Bharat Rakshak

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 04:41**

Manish_P wrote: ↑02 Sep 2025 09:24 .
And the opponent didn't have even first strike capability...

No matter what you think your opponent may or may not have or use, always keep the big stick handy. And an even bigger stick in the store room

Better than hoarding big sticks and stones, why not learn from the Mahabharat — Arjun didn’t carry a pile of clubs, he had the Gandiv bow and sharp arrows. In modern terms, a precise automatic weapon is far better for defense than lugging around a warehouse of sticks.

(In any case as said above - serious scientists/engineers/military_experts today do not suggest multi-MT (let alone 100 MT) bombs are necessary. In fact, both physics and strategy communities view them as - wasteful of fissile material and .logistically impractical) I agree with current India's thinking/strategy about having multiple options about manageable sizes

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 06:16**

Let us not forget mace of bheemasena. It is a massive weapon that can break chariots and can kill elephants.

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 06:52**

Amber G. wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025 04:41
Manish_P wrote: ↑02 Sep 2025 09:24 .
And the opponent didn't have even first strike capability...

No matter what you think your opponent may or may not have or use, always keep the big stick handy. And an even bigger stick in the store room
Better than hoarding big sticks and stones, why not learn from the Mahabharat — Arjun didn’t carry a pile of clubs, he had the Gandiv bow and sharp arrows. In modern terms, a precise automatic weapon is far better for defense than lugging around a warehouse of sticks.

(In any case as said above - serious scientists/engineers/military_experts today do not suggest multi-MT (let alone 100 MT) bombs are necessary. In fact, both physics and strategy communities view them as - wasteful of fissile material and .logistically impractical) I agree with current India's thinking/strategy about having multiple options about manageable sizes

Actually, he carried a MT yield version of Brahmastra, ala Brahmashirastra, which was used as a MAD. Without it, that story would have ended differently...

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 07:18**

That's the point

Amber ji, like Arjuna, can see only the eye of the fish, and wants the appropriate precision arrow

But the Mahabharata is so much more than even Arjuna....

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 07:42**

Actually, he carried a MT yield version of Brahmastra, ala Brahmashirastra, which was used as a MAD. Without it, that story would have ended differently.

Nice to read Mahabharata...

!

The Ashwatthama–Arjuna clash with the Brahmastra / Brahmashirastra is a perfect analogy for today’s ‘100 MT bomb’ talk. Two ultimate weapons facing off nearly destroyed the Earth, until wisdom intervened. Arjuna showed discipline and withdrew — Ashwatthama couldn’t, and his rage only brought tragedy to innocents. Likewise, massive doomsday bombs look impressive, but in practice they’re more dangerous to everyone, including their own side. Real strength lies in precision, restraint, and credibility — not in weapons that can’t be controlled once unleashed.

Building 100-MT bombs is like Ashwatthama firing a Brahmashirastra — impressive in rage, disastrous in reality, and no wiser than throwing fire in your own house.

Ashwatthama went for the Brahmashirastra — world-ending overkill. Arjun used Gandiv with precision. In today’s terms: why dream of 100-MT craters (Not to mention deadly fallout which does not respect national borders) when a precise missile does the job far better (and without burning down your own house)...

--- From Mahabharata, who might not be familiar with the whole story ..
(Reading the Mahabharata and understanding is quite useful - Brahmashirastra, which was considered catastrophic even then by epic standards...then .. see/read Vyas and other sages saying.."firing a Brahmashirastra in the middle of a crowded village — sure, it proves you have it.., but nobody sane thinks that’s the way to win"....Arjuna, with discipline and humility, withdrew his weapon as instructed..Ashwatthama, however, could not fully recall his, as he lacked the training ... Instead, he redirected it — tragically — in an attempt to wipe out the Pandava lineage. Krisna somehow saves Parikshit .. ityadi .... Moral was 'supreme weapons are a burden .. without discipline.. they cause devastation even to the wielder’s own side...)

---
महायुद्धास्त्रविनियोगो हानिप्रधानः।
गाण्डीवसदृशं तु लक्ष्ये निशितम् एव श्रोत्रियः।।

Transliteration:
"Using a supreme weapon in anger brings mainly destruction. Like the Gandiv bow, a precise strike at the target alone achieves purpose safely."

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 09:11**

Amber G. wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025 07:42
Actually, he carried a MT yield version of Brahmastra, ala Brahmashirastra, which was used as a MAD. Without it, that story would have ended differently.
Nice to read Mahabharata... !

The Ashwatthama–Arjuna clash with the Brahmastra / Brahmashirastra is a perfect analogy for today’s ‘100 MT bomb’ talk. Two ultimate weapons facing off nearly destroyed the Earth, until wisdom intervened. Arjuna showed discipline and withdrew — Ashwatthama couldn’t, and his rage only brought tragedy to innocents. Likewise, massive doomsday bombs look impressive, but in practice they’re more dangerous to everyone, including their own side. Real strength lies in precision, restraint, and credibility — not in weapons that can’t be controlled once unleashed.

Building 100-MT bombs is like Ashwatthama firing a Brahmashirastra — impressive in rage, disastrous in reality, and no wiser than throwing fire in your own house.

Ashwatthama went for the Brahmashirastra — world-ending overkill. Arjun used Gandiv with precision. In today’s terms: why dream of 100-MT craters (Not to mention deadly fallout which does not respect national borders) when a precise missile does the job far better (and without burning down your own house)...

--- From Mahabharata, who might not be familiar with the whole story ..
(Reading the Mahabharata and understanding is quite useful - Brahmashirastra, which was considered catastrophic even then by epic standards...then .. see/read Vyas and other sages saying.."firing a Brahmashirastra in the middle of a crowded village — sure, it proves you have it.., but nobody sane thinks that’s the way to win"....Arjuna, with discipline and humility, withdrew his weapon as instructed..Ashwatthama, however, could not fully recall his, as he lacked the training ... Instead, he redirected it — tragically — in an attempt to wipe out the Pandava lineage. Krisna somehow saves Parikshit .. ityadi .... Moral was 'supreme weapons are a burden .. without discipline.. they cause devastation even to the wielder’s own side...)

---
महायुद्धास्त्रविनियोगो हानिप्रधानः।
गाण्डीवसदृशं तु लक्ष्ये निशितम् एव श्रोत्रियः।।

Transliteration:
"Using a supreme weapon in anger brings mainly destruction. Like the Gandiv bow, a precise strike at the target alone achieves purpose safely."

The point I was trying to make was that without that brute/crude capability, there would not have been a MAD and the wise sages might not even have intervened and the weapon would not have been redirected.

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 10:31**

Largest Brahmashirastra planned/announced by Edward Teller was a 10,000 MT. Wise sages intervened and it was never made. One was enough for whole Germany (instantly igniting everything within 400 kilometers).

People here talk about 100MT casually .. do they even realize dropping it, say in Lahore will also has vast devastation in Indian Punjab too..

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 10:32**

Simply put the white sages don't think that SDREs have the discipline to control the use of their WMDs

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 10:41**

Amber G. wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025 10:31 Largest Brahmashirastra planned/announced by Edward Teller was a 10,000 MT....

Amazing. So it can be developed right.

Might be useful to try and knock off a large asteroid threatening a dinosaur extinction scale event.

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 10:46**

Amber G. wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025 10:31 Largest Brahmashirastra planned/announced by Edward Teller was a 10,000 MT. Wise sages intervened and it was never made. One was enough for whole Germany (instantly igniting everything within 400 kilometers).

People here talk about 100MT casually .. do they even realize dropping it, say in Lahore will also has vast devastation in Indian Punjab too..

That was also so big that it could not be moved. IIRC, it weighted as much as a Shield Carrier

Personally, he would have been at home in this current WH

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 10:56**

^^^ Most of the details are classified.. from unclassified details/rumors we do not know even the exact type(design)..or even weight (estimated in hundreds of tons). Largest bomb yet tested - Tsar Bomba (Soviet hydrogen bomb) was 58.6 Mt yield weighing about 27 tons. Largest U.S. (I Think - can easily be checked) nuclear test was the Castle Bravo -- which yielded 15 megatons.

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 11:00**

Amber G. wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025 10:56 ^^^ Most of the details are classified.. from unclassified details/rumors we do not know even the exact type(design)..or even weight (estimated in hundreds of tons). Largest bomb yet tested - Tsar Bomba (Soviet hydrogen bomb) was 58.6 Mt yield weighing about 27 tons. Largest U.S. (I Think - can easily be checked) nuclear test was the Castle Bravo -- which yielded 15 megatons.

Yes, its classified, and so is the weight of a Shield Carrier...Its all hypothetical...That was my point. It never moved past than a random remark/dong measuring comment with other bomb makers...

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 17:52**

Regarding how much bang our nukes should have, there is one thing I haven't seen in this discussion - MIRVs.

Assuming that our primary delivery system is going to be ballistic missiles (instead of manned aircraft) and assuming that MIRVs are going to be deployed on all the K-* and Agni missiles, it'd mean that we won't be delivering a single big fat MT range warhead. Instead it is going to be many (6 ? 10 ?) smaller warheads.

I know next to nothing about the nuke design, so does decreasing the warhead size decrease the yield correspondingly or will it cause a drastic reduction in the design yield ? Aka will having 10 petals on missile mean that instead of 1MT payload, we can do a max of 100 KT each ? Or will it be much less ?

Assume a thermo-nuclear (or boosted fission - or whatever the heck we tested in Shakti tests) bum.

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 18:44**

Amber G. wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025 10:31
People here talk about 100MT casually .. do they even realize dropping it, say in Lahore will also has vast devastation in Indian Punjab too..

What will India do if Delhi and/or Bombay are vaporized! as history has shown the other side does not care.

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 18:56**

VinodTK wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025 18:44
Amber G. wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025 10:31
People here talk about 100MT casually .. do they even realize dropping it, say in Lahore will also has vast devastation in Indian Punjab too..
What will India do if Delhi and/or Bombay are vaporized! as history has shown the other side does not care.

Don't worry Vinod ji, the all knowing, all powerful white sages are in charge.

And some of them can be made to look uber cool just by quoting a line or two from the Bhagavad Geeta

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 19:21**

At the risk of sounding like Grandpa Simpson, please do look up the old nuke threads in the archived. Huge amount of gyaan, learning to be had and will answer a lot of questions…

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 19:26**

VinodTK wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025 18:44

What will India do if Delhi and/or Bombay are vaporized! as history has shown the other side does not care.

Saar I assume you mean they are hit by “big bum”. Why is it different to being hit 4 x 100KTs to those dying? So why the fixation on big bomb?

As an aside destruction as function of yield is not linear, so multiple smaller ones will do more damage and have more probability of hitting the target than one big one.

If your question is irrespective of the bomb size, then trust GoI that vengeance will be delivered and if you are unlucky enough to be in vicinity of these cities, commit suicide ASAP. I would do the same

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 20:17**

Tanaji Sir, I fear I am the culprit who started the stick measuring contest.

I should have clarified early on that the big stick mentioned by me was alluding more to the length (range) than the payload.
(though I firmly believe that both should be decided by us - as indeed is happening now)

That way everyone else should know the reach of our vengeance and be ready to take up your suggestion of committing suicide themselves if they think they can just kill a whole lot of us without getting hit back.

Posted: **03 Sep 2025 20:28**

Manish_P wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025 20:17
That way everyone else should know the reach of our vengeance and be ready to take up your suggestion of committing suicide themselves if they think they can just kill a whole lot of us without getting hit back.

100% agreed
MegaT boys might not be used;
however the fear of them being used will give the other side many a sleepless nights.

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 00:11**

AmberG, Is you point that Harry Truman had the wisdom to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
One can be debated but to use two weapons because you have it?
This is what caused the quest for nuclear weapons by other nations.

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 00:58**

ramana wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 00:11 One can be debated but to use two weapons because you have it?

There were reports that Japanese actually were waving to the airplanes as they thought the war had already ended. What they got was a big surprise dhamaka followed by a second one.

The US simply tested what the effects of Nucs would be on people using Japanese as the lab rats.

IMHO and all that.

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 02:42**

ramana wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 00:11 AmberG, Is you point that Harry Truman had the wisdom to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
One can be debated but to use two weapons because you have it?
This is what caused the quest for nuclear weapons by other nations.

Ramana, NO — not remotely my point. I was not commenting on Truman’s “wisdom” or the debate over one vs. two bombs. My focus has been singular and very clear: 100 MT-class weapons are redundant and unnecessary for all the reasons given above — a consistent view I’ve expressed here since the late 1990s.

---

If you want my perspective on Truman’s use of atomic weapons, let me know — I can share.

To be clear, it wouldn’t be about judging his “wisdom” or offering my personal verdict on what he should or shouldn’t have done. Rather, I would provide the historical perspective — what is known and accepted by most reputable accounts, well documented in serious scholarship.

I bring this with the background of expertise in nuclear physics, a longstanding interest in the history of the Manhattan Project, and connections through study, reading, and conversations with people like Hans Bethe and others who were directly involved.

That said, I would only do so if there is genuine interest, and if the thread continues to remain a place where such discussions can proceed without unnecessary or deliberate trolling.

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 03:14**

Tanaji wrote: ↑03 Sep 2025 19:26
As an aside destruction as function of yield is not linear, so multiple smaller ones will do more damage and have more probability of hitting the target than one big one.

Yes! The radius of a nuclear fireball (and other destructive effects) scales approximately with the cube root of the yield, that is, ∝ (Yield)^(1/3).

In practical terms:

(if) A 100-megaton bomb would flatten almost everything within a radius of ~20 km.

The same total yield spread across 1,000 bombs of 100 kilotons each (since 100 MT = 1,000 × 100 KT) would instead produce ~1,000 circles of destruction, each with a ~2 km radius.

Think about the difference.

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 03:39**

I don't think anyone disputes that. Although, what would it cost to build/maintain a 100 MT single vs 100 single 100KT shots? (100 shots since it would be the same area)

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 03:58**

pravula wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 03:39 I don't think anyone disputes that. Although, what would it cost to build/maintain a 100 MT single vs 100 single 100KT shots? (100 shots since it would be the same area)

The probability of a single big bum getting intercepted is higher than all of multiple small ones getting intercepted. That alone makes 100 x 100 KT worth it even with higher cost.

The additional damage is a bonus.

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 04:16**

Tanaji wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 03:58
pravula wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 03:39 I don't think anyone disputes that. Although, what would it cost to build/maintain a 100 MT single vs 100 single 100KT shots? (100 shots since it would be the same area)
The probability of a single big bum getting intercepted is higher than all of multiple small ones getting intercepted. That alone makes 100 x 100 KT worth it even with higher cost.

The additional damage is a bonus.

There would not be any additional damage. 100 * 100KT covers the same area per the numbers above (20 sq km). I am sure this has been gamed/optimized to the extreme by the forces...

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 04:18**

Meanwhile, the current news:
Lasers, hypersonic missiles and the ‘nuclear triad’: China flexes its military muscle]

Key Highlights from this and some other media (WSJ etc)

China showcased the DF-5C liquid-fueled ICBM in a grand military parade l strike range of up to 20,000 km, effectively covering the entire globe.

The DF-5C’s warhead ( ~ few MT total - MUCH smaller than 100MT ) an extremely potent delivery system - multiple MIRVs
- A starlight-assisted inertial guidance system, enhancing precision, and can be transported in three modular vehicles, streamlining deployment and reducing launch time.

Global Reach + Precision: The combination of extremely long range and precision targeting (via MIRVs) elevates China’s strategic deterrent significantly—and complicates adversary defense planning.

Public Signaling of Strength: This public disclosure appears aimed at demonstrating China's modernization and readiness, sending a clear strategic message both domestically and to foreign audiences (e.g., Washington).

Modern Nuclear Triad - This reveal underscores China's advancing nuclear triad (land-, sea-, and air-based delivery), while addressing gaps in reliability, deployment speed, and warhead capacity.

(And let’s be clear—this is a far cry from the kind of 100-MT nonsense people sometimes float.”)

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 04:22**

Its 1000 x 100 KT not 100 x 100 KT if we are aiming 100 MT…
The damage with former is much higher.

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 04:37**

Just a gentle reminder on basics:

100 MT = 1000 × 100 KT, not 100.
The area of a circle with a 20 km radius is not the same as 1000 circles of 2 km radius (/sigh/).
More importantly, the number of people (or houses) within a 20 km radius of a typical city center is nowhere near 1000 times that within a 2 km radius—or even 100 times. /sigh - houses/people do not spread uniformly from a city center/)
--
Fireball radii, material needs, and design trade-offs are the kind of things you’ll find in any good nuclear physics text — worked out and re-worked for 70+ years now.

So yes, plenty of knowledge in the archives already…(even in BRF archives) no need to reinvent the mushroom cloud every few posts.

I also kep noticing quite a few elementary slips in math and mis-understanding basic physics being repeated — I won’t comment on each, but just a gentle reminder: it helps if we all keep attention to the basics, so we don’t have to keep correcting the same points.

Rather like in the Mahabharata — Arjun didn’t need to be taught each morning how to string his Gandiva; once learned, it was enough.

