Agni V Missile test launch

[Rahul Singh]

In the "interim" what is the threat perception that requires ICBM? What's the warhead arsenal that we have that would fit on top of those ICBMs?

China, its no first use policy, its capability to destroy whatever that is stored at predictable locations (because of range limitation most of Indian BMs will be launched from locations around border) and will to wage full scale nuclear strikes. About warhead, well we have certainly developed one for A-V, one or two steps and we will there, this something which is not the case with SLBM.

 

[trackwhack]

In the "interim" what is the threat perception that requires ICBM? What's the warhead arsenal that we have that would fit on top of those ICBMs?

Why are both of you stuck in the interim? Long term threats include every country that is able to target us with a nuclear warhead.

 

[ajay_ijn]

Why are both of you stuck in the interim? Long term threats include every country that is able to target us with a nuclear warhead.

Ability to reach any part of China from any part of India i.e southern most states is important right now, i.e anywhere between 6500 to 700km. That itself becomes an ICBM. We can think about long term threats when we have luxury of spending so much on defense.

 

[trackwhack]

developing, producing, maintaining ICBMs is costly affair. don't you think we have priorities other than thinking about defending from every country that can target us with nuclear warhead?. The reason we spend huge amounts on defense despite facing developmental challenges is the threat presented by two of the neighboring countries.

No, I dont think there are higher priorities than defending the nation from every potential threat.

In 40 years since the 71 war, america changed from being a threat to a friend? only fools will believe that things wont change in the next 40 years.

 

[Yusuf]

No, I dont think there are higher priorities than defending the nation from every potential threat.

In 40 years since the 71 war, america changed from being a threat to a friend? only fools will believe that things wont change in the next 40 years.

40 years is a long time. We will have MIRVd SLBMs and boomers in another 15 years. We don't need to develop land based ICBMs right now. A5 should be a stepping stone to developing an SLBM with a range of 7000-8000 kms.

 

[trackwhack]

40 years is a long time. We will have MIRVd SLBMs and boomers in another 15 years. We don't need to develop land based ICBMs right now. A5 should be a stepping stone to developing an SLBM with a range of 7000-8000 kms.

There is a reason its called a nuclear triad. There is a reason the P5 maintains a nuclear triad. For the same reasons, we need long range bombers and ICBM's - both mobile and silo based. The more diversified the delivery systems, the more the deterrence, the more secure we are.

 

[Yusuf]

There is a reason its called a nuclear triad. There is a reason the P5 maintains a nuclear triad. For the same reasons, we need long range bombers and ICBM's - both mobile and silo based. The more diversified the delivery systems, the more the deterrence, the more secure we are.

UK has all its warheads below water. US has vast majority underwater. France as well. Being a second strike arsenal, it makes more sense to have all our nukes hidden somewhere in the ocean.

 

[trackwhack]

UK has all its warheads below water. US has vast majority underwater. France as well. Being a second strike arsenal, it makes more sense to have all our nukes hidden somewhere in the ocean.

UK having all their nukes on subs is factually incorrect.
US having a vast majority underwater is factually incorrect. (vast majority is significantly over 50% of 8000 warheads. Lets take half - 4000. Do you know how many subs you need for 4000 warheads. Lets say 100 warheads per sub, thats still 400 SSBN's)
France as well is too arbitrary a statement.

 

[ajay_ijn]

No, I dont think there are higher priorities than defending the nation from every potential threat.
In 40 years since the 71 war, america changed from being a threat to a friend? only fools will believe that things wont change in the next 40 years.

What your talking about is threats that do not exist now but may/may not develop in future. We already are mastering the three-stage solid fuel missile technology, we may be able to afford the development of long range ICBM but maintaining a sizable force of ICBMs may not be required.no doubt we may eventually have such an ICBM Force in future when we have enough luxury to spend amounts on defense. Govt right now struggles to maintain balance with budget deficits, spending on education, social development, poverty reduction and on defense.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

There is a world of difference between north korea and India.

Why does usa need ICBM's ?

This is the official answer as far as I know.

No first use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States,[17] and France say they will use nuclear weapons against either nuclear or non-nuclear states only in the case of invasion or other attack against their territory or against one of their allies. Historically, NATO military strategy, taking into account the numerical superiority of Warsaw Pact conventional forces, assumed that the use of tactical nuclear weapons would have been required in defeating a Soviet invasion...The U.S. doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons was revised most recently in the Nuclear Posture Review, released April 6, 2010.[21] The 2010 Nuclear Posture review reduces the role of U.S. nuclear weapons, stating that

"The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist, is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners."

The U.S. doctrine also includes the following assurance to other states:

"The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations."

For states eligible for this assurance, the United States would not use nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack, but states that those responsible for such an attack would be held accountable and would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response. Even for states not eligible for this assurance, the United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners. The Nuclear Posture Review also notes that:

"It is in the U.S. interest and that of all other nations that the nearly 65-year record of nuclear non-use be extended forever."

This supersedes the doctrine of the Bush Administration set forth in "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and written under the direction of Air Force General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The new doctrine envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use nuclear weapons to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction.[22] The draft also includes the option of using nuclear weapons to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.[18]

At a NATO summit in April 1999, Germany proposed that NATO adopt a no-first-use policy, but the proposal was rejected.

 

[trackwhack]

Ewald,

Taking you off the ignore list to respond to your non-sense.

"The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist, is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners."

Well, the fundamental role of India's nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist, is to deter nuclear attack on India - by anyone else who has those weapons.

There is nothing that the US has done to be disqualified from that threat list. In fact, on the basis of being the only country to have used a nuclear device, twice, it is imperative that a substantial portion of our deterrence be pointed at the US.

 

[ajay_ijn]

UK has all its warheads below water. US has vast majority underwater. France as well. Being a second strike arsenal, it makes more sense to have all our nukes hidden somewhere in the ocean.

all our nukes? affordability becomes issue. maintaining fighter based, road/rail mobile Missiles is many times cheaper than building SSBNs and operating them. Fighters moreover are multipurpose and land-based missiles only significant cost is the cost of producing and maintaining the missile.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

He lives in a bubble thats made him believe that the US is morally obligated to police the world. No point responding to him. I wouldnt be happy unless we have 15K ICBM's or there is complete nuclear disarmament of every country (thats about to happen )

The fool actually has the nerve to equate India with North Korea. Nice one Egwald!

You may call me a fool, TW, but there is something I know about you. You hate the US but there is a reason, probably financial, you must live here. I predict that when you return to your homeland, you will just as unhappy as you are now. There is something eating at you for which there is no geographical solution.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Ewald,

Taking you off the ignore list to respond to your non-sense.

"The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist, is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners."

Well, the fundamental role of India's nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist, is to deter nuclear attack on India - by anyone else who has those weapons.

There is nothing that the US has done to be disqualified from that threat list. In fact, on the basis of being the only country to have used a nuclear device, twice, it is imperative that a substantial portion of our deterrence be pointed at the US.

Argue with my government, not with me. The information I posted is US policy, not my opinion. I was merely responding to Messiah's question.

 

[ajay_ijn]

We are almost getting to long ranges anyway. We may need to have capability to produce, deploy a long range ICBM on short notice, but deploying in sizable numbers right now is not required IMO.

 

[Yusuf]

UK having all their nukes on subs is factually incorrect.
US having a vast majority underwater is factually incorrect. (vast majority is significantly over 50% of 8000 warheads. Lets take half - 4000. Do you know how many subs you need for 4000 warheads. Lets say 100 warheads per sub, thats still 400 SSBN's)
France as well is too arbitrary a statement.

24 missiles per Ohio multiplied by 8 MIRV multiplied by 14 boats. That is 2500 warheads. Active arsenal is 5000 warheads.

UK has 192 warheads on Vanguard and that is its arsenal.

 

[Yusuf]

all our nukes? affordability becomes issue. maintaining fighter based, road/rail mobile Missiles is many times cheaper than building SSBNs and operating them. Fighters moreover are multipurpose and land-based missiles only significant cost is the cost of producing and maintaining the missile.

Survivability is the key when you have a stated second strike policy. I mean we couldnt do shit even if we has a first strike policy as our arsenal is so small. We want to deter others. We don't want to lose anything in a massive Chinese missile strikes. They have plenty of missiles to do so.

Put them all under water and you have a lot of warheads that can kill 100 million Chinese.

 

[ajay_ijn]

Survivability is the key when you have a stated second strike policy. I mean we couldnt do shit even if we has a first strike policy as our arsenal is so small. We want to deter others. We don't want to lose anything in a massive Chinese missile strikes. They have plenty of missiles to do so.
Put them all under water and you have a lot of warheads that can kill 100 million Chinese.

India is a very large country, 3.2 million sqkm, despite massive missiles strikes, there will be always place for road-mobile launchers to hide in.It also won't be that easy to pinpoint the launchers location and destroy them.

as trackwhack suggested, combination of land/sea/air based nukes is good.

Assuming chinese have 1000 nuclear warheads, and each nuke can destroy everything inside a 100sqkm radius. That will be 100,000 sqkm of area. for comparison India has 4 million km of roads, ignoring that much of them in bad condition roads in rural india. I am not even considering that launchers could be hidden in deep forests, mountain-valleys, bunkers, underground tunnels.

 

[trackwhack]

Ewald, you are the one who equated India with North Korea and then you say you have no comment on you governments policy. Learn to debate. Unfortunately there is nothing that will ever give credibility to the stupid concept of P5.

Yusuf, not every Trident is Mirv, not every mirv is 8 warheads and not every warhead is a tactical nuke. You know this as well as anybody, why you making false arguments. And the US has 8000 warheads on last count not 5000.

 

[ajay_ijn]

You may call me a fool, TW, but there is something I know about you. You hate the US but there is a reason, probably financial, you must live here. I predict that when you return to your homeland, you will just as unhappy as you are now. There is something eating at you for which there is no geographical solution.

If you hadn't equated NKorea with India, this wouldn't have started. Indians hate this particular attitude of US that anyone developing missile/nuclear technology is meant to threaten to US onlee. Still your completely misguded about that, US will not consider India as axis of evil/rogue country even if India came up with 15,000km+ ICBM. Heck we launched satellites since decades, we are testing 5000km+ weapon, ICBM is non-issue for us. We are not dying to threaten US with ICBMs.

US Knows about Indias ambitions clearly, nuclear submarine, nuclear weapons land/sea/air based.

AFAIK India is concerned, US simply wants to prevent proliferation of missile/nuclear technologies. Your Govt very well knows India is never going to do such activities anytime, thats why we got the nuclear deal, entry into NSG.