Indian Ballistic Missile Defense System

[sayareakd]

Gentleman stick to topic and no personal comments.

 

[no smoking]

Doctrines are nothing more than lip service. There is no need to tell anyone the number of nuclear warheads to anyone. India might just as well have 20000 warheads and still keep quiet

Yes, that is right because India finds a way to produce warheads without consuming any raw material.
And India also finds the place to produce these without any trace, outer space??? I guess.
And Indian military men also think that they don't need to produce the necessary number of delivery systems for these secrete warheads.

 

[no smoking]

Why would anyone limit nuclear warheads? How is it meaningful to relate NFU to limited number of warheads? NFU is just intent, not capability. No one is speaking of limiting nukes here.

In the reality, everyone is speaking of limiting nukes! There are quite a lot external limits forcing everyone to limit the number of their nukes: financial capacity, economical balance, energy demand, human resources, etc, tec. Military department is not the only one consuming your resources.

Assuming that a war can be won without going full blown is absurd to say the least. Either you don't plan to win the war, in which case you are unfit or you go full scale at your convenience.

You got it wrong here, the assumption of nuclear deterrence countries is: their limited financial and material resources don’t allow them to build up necessary number to win a nuclear war.


So, NO, these countries don’t plan to win the nuclear war at all. They are avoiding the nuclear war.

Making assumptions of the enemy's fairlplay is not how wars work

You got this wrong again, the assumption is your enemy is the smart and rational, they know how to evaluate the gain & loss and they won’t initiate a war when they believe the cost is greater than gain. And you make sure you will never cross the line to make war a worthy option for them.

How is number related to doctrine? Doctrine is intent and not capability. It is possible that the country has low number of nukes but it is not related to doctrines.

Why? Life is too boring, you need to find more fun for the whole India by turning your homeland to one of the major targets of Russia and US nuclear forces?

Doctrine is intent and it can be changed in a minute. Unless you are claiming that India is a retard that does not keep vigilance and readiness to face any circumstances, there is no point claiming anything of this sorts. As far as I see, if India has 50k nukes and 10k in canisters and submarine ready to be launched instantly, even then India can still claim NFU.

Change for what benefit? Your nuclear force is a counter-value force, all your nuclear missiles are targeting only one thing: enemy’s major cities. Same as Chinese. Getting some nuclear armed missiles ready for instant launch won’t increase their destructive capability. No matter what doctrine India claims, currently her nuclear force is only capable of nuclear retaliation.


Let me explain to you why number is linked to doctrine:

The way to win a nuclear war is that you must be able to destroy the majority of enemy’s nuclear force while you still have enough nuclear bombs to cause unacceptable damage to your enemy. In other words, you nuclear force must undertake a counter-force strategy.

According to public information, India currently has 130-150 warheads, let’s take 150. In the meantime, Chinese has 230-250, let’s take 250. Obviously, India can’t do the counter-force task without increase the number of warhead and delivery system. What is the number does India need to eliminate Chinese nuclear missile? Considering the best scenario, 2 to 1, every 2 Indian nuclear warhead destroy 1 Chinese nuclear missile (1 nuclear warhead), so you will need 500 nuclear warhead to do the job (we assume 100% reliability). On top of that, you will need another 200 warheads to protect yourselves from other nuclear powers after the war. So, India will need total 700 warheads and missiles for a new doctrine. Can India cover up these additional 550 warheads and 550 missiles from production to deployment? Hell, NO.

 

[Kshithij]

Yes, that is right because India finds a way to produce warheads without consuming any raw material.
And India also finds the place to produce these without any trace, outer space??? I guess.
And Indian military men also think that they don't need to produce the necessary number of delivery systems for these secrete warheads.

