Deterrence

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Oct 2009 09:19

Prem wrote:Since Indians believe in AVATAR, will the advent of AVATAR change any strategic equation wrt PRC ?

Prem what is AVATAR? Not Kalki I am guessing.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Oct 2009 09:23

Shiv-ji

please be kind to this unwashed Abdul. He genuinely confused.

IMVHO, India can claim complete deterrence against it's enemies with 500-750 megaton capacity bums. For this deterrence to work India should test ICBMs and strategically target the famous tourist spots across the world. Any nuke attack on Indian soil or India army would trigger an automatic all-out attack on all these locations.

By your own logic, atleast 50 million Bharatiyas will survive, and the world will have atleast 3billion less population and will get rid of every ideology that attacked Bharat inthe known and unknown history.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Oct 2009 09:27

RamaY wrote: IMVHO, India can claim complete deterrence against it's enemies with 500-750 megaton capacity bums.

I agree completely.

But this is the wrong thread. We have tested only up to 45 kilotons if some Indians are telling the truth.

We will have to test up to 750 megatons.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 06 Oct 2009 09:30

NRao wrote:
Most do not understand that, specially in the nuclear context.

However, the 3 Gorges dam may be able to take a conventional hit. So, it may need a nuclear one - just for the yield.

Moreover 3 gorges may be defended by several S300 units.

But in case we are attacked with nuclear weapons we can use all our means to bring that structure down and that will cause more damage than with anything else available with us.

Sanku, once a nuclear war starts none of will look for umbrellas instead will use everything available to destroy the enemy. I belive India has the means for causing unacceptable damages to anyone within 2000 km range.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Oct 2009 09:33

Rajeshks garu,

india's true enemies lie beyond that 2000km line.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 06 Oct 2009 09:37

shiv wrote:
Prem wrote:Since Indians believe in AVATAR, will the advent of AVATAR change any strategic equation wrt PRC ?

Prem what is AVATAR? Not Kalki I am guessing.

This is new AVATAR who can fly and jump continents like Hanuman holding the Kalki's thunderbolts in the armpit , each equal to many sau kilo booms. The idea is to introduce paradign shift in this whole wordly affair by sudden appearance in Akash . We dont need to shoot many Agnibaans from India like old time when we can hurl many thunderbolts from Akash.Why do we have to always follow , for once we can lead .

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Oct 2009 09:49

Prem wrote: The idea is to introduce paradign shift in this whole wordly affair by sudden appearance in Akash . .

This should have gone into the start forum where someone started a thread on "paradigm shit" - cruelly locked by merciless adminullahs. That was the most original thread name I have ever seen on BRF.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 06 Oct 2009 09:56

Shiv Sir,
That is Mahapaap. Guess you dont belive in Avatar's war fighting capabilties.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 06 Oct 2009 12:20

RamaY wrote:Rajeshks garu,

india's true enemies lie beyond that 2000km line.

And then India is not 20th century Germany. None of us want India to be.

I was wondering whether we are talking about starting an arms race or having a CMD.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Oct 2009 12:50

shiv wrote: One view is the need to show a huge bomb.

The other view is my view. The ability to decimate anyone is unnecessary. What is needed is the ability to inflict massive suffering. .

I have yet another POV, those are not THE TWO choices.

Neither are the above two choices either/or choices.

Thirdly it is not clear that what HUGE bombs are and what are LITTLE ones. These terms keep changing too.

However I agree that the whole goal of a Nuclear weapon is to not have a nuclear war.

Allow me to explain further --

We need to approach this in a clear cause effect manner.

Goal -- No nuclear war.

Solution -- Possess capability that the enemy knows that if it uses Nukes against India it can not win.

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

Now Shiv has eloquently established that India can not win in a nuclear war. That much is clear and we are all with him.

However that part is not even up for debate. India can not WIN a nuclear war where even Diburgarh gets Nuked. That is India. That is why IMVHO the argument that Shiv is making is the easier half part of the argument. It is also IMVHO a tautology which does not even need discussion. Of course we agree and it is good and all that.

So the actual statement should be -- India can only win a nuclear war by ensuring it never happens.