Additionally, making unnecessary comments or mocking the poster, rather than focusing on the subject, is unhelpful and can discourage others from sharing their expertise.

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 05:59**

pravula wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 03:39 I don't think anyone disputes that. Although, what would it cost to build/maintain a 100 MT single vs ~~100~~ 1000 single 100KT shots? (100 shots since it would be the same area)

That is an interesting metric. I don't know the answer to that. But the other metric is as important, if not more, is survivability of one big bum vs. 1000 distributed over a large geographical area - both in storage and when they are delivered to the targets. The latter has degrades finer than the former. Single point of failure.

The second point is that it is easier to optimize the latter vs the 100 MT bomba. The smaller the yield, more the number of bombs one requires. In terms of desirability (back of the envelope calculations and intuition coming from several years of R&D into optimization algorithms of yours truly)

1 x 100 MT << 1000 x 100 KT << 5000 x 20 KT (20 KT were the bombs exploded by the US in Japan).

Maintenance cost increases would be incremental is my WAG. One also has to consider delivery platform capabilities and their chances of survivability.

MY two naya paisa and all that.

(Not trolling anybody here. I don't claim to be an expert)

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 06:15**

@Srin – we’ve previously discussed MIRV (even just a few posts above).
These are good questions, though I think standard sources (e.g., a quick search) can provide the answers.

If you have any specific questions, such as about payloads vs MT, I’d be happy to share what I know.

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 06:27**

Amber G. wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 04:37 Just a gentle reminder on basics:

100 MT = 1000 × 100 KT, not 100.
The area of a circle with a 20 km radius is not the same as 1000 circles of 2 km radius (/sigh/).
More importantly, the number of people (or houses) within a 20 km radius of a typical city center is nowhere near 1000 times that within a 2 km radius—or even 100 times. /sigh - houses/people do not spread uniformly from a city center/)
--
Fireball radii, material needs, and design trade-offs are the kind of things you’ll find in any good nuclear physics text — worked out and re-worked for 70+ years now.

So yes, plenty of knowledge in the archives already…(even in BRF archives) no need to reinvent the mushroom cloud every few posts.

I also kep noticing quite a few elementary slips in math and mis-understanding basic physics being repeated — I won’t comment on each, but just a gentle reminder: it helps if we all keep attention to the basics, so we don’t have to keep correcting the same points.

Rather like in the Mahabharata — Arjun didn’t need to be taught each morning how to string his Gandiva; once learned, it was enough.

Additionally, making unnecessary comments or mocking the poster, rather than focusing on the subject, is unhelpful and can discourage others from sharing their expertise.

Gentle reminder of math. The area inside a 20km radius is the same as 100*2km radius circle. Please reread them numbers.../sigh/ only...and as I wrote,

100 single 100KT shots? (100 shots since it would be the same area)

I was throwing a bone by reducing the number of arrows by one order of magnitude to equalize area of destruction...Otherwise 1000 bums is always going to cause more damage than one 100MT bum

and this is rich...

Additionally, making unnecessary comments or mocking the poster, rather than focusing on the subject, is unhelpful and can discourage others from sharing their expertise.

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 07:13**

Vayutuvan wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 00:58
ramana wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 00:11 One can be debated but to use two weapons because you have it?
There were reports that Japanese actually were waving to the airplanes as they thought the war had already ended. What they got was a big surprise dhamaka followed by a second one.

The US simply tested what the effects of Nucs would be on people using Japanese as the lab rats.

IMHO and all that.

Funny how they didn't think of testing it on the Berlin Brahmins - ze Germans

Effects on different altitudes, climate, skin type, hair texture and all that could have been validated.

Oh well the white sages are all above questions

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 07:24**

pravula wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 06:27 ...I was throwing a bone by reducing the number of arrows by one order of magnitude to equalize area of destruction...Otherwise 1000 bums is always going to cause more damage than one 100MT bum
...

Why are you suggesting just one bum, Pravula ji.

Taking away a chance for the babus across the nation's to have multiple meetings and discussions and chai biskoot sessions over years to make all sort of alphabet soup treaties (which can be promptly discarded at the first sign of trouble)

Sir Arnold would be aghast - This in the thin edge of the wedge!

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 07:25**

..One also has to consider delivery platform capabilities ..

Good Point. Some optimization are easy to compute, even with basics.. eg..How to deliver it..

--Tsar Bomba was originally designed for a 100 MT yield, but that proved too heavy and impractical, so it was tested at about 50–57 MT. Weighing roughly 27 tons and measuring around 8 meters long, it was carried by a specially modified Tu-95V bomber, with a parachute to slow its descent. Its enormous size and weight make it completely impractical for deployment on modern missiles like the Agni—essentially, it was a test of maximum yield rather than a battlefield weapon...

Let me quote a well-known story Teller (whom I referenced in Brhamastra)':

At Los Alamos, Edward Teller wrote a list of nuclear weapon designs on his blackboard. Each entry represented a potential bomb, and at the very end he wrote one word: “Backyard.”

“Backyard” was not a real weapon; it was a theoretical concept, an extremely powerful bomb that would be too large to transport and could destroy everything in its vicinity - and needed no delivery. You can store in your backyard , and it can strike/destroy any enemy anywhere on the earth. Teller’s colleagues recognized the dark humor in the idea, but also the serious implications of the power he was exploring.

The first actual hydrogen bomb he helped develop was “Mike,” a 10-megaton device tested in the Pacific. While “Backyard” was never built, it remained on the blackboard as a reminder of the extreme possibilities Teller and his team were studying. The list stands as a record of ambitious nuclear designs and the immense destructive power that scientists were considering.

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 09:14**

The point I was trying to make was that without that brute/crude capability, there would not have been a MAD and the wise sages might not even have intervened and the weapon would not have been redirected.

Everything depends on the threat perspective and how much geopolitical price you are willing to pay to conduct further raw tests and maintain these weapons. Right now Bharat decided to fine tune the delivery system and triad capability. We have not even declared MAD against the western powers explicitly. ICBMs are getting recategorized as IRBMS as of now. As our comprehensive national power grow, and as our delivery technologies mature, there will be a debate on what is the right size of individual petals for MAD against any power in the planet. Remember we need to right size our systems to maintain MAD at a reasonable cost. Sages and heros of Dvapara Yuga maintained their weapons for free. That logic might not work in Kali Yuga

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 09:31**

williams wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 09:14
Everything depends on the threat perspective and how much geopolitical price you are willing to pay to conduct further raw tests and maintain these weapons. Right now Bharat decided to fine tune the delivery system and triad capability. We have not even declared MAD against the western powers explicitly. ICBMs are getting recategorized as IRBMS as of now. As our comprehensive national power grow, and as our delivery technologies mature, there will be a debate on what is the right size of individual petals for MAD against any power in the planet. Remember we need to right size our systems to maintain MAD at a reasonable cost.

+1 very well put

Sages and heros of Dvapara Yuga maintained their weapons for free. That logic might not work in Kali Yuga

Humbly disagree. WMDs were not free even then.

Deep and rigorous penance was required to acquire them and a high state of capability was constantly required to maintain them.

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 10:09**

Amber G. wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 02:42
ramana wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 00:11 AmberG, Is you point that Harry Truman had the wisdom to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
One can be debated but to use two weapons because you have it?
This is what caused the quest for nuclear weapons by other nations.

Ramana, NO — not remotely my point. I was not commenting on Truman’s “wisdom” or the debate over one vs. two bombs. My focus has been singular and very clear: 100 MT-class weapons are redundant and unnecessary for all the reasons given above — a consistent view I’ve expressed here since the late 1990s.

---

If you want my perspective on Truman’s use of atomic weapons, let me know — I can share.

To be clear, it wouldn’t be about judging his “wisdom” or offering my personal verdict on what he should or shouldn’t have done. Rather, I would provide the historical perspective — what is known and accepted by most reputable accounts, well documented in serious scholarship.

I bring this with the background of expertise in nuclear physics, a longstanding interest in the history of the Manhattan Project, and connections through study, reading, and conversations with people like Hans Bethe and others who were directly involved.

That said, I would only do so if there is genuine interest, and if the thread continues to remain a place where such discussions can proceed without unnecessary or deliberate trolling.

Please do.

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 11:31**

williams wrote: ↑04 Sep 2025 09:14 ...individual petals for MAD ...

This is very creatively put.

Could i have your kind permission to use this term in future - 'Individual petals of the MAD flower, with blessings from the smiling Buddha'

Posted: **04 Sep 2025 21:14**

@Ramana – I’m traveling right now, but I’ll do the write-up you’re interested in within a few days.

Bharat Rakshak

Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence

Re: Deterrence