India is already mining Uranium in increased pace. There is no need for any secret space station. Also, India has its own set of reactors that are capable of running on Indian uranium. India can produce the required amount of warheads from these reactors. Each GW plant requires 160ton of natural uranium and 67% of Uranium 235 will be consumed to get about 3.8kg plutonium per ton of natural uranium. But by fastened change of fuel, the plutonium generation can be enhanced (decreasing power generation per ton). So, over 2000ton of Uranium can be used in the 3 GW reactors available in India, producing about 7-7.5 ton plutonium, which is qbout 1500+ bombs every year.

Do these sound secret to you?

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

In the reality, everyone is speaking of limiting nukes! There are quite a lot external limits forcing everyone to limit the number of their nukes: financial capacity, economical balance, energy demand, human resources, etc, tec. Military department is not the only one consuming your resources.

No one speaks of exact nuke number to others. Also, USa, Russia have openly called for improvement in nuclear arsenal recently. Just read.
By the way, there is no restraint in making nuclear bombs. The cost of uranium in international market is not very high and similar price can be expected in India too. It is the technology, time and human capital that matter the most and India already has them. So, there is no financial or material constraint. Just dig out and react. Other materials are also cheap. As I gave example of USA making 30000 nukes in 1965 shows, it does not require too much resource to make nukes. Just technology is enough. The royalty of technology applies only when importing, not using your own technology.

You got it wrong here, the assumption of nuclear deterrence countries is: their limited financial and material resources don’t allow them to build up necessary number to win a nuclear war.
So, NO, these countries don’t plan to win the nuclear war at all. They are avoiding the nuclear war.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. One must always have plans for everything. Making assumption that something happens just because they are convenient is not the way forward or is it responsible. Not everytime war is avoidable. So, when wars are not avoidable, it is unavoidable to have nuclear wars too. Wars can only be postponed.

You got this wrong again, the assumption is your enemy is the smart and rational, they know how to evaluate the gain & loss and they won’t initiate a war when they believe the cost is greater than gain. And you make sure you will never cross the line to make war a worthy option for them.

If my enemy is smart and rational, he would not be an enemy in the first place. If you intend to say that. Also, there are other things like internal problems which may be quelled in the name of war etc. So, it is not necessary that enemy is rational. 1971 war by Pakistan was not on rational grounds, for example.

Why? Life is too boring, you need to find more fun for the whole India by turning your homeland to one of the major targets of Russia and US nuclear forces?

How is this meaningful? Do you think India is a small country? By the way, Russia and India have cordial relation. About USA and the NATO cronies, even if all the NATO member countries team up, their population is lower than Indian population. India is not too backwards in manufacturing or technology to simply sit around. There is sufficient counter threats to keep NATO far away

Change for what benefit? Your nuclear force is a counter-value force, all your nuclear missiles are targeting only one thing: enemy’s major cities. Same as Chinese. Getting some nuclear armed missiles ready for instant launch won’t increase their destructive capability. No matter what doctrine India claims, currently her nuclear force is only capable of nuclear retaliation.
Let me explain to you why number is linked to doctrine:
The way to win a nuclear war is that you must be able to destroy the majority of enemy’s nuclear force while you still have enough nuclear bombs to cause unacceptable damage to your enemy. In other words, you nuclear force must undertake a counter-force strategy.
According to public information, India currently has 130-150 warheads, let’s take 150. In the meantime, Chinese has 230-250, let’s take 250. Obviously, India can’t do the counter-force task without increase the number of warhead and delivery system. What is the number does India need to eliminate Chinese nuclear missile? Considering the best scenario, 2 to 1, every 2 Indian nuclear warhead destroy 1 Chinese nuclear missile (1 nuclear warhead), so you will need 500 nuclear warhead to do the job (we assume 100% reliability). On top of that, you will need another 200 warheads to protect yourselves from other nuclear powers after the war. So, India will need total 700 warheads and missiles for a new doctrine. Can India cover up these additional 550 warheads and 550 missiles from production to deployment? Hell, NO.

