow 3 are hit-to-kill missiles, while Iron Dome and Arrow II are designed to kill targets at close proximity.

David's Sling & Iron Dome guard against rockets & missiles at lower level, whereas in our case, Edo-atmospheric protection comes from AAD missile and PAD/PDV keeps the Exo-atmospheric protection.

SriSri · Post by **SriSri** » 29 Sep 2010 10:27

How credible are these claims from Defense News? Are there any other sources backing up this claim?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Sep 2010 11:15

Buying PAC-3 as recently reported of India showing interest or Daivd's Sling are just Dog & Pony show for something else. Maturity date for David's sling is 4 yrs away. How could you buy them now? Just my opinion.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 29 Sep 2010 11:35

Purchase of David Sling and Iron dome has been previously reported few months back. It was reported that MoD and Israel has been negotiating since Jan’10. Israel was willing to sell these systems without any any ToT and of course India wanting the ToT. It was extensively discussed here... may be in the same thread.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Sep 2010 11:45

^ i.e. from Defence news only.

BTW, the Indian Barak that we are developing solely for our purpose is much more powerful and i'm expecting that to be superior to Stunner missile of David's sling system.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 29 Sep 2010 12:23

Hi
Will Tunguska not work against this rockets instead of iron dome .I felt it would cheap.Having a CIWS kind of weapon on ground would help right .what you people think of ?

Cheers

Prabhu.G

kit · Post by **kit** » 29 Sep 2010 12:51

Iron Dome itself was derived from Phalanx CIWS, right ?.. an inland version

Vril · Post by **Vril** » 29 Sep 2010 13:19

dinesha wrote:Purchase of David Sling and Iron dome has been previously reported few months back. It was reported that MoD and Israel has been negotiating since Jan’10. Israel was willing to sell these systems without any any ToT and of course India wanting the ToT. It was extensively discussed here... may be in the same thread.

FWIW

Chinese Internet espionage news flash on tv few months back, star news channel mentioned sensitive documents being stolen from military computer and it included information on top secret (installed ?) systems like Shakti artillery system and Iron Dome system.

Obviously this news was suppressed and never to be heard again.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Sep 2010 15:24

Instead of importing yet another system from Israel they can effectively develop Akash/Rajendra into an anti-tactical BM SAM.

Dr Kalam in late 90's mentioned that Akash with suitable modification can be developed into anti-missile system ( BM/Cruise ) and can intercept target flying close to Mach 3 which is what short-range missile like M11 would do. They should start depending on Raj then look out for David every now and then

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 29 Sep 2010 15:34

Akash still can defend a cruise missile . we have intercepted a drone(0.7)flying 10-20 meters above sea-level.Probably the missile is not so fast to intercept a BM

Cheers

Prabhu.G

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Sep 2010 15:45

Dr Kalam in an late 90's interview to Janes IDR stated a modified Akash with longer ramjet burn time can intercept a BM travelling at Mach 3 or below which are tactcal missile.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 30 Sep 2010 00:23

Austin wrote:
A 300 Nuclear Warhead Pakistan with 300 IRBM is a far dangerous enemy to India then a Pakistan 60 Warhead and Missile irrespective of the status of Indian ABM development.

Not Necessary

A 300 nuclear warhead enemy with a "democratic" government is LESS dangerous than a 30 nuclear warhead enemy with a mullah government

K

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Sep 2010 00:43

^

A democratic Pakistan is oxymoron. A secular Pakistan is non-existent. so we are back to

Austin wrote:
A 300 Nuclear Warhead Pakistan with 300 IRBM is a far dangerous enemy to India then a Pakistan 60 Warhead and Missile irrespective of the status of Indian ABM development.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Sep 2010 09:17

I don't believe the number of nukes makes a diffrence when it comes to the threat presented by the TSP. They are just as dangerous with just one nuke, if they think they can get away with it.

The only way the threat of TSP can be controlled is if it was denuked.