Indian Nuclear & Missile Development, News & Discussions

[Aliph Ahmed]

With due respect SABRE

first and second points are well taken, but how it is going to effect deterrence in any way. Seems like pakistan is saying as china's proxy.

It has nothing to do with China. Pakistan is a victim of following suit and it is very improper and slanderous for you to say that last sentence. Not even worth repeating.

Dont forget that:

It was India that introduced Ballistic missiles in the region; Prtihvi

It was India that introduced nuclear bombs in the region; 1974 Smiling Budha

It was India that introduced AWACs in the region; Phalcons

It was India that introduced cruise missiles in the region; Brahmos.

It is India again that is trying to introduce submarine launch missiles; Sea launched Brahmos. It is simply inevitable that Pakistan will counter it with her own sea launched missile just like it matched every other Indian weopon before !

Right now, both India and Pakistan are in a state of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). Neither India nor Pakistan is in a winning position.

Why try to break away from this stalemate and not spend on their own population (Both India and Pakistan are Thirld World Countries) ?

 

[kams]

It has nothing to do with China. Pakistan is a victim of following suit and it is very improper and slanderous for you to say that last sentence. Not even worth repeating.

.

It is India again that is trying to introduce submarine launch missiles; Sea launched Brahmos. It is simply inevitable that Pakistan will counter it with her own sea launched missile just like it matched every other Indian weopon before !

.

Why try to break away from this stalemate and not spend on their own population (Both India and Pakistan are Thirld World Countries) ?

I would like to hear about your reasoning on why India needs a Sub Launched Ballistic missile (Nuclear tipped) against Pakistan?

India will later introduce longer range IRBMs which has zero significance for Pakistan. India will also introduce Nuclear submarine, again not relevant in Inda-Pakistan theater.

Every nation will have to decide what is important to itself in the longterm.

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

I would like to hear about your reasoning on why India needs a Sub Launched Ballistic missile (Nuclear tipped) against Pakistan?

Hegemonic designs. Ulterior motives. Part of futile attempts to break the stalemate from the current MAD.

The rest was all "will stuff" and I live in the present. So no comments.

 

[radiosilence]

India will also introduce Nuclear submarine, again not relevant in Inda-Pakistan theater.

Depending on the capability of the Nuclear Sub, it will ensure a credible second strike capability against Pakistan as well as against other countries.

 

[kams]

Depending on the capability of the Nuclear Sub, it will ensure a credible second strike capability against Pakistan as well as against other countries.

Thanks for the reply with rationale.

Why do you think India needs a sublaunched missile for second strike? With existing railmobile missile India can strike any Part of pakistan from any part of India. India has very vast railway network, and it is very difficult for Pakistan to eliminate major part of India's current deterrent in first strike.

 

[radiosilence]

Thanks for the reply with rationale.

Why do you think India needs a sublaunched missile for second strike? With existing railmobile missile India can strike any Part of pakistan from any part of India. India has very vast railway network, and it is very difficult for Pakistan to eliminate major part of India's current deterrent in first strike.

Since we are talking about the future, Pakistan might have space-based assets at its disposal which will make India less likely to depend on its land-base missiles only as a deterrent.

 

[kams]

Since we are talking about the future, Pakistan might have space-based assets at its disposal which will make India less likely to depend on its land-base missiles only as a deterrent.

Hmm No, I am talking about today. Let me put across my point once again.

1. India has A-2 operationalized, it is Railmobile and has a range of 2500 km with 1 T payload.

2.This map illustrates that A-2 can rach farthest point of Pakistan from Kolkata carrying maximum payload.

edit- somehow the map is not linking properly. i am sure you can try it out on google maps.


3. Indian railway has a network of 50,000 km (49820 km to be accurate) broadgauge tracks.

4.The railmobile missile TEL is camouflaged to look like normal freight carrier. The video of he same under mobility testing was posted on youtube. Indian Railway has around 200,000 wagons of which 59000 (59815 to be exact) look exactly same as the missile TEL, pulling normal freight everyday.

5. Hence it is impossible for Pakistan to destroy even 50% of these railmobile missiles existing today in the first strike, leaving ample assurance of second strike. (I am not even including the Roadmobile Agni I missiles and I am relegating Prithvi to battlefield use only0

6. So why should India spend any money to develop submarine based delivery system to deter Pakistan?

Answer - India's sub based missile has no relevance in India-Pakistan theater.

 

[radiosilence]

Hmm No, I am talking about today. Let me put across my point once again.

This is your original quote.

India will also introduce Nuclear submarine, again not relevant in Inda-Pakistan theater.

hence its the future since India doesn't have an operational nuclear sub currently.

 

[Firehorse]

India is on a least of countries for potential US strikes.

India is a land power, and it can not allow the hostile aircraft carriers, the opportunity to bombard India’s coastal towns. India would use nuclear nukes against Diego Garcia, Guam, Puerto Rico, or Hawaii in case of a threatened NATO bombing raids against Indian targets. India shall reserve its rights to use tactical nuclear weapons against hostile Navy. India will respond by nuclear torpedoes for any threatened Naval or air invasions of mainland India. ..
In case of any NATO threats to India, Indian nuclear sword of Damocles will start hanging over American head, to deter United States. http://my.opera.com/kalkigaur/blog/show.dml/447912

IMO, India, having a direct access to the vast Indian Ocean, is making the right decision to develop SLBMs. Why forgo the most survivable element of a triad?

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

This is your original quote.

hence its the future since India doesn't have an operational nuclear sub currently.

Good catch..:

Neither India nor Pakistan can destroy each other's weapons completely as per some members. However, it is safe to assume that whoever will initiate will not launch one and wait for the other to launch one back. It will be a massive wave and the effects of it puts the operational survivability of other's weapons in great question.

Trying to break this stalemate of MAD is the very reason why India is spending on the sea based missile to have a secondary strike capability at the expense of spending on her population.

 

[Grand Danois]

MAD doesn't apply to India-Pakistan. You may be thinking of deterrence. MAD is total annihilation of both actors. This requires thousands upon thousands of strategic warheads. Not dozens to hundreds of tactical yield warheads.

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

MAD doesn't apply to India-Pakistan. You may be thinking of deterrence. MAD is total annihilation of both actors. This requires thousands upon thousands of strategic warheads. Not dozens to hundreds of tactical yield warheads.

Actually, I believe that it does apply. We dont need thousands of bombs anymore...

Hiroshima Bomb: Little Boy had a yield of 9-15 KTs. Pakistani nuclear weopon yields have been reported upto 40 KTs and it is safe to assume that more advanced designs have been developed based on the data collected from those explosions. The wind also flows towards India. I dont even want to think what damage an air burst version would do.

Pakistan herself lacks strategic depth. Even a few remaining onces if launched will be destructive. And a few will survive on both sides. However, their operational survivability will become questionable. Still an unofficial MAD.

By introducing the Sea launched second strike capability, India wants to turn this unofficial MAD into an official MAD. It will not make much difference though as Pakistan cites NATO's doctrine of first use policy against USSR but remains close lipped.

Following is another quote..

This is not 1945 & what was seen in 1945 was just a demo of atomic bomb's power. Many strategist say it is a peanut compared to today's nuclear bomb. You need on one bomb to wipe out a country today. For countries size of Russian Federation perhaps 3 or 4. For countries size of USA, Canada, Brazil you probably need no more than 2 bombs.

However, this depends on the weight of the atomic/nuclear explosive. Which means you don't have to put 200 bombs into action but rather 2, 3 or 4 of them with the weight enough to destroy a country (depending on the size).

Anyways, 2000 atomic bombs will wipe out entire world several times over.

 

[Grand Danois]

MAD means end to end destruction, dooms-day exchanges. Destruction in MAD context means total destruction; like a single warhead volley that immediately takes out 25% of the pop of a country like US or China plus 25% more inside two weeks from secondary effects.

Without depleting the arsenals.

This applied to the Cold War days. It is a function of (explosive) firepower and delivery.

To take your example: a typical US/Sov strategic warhead had (has) a yield of 100-170 kT or twice the destructive power of a 40kT warhead. These were deployed in the tens of thousands.

Dozens to hundreds of tac yields are in the nuclear deterrence category.

MAD means deterrence by mutual end-of-the-World (for the implicated countries) arsenals.

And 2000 nukes are not in that category as a showstopper for this planet, btw.

 

[Aliph Ahmed]

There is a possibility that Pakistan do have 100 kT or more yield bombs developed from the data collected in those explosions. It is 8 years now since then.

Either way, both are said to have atleast 50+ and if both exchange back and forth, it should still fall in the category of MAD. Atleast these are the lines I was thinking on.

Regardless of all this, I think India should not try to introduce new weopons in the region at the expense of spending on her population. Thus, also forcing Pakistan to follow suit.

So Pakistan is right when it says that introduction of new weopons should be avoided for the sake of poverty alleviation.

 

[Grand Danois]

I think I understand what our disagreement is about - your emphasis is on the assured part. I emphasise the destruction part which makes it unique to the Cold War and is a term used for a specific doctrine applicable only to that environment. It is simply out of the question that your nation will survive - it won't. So strategists cannot calculate with limited losses.

You argue that survivability of response options is qualification for MAD - they are also the qualification for nuclear deterrence. Assured counter force or counter value are not unique to MAD. The destruction element is - which requires unique policies and seriously discourages conflict.

Nuclear deterrence does not have the same binary effect.

Wrt yields. A 40kT yield has less than twice the destructive power of a Hiroshima bomb. A 100kT yield has less than twice the destructive power of a 40 kT warhead.

As for numbers. We know from the Warszaw Pact records that my country, tiny little Denmark, was slated for 50-70 tac nukes with double-digit yields if it hadn't been conquered/suppressed inside a week. That's the numbers you need just for battlefield/tactical use against a small country !!!

 

[SABRE]

With due respect SABRE

first and second points are well taken, but how it is going to effect deterrence in any way. Seems like pakistan is saying as china's proxy.

When one side has "assured" 2nd strike capability (which is achieved by SSBKs/SLBMs) [& also has ABMs/BMDs capability while the other one doesn't (at least not yet)] than there will be a loophole in the deterrence. The side with the advantage can pre-empt. It will have a psychological security & deterrence is all psychology.

The side at disadvantage can also pre-empt before the SLBM & ABM/BMD system of the other side matures but chances are grim.

The better option available to the disadvantage side is to follow suit.

 

[kams]

radiosilence,

with all due respect, I did clarify how any india acquiring sub launched ballistic missile is totally irrelevent in India-Pakistan theater as even today without it, Pakistan can not locate destory 50% of Railmobile Missiles. (And India has Roadmobile missiles too). India does not need a sub launched missiles to have assured second strike capability against Pakistan..

MAD in Indo-Pakistan theater? Surenfloorl:

 

[SABRE]

radiosilence,

with all due respect, I did clarify how any india acquiring sub launched ballistic missile is totally irrelevent in India-Pakistan theater as even today without it, Pakistan can not locate destory 50% of Railmobile Missiles. (And India has Roadmobile missiles too). India does not need a sub launched missiles to have assured second strike capability against Pakistan..

MAD in Indo-Pakistan theater? Surenfloorl:

With all dew respect, MAD is always there. Even states with assured 2nd strike capability have top of their minds.

& now for the moderator action: No more India-Pakistan discussions or the thread is going to be closed for 7 days (minimum).

 

[radiosilence]

@ Kams

I don't really want to get hung up on this but your statements clearly indicated that you were refering to the future for which i have provided your original quote. If its was a mistatement then we will leave it at that.

Pakistan can not locate destory 50% of Railmobile Missiles. (And India has Roadmobile missiles too)

Perhaps this true presently but again i was refering to the future where space-based assets becomes more readily available.

 

[alphacentauri]

Well guys the recent SLBM test of k-15 missile by India is not any country specific but it is conducted in the past for 3-4 for times also. The test is a precursor to develop sub launched missiles with more range. This test shows that India has the intention to develop a sea based nuclear detterent for a global strike capability especially for China.

Also agni-3 which was tested in april 2007 is so designed that it can be mated to a nuke sub.Avionics & RCS Block of agni-3:

Upper stage has cold gas RCS (reaction control system) to provide roll control and also correct missile attitude during launch. Agni-3 D2 flight photo shows the cold air puff at launch, clearly indicating the missile is designed for under water launch. It allows missile to dispense with air fins, enabling container stowage & launch (wooden round).

DRDO’s Agni-III is a 2 stage missile that is 14.3m long
and 1.8 meter 23 diameter (Figure 10). Both stages
have flex nozzle for optimal flight and trajectory control.
The motor cases are made of wound carbon fiber
composite material24 for high fuel mass fraction that is
necessary for a small but long range missile. The first
and second stages are about 6.6 meters and 2.7
meters long with a 1 meter vented inter-stage25. The
missile supports a wide range of warhead
configurations, with total payload ranging from 600 kg
to 1,800 kg. The missile is compact and small enough
for easy mobility and flexible deployment on different
types of surface and sub-surface platforms. The
diameter is compatible with a recently tested Indian
sub-surface launch system with 2.4 meter diameter
launch tube26. The Agni-III is clearly a precursor to a
submarine launched version.