First of all, I don't understand how you can say with a straight face that India has 150 bombs ad China 250. The number of bombs will be obviously high. We are speaking of making thousands of bombs every year vs having ust 150 bombs till now? Why do you think the PHWR reactors don't produce enough plutonium to make enough bombs? Even by most conservative estimates, Indian plutonium reserves are over 20000-25000 kg or about 20-25 tons. The amount of Uranium extracted by India was in the range of 400tons in year 2000 itself. Most of it is used in dual use reactors. Even if 2kg plutonium is obtained per ton, that will still amount to 20000kg. Even if we go by the ancient Nagasaki bomb, it takes 6kg per bomb and hence over 3000 bombs can be made. The current requirement is around 4-5kg per bomb and hence the warheads will only be higher at about 4000-5000.
Again, the idea that underground silos ca be destroyed by nukes is wrong. Nukes can't wipe out entire areas either. USA has shown that even propane tanks cant be exploded by nuke heat. So, the missile, unless hit directly by nuke at point blank range, is unlikely to be destroyed. The nuclear counter force, first strike is only meaningful in crippling logistics and infrastructure, not in destroying everything and all enemy missiles and bases.
Also, India does not intend to start wars with China as China is not feared or hated by most Indians. The main counterforce is in the case of devils nearby. These are permanent irritation and people are longing to get rid of these permanently. So, the main nuclear force is against these deranged ones rather than smart or negotiable people like Chinese. When one is longing and itching to get rid of the permanent nuisance, the idea of avoiding war does not arise.

 

[no smoking]

No one speaks of exact nuke number to others. Also, USa, Russia have openly called for improvement in nuclear arsenal recently. Just read.

’


No, they are calling for improvement of the quality and tech level of nuclear arsenal, not the number.

By the way, there is no restraint in making nuclear bombs. The cost of uranium in international market is not very high and similar price can be expected in India too. It is the technology, time and human capital that matter the most and India already has them. So, there is no financial or material constraint. Just dig out and react. Other materials are also cheap. As I gave example of USA making 30000 nukes in 1965 shows, it does not require too much resource to make nukes. Just technology is enough. The royalty of technology applies only when importing, not using your own technology.

Firstly, you can’t use importing uranium for weapon publicly as they are under the watch of IAEA;

Secondly, the low grade Uranium, but enrich it to weapon-grade uranium is expensive and time consuming.


I don’t understand how Americans’30000 nukes in 1965 can prove that nukes are cheap?

US had over 20 aircraft carriers in 1965, by your logic, aircraft carrier should be cheap, so why does India only have 2 now?

If my enemy is smart and rational, he would not be an enemy in the first place. If you intend to say that. Also, there are other things like internal problems which may be quelled in the name of war etc. So, it is not necessary that enemy is rational. 1971 war by Pakistan was not on rational grounds, for example.

Well, Pakistan was smart and rational at 1971. She was simply cornered by India. Not initiating a war was a worse option than losing a war.

How is this meaningful? Do you think India is a small country? By the way, Russia and India have cordial relation. About USA and the NATO cronies, even if all the NATO member countries team up, their population is lower than Indian population. India is not too backwards in manufacturing or technology to simply sit around. There is sufficient counter threats to keep NATO far away

In nuclear war, yes, India is a small country by all means.

First of all, I don't understand how you can say with a straight face that India has 150 bombs ad China 250. The number of bombs will be obviously high. We are speaking of making thousands of bombs every year vs having ust 150 bombs till now? Why do you think the PHWR reactors don't produce enough plutonium to make enough bombs? Even by most conservative estimates, Indian plutonium reserves are over 20000-25000 kg or about 20-25 tons. The amount of Uranium extracted by India was in the range of 400tons in year 2000 itself. Most of it is used in dual use reactors. Even if 2kg plutonium is obtained per ton, that will still amount to 20000kg. Even if we go by the ancient Nagasaki bomb, it takes 6kