Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 29 Sep 2009 20:52

In late 70s there used to be a coffee table picture book form UK on total nuke war etc. It had a map of places which could get hit. I counted ~45 such places in India in those days itself that are in cross hairs even withtout any capablities.

In that period the Cold War was on. India was regarded as a defacto Soviet ally what with the Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty etc. and there are certain references (have to search for them) in which it is clearly stated that India was a target for the West alongwith the USSR in the event of nuclear war between the US and the USSR.

But we are not living in the 1970s now.

IMO, the answer relating to the deliberate fog of confusion relating to TN lies in the JS-Talbott discussions immediately after POK-2. My theory is that there is an "understanding" entered into then which has also been honored by the current GOI. Hence the tightrope walk between on the one hand declaring deterrent abilities of "upto 200kt" to deter opponents in the region as the FT article states, and on the other hand"capability of making TN". I also believe that the Indo-US nuclear agreement is a by-product of that "understanding".

IMO maximilists within India do not want to be bound by such strictures and hence the current disputes.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 29 Sep 2009 20:54

ramana wrote: Very true. In late 70s there used to be a coffee table picture book form UK on total nuke war etc. It had a map of places which could get hit. I counted ~45 such places in India in those days itself that are in cross hairs even withtout any capabilities. In other words if there is global nuke war atleast that many places in India would be hit as gratituous violence. The idea was if they were going down they want to ensure others also would go down for post nuke era.

But then in those days we were considered a soviet lackey, isn't it by the west. So no surprises that they would take us also down in a global MAD scenario.

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Sep 2009 20:58

Idev that is a wrong explanation/understanding of the present state of affairs.

Read Admiral's paper from "The Historical Backdrop" (on page 2) onwards.

All in all while the cold war argument of your's accounts for India being targeted it does not account for our lack of foresight and failure in over coming our misplaced priorities/morals regarding the importance of going nuclear.

No one here complains about the rest of the world keeping India in cross hairs the question is WHAT did/should India do to address the same.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 29 Sep 2009 21:12

Negi,

Just look at the P-5. What is the common theme? A ruthless efficiency in the art of mass killing, via the execution of a war (the West), or pograms that kill their own people(the USSR and China).

Ask yourself honestly. Does India have it? Maybe it is the democratic form of government, maybe it is the psychic of the people itself. That is the historical reason. Does it always have to be this way. No way Jose!!

But for various reasons the elected representatives of the people of India have decided that at this point of time, discretion is better than shouting "Allah - o - Akbar" and rushing forth with TNs in both hands and being massacared as many Iraqis and Iranians did in the bloody Iraq-Iran war.

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Sep 2009 21:18

Oh common this is a meaning less rhetoric; the way you have used RU/PRC's crackdown on her citizens to paint a wrong picture of their nuclear programme is non sensical.
What about the French,US and the UK ? aren't these most civilized and noblest of the lot ?

I find it annoying when people questioning India's policy making are termed as maximalists ; when India has not even killed a RAT without any provocation.

But for various reasons the elected representatives of the people of India have decided that at this point of time, discretion is better than shouting "Allah - o - Akbar" and rushing forth with TNs in both hands and being massacared as many Iraqis and Iranians did in the bloody Iraq-Iran war.

Un attributable statements such as these are being used to rubbish genuine concerns raised by folks wrt Indian decision making; this is something which takes my goat.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 29 Sep 2009 21:28

Negi,

The Soviet citizen in the 1950s or the Chinese citizen in the 1960s did not have options. The Soviet dissenter was sent to the Gulag, the Chinese god knows where. The elite in those countries made decisions regarding their respective countries' places in the world and the sacrifices they were willing to put their citizens through to get the instruments of global power. As you are well aware, by the standards of today, China was dirt poor in the 1960s when it joined the H-bum club.

