India Nuclear News And Discussion

[GuruPrabhu]

This is not about south asia any more. It is about entire ASIA now since China is involved in the Pak program and also
China is active in its strategic anti-India activities. This south asia thing is misnomer now for nuclear arms race. It is not about any "two rivals now".

exactly, boss. It was never about "two rivals" which is some equal-equal poppycock. Babus/Netas may not want to make it about China (except, George F) but that is the only reality.

Also, these leaked BS reports about Pak > India etc are just meant to excite India into revealing its arsenal. Old hands in India Yawn loudly at these "reports".

[GuruPrabhu]

The Washington Post reports that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s nuclear weapon arsenal is larger than India’s

That report and a dollar leaves me a dollar short of a good latte.

[ramana]

The NP Ayatollahs periodically claim TSP is making more nukes than India. Right after 1998 tests they calimed TSP has more nukes and maintained the claim all along. So whats this new bakwas?

Also India like the Rolls Royce has adequate numbers. As Jaswant Singh said, when small is eonugh why make more?

If TSP really makes more than it needs then its not Indian problem but the West's that enabled it. Let them worry about security of pakin nukes after Qadrification of the TSP security forces.

For those who dont get it.
Qadrification refers to the Islamization of TSP security forces who take their logic from the book and not their oath.

[putnanja]

Don't worry, India's deterrence is robust: Pokhran II scientist

...
Allaying apprehensions about reports of Pakistan doubling its nuclear arsenal, a veteran Indian scientist who played a key role in India's second nuclear test has said India need not be alarmed as its credible minimum deterrence was robust and it can produce more than 100 weapons.

"Our credible minimum deterrent is robust and strong. There is no cause for undue alarm," K. Santhanam, a former scientist with the Defence Research and Development (DRDO) and the chief pointsman for the weaponisation programme for India’s second nuclear test, told IANS."Our plutonium-based nuclear programme is stronger and the plutonium produced can help make more than 100 weapons.

"The numbers are not the only thing that matter. Our nuclear programme is completely indigenous and stronger,” he said.

Santhanam was reacting to disclosures by a US daily that Pakistan has doubled its nuclear arsenal over the last several years and now has more than 100 deployed weapons.
...

[JE Menon]

Ahem...

[Muppalla]

The idiots want to formalize the stockpile information of India which is still elusive.

[somnath]

Ahem...

Truly..Ahem...Remember all the breast beating when Santanam made his famous "thermo nuke a dud" (purported) comment? It was inconceivable to the "nationalists" then that people like Santanam are never out of the system and might be playing their own role in a well organised orchestra!

[somnath]

If you want to debate the dudness please engage in India Forum.

???

[shiv]

Qadrification

Nice word!

[Sanku]

Ahem...

Truly..Ahem...Remember all the breast beating when Santanam made his famous "thermo nuke a dud" (purported) comment? It was inconceivable to the "nationalists" then that people like Santanam are never out of the system and might be playing their own role in a well organised orchestra!

It is a fallacy at best and lie at worst to assume that both statements by Santanam are mutually contradictory.

In fact they both support each other strongly.

[Mort Walker]

I doubt the accuracy of the WP article, see the following quotes:

Four years ago, the Pakistani arsenal was estimated at 30 to 60 weapons.
"They have been expanding pretty rapidly," Albright said. Based on recently accelerated production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium, "they could have more than doubled in that period," with current estimates of up to 110 weapons.
Kristensen said it was "not unreasonable" to say that Pakistan has now produced at least 100 weapons. Shaun Gregory, director of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at Britain's University of Bradford, put the number at between 100 and 110.

The goal here is FMCT by the Obama administration as it is a back door to the same old CRE when it comes to dealing with India. Essentially, the administration will peddle old wine in a new bottle and the danger is that this time the Indian leadership may fall for it.

But the administration's determination to bring the fissile materials ban to completion this year may compel it to confront more directly the issue of proliferation in South Asia. As U.S. arms negotiator Rose Gottemoeller told Bloomberg News at the U.N. conference Thursday: "Patience is running out."

