Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Sep 2011 18:25

Shiv ji this topic has been discussed before so I shall not argue for the sake for arguing; I just have one hypothetical question ; would India have conducted more tests before putting a self moratorium had there been no fear of global sanctions ?

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 09 Sep 2011 19:02

shiv wrote:
kumarn wrote:I have a question for the gurus: Is it possible to test, say a 200kt warhead underground, without anyone else knowing about it?
Since I am a guru here is my answer. It will be detected, unless there happens to be a huge earthquake somewhere nearby at the exact same moment.

My personal view on trying to hide nuclear tests is like trying to make love to your girlfriend in your parents' bedroom when they have gone out shopping. The opportunities will be limited and results unpredictable. Repeat performances may or may not be possible.

If we must test we must test openly. We will not do that. I guarantee that. So we are going to have to make do with what we have.

Can we covertly carry out a nuclear test , let us say in some remote corner of Indian or Pacific ocean?Ofcourse once the test has been carried out , it will be known to the whole world(Radiation signature etc).But is there any chance to carry out the preparations without being detected(in which case we can feign ignorance afterwards)?Let us think of it from a logistics point of view.

Just asking.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Sep 2011 19:15

Whats the point of a covert test? A test is to proclaim posession among other things. Such a covert test will not add to credibility.

Also there is difference in the seismic waves between a test and eqks. The eqks originate much deeper. Any shallow wave from usual locations will be ided as a test. So please dont ask this question again and again.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 09 Sep 2011 19:15

darshhan wrote: Just asking.

Only a fearful mouse would entertain such things. A mouse has no business working with nuclear weapons. Declare the intent to test openly. Declare that no power on earth can stop us. Make it known to all concerned internal and external that secure ourselves, we must and in order to do so, test we must. That is what the BJP did. The intent to weaponize was in their election manifesto! The dark side of the moon or oceans are laughable options for a nation - a nation like India. Just stating my view.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 09 Sep 2011 19:50

Philip wrote:
In our tests,we revalidate our TN warheads of our choice.If Uncle Sam protests,let him fly a kite and we would be very happy to scrap the N-deal with him that will allow us to sell N-tech to the highest bidder worldwide.If the US could allow Pak and China to secretly proliferate,surely India can officially sell its N-tech to anyone!

I wish international diplomacy was that simple?

IMHO effect of sanctions---

For ISRO- Losing of lions share of the foreign satellite contracts . Hampering GSLV development , deep space development , manned space flight etc..

For DRDO/HAL - Forget AMCA as there will be no help for engine , avionics etc..Hampering development of other projects..

For IAF - Forget MMRCA , etC

For IA/IN great loss in foreign acquisitions..

For Civillian Nuclear programme - Ban on Import of uranium from all countries. Including small ones like Kyrgyzstan-
Ban on critical R&D material ..

For electricity generation-- we need to treble are present capacity in the next 15 years. With sanctions thats not possible .. End results ...power cuts ..hampered industrialization etc ...etc

For Indian industry. pressure by unkil to make exports tough for Yindia . Suffering of Industry...

For the Indian economy --- Back to the hindu growth rate years...

Presently there is a great increase of R2I profs from the US . Reduction in employment opportunity due to above factors.. will reverse this trend and cause brain drain..

Massive unemployment @ the time of demographic dividend is undesirable ... India will be shattered ..

Trust me , the people who matter take India very seriously even today . Countries like NoKo and TSP need to explode their JDAM's in order to be heard . India is not one of them.

How did we come to this discussion?

Late Dr.K. Santhanan (I respect the late prof greatly) quoted the following....

As I have said earlier, based on the seismic measurements and also the opinions from experts, there was a much lower yield in the thermonuclear device test. It was lesser than what had been claimed at that time.

......

Even the expert opinion from across the world makes it clear that the yield in the thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was claimed.

I have maintained and will always maintain that the test was not more than 60 per cent successful[/b] in terms of the yield it generated. I have made this assessment based on the report of the instrumentation data that is available and also the programme coordinator.

This was indeed discussed before he made this statement. He never said that we don't have a fusion device or that no fusion took place in Pok 2.. From this statement it is clear that fusion took place . He says so.He his merely saying that the yield was lower than the stated yield of 50 KT.That was in fact already known ..Most expert estimates were about 30 KT..

He never described the test as fizzle or as dud.
He never said that we don't have an H-Bomb

Those were terms used by the media who was evidently observing the discussion here. We were sold our theories. This statement slowly made people here think that we altogether lack a H-Bomb or a deterrent. But KS never said anything of that sort..

Why did he make such a statement?

There is a change in the administration in the United States of America. They are bound to further pressurise India to sign the CTBT. In such an event it was necessary to make such a statement or speak the truth on the issue so that India does not rush into signing the CTBT.

Therefore, I say the timing of my statement was perfectly right.

I agree with him . We are not going to sign the CTBT/NPT anytime soon. However if the US signs these we ll be forced to.

Folks that is all there to it....

All those talks about bluff / Lacking H-Bomb etc was simply our creation . Even if 60% of the H-Bomb yield hits our enemy they ll not like it.

Also he never mentioned anything about the NSG waiver . That was media misinterpretation ..The reactors that are safeguarded by IAEA were not used for millitary purpose in the first place...

We have not given away anything in the N-Deal.. IAEA safeguards in Power reactors and university Nuclear facilities means nothing from the strategic point of view. Even Unkil has IAEA safeguards in civillian reactors..

What will we gain by testing now?

Most likely the tests will be successful .. It ll be 200kt -1 mt ..

So it ll only re-enforce what the world has know all these years... That we have got capacity to blow up cities...

We have lot more to lose than to gain .. Do you want India to revert to 3% growth rate ? (It happened between 99-01 , growth suddenly slowed down , IIRC in 01 we grew only 3 %)

Will it stop terrorism?

No.. KS made this statement in August 09.. 26/11 took place before that... Till then we were taking the H-Bomb for granted.. Paki's even suspect that we tested in 01.People even suspect that we have russian warheads/ designs ... But it did not stop them from 26/11...strengthening the internal security wont give you sanctions but will stop terror attacks...

Will Narendra Modi test if he is a PM?

NaMo would be a strong PM . But he is very pragmatic guy. Those who have met him are aware of the fact.. He gives economy the priority over anything else.. He even demolished temples when they were preventing expansion of the road... He is no Yahoo... So he ll not test unless there is a serious provocation...

Sanctions are too much of a deterrent to us..we want to improve our economy as the first priority...

Would tests prevent a war?

There is unlikely to be a full fledged conflict on the horizon involving India ...
May be one with TSP ..But TSP is suicidal..

Should we have tested if there was no fear of sanctions?

Surely... We would have tested several designs by now... But the number of countries with these things would be considerably more..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2011 20:09

negi wrote:Shiv ji this topic has been discussed before so I shall not argue for the sake for arguing; I just have one hypothetical question ; would India have conducted more tests before putting a self moratorium had there been no fear of global sanctions ?

I have no idea. It depends on what the testing team told the politicos. PVN Rao was warned by the US not to test and did not test. Deve Gowda is said to have ensured that the shafts were ready to test. The scientists had been wanting to test for years. And I recall the story that the scientists were told by Vajpayee that they would get this one chance to test. I do not recall reading anywhere that they were told that they would be able to test and keep on testing.

So it appears that the testing team knew they would have only one opportunity/window and that they would have to test as much as possible. As far as I can recall that was the reason for three simultaneous tests. Santhanam clearly stated that he knew as soon as the tests happened that the TN was a fizzle. It is hardly likely that he would have kept that secret. It is reported that Chidambaram said "al iz vel" to Vajpayee who then said "We have big bum". I can't recall what day that was. The moratorium was announced a week later I think when they had had time to go over some preliminary results. The story that has been mooted by some is that Chidambaram lied to Vajpayee and that made Vajpayee announce a moratorium. As to why Chidambaram may have lied - I have not seen any speculation. After all he could have said that more tests were required. There was, after all at least one more intact shaft from which a device was pulled up. One possible explanation for a "lie" by Chidambaram would be "ego" and not wanting to admit that his test had failed.