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

That is now the troublesome part. The calculation that we make of death and destruction has to assume a great degree of "what is enough for others"

To this end, different for others of course will mean different things for each nation -- but the chief trouble is this -- intentions as characterized by "this is enough for me -- peace" for any nation can drastically change.

That is why the sensible thing to do -- is to plan for capability instead of intention. Should we be able to hand out more damage to them than we receive in turn, it will be step 1 of deterrence. (This damage is not merely the one caused directly by nuclear weapons)

Again it is not likely that we achieve this immediately in one shot. Hence it has to be a gradual process -- closing up the umbrella of available actions to the opponent.

(deter -- here means preclude use of a tactic with impunity without worrying about the next step)

1) So when we have border patrol we deter sheep stealing by PLA
2) When we have brigades deployed we deter China from skirmishes to back up those border patrol
3) When we have a full mil machine at readiness we deter from conventional war
4) When we have tactical nukes we deter China from using those.
5) When we have KT nukes we stop limited strategic exchange.

So basically the important thing to remember is that the equation is not damage vs damage alone (as in step 1) the real issue is damage/cost to give damage vs damage/cost to give damage for opponent.

There is always a escalation chain. ALWAYS. (of course unless we have a mule type singularity a la the second foundation and no prior plans work -- but we are talking of probabilities not all possibilities)

Now another very important thing that the chain does is to buy us time and reduce the instances of each.

So the border incursion will be happen more frequently than step 2 which will be less than step 3 and so on.

However the ultimate goal is, that when we have for better or for worse pushed to the end of the chain -- we have suitable deterrence UPTO the last level.

That is the key and the chain is the breathing space. It is as simple as that.

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

So coming back to Shiv's formulation -- whether big or small or tiny or garagutan should be seen in the light of the above framework of cause and effect.

So do we have enough (missiles, materials, etc etc to achieve the end chain?)

Yeah if we had 1001 Agni's with 11 Mirved 20 KTs, we dont need MT. Sure.

If we have 101 Agni's with MT we dont need many sure.

We can also have a mix of the above. We can also have a third option

501 Agni's with 200-300 KTs.

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

So the damage calculus is not something based on a belief system -- it is very much the a point in the escalation chain that you can hope to stop at. And the only stable point of equilibrium on that chain is its end.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Oct 2009 14:14

1) So when we have border patrol we deter sheep stealing by PLA
2) When we have brigades deployed we deter China from skirmishes to back up those border patrol
3) When we have a full mil machine at readiness we deter from conventional war

The truth or otherwise of 1, 2 and 3 does not automatically mean that 4 and 5 will hold true.

4) When we have tactical nukes we deter China from using those.
5) When we have KT nukes we stop limited strategic exchange.

Nukes are nukes, "tactical" or "strategic" is semantics. "Having tactical nukes" per se means little.

If we use those tactical nukes as a first strike then we are telling China we intend to make this war go nuclear.

If China uses a tactical nuke it is sending the same signal to us.

In a battle field a tactical nuke used appropriately may make such a huge dent in favor of the nuke user that the party that has been hit has to either make quick decisions or have a policy in place.

For example if China nukes a couple of Air bases what are the choices that India has?

1) Should India say "OK they have just nuked some air bases - a few planes gone and 5000 dead. Small number - mostly servicemen who are paid to die anyway. Let us not escalate. We will nuke their base and see if they have any guts"

or

2) Should India say "This is a nuke attack on India and Indian citizens by a country willing to use nukes. if we waste any time they will finish us off. They must be hit as hard as we can hit them right away and right in the middle of their civilian centers right now when they have not had a chance to take out any of our nuke capability"

I would prefer to see option 2 any day. I have repeated these views time and again. Whether we follow NFU or not we have to be willing to inflict maximum possible damage on an adversary and not treat this as a game of snakes and ladders where you can gradually go forward by throws of a dice in hesitant stepwise escalation leading to us taking too much damage before retaliation.

In short a nuclear attacker on India should only have the option of conducting a massive strike on India as his only viable option - trying to take out as much of India nuclear assets as possible after which he will have to sit back and take what comes at him from India. It is that guarantee of being hit even after conducting a massive first strike on India that fosters deterrence. Piddly tactical attacks on India should be too risky for anyone and should ensure massive punitive retaliation. India does not need any tactical nukes. Having said that our "strategic nukes" are of the same yield as our strategic nukes so the point is moot - but that is for the fizzle thread.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Oct 2009 14:35

shiv wrote:For example if China nukes a couple of Air bases what are the choices that India has?

The escalation ladder that I am talking of is to put a conceptual structure into the rough thoughts and actions.

It does not mean
1) All steps will be done (few steps and no escalation is possible)
2) Many steps are not possible in close succession.

In concrete terms--
Two take the example that you have been using for a long time. It matters little to me what India does after China has used nukes on its bases since either

Case 1
We use tactical nukes
China uses even bigger nukes
All nuke exchange
Full stop

Case 2
We use all we have
China uses all they have
All nuke exchange
Full stop

So as is clearly seen -- in both cases the worst case end stop in my decision making is indeed "Full stop"

So if things stop at tactical exchange, well and good, but nothing that I have said on how to model for deterrence assumes that.

So frankly in my mental world, this choice is a moot point.

As always the deterrence is to be planned such that the thought of the end point. That is the maximum damage that we can give for the damage we receive in turn is unpalatable to the enemy
-------------------

Approaching this from a different perspective ---

Finally the escalation from conventional to nuclear, although does make a nice transition point from one deterrence regime to another -- in practice such difference are gradually receding.

What if the nuclear device is 0.1 KT? And not on a airbase but a tank squadron? Are you saying that the Chinese think like us clearly enough to equate
0.1 KT on troops == 1 MT on cities.
Are you saying that our netas will definitely think so and do so?

Yes you have a point of view, I however am not sure if the published NFU doctrine will be followed exactly step for step like some Friday prayer in a mosque.

It will depend on the person in charge then. That is too much of a gamble to take.

Instead the institution should focus on a guaranteed institutional behavior with sufficient capability that the end game has a thought which is frightening to the adversary.

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

Before dying, lash out with all you got -- is definitely a POV of one possible action in tough times. However as I reiterate in no way can this be shown as a basis of deterrence.

Deterrence is based on the worst case institutional behavior of India when faced with nuclear pralay.

A possible (not even guaranteed) action when hit by a KT (and you are assuming Chinese will climb the ladder step by step and not run up to the end) is not deterrence, but IMVHO only one possible tactic (which may or may not be meaningful -- I think it may well be) and tactic is not deterrence.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 06 Oct 2009 16:56

When I was a kid, I used to think that to win a war, the army will have to stand in a very long line and march one inch at a time, dishoom dishoom all the way till it covers the entire country. In this ju-jitsu, it is a slightly clever tactic to say that ahh, we need too many bombs to wipe out completely. Look at how many square inches there are.

The first problem is that we are not talking of wiping the land clean but what we do by NFU -- "civilization centers." The actual targets are lists of installations and cities. Sure there will be survivors, probably plenty. But the country will not be able to function when say 100 of its cities are gone. Now enter jujitsu again, where we push to the other end and say, ahh, if that is true, won't it come to a stop if we just did 3-gorges? It is actually abhorrent to me to think of destruction at such scale. Deterrence that does not make.

This is when we need to understand what is going on a little more, I feel.

Deterrence is a multiscale phenomenon as Sanku has pointed out now and I did a little earlier, too and it is easy to see this. It has a natural progression in scale to a larger conflict (which may be contained or may not). The lowest end point of this is our ability to deter terror attacks and land-grabs, the highest point of this is to ensure that if we are under a nuclear threat, we are capacity to take out the enemy, by essentially eliminating its population centers.

One of the questions was well how much damage can 25KT x 100 or 100KTx 100 do. For that kind of question, with a certain set of assumption of course, we have ready made simulators as pointed on a previous page and better ones should be welcome. You gotta lob too many 25KT devices and many 100KT devices to make a 100 sized arsenal meaningful at the high end point. And this nothing to protect the low end point.

No one is arguing for 10^K K>=0 MT nukes, just to be sure. Divvy up the target list and capacity required any way you wish. Delivered in the most reliable and economical way. very good.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Oct 2009 16:58

Sanku wrote:
So if things stop at tactical exchange, well and good, but nothing that I have said on how to model for deterrence assumes that..

I worry about the thought process (not from you but from policy makers) that says

"If things stop at a tactical exchange, well and good"

This statement can be resolved into various scenarios. But let me change the adversary to Pakistan

A) India uses a tactical nuke and sits back hoping that the exchange will end with a tit for tat tactical nuke

B) Pakistan uses a tactical nuke first

Case A is IMO inadvisable and unlikely as per NFU

In case B India has decide whether Pakistan is risking annihilation by escalation or is testing India for its balls.

If India settles for a tit for tat tactical nuke and sits back hoping things will get resolved, Pakistan will have "won" the exchange proving that when it comes to he crunch India does not have the cojones to use nukes and that there are definitely certain scenarios in which Pakistan can get away with a teensy weensy (did you say 0.1 kt - maybe a paki fizzle?) nuclear attack on India just as it can get away with a 26/11

That is why it is important to have no uncertainty that Pakistan gets nuked with all we have got reserved for them even if they use a teensy weensy nuke against us.

I am personally surprised at the waffling attitude regarding such issues from more than one person who has argued for larger yield nukes (on this forum) than we appear to possess. What is the point if we are going to waffle?

That way Bharat Karnad is no slouch. He argues for huge nukes and demands they be used as planned AFAIK. I am with him in that sense although I have myself posted critiques against his style of rhetoric - but that is me.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Oct 2009 17:31

samuel wrote:When I was a kid, I used to think that to win a war, the army will have to stand in a very long line and march one inch at a time, dishoom dishoom all the way till it covers the entire country. In this ju-jitsu, it is a slightly clever tactic to say that ahh, we need too many bombs to wipe out completely. Look at how many square inches there are.

This was WW1.

"1000 bomber raids" and "carpet bombing" and "operation Rolling Thunder" of Vietnam were the Air power versions of that.

Neither of them worked that way - nor will nukes work that way.

I believe that 'escalation" from conventional to nuclear is one huge step. Not one among many small steps.

In my view it is a cop out to consider conflict as "terrorist attack leading to snapping of diplomatic ties to firing at the border to pre emptive attack to full scale conventional war to tactical nuke to escalation to full scale nuclear war."

The step up from conventional to nuclear is so radical that it cannot be looked at as "just another one" of the earlier steps. That is the cop out I was referring to earlier. That irresolute "dhoti clad shivering Shivshankar" attitude is the formula for inaction and hesitation and the "height of hope" that things might get better in a situation where we are facing the possibility of total destruction or at least very severe damage.

Faced with escalation by an adversary and given that we do not have a very large arsenal of very high yields - there is in my view no alternative to a resolute and ruthless devastation of anyone who escalates from conventional to nuclear. There should be no doubts or dithering when it comes to nuclear war. It is not the same as conventional war and the step up is a huge step up - not a piddly little forward nudge as is being stated.

We do not have the luxury of playing around on this issue.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Oct 2009 18:57

rajeshks wrote:
RamaY wrote:Rajeshks garu,

india's true enemies lie beyond that 2000km line.
And then India is not 20th century Germany. None of us want India to be.

I was wondering whether we are talking about starting an arms race or having a CMD.

Can you please enlighten me how India automatically becomes 20th-century-Germany by having ICBMs and Megaton nukes?

Could you please give me one good reason why a megaton bum on an ICBM is detrimental to India's security and image; and how it differs India's 25KT (or 45KT TN) weapon on a 2000.00000001KM IRBM.

Hint: India will not use none of these bums on its own population and they will be used against India's mortal enemies.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Oct 2009 20:39

rajeshks wrote:
RamaY wrote:Rajeshks garu,

india's true enemies lie beyond that 2000km line.
And then India is not 20th century Germany. None of us want India to be.

I was wondering whether we are talking about starting an arms race or having a CMD.

This shows a mindset. No wonder Talbott said they should have let INC do the tests.

The public opinion very clearly showed that it wasnt a Hindu bomb. And the KRC report and a Niagara of op-eds have also showed that the bomb was created by a national consensus.

If India equips itself to the threat perception why does that make her a throwback to Germany of the 20th cnetury? Which indoctrination school are you a product of?

So what is your real complaint?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Oct 2009 20:56

samuel and NRao, The writings of Sri Jasjit Singh former Director of IDSA on NFU doctrine are quite interesting. He wrote them in 2000. And ABV made some remark about the NFU clause when one is facing clear facts.

Also there is a change relating to chem and bio weapons, between the DND and the MND that was adopted.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Oct 2009 21:07

Does India really care about deterrence? Here is another data point for the debate.

China's naval nationalism: Has A K Antony blinked?

The Chinese respect those with the will to power, and they mount relentless pressure on those who wilt.

We cannot discount such events.

India is very good at taking a few steps forward than few+/- backward.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 06 Oct 2009 21:49

Total Area of Mumbai : 440 sq. km.
Population of Mumbai : 18 million

Total Area of Shanghai : 6340.5 sq. km.

Population of Shanghai : Reaching 19 million in 2009

OMG we do need TNs badly!

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 06 Oct 2009 21:59

ramana wrote:
This shows a mindset. No wonder Talbott said they should have let INC do the tests.

The public opinion very clearly showed that it wasnt a Hindu bomb. And the KRC report and a Niagara of op-eds have also showed that the bomb was created by a national consensus.

If India equips itself to the threat perception why does that make her a throwback to Germany of the 20th cnetury? Which indoctrination school are you a product of?

So what is your real complaint?

My point was, at this point of time we need to take care of China, Pak and middle-east only. Thats what I meant by 2000 km radius. Our current threat perception demands only that kind of capabilities. We dont need to build capabilities to reach north Atlantic or Pacific, at least at this point of time. My comparison with Germany was based on this. Atleast we are not going to fight NATO. We could have half a dozen boomers to take care of the worst conditions arising out of western powers. Then its my personal opinion.

Regarding our capabilities, we all know that PSLV + RV technology can make a ICBM. So the capabilities are very much there. The question is when we should showcase that kind of capabilities. I think this is the wrong time to do that. Economically India is growing very fast, we need to hold our temptations to test ICBM atleast for another 10 years. If someone decides to clip our wings now through economic sanctions that can jeopardize all our plans.

My school of thought is simple. Don’t showcase anything in hurry, hold the temptations and wait for the appropriate time. And when we flex our muscles do it in style and others should respect us, not mark us as irresponsible guys.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Oct 2009 22:01

The founding fathers of the doctrine also thought the same and unfortunately the others knew and foreclosed most of the options and on the last one the pressure is mounting.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 06 Oct 2009 22:05

RamaY wrote: Can you please enlighten me how India automatically becomes 20th-century-Germany by having ICBMs and Megaton nukes?

Could you please give me one good reason why a megaton bum on an ICBM is detrimental to India's security and image; and how it differs India's 25KT (or 45KT TN) weapon on a 2000.00000001KM IRBM.

Hint: India will not use none of these bums on its own population and they will be used against India's mortal enemies.

Hi RamaY, please dont feel offended by my post. Please read my above post also. My point was simple, we need to build capabilities that our threat perception demands. Dont expand as if we are going to fight the entire world. Germany made that mistake and paid the price.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 06 Oct 2009 22:17

ramana wrote:The founding fathers of the doctrine also thought the same and unfortunately the others knew and foreclosed most of the options and on the last one the pressure is mounting.

Also think about the scenario where we have the capabilities to attack north atlantic and there is a puppet govt in delhi supported by commies. Our future PM has not yet shown the signs of a matured politician. Obviously the govt will be pressurized to make anti-west statements. West will not only clip our wings but may be our legs too and our future economic super power bubble will burst. So we need to be careful about what we showcase.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 06 Oct 2009 22:18

rajeshks wrote:Economically India is growing very fast, we need to hold our temptations to test ICBM atleast for another 10 years. If someone decides to clip our wings now through economic sanctions that can jeopardize all our plans.

You are being overconfident about what can be achieved in 10 years. Even the most optimistic projections don't show the Indian economy reaching Japan like levels for another 20+ years. And then, the HDI stats will probably continue to lag because of the continuing reliance on the Indian state to produce a miracle in that area. When it comes to the TN question, it surely is a case of kal kar so aaj kar aaj kare so ab once the threat is perceived.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Oct 2009 22:20

Atleast you do want India to develop capabilties unlike others who want to something else.

ss_roy · Post by **ss_roy** » 06 Oct 2009 22:43

There are two ways to draw a line that is longer than your control.