There are 200 targets worthy of a nuclear strike within Pakistan and probably 5 times as many in China. For India to have a credible nuclear deterrent, it needs the following amount of Pu239:
5kg Pu239 per device * [1200 targets / (20% of platforms survive a first strike * 80% successful launch * 80% reach intended target * 80% successful detonation)] = 5 kg * [1200/0.1024] = 5 kg * 11718 devices = 58 tonnes of Pu239.

[somnath]

The goal here is FMCT by the Obama administration

Where does FMCT come in here? Even Pak is not ready to sign..There isnt any progress on either legacy or verifiability questions..

There are 200 targets worthy of a nuclear strike within Pakistan and probably 5 times as many in China.

If there are 1200 targets, we would need to nuke every single one of them? BTW, how many major cities does Pakistan have? Or China?

[svinayak]

Truly..Ahem...Remember all the breast beating when Santanam made his famous "thermo nuke a dud" (purported) comment? It was inconceivable to the "nationalists" then that people like Santanam are never out of the system and might be playing their own role in a well organised orchestra!

It is a fallacy at best and lie at worst to assume that both statements by Santanam are mutually contradictory.

In fact they both support each other strongly.

There is no need to bring in partisan politics into this discussion. This "natioanlist" deriding business must be stopped and removed.

[merlin]

Ahem...

Truly..Ahem...Remember all the breast beating when Santanam made his famous "thermo nuke a dud" (purported) comment? It was inconceivable to the "nationalists" then that people like Santanam are never out of the system and might be playing their own role in a well organised orchestra!

Logically does not compute.

You can have a credible and minimum deterrence even with the thermo-nukes being a dud.

[svinayak]

You can have a credible and minimum deterrence even with the thermo-nukes being a dud.

One has to comprehend this even before they shoot

[somnath]

Logically does not compute.

You can have a credible and minimum deterrence even with the thermo-nukes being a dud.

Well sir, recall the discussion then (in the media and everywhere else)..Santanam's remarks (specifically on the thermonuke - itself not a "revelation") was construed to be how the deterrence itself is neither credible nor what is defined as "minimum" in the right circles..I remember a right royal fight here in BRF as well..People made comments on how our current bombs are "phatakas" compared to the uber huge thermonuclear weapons with China (and by proxy Pak), and hene our deterrence is a sham!

[Sanku]

construed

Kindly do not construe on others statement. Nothing you have said on behalf of others is true.

Please desist from speaking for others -- others are quite capable of speaking for themselves.

[amit]

^^^^^


There still are folks on this thread who took part in that interesting debate and lived to tell the tale. And they have pretty good memories of what transpired then and what the arguments were on all sides of the debate.

It seems that Santhanam's current statement is govt's way of sending out a message without any current official making a statement (which would amount to policy statement). Don't folks who thought Santhanam was acting as a lone ranger and that the establishment was out to get him during that period, find it strange that the govt would choose to use him to send the message and that he'd agree?

Surely there are other retired scientists around (remember a gentleman called Anil Kakodkar?) who could have, conceivably, made this statement.

Or is it that Santhanam is again "shooting his mouth"

[somnath]

This is the sort of thing that was de rigeur in the media..

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 024571.cms

He also pointed out that the failure meant that India now did not possess a credible nuclear deterrent, indicating that warheads on India's long-range missile could have far less punch than expected.

Precisely the sort of things that were "construed" by media/uber nationalists/right crowd from a statement of opinion on a specific point by Dr Santhanam..

It is sometimes so difficult to believe that we too can play the game - and play nit much better than the other guys!

It seems that Santhanam's current statement is govt's way of sending out a message without any current official making a statement (which would amount to policy statement).

Most probably, and using the same lone ranger - talk of consistency of medium (if not message)! Though the official version is also there - Gen VK Singh made similar remarks..

[Sanku]

The effectiveness of a boosted fission warhead was never called into question on BRF, the media will always have stupid sensational articles as well as well calibrated ones.

Also Sanathanam's stand was never called into question as being a outsider, expect by the then NSA. the nationalists (thank you for the correct identification on at least one count) clearly called the issue as a internal revolt by a section of establishment against what was being rammed down their throat by political masters with aid of a few willing members in establishment.

[negi]

This is yet another of those GoI smoke screens, of course India has 'deterrence' just like as per constitution we are 'secular'.

Countries that have deterrence do not get roughed up by their neighbors on every other day the chootiyas cannot even respond to unprovoked cross border firing or even Cheena attempts across the LAC, WTF fill buy their talk of minimum crdible deterrence ?

[Mort Walker]

Somnath,

1. The Obama administration along with the EU + Japan intend to push the FMCT or at least some variation of that. If TSP is making weapons at this so-called accelerated rate, the probability of fissile materials falling in to the hands of jihadis increases and is a threat to the US mainland. The only way this can be prevented is to restrain India.

2. US military planners have standing orders to strike over 200 targets in TSP, with conventional weapons, should there be another major terrorists attack in the US mainland that originated from TSP. For planning purposes, any rational government will estimate the amount of Pu239 it needs for a credible deterrent. For India, producing 58 tonnes of Pu239 is not unreasonable and within industrial capacity and it is very likely someone has come to similar conclusions.

3. TSP does not have the industrial capacity to produce the weapons and delivery systems for this so-called "over 100 weapons" number, and if it were true, it means the Chinese are proliferating on a mass scale, which they could be. Remember, TSP's weapons are not just India's problems, but they will be directed against the US as well.

[Gagan]

So KS is suggesting that India's N numbers are 100 or so.

[shiv]

I would love it if the issue of deterrence and the presence or absence of thermonuclear warheads was shifted to the "Deterrence' thread simply because it is one thread that could get archived with al lot of the posts made on the topic.

I would like to butt in with a surgical analogy. People who need to have something removed from the bottom - often "piles" ask if they could have "Laser surgery". The answer is very simple. Whether a knife blade (metal scalpel) is used, or an ultrasonic scalpel or a laser scalpel - all are doing the same job - cutting tissue. The final result will be pretty much the same and the patient will not know what was used for cutting. But he will remember the price he paid - because the metal knife will cost him in the low tens of thousands (INR), the ultrasound knife will cost him in the high tens of thousands and the laser in the low lakhs.

The point I am making is that if we decide to say "damage an enemy urban area" in some way tomorrow - we could (in theory) find a mechanism of raining 500 million arrows on the population and somehow achieve - say 100,000 deaths and injuries. Or we could inflict those same 100,000 casualties by carpet bombing, or with a few nukes. Whatever the modality of killing, deterrence is a function of when the party that has been hit feels "Enough is enough. The damage I am having to take is too heavy to make the future enjoyable for me despite my winning the war I started 2000 km away"

So one could ignore the method of causing deaths - arrows, conventional or nuclear bombs and decide whom you want to kill and how many people you want to massacre based on your judgement of what is precious and important to the enemy leaders you are fighting. What is it that sustains them and whose deaths will cause such severe pain that winning the war becomes secondary to recovering from the pain inflicted. This kind of deterrence DOES NOT MEAN that you will escape damage or win the war. It only ensures that nobody wins. The meaning of "deterrence" here is an assurance that anyone who starts a war is presumably starting that war to win some advantage. He will not win that advantage.

So on an individual case by case basis one must decide which are the population centers to be hit to cause just plain mass murder most effectively and to a degree that the result will only be insanity, sadness and death and no scope for "celebration of victory"

I had my own happy ideas about this and have stated them on and off. Even 3 or 4 small (20 kt) fission bombs rained on a mega city should be aimed to ensure that a population running out in panic from a place that has been hit run headlong into other population masses who are also running from a nuke hit near where they live. Apart from the burn and radiation deaths, mass suffering, death and disease from injuries, malnutrition and lack of sanitation, rotten bodies must add to the anger of a population who must be primed to lynch their leaders if they emerge healthy and well fed from their nuke-proof bunkers. That is nuclear revenge. Replicating this model in 10 or 20 population centers should result in an interesting and unique experience. Hopefully - when that happens I will already be dead - vaporised into oblivion - my shadow burnt onto where my ass was resting.

Cheers. JMT

[somnath]

Somnath,
The only way this can be prevented is to restrain India.

And how does FMCT in its current form "restrian" India, with 12t of reactor grade Pu? In fact thats the main grouse/exuse of Pak!

US military planners have standing orders to strike over 200 targets in TSP, with conventional weapons, should there be another major terrorists attack in the US mainland that originated from TSP.

Would a target list of conventional strikes be the same as that of a nuclear strike?

The point I am making is that if we decide to say "damage an enemy urban area" in some way tomorrow - we could (in theory) find a mechanism of raining 500 million arrows on the population and somehow achieve - say 100,000 deaths and injuries. Or we could inflict those same 100,000 casualties by carpet bombing, or with a few nukes

Shiv, nuke bombs are not oversized daisy cutters, though in the initial days of weaponisation some politicians from India and Pak seemed to treat them as such...You have to compare the impact of the firebombing in Dresden (arguably as destructive as a single nuke on the city?) and that of the bomb over Hiroshima...Use of the nukes is psychological, and the deterrence impact is also the same, psychological...The thought of a "single bomb" laying to waste an entire city and a couple of generations is terrifying to most humans..Which is why the concept of deterrence in "numbers" is so passe and outmoded...The Americans realised that, the Russians did as well...

You are right, one (dont need 2/3) 20kt bomb over Islamabad or Delhi is enough to send send either country back by a few decades..That is deterrence - beyond that, its nothing but nuclear "mine is bigger" ego...

[Mort Walker]

And how does FMCT in its current form "restrian" India, with 12t of reactor grade Pu? In fact thats the main grouse/exuse of Pak!

With the UICNCI or 123 Agreement, India has agreed in principal to fissile material cutoff. In April 2009 the Obama administration proposed a new or revised FMCT to the Conference on Disarmament (64 countries) agreed to in May 2009. Pakistan opposed it and the Obama administration agrees with TSP that India is the problem. Hence the pressure on India. This is why there is all sorts of psyops about TSP's 100+ weapons.

Would a target list of conventional strikes be the same as that of a nuclear strike?

Yes. They are hardened command, control and communications of the Pak military and destroying them would ensure they are not capable of war and terrorism. The US can deliver far more conventional ordinance than anyone else, and for India it may have a very limited window and must use it fully by ensuring the TSP is permanently de-fanged. Bombing TSP cities is of no value.

You are right, one (dont need 2/3) 20kt bomb over Islamabad or Delhi is enough to send send either country back by a few decades..That is deterrence - beyond that, its nothing but nuclear "mine is bigger" ego...

Wrong. First and foremost - enough stockpile is needed to destroy military assets, which is then followed by destruction of industrial capacity and infrastructure which makes the cost of war expensive economically and politically.

[shiv]

Wrong. First and foremost - enough stockpile is needed to destroy military assets, which is then followed by destruction of industrial capacity and infrastructure which makes the cost of war expensive economically and politically.

my response here
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1022504

[somnath]

With the UICNCI or 123 Agreement, India has agreed in principal to fissile material cutoff.

Here is the 123 agreement..http://responsiblenucleartrade.com/keyd ... t_text.pdf

Where is the commitment to any cutoff on fissile materials?

In any case, as I said before, the biggest issues with FMCT are 1) legacy and 2) verifiability..."Pressure" on India to do what - reduce its Pu stockppile? (havent heard that) Reduce the rate of weapons production? (Its anyway univerally acknowledged to be quite "modest")..

Yes. They are hardened command, control and communications of the Pak military and destroying them would ensure they are not capable of war and terrorism. The US can deliver far more conventional ordinance than anyone else, and for India it may have a very limited window and must use it fully by ensuring the TSP is permanently de-fanged. Bombing TSP cities is of no value.

