India has been diverting nuclear materials to make weapons: Pakistan

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
9,058
Likes
37,670
Country flag
I don't know how many warheads India has but one thing is clear . If India is not diverting some of the new imported uranium to weapon grade material than indians would be stupid.:biggrin2:

As a rising power it is imperative for India to deliberately bend agreements and still force other nations to abide by their commitments. :daru:
 

Mikesingh

Professional
Joined
Sep 7, 2015
Messages
7,353
Likes
30,450
Country flag
This Porki son-of-a-gun Nafees Zakaria says nothing about what the world knows about Porkistan having the fastest growing nuke arsenal in the world? These fookers keep brandishing their dud nuclear arsenal at the drop of a hat. :crazy:
 

Prashant Sharma

Between_the_lines
Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
145
Likes
350
Country flag
In the civil nuclear deal with US which granted us a waiver, the US wanted to add a rider that they will track the uranium supplied to India which we rejected stating it undermines our sovereignty.
It is obvious that our opposition wasn't only because of sovereignty.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
China definitely has around 3000 warheads 450-500 (for both tactical and city busters) ready to use and rest to be assembled at short notice.


Similarly for India 300 to 450 ready to use and rest to be assembled (should be in 1000s both tactical and city busters)
How did these nuclear fan boys pull out these figures?

No, neither China, nor India has that number of warheads, not even close.


Chinese stopped her nuclear material production (weapon grade) in 1990s. Her whole historic output was barely enough for half of the figure. India's weapon grade material production rate doesn't support that figure either.


There is another issue here: domestic recoverable resource of uranium.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production.aspx

Chinese only has 5% of the whole world, which is only enough for either weapon program or civilian power projects according to Chinese own report. India is even worse, nowhere close to that figure.


So, it is hardly to believe both countries can build such scale of nuclear weapons stock without alarming the whole world.


first phase of Agni 5 missiles had 48 missiles on wheel TEL and same numbers on Trains. These trains moves in night under heavy security. Plus some unspecified number of duel wheel and train special TEL. So 150 China specific missiles were ready some few years ago. This number does not include what would be under or over sea.


http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/agni-v-missile.6005/page-85#post-1302673

Really?

Agni 5 only tested 4 times until Dec 2016. However, according to DRDO, they need 4-5 tests before operational, how did they pull out 48 missiles even before the missile was operational.

Even consider that DRDO carried out some secret tests before 2014 that no one knows, but produce 48 in just 3 years? 16 Agni-5 missiles per year? You are dreaming.
 

Tarun Kumar

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
942
Likes
1,047
How did these nuclear fan boys pull out these figures?

No, neither China, nor India has that number of warheads, not even close.


Chinese stopped her nuclear material production (weapon grade) in 1990s. Her whole historic output was barely enough for half of the figure. India's weapon grade material production rate doesn't support that figure either.


There is another issue here: domestic recoverable resource of uranium.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production.aspx

Chinese only has 5% of the whole world, which is only enough for either weapon program or civilian power projects according to Chinese own report. India is even worse, nowhere close to that figure.


So, it is hardly to believe both countries can build such scale of nuclear weapons stock without alarming the whole world.

Really?

Agni 5 only tested 4 times until Dec 2016. However, according to DRDO, they need 4-5 tests before operational, how did they pull out 48 missiles even before the missile was operational.

Even consider that DRDO carried out some secret tests before 2014 that no one knows, but produce 48 in just 3 years? 16 Agni-5 missiles per year? You are dreaming.
The consensus figure for China is 600-900 high yield thermonukes (500KT-3MT) of which half are in ready to fire mode. China also has maybe few hundred tactical low yield fission bombs. For India, the count is really unknown.
 

Khagesh

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,274
Likes
870
Really?

Agni 5 only tested 4 times until Dec 2016. However, according to DRDO, they need 4-5 tests before operational, how did they pull out 48 missiles even before the missile was operational.

Even consider that DRDO carried out some secret tests before 2014 that no one knows, but produce 48 in just 3 years? 16 Agni-5 missiles per year? You are dreaming.

Agni 2 and Agni 3 mostly.

Agni 5 is for near future only.

Chinese don't admit it but their stocks of weapons grade matrial is bigger than others (smaller only to US and Russians)
 

Prashant Sharma

Between_the_lines
Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
145
Likes
350
Country flag
hinese only has 5% of the whole world, which is only enough for either weapon program or civilian power projects according to Chinese own report. India is even worse, nowhere close to that figure.
The key here is India's Thorium reserves. That's a game changer.
 

Cutting Edge 2

Space Power
Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2017
Messages
984
Likes
1,969
There is so much misinformation in this thread based on imaginary assumptions.

The estimate reported by Dawn that India has enough fissile material to produce 2,000 nuclear weapons can be traced back to a 2014 assessment by Mansoor Ahmed, a Pakistani nuclear analyst. He estimated that at the end of 2013, India’s fissile material stockpile included 800 to 1,000 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, 2 metric tons of HEU, and 15 metric tons of reactor-grade plutonium. Assuming that 4 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, 50 kilograms of HEU, or 8 kilograms of reactor-grade plutonium would be necessary to make one nuclear warhead of each type, Ahmed estimated that India could produce 250 warheads from weapons-grade plutonium, 40 from HEU (gun-type implosion devices, not thermonuclear weapons), and 1,875 from reactor-grade plutonium—for a total arsenal of 2,165 nuclear weapons.

In contrast, the recent report from ISIS concluded that at the end of 2014, India likely possessed about 550 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, 100 to 200 kilograms of HEU intended for use in thermonuclear weapons, and 2.9 metric tons of separated reactor-grade plutonium. The study assessed that this fissile material was sufficient to produce about 75 to 125 nuclear warheads, with 100 nuclear weapons as the median estimate. ISIS arrived at this number mainly through an appraisal of India’s weapons-grade plutonium stockpile; they assume that India would not use reactor-grade plutonium in nuclear warheads, and that HEU would only be used to produce a handful of thermonuclear weapons at most. ISIS also considered that some plutonium is in weapons production pipelines or held in reserve, meaning that only about 70 percent of India’s stockpile is available to be made into weapons. Assuming that it would take 3 to 5 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium for each warhead, ISIS calculations yielded an arsenal that could range from 75 to 125 nuclear weapons.

The biggest difference between these two estimates comes from their assessments of, and assumptions about, reactor-grade plutonium. Not only does the ISIS study discount the possibility that India would use reactor-grade plutonium in its nuclear weapons, but its estimate of India’s reactor-grade plutonium stockpile is also significantly lower than Ahmed’s: 2.9 metric tons as opposed to 15 metric tons.

Other estimates of fissile material stockpiles typically do not include plutonium in spent fuel that has not been reprocessed, for the good reason that such fissile material is not available for use in nuclear weapons. Reprocessing is complicated and expensive, and India in particular has historically had trouble achieving consistent operations in its reprocessing facilities. In its Global Fissile Material Report 2015, the IPFM does not include unseparated plutonium as part of its estimate of India’s fissile material stockpile, citing the historically poor performance of India’s reprocessing plants at Tarapur and Kalpakkam.

The report notes that India’s reactor-grade plutonium stockpile is most likely intended as fuel for the country’s Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor—not for nuclear weapons, as Ahmed assumes—but that the reactor’s start date has been pushed back several times. This is likely due to difficulty that India has reportedly experienced in separating sufficient plutonium to fuel the reactor. Considering this historically low rate of separation and the problems it has caused for India’s fast breeder reactor program.

After discounting unseparated plutonium in spent fuel as a source of proliferation in the near future, even Ahmed’s generous estimate from the South Asian Voices blog post is only equivalent to a potential Indian arsenal of 844 nuclear warheads—a significant number to be sure, but nowhere near 2,000 weapons.

If one discounts reactor-grade plutonium entirely, that estimate drops even further to an arsenal of just 219 weapons. In addition, it is likely that much, or even most, of India’s HEU is intended for use in naval reactors rather than in nuclear warheads. It is also clear that some of India’s weapons-grade plutonium was already used in nuclear tests or is contained in process waste. Taking into account those factors, the estimate quickly begins to drop to something much more along the lines of the ISIS estimate of roughly 100 nuclear warheads.

Brigadier Vijay K. Nair suggested a force level of 132 nuclear warheads of different types, including weapons in the megaton range. For delivery, besides bomber and fighter-bomber aircraft, he recommended five SSBNs with sixteen SLBMs on each, and 48 ballistic missiles—twelve SRBMs and 36 medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs). Out of a total requirement of 111 nuclear warheads for retaliatory strikes against Pakistan (seventeen targets) and China (eight targets), he felt that 37 warheads were required for strikes and an additional 74 as a “65 percent reserve for reliability.” He added another 22 as a “post-war reserve,” taking the total to 132 warheads.

Requirements for Nuclear Warheads

Timeframe_____Strategic_____Tactical_____Total

2000–2010_____57__________30__________87

2010–2020_____131_________40__________171
2020–2030_____268_________60__________328

The breakdown of the final figure of 328 nuclear warheads and the proposed delivery systems.
  • Four SSBNs with 48 SLBMs (with a single warhead each).
  • 40 SU-30s with 40 NGBs and 40 N-ASMs (strategic) and 30 SU-30s with 30 NGBs and 30 N-ASMs (tactical).
  • 25 ICBMs.
  • 40 IRBMs.
  • 25 ADMs.
  • 50 reserve warheads.

Possible Nuclear Force Structure: 2000–2030

Phase I: 2000–2010

Delivery System_______________Quantity__________Warheads

Prithvi Two groups________________16__________20- to 30-kiloton, fission
Agni-I and -II Two groups___________24__________200-kiloton, thermonuclear
Dhanush Four to eight launchers_____ 8__________20- to 30-kiloton, fission
Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, Jaguar_____32 __________200-kiloton, thermonuclear

Total: 80 warheads


Phase II: 2011–2020

Delivery System _________________Quantity__________Warheads

Prithvi Four groups_________________ 16 __________ 20- to 30-kiloton, fission
Agni-II and -III Two groups____________24__________200-kiloton, thermonuclear
Agni-IV and -V Two groups____________36__________200-kiloton, thermonuclear
SSBN Two boats; 24 SLBM launchers___26__________200-kiloton, thermonuclear
Su-30MKI, Mirage 2000, Rafale________48__________200-kiloton, thermonuclear

Total: 150 warheads

Phase III: 2021–2030

Delivery System____________________Quantity____________Warheads
Agni-I, -II, -III, and -IV Four groups________96__________200-kiloton, thermonuclear
Agni-VI and Surya One group____________18__________200-kiloton, thermonuclear
SSBN Four boats, 48 SLBM launchers_____50__________200-kiloton, thermonuclear
Su-30MKI and replacement______________36__________200-kiloton, thermonuclear

Total: 200 warheads

Pakistan’s nuclear warheads are based on a Chinese design that used highly enriched uranium as the fissionable core. According to public estimates, Pakistan probably had amassed between 30 and 85 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium from its Khushab research reactor and between 1300 and 1700 kilograms of weapon-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) from the Kahuta gas centrifuge facility. The Khushab reactor can probably produce between 10 and 15 kilograms of plutonium per year. Kahuta may be able to produce 100 kilograms of HEU each year. Assuming that Pakistani scientists require 5 to 7 kilograms of plutonium to make one warhead, and 20 to 25 kilograms of HEU to produce a bomb, then Pakistan would have accumulated enough fissile material to be able to manufacture between 70 and 115 nuclear weapons by the end of 2006.

2015 Estimates

Country__________Total Arsenal Estimates
China____________________250
Pakistan_______________110–130
India__________________110–120


Interesting read:
http://thebulletin.org/fuzzy-math-indian-nuclear-weapons9343
http://carnegieendowment.org/2016/06/30/india-s-nuclear-force-structure-2025-pub-63988
 
Last edited:

Khagesh

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,274
Likes
870
@Cutting Edge 2
With due respect, assumptions only need to be taken when evidence is not available. Assumptions are per force imaginary. Paki analyst has presumed the worst for the Paki interests and while he may be fudging his assumptions are as good as anybodies. None being evidenced.

For example this quote:
Assuming that it would take 3 to 5 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium for each warhead, ISIS calculations yielded an arsenal that could range from 75 to 125 nuclear weapons.
The biggest difference between these two estimates comes from their assessments of, and assumptions about, reactor-grade plutonium.
If 3-5 kg WgPu is required then the same can also be replaced by 3-5 kg dirty plutonium. The whole idea of using WgPu is that it will be less prone to sponteneous fissions. And using lesser quantities of dirty plutonium acts towards the same goal.

Then there is the issue of number of gravity bombs which is listed at a mere 40 when the delivery platforms are in the low hundreds. You have mentioned Su-30MKI, Jaguars, Mirages, Rafales as being available. Surely each of these can carry gravity bombs again and again till they are bombed out at bases or shot out of the skies. Both obviously beyond the capacity of PAF.

Consider this for example. What a gravity bomb based arsenel does to the calculations/presumptions.

B-43 dial an yielding 70 Kt (fission bomb version) to 1 Mt (TN bomb) all versions weighing less than a ton in weight capable of being carried in the smallest of aircrafts and all capable of being made from dirty plutonium. If anything this Paki analyst is the confirmation from the Paki side that dirty plutonium is usable as is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Philippine_Sea_A-4_incident

When the paki analyst says 2000 he is only voicing his worst fears. Which are not completely unfounded.

Unfortunately for them or anybody else they will have to learn to live with this uncertainty. That is the whole purpose of playing this deterrence game.
 
Last edited:

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
The consensus figure for China is 600-900 high yield thermonukes (500KT-3MT) of which half are in ready to fire mode. China also has maybe few hundred tactical low yield fission bombs. For India, the count is really unknown.
No, the consensus figure for China is 250-300 nuclear warheads, all of them are stored separately from launch devices. But they have weapon grade material for another 700-1000 warheads.

And no, they don't have tactical nuclear weapons. They even refuse to accept the idea of such this kind of weapon: they made it clear to everyone, there is no difference between strategic nuke and tactic nuke. Any attack with nuke, no matter how small yield it is, they will response with full scale nuclear war. Chinese nuclear missiles only target one thing: big cities of foreign countries.
 

Khagesh

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,274
Likes
870
No, the consensus figure for China is 250-300 nuclear warheads, all of them are stored separately from launch devices. But they have weapon grade material for another 700-1000 warheads.

And no, they don't have tactical nuclear weapons. They even refuse to accept the idea of such this kind of weapon: they made it clear to everyone, there is no difference between strategic nuke and tactic nuke. Any attack with nuke, no matter how small yield it is, they will response with full scale nuclear war. Chinese nuclear missiles only target one thing: big cities of foreign countries.
For a second I thought I was reading somebody from an Indian think tank on some forgettable draft for some useless nuclear doctrine.

Chinese need Tactical Nukes. That would be enough of a comment on the chinese.

Unfortunately for India we are the ones who cannot really deploy tactical nukes in substantial numbers. You cannot find more than 5 places in pakistan to use these nukes on, strategic or tactical. And china cannot make much of a move without putting up a big show in Tibet. In other words it will never go nuke with the chinese.
 

lcafanboy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
5,776
Likes
36,931
Country flag
India modernising its nuclear arsenal with eye on China instead of Pakistan: US nuclear experts
India continues to modernise its atomic arsenal with an eye on China and the country's nuclear strategy which traditionally focused on Pakistan now appears to place increased emphasis on the Communist giant, two top American nuclear experts have said.







By: PTI | Washington | Updated: July 13, 2017 11:03 am

India’s nuclear strategy, which has traditionally focused on Pakistan, now appears to place increased emphasis on China, the two experts claimed. (File photo)
RELATED NEWS


India continues to modernise its atomic arsenal with an eye on China and the country’s nuclear strategy which traditionally focused on Pakistan now appears to place increased emphasis on the Communist giant, two top American nuclear experts have said. An article published in the July-August issue of the digital journal ‘After Midnight’ has also claimed that India is now developing a missile which can target all of China from its bases in South India.

India is estimated to have produced enough plutonium for 150–200 nuclear warheads but has likely produced only 120–130, wrote Hans M Kristensen and Robert S Norris in the article-“Indian nuclear forces 2017″. India’s nuclear strategy, which has traditionally focused on Pakistan, now appears to place increased emphasis on China, the two experts claimed. While India has traditionally been focused on deterring Pakistan, its nuclear modernisation indicates that it is putting increased emphasis on its future strategic relationship with China,” they wrote.

“That adjustment will result in significantly new capabilities being deployed over the next decade that may influence how India views nuclear weapons’ role against Pakistan,” they said.

Noting that India continues to modernise its nuclear arsenal with development of several new nuclear weapon systems, the two experts estimate that New Delhi currently operates seven nuclear-capable systems: two aircraft, four land-based ballistic missiles, and one sea-based ballistic missile. “At least four more systems are in development. The development program is in a dynamic phase, with long-range land- and sea-based missiles emerging for possible deployment within the next decade,” it said.

India is estimated to have produced approximately 600 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium, sufficient for 150–200 nuclear warheads; however, not all the material has been converted into nuclear warheads, it said. Based on available information about its nuclear-capable delivery force structure and strategy, we estimate that India has produced 120–130 nuclear warheads, the article said adding that the country will need more warheads to arm the new missiles it is currently developing.

Kristensen and Norris said that the two-stage, solid-fuel, rail-mobile Agni-2, an improvement on the Agni-1, which can deliver a nuclear or conventional warhead more than 2,000 kilometres is probably targeted on western, central, and southern China. Although the Agni-4 will be capable of striking targets in nearly all of China from northeastern India (including Beijing and Shanghai), India is also developing the longer-range Agni-5, a three-stage, solid-fuel, rail-mobile, near-intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of delivering a warhead more than 5,000 kilometres (3,100-plus miles), it said.

“The extra range will allow the Indian military to establish Agni-5 bases in central and southern India, further away from China,” the research article said.




http://indianexpress.com/article/wo...stead-of-pakistan-us-nuclear-experts-4748319/
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
This is however is not possible ..
Well, this is very possible: they didn't even want to admit that they already successfully tested the neutron bomb before 1990s. The reason is very simple: they don't want to spend huge amount of money on building the tactic bomb with necessary number.
 

Khagesh

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,274
Likes
870
No, as long as Chinese still sticks to their nuclear deterrent strategy, they can't have the tactical nuke.
It is upto the chinese to decide if they wish to forgo their needs.

Only an idiot or a sell out will not work towards satisfying the needs of his country. Needless to say both kinds exist in all hierarchies.

But your leadership has for the most part worked towards satisfying your national needs. So it would be foolhardy to rely on mere conjecture.

I can see that the chinese need tactical nukes, against their far east rivals. I can see that the chinese have all the means of production, deployment, intel and delivery. That is input, enough for me.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top