1. Draw a longer line than your control.

2. Erase the control.

Even the most optimistic projections don't show the Indian economy reaching Japan like levels for another 20+ years.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 06 Oct 2009 22:45

ramana wrote:Atleast you do want India to develop capabilties unlike others who want to something else.

Ramana, was this comment about me?

If so, yes I am in favor of developing/having such capabilities. I don’t mind even if India smuggle a couple of RS-24 missiles and MT TN weapons from Russia and have it in our inventory. But when it comes to showcasing our weapons I would prefer to follow Israel. No one have any doubts about Israel having nuclear weapons but whatever may be the provocation/temptations they won’t test. So they remain in the good books.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 06 Oct 2009 22:53

As of now, we assume 100 odd 25KT, or 45KT in twos or threes. We don't FU. If we receive a "small" tactical wmd, we have to respond with "full force." But we don't have enough juice to stop the rebound and, with assumptions stated elsewhere on this thread, when that happens we will be done for. We are banking that the threat of an escalation by us will prevent any exchange in the first place, but pulling the Nehru, we got no way to come through on that threat. Forward positions no backup. That's the bluff. Why bluff ourselves.

There is added to that the notion that if we do get the tactical hit and don't make up our mind about what force to hit back with, it's over. If we cannot give a proportionate response it is over. If we give an overwhelming response, we escalate, but it is not enough to decimate. That is the when the enemy, if they do their own escalating, we are done for.

We have a deterrent, I think, wrt Pak. Why is that. In the latter case, we know that the 100x25 or 100x45 or 100x100 odd are good enough to total most of that country. Somehow, they seem to know we will give everything and we seem to know we can take everything in that exchange and live. We can't do same with china...or china+pak. We have not been preparing as hard as we can, in my view.

How about something simpler. We have no intention of using nuclear weapons, and if hit, we will respond in a way that suits us. We have approx. 250-300 250-300KT weapons, with an unknown un-assembled war-heads, which can be delivered by cruise missiles, missiles, air and sea. We are resolved to keep our arsenal ready and updated so that the cost of this war, if it ever arises, is prosecuted in the most economical, efficient and least uncertain way. What prevents us from doing this and, if we are only learning to be free like this, why reshackle, running to one or the other for materiel and protection, when we should be working away at calling and having our own (my opinion)?

S

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Oct 2009 22:54

Rajeshks wrote:Regarding our capabilities, we all know that PSLV + RV technology can make a ICBM. So the capabilities are very much there. The question is when we should showcase that kind of capabilities. I think this is the wrong time to do that. Economically India is growing very fast, we need to hold our temptations to test ICBM atleast for another 10 years. If someone decides to clip our wings now through economic sanctions that can jeopardize all our plans.

Rajeshks garu

I am not offended by your POV. I would like to make two points on your posts.

1 – Bad references create bad perceptions.
2 – The quoted section of your post. Let’s compare India’s case with a comparable nation, China. China pursued its national interests a.k.a ICBMs, TNs, Tibet, Tiwan in parallel to its economic development, and one can see how the interconnection between these seemingly disparate strategic objectives of a nation state work. During 1970-1980 PRC had more than 700 million BPL population and that is when PRC was testing all it has in TN/ICBM capabilities. Why can’t India follow the same route? Is our leadership incapable of executing two projects of national interests at the same time? Then why can’t we criticize such leadership and ask for a change?

Hint: We can’t hide behind the popular vote logic , when it comes to discussion on national interests. INC got 153.5 million votes, BJP 102.7 million, Turd Front 88 million votes in 2009 general elections as per this link { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_gen ... tion,_2009}.

Added Later:

My point was simple, we need to build capabilities that our threat perception demands. Dont expand as if we are going to fight the entire world. Germany made that mistake and paid the price.