India's nuclear posture is about "deterrence", not an extension of conventional capability...And that is what I mean when I say nukes are not oversized daisy cutters...You think taking out Islamabad and Karachi will leave anything functional in Pak to operate? Including its industrial capacity? All industries have an intricate link of supply-C3I-market network that is primarily based out of major cities..When you take out the city, you take out all industrial infrastructure that the city is supporting, even if the factories are not physically touched...

Two, our nuke doctrine is of NFU...In a second strike, there is absolutely no reason to go after targeted military facilities (part of the reason why India paid less attention to tactical nuke weapons)...You just have to ensure that the response is horrific enough in psychological terms for the adversary to be pegged back many decades...the sine qua non for that is a dispersed delivery mechanism..

[Mort Walker]

^^^India has agreed in principle to the FMCT when the 123 Agreement was signed, but nothing was enshrined in the 123 Agreement since the revised FMCT didn't exist at the time, but the US knew what it wanted. Look at the behavior of the GoI at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) on FMCT as late as Sep. 2010. Effectively, if the 65 countries of the CD agree on something, then so will India as long as it is non-discriminatory, but the fact is both the US and Pak want it to be discriminatory toward India and this revised FMCT will be just that. It will be a reduction or a verified accounting of India's Pu239 so that it can never be used for weapons.

India's nuclear posture is about "deterrence", not an extension of conventional capability...And that is what I mean when I say nukes are not oversized daisy cutters...You think taking out Islamabad and Karachi will leave anything functional in Pak to operate? Including its industrial capacity? All industries have an intricate link of supply-C3I-market network that is primarily based out of major cities..When you take out the city, you take out all industrial infrastructure that the city is supporting, even if the factories are not physically touched...

As of today, India's nuclear posture is about deterrence, but 10 years from now when India's GDP is nearly $6T it will need to project its power and it will be done with strategic weapons. There is no guarantee about future economic conditions and it is wise for the GoI to hedge their bets and talk only about deterrence. BTW, the analogy to daisy cutters, MOAB and FOAB is nonsense as these are all limited to 50 tonnes TNT and very difficult to deliver due to size/weight. Modern nuclear weapons have variable yield using deuterium/tritium and boosted fission.

Two, our nuke doctrine is of NFU...In a second strike, there is absolutely no reason to go after targeted military facilities (part of the reason why India paid less attention to tactical nuke weapons)...You just have to ensure that the response is horrific enough in psychological terms for the adversary to be pegged back many decades...the sine qua non for that is a dispersed delivery mechanism..

I wish you wouldn't use Latin terms as its hard for a simpleton like me to understand. NFU is window dressing. China and NK has it and the former USSR used it until recently. The nuclear triad goes hand-in-hand with a conventional build up to project power. I'm glad you're not the one doing the planning.

[somnath]

^^^You are making enormous leaps of faith and facts to be honest..

India has agreed in principle to the FMCT when the 123 Agreement was signed

All that India ever said was that it would be ok to signing a non discriminatory FMCT - that is true for every single alphabet soup treaty ..India will also sign a non-discrminatory NPT, CTBT and a non-discriminatory everything else....Where is the question/reference of a 123-linked commitment?

Effectively, if the 65 countries of the CD agree on something, then so will India as long as it is non-discriminatory, but the fact is both the US and Pak want it to be discriminatory toward India and this revised FMCT will be just that. It will be a reduction or a verified accounting of India's Pu239 so that it can never be used for weapons.

Isnt that a contradiction in the same statement? BTW, Which draft of FMCT is this assertion based on? Or which policy (or even non-paper) proposal from the govt?

As of today, India's nuclear posture is about deterrence, but 10 years from now when India's GDP is nearly $6T it will need to project its power and it will be done with strategic weapons.

Nuclear weapons are modes of "power projection"?!!! Power projection is done with tools that one is prepared to use periodically to assert, not with tools that is the basis of MAD...There is but one country which really projects power - and its tools are not nuke weapons...And its successes and failures in power projection never had any contribution from its own nukes...