In India various GOIs have an eye on the next election and their perception appears to have been that Indians will not be prepared to make the kinds of sacrifices that are necessary. Otherwise IMO the NDA government would have persisted with testing and formal deployment of TNs irrespective of military, technological and financial sanctions imposed and to be imposed and orchestrated by the US. Why did they not persist? Precisely because IMO they felt that the people of India would vote them out of power if the pain level exceeded a certain threshold. What if a program of testing involved intermittent testing over a 3 year period? What would have been the impact of sanctions on the life of the average Indian and in his willingness to vote for the GOI that put him through that pain? I dont know the answer to this question but it was clearly answered by the then GOI as Sanjay's post clearly explains in terms of the testing window/opportunity and that they would have only one opportunity. Why had GOI already figured out that they would have only one opportunity? Any answers to this question? I dont buy this nonsense of dumping the blame on RC and saying that he was single handedly responsible for "hiding" everything. After all, somebody in the NDA should have asked at the end of the 5 year term:

Hey, how many TNs are we fielding now. And if not, why not

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 29 Sep 2009 22:04

ldev wrote:
The issue is not India's planning here. It is that India does not want to create more enemies than it has. A TN in that sense is escalatory. An unambigious TN fielded capability gives a certain range/payload dynamic which would enlarge the number of countries that would do counterforce planning against India. And it appears that the deliberate obfuscuation of this capability is to avoid being in those cross hairs.

By that logic the mere possession of any n-weapon creates more enemy. In fact (if you take it face value) Chinese n-doctrine pledges to not use n-weapons against non n-weapon states. So why create the 'minimum' deterrent and be on the cross hairs of multi MT TN weapons?

"China undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances." source

Wouldn't the better option be to go for unilateral disarmament (as a natural extension to the unilateral moratorium), and get under the n-umbrella of US/Russia or even China. That would help gain the 'gandhian high moral ground' and may even shame the country to the west to mend its errant ways.

If in the eyes of the opponent deterrence is achieved by the non-TN device, he/she would be devising counterforce strategies regardless of the fact if TN weapons come into the picture in the future. Now if on the other hand the opponent doesn't care about the deterrence value of the non-TN device, then the whole 100 odd page of discussion is moot.

Making virtue out of the necessity of lack of will/resources is IMHO being misconstrued as strategic CMD policy. Strategic policy is a function of the capabilities on the ground and should evolve as capabilities improve/underlying threat perception changes; rather than a policy paper holding hostage future capabilities.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Sep 2009 22:10

Bade wrote:
ramana wrote: Very true. In late 70s there used to be a coffee table picture book form UK on total nuke war etc. It had a map of places which could get hit. I counted ~45 such places in India in those days itself that are in cross hairs even withtout any capabilities. In other words if there is global nuke war atleast that many places in India would be hit as gratituous violence. The idea was if they were going down they want to ensure others also would go down for post nuke era.
But then in those days we were considered a soviet lackey, isn't it by the west. So no surprises that they would take us also down in a global MAD scenario.

No. There were UN assurances given by P-5 called 'negative security garauntees' that a state without nukes will not be targetted.

Masaru, Umbrella was sought in 1968 before the NPT took effect and was not given. Indian envoys went from pillar to post in the West seeking such umbrellas but were told to get lost.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Sep 2009 22:19

Just for the record:

Fizz Fizz Fizzle

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 29 Sep 2009 22:29

Scientists urge that the government form a technological committee comprising international experts to, at least, review the methodology adopted by Pokhran II scientists to establish their success claim.

Is India the only country in the world where we have a distinction between international, national and local experts in the fields of science and technology. If we have such a class system for peer reviewing S&T work, then god only can save us.

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Sep 2009 22:38

Darpok kaum hai sir ; so much so that anyone who goes against the general consensus is termed a EB or a Maximilist .

This obsession with Furrin verification dates back to Nehru era ; referendum, seeking foreign intervention in 48 and 62 all these are glowing examples of our psyche ; why single out the folks who ask for a foreign review they are but just one part of the system .

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Sep 2009 22:45

negi wrote:
Kanson wrote: negi saab, i was talking about the Agni 3 missile which was made ready by 2004. All other missiles mentioned in his article were developed before that and so the payload.
I realise that Kanson ji ; however the specific mention of a 200-500Kt class FBF being a part of our deterrent from a former navel chief itself made me ponder over the reference to Dr. Sikka's involvement with changing the dimensions of a certain weapon type (which you and Austin were talking about). So now we haph 3 possibilities F,FBF and TN.

And that is why I sought clarification from Sanjay ji on the above .

Intially i thought charming Adm is taking us for a merry go round but........

Seeing the big boys jumping into the game, i guess the scene is really getting hot. Its time to layback and watch the game. Next show in another three weeks, na ?

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Sep 2009 22:46

Next show in another three weeks, na ?

Kanson ji I did not get your point.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 29 Sep 2009 22:51

Santhanam has given some ultimatum that if not any action is taken in 3 weeks time then ...

And adm may be speaking the truth about the weapon.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 29 Sep 2009 22:56

Bade wrote:
Scientists urge that the government form a technological committee comprising international experts to, at least, review the methodology adopted by Pokhran II scientists to establish their success claim.
Is India the only country in the world where we have a distinction between international, national and local experts in the fields of science and technology. If we have such a class system for peer reviewing S&T work, then god only can save us.

A.Q Khan has international reputation and he is expert all right .

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Sep 2009 22:56

Bade wrote:
Scientists urge that the government form a technological committee comprising international experts to, at least, review the methodology adopted by Pokhran II scientists to establish their success claim.
Is India the only country in the world where we have a distinction between international, national and local experts in the fields of science and technology. If we have such a class system for peer reviewing S&T work, then god only can save us.

good catch bade.. and btw, "intentional" -> international experts sounds like who is all behind this cr@p of misinformation..

forget the ddmites and fools., this is getting weireder by the day, asking for water after pooping in your neighbours yard. its GoI's responsibility to clean up this mess, rather any external body who is all interested in getting that damn sheet of CTBT, NPT etc being signed first before saying anything about the yield.. besides, why the heck they care to say our yields are better than theirs'., or we have perfected our designs.

Its time RC, Santanam, and all the going public journos who are are ex-dept chiefs and scientists, get together and come out clear.. rather it goes to street who would definitely ask for everything firang!..

this firangi culture has gone beyond imaginations.. logics etc.

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Sep 2009 22:58

kanson ji

Interesting which article ? because in interview with Outlook he says :

Where do you want to take it from here?

I don’t want to take it any further. I want a closure of the discussion so that the dust settles down and the concerned agencies and people in government pull up their socks and try to understand the lessons from my remarks.

Regarding Admiral's comments yes even I believe so for going by the way services go about such matters they state what they have (or are assured of being equipped with).

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Sep 2009 23:09

Just read this statement from RM

PC will have to come and file an affidavit detailing that Indian TN worked and then we can cross examine him and ask him to produce radio-isotope information he is hiding

I am not concerned about legal modalities around this issue; but to link this with TN weapon is .

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Sep 2009 23:20

NRao wrote:Just for the record:

Fizz Fizz Fizzle

Yeow, please Sir, I actually read that total piece of trash just because you posted it.

Please do post warnings in advance, when posting from those jholawala brigades...

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 29 Sep 2009 23:30

self del

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 29 Sep 2009 23:31

Sanku wrote:
Thats a key point, but with A3 deployed, isnt the time already ripe from the perspective you mention?

Sanku-saar, you are right. This question is soon going to get trickier. But A3 as it exists today, might still be in the recessed/demated state. We have not tested the aerospike-wala one (which is the most threatening for people in far shores) yet, though top scientists have hinted it is there in their drafting boards. So anything that goes into Arihant is different, they cant be recesssed/demated ones and they have to be lightweight. Thus IMO, the SDRE K15 is a convenient compromise to all sides (except Panda). Yes, we have left four big tubes to hold the 12 smaller ones in the Arihant class, to keep the west honest. In a certain sense, Panda is the uncomfortable scapegoat in this negotiation with the west. But then their rulers were never nice to us.

I am saying this because "Shree" was called out specifically and I believe I am the only one who use this in this forum (I might be wrong). I do not contribute to the Indic threads but in general, I use the honorific "Shree" (malayalam version of "Sri") when referring to respected or elder figures. I learned this at the knees of my family elders, some of whom were in public service and some were in govt. I am not going to forget that because I learned western methodologies of questioning scientific results. I would never equate respected scientists who worked in India all their life with a international criminal with multiple convictions like AQ Khan. We should also look at what happened to patriots like Oppenheimer or Khurchatov, compared to our scientists. The travails of these two figures must have caused a lot of bright people to rethink their work during a period when it was considered glamorous. But I have a right to call anyone I respect with a Shree. Same as "garu". So Shree R Chidambaram, Shree A Kakodkar and Shree K Santhanam have my deepest respects and gratitude. They are **all** my favorites and I wish them well. Summarize: AQ Khan remain Xerox Khan.

Things have changed in India since this debate started a couple of years ago. Eg: this article talks about *anyone* filing a cyber hate crime on behalf of public figures. This case originated in Kerala and I believe the defendant had support from Indian Left. And this was when they were supporting the UPA at the Center. Traveling could get difficult, based on what sort of warrant goes out and commitment from establishment.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Sep 2009 23:43

Gentlemen bear with me please, Adm Arun Prakash says

In the midst of the current
brouhaha, we need to retain clarity on one issue; given that deuterium tritium
boosted-fission weapons can generate yields of 200-500 kt, the
credibility of India’s nuclear deterrent is not in the slightest doubt.

I am a little lost, based on the discussion so far, we had come around the understanding that scaling up FBF without dynamic tests over 60-80 KT was very difficult (from a 17 KT FBF primary roughly)

Also the Adm's wording is a trifle difficult to understand, he is probably saying that even without TNs, FBFs can get us 200-300KT weapons, which is what the modern deterrence is based on.

However I still dont see how Adm comments can be taken to conclusively say that we have a working FBF in that range. In fact he is asking for exactly what Gen Malik asked for, involvement of Armed forces in a way that makes sense.

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Sep 2009 23:52

^ Sanku ji

It is imperative that Admiral Arun Prakash unlike me is not making a statement based on internet sources; he is a former COSC and hence just the right person to talk on India's strategic weapons.

Regarding your first statement about the scaling of the FBF no one outside of the design team is privy to the design and hence obviously not in a position to comment on scalability of the design.Fwiw US has tested vanilla fission devices capable of producing 500Kt yield and here we are talking about a FBF.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 Sep 2009 00:01

negi wrote:^ Sanku ji

It is imperative that Admiral Arun Prakash unlike me is not making a statement based on internet sources; he is a former COSC and hence just the right person to talk on India's strategic weapons.

Regarding your first statement about the scaling of the FBF no one outside of the design team is privy to the design and hence obviously not in a position to comment on scalability of the design.Fwiw US has tested vanilla fission devices capable of producing 500Kt yield and we are talking about a FBF.

Sure, its just that, I think the forum is attributing a little too much into what he said. Please remember we did not agree when RC and AK said that we can do xyz, we said, based on open source data and what we know, we dont see how your claims stand.

I would of course give far more weight to Adm statements, but I reiterate I think what he is saying is that "even without TNs lets not forget we can get that yield from FBF which we have a much better handle on" It does not mean that the issues that we talked about are erased because of Adm's statement.

To reiterate I am not questioning Adm's statement, I am questioning what we have made of it.

Finally -- the scaling of FBF was not based on the technical possibility, is it possible sure, the question is, given that we are saying that S 1 was a 27 KT yeild, we get a primary of 17 KT for FBF primary -- the forum was then in uniform agreement that scaling up based on that one test was possible but difficult and would need dynamic tests.

Please note we can all be wrong, and I will be the first to accept that, the question is, the prior discussion does not fit in with the current interpretation of Adm's statement.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Sep 2009 00:23

I posted this in the deterrence thread....

ramana wrote:NRao hate to prick the balloon, but is it possible that Bharat Karnad was alluding to the very same ideas that Adm. Prakash was alluding to when he quoted the yields? I am unconvinced still. Adm. Praksah's pdf file is nice data point and thats all it is. Its one sentence only. And a description of how short the period is for the COS to get to grips with the available resources. His write up is more telling on how scientists were given leeway to develop weapons, doctrine and all and the user brought into the picture way after everything is chiselled in "pink" granite.

Also there is a unstated premise on agreeing to these low yield/heavy weight weapons. The dominance of US power for the foreseeable future. The assumption is there is a friendly US power to temper any PRC over- reaction.

Already the strategic thinkers are mulling over decline of Pax Americana and what it could mean to the world, case in point the LA times article linked in the Geo-political and the Economic prespective threads.

So there is a need to hedge for this and keep options open by pursuing research and not sign any treaty limitations in a hurry on basis of post dated checks.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 30 Sep 2009 00:41

But why this wide range of explosive power from 200 - 500 KTs? Either Admiral Prakash is trying to hide actual figures, or BARC stated those figures.
Either way it gives me some minor - storm in a teacup - kind of concern. This is why untested weapons can't have their yields determined precisely. Although the minimum yield of this bomb itself is still in the city-buster range, I would have liked a precise value attached to it say ~ 350 KT weapon.
Shows the confidence of the designers and the forces will weild it with confidence.

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 30 Sep 2009 01:19

Before getting carried away by overanalysis of Adm. Prakash's statement, it would be useful to see exactly what he said.

In the midst of the current brouhaha, we need to retain clarity on one issue; given the deuterium-tritium boosted-fission weapons can generate yields of 200-500kts, the credibility of India’s nuclear deterrent is not in the slightest doubt.

I think all that can be inferred from this statement is that we have probably weaponized the FBF capability. All he is saying is that deuterium-tritium FBFs can achieve the yields stated. Beyond that, there is nothing about the yield of our weapon in this statement. Let's leave it at that.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 30 Sep 2009 01:33

But how does the SFC know that that weapon can acheive that yield. I counter by saying that the thing in the metal jacket that is called a N-bomb is actually a subkiloton warhead.

India's SFC weilds and deploys not only a completely unproven weapon, but also the concept is yet to be proven by India and BARC.

When did BARC ever test an FBF?
S1's primary is turning out to be a simple fission device as per K Santhanam. I don't see any reference to FBF in the literature of FBF being tested.

There goes India's deterrence if someone says that the 200-500 is an FBF. If it is simple fission, I shudder to think how large and unweildly it might be. The ranges of India's missiles are then exactly what is stated as with the 1 ton payload.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Sep 2009 01:42

ramana,

Sorry I missed that query of your.

But, everyone has one-liners. This entire topic is a bunch of one-liners (equations). So, perhaps I am missing the point you are making?

______________________________________________________________________

What we like or dislike is not an issue. The less info given the better.

Having said that there certainly seems to be a crater wide gap in what the good Adm seems to "know" and what the good Santhanam does "not know". Which surprises me a LOT. I for one would have expected that people at that level are in the know - whatever that means.

However, Santhanam brought up the specific issue of (1) TN -> (2) lack of what he felt to be a viable Kt nuke -> (3) deployed version of it -> (4) pressure to sign the CTBT. Right?

What the Adm stated removes the second concern (150 Kt and above - to be broad).

The FT article removes the third concern (deployed/weaponized nuke).

GoI statement about CTBT should remove the last concern.

What admittedly remains is the concern about a TN, as a technology. Fair enough.

I think/feel that the right amount of information has been provided. There is absolutely no reason for any government to get into details - and details are always subject to change.

BUT, what I am really looking forward to is IF Santhanam STILL thinks that India has no viable deterrence WRT China. (Note that I still feel that 20-25 Kt should do for China. IF at all India needs a 200 Kt (or whatever the large Kt is) it is Pakistan.) IF he does then he will be challenging this entire set - 1-4 above, including what this GoI has stated about CTBT.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Sep 2009 01:46

Gagan wrote:But how does the SFC know that that weapon can acheive that yield. I counter by saying that the thing in the metal jacket that is called a N-bomb is actually a subkiloton warhead.