So the "explanation" we have for the moratorium is that Chidambaram's ego stopped him from admitting failure and he misled Vajpayee who was eager to declare a moratorium. There are holes in this story. I don't want to go into specific holes. It may have been that Vajpayee was deliberate in his decision to declare a moratorium. Perhaps he would have been less eager to do that if the tests had been a total failure. But clearly they were at least a partial success and Vajpayee may have seen some political advantage in declaring a moratorium. This is an angle that we could spend an entire thread with speculation. I have many theories and many thoughts. But I have not read much about this angle - maybe others have done that. I have not read what Karnad has to say. Brajesh Mishra's name is there somewhere there.

One thing that has intrigued me is another thing that we have not discussed much. We were so full of triumph at the tests that we have never analysed the extent to which Vajpayee and Advani may have been plotting to provoke Pakistan to come out into the open. They had known for over a decade that Pakistan had nuclear weapons, but it was India that was generally accused of having a covert program because of the premature ejaculation of 1974. Advani made a provocative statement that would have caused deep anger in Pakistan. He said (If I recall right)- "Let them test if they have the capability". In retrospect this sounds like a deep understanding of Pakistani psyche. It was rubbing salt into a wound caused to Pakistan by Indian tests.

Maybe there is a new angle to the "moratorium" here. Until India tested the P5 thought that they had achieved a great and clean break from testing. India blasted that apart but very quickly declared - "Oops - we feel better now. No more tests" In other words the moratorium was not a technical moratorium based on success of tests but a political move to shake the world order and provoke Pakistan. For this, a "successful 200 kt TN" was unnecessary. All that was needed was a bomb that was detectable by seismographs. 15kt, 20 kt, 45 kt, whatever - it was all the same.

Does this mean that our arsenal is restrcited to 20 kt fission devices. Yes. It could well be exactly that.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2011 20:12

gakakkad wrote:
Late Dr.K. Santhanan (I respect the late prof greatly) quoted the following....

Late? When did he die? Could it be that his demise is like the TN yield?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 09 Sep 2011 20:17

shiv wrote:
gakakkad wrote:
Late Dr.K. Santhanan (I respect the late prof greatly) quoted the following....
Late? When did he die? Could it be that his demise is like the TN yield?

Yes, even I was surprised by that. gakakkad ji: respectfully ask you to go through this, if you have not. All/most of the discussions are archived and the forum is quite sick of it now. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewforum.php?f=8

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 09 Sep 2011 20:40

Sorry about labelling Dr.santhanan as late.. I was reading Dr. Homi Sethna's and santhatnans interview simultaneously . Both have a pretty much similar opinion on the test .

Dr. Sethna is the one to have passed away.

Error is regretted.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 09 Sep 2011 20:42

@ sauryaT I have gone through those discussions. The ones claiming < = or even > yield than what was stated..

The only point I wished to make is that effects of sanctions would be devastating ... And the benefits for testing are not much...

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 09 Sep 2011 20:52

shiv wrote:One thing that has intrigued me is another thing that we have not discussed much. We were so full of triumph at the tests that we have never analysed the extent to which Vajpayee and Advani may have been plotting to provoke Pakistan to come out into the open. They had known for over a decade that Pakistan had nuclear weapons, but it was India that was generally accused of having a covert program because of the premature ejaculation of 1974. Advani made a provocative statement that would have caused deep anger in Pakistan. He said (If I recall right)- "Let them test if they have the capability". In retrospect this sounds like a deep understanding of Pakistani psyche. It was rubbing salt into a wound caused to Pakistan by Indian tests.

Shiv ji,

Yes, I read it long long ago, that Advani took a carefully calibrated role of agent provocateur for Pakistan and deliberately rubbed salt to Pakistan. It was calibrated by the BJP govt that it was better to bring Pak out into the open and get it sanctioned as well instead of just India being sanctioned. Also remember Clinton was trying to give billions to Pak for being a good munna. Pakistan didnt need to test as they are after all green painted China bombs. Advani made sure that Pak wasted few Chinese bombs, not get bonanza and actually get sanctioned.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 09 Sep 2011 21:06

gakakkad wrote: The only point I wished to make is that effects of sanctions would be devastating ... And the benefits for testing are not much...

The adjective used is debatable and in a very credible manner. A close look at the effects of sanctions after Shakti will provide the evidence. But, agree, that if not managed it can have a serious effect but if well managed it can be at best a minor nuisance to a non event.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2011 21:16

Virupaksha wrote:
shiv wrote:One thing that has intrigued me is another thing that we have not discussed much. We were so full of triumph at the tests that we have never analysed the extent to which Vajpayee and Advani may have been plotting to provoke Pakistan to come out into the open. They had known for over a decade that Pakistan had nuclear weapons, but it was India that was generally accused of having a covert program because of the premature ejaculation of 1974. Advani made a provocative statement that would have caused deep anger in Pakistan. He said (If I recall right)- "Let them test if they have the capability". In retrospect this sounds like a deep understanding of Pakistani psyche. It was rubbing salt into a wound caused to Pakistan by Indian tests.
Shiv ji,

Yes, I read it long long ago, that Advani took a carefully calibrated role of agent provocateur for Pakistan and deliberately rubbed salt to Pakistan. It was calibrated by the BJP govt that it was better to bring Pak out into the open and get it sanctioned as well instead of just India being sanctioned. Also remember Clinton was trying to give billions to Pak for being a good munna. Pakistan didnt need to test as they are after all green painted China bombs. Advani made sure that Pak wasted few Chinese bombs, not get bonanza and actually get sanctioned.

Absolutely Virupaksha. The only question to me is if such provocation could have been achieved without announcing a moratorium.

Obviously, one argument is "What could provoking Pakistan have to do with a moratorium?". But the counter argument is a mocking of Pakistan that says "Hey you Pakis. We tested in 1974. We have tested again and we are now fully ready. We thumbed our noses at the world order and we don't need to test any more. We are ready to nuke you Pakis. What have you guys got to show?". The "moratorium" after clear proof of some yield heard all over the world (via seismographs) could well have been part of a calibrated step to jolt Pakistan and its sponsors out of their complacency.

Such a tactic would not require any specific "yield" other than the demonstration of capability. In other words, even if the scientists may have desired more data, more tests, it was politically unnecessary to go further.

One could ask "Didn't the politicians know that we need demonstration of yield? They must have been told lies" But a specific yield may not have been demanded before the tests by politicians. The details were probably left to the science team. And we have no idea exactly what the science team hoped to get. Other than data.

sum · Post by **sum** » 09 Sep 2011 21:31

India will simply be taking "random samples" for testing just as randoim missiles from the production lines of our arsenals are tested from time to time.We recently had the IA do live tests of our tactcial missiles ,randomly taken from stocks

And yet we keep hitting duds even in the user stock like A-II twice. So, can we rely only on lab results for far more complex nukes?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Sep 2011 22:03

Shiv , IIRC Advani said there was a geo-strategic change in the subcontinent after the Indian test and Pakistan should understand that , that was good enough statement for Pakistani to test what ever they had in their coffin.

sum wrote:And yet we keep hitting duds even in the user stock like A-II twice. So, can we rely only on lab results for far more complex nukes?

Probably not but for simple fission device they can depend on simulation result , considering we have atleast 2 fission success (some would say boosted fission ) which is primary of TN plus the standalone fission device.

My thinking is they would need more than one test or couple of tests to prove a working Fusion device because of complex nature of device and each test will be done after studying the result of previous test which would need time , something they might never get hence probably GOI thinks its best not to test and just be happy with what they have.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Sep 2011 22:15

We should get the nuclear tests done in Vietnam. Nothing makes more sense. It will stop Chinese march into South China Sea, and India will get her designs tested.

For a short time, Vietnam would be put under sanctions, which we can help circumvent and bust. But the sanctions regime will not last too long.

The Americans have some guilty conscience vs. the Vietnamese, so they will be more forthcoming.
Secondly Vietnam, as a middle-power, can use the the excuse of Chinese intimidation much more credibly. There have been several incidences of China harassing Vietnamese fishermen in the region.
South China Sea belongs to the Global Commons. Any effort to prevent it from being taken over by China as its own personal lake, would be appreciated and understood by the international committee.
Vietnam does not have an Alliance Treaty with USA, like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan or Philippines. Hence Vietnam can make a better argument that it feels threatened.
Even to ASEAN, which would protest, Vietnam can say, that it found their support to Vietnam viz-a-viz China lacking, so they have only themselves to blame.
Also Vietnam being in East Asia, can better proliferate to other countries there, like Taiwan.

Of course one just needs Vietnam to go through the initial steps to show that it could be indigenously capable of developing those weapons. After all it is also a secretive kingdom.

No country is more appropriate to partner India in further advancing of knowledge of nuclear weapons than Vietnam. What Bharat Karnad said makes eminent sense. I don't know if he was being used as a government mouthpiece to send a message to China, or as part of a pressure group to encourage the Government to go for it.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Sep 2011 22:15

But when B. Raman and Bharat Karnad say that India is not going to fight a war with Pakistan and India should pull back her troops to look less menacing, then that is a message directed just as much towards Beijing as it is directed towards Pakistan.

They have made the assessment that Pakistan is now basically acting as China's paw, and left to its own devices, Pakistan does not pose an existential threat to India anymore. Pakistan is as a state at its breaking point. One only needs to read Maleeha Lodhi about her dire predictions regarding Pakistan's economy.

If India does not "provoke" Pakistan to go for an all-out nuclear war, the rest is "tolerable" about Pakistan. And "provocation" viz-a-viz Pakistan means retaliating for its terror strikes. GoI feels that the terrorist networks and the anti-India dynamic is far too deeply entrenched into Pakistan to be able to be cured in the short term. So either India tries to cure it, which would mean that India looks menacingly at Pakistan, which in turn means that China can use Pakistan much more effectively as its paw against India, or India takes the "pin-pricks" as they come, without wincing too much. Of course if the attacks are Mumbai 26/11 size, then that may be too much for India to take too.

Mumbai 26/11 size attacks would require the active participation of Pakistani Army and ISI. As India does not have the necessary clout with Pakistani Army to prevent such attacks, India is relying on USA to deliver the compliance of these red-lines.

Obviously GoI has calculated that Pakistani Army would have to keep on showing some level of Jihad with India, in order to keep its Leadership of Jihad Inc. If India proves less menacing, the calculation is, that Pakistani Army too would need less reason to show Jihad towards India.

So as India works on the Pakistani Army through USA, India is also trying to work on the Jihadis from a different angle. In this connection, one has to understand MMS meeting with Imam-e-Haram Dr As-Sudais from Saudi Arabia on 25th March, and Manmohan Singh's visit to Saudi Arabia.

Around Kargil, India IMHO, had a window of opportunity to take down Pakistan and to go on a full attack against Pakistan taking away PoK. That opportunity was missed leaving the vital connection between Pakistan and China. Maybe that was a failure of Indian diplomats not being able to bring the Americans on board. But this one can say now in hindsight. So it is indeed a question of whether we missed the train.

Once China became the global economic giant with a strong military might and was willing to stand with Pakistan the whole way, Pakistan became a Chinese paw.

For India there are only two choices, according to GoI:

Pakistan goes down so completely, that it cannot serve as China's paw, and that too of its own weight without India being seen to contribute to it. China would probably not allow that and would give Pakistan sufficient support. But should Pakistan fail, even then India could be overwhelmed with refugees, etc. which could also serve China's cause.
Pakistan changes its mind about confronting India. GoI has been actively pursuing this line. We gave them 25 million USD for flood disaster aid in 2010. We have retracted our opposition to EU plan to allow Pakistani textiles at lower tariffs. There is an active "Aman ki Asha" Tamasha going on. We have made talks with Pakistan not subject to Pakistani terrorist activity in India. We have dropped our efforts to bring Mumbai 26/11 terrorists to book. Also GoI has not held Pakistan responsible for the terrorist attacks which came later on - Mumbai Serial Blasts on 13.07, Delhi Blasts 07.09; Wagah-rah, Wagah-rah.

When USA gives military aid to Pakistan, it bolsters the strength of a land, which could feel strong enough to take on India, at least in combination with China. So India is not too happy with that. But obviously India wants to keep USA involved in Pakistan. For one thing, per GoI, USA keeps Pakistan from going the full way into China's embrace, and secondly to keep sufficient influence on the Pakistani military to prevent Mumbai 26/11 size attacks. India wants American influence on the Pakistani Army without the Americans giving the Pakistanis too much military aid or hardware. To some extent, India is willing to accept the use of military aid to Pakistan, in order for USA to keep its influence.

I can't remember when it was, but Manmohan Singh let in unofficially in a press conference that his overtures towards Pakistan were due to the equation with China. I think ToI brought it out.

So when people say India is weak, then it is more in the sense that India is in a quandary, with few options, until the military hardware starts flowing in. That means for the next 10 years, India's efforts would be directed at ensuring that there is no war with China. We will not do anything to provoke a war with China, and with all the provocations, yes India would appear submissive.

In ten years time, India would have the firepower to deter China, and Pakistan would either be have won over, which is a very optimistic take, through the love-making between Manmohan Singh's led Government and Pakistan, or Pakistan would have gone under, or it would become exceedingly difficult for China to pick up the tab.

In all this India can do only two things:

Keep China preoccupied in the East. Arming Vietnam would help.
Spoil China's equation with Pakistan. Bolstering ETIM would help there.

If Pakistani Army cannot take on ETIM, the relations between Beijing and Pakistan would not gel, giving India much more leeway. That is why it would be beneficial if Pakistan gets more and more Talibanized or AlQaidaized, because it allows ETIM to remain embedded within Pakistan's FATA regions. Pakistan Army cannot move against ETIM if the equation between the Pakistani Army and the Islamists are not good. Here too American presence helps.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 09 Sep 2011 23:00

Kanson wrote:X-post: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1160907

Rudradev wrote:Now to Kanson's question about Taiwan. If PRC wanted a war, why would they pick India and not Taiwan? I think the answer is, they're still not sure (despite US' apparent weakness) that US and Japan will not rush to Taiwan's defense. However, they may calculate that this is not true of India. With Pakistan on their side, and US staying out of the conflict, the PRC Militarists may feel more confident of securing a military "victory" against India than one against Taiwan.
You argument is that, to monetize debt, war is a high return low risk option compared to other options for China. Based on that, I'm questioning, to have further high return with lower risk, is it not China should choose Taiwan than India for that? US and other powers can join India too if there is a conflict. What stops them? Already there are several joint exercises with US and other countries. Is it not Nehru requested US help during '62 war and US obliged? And if the luck turns other way, Tibet card can be played leading possibly to their liberation. And India is not a push over like Taiwan. So with such several more risks compared to attacking Taiwan and meager return, from your argument, why would China choose to attack India than Taiwan?

I don't know that Taiwan is necessarily higher return, lower risk for China.

For one thing, Taiwan is already deeply integrated into the US Pacific alliance, along with Japan and Australia. I don't think the US would countenance an attack on Taiwan at all, even in its present relatively weak state. India has had some exercises with the US but is nowhere near that level of integration; we don't even have a mutual defence pact let alone full-blown alliance obligations.

Yes, Kennedy did send help against PRC in 1962 but that was in a totally different geopolitical context; China was a pariah, US didn't have any trade relationship with them, and US was still hoping that India could be brought into the anti-Soviet bloc. None of those things are relevant now. Today, the US sees both India and China as emerging competitors; it would be much more likely to let us slug it out and damage each other, and would get actively involved only if one of the sides was facing existential rout. By that time enough damage would have been done to both India and China that the US' geopolitical stakes in the fight would have been served. China may calculate that it can prosecute a limited war against India, attain certain geopolitical goals, minimize damage to itself, monetize its debt and reap the jingo-vadi benefits without there being time for the US to get involved.

Meanwhile Taiwan is US' primary ungli in the Chinese bum. As a fulcrum of geopolitical leverage against Beijing it is too valuable to Washington to let it go undefended. It is very close to the heartland of PRC (the East coast) and the China-Taiwan conflict goes to the very heart of Chinese nationhood.

The second thing is that China is already following a well-thought out Taiwan strategy that is even more low-risk and potentially high-return than trying to invade Taiwan. Economic integration between Taiwan and PRC has grown tremendously, there are always cultural and people-to-people feelers being put out. PRC calculates that as the old guard KMT leadership dies out, a pragmatic newer generation of Taiwanese will feel more cultural and national affinity for PRC and reject being used as an ungli by the US. Ultimately some sort of HK/Macau type assimilation will be worked out so that the Taiwanese elite can keep their privileges and ways of doing business. So, even the pressure from China's Mil-Ind Complex to start a war will likely not trump the potential to gain Taiwan without firing a shot.

The third thing is that the war China chooses to fight will be the one where it feels more in control of the escalation ladder, i.e. it feels more confident about defining the extent of the conflict to suit its own purposes. More on that in another post.

Rudradev wrote:Also, Kanson, about Agni V testing this year. If it happens, it is a good thing. It is a sign that we are not idly waiting with the axe over our heads, that we are trying to close the window of opportunity for China to prosecute a two-front war against us. Still, for the present Agni V is untested and I don't know if Agni III is even deployed. IF what Bharat Karnad says is true, 20kT weapons is the most we have. So the assessment, that GOI is trying very hard to avoid war by courting certain factions within Pakistan, holds good.
On Agni-III:
He said that the 3,000-km range Agni-III missile has already been inducted into the armed forces. “Agni-III is already inducted. Its development has been completed and is under production,” he said.
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/scienc ... 073999.ece

Ok, If late K. Sub says, we have 80 KT weapon, then BK can't be true right? What is the premises of "most" here? If we go by the various statements/reports, these 20 KT most probably are air-droppable free falling bombs initially we have assembled. Missiles do have different warheads(again based on reports in public domain).

K Subrahmanyan was an enormously learned man with much depth and breadth of knowledge, but did he have his finger on the pulse of this specific aspect of nuke development to the same extent as BK? He had a very wide range of things to keep track of. BK is more of a specialist. But fair point, BK may be wrong and K Sub may be right on this.

In the end I cannot say if K Sub or K Santhanam or BK or even R Chidambaram is right. Maybe they are all wrong. What matters is how do our enemies perceive us, not just in terms of capabilities but the political will to deploy them?

that GOI is trying very hard to avoid war by courting certain factions within Pakistan, holds good
I feel, this is mere a hypothesis. I couldn't see any substantiating facts to support this hypothesis. First you need establish it is GoI that is trying very hard and not Pak factions. Only if GoI is trying very hard then we have to find out why GoI is trying very hard. Of several reasons behind that, avoiding war is one possible ...possible reason. I couldn't agree with this angle of argument.

Well of course it is a hypothesis! But it is a hypothesis based on real observations; I only raised the possibility in these posts-

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1159770
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1160104

because of a very curious fact that Shiv pointed out. Even the people whose views used to form the cornerstone of thinking in a national-security related forum like BRF, i.e. B Raman and Bharat Karnad, are now talking about the need to avoid showing a threatening posture to Pakistan. What is that about, if not GOI trying very hard to decrease the likelihood of a military conflict? Is there some other explanation, which still survives Occam's Razor?

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 09 Sep 2011 23:18

RajeshA wrote:We should get the nuclear tests done in Vietnam. Nothing makes more sense. It will stop Chinese march into South China Sea, and India will get her designs tested.

RajeshA-saar, providing a nuclear umbrella to Vietnam or basing nuclear capable weapons in Vietnam for mutual deterrent benefit with the full consent of the Vietnamese people can be thought of.

But making them do our testing and go through the hardships caused by a pigheaded NPA regime? I disagree. We must not let the Vietnamese people undergo the abuse and hardships that the Chinese make the pakistani public (be it lal masjid massacre of Pashtun children or nuclear test related sanctions) go through. That is not something I would want for a friendly and capable country like Vietnam, that seem to have its act together.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 09 Sep 2011 23:23

Doc-saar, I had a query some time back:

Shiv-saar, I am a bit late regarding Shree Karnad's talks, but was there any whiff of an Indo-US version of a Nunn-Lugar Ver2.0 being contemplated? It will help out the PakTeahouse (Rudradev-saar's category D?) and not-yet-drowned Abduls (Cat E?) and the entire world tremendously, if US helps wind down Pak proliferation and we buy these stockpiles as reactor fuel.

Is there any thoughts on the lines of de-militarizing the pakistani nuclear program and transitioning to a civilian power program for the benefit of everyone (except maybe Chinese) in the world?

kumarn · Post by **kumarn** » 09 Sep 2011 23:33

"When your enemy is making mistakes, do not interfere." -Napoleon Bonaparte”.

Pakhanastan is going down the tubes faster than we can manage by ourselves. Then why interfere? I would rollover and play dead, if it helps continue the tamasha that pakhanastan has become. The same thought has been expressed on this board by different gurus in different ways.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 10 Sep 2011 00:09

Rudradev wrote:
K Subrahmanyan was an enormously learned man with much depth and breadth of knowledge, but did he have his finger on the pulse of this specific aspect of nuke development to the same extent as BK? He had a very wide range of things to keep track of. BK is more of a specialist. But fair point, BK may be wrong and K Sub may be right on this.

In the end I cannot say if K Sub or K Santhanam or BK or even R Chidambaram is right. Maybe they are all wrong. What matters is how do our enemies perceive us, not just in terms of capabilities but the political will to deploy them?

K Subrahamanyam did know what he was talking about on matters nuclear. The 80 KT comment is an extrapolation of a plain old fission device.

Well of course it is a hypothesis! But it is a hypothesis based on real observations; I only raised the possibility in these posts-

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1159770
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1160104

because of a very curious fact that Shiv pointed out. Even the people whose views used to form the cornerstone of thinking in a national-security related forum like BRF, i.e. B Raman and Bharat Karnad, are now talking about the need to avoid showing a threatening posture to Pakistan. What is that about, if not GOI trying very hard to decrease the likelihood of a military conflict? Is there some other explanation, which still survives Occam's Razor?

I cannot speak to B Raman as he is far too, shall we say political and not as policy oriented. BK and B Raman are two different categories.

When BK talks about reducing the conventional threat posture against TSP, he is essentially asking, why is the IA wasting their time on capabilities and doctrines, which we are unlikely to use in the near term as there is no political stomach for it and has not been there - ever! All it does is emboldens the TSPA to keep itself relevant using our threat posture as an excuse.

Also, we have far bigger issues to worry about. A conventional response (empty threat) to an unconventional threat from TSP is a waste of time and resources and not efficient to tackle the menace. Under no circumstance, is TSP able to be a conventional threat to Indian forces. The question is what is the point of our conventional threat postures against TSP?

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 10 Sep 2011 00:43

ShauryaT wrote: K Subrahamanyam did know what he was talking about on matters nuclear. The 80 KT comment is an extrapolation of a plain old fission device.

I see. Kanson, please note... if K Sub's comment about 80kT is an extrapolation, that's not a tested device. So BK's claim about only 20kT being proved beyond all doubt is still valid.

Well of course it is a hypothesis! But it is a hypothesis based on real observations; I only raised the possibility in these posts-

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1159770
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1160104

because of a very curious fact that Shiv pointed out. Even the people whose views used to form the cornerstone of thinking in a national-security related forum like BRF, i.e. B Raman and Bharat Karnad, are now talking about the need to avoid showing a threatening posture to Pakistan. What is that about, if not GOI trying very hard to decrease the likelihood of a military conflict? Is there some other explanation, which still survives Occam's Razor?
I cannot speak to B Raman as he is far too, shall we say political and not as policy oriented. BK and B Raman are two different categories.

When BK talks about reducing the conventional threat posture against TSP, he is essentially asking, why is the IA wasting their time on capabilities and doctrines, which we are unlikely to use in the near term as there is no political stomach for it and has not been there - ever! All it does is emboldens the TSPA to keep itself relevant using our threat posture as an excuse.

Also, we have far bigger issues to worry about. A conventional response (empty threat) to an unconventional threat from TSP is a waste of time and resources and not efficient to tackle the menace. Under no circumstance, is TSP able to be a conventional threat to Indian forces. The question is what is the point of our conventional threat postures against TSP?

Shaurya, as I understand it, the "conventional threat posture" against TSP largely derives from the fact that a lot of war materiel (everything from water-canteens to Prithvis) was moved to the IB and LOC during Parakram. In the following 9 years, some of it has been moved back to original positions (at Babu speeds.) Another portion has been used up in a number of exercises, cold-start rehearsals etc. along the IB (that is one aspect of the "threat posture".) And a lot of it still remains at forward positions (that is the other aspect of the "threat posture.")

Pakis can point at this stuff and say that they feel threatened. So maybe that's all there is to this BK position: Maybe IA is removing the remaining materiel to pre-Parakram positions these days, and BK (and others) are taking the opportunity to convey a message that we're making this effort to allay Pakistan's fears.

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 10 Sep 2011 00:48

kumarn wrote:"When your enemy is making mistakes, do not interfere." -Napoleon Bonaparte”.

Pakhanastan is going down the tubes faster than we can manage by ourselves. Then why interfere? I would rollover and play dead, if it helps continue the tamasha that pakhanastan has become. The same thought has been expressed on this board by different gurus in different ways.

You still will try to increase the intelligence and take out all internal traitors.
When traitor commies sit inside the Goovt. who are helping ISI to help the terror and when scums like Dogvijay try to support terrorists, that is called suicide not sitting by the side. You don't sit and watch they fun when they are coming to your home and kill you. You eliminate internal disease and watch the monsters kill each other.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 10 Sep 2011 01:02

shiv wrote: Absolutely Virupaksha. The only question to me is if such provocation could have been achieved without announcing a moratorium.

Shiv,

My read of the situation was moratorium has nothing to do with provocation.

Provocation was a very low level samson option.

The conditional and completely voluntary (basically trust me without thinking of proof

) moratorium by BJP is different from the moratorium of today signed by congress after the nuke deal. I read India's moratorium between 1998 and 2005 as "empty words" for the sake of media management and rhetoric - a sort of Paki promise but from BJP. That period clearly left an escape route with the max threat of another round of sanctions for a new round of tests. Pity MMS successfully ruined it

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 10 Sep 2011 01:11

Suraj wrote:How do the Chinese intend to prosecute war without catastrophic damage to their economic engine ? This isn't 1962, or even 1967 or 1985, when two essentially hermit nations started shooting. China is the world's largest trader today. It doesn't even have to be some 'flatten Beijing/Shanghai' capability on our part - the threat to disrupt their supply chains significantly and counter value retaliation that takes out the likes of Yangshan or Yantian port would make them pause.

Yes, they've significant benefits if they play the cards really right, but they also have exponentially greater potential for losses if we maintain an unpredictable placatory/antagonistic policy against them that always keeps them wondering just how violently we'll lash out in retaliation if they strike, because we don't have to reach out 3000kms to cause them grievous economic harm.

What I'm trying to indicate here is an asymmetric nature of this - it takes extraordinary planning and a huge dollop of fortune to do it in a beneficial way for them, but carries with it the risk of things going massively pear-shaped for them if things deviate from plan. By default, they're extremely meticulous and order driven, while our chaotic system provides us a straightforward means to blow hot and cold repeatedly, enough to make them fear just how wildly we might retaliate. A month of lost exports costs us $25 billion but costs them $130 billion...

The answer may be that they intend to fight a limited war with a clearly defined strategic objective (most likely, the occupation of Arunachal Pradesh or at least Tawang.) Restricted to a specific geographical area, and declaring a ceasefire immediately after the objective is achieved. At that time India will be engaged with TSPA on the Western front, so a certain pressure to accept the ceasefire will exist. If India chooses not to accept then it must escalate... but China, with the far larger nuclear deterrent, controls the escalation ladder.

If they feel confident of seizing the inititative, and of controlling the escalation ladder, China may very well calculate (given the internal political dynamics of an MIC, the need to monetize debt etc.) that it's worth the risk.

What would it look like? My guess is that once hostilities begin in earnest on the Indo-Pak border and LoC, China will play only a holding role in COK/Aksai Chin, providing at the most some artillery/SSM type support to TSPA. Chinese offensive ops would come entirely in the East, from their assets in Chengdu MR.

13th Group Army may effect a rapid thrust into AP, supported by PLAAF (though their planes would be limited in range and ordinance because of the need to take off from high-altitude bases in Tibet.) The major interdiction/strategic bombardment role against our airbases and supply lines, would be performed by Chinese SSMs. Additionally, 14th Group Army might temporarily invade Bhutan, menacing Sikkim and threatening to cut off the cis-Bangladesh chicken neck to the Northeast if India persists with hostilities.

What if PRC could achieve these relatively limited goals within say 2-3 weeks, and then offer a ceasefire with very "generous" terms (say, immediate cessation of hostilities, permanent recognition of all status quo borders, full recognition of India's sovereignty over J&K east of LoC and south/west of LAC, immediate withdrawal of military support to Pakistan's war effort etc.) Maybe they even throw in the face-saving offer of some square miles adjoining Ladakh or Demchok, and recognize India's claim over Siachen.

What would India do? Would we tell them to FO and keep fighting in the east even while we fight TSPA in the west? (I'm talking about the political leadership, mind you, not the IA... and the Indian political leadership is at least as worried about exports and all that as the Chinese are.)

India's doctrine (at least in '48, '62 and '99) has been to avoid lateral escalation, and keep a limited war from expanding or spilling over into other theatres. Will New Delhi would go to the mattresses for Arunachal Pradesh by opening other fronts or fielding other assets against China elsewhere? Escalating to the point of a nuclear attack on Chinese ports or industrial assets, and *especially* under the circumstances I have described, when we could lose everything with their retaliation... is something New Delhi may be very reluctant (or politically unable) to do.

Such a strategy is not fool-proof by any means, and certainly it could end up being disastrous for China as you have described. The arguments you make about impact on the economy, etc. are very valid, and no doubt the anti-war constituency in CPC politburo is already making them. Still, nations have made worse decisions and taken bigger risks in history. The political dynamics of a dominant military-industrial complex, plus the need to monetize debt, plus the need to achieve certain geostrategic goals before India acquires a seaborne second-strike capability, may very well impel PRC to make the wrong decision in this case.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Sep 2011 01:30

hnair wrote:
RajeshA wrote:We should get the nuclear tests done in Vietnam. Nothing makes more sense. It will stop Chinese march into South China Sea, and India will get her designs tested.
RajeshA-saar, providing a nuclear umbrella to Vietnam or basing nuclear capable weapons in Vietnam for mutual deterrent benefit with the full consent of the Vietnamese people can be thought of.

But making them do our testing and go through the hardships caused by a pigheaded NPA regime? I disagree. We must not let the Vietnamese people undergo the abuse and hardships that the Chinese make the pakistani public (be it lal masjid massacre of Pashtun children or nuclear test related sanctions) go through. That is not something I would want for a friendly and capable country like Vietnam, that seem to have its act together.

hnair ji,

I just don't think, India has grown so big as yet, that nobody would dare put sanctions on us anymore. Should we test, the West would still be forced to consider sanctions. They may understand our predicament, but it would be difficult to stop sanctions.

India has a bigger economy than Vietnam. If Vietnam comes under sanctions, a smaller economy would be affected, and India can probably help bust them. If India is put under sanctions, a larger economy would be affected. So if one should look at India-Vietnam as a duo, the harm done would be far greater for the duo if India is put under sanctions.

As a middle-power Vietnam enjoys a certain under-dog support from the West, especially as the struggle is more on the lines of a David-Goliath struggle - Vietnam vs. China. If India should be attacked by China, there wouldn't be much support forthcoming for India from the West, who ultimately influence the world media. If Vietnam tests, then India can use her influence to mold public opinion to go easy on Vietnam. We could get IBSA to come in support of Vietnam, or NAM. Vietnam would not be able to generate same level of support for India, not even in ASEAN.

If Vietnam does accept the deal - they test and India helps, then they would do it of their own volition. India would not be forcing them to do it. It would be their choice.

But the rewards are there as well for the Vietnamese. A nuclear deterrent against China, and due to Vietnam's strategic position, a nuclear deterrent easily capable of hitting China's major cities. After that, China would not want a war with Vietnam, and South China Sea would not become China's lake.

If Vietnam proliferates to Taiwan, then that would contain China in the Pacific Ocean for a long time to come - Russia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and Vietnam forming a strong arc of containment.

If China comes all the way into the Indian Subcontinent to put fire to the region, then India should go to China's backyard as well and threaten with fire.

The next ten years are critical! We have to grow! Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Germany and France have a very important role to play.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 10 Sep 2011 01:47

Shiv, Kansan, Gakakkad et el -

There has been lot of discussion about exact "yield" of the "bum" (Seriously guys some statements like "normal distribution then such percentages are meaningful. Otherwise its a shot in the dark" are some what silly, IMO)..

But to put the things in perspective.. here is a small item from the article posted in this thread...Posting without comments, but I think it is quite relevant..

[Caption of a photo] Yuri Trutnev of the RFNC-VNIIEF with me at the Russian Atomic Weapon Museum, in Sarov, next to the 100-megaton “Tsar Bomba” he co-designed with Andrei Sakharov. Over dinner that night at his house, I asked him to resolve an argument I had with one of my Los Alamos colleagues: When the bomb was detonated at half the design yield on 30 October 1961, did it produce 50 or 57 megatons? Yuri simply stated, “At that level it doesn’t matter.” He went on to explain that the bomb had no military utility and wasn’t particularly challenging; the most challenging designs were the small, peaceful nuclear devices that had to be particularly clean in terms of radioactive contamination.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 10 Sep 2011 01:54

Really I do not think it was necessary to start a thread on what "BK" had to say about Nukes,China et all.This could be discussed some other thread. Anyway About China..........I think that Chinese are so much overconfident about about "Chinese Century" that they are showing their cards on slightest pretext. They break all regulations and laws about arms exports, they do not hesitate threatening nations on slightest pretext. It is good for the rest of world because now we know how China will behave under certain circumstance. The day is not far when world will look towards India to contain China. Then we can do mega ton tests and we may even get technical help to do so.......if required.
All chanikayan are doing one simple mistake.......that China will attack India,Taiwan or Japan and rest of the world will watch. My 2 cents.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2011 05:58

Virupaksha wrote: My read of the situation was moratorium has nothing to do with provocation.

Provocation was a very low level samson option.

There is no way I can "argue" with this conclusion and claim that your viewpoint is wrong. But as a thought experiment if I try to get into the minds of Vajpayee et al it seems that a "moratorium" rather than an open ended plan to keep on testing and completely destroy the so called "world consensus" on testing was an attempt at damage limitation designed to reduce the pain of sanctions. But if a moratorium was announced even if test results were "unsatisfactory" it only means that the entire purpose of testing had been defeated. We would then have invited sanctions AND failed to achieve the (unstated) goals of testing.

If the test goal was to demonstrate a bomb of 200 plus kt with the plan that only a 200 plus kt bomb would indicate thermonuclear capability and that other countries would be "more scared" of India's big bum as opposed to small bum, then it was a failure and the moratorium was a silly mistake that left our arsenal no stronger, but it just put us under sanctions for a few years and we were only "rescued" to some extent by Pakistani tests. If the tests are considered as "failed" then history will have to see Vajpayee's announcement of a moratorium as an ill advised move. Karnad has taken this line and believes that we should have carried on testing to demonstrate and develop "megaton level bombs" because he feels that megaton bombs are more scary to India than kiloton bombs are to China. Karnad may have his reasons for saying this but his argument is entering to the psychological realms of "how scared the Chinese are" depending on size of bomb.

If the tests are considered as "failed" then history will have to see Vajpayee's announcement of a moratorium as an ill advised move that did not get us what we wanted. But the entire argument depends on what the goals of the test were and like I stated there were probably some science goals and some political goals.

If we stop arguing (as we have always done) about imagined science goals and look for the political goals of testing there are a whole lot of possibilities.

Vajpayee was in a hurry. He wanted the test done soon. After all the BJP had just won the election (after the earlier Vajpayee government had been toppled after just 6 months). The government was in no danger. They had 5 years. The tests were guaranteed to stoke Indian jingo pride. He could have waited till a few years later and allowed a series of unhurried tests to occur and help him win the next election. But the tests were done smack bang at the beginning of his 5 year tenure. Which government would want economic sanctions right at the beginning and be faced with the prospect of riding them out with guaranteed unpopularity in a few years?

In fact Vajpayee may have been a clever old bandicoot. I doubt if he ever wanted a "demonstration of 200 kiolton plus thermonuclear bombs" as a pre-condition and "required result"t of testing. If that was the pre-conditon then it is more likely that any non moronic scientist would have asked for time to test at least 2 or 3 devices. I suspect that there was no such precondition placed on the scientific team. And Vajpayee would likely have had the sense not to announce the moratorium once he knew that 200 kt plus TN bomb had not been demonstrated. I doubt of that was ever a stated or unstated goal.

Vajpayee's possible goals for testing would have been

Public demonstration of Indian nuclear capability
shaking the so called "world order" that was weighted against India before the FMCT came into force and CTBT ratified
Quick testing before preparations were detected and sanctions/warnings came in
Allowing the scientific team to acquire data they were so desperate to acquire
Killing the Congress's chances of bringing down his coalition government again by gambling that the tests would make his govt popular, while passing the burden of sanctions to a Congress govt if they brought his government down. Testing was win-win for Vajpayee.

If these were the goals, then they were achieved admirably. A secondary goal of making Pakistan come out in the open was actually a master stroke.

ranjbe · Post by **ranjbe** » 10 Sep 2011 06:04

Cross-posted from TSP thread:
quote="ranjbe"]

RajeshA wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Its funny how we fall into the exclusivist trap - in looking at problems.

I fail to see why we have to do a lungi dance about BK ji raising apocalyptic fears "solely" about China, and B.Raman ji doing a matching "go soft" on Pakistaniat! Why do we have to look at onlee PRC or onlee Pakistaniat and not look at both of them simultaneously as a continuum of threat? People demanding that we look at onlee one of them while going soft on the other are deliberately or unknowingly pushing a view - as if these are two different "problems" altogether!
brihaspati garu,

there is a hard connection between these two nodes. But around these nodes there are many things, which can help in weakening the connection, so that this connection does not take both the nodes together into a war between them and India.

Should we start to look at both of them as a homogeneous mass, we would lose the ability to exploit the fractures.

There are very cogent arguements put forward by old-time gurus such as Rudradev and Shridhar regarding a Sino-Pakistani attack on India. However, perhaps they are missing one important element in this scenario, which is Russia. Russia has been:
1. Humiliated by the Chinese (particularly in their Afghan adventure where the Chinese provided covert support to the West and the jihadis) and overtaken by the Chinese who showed the world how to make "scientific" socialism work to make their country an economic superpower. A proud country, Russia is now terrified of a future where they fade into insignificance, and their one-time pupil rules Asia.
2. Russia has performed more nuclear weapon tests than any other nation in the world. They have working 50 megaton thermonuclear bombs, and tiny subkiloton suitcase bombs. Furthermore, they have working MIRV ICBM missiles to throw these bombs a long distance.
3. They have evidently decided that India is to Russia what the UK was to the USA, in that they are supposedly helping India with India's nuclear submarines, share their Glonass GPS only with India etc. They expect their pound of flesh (or dollars in return) but that is how the world operates. England made their last payment on the Marshall plan debt to the USA only recently.
4. Therefore, if their is any dhoti-shivering about unproven nuclear bombs, this should not be a worry. With the right amount of incentive, India can buy proven designs from Russia, as Pakistan bought their bomb design from China. USA has uttered not a peep since India has been touted as USA's "strategic partner", about the help that Russia has been providing to India.
5. Regarding the "buddy-buddy" facade that Russia and China put up, this is strictly tactical. Russia and Germany signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact before WWII, where Russia got land, and Germany got raw materials from Russia for their war machine, so as to circumvent the post-WWI sanctions of the Allies. The relationship was totally artificial - Hitler detested communists, Russia hated fascists. and they had fought each other through their proxies in the Spanish civil war just a few years earlier.
Russia knows that they will also be a loser if China does a 1962 humiliation on India, because then China will be top alpha dog in Asia, a very worrying thought for Russia.[/quote]

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 10 Sep 2011 06:22

Rudradev wrote:
Shaurya, as I understand it, the "conventional threat posture" against TSP largely derives from the fact that a lot of war materiel (everything from water-canteens to Prithvis) was moved to the IB and LOC during Parakram.

No, it is far more. Our entire force structure is largely Pakistan centric with three strike corp formations arrayed against TSP. We have three out of five commands arrayed against TSP (nitpick apart). Our entire mechanized forces is plains/desert centric. We still have Prithvi as a short range ballistic missile with at least some of it nuclear targeted at TSP. The disparity between TSP and Indian force structures is growing and will grow. With the two% that our defense effectively gets/spends, rational choices have to be made. If we are never going to use this massive force structure, due to a lack of a political strategy and other factors, the IA is better off investing in other urgent areas of need. Check the sticker shock the IA has given to arm a mountain corps. We just upgraded our doctrine against China from one of "aggressive defense" to "Deterrent Force". This will cost us. We cannot continue to do it all. It will bankrupt us or more likely it will leave gaping security holes - like a non bankable deterrent. Choices have to be made. This is what BK is saying. IMO.

In fact BK is critical of Parakram. Not only Parakram, showed the bankruptcy of Indian strategic doctrine, but it also exposed the limitations of our offensive capabilities. At that time, we did not have enough and still need to acquire significant capabilities for a shock and awe performance. Our friends who track these toys know a lot more.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 10 Sep 2011 07:15

shiv wrote:Vajpayee was in a hurry. He wanted the test done soon. After all the BJP had just won the election (after the earlier Vajpayee government had been toppled after just 6 months).

Vajpayee's possible goals for testing would have been

Public demonstration of Indian nuclear capability

shaking the so called "world order" that was weighted against India before the FMCT came into force and CTBT ratified

Quick testing before preparations were detected and sanctions/warnings came in

Allowing the scientific team to acquire data they were so desperate to acquire

Killing the Congress's chances of bringing down his coalition government again by gambling that the tests would make his govt popular, while passing the burden of sanctions to a Congress govt if they brought his government down. Testing was win-win for Vajpayee.
If these were the goals, then they were achieved admirably. A secondary goal of making Pakistan come out in the open was actually a master stroke.

The above sounds right except the bold part. The 1996 BJP government resigned after 13 days during the vote of confidence as they could not form a majority. Then the NDA was formed in 1998, and nuclear testing which was in the BJP's manifesto also became a part of the NDA manifesto. Even after the 1998 tests this remained part of their election manifesto for the 1999 elections which were held after the Kargil War:

The recently established National Security Council will advise the government in this regard and also in the establishment of a credible nuclear deterrence. These are the minimum requirements in this recently inaugurated era of global inequality and increased vulnerability. The NDA will correct the imbalance and budgetary neglect of Defence needs during the last decades by successive governments thus ensuring adequacy of budgetary allocations. We will take effective measures for eliminating all pensionary anomalies. We will revamp the entire system of welfare of ex-servicemen as a tribute to those that laid down their lives for the country.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 10 Sep 2011 07:35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing

Nuclear tests: US- 1054
USSR- 715
France- 210
UQ- 45
PRC- 45
India- 6
Pukes-6
DPRK- 2

So Massa- 1054. Rest of world- 1029. Seems fair don't it

Remember do as I say not as I do. I still remember when the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists termed India a "rogue" nation for their massive testing regimen after the US tested more than the rest of the planet combined. I wish I live long enough to see those words shoved down the throats of those SOBs who think they have a divine right to nukes and that the laws of physics are written by them.

If someone like NaMo was the PM of India in 1970 instead of a high school graduate named Indira Gandhi, my dream would already be true.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2011 07:35

Airavat wrote: The above sounds right except the bold part. The 1996 BJP government resigned after 13 days during the vote of confidence as they could not form a majority. Then the NDA was formed in 1998, and nuclear testing which was in the BJP's manifesto also became a part of the NDA manifesto. [url=http://www.bjp.org/index.php?option=com ... Itemid=446]

Correction noted thanks.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2011 07:40

tejas wrote: Nuclear tests: US- 1054
USSR- 715
France- 210
UQ- 45
PRC- 45
India- 6
Pukes-6
DPRK- 2

Biggest bombs:
USSR - 50 megatons
US 25 megatons
France megaton bombs
UK - same as US - megatons bombs theoretically 25 megatons
China - 3 megatons
Pakistan 3 megatons (has Chinese tech and bombs) Known to be ahead of India
North Korea megatons (has Chinese tech)
Israel: megatons - has US tech
India 0.02 megatons. Has Indian tech.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 10 Sep 2011 07:51

Poor Jorri of Chore Desh and Whore Desh is now so confused with argumentative Indians that they cant find their head or toe . We have the biggest deterrent right here .
Kaun hai,Kya hai, Kitna hai, Kaisa hai , Kanha se aya hai,kiddar se ayega , kittne bajayega , kissi ko kush nahi maloom, koi khabar nahi.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Sep 2011 08:05

Rudradev wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: K Subrahamanyam did know what he was talking about on matters nuclear. The 80 KT comment is an extrapolation of a plain old fission device.
I see. Kanson, please note... if K Sub's comment about 80kT is an extrapolation, that's not a tested device. So BK's claim about only 20kT being proved beyond all doubt is still valid.

From where this 'extrapolation' came?

K Subrahmanyam wrote:Fission weapons of 60-80 kilotons have been successfully fabricated and standard thermonuclear warheads of today are neither in megatons nor in hundreds of kilotons.

Statement from K. Subrahmanyam reiterates my point that BK assertion that we have only 20 KT weapon has no meaning.

BK's claim about only 20kT being proved beyond all doubt is still valid

How is that mere one test(in PoK-2) shall make it as "proved beyond all doubt"? Pok-1, according to PKI is 8 - 12 KT device. This 20KT weapon is tested once in Pok-2, by the way of current argument.

If BK thinks, that is the way he wants to count the weapons in the arsenal, then that is *his* problem. How that becomes nation's problem?

Posting in full, as it has more relevance to the discussion in this thread.....

THE present controversy over the yield of Pokhran-2 nuclear tests is not the first such development in this country of argumentative Indians. Pokhran-1 also had its share of controversy on its explosive yield. Since it was not claimed to be a weapon test at that time and there was no talk of nuclear deterrence, that controversy was less fierce than the present one. Then, too, there were people who termed it a dud.

I have heard personally Prime Minister Morarji Desai saying that there was no nuclear test and the scientists set off an explosion of a large quantity of buried conventional explosives. Others contested the claimed yield of 12 kilotons and asserted that it was only 8 kilotons. The result of the Pokhran-1 controversy survives till today and contributes to the present one. Many foreign scientists concede that they arrive at a lower yield of the Pokhran-2 test by extrapolating the lower yield of Pokhran-1 as advanced by some Indian scientists.

Controversies and personality clashes among scientists are not unknown. In the West, one has heard of the Oppenheimer-Teller clash or the one between Oppenheimer and E.O.Lawrence. In India, too, we had Bhabha-Saha clash and the deep divide between Dr Raja Ramanna and H. N. Sethna. When Vikram Sarabhai was the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission the relations between him and the Trombay establishment were quite cold. Scientists by the very nature of their vocation are highly individualistic people and they prefer to be convinced about a fact personally on the basis of evidence.

Nuclear physics is an arcane subject and in that weapon designing is even more esoteric. There are, therefore, limits to transparency on it. Moreover, this is India’s second fission test and first thermonuclear test. With the exception of two — Dr P. K. Iyengar and the late Dr Ramanna — all other weapon designing talent was involved in the Pokhran-2 test. Of the two outside, Dr Iyengar is a sceptic while Dr Ramanna, when he was alive, accepted the claimed yield.

All nuclear scientists are not necessarily familiar with the intricacies of weapon design. There is a popular tendency in the country to accept that all people associated with the Department of Atomic Energy are knowledgeable in the intricacies of nuclear weapons. This is not the case.

It has been widely propagated that many foreign scientists have questioned the yield of Pokhran-2. Usually when seismic stations monitored a nuclear test they used to announce the magnitude of the explosion in terms of ranges of yields as, for instance, a low- yield explosion of 5-15 kilotons or a medium-yield explosion of 15-60 kilotons. Very rarely was a precise yield reported. The ease with which many foreign assessments were made about precise yields made them suspect, especially when they were not familiar with geological structures and soil conditions at the test site.

The very first report from the West termed the test an earthquake. There could also be some resonance between the domestic scepticism and foreign assessments.

Dr Chidambaram, former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and head of the weapon designing team in 1998, writing in “Atoms for Peace” (Vol. 2 No. 1, 2008), cites an article in New Scientist (Mackenzie 1998) where it said, “Roger Clark, a seismologist of the Leeds University found that when data from 125 stations — closer to the number required by the treaty (CTBT) monitoring network — are taken into account the estimate is nearer 60(kilotons)”. He also refers to the finding of a world-renowned seismologist, Jack Evernden, being consistent with the official claim.

The issue was examined in a review by then National Security Adviser, Brajesh Mishra. If the weapon designers had doubts about the yield they could have conducted one more test within the first few days after the May 11 test since one more shaft was available, before any commitment was made on voluntary moratorium.

Apparently, the weapon design team did not have any doubts on the result. But on the very first day the sceptics had doubts. There was a popular view that the thermonuclear test should be of 100 kilotons and above and, therefore, this could not be a thermonuclear explosion. In any case, the shaft could not have withstood any explosion higher than 60 kilotons.

Do we conduct some more tests to satisfy the sceptics? This cannot be publicly debated just as conducting the nuclear tests was not debated. The nuclear tests of 1998 were not to pre-empt any Pakistani move but were a response to the provocative Pakistani Ghauri missile test and also to declare India a nuclear weapon state in the early days of the new BJP-led NDA government before the Americans started applying pressure on India. At that time it was expected that the CTBT would come into force in 1999.

The late P. V. Narasimha Rao had urged Mr Vajpayee to conduct the test early in 1996. It could not be done in the 13 days the BJP was in office and was carried out in May 1998. Pakistan’s tests were in response to the Indian tests and the interaction between Pakistan and the US on the issue is a matter of public record. But Pakistan had its nuclear weapon tested by China at the Lop Nor test site on May 26, 1990, according to the disclosure in the book “The Nuclear Express” by two US scientists, Thomas Reed and Danny Stillman. India lived in a state of unfavourable deterrent asymmetry in the nineties till the Shakti tests were carried out.

As Prime Ministers V.P. Singh and I.K. Gujral explained after the tests, the file to test was always on their table. Narasimha Rao came close to conducting the test. But only Vajpayee could do it by taking the world by surprise. During all that time there were no TV debates or newspaper editorials or strategists screaming about India’s vulnerability.

India became a nuclear weapon power and in the next eight years its strategic arsenal has been accepted by the international community. India has also the NSG waiver. All that happened in spite of opposition from sections of our people who preferred a confrontationist strategy with the international community.

The government leadership is satisfied with the state of our deterrent posture and so also the armed forces. In the US and Russia, too, there are people dissatisfied with the readiness of their arsenals and would like to resume testing. But the majority public opinion in those countries is opposed to it. Fission weapons of 60-80 kilotons have been successfully fabricated and standard thermonuclear warheads of today are neither in megatons nor in hundreds of kilotons. Our fission weapon capabilities are not under question. So long as the adversary believes that the nuclear explosions in his cities will cause him unacceptable damage he will be deterred.

Whether it is the CTBT, the FMCT or conducting nuclear tests, it is counter-productive to look at these issues in a narcissistic manner. We should try to exploit the opportunities as they arise. This country is just learning to do it and we have a long way to go. The need of the moment is to avoid chauvinism and steadily improve the capacity of the country to grow and deliver without demagoguery.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 10 Sep 2011 09:55

^^^^^ Because the amt. of fissile material/ kt. yield ratio is relatively high it would significantly limit the size of our deterrent. We would permanently be locked at a level below china( not to mention umrikah) something this jingo cannot/ will not ever accept. Nor should the next generation of Indian leaders who Inshallah, will be educated, nationalist and realpolitik experts unlike the imbeciles who have lorded over India so far.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 10 Sep 2011 10:16

The adjective used is debatable and in a very credible manner. A close look at the effects of sanctions after Shakti will provide the evidence. But, agree, that if not managed it can have a serious effect but if well managed it can be at best a minor nuisance to a non event.

If you look at the growth data from 1999-2002 there were a tremendous slowdown during the period..By 02 most sanctions were lifted .. the superb growth acceleration thereafter is well known...

IMHO tremendous planning by gov would be needed to conduct further tests... the planning of managing economy post sanctions could take year in itself. We ll need to double total installed power capacity ... Get countries to buy oil in rupee.. do something about our balance of merchandise trade , etc etc... IMHO achieving these targets is far tougher than H-Bomb. The economic targets per se could take a decade... seen the kind of inflation in Iran? (20%+ may be more)... Sanctions don't work for countries like NOKO , TSP etc... Because people there live in stone age ...

A gov't that comes up with hideous policies like NREGA cannot be expected to manage sanctions effectively ...