NFU is window dressing. China and NK has it and the former USSR used it until recently. The nuclear triad goes hand-in-hand with a conventional build up to project power

Someone told you that? If you are right, the policy-makers must be really stupid to be spending so much time and money on building SSBNs, SLBMs, ABM systems...If the declared strategy is to start firing off nukes straight off (in an "execution" of "power prjection"!), we are much better off rolling those Agnis out as fast as possible, producing fissile material (Plutonium, Uraniium - oops the Ratnahalli production is almost solely dedicated to the SSBN, how stupid!), making bombs as fast as we can...Some disconnect, no?

[GuruPrabhu]

^^^India has agreed in principle to the FMCT when the 123 Agreement was signed, but nothing was enshrined in the 123 Agreement since the revised FMCT didn't exist at the time, but the US knew what it wanted. Look at the behavior of the GoI at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) on FMCT as late as Sep. 2010.

Sir-ji, you are putting forth "in principle" and "look at the behavior" as concrete arguments when others found fault with "construed" as a legitimate inference. Goose and Gander are having marital difficulties here.

[Mort Walker]

Somnathji,

Who told you that power projection involves the actual use of a nuclear weapon? The threat of use is sufficient and they are delivered by the same conventional platforms. Yes, MAD worked for the US & USSR during the cold war, but in 10+ years we may very well see the use of nuclear weapons in regional conflicts. The use of a nuclear weapon is not the end of the world.

NFU is indeed window dressing. If hostilities break out between TSP and India, and there is credible intelligence that they are going to "launch" any moment, then expect nuclear weapons to be used by India. I think you are stuck in your arguments and don't want to look at this any other way.

[Mort Walker]

^^^India has agreed in principle to the FMCT when the 123 Agreement was signed, but nothing was enshrined in the 123 Agreement since the revised FMCT didn't exist at the time, but the US knew what it wanted. Look at the behavior of the GoI at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) on FMCT as late as Sep. 2010.

Sir-ji, you are putting forth "in principle" and "look at the behavior" as concrete arguments when others found fault with "construed" as a legitimate inference. Goose and Gander are having marital difficulties here.

Then look at the statements made by GoI at the CD and subsequently. There are enough news sources with statements from GoI officials starting from the time of the 123 Agreement to just recently in Geneva. The revised FMCT as being proposed by the Obama administration has only one objector and that is TSP. The US for its political goals will make India the sacrificial lamb in order to get TSP on board.

[somnath]

Who told you that power projection involves the actual use of a nuclear weapon? The threat of use is sufficient and they are delivered by the same conventional platforms. Yes, MAD worked for the US & USSR during the cold war, but in 10+ years we may very well see the use of nuclear weapons in regional conflicts. The use of a nuclear weapon is not the end of the world.

Sir, someone (you maybe) should have told the US (in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) - nukes are not the end of the world...You have an Af problem, just nuke the place off!!!! Or just pre-emptively nuke out NoKo, just take out Pyong yang and a couple of other cities - end of the game!

NFU is indeed window dressing. If hostilities break out between TSP and India, and there is credible intelligence that they are going to "launch" any moment, then expect nuclear weapons to be used by India. I think you are stuck in your arguments and don't want to look at this any other way.

Maybe GOI too is stuck in the same argument! It refuses to back away from such expensive projects as the SSBN, SLBM, ABM that are required to sustain NFU..Ratnahali is spinning away only for the SSBN...How sad!

The revised FMCT as being proposed by the Obama administration has only one objector and that is TSP. The US for its political goals will make India the sacrificial lamb in order to get TSP on board

And which will be? Source?

[GuruPrabhu]

And which will be? Source?

somnath-ji, what do you mean by "source"? There are some assertions made on this forum that are self-evident. Please get with the program and recognize the gravitas of certain statements. Regards.

[Mort Walker]

Somnathji,

Google is your friend. If you read all the reports, you will see that TSP stands in the way to the FMCT. The Obama administration is determined to get it through and will accommodate TSP. If you don't think they will accommodate them by forcing India to account for its Pu239 or eliminate it, then it is naive.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 616997.cms
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... _fmct_next
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 143969.ece
http://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/Pak-bl ... 0.html?x=0
http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/161930
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 568595.ece
http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/21/stories ... 611200.htm
http://www.thehindu.com/news/article36419.ece

Sir, someone (you maybe) should have told the US (in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) - nukes are not the end of the world...You have an Af problem, just nuke the place off!!!! Or just pre-emptively nuke out NoKo, just take out Pyong yang and a couple of other cities - end of the game!

Again, I don't think you understand, when overwhelming conventional superiority isn't there or a MAD type doctrine, the US will in fact suggest the use of nuclear weapons and prepares for such use.

Maybe GOI too is stuck in the same argument! It refuses to back away from such expensive projects as the SSBN, SLBM, ABM that are required to sustain NFU..Ratnahali is spinning away only for the SSBN...How sad!

Also again, I don't think you understand, 2nd strike capability is to prevent loosing your ability to strike back from a debilitating surprise nuclear attack on your military assets. NFU is political policy and has absolutely nothing to do with the strategic policy involving production of MRBMs, SSBNs, SLBMs and ABMs. I can assure you that TSP does not believe in India's NFU. Would you if believe TSP if they had a NFU?

[V_Raman]

if FMCT comes into force, what is the use for unsafeguarded reactors?

[somnath]

Google is your friend. If you read all the reports, you will see that TSP stands in the way to the FMCT. The Obama administration is determined to get it through and will accommodate TSP. If you don't think they will accommodate them by forcing India to account for its Pu239 or eliminate it, then it is naive.

I went through random;y some of the links you povided..Still not clear what is the FMCT version that India is open to even negotiating that compromises India's stance..You started with a 123-linked commitment...Now its going on to the realm of astrology!

Again, I don't think you understand, when overwhelming conventional superiority isn't there or a MAD type doctrine, the US will in fact suggest the use of nuclear weapons and prepares for such use

again sir, more astrology! the US has not had overwhelming conventional superiority in Vietnam, it didnt try nukes...Its conventional superiority does diddly squat for its objectives in Afghanistan, its not threatening nukes...IT presumably has a reasonably decent conventional challenge in NoKo -its not bringing out Fatman ver II!

Nukes are typically not taken as an extension of weapons of conventional war, not by normal countries anyway..

[Mort Walker]

Somnathji,

Go back through the pronouncements by the MMS govt from 2005 to present and there is commitment to some sort of FMCT. The FMCT that has been agreed to at the CD in Geneva is accepted by India, but TSP is not on-board. The Obama administration is not going to push TSP as they are needed for the Afghan war and they don't want TSP nukes which could be used on the US, so therefore TSP has to be brought to agreement and containment. What happens next takes no astrology, but logical deduction, if you follow what the Obama administration's goals are for "South Asia". In any case, if you want to argue go ahead.

Nukes are typically not taken as an extension of weapons of conventional war, not by normal countries anyway..

What is the definition of a normal country? One that allow one to visit whores, but bans the sale of chewing gum? India's GDP and world trade will put it in a world leader position in 10 years.

Every country's nuclear doctrine is different depending on circumstance in time and political objectives. Once the triad delivery platforms are in place, and variable yield enhanced radiation weapons are field configurable, the doctrine will change again. In 2009, the Russians war-gamed with a new doctrine for a nuclear attack on Poland's military with the objective of capturing key assets. In the last few years, the US military has planned for using nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea, not to wipe them off the map and kill millions, but to quickly secure military objectives. The French revised their nuclear doctrine in the last 5 years to deter state sponsors of terrorism "capacity to act" and not use them to kill millions in population centers. The Chinese nuclear doctrine is ambiguous and claim NFU, and if you believe them good luck, but I doubt the strategic planners in India see it that way.

[abhishek_sharma]

N-liability rules for suppliers on cards

http://www.hindustantimes.com/N-liabili ... 58282.aspx