Strategic Implications of India's ABM Test

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Strategic Implications of India's ABM Test

Postby abhischekcc » 01 Dec 2006 02:20

I am starting a new thread on this topic and pasting the posts of the said members.

ramana wrote:abhishekcc, I think we need another thread in the other forum to discuss the geopolitical issues rising from this test. Please open one in the other thread and put in it yours, VijayJ, Kgoan and Rajaram's posts.

Also need to factor in impact on the fourth 'horseman'.


Please shift all the strategic discussion on the ABM from the technical thread on to here.
Last edited by abhischekcc on 01 Dec 2006 02:27, edited 1 time in total.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 01 Dec 2006 02:25

kgoan>>
Funny thing folks:

But the degree of interest in this test in some places is astonishing - staggering in fact. "Staggering" because it's been suggested that the Yindoos have again blindsided the all-knowing, all-wise folk again and is being compared to Pok II !

Not being up to date on this stuff, I don't get that at all. But the concern being expressed is rather . . . interesting - I thought said "concern" would be along the lines that the gora navy types had about the Brahmos - but this seems to be way larger.

Something of fundamental interest has just happened - but I don't get the level of worry.

Folks, it might be worth the trouble, over the next few months, to keep a closer eye on the *technical* think-tank types.

Because it would be interesting to know *why* such concern.



hrnair>>
Yes, one sees a lot of uneasy calm amongst the "opinion at the drop of a hat" folks in the West. Though caught unawares, the '98 tests had a well defined response system in place for the eventuality of a Nuke club gatecrashing. But this test? Still groping for a response, I guess. All those decoy tests and bored yawns in Delhi at Pak's testing must have suddenly fallen in place for the Thinking Sintexes. Same as the feel in '98 about the earlier observance of the "crazy Injuns digging big holes all over the desert". I kind of miss the sputtering PLA spokesman of '98 who said "Whaaa? again?" though.

But for the ThinkSintexers of DC, a Yogi Berra moment of "dejavu again".



ramana>>
kgoan, Please do report back what ever innocuous bits you hear. I did say in one of my posts that this test is a strategic surprise mainly because DRDO capabilities were underestimated and the hype was taken as gospel.


Paul Harvey the venerable ABC news reader repeated the story two mornings in a row. Tells you the impact it made on him.

It does change the strategic picture somewhat and moreover puts India in a very big league. It breaks what Kalam calls the sixth country syndrome. For the uninitiated, usual press reports(Reuters) state "India is the sixth country to do this....and that..."

As someone pointed out the chatterati are in a quandary. Cant say it is fake. Cant say it is proliferated. What to do?

Someone will pick up the N^3 assessment and run it.



Raja Ram>>
kgoan.

This is definitely a surprise for many. From the first few reports it is slowly emerging that this new ABM interceptor was actually developed over 3 years now. There is also talk that it was deliberately kept outside the IGMDP.

If you look back and piece together some of the statements from DRDO elite like Sivathanu Pillai, it is clear that right after Pokhran and Chagai there were some decisions taken to develop ABM.

The then GOI was enthusiastic about Bush's ABM for a reason it appears. It was clear that we were prepapred to cooperate as well as have our own programme. Sort of like the nuclear three stage program and J18 deal. Cooperation will be on our terms. Other wise we can do it ourselves. May take time and effort, but we are capable and prepared for it. This seems to be the message. I do not know how many thin(c)K tankers can get this. But to those who are discerning, it should be evident.

Some of the oldies here may remember this commentator had said after the Draft Nuclear Doctrine, that the focus will be on delivery systems survivability for Second Strike policy. This is very much in line. So it pays to keep a track of these occasional rambles Cool

Prepare yourself for Submarine launch of missiles and interceptors next. It is coming to a test range in Eastern India soon. Next will be an announcement regarding the ATV. That is still some distance away though.

As usual just a ramble, take it for what it is worth.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 01 Dec 2006 02:33

Vijay J>>
Hello don't lose sight of the important point here.

How many nations have this kind of program? how many nations have a working demonstration forget about fielded systems? That is DRDO's achievement!

Why Prithvi? well Hello Boss, we already have at least two prithvi missile groups. Given the number of tests, I say without hesitation that prithvi is the one system that our armed forces have most experience with. Prithvi is the most reliable missile in our stable and that is what this is all about reliability.

It is hundred percent homemade and yes it has corrosive fuel, but I want to ask that madarch*d in Pioneer which missile doesn't have a fuel that is nasty to handle. I expect a CSW on Lamington Road will have a better understanding of this than some high fi sounding Editoral person in a major Indian newspaper.

Look boys what DRDO is saying is simple, why pay so much for a foreign system that everyone knows will not work when push comes to shove?

Why not invest in a local system which you already know more about than any other imported piece of sh*t?

Arrow costs 3 Million a piece. We will supply you prithvi for a tenth of the price and no proximity fuzing nonsense. Hit to kill, that is what we will give you and we will make it so that your poor uneducated bullock cart driver from Haryana will be able operate it. You won't have to learn english or hebrew or russian to operate it. Can your foreign supplier give you that?

What happened to Iraqis with their vaunted KARI AD? didn't the french betray it?

So then what do you think is going to happen tomorrow to Green Pine? is it going to be any different? Are you all expecting the Americans to keep the secrets of the Green Pine from the Pakistanis when we are getting ready to smash the Pakistanis to bits?

What dream world are people living in?

Do you understand now why it can't be arrow or some other boeing toy?

We have worked on this missile for a long time now. Prithvi is the best bet. you can have your prithvi groups as many as you want, and we will make it AAD or Strategic you tell us and we will configure it.

Do you really expect us to leave such a crucial issue relating to our defense to the mercy of foreign suppliers? What do you think we are Pakistanis to simply repaint missiles and pass them off as national strategic investments?



John Snow>>
kgoan, Vijay>> Agree that as usual the yindo folks have shifted the Paradigm completely ober its head.

