Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 21 Sep 2009 17:10

thanks anujan.

what i understood, from all the reading here.
with what he have, we can cause serious damage. depending on the amount of risks the enemy is willing to take, what we have may deter him. but when india started, it defined credible minimum deterrence as including a TN. this we have not achieved. so according to our initial definition, we dont have the deterrence we sought. so the job is unfinished.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2009 17:22

shaardula wrote:thanks anujan.

what i understood, from all the reading here.
with what he have, we can cause serious damage. depending on the amount of risks the enemy is willing to take, what we have may deter him. but when india started, it defined credible minimum deterrence as including a TN. this we have not achieved. so according to our initial definition, we dont have the deterrence we sought. so the job is unfinished.

IMHO, that is a very good summary. And, I agree with that statement.

However, do we know how many TNs India wanted to have and what were their targets?

I would imagine that China would have accepted a LOT more damage - say - 10/20 years ago, than she would today. And, I have to assume as she grows he acceptance level will decline. IF (this is an assumption) she accepted 10 million dead 10 years ago, I would assume she would accept about a million today and that would/should decline over time (assuming she continues to progress economically).

IMHO a TN is needed for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. A TN will be needed IF Indian deterrence includes lumping Pakistan and China (I do not know if that is even a consideration).

But, if a TN is just china centric and India were to compute a deterrence value for China that can be handled by a non-TN weapon, then why TN?

This does not mean that India should NOT hon her skills in the field on TNs. I think she should for a totally different reason.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2009 17:28

NRao wrote: I would imagine that China would have accepted a LOT more damage - say - 10/20 years ago, than she would today. And, I have to assume as she grows he acceptance level will decline. IF (this is an assumption) she accepted 10 million dead 10 years ago, I would assume she would accept about a million today and that would/should decline over time (assuming she continues to progress economically).

It will be prudent to understand what those leaders of that country consider as unacceptable and plan the strike accordingly. Our Doctrine call for unacceptable damage. If that particular asset was attacked that will go as warning and possibly stem further attack on us in a escalatory mode.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Sep 2009 17:30

shaardula wrote: depending on the amount of risks the enemy is willing to take, what we have may deter him. but when india started, it defined credible minimum deterrence as including a TN. this we have not achieved. so according to our initial definition, we dont have the deterrence we sought. so the job is unfinished.

I dont deny that at the first place we have some holes in our policy and everything so does the others. If we were aware of these holes, we should have fixed it at the first place. If for any reason(s), we were not capable, willing, had no means do it. We should not show it to others by pointing. It is the job the adverse to find these hole. It is our job to plug/hide/cover it, not to show it to whole world.

We should project our real power 70% of the time, 30% is just to project it to fill the gap.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 21 Sep 2009 17:38

Dear Gurus,

Have anyone seen the news in our good old DD today in which it was mentioned that our Mr. Santhanam has said the thermonuclear test was not a failure. It seems there was a discussion with Mr. Santhanam. Please try to watch it, it is currently in the news. My little brain couldn't understand it much. But definitely you would. Hope it was not already reported here. I posted this in a hurry.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Sep 2009 17:42

JimmyJ wrote:Have anyone seen the news in our good old DD today in which it was mentioned that our Mr. Santhanam has said the thermonuclear test was not a failure.

It does not make much difference if he accepts it or deny it. The damage has been done, full stop.

I am not sure what else he was going to expose, may be his better senses are back. Better late then never.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2009 17:42

Kanson wrote: It will be prudent to understand what those leaders of that country consider as unacceptable and plan the strike accordingly. Our Doctrine call for unacceptable damage. If that particular asset was attacked that will go as warning and possibly stem further attack on us in a escalatory mode.

Absolutely. No two ways about that.

That is what I call "computing of deterrence".

That is the typical way it should be done. The BIG question I have is - based on the wacky Indian situation - does India follow a traceable practice?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Sep 2009 17:43

Given that India stopped testing in 1999 after 2 days of testing (maybe only 1 day) the chances of testing to perfect a thermonuclear device are remote - even if S1 had worked as predicted/claimed.

Under the circumstances all that can be weaponized are designs based on theory and single digit tests. I think this fact tends to get ignored in the disappointment and anger of cognitive dissonance.

While no one thinks further testing is not required India will not test. I am dead certain of that (although I would love to be proved wrong). That means the deterrent has to be based on whatever is handled by the scientists and their parleys with those who matter in the armed forces.

What matters is not whether we think the deterrent is credible as long as any adversary thinks it is credible. Either way - we will never know. We may claim that someone is deterred or no deterred - but we cannot claim to accurately second guess the thoughts of an adversary based on a vulgar public spat such as that we have seen. It is one thing to own nukes (of any size) It becomes a totally different matter when you actually have to consider using them.

But I just had another aha moment.

If you are powerful and you demonstrate your power by making your own rules - you get a seat on the "high table" because you have to be brought into line and it is better done by giving you a seat at the high table without having to fight you.

But if you think you are powerful but behave like a wimp there is no place for you at the table. This is not just about size of nukes. It is about willingness to project power. Testing is a sort of signal that India will make its own rules - but India is nowadays only following rules - not making them

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 21 Sep 2009 17:47

NRao wrote: I would imagine that China would have accepted a LOT more damage - say - 10/20 years ago, than she would today. And, I have to assume as she grows he acceptance level will decline. IF (this is an assumption) she accepted 10 million dead 10 years ago, I would assume she would accept about a million today and that would/should decline over time (assuming she continues to progress economically).

NRao Sir and all,

I do not understand the above point being made and in general the idea about x kt being enough.

!! NFU policy dictates unacceptable retaliatory damage !!

Now, it is difficult to estimate what kind of damage an enemy is willing to take. So remove the enemy from the equation.

That leaves the only the second-strike inflicting country in picture ...i.e India.

"Unacceptable damage" - to me that means only one thing: To pursue the most damage inflicting weapons and to deploy them should a need for second strike arises.

This again means only one thing...TN weapons. Reasons are obvious.

Anyone saying that 10kT,12 kT, 15Kt, 25kT is enough should first:
Tell! how! they! quantify! country! specific "unacceptable damage "!

So to me, this means that India should pursue what IT feels are the most damage causing weapons and should support so many warheads as its financial might can!

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Sep 2009 17:58

Kanson wrote:It will be prudent to understand what those leaders of that country consider as unacceptable and plan the strike accordingly. Our Doctrine call for unacceptable damage. If that particular asset was attacked that will go as warning and possibly stem further attack on us in a escalatory mode.

May I ask

* What is unacceptable damage for India to use Nuclear weapons?
* Is it only after being attacked by Nuclear strike or there are other parameters like lets say loss of conventional war or sudden attack on all future ATVs?
* Are there any plans to retaliate after second strike, lets assume our counter strike was not enough or failed to meet its required goals and adversary did retaliate with second wave of attacks?

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 21 Sep 2009 17:58

It seems that Sanathanam has given a TV interview to deal with MKN-NSA points. Can't seem to find it by channel surfing, only Tej TV has some reference to it

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 21 Sep 2009 17:59

Neela, before that - please read the quotes from General Sundarji's book posted earlier.

Raj, the NSA claimed he had the test data, KS said he didn't.

It is going around in circles.

In the noise, nobody has taken note of what the normally plain spoken Adm. Mehta said on the issue.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 21 Sep 2009 18:05

Sanjay wrote: Nobody has yet answered this - Agnis are being built, inducted and deployed with 700-1500kg payloads (way too big for a 20-25kt warhead) - what's on them ? A big stone ?

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/r36m.html

You need space for dummy warheads too to confuse eneny airdefences.

Usually it will have same shape and renetry characteristics of the actual warhead. During the starwars program, there were satellites proposed to scan the incoming warheads to check whether they are actual or dummy. I am not sure whether they have deployed them. Even then you can built dummy copies of a nuclear warhead which beahves as an actual warhead

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 21 Sep 2009 18:07

Raj Malhotra wrote:It seems that Sanathanam has given a TV interview to deal with MKN-NSA points. Can't seem to find it by channel surfing, only Tej TV has some reference to it

The DD News has shown a clip on discussion with Santhanam. I could not find the news on web, but got this

Santhanam hits back at NSA

http://www.ddinews.gov.in/National/Nati ... NTANAM.htm

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Sep 2009 18:08

Santhanam hits back at the NSA

Terming the remarks by the NSA as "unnecessary", he also demanded that an independent panel probe the success of the Pokhran tests.

Narayanan is "barking up the wrong tree", he said at an interaction with journalists at the Indian Women Press Corp here.

Santhanam also sought to counter claims by Narayanan and others in the establishment that he was not privy to the test measurements and information on Pokhran-II tests.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 21 Sep 2009 18:11

Sanjay wrote:Neela, before that - please read the quotes from General Sundarji's book posted earlier.

Raj, the NSA claimed he had the test data, KS said he didn't.

It is going around in circles.

In the noise, nobody has taken note of what the normally plain spoken Adm. Mehta said on the issue.

Thank You Sanjay. I went back and found this.

"For a strategic deterrent with emphasis on value targets and area type of counterforce targets, weapons yields from about 20KT to 150KT should do. Hence fission and enhanced fission weapons would do. There ought to me no need to develop fusion weapons, or in popular terminology, hydrogen bombs. The day of the megaton monster is certainly over. The order of accuracies available today for ballistic missiles even in the third world is adequate for a deterrence strategy that does not emphasize attack on point targets."

Now I don't understand this. Please enlighten me.
During times of war, alliances could be formed. Damage Thresholds could change. How did Sundarji arrive at these * magical * numbers.

And please put this in perspective with our NFU policy.

As mentioned before, If someone can come with some grand equation, quantifying the weapons needed based on enemies , including war time dynamics, then it will be nice to see and we can happily model our retaliatory strike. No such equations exist.

The adversary should be taken out of the equation.

Damage-Size and number of weapons can be based on what the nation can financially support.
Period.

kit · Post by **kit** » 21 Sep 2009 18:21

Guys I think you are missing a bit point as to why India needs Thermonuclear weapons due to its smaller stockpile .Consider the scenario where China can 'accidentally' make PK go into a full nuclear strike against India . Who would India retaliate against? PK ? PK and China ? even when there are some 'evidences' to the Chinese 'hand'.China can at this juncture wage a nuclear war against India using its proxy.An unstable PK will easily lend itself to manipulation,even at the threat of its own survival.India s second strike will be seriously debilitated at this point and open to a conventional strike by the Chinese who can literally take what they want vs a crippled India ( So the haste in building up Arihants etc .. it all adds up now) This scenario will play differently if India s second strike is really potent .. and i mean "really" not supposition) India should test its fusion weapons some where else.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2009 18:23

Shiv,

I think you are dead on. However, one small clarification:

Under the circumstances all that can be weaponized are designs based on theory and single digit tests.

Single digit tests, but double digit yield? These digits seem to matter now a days.

Now, it is difficult to estimate what kind of damage an enemy is willing to take. So remove the enemy from the equation.

Deterrence is ALWAYS computed based on the enemy. Indian deterrence planners earn their pay solely by computing "damage the enemy is willing to take". No enemy, no deterrence. (In fact, I would argue one of the problems India has is that she is rarely seen - or perceived - as a viable enemy, so there is a feeling within Pakistan (for example) that India can be played around with. true under some circumstances.)

Note the arguments floating around how Pakistan is extracting Billions from the US - in spite of a badly a-symmetric capabilities. And to think of it all Pakistan needs against the US is perhaps a dirty bomb, not even a TN!!!

That leaves the only the second-strike inflicting country in picture ...i.e India.

Hmmmmmm................... Your deterrence has failed. The striker is betting that India cannot (NOT will not) strike back.

which is what I am saying. Do we think that China is willing to level India and accept India leveling one major city in China or laying her entire bread basket waste? (What if India also drops a few on Arunachal Pradesh - just to spoil the fun for China?)

(In fact, as an aside, in such a scenario, IF India waffles and does not strike back within a certain amount of time, the rest of the world will stop the "strikes" there. I would think a "second strike" would be immediate - like within a minute or less.)

symontk,

IMHO, out of bounds for this thread currently.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Sep 2009 18:37

I have been reading all the posts for past few days and I am confused.

Ekam Sat, vipra bahudah vadanti!

- India has Fission Bums. Tested yields are 17KT – 25KT (Not sure)
- To boost them to >50KT levels require new designs and need further tests.
- The TN bum delivered desired results. Earlier they were mentioned as ~45KT by the same experts who are saying they believed what RC or APJ or RamaY said on that.
- Some Abdul who was responsible for test evaluation is now saying that the TN fizzled and the ~25KT fart we got was entirely from the fission and not from TN.
- Arihant is not mated with A-III
- A-III doesn’t have the MIRV technology yet.
- The K-15/Nirbhay has only 700 mile range (I believe in official announcements only)
- AAD/PAD are in testing phase only. Not yet operationalized.
- India has nuclear deterrence. It is now called “minimum” deterrence not for the policy but for the capacity.
- Indian scientists, babus and netas think nuke war is impractical and unfeasible not only for Desh but also for enemies. But these same guys built Bharatiya-bum and their enemies are having MT+ bums.

Now some Bharatiyas (the same guys who claimed to have the design and can test it as soon as GOI gives the go ahead ) are saying 15KT is enough for our deterrence and it will kill 20,000-50,000 people and claim that it scares the hell out of the enemy. The same enemy once said “I can take 25% of my population causalities but the enemy cannot take 25000” or something like that. Another enemy is already killing ~20,000 of its own citizens on a monthly basis and creating million+ IDPs (Internally Displaced Populations) in an internal law-and-order situation.

What I do not know is
- Can India build TN weapons? The answer is definitely not “Does India need one?”
- Does it already have one?
- Is that design tested? If yes, what are the “desired” and actual yields? Will it stand for a open review?
- If it really worked, why not the test lead KS convinced by the results? This is a science project right? Science says an experiment is not successful unless the result can be measurable, verifiable and repeatable. Which part of that science our scientists doesn’t understand?
- If the test did not pass, did BARC figure out why it didn’t work?
- Does it have a fix?
- If BARC knows why the test failed and has a fix, did inform GOI about it?
- Is GOI aware of all this? Did it conduct a feasibility analysis and impact analysis on the possibility of further tests?
- What decision GOI has reached to?
- Did GOI inform BARC about its decision and directed BARC to be ready with a new device to be tested?
- Do Indian Armed Forces know about all this? Do they include this new information in their war-strategies?

And so on… request the gurus to answer my questions so I can make my own inferences.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 21 Sep 2009 18:45

NRao wrote:
Deterrence is ALWAYS computed based on the enemy. Indian deterrence planners earn their pay solely by computing "damage the enemy is willing to take". No enemy, no deterrence. (In fact, I would argue one of the problems India has is that she is rarely seen - or perceived - as a viable enemy, so there is a feeling within Pakistan (for example) that India can be played around with. true under some circumstances.)

That leaves the only the second-strike inflicting country in picture ...i.e India.

NRao,
I would be happy to see how deterrence planners arrive at the damage numbers.
Lets say that halfway into a war . China allies with Pakistan to launch nuclear missiles at India. Would you target China with 12Kt, Pakis with 25kT or both with 5 20 Kt.

What is Pakistan's damage limit during lawless times.

Which is why I am saying that our damage inflicting capabilities with NFU should be the utmost what we can financially manage

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 21 Sep 2009 18:46

Neela - that is not how deterrence is calculated.

What will unacceptable damage be ? The defacto loss of several key cities. That is it.

What is magical about TN weapons in this scenario ?

You may require more smaller weapons to do the damage but it can be achieved. The key would be spacing of the warhead detonation zones and fuzing for ground or air burst.

Regarding Sundarji's figures - they are arrived at from a study of Cold War debates on the subject of a confrontation between NATO and the War Pac.

Remember the UK and France had to make calculations on what would unacceptable damage to the Russians be. The French decided they could deter an attack with 18 IRBMs and 36 Bombers in the short term - equipped with 60-120KT fission weapons.

It was only later that they scaled up based on extensive testing and increased confidence in delivery systems.

Read Sundarji's book first and then we can discuss further.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Sep 2009 18:52

(I'm cross-posting excerpts from my post in the the other thread)

It is extremely unfair for MKN to have made the derogatory statements about Santy as he was nowhere in the pic during P-2 unlike Santy! Not only Santy but other very eminent nuclear scientists including heads of BAARC have expressed their doubts.Are they also to be treated as imbeciles? The inescapable fact is that our venal..sorry,venerable NSA is actingt more like a politician rather than a man who is qulaified to be entrusted with the rsponsibility of safeguarding the nation as NSA.He knew nothing about 26/11,being more interested in seeing that the N-deal was voted in using every means of doing so,allegedly spent more time abroad rubbing shoulders and confabulating ,rather than remaining in India attending to and stopping terror threats,was clueless to Pak's massive fake currency attack,and more recently knew nothing about China's aggressive moves against India in the Himalayas.

KS and Co. have let the proverbial cat out of the bag,that our TN test was a fizzle.There would be no need whatsoever for this hilarious article-about the quantum of destruction being immaterial from either an A-bomb or H-bomb.This is akin to qualifying and quantifying rape,whether there was "penetration" or not,it matters little how "deep" the penetration! Their stance is that if even if the tip of a penis however little it might be (probably after taking a good look at their "instruments"), enters into the vagina one teeny-weeny bit,it qualifies as penetration and is therefore "Rape"!
Thus they arrrive at their conclusions based upon the penis penetration "dipstick",pun intended! So these great strategic thinkers have come to the conclusion that even if you drop a pea-pod with some N-material it is a nculear attack!

Our reputed friends KS and Co. have by this perverse logic forgotten that several nuclear states including China have very deep underground nuclear command centres and other facilties immune to "normal" nuclear attack and that only large TN devices can eliminate them.This gives them the confidence that they can ride out an attack from an inferior N-power with their key bases immune from attack.I give here some US stats regarding "bunker-busting" TN weapons.

Quote:
While penetrations of 20–100 feet (30 m) were sufficient for some shallow targets, both the Soviet Union and the United States were creating bunkers buried under huge volumes of soil or reinforced concrete in order to withstand the multi-megaton thermonuclear weapons developed in the 1950s and 1960s. Bunker penetration weapons were initially designed out of this Cold War context.

The main criticisms of nuclear bunker busters regard nuclear fallout and nuclear proliferation. The purpose of an earth-penetrating nuclear "bunker buster" is to reduce the required yield needed to ensure the destruction of the target by coupling the explosion to the ground, yielding a shock wave similar to an earthquake. For example, the United States retired the B-53 warhead, with a yield of 9 megatons, because the B-61 Mod 11 could attack similar targets with much lower yield (400 kilotons)
[citation needed], due to the latter's superior ground penetration. Thus the fallout of a B-61 Mod 11 would likely be less than that of a B-53.

kit · Post by **kit** » 21 Sep 2009 18:58

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/09/20/O ... _summit_o/

Now this should be interesting

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Sep 2009 18:59

shiv wrote:This is not just about size of nukes. It is about willingness to project power.

Our Nuclear Doctrine says that nuclear weapons serve a deterrence value only. It implies they will never be used. Men that matter in Indian Governance structure have repeatedly abhorred the use of such a weapon of mass destruction thereby implying that these weapons only deter. Their thinking might be that even a technology demonstrator or a partially failed test or a test that did not provide the calculated/expected yield still has a deterrence value. This is in contrast to all the other nuclear powers which see a miltaristic use value in the nukes. One can take such professions of abhorrence as a subterfuge when it comes from other nations but knowing the Indian psyche, one has to believe that our leaders truly believe in what they say.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Sep 2009 19:01

Sanjay wrote:Remember the UK and France had to make calculations on what would unacceptable damage to the Russians be. The French decided they could deter an attack with 18 IRBMs and 36 Bombers in the short term - equipped with 60-120KT fission weapons.

Sorry but you are comparing Grape with Mango. Note that in UK or France if one person is killed, you will see a strom in the nation and full investigation will be started. And in case of our Asian countries, does we have a value of life? Plain answer is no, in your own words

Sanjay wrote:The defacto loss of several key cities. That is it.

So Small dum is of no use, to earn apprication from our friends China and Pakistan. Who are ready to take damages in million then in hundreds. So we are in uniqe problem, so our solution will also be unique.

May I ask Guru log

* What is unacceptable damage for India to use Nuclear weapons?
* Is it only after being attacked by Nuclear strike or there are other parameters like lets say loss of conventional war or sudden attack on all future ATVs?
* Are there any plans to retaliate after second strike, lets assume our counter strike was not enough or failed to meet its required goals and adversary did retaliate with second wave of attacks?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2009 19:18

Austin wrote:
Kanson wrote:To be frank, isnt already those ex- gave their opinion on the subject ? So what new outcome it can get.

On the contrary, Santhanam claim of 25 kt for S2 is shocking. First it was 25 +or - 2. We thought it was all about TN and i guess it was about S2. May be he should have evidence for this ?
Ofcourse they did , but if GOI is confident that it knows better then ex AEC/BARC chief , then whats the harm in involving these folks for a peer review ?

These people have held highest position in GOI and if they are raising a valid question or raising doubts , then a peer review should and must involve them , besides the stake holders military ( SFC )

Santy is up close and personal guy as far as POK 2 goes , if he says so keeping his reputation at stake and if ex BARC/DAE head are willing to buy his argument for what ever reasons , then its a serious issue beyond personal belief or disbelief

Austin ji, I can understand what you are trying to say. But i'm very tired to just believe or trust on what they say whoever it might be. We are made like jokers and more like dancing street monkey under the monkey charmers in this whole episode.

Numerous evidences were provided on this very same forum about what Santhanam was saying previously before this. Is not all those things are lie if what he says is true. It doesnt effuse any confidence.

I too thought he had a valid point when he said, it all for CTBT and infact appreciated it. But as things moves on and in his latest op-ed, he is more aiming his gun at Chidambaram and co than about CTBT. Who needs know about S2 yield as 25 kt ? What purpose it has in the current discussion if his purpose is all about CTBT ? I dont know.

B.Raman says Santhanam sided with Arunachalam

Santhanam gravitated to the Ministry of Defence to assist Dr.V.Arunachalam and spent the rest of his career in the set-up of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

As Arun_S says can Santhanam be teamed in the same list. Let me make it clear, I'm not saying anything on this. All I'm saying is there are too many uncertainities to come up with any conclusion unless there is substantial evidence. And it cant be based on mere some talk.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2009 19:25

Even if for argument sake the GOI is right and Santy is BS , what is the harm in doing a peer review of S-1 involving PKI/Sethna and Military.

Atleast if the GOI has nothing to hide and RC is the brilliant man who got it all right , the PKI , Sethna , Military and nay sayers in general will shut up for good ?

Are people like Sethna , PKI and Military are National Security Risk or CIA mole that the GOI cannot share the data and do a scientific peer review ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2009 19:27

Neela,

There is no good or bad way, deterrence being very fluid and in some cases based on gut-feel (check out decisions made during WW II).

I cannot tell you how planner think, what I can tell you is that do compute, there is really no other way. But the way they think will impact what they compute for sure. (Which is why we have Indian planners that are chai-biscoot and Pakistani planners that have Kargil in them.) (This mess, IMVVVHO, is a political failure, not a scientific one. An Indian politician can easily say 'test - till it is right'. The Scientist will do so and get it right. The problem arose when the Indian politician did not allow the Indian SciCom to resolve a purely scientific issue on which political decisions were going to be made. There are associated SciCom problems too - but the issue is scietific and therefore can be resolved.)

What you mention is a common occurrence - situational fluidity. Forget Pakistan + China. It (fluidity) happens within Indo-Pak situations.

The topic is too large, check out google cache. It is large because there are N way to think.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Sep 2009 19:29

Austin wrote:Even if for argument sake the GOI is right and Santy is BS , what is the harm in doing a peer review of S-1 involving PKI/Sethna and Military.

My suspicion is that truth is somewhere between Santhanam and and GoI. But still there is no proven TN warhead.

But that does not mean that deterrence cannot of does not exists - as I keep repeating - but more on that later.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Sep 2009 19:34

Austin wrote:Even if for argument sake the GOI is right and Santy is BS , what is the harm in doing a peer review of S-1 involving PKI/Sethna and Military.

Atleast if the GOI has nothing to hide and RC is the brilliant man who got it all right , the PKI , Sethna , Military and nay sayers in general will shut up for good ?

Are people like Sethna , PKI and Military are National Security Risk or CIA mole that the GOI cannot share the data and do a scientific peer review ?

PKI/Sethna comes as accuser/petitioner. And tell me will the accuser be made jury ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2009 19:42

Kanson wrote:PKI/Sethna comes as accuser/petitioner. And tell me will the accuser be made jury ?

PKI and Sethna are not ordinary abdul on the road raising political slogans or hogging limelight in their fag end of life to make it to 24x7 news channel , these are esteemed people who have held the same position as some of the POK 2 folks at some point in their career.

So in this case , yes PKI/Sethna along with RC/Sikka should be part of scientific peer review to balance it out , and so should be the military , please involve them as they need to have the confidence in what the scientist say about Nukes as they are the ultimate user of these weapon.

The present GOI position seems to be

"I know I am right , coz I have the data and you don't . You need not know what I have and you better believe me coz I am speaking the truth , if you don't believe me well balls to you coz I know I am right"

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Sep 2009 19:45

Austin wrote:Even if for argument sake the GOI is right and Santy is BS , what is the harm in doing a peer review of S-1 involving PKI/Sethna and Military.

Will you still trust Sethna after all this???

We never learn from our history.. oops my mistake from yestarday.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Sep 2009 19:45

RKumar wrote: * What is unacceptable damage for India to use Nuclear weapons?
* Is it only after being attacked by Nuclear strike or there are other parameters like lets say loss of conventional war or sudden attack on all future ATVs?
* Are there any plans to retaliate after second strike, lets assume our counter strike was not enough or failed to meet its required goals and adversary did retaliate with second wave of attacks?[/b]

Kumar you may have misread the refs to India's nuke doctrine. As per the doctrine India is not going to wait for "unacceptable" damage. If anything Indian gets nuked India wil retaliate to cause unacceptable damage to an adversary. No other parameters unless we suddenly change during a war

What is unacceptable damage to an adversary? Opinions on this forum and off it may vary so let me state my opinion. (Disclaimer: Nobody needs to agree with my views - but if anyone has any alternative views please take the trouble to write it down.)

Every country depends on an economy that requires people to be settled - mostly in urban areas producing goods and offering services. That needs to be disrupted. For a city of 10 million - how much should you destroy before normal life cannot go on? My guess is that 100 to 200 thousand dead and a similar number with serious injuries caused within minutes will overload any city within days. There will be rotting bodies and people dying of burns, many unreachable by rescue services. In a large city 3 or 4 nukes over different areas would compound the problem. A large city has an area of maybe 200 sq km. A 50 kt bomb affects 15 sq km. 3 such bombs over different parts of the city would result in crippling casualties with people from one area fleeing into other areas only to meet other people fleeing from there. The dirtier your bomb the better - so that nobody would be able to go back for a long long time.

Within 2-3 days the city would empty out because of disruption of supplies and radiation sickness. If you do that to 25 cities the government might survive in deep bunkers - but what governance would they be able to implement. This could be called "unacceptable damage" to any rational leadership who may survive weeks in a bunker but would come out only to see anarchy.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Sep 2009 19:51

shiv wrote: Kumar you may have misread the refs to India's nuke doctrine. As per the doctrine India is not going to wait for "unacceptable" damage. If anything Indian gets nuked India wil retaliate to cause unacceptable damage to an adversary. No other parameters unless we suddenly change during a war

Thank you for your answer.

So our we can be beated badly in Convenation was or can be attacked on our nuclear installations (stationary/movable) with convenation weapons. We stick to our guns only.

So our NFU is NFU at this moment.

And we dont have any plans for 4th wave of attack or attack from a different adversary as we will fire all our firework in one go. (just a case... too remote)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2009 19:53

shiv wrote:My suspicion is that truth is somewhere between Santhanam and and GoI. But still there is no proven TN warhead.

But that does not mean that deterrence cannot of does not exists - as I keep repeating - but more on that later.

But there can be just one position , either you have TN or you don't { if you cannot weponize it whats the point in having it at all , militarily it is useless as its not part of your stock , ok but if you got the physics right then its all about H&D }

Deterrence is not broken , but so have the doubts increased on GOI claim that TN was successful.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 21 Sep 2009 19:54

Imagine a situation where the enemy deploys "tactical nukes" that nearly take out two divisions in the early stages of the war, because they did not have a) sufficient number of divisions and b) they did not have the time.

So, India, retaliates by destroying a population, it launches its pebbles, these 25KT devices. It kills off a few cities (how many are proportionate to the inflicted damage?). This disproportionate response draws another disproportionate one; except they are 1MT TN devices.

One can argue this is silly.

Knowing that the 25KT devices are going to show up will deter from using tactical nukes in the first place. But if the other country shows up with a doctrine that says, we won't first target your civilan population...what's a righteous India got to do about that? And knowing China can spray its own citizens in Tiananmen gives little confidence these aren't the kooky kind.

The balls it did not have to throw, suddenly appear when a 1KT device goes off to take half a division out, what about a few 0.5KT devices?

Of course, if things remain conventional...that joke is already on us with our defence acquisitions and modernizations etc.

S

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 21 Sep 2009 19:57

they must have done at least one full scale detonation of fusion warhead in sea to know that the design works

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Sep 2009 20:07

Austin wrote: Deterrence is not broken , but so have the doubts increased on GOI claim that TN was successful.

With respect Austin - may I point out that the story that we have TN weapons was carried too far by us jingos when it was patently obvious that only one test had been done. Even if that one test was 100% successful it would not have been enough. For heavens sake - ONE test. Of 45 kt? I think people were just freaking out and imagining things that were not there and aiding self-bluffing and bluffing others.

Now suddenly Santanam comes and points out nothing new and everyone's mental picture of TN devices is suddenly destroyed.

Wasn't it clear for 11 years that all this 150 kt TN warhead might well be mythical for the simple reason that nobody from the GoI or any other source outside of BR claimed that such a capability existed.

I have never read any reference outside BR that speaks of the yield of Indian warheads until Santhanam came with his rehash of old revelations in August this year. I believe that we have been bluffing ourselves to a fair extent. Someone please show me some clear references to 150 kt warheads in any Indian publication or news report. It was a dog that never barked. We just believed its existence.

People may have had "private sources" who told them about 150 kt TN. But as a person I do not believe or reveal such stuff unless I see it in a public source. But that is me.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Sep 2009 20:14

RKumar wrote:
And we dont have any plans for 4th wave of attack or attack from a different adversary as we will fire all our firework in one go. (just a case... too remote)

No. The only plan is not to let the other guy feel happy with what he believes is victory over us.

But that is what nuclear war is all about. It's surprising what a small percentage of educated people actually bother to think this through.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Sep 2009 20:17

joke is already on us with our defence acquisitions and modernizations etc.

True, very true. However, even the joke about strategy is on us.

However, what if India decides to use a tactical nuke too? And, it does not escalate to 10/15/17/25Kt.

In Kargil India chose to take the longer route, where, in theory, she could have used a 0.1Kt perhaps?

As far as border conflicts are concerned India has proved to her enemies that she has a huge amount of tolerance. Some may argue a bit too much. BUT, that reflects in the computation of the deterrence WRT India.

Perhaps the thinking is that we (as in India) will pull the trigger much, much faster in a bigger/biggest situation.