India's SFC weilds and deploys not only a completely unproven weapon, but also the concept is yet to be proven by India and BARC.

When did BARC ever test an FBF?
S1's primary is turning out to be a simple fission device as per K Santhanam. I don't see any reference to FBF in the literature of FBF being tested.

There goes India's deterrence if someone says that the 200-500 is an FBF. If it is simple fission, I shudder to think how large and unweildly it might be. The ranges of India's missiles are then exactly what is stated as with the 1 ton payload.

Your concerns are genuine and I am not sure anyone here can answer them to your satisfaction. Perhaps/hope there is someone.

However, do you really feel that SFC - as a group -feel that India does NOT have a deterrence?

Do you feel that India does not have a deterrence?

Forget about yields for the time being. What is your gut feel - about deterrence?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 30 Sep 2009 01:50

If everyone remembers, GoI had stated earlier this year that it was for universal disarmament and adhered to UVMT (Unilateral Voluntary Moritorium on Testing){(C) Gagan}.

Santhanam's timing was more related to the US's moves at the UN about all remaining states signing the NPT. This also indicated that there was a possibility of going back to those days of CTBT looming on the horizion.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Sep 2009 01:55

after signing the indo-us treaty, perhaps one of the qualifying agreement text was to separate civil-mil establishments.. i'm begining to think all this discussion is to create a preamble for the need to have LLNL kinda setup within the country., and and our barc could be fermi labs that denies visas to whom we dont like to provide [tit4tat].

i know this is a huge slow process, but gov needs to appropriate the right funding for the setup, and perhaps trying to gauge the minds of SFC and pure hardcore rakshaks, so that we can see how much we get the desires out in public for estimating our real requirements.

ddmites is a nice thing to have sometimes.. of course we have been on this mode for quite a while.. assuming this is all chankyan. i hope it is true, else, we may have been already mayawed left and right, with no use in rolling and pitching now.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 30 Sep 2009 02:03

NRao wrote:Forget about yields for the time being. What is your gut feel - about deterrence?

Saar, I have chaiwallahs too. Just like so many else. They report something similar to the possibly-probably that Sanjay-ji has quoted.
My gut feel is that India has 20-25 Pure Fission deployed for sure on both aircraft and missiles. WRT deterrence, I am not sure I accept the statement that until the day a nuke lands on india, there is deterrence - by that analogy even maldives has deterrence, Australia has an umbrella without N-weapons. So then why have N weapons at all if deterrence is all they provide.

N weapons have a value in deterrence, but more than that they are the currency of power. Until you have verifiable TN weapons, your N program is NOT mature and is amenable to a CRE.

As to weather anything more than that is deployed, is anyone's guess. Adm Arun Prakash says that there is 200-500Kt deployed. See this statement in conjunction to what Adm S Mehta says, "Our scientists have given us something, which we believe in. We trust our scientists". Thereby the onus is put back on the scientists.

This is where the whole problem arises. The scientists are fighting amongst each other, GoI is pussy footing about, not saying the unspeakable. The silence of people in GoI and BARC is seeming like the silence of a guilty party.

I note that even after this hullabaloo, GoI or BARC has not said, that India has 200 Kt TN weapons based on Pokharan tests in so many words. This statement would easily have been made if this was true, there is no sanctions coming india's way for saying so. The fact that people chose to say 'Ashwathama haati mara gaya', spoke of 'capability' rather than 'have deployed' or 'have build', reeks of obfuscation that is clear to all. In the absence of any clarity we can assume the worst based on past experiences of India's domestic weapons program in general.

GoI is not saying anything because should the truth spill out, there will be no alternative than to test. It all boils down to GoI's inability to test. If GoI could go ahead with a test, and BARC proves the TN and other designs, all this angst will be over.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Sep 2009 02:07

My gut feel is that India has 20-25 Pure Fission deployed for sure on both aircraft and missiles.

Thanks.

Do you think/feel that these yields*numbers are/could_be/are_not able to deter (either Pakistan or China)?

(I really have not read the rest of your post.)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Sep 2009 02:18

The silence of people in GoI and BARC is seeming like the silence of a guilty party.

That is not right. They have not remained silent. Just that their answers have not satisfied us - yet.

But, the question is how much does one expect them to give out? I agree that the ultimate will be a test - and, I for one do not think that will ever happen.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 30 Sep 2009 02:23

I am glad we are in a situation where we have angst about problems of aplenty. Imagine the angst in a truly nook noode nation. I am glad we express anguish over the TN, secure in the knowledge that there is basic verified, weaponized N-option deployed.

India has deterrence, but that is not attributable to just N weapons. The concept of deterrence is always directed from the weak towards the powerful.

Pakistan has deterrence against India. India's possession of TN will not stop jihadi infiltration or terrorist attacks.

The India-china relationship is more complicated. Here there is a race amongst two nations which are roughly equal for the crown position of Asia. This is a race for having the largest of everything - economy, military, space program, and so on. India's N weapons only deter a N weapon use by china on India. But then I deem china to be a sane entity committed to its NFU just as India is to its.

N Korea deters the US, because if N korea uses N weapons, the US will have to respond with N weapons and that will result in the end of N Korea. So a deterrence persists.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Sep 2009 02:35

The India-china relationship is more complicated. Here there is a race amongst two nations which are roughly equal for the crown position of Asia. This is a race for having the largest of everything - economy, military, space program, and so on. India's N weapons only deter a N weapon use by china on India. But then I deem china to be a sane entity committed to its NFU just as India is to its.

Thanks. (I was not aware that China had a NFU.)

which is what I feel. In fact, as China grows, she will be less likely to use force IMHO. That does not mean that there will be no Chinese that will try to use it or that they will give up on AP.

Pakistan has deterrence against India. India's possession of TN will not stop jihadi infiltration or terrorist attacks.

I am not sure about that. IF (Big IF) the book to be published is to be believed AND Pakis have got the message, then I think/feel that India can be a lot more aggressive. I think it is the Indian elite that are concerned about their own welfare. And, now perhaps the US also has a finger in the pie.
_________________________________________________________________________

Coming back to the Admiral's article/talk, I think he is trying to push his own agenda (from a armed forces PoV).

But, since I cannot really rely on ANYONE there, I might as well include him in my belief system only because I have the others in that system too?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Sep 2009 02:37

Its surprising that no one from pakis did a counter claim or chest beat that they too have 200-500KT TNW. Normally they always play this peeing game.

negi · Post by **negi** » 30 Sep 2009 03:02

Sanku saar

Reason why Admiral's comments are important is:

1. He is no longer serving the GOI
2. He represents the pov of ultimate user i.e. the armed forces .
3. He was the COSC.

He chooses his words carefully and imho is trying to highlight the fact that India's current threat perceptions (which clearly singles out our gentle neighbors) are taken care of , debate over S-1's YIELD notwithstanding.

His reference to the FBF YIELD took me by surprise as he is not someone who would throw in numbers for the heck of it .

It is my opinion that while TN weapons are an indispensable part of our nuclear arsenal a fact which will/should be drafted in black and white some time in future; the MCD in its current form still holds good ;thanks to the proven weapon.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 30 Sep 2009 03:25

SaiK wrote:Its surprising that no one from pakis did a counter claim or chest beat that they too have 200-500KT TNW. Normally they always play this peeing game.

Sir, since you have raised the issue

The Pakis can build nothing, not even the much famed Sitara which is shipped in a semi knocked down form to Karachi where it is assembled under Chinese directions.The Pakis cant even turn the nuts and bolts in the right direction
The Pakis are not making claims because a) They will be fooling only themselves because those who gave them the bums know the exact yield b)Baki bums are an international headache already and if they start breast beating about non existant yields, they will only endanger the baksheesh that is destined to fall in their lota c) the Chinese are smart enough not to give Bakis anything too big for their skull cap for you never know when these may fall in the wrong biratherly hands and threaten the cultural revolution and peaceful assimilation that is underway in Chinese Turkestan.