I will put it in a different way. The entire world will pay the price if any of Indian interests are threatened by WMD. That should be our policy.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 06 Oct 2009 23:03

samuel wrote:How about something simpler. We have no intention of using nuclear weapons, and if hit, we will respond in a way that suits us. We have approx. 250-300 250-300KT weapons, with an unknown un-assembled war-heads, which can be delivered by cruise missiles, missiles, air and sea. We are resolved to keep our arsenal ready and updated

Probably something like this was there in the minds of our leaders when we signed the nuclear deal with US. We signed deal with US but will buy uranium from France & russia for our civilian reactors. Plutonium from our military reactors plus whatever uranium we had as reserve for civilian reactors can now be used to develop some 200+ warheads. May be my wild day dream:) But then we need a minimum guarantee that our 200-300 kt device will work.

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 06 Oct 2009 23:16

RamaY wrote:Let’s compare India’s case with a comparable nation, China. China pursued its national interests a.k.a ICBMs, TNs, Tibet, Tiwan in parallel to its economic development, and one can see how the interconnection between these seemingly disparate strategic objectives of a nation state work.

Rest of world responded to chinese intentions by projecting threats from all directions. Russia, Japan, Taiwan, India etc etc. China would love to swallow Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh and have enough muscle power to do that but still they can't due to threats from other directions. Moreover how much money are they wasting by preparing themselves against an attack by US/NATO. So the price they pay is too much. Compare that with India or Israel.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Oct 2009 23:17

But then we need a minimum guarantee that our 200-300 kt device will work.

That is why the CTBT should not be signed. Also above post is at variance with the stated expert opinion that fission weapons are adequate. Maybe they gamed for a simpler world and are frozen in minds?

I think Gen. Sunderji formulated the doctrine under the no-test boundary. He took what was feasible and crafted the doctrine. However the world has changed with no SU to counter the PRC. Active PRC-TSP nuclear transfers. Now US weakened by tis GOAT and financial mess.

If the intention is to join the manistream then the doctrine has to change in order to ensure the peace that development needs.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 06 Oct 2009 23:19

There is a huge difference between what we think we can do and what we have. What does Pokhran tell you about what we can do (rattle khetolai) and what we have (doubts on yield)? Nothing above 100KT, per current wisdom. Not even sure a single 45KT device is working. No TN. No MIRV. FBF capability. And an argument that we have enough albeit of unknown capacity, unknown range, unknown type, after two tests. And a rush to sign CTBT. Really, rajeshks, you tell me what is going on?

S

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Oct 2009 23:25

rajeshks wrote:
RamaY wrote:Let’s compare India’s case with a comparable nation, China. China pursued its national interests a.k.a ICBMs, TNs, Tibet, Tiwan in parallel to its economic development, and one can see how the interconnection between these seemingly disparate strategic objectives of a nation state work.
Rest of world responded to chinese intentions by projecting threats from all directions. Russia, Japan, Taiwan, India etc etc. China would love to swallow Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh and have enough muscle power to do that but still they can't due to threats from other directions. Moreover how much money are they wasting by preparing themselves against an attack by US/NATO. So the price they pay is too much. Compare that with India or Israel.

OK. Do a small exercise for me.

Compare the growth of Japan and PRC since 1950s and extrapolate that trend to 2050s. See which nation will emerge as super power and who will not. Too much focus on money (economy) and no focus on security will not only invite robbers but also thugs.

So you think India should become a Japan at best and Israel at worst? While I admire Israel for its nationalism and vigor, it is one of the most unsecured nations in the world. India cannot be either of them. India is too big, and strong to remain as an Israel or Japan.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Oct 2009 23:55

shiv wrote: Faced with escalation by an adversary and given that we do not have a very large arsenal of very high yields - there is in my view no alternative to a resolute and ruthless devastation of anyone who escalates from conventional to nuclear.

This is actually a double whammy, the tactic itself is not deterrence as I have argued before but merely a show of rage which then is pointless one way or other since deterrence has failed.

The tactic itself is a forced one since we have tied our own hands by not having a large arsenal or very high yields.

So not only do we have no deterrence our low low capability creates a situation where we are forced to resort to desperate tactics since that is the only avenue available to us.

The leaders need to have some breathing space -- not be FORCED into a situation that every little nuclear pin prick causes them to invite disaster on India. (how about a depleted uranium shell, that's a nuke too since its radioactive)

BTW your agreement with Bharat Karnad is flawed on one count, he calls for massive retaliation once nukes are used (I repeat Massive) what we have today is anything but massive.

He has repeatedly stressed that both the prongs -- massive&overwhelming and immediate&complete response are inextricably linked. (please dont ask for links, he is clear in many of his writings)

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 07 Oct 2009 00:02

There is this idea that if we test to develop a better arsenal, then we will really be screwing ourselves economically by the world. In other words, the international community acts as a deterrent to developing a robust nuclear posture. It would like to freeze things fast, and insert India in a slot. What is that slot and what kind of deterrence does that buy us? Pakistan ok, china, nada? Is that acceptable?

Are we deterred because of our dependence on them for materiel and protection we never learned to "rid ourselves" of. If you've ever lived in an organization with an ambition to get to the top but no god-fathers, you'll know what I am talking about. Except it is clear here that no one wants us to be the god-father though they are happy to sire. The one thing we got going is that we generate wealth for them, which gets them hooked to us, too.

How do we invert this, to put it bluntly, and that would be one context associated with the kind of deterrence we are able to field.

One view is that the only way out of this world order mess is to be "smart" about it. Accept this treaty here, slither out of it there and some how wiggle up to the top. It is certainly a tactic.

Another view is that we are determined to get, learn, steal and earn capacity to hold our own as a top priority and that everything that we have to do with other nations is a means for accomplishing that end.

A third view is that it is ok to join the world order wherever it accepts us, at least we will be able to get integrated and feed ourselves.

These statements must be viewed against the backdrop that had we not conducted a test, I mean the 1998 kind, we would never have had a nuclear deal. That that deal itself is toilet paper is besides the point, even that may not have existed.

Is there, or is there not a basis for concluding that it is the capacity we are able to demonstrate for ourselves that gives us any opening in the power structure and not how robust our economic interaction is?

Is there or is there not a basis for concluding that a robust integration into the world order is the best way to disrupt it and come out on top.

Is there or there not a basis for concluding we are one with the world and take what we are being offered, negotiating as much as we can, but ultimately, folding in, in the interest of peace prosperity etc.

I feel the discussion of deterrence is hampered or conditioned by these larger questions and cannot be viewed in isolation. What is the right vision for India?

S

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Oct 2009 00:15

samuel wrote: I feel the discussion of deterrence is hampered or conditioned by these larger questions and cannot be viewed in isolation. What is the right vision for India?

Actually to give a well known poster credit, he started with this, a mismatch between our idea of India and the reality thereof.

In my understanding there is a substantial school which has made clear statements that our (the uber jingo who is the laughing stock of the better sort of old school members) vision was anyway totally divorced from reality.

So I guess in my words -- India sucks and thus we have no right for high table, these are all wet dreams from the opium pipe.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 07 Oct 2009 00:19

Sanku wrote:
samuel wrote: I feel the discussion of deterrence is hampered or conditioned by these larger questions and cannot be viewed in isolation. What is the right vision for India?
Actually to give a well known poster credit, he started with this, a mismatch between our idea of India and the reality thereof.

In my understanding there is a substantial school which has made clear statements that our (the uber jingo who is the laughing stock of the better sort of old school members) vision was anyway totally divorced from reality.

So I guess in my words -- India sucks and thus we have no right for high table, these are all wet dreams from the opium pipe.

Sankuji, please say more. what's reality then?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Oct 2009 00:28

samuel wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Actually to give a well known poster credit, he started with this, a mismatch between our idea of India and the reality thereof.

In my understanding there is a substantial school which has made clear statements that our (the uber jingo who is the laughing stock of the better sort of old school members) vision was anyway totally divorced from reality.

So I guess in my words -- India sucks and thus we have no right for high table, these are all wet dreams from the opium pipe.
Sankuji, please say more. what's reality then?

Samuel ji, let those who revel in Indian realities lay them out for you.

I am but a poor engineer with just enough grasp of history to see that development military power of the overwhelming kind has always preceded economic development for most of the world if not AT LEAST been contiguous.

(And no Singapore does not count -- even if the statement causes much grief to those Singapore living Indians who think they have stumbled on to Shangria la)