Now watch, How Garry Mole hole, David Halfwright, and some Drs. say with pouted l;ips, India not only proliferated vertically unilaterally but also destabilized the entire equilibrium of PRC TSP India theater!!!!



So the strategy of TSP PRC and NoKO from now onwards will be mass produce SRBMs and saturate the TMD area so that the system will be overwhelmed...

very very interesting, TSP with out sops from uncles and aunties is out of the strategic race.. Now we have entered the qurter finals with Unkil, PRC, Rusia India at the table.




Acharya>>
Take some more time to read in BRF to slowly understand the unspoken.
This test is more a psy ops which can put pressure on lots of countries. It changes Indian foriegn relations, geopolitics and influence. There is a trend going on for the last 25 years to understand what this this test means.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 01 Dec 2006 02:34

abhischekcc>>
I am more interested in the reactions of Paki-China combine to the test, than where the missile came from. And it warms the cockles of my heart more is the rampant display of sheer impotence the two countries have put up in the past week. Let's go over it step by step:


1. First we send off Hu with an Agni on his tail after his visit here. It was China which was more known for taking such steps, now with India treating the Chinese premier with such an insult is a double insult. It shows the rest of the world (esp. the developing world) that China can be triffled with, and their is nothing they can do about it. In the global geo-eco-political sweepstakes, just the impression that China cannot defend itself has immense implications. And coming right after the Afro-Sino summit meet, it tells a lot of African leaders not to fawn over China just yet.


2. The paki reaction has been even more impotent. They fire a missile that everybody knows they already have. That is, in essence they just confessed that they do not have anything to counter our new tech. Period.


3. The Chinese effort to open a new pressure point in India via Tawang issue is a case in point. It seems that they are a) running out of options, b) running out of time because of India's economic progress.


4. But what is the most interesting implication of this test is when you combine it with JJ SIngh's statement just after HU's visit. He said India is ready for joint exercises with chinese. I thought that the statement was odd, because I could not figure out why he said that.

At first I felt that this statement was basically meant to increase the cost of co-operation on America. That is, it was meant to send shivers down the spine of US officials, and help in negotiating better terms in our relationship with them. IOW, I thought it was a classic case of shakedown. But it seemed to unreal.

Then I thought that MMS was simply trying to fend off pressure from the left allies, by showing that India is ready for a new level of relationship with CHina. IOW, we were effectively putting the ball in China's court. But this explaination also seemed a little out of place.


Now, after this test the full import of JJ's statement is becoming clear to me.

To understand that, visualise the big picture. The one thing that Yanks truly fear is a ganging up of all their rivals in asia in one big block. The Indo-Sino-Russian alliance. And they are willing to go to any length to prevent. US now understands that Russia and China are irrevocably anti-US. So, their asian strategy is dependant on keeping India out of this alliance. And for this very reason China knows it has to keep India away from a US-India alliance - because the main target of such an alliance will inevitably be China.

So JJ's statement was an invitation to China to become less anti-India, and the promise of India's goodwill in return. Combine that with this test. This test puts enormous pressure on the Chini-Paki alliance. Think about the following:

If our ABM defence has a 50% success rate, it will put pressure on pakis to double their nuke arsenal to keep the same confidence level of hitting targets. If our ABM defence has a success rate of 90%, then pakis will need to increase their arsenal amount by 10 times. And so forth.
Now, where do you think pakis will need to get the infrastructure for increasing their arsenal by such vast amounts? China, of course.

So, by holding out the hope of cooperation with China, we are giving them an incentive to stop cooperation with pakistan. Putting all pieces together, I feel that India has introduced many new fronts in the old game between India, pak and China:
1. Try and separate pakistan and China alliance.
2. Try and make China see the benefits of a cooperative relationship with India.
3. Subdue pakistan's yahoo attitude towards war by further degrading its nuclear threat over India.
4. Wrest initiative away from China in the larger, asian/global game. (See my next post).



The ultimate POLITICAL (as opposed to military) thrust of the activities orchestrated by India for past week was to throw dice at various problems. One of them is isolating Pakistan from its principal sponsor - China. Another is to show China the benefits of a pro India policy, or the harm in an anti India policy. And a third important objective is that it sets India into an extremely select club of countries.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 01 Dec 2006 02:39

abhischekcc>>
And talking of emerging patterns of strategic lanscape, here's another one for you to chew on:

List the countries developing ABM tech:
1. US (Patriot)
2. Russia (S-300)
3. Israel (Arrow)
4. India (Prithvi-5 or Trishul Mark2)
(In order of development start time)

A. What is the common factor among these countries?
Q. These four are the primary targets of Islamic terrorists.

Q. Dissect further, which country is arming Islamic countries with latest weapons?
A. China.

IOW, the primary threat to world security is emanating from China. China is providing the supporting framework for world Islamic terrorism.

So, look at Japan next to develop this tech.

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

As an aside, here is a list of countries that DO NOT have the ABM tech:
1. China
2. Haiti :mrgreen:
3. Japan
4. England
5. France
6. Germany
7. Trinidad & Tobago :mrgreen:

T&T and Haiti must be very pleased to find themselves in such august company :P Can't say the same for the others though.




abhischekcc>>
The more I think about this test, the more it becomes apparent that it is of the same significance as Shakti tests. And I am not talking about the shock and awe effect due to the suddenness of the tests.

To understand that, refer to the ABM's ability to counter incoming missiles. Even when such a capability is less than perfect, the enemy is not sure of how many missiles will actually reach the target.

For example, if the Pakis have allocated 10 missiles and warheads for Delhi, and our ABM has a 50 % success rate, the pindi generals will not be sure if 5 warheads will do the job. SO, to get the same level of assurance (of hitting delhi with 10 bombs) they need to raise the number of bombs allocated for delhi to 20. And this move will be repeated all across the board for all targets. Effectively doubling their nuclear budge. Cos, they will need infrastructure for producing and storing and delivering all these newer bombs too. If the success rate goes to 67%, it will triple the costs on our enemies. So a mere increase in success of 17% (over 50%)on our side will increase the enemy's costs by 100%.


Mind you, a mere 50% success rate, imperfect as it is, will double the enemy's budget. (And the enemy is not only paks but China as well).

This is very sane logic, and this was the very logic that bankrupted the soviets and forced them to make up with the west. (SDI program).

I feel that the political message the test sent out was more important than the military message, that's why I have concentrated on that.

The message we sent to our enemies is as follows - 'We can increase your costs of opposing India at will. Compete against us at your risk. Keep the example of soviet union in mind when you oppose us.'

That is, even small incremental improvements in the ABM's efficiency will require a disproportionate increase in investment by the enemy. Recall the difference between 50% and 67% success rate I wrote above. It is such an important message that I feel that the only target of such a message is China, not pakistan.

Pakistan is a bit player in this drama. It is bankrupt and its ability to threaten India is because of China's support and weapon gifts. Now, China does not have anything to counter this technology, hence cannot help pakistan anyway. So this test has wrested the initiative away from China.



See, in the triangular relationship between India, Pakistan and CHina; these two unholy states had an alliance of hurting and subdueing India, and they could do so with impunity. These two put together had the initiative in inflicting pain on India.

POK-2 was like a show of hands between us and pakis. It was a challenge by us - 'Let's see what you got'. And the pakis came out looking like losers. They had a primitive arsenal, while some doubted whether it had an arsenal at all. It wrested the initiative away from pakis. The pakis did try to regain initiative in the form of the Kargil misadventure, but failed. When that failed, the entire world got on the India bandwagon. People credit Clinton with improving relations with India, but they forget that Clinton spent the first 6 years of his rule ignoring India and sucking up to China.. It was our victory in Kargil that change his mind.

This test is of the same type, except now the show of hands is between us and China. China has nothing to counter this. And if Raja Ram's words about future 'show of hands' that India is going to unveil are correct, China will permanently be put at a strategic disadvantage vis-a-vis India. Yes, this test is that important.

It has helped us wrest initiative away from China in the Asian and global arena, just as POK-2 helped us wrest initiative away from pakistan in the south asian arena.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 01 Dec 2006 02:54

Arun_S>>
Actually it a quite much more worse for them, because one has to do Monte-Carlo simulation on accuracy/variance & interception probability together) to arrive at 95% confidence of meeting an objective and that number and resource is now significantly altered.



R Sharma>>
I'm just going off of Abhishek's logic, which is credible, that we will force Pakistan to get into a big time arms race with us. China will get the technology from Russia, and if there is the Russo-Sino collaboration, I don't think the Ruskies would mind giving them the S-300 technology either. Then China in a so called "joint venture" with Pakistan, will give them the technology. We will again have to increase the number nukes fielded by us as well.

And you can shoot down missiles during reentry. You do not need space lasers etc to shoot down missiles in the enemies territory. So basically what that means is if the Pakis have S-300 equivalent, they will also have ABM capability which means that we will have to increase our nukes as well which means more of a chance for us to also get into the costly arms race.



asharma>>
Ah yes, the FMCT........ and now someone should hopefully look at Unkil's options also, not just limit it to Pubestan and even PRC

IUCNA, TMD.... interesting variables introduced now




kgoan>>
Hullo folks:

Okay, apparently the "resonance" of this test and it's ripples are based on an issue that we (on BR) perhaps need to pay more attention to.

Note: I admit I don't fully grok the arguments, but from the gossip from people who do know this stuff, it is *huge*.

Technological independence. This apparently translates to strategic independence. The test is compared to Pok 2 because the implied mastery of key technology came as a *strategic* surprise. The tech independence assumed here is on a par with our thorium plans!

The issue also relates to supposed "cooperation" with our natural allies on ABM systems. Apparently they were happy to cooperate because they didn't fully grasp where we were.

Think of it this way:

Someone says to Microsoft "Gee our business wanted to cooperate with you guys. How does your software work, and could you code share since we need to work out some problems".

Microsoft thinking it's a potential customer is happy to "partner" with said dude. Then after certain cooperation already happens and agreements are signed, said dude says to MS, "by the way, the business partners names are Linus Torvalds and Steve Jobs".

All of a sudden it's a whole different ball game

People are scrambling to find out what they may have inadvertently given away and what they may give away in the future and it's implications. What MS may give and tell some company X is one thing - showing code to these folks could permanently damage MS unless rigorous precautions are taken.

This is well above the concern expressed about the Brahmos. Kinda like Open Office versus MS Office. Just as good, possibly dangerous, but not a strategic danger.

I think we, (BRites that is), need to get a better grasp of technological *independence* as a *currency-of-power* in international relations.

Interesting point: Apparently the our ABM plans are "well known". Sometime back GoI or some GoI department apparently quietly published a paper detailing what GoI wanted to achieve.

Key point: The numbers given was approx "80 missile/units".

I don't know what that is. Are we defending against a presumed attacking force of simutaneously launched 80 odd missiles? Or does it mean we need "80 units" to defend against Pak-China. What is a unit? A single missile or a battery?

We need to look this up.

Singha: now if these fora are NPA run places

No. Completely different. No relationship at all.

Ramana, Vijay J: Strategic surprise. . .

Yes and no. Funnily enough it was expected *eventually*. The surprise is the *speed* at which we're moving. Confusion apparently arises because of the simultaneous snail like pace in some areas and the swiftness of others.

Some areas they thought we would speed up we haven't. Others come like a bolt out of the blue. They can't figure out whether it's deliberate or haphazard.

If it's deliberate it implies they've completely misread our strategic priorities. If it's haphazard it implies they'll never be able to be fully sure what assets and what *weight* those assets would have if we decide to throw them into the game.

Raja Ram: If you look back and piece together some of the statements

Yes - that whole "80" number . . . seems to be a mystery. Apparently No one payed any attention at the time.

But they will now. Will post the odd summary of what I hear, if I can, over time.

abhishekcc: Good series of posts. An interesting way of looking at the *possibilities*.

Jcage Good reply to IE.

Folks: Keep in mind what happened after the nuke tests and the "analysis" that followed. If this is being compared to Pok 2 as a strategic surprise, you can bet your arm they (leave aside who "they" are for now), will move heaven and earth to prevent further development.

We need to follow and counter as many arguments as possible - as JCage just did with those creeps from IE and Vijay J's smack across the ear to Pioneer. (Fanne, this *is* necessary. Pioneer can get it wrong at times. And its arguably more important to try and set Pioneer right than it is the IE becasue of where a Pioneer argument may find takers.)

Folks, remember, BR is read. Far more widely than you would think. No, it's *not* outright influence like the media have. But you would be astonished where some arguments made on BR turn up.

Admins: Please save these threads. I assume when news dies out and this stuff will fall into the general Indian missile thread. But it may be worth keeping a permanent thread, like the LCA one open on this issue.

Because it seems to me that merging this with the general missile thread would be equal to merging discussions on nuke warheads with the general artillery threads and arty ammo.




An artocle from tribune:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030116/world.htm#1
[quote]ABM system for India ‘could threaten’ Pak

Washington, January 15

If the ongoing missile defence cooperation talks between the USA and India culminate in the deployment of a missile defence system for India, South Asian stability could be seriously impacted, according to a leading geopolitical analytical firm.

“A missile defence system would shift the balance in India’s nuclear standoff with Pakistan,â€

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 01 Dec 2006 03:02

saty>>
Abhishek's CC and _P; And Arun_S saar.

If I may be so bold: While you guys have interesting geo-political analysis of the impact of a ABM system, isnt the analysis you are painting premature? You are painting a picture which assumes India has ABM deployed. However as Arun_S himself cautioned me, lets walk and then run. Lets not get carried away.

The matter of interest at the moment is getting the ABM system up. Till then the geo political game will be painted by
1) When/if/how did India get ABM, when will it be fully deployed.
2) How to stop India in getting the ABM system operational (for Pak, Chin)
3) Should I help India get a ABM or should I block it? Which way is my benifit more? (Ru/US/Israel etc.)

Lets game the above scenario for now, because the resolution of the the current game will determine what the setting of the pieces for the next one is, and the current assumptions you are basing your analysis on may not even be valid.

JMT.

saty, look at my fresh post after all te pasting jobs.


R Sharma>>
To Abhishek's point,

last year I was discussing the unique geopolitical situation that India is in with a Brigadier (now Maj General) of the Indian Army. He pretty much reiterated the same points that Abhishek made about India's position. India is currently being wooed by all sides, Russians want India to be on their side in order to contain US interests in the region, US wants India to be on their side to contain Chinese interests in the region. Until India chooses a side, India will be at an advantage.




Vijay J>>
hello everyone, I am going to follow Kalam Sahab's line of thinking a few steps further. I am saying what I think Kalam Sahab is saying and feel free to attack me if you think I am wrong.

I am all for globalisation of economies and I will be very happy when all trade blocks, tariffs and direct or indirect subsidies are lifted, but I want to make something clear. There are things we should import and things we should absolutely NOT.

When it comes to conventional weapons systems we can buy some things from outside the country, but when it comes to matters of nuclear security we cannot buy from outside. That in my opinion is a rule that cannot be broken.

To buy a weapon meant for strategic use from outside the country would negate what gains could be had from it. A foreign power would have the ability to dictate the nature of its use and that kind of power in someone elses hands would eradicate our decisional autonomy.

Surface to Air Missiles to protect against conventional airstrikes are not a strategic weapon and they can be imported.

But ABM systems which provide protection against airborne nuclear threats are too vital to be left to imports.

I see two natural consequences of this.

Firstly, the ability to protect our airspace against intrusions is a very vital part of securing fortress India. After Gulf War I in 1990, western strategists have becoming increasingly reliant on gaining air superiority as a prerequisite to military control over a nation. A strong and robust indigenous ABM program lays the groundwork for a stronger Air Defence System which cannot be easily penetrated by a foreign power. In essence it ensures that what was done to Iraq by the French cannot be repeated in India. I repeat Fortress India will not be betrayed with such ease.

Secondly, from a technology perspective, we maintain our decisional autonomy by reducing our dependence on imports when it comes to security against nuclear strikes. This means that our ABM test has just done what Shakti tests did for nuclear weapons. It showed that we are not dependent on anyone. This is unlike other third world countries with nuclear weapons which are completely reliant on being sock puppets of China. By pursuing the most advanced technologies known to man, we are aiming for the big league.

In sum, a stronger regime of self-reliance in air defence technology has strategic implications that outweigh any immediate costs. A strong indigenous representation in the arena of air defence systems is a non negotiable item in the India's national security calculations.




John Snow>>
I) India every so often wakes up the world to show its latent talent and potential.
Example. Arjun, LCA, Missile development, Kaveri, Cryo engines etc.

Evreyone in the world knows we can do it, except our own home grown critics and GMs with chalta hai attitude.


2) India is wooed by one and all because of its unique position as a very viable multi ethnic functional democracy with immense land mass, natural resources and above all smart human capital. Economies and technologies are consumption driven, Hence India and China by virtue of large population will have to be next leaders of the pack of nations. India even when compared to PRC has institutions that have stood for centuries with far more transparency than PRC can ever imagine in the short run, and thanks to a society which values democracy inspite of PRC inspired , CIA aided PWG, Naxals and leftwing nuts.


The correct posture in the current Geo Political environment is to be equally aligned ( rather than outdated Non aligned, just like our defination of secular means 'all religions on equal footing', not religion free as the dictionary defines it)based on selective issues evaluated on the basis of first and foremost national interests, not ideology. If the world greatest democracy can be in bed with Mushy like tinpot dictators, PRC like democratic dictatorships and equally cozy to western democracies, we too can do that be it with Burma or Iran or USA..


Now coming to Vijay J 's doctrine of self relaince in strategic weapons and reliance on outside powers for non strategic wepons suits us fine as long as we have the money to pay. ( Tejori house full)

reasons being

Non strategic weapons will be used and have to be effective, we will have wars with Pakistan that is for sure and even Bangladesh.
So we better have things that fire, work and give results. We cant go to war with Proof of concept equipment.

Strategic weapons by nature are not sold even to closest allies or Munnas, at best a shield is offered (like for chief Vitalstatistic of Asterix)

Strategic weapons are for brandishing only, if they are used both brandisher and brandishee will reap the consequences ( New english word are not monopoly of yankees or ebonics, desi wallahs also contribute to queens Hinglish)

So DRDO is ideally suited for strategic weapons development, because for those purposess even a Proof of Concept (like the recent clash of Prithvis in Aakash) is good enough to make some idiots accross the border wipe their eyes and see reality.

DRDO meanwhile can extend the fine tuning for quite sometime without much damage to war fhiting quality of our forces.

Even if some MOD wallah wants to import Strategic weapons system for his own tactical reasons ( of financing his kids education in US or UK, or buy a condo in Tampa FL or Jackson heights NY), they will never be used, or not sure they will perform. So why not local made DRDO stuff we can atleast have some spinoffs no?

SO I endorse Vijay J 'sargument and his doctrine.



ramana>>
Philip, While I do understand the technical complexity that US faces for tis NMD program which leads to apparent delays, one should not lose sight of the fact that the DRDO program is for much shorter range TBMs and is emmienetly doable. It is based on available assets within India.

So incorrect comaprisons to US efforts should not be thrown up as attempts to deny credibility to the Indian EAIS. This EAIS is part of CMD for only a credible EAIS allows lower numbers that are needed for global arms control and strategic balance. So lifafa DDM are undermining their own paymasters.



Acharya>>
Subramaniam wrote:
This could be a spin off from Talbott-Jaswant talks? ABM against TSP and China may limit the Indian arsenal to K. Subramaniam advocated numbers than the Bharat karnad numbers-thereby still consistent with DND and CMD? Pure speculation on my part-but could be true.


Yes, That is why Uncle encourages ABM. The ability of China and Pakistan to increase missiles and warheads has limitation which Uncle controls.
This is a balance of power strategy

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 01 Dec 2006 03:08

If I missed somebody's post, please paste it here. This is hard work.

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

saty, wait for my post. I seem to have misplaced the file in which I wrote it.

Calvin
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Calvin » 01 Dec 2006 10:33

If this has been in the works for 3 years, it appears that the impetus for this, like that for Nuke Comm Center was Parakram, and this probably tells us what, exactly, deterred Indian action. The combination of these tests, with Cold Start, and Indian deployments in Afghanistan should tell us that there is an Indian strategy that is pushing Pakistan into a corner. THe pressure will build on Musharraf to try and call India's bluff with communally sensitive attacks, but likely we will be patient for the next 4 years.

Secondly, there are a number of demographic and other factors lining up to create a tipping point, so that these milestones may soon become a cascade.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 01 Dec 2006 11:16

Parakram was 2001. Per all accounts, the program was in the works before that. So you would be correct that the impetus was Parakram which would have made support to this program get political backing.

Having said that, the role of the media has to be watched and if necessary disciplined.

By going on an anti-DRDO binge, which includes elements of our strategic arsenal - Agni especially, they are downplaying the efficacy of our deterrent, which creates the potential for Pak to resort to its usual escalatory actions and risky antics. In a political climate made hostile, DRDO will be forced to reveal aspects of its programs and reveal its details- eg, Agni accuracy or the like. Who benefits from this? Does India benefit? Hardly.

It would have been *even better* if this PADES test was kept under wraps for another three years and revealed at a stage when its unveiling would have cost Pak more strategic space.

By playing our hand too openly, we also have the negative aspect- of allowing our stated enemy, countermeasures, even if quickly purchased. By tomtomming the Phalcon, we ensured Pak went and signed up for 7 Erieyes. Run silent, run deep is something India has to do.

Audits and transparency can be achieved via integrating the services with decision making, and not throwing muck on local development, which can easily be used to fish for details which are unnecessary for public scrutiny.
India is easily facing a warlike situation in certain respects; displaying its strategic assets openly is not good.

The media has to be disciplined from acting with the "Rang de basanti" effect- all thats good for the movies.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63163
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 01 Dec 2006 11:36

is there a chance unkil might play the monkey and kit the pakis up with a few regiments of PAC-3 ?
recall the chinese made a very bold move by transferring a cruise missile production line under "barber" project.

Abhishek_P
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 16 Sep 2006 07:05

Postby Abhishek_P » 01 Dec 2006 12:34

The pakis did try to regain initiative in the form of the Kargil misadventure, but failed. When that failed, the entire world got on the India bandwagon. People credit Clinton with improving relations with India, but they forget that Clinton spent the first 6 years of his rule ignoring India and sucking up to China.. It was our victory in Kargil that change his mind.


As far as I remember, Clinton was already warming up to the idea of better relations with India prior to the nuke tests. I think the end of cold war, India's economic growth post 1990 and subsequently the nuke tests in 1998 ensured that better Indo-US relations were just a matter of time.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 01 Dec 2006 12:56

I wonder if we at BR realize what a tremendous effect the project Divya Drishti and ABM missile will have on Pakistan (enemy) general air defence.

The anti-aircraft range of an ABM missile is around 4-6 times its ABM range which means Indian ABM range would be 400-600km against Pak MPA, AWACS and ELINT aircraft.

Divya Drishti will detect these aircraft by passive mode and then the ABM missile will be fired from outside the radar range of these aircraft/platforms. The missile will dive on top of these aircraft from top and they would not know what hit them.

This will keep P-3s and Erieyes well away and probably in their hanger all throughout the war.

The most important aspect of this missile is its high max ceiling of 50km which may come in useful in more than one way.

Also IN can adapt the missile to provide area defense for its ships from MPAs etc and long range Anti-ship missiles.

I think apart from purely ABM role, this missile will also have positive effect on other areas of Indian defense preparedness. So I suppose this should also be part of strategic analysis

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 01 Dec 2006 13:07

JCage wrote:Parakram was 2001. Per all accounts, the program was in the works before that. So you would be correct that the impetus was Parakram which would have made support to this program get political backing


I am inclined to believe that this programme may be significantly older and may date back to 1996 or even older. India has been showing interest in Russian ABM systems since that date and Drdo may also have been doing its own studies.

Though I go ahead may have been give in 1998-2001 as at that time It seems that India was urgently trying to acquire Arrow and was being stone walled.

The test is simply too complicated and advanced to have fallen out from the blue or even in couple of years.

Even if lot of foreign assisstance may have been given still for integrating everything and getting it together, it would take time.

My guess is the project was sanctioned in 1998 and big part of funding came in 2001-3 when it started demonstrating some promise.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 01 Dec 2006 13:11

I agree; the timeline indicates that India evaluated all the competing Russian ATBM systems of the earlier gen, and then decided to go this path. The papers have been full of S-3XX for many years, and it was always a bit of a puzzle as to what we were doing evaluating or discussing them endlessly.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 01 Dec 2006 13:16

Looking at Arun analysis I think the missile would be inspired from S-300VM Giant missile (M-82?) and the electronics from Israel Arrow. Though if "India Today" does have an article today it will be cleared up soon enough.

(Note-When I say inspired-I don't mean imported)

Abhiman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 12:47

Postby Abhiman » 01 Dec 2006 16:28

In my view, basic set-up of surveillance radar and tracking & guidance radars (multiple layers of former) may be used for indigenous ABM, similar to S-300 system.

Prediction of trajectory as in Arrow-2 may be done as range of interceptor may be for point-defence, thus enabling interceptor to manoever in the predicted direction.

India's ABM may initially adopt process of S-300 and not trajectory prediction. Range may be increased simultaneously with more speed of interception.
Thanks.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 01 Dec 2006 16:45

folks, is the tracking system for this ground-based or space-based or a combination of the two?

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 01 Dec 2006 16:46

Raj Malhotra wrote: Though if "India Today" does have an article today it will be cleared up soon enough.

()


India today photo looks like a plain vanilla Prithvi, I for one am confused even more.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 01 Dec 2006 16:50

Alok_N wrote:folks, is the tracking system for this ground-based or space-based or a combination of the two?


As you know no "specific" information is forthcoming from initial DRDO press release etc., however based on conjectures on released info. it appears to be a long range ground based (as opposed to airborne) radar system

For space based launch detection, we will need real time image processing capabilites of extent needed to identify a launch immediately? It also will need to ensure that the hostile terrain is under observation at all times.

Do we have such a capability? Does any one else?

Added later> The India today article snippets (in the other thread) seem to confirm that the initial tracking system was indeed a ground based system.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 01 Dec 2006 17:33

Alok_N wrote:folks, is the tracking system for this ground-based or space-based or a combination of the two?


Ground based! Green Pine radar or local derivative!

Though there is indeed a SBSS program (space based surveillance program), which seems to be more of the conventional eye in the sky type thingy, but we never know.

R Sharma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 05:30
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby R Sharma » 01 Dec 2006 17:35

can someone scan the India Today article and upload it on imageshack or something?

Rishi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 681
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Maximum City

Postby Rishi » 01 Dec 2006 18:01

Admins, please delete if it infringes copyright:

The New Guardian

India unveils an all new anti-ballistic missile expected to be the fore-runner of a sophisticated air defence system to thwart, among other threats, a Pakistani nuclear weapons attack



By Raj Chengappa


PICTURE SPEAK


MYSTERY MISSILE: The interceptor lifting off from Orissa


It looks like the Prithvi and even flies like one, but that's where the semblance ends. On November 27, not just India but the world got to know the difference after the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) unveiled a brand new missile, said to be a precursor to an advanced national air defence system.
The test was short but decisive. At 10.15 on a blustery winter morning off the east coast of Orissa, a conventional Prithvi missile posing as an enemy weapon was launched. Within seconds after its take-off, a sophisticated, long-range radar picked up the signals, analysed its flight path and sent an electronic command to an interceptor missile stationed at Wheeler Island. Almost immediately, the interceptor codenamed pad01 lifted off with a roar and plume of smoke. Travelling at five times the speed of sound, it rapidly closed in on the incoming Prithvi. Two minutes later and after some mid-course corrections, pad01 detonated its proximity fuse at a height of 50 km above the Earth. Both the missiles exploded in a ball of gas and the debris fell harmlessly into the Bay of Bengal.

Given its height-known in scientific parlance as exoatmospheric, or outside the Earth's atmosphere-there was no way scientists could either see or even hear the bang. Instead, they sat huddled inside the mission control room watching the entire sequence on a radar.

Almost out of a James Bond flick, the two blips on the screen closed in on each other rapidly and on touching, exploded in a shower of dots. Soon after the launch, DRDO's chief controller for missiles and the programme director for air defence systems, Dr V.K. Saraswat, told INDIA TODAY: "This test signals India's entry into the area of sophisticated and complex missile defence technology."

Several major quantum leaps in technology had to be achieved by India to do it. Anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems require highly accurate radars capable of tracking incoming warheads from a greater distance. Before pad01 was developed, India had a radar detection capability of 100 km. For the air defence system, DRDO claims to have "jointly developed" a radar capable of tracking high-speed missiles at a distance of over 1,000 km. They are not as yet willing to reveal identities of the key agencies that collaborated with them for its development.

The interceptor missile, too, had to be designed and built from scratch. Its first stage is similar to that of the Prithvi and uses its liquid fuel engine. But for the second-stage 'kill vehicle', a powerful solid motor was developed apart from divert thrusters that gives it a high degree of manoeuvrability. It makes the missile a metre longer than the nine-m Prithvi. The interceptor is also equipped with terminal homing guidance system with an RF (radar frequency) seeker to detect targets at long range of low radar cross-section and travelling at high speeds. As important was the development of a communications network by Bharat Electronics to integrate the radars and the interceptors with the mission control centre.

The test did catch strategic experts by surprise. That's because the country's newest air defence system is being developed under a thick cloak of secrecy with the programme remaining unlisted. Saraswat, who was the Prithvi mission director, was given full charge of the project five years ago. The applause, though, has been muted. As retired Air Vice-Marshal Kapil Kak, joint director, Centre for Air Power Studies, said: "There is no doubt that this is an achievement if India has developed some kind of interceptor missile system. But we are also a long way to establishing a minimal anti-ballistic missile capability. What has been done is a proof of concept."

ABMs systems, like the one India tested, have been a subject of raging controversy among strategic circles. These were developed to destroy incoming ballistic missiles carrying both nuclear and conventional warheads primarily because till then there was no counter to them. Initially, only the US and the erstwhile Soviet Union invested in such counters. But given its prohibitive costs and also its propensity to intensify the arms race, both nations entered a treaty in 1972 severely limiting their capability to develop such missiles.

It was only after the Cold War, when Washington saw with growing concern a number of nations, including North Korea and Iran, developing missile capabilities, that it decided to build a national missile defence system. Now the US plans to build an array of radars capable of accurately tracking missile launches at long ranges and then launching interceptor missiles to kill them long before they touch target. Yet in the US, a great deal of scepticism is voiced by experts who question whether such a missile shield would truely be effective or worth the enormous costs involved.

For India to move down the road and develop a defence shield of some credibility and reliability to thwart Pakistani missiles among others, it would have to invest in over a dozen long-range radars capable of tracking a range of weapon systems. These would help detect any incoming missile from major threat zones. It would then have to develop and test a whole battery of interceptors that would be an effective counter to such threats. Also, with other nations constantly developing counters to ABMs, including equipping missiles with multiple warheads to confuse interceptors, perfecting such systems is a constant technological struggle. As Saraswat put it: "We should be able to handle anything that is thrown at us."

The costs could be steep. To the credit of Indian scientists though, they have dared to explore the frontiers of missile technology. With last week's test, India has become the youngest member of a select band of nations-the US, Russia and Israel-who have the capability of developing missile defence systems.


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 01 Dec 2006 20:44

The IT article clears up some gaps. The radar has quite big range. There is some confusion about the actual sequence of the intercept. The article says there was a proximity fuse and also says the missiles exploded on contact. Most probably the kv worked better than expected.

The next steps are more tests of the same configuration and swap the first stage once a new one is developed. Its better to get the user (IA&IAF) involved at early stage itself. Simultaneously the services have to get it straight as to who is repsonsible for strategic air defence. Its not ack-ack you know.
Also folks should not get carried away with argements of how difficult its for the US as that is a different problem and also remember Parkinson's first law- Work expands to occupy available resources. US has more resources and hence has more work. Dont get distracted. The Air Marshal is getting distracted.

kgoan, your friends will be ina tizzy once they read Chengappa's account. For it shows that strategic surprise was achieved by India in ABM field despite all the indicators. So another failure to connect the dots.
Look at the radar, communications and the command system integration. All in under a minute. Should have some impact. Also same system without the ABM can be used as a figure of merit of the NCA for the CMD. Thats almost launch on warning.

The 'strategic' experts will ponder on this aspect and demand more track II type CBMS between the three countries.


More importantly the bigger impact is the fact that India can conduct covert programs under the open and leaky system.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 01 Dec 2006 20:54

Look at one more line in the article which says that programme has been under Dr Saraswat for five years

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63163
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 01 Dec 2006 21:46

I guess its time for my friend Shirish to make an appearance here 8)

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 01 Dec 2006 23:44

Abhishek_P wrote:
The pakis did try to regain initiative in the form of the Kargil misadventure, but failed. When that failed, the entire world got on the India bandwagon. People credit Clinton with improving relations with India, but they forget that Clinton spent the first 6 years of his rule ignoring India and sucking up to China.. It was our victory in Kargil that change his mind.


As far as I remember, Clinton was already warming up to the idea of better relations with India prior to the nuke tests. I think the end of cold war, India's economic growth post 1990 and subsequently the nuke tests in 1998 ensured that better Indo-US relations were just a matter of time.


Maybe he was warming upto the idea, but look at his record:

1. He spent 6 out of eight years handing over asia's management to China.
2. He is the only POTUS to appoint an official for Kashmir (Robin Raphael).
3. He intervened in Kargil war only when it became obvious the Paki Army was defeated. His intervention only gave the impression the PA was let down by Sharif, which finally led to the coup.
4. He opened the pipeline of hi tech defnce equipment to China, while doing everything to cripple Indian defence and space programs.

He is the most over-rated US pre in India. And Bush the most underrated one. Bush has done far more than any US prez (since perhaps Kennedy) to promot Indian interests.

Neupane
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 10:46
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Postby Neupane » 02 Dec 2006 01:31

Not only I second that, I would like to add few more with that list , during Mr.Clinton's visit to Russia, he strongly opposed Russians transfering the Cryogenic technology to India. After the 98 Nuke test, he just took 24 hrs to put all out sanctions on India. During Kargil war, he actually sugeested Vajpaee to give up some of those useless moutain heights, which Mr.Vjapaee rejected outright. And you know in his memoir, he could not hide his real feelings on yandoos, he wrote in his book that the Hindus were behind the massacres of the Sikhs in kashmirduring his visit to India. Besides, if we count his better half's perfomance in recent senate vote, you get the picture.It hard to belive in such crucial policy matters she would not discuss with Mr.Clinton for a second opinion.

Neupane

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Vivek K » 02 Dec 2006 02:09

I second that!! After Bush lost control of the Congress, in his first press appearance, he talked about getting the "Indian Deal" passed as his top priority.

The Clinton's are anti-India. Democrats have traditionally armed Pakistan - Carter rebuilt the Pak Navy (IIRC). Bush Sr. in his last years started the shift towards India. Bush jr has continued on that path. His actions speak louder. I remember his comments in the Paki press conference. We are better off with the Republicans.

I wish that the Indian Community in NY takes up this matter of the anti-India bias with the Clinton's in a mature manner. If Hillary will be the front-runner in the next election then we must lobby and change her opinion. However, the Clinton's have a lot of skeletons in their closets so I don't know if she will win.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 02 Dec 2006 02:24

Can we take the Clinton discussion to the Indo-US thread? Thanks, ramana

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 02 Dec 2006 02:32

The ABM once deployed has the potential to increase the effectiveness of the Indian CMD posture. The reason is more payloads will be survivable thus increasing its effectiveness.

Also reading the article again I think the definitive version will be 2m longer that would accout for the 10m~ 12m length stated after the test.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 02 Dec 2006 02:36

About the radar, we need to be a bit circumspect till more details are released. Previous data has spoken of ~400km and 200 target track ability. This is more than twice as powerful. So the issue is of range against what kind of targets, and whether the radar does have significant local hand in it, ie can we make it on our own now? Or do we at least have the source codes for it. Curiouser and curiouser. :)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 02 Dec 2006 02:50

JC, Also note the radar seeker and its capability to detect "targets at long range of low radar cross-section and travelling at high speeds". So there is some adavnced computing going on the target chracteristics and syncronizing the flight control system to get closer for the fuze.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3240
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Tanaji » 02 Dec 2006 03:05

I am pretty sure that this has been discussed before but I havent yet figured out an answer to this and nor do I expect to.

The calculations in the earlier posts by abhischekcc describe how enemys costs are increased by a marginal increase in the kill probability. It is correct, but I think only if the aim is total destruction. I do not submit to this view. With respect, today is 2006 and not the cold war era. For an Indian leader, I I would submit that even one nuke is difficult/impossible to digest, the axioms of nuclear warfighting by strategic doyens not withstanding.

If I am a Paki leader, I would target 3 nukes each on each of our 5 metros (regretably I include Bangalore in it even with its congestion). Total cost to me : 15 nukes + delivery systems whcich I probably have right now. Even with a decent kill ratio of 67%, I am still guaranteed a hit on each of the metros or, more pessimistically at least 3 of the 5 metros. Tell me, in all seriousness, if this is not enough to bring us to a grinding halt. (Yes, I know that our response will annhilate them but thats not the point. Deterrance has already broken down now). To further complicate matters, the news channels and media will have a field day "Haar gaya India! Mar gaye log... sarkar kya kar rahi hai.. tabahi mach rahi hai" type of sensationalist news. Channels such as Aap ko rakhe Aage Chanda News will ensure that the strategic picture will be of doom and gloom. A Kandahar hijack with 24x7 coverage forced a cowardly Jassoo Mithaiwala (props to my homie Spinster for the term) to personally accompany the terrorists to Kandahar. This time, the magnitude is worse, and news channels far greater. No, I dont think that in the Indian scenario the ABM test has changed much drastically. If I was a truly evil Paki leader (is there another kind? props to Jack Nicholson this time) I would also:

1. announce that kashmir, kerala , west bengal are Dar -ul Islam and promise not to attack them if the leaders would "persuade" Indians to accept his terms
2. Announce similar terms for interior Maharashtra, Bihar and UP.
3. Pay off my stooges in Times of Pakistan, sorry India, and news channels to bleat loudly

This would force Communists and Dalit leaders to pressure the leaders to save their skin.

In closing, this is a stunning engineering feat,, no doubt of it. Double kudos for springing the surprise and doing it in a meager budget. However, does it change the strategic balance, I fear not, precisely because of the above, an Indian leader will be hard pressed to even risk a single nuke.

Just my thoughts


---------------------------------------------
Allakh Niranjan!

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 02 Dec 2006 03:28

JCage wrote: Previous data has spoken of ~400km and 200 target track ability. This is more than twice as powerful. So the issue is of range against what kind of targets, and whether the radar does have significant local hand in it, ie can we make it on our own now? Or do we at least have the source codes for it. Curiouser and curiouser. :)


does that mean 200 active targets in a 400 km radius? ... that would require serious real time pattern recognition ... my guess would be custom firmware ... of course, in today's world everything is "source code" at some level ...

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Vivek K » 02 Dec 2006 03:32

an Indian leader will be hard pressed to even risk a single nuke

And how many nukes would a Paki Leader be willing to risk at say cities where his children or uncles live? Your reasoning does not take into account the fact that India has nukes in addition to an ABM. And Pakstan has far fewer cities than India. Therefore even if they could get nukes off the ground before a devastating response/pre-emptive Indian strike, they would have but a few seconds to enjoy their success before they are buried in the earth's core.

Nuke weapons cannot be used. They are only a deterrent. And using nukes at someone that can lob a few back at you is foolish. This is different from jehadism where a leader can direct his pawns to launch suicide attacks. In this case, the leader himself is risking death. Therefore, it is less probable.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50428
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 02 Dec 2006 03:35

Tanaji, What you say is true. Therefore top priority would be to defend those cities. Then what will happen to kaliya? He has to think right? That is what the ABM does. There is a lot of quiet in all the capitals and other locations as people mull over what it means.

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 663
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Postby milindc » 02 Dec 2006 03:37

Tanaji,

Two of your quotes are contradictory...
(Yes, I know that our response will annhilate them but thats not the point. Deterrance has already broken down now)

and then
If I was a truly evil Paki leader (is there another kind? props to Jack Nicholson this time) I would also:
...demands....

If we annhilate pakis, then there is no evil paki leader to make demands. :lol:

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 02 Dec 2006 03:41

IMO, this development has global significance ... applying it to packees demeans it ... :twisted:

pran
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 09 Oct 2001 11:31
Location: internet

Postby pran » 02 Dec 2006 04:06

How does this significant event affect the DND ?

Are Indian satellite sensors capable of detecting radioactive content in the atmospheric explosion?

In absence of the above capability what other means are at disposal to determine the contents of the offensive payload quickly ?

Imagine a scenario where a radioactive debris is detected after a successful intercept.Another scenario when there is no radioactivity present ?

How does this determination influence the escalatory ladder of response ?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest