LETHALFORCE
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,799
- Likes
- 48,281
Please explain how in an underground test Japanese concluded the Chinese tested an MIRV?
What made you think he said so?Please explain how in an underground test Japanese concluded the Chinese tested an MIRV?
First, you have to ask what makes a missile first strike ICBM while others disqualified?
Do we have friendly relations between 2 countries? At least, I don't feel it in this forum.
Same question could be asked by Chinese: can we trust your words?
I still see no linkage with your conclusion.from the article:
According to Japanese government sources (reported in Nihon Keizai Shimbun), the penultimate underground Chinese nuclear test on 8 June 1996 (calculated at 20 to 80 kilotons) was actually a simultaneous detonation of multiple warheads
I did not say that they tested MIRV's, I was trying to make a point that we simply do not know if Chinese have MIRV's or not.Please explain how in an underground test Japanese concluded the Chinese tested an MIRV?
Multiple = many warheads same time... that's not same as MIRV.from the article:
According to Japanese government sources (reported in Nihon Keizai Shimbun), the penultimate underground Chinese nuclear test on 8 June 1996 (calculated at 20 to 80 kilotons) was actually a simultaneous detonation of multiple warheads
I guess we had "lost in translation" moment here.This is a new definition for me Multiple warheads is not same as MIRV.
No, you are right, definition are sound and clear. A returning viechle is not necessarily a warhead it can be research viechles or simply dummy warheads.He is using the ambiguity to make the discussion harder.I guess we had "lost in translation" moment here.
It's very unlikely that Chinese would give ICBM to Pakistan.will this be given to Pakistan painted with green color under the name of Jinnah
There was a news on headlinestoday.com, an English version of aajtak that a Chinese company accidently supplied paki,the nuke material.It's very unlikely that Chinese would give ICBM to Pakistan.
Does India have miniaturized warheads with good enough yield-to-weight ratio? That is the question what people should be asking.If placing multiple satellites is like a base for developing a missile with multiple warheads then INDIA too has the technology of placing multiple satellites in space. So does this mean that INDIA has the MIRV technology ready with it and it just needs some test before being operational?
Reply: A lot of people are very hooked on MIRV, assuming almost automatically that if a country develops and ICBM it will also deploy MIRV on it. But for smaller nuclear weapon states that doesn't necessarily follow
(some of the larger nuclear states are reducing their reliance on MIRV). China has had MIRV capability for many years but not deployed it. For India to add MIRV to Agni-V (assuming India has the technological skills to do so) would significantly decrease its range – especially with India's relatively heavy warheads. Since range is the main motivation for Agni-V and India has no intention (that I'm aware of) to develop a nuclear doctrine that requires their missiles to destroy a lot of different targets in a single strike, I fail to see why it would be necessary to spend a lot of money and effort to develop MIRV for the Agni-V. HK
mate we all know the truth of the chini missiles!so please don't try boost some false ego here in this forum!and for your knowledge the actual range of Agni-V is classified but chini and pakistani "experts" feel that the actual range of this missile is about 8,000-10,000 kms and the Indian Govt. is deliberately downplaying the missile's actual range to avoid causing unnecessary concerns to other countries(read:- U.S.A and its NATO Allies)!You were all boasting about how the "great" 5000km range Agni 5 was the next coming of Jesus himself, and when China builds something with twice its range and quadruple its throw weight we're hypocrites?
It seems you're being quite the hypocrite yourself.
Even if it could carry a hundred warheads and go around the world twice, a No-First-Use Policy means that it will still be counted as adding to China's second-strike capability.
The ability of the any future DF41 and DF31/31A arsenal to hit every mildly significant city in the US once they emerge from those 3000km long reinforced tunnels will make any US president think long and hard before punching in those launch codes, don't you think?
That's the definition of nuclear deterrence.
i think we Indians understand quite well what the term "first strike" means!its just hilarious to know that china is advocating a "no first use policy" when the reality is quite opposite! but again china's reputation as a classic backstabber is quite well known in the International arena!He just don't understand what first stike means. He think first strike is to strike first. heheh, Indian...
There was one Chinese "researcher" who said that Agni V has a more range than India says, but it's more likely that he's overestimating India's capabilities.mate we all know the truth of the chini missiles!so please don't try boost some false ego here in this forum!and for your knowledge the actual range of Agni-V is classified but chini and pakistani "experts" feel that the actual range of this missile is about 8,000-10,000 kms and the Indian Govt. is deliberately downplaying the missile's actual range to avoid causing unnecessary concerns to other countries(read:- U.S.A and its NATO Allies)!
Agni-V - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
what,over estimating India's capabilities!we are more than capable to building ICBMs having a range of more than 10k kms but the reason our Govt. downplayed the actual range of Agni-V was to avoid causing concerns to European and North American countries!and secondly we don't really need to have an ICBM having a range of about 10k kms as our only potential enemies in this world are china and pakistan and i think both of them fall within the down played range of Agni-V!got it son!:ranger:There was one Chinese "researcher" who said that Agni V has a more range than India says, but it's more likely that he's overestimating India's capabilities.