Rao sahab, if you are talking about '71 perhaps the soviets too had a part in keeping the international situation balanced. you know, the surfacing of subs in IOR and so on.NRao wrote:....................And, a nuclear armed China - even with a non-nuclear India + a US goading it to intervene - did not even intervene in a non-nuclear manner.
Here is my position, a nuclear India has deterrence (subject to change on the other shoe falling) and a non-nuclear India also had deterrence vs. China.
mind it, I still think US/PRC might not have intervened but soviet support did move the balance farther in our favour IMO.
______________________________________
@ all those who are arguing that MAD is the only way to maintain deterrence, let me give a very crude example.
<example>
consider you are building a dam to prevent a potential flood situation and you do not know the maximum height the water level can reach because no one has any data.
someone now builds a 150 m high dam and lo! it controls the flood waters successfully !
here comes the important part. another river with very similar flood situation needs to be dammed. can we say that 150 m is the only way to do with ? what if the flood waters never cross 30 metres in over 50 years of records ?
the answer is of course 150 m works, but so would 120 m, 100 m or even 50 m !
now, I expect a few questions.
the first one will probably be "but you don't have the records"
</example>
or putting it back in nuke-speak,
1. "we don't know if minimum deterrence works".
and that is plain WRONG !
these are the examples that we know worked, other than MAD theories of mid 60's to late 80's :
a) FSU against US.
late 40's to early 60's. with a relatively small nuclear force and a handful of nuclear missiles and no bombers that could bomb US and come back the FSU held back what was probably the most belligerent US govt of all time. let's not forget this was the dulles era in the US.
b) PRC against FSU.
late 60's to late 80's. the same FSU that was extremely annoyed with PRC for moving out of its camp and was itching to teach it a lesson.
c) PRC against US
post tienanmen to current ?
d) NoKO against US (thanks rao sahab, I had forgotten about this one)
okay, let's move on to the next objection :
2. It will not work against PRC. Because PRC does not care about its people.
first of all, the evidence provided to support this assertion(mao's comments about surviving nuclear war, the mass deaths of cultural revolution, tiananmen etc) is not conclusive IMHO.
to my knowledge there has not been a single comment to this end in the recent(last couple of decades) past.
secondly, even if we assume this is true, it DOES NOT imply that PRC doesn't care about a counter value nuclear strike on its soil.
to understand why, you need to look at the structure and psyche of the CCP's ruling elite. consider this :
>> today's PRC is no longer the one man show of mao's china. a single hardline leader can no longer single-handedly carry a disastrous policy on his back in today's PRC, a consensus of the senior leaders would be needed. these leaders who carry a lot of weight in the CMC(central military commission) have family, property and influence in the major urban centres and would be most loathe to embark on a route that threatens their position.
they would prefer to believe that easier less violent avenues in their own interest.
>> the CCP elite may not care about the people but they DO care very much about the symbols of modern china, the urban infrastructure and manufacturing industries.
these have the same place in chinese psyche that mecca does in the arab's psyche, or jerusalem does in israel's psyche.
they WILL NOT choose a way that threatens these. remember they are the pro-active party, so they can afford to look for other avenues.
>> even the argument that the CCP is anti-people is unsustainable because of the way the PRC govt functions. the current chinese govt is akin to a contract between the people and the party that the party will look after the people's interests if the people
a) don't seek to replace the party
b) forgo some freedom
now, while whether the CCP actually does all that it claims is questionable, it certainly can't afford to look like it didn't care about the lives of common people.
>> if the last two point didn't make it clear already, let me state probably the most important reason, H&D. losing even one important industrial city would be too big a loss of face.
3.Does India have a deterrence against PRC ?
let's first understand that deterrence is a combination of two factors, your opponent's strike potential AND the log kya kahenge (LKK) factor.
the second factor may not sound too glamourous or good from a H&D perspective (which is why the amirkhans and the russkies don't speak of it) but it is a strong factor nevertheless. without the LKK factor, the US would have used nukes in vietnam and korean wars and probably in NoKo, the soviets would have used them in afghanistan and so on.
it is a combination of both these factors that deters a rational nuclear power.
and china is a rational nuclear power. in fact china has probably been the most rational of the 3 nuclear actors. (not considering france or UK, they are more like supporting cast)
yes, that is in spite of the proliferation. consider it from the chinese POV, it would make perfect sense.
if my reading is right, the chinese have armed two proxies(TSP and NoKo) to engage and sap the strength of its adversaries without the need to fight a potentially nuclear war itself.
so the answer is yes, India does have a deterrence against china.
4. Is our deterrence robust enough ? are all probable eventualities covered by it ?
now this is a point that needs to be stressed.
our nuclear arsenal can be and should be improved.
the current state of arsenal, whatever little we know of its status will hold against 95% scenarios. but the rare 5% scenario whereby a handful of nutjobs (who believe the loss of one major chinese city is acceptable loss) come to dominate the CMC of PRC, the rationality of china's behaviour will deteriorate and our current arsenal may no longer be enough.
as is well known, the ideal arsenal to ensure minimum credible deterrence vis-a-vis china would involve nuclear submarines armed with MIRVed SLBMs carrying 2-3 (preferably TN) warheads each in addition to land based missiles to ensure redundancy.
sometime back I did a very rough back of the envelope calculation on what we would need in the form of SSBNs in addition to the land based systems.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 40#p729340
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 29#p727129
let me reiterate that I'm NOT advocating MAD, nor massive retaliation. I agree with n^3 that once you achieve MCD you should pour all your resources in developing conventional weapons.
In fact this was a very important thought in some deterrence literature, that once nuclear balance has been achieved (NOTE : balance and not parity) it will be the conventional arms that tip the balance.
on this thread will be able to educate you and me about that.
Sadly true, Chinese having enough much money to replace US as Aidgiver + US, UK fascination with Porkiwhore = Too powerful combination.
Shiv Aapne mere muh ki baat Chheen lee!!! If there is a country which makes the case of having a good stock of NWs then its India which has been tirelessly fending herself from outside attacks for the last 2000 years or more without taking the fight to the enemy camp[and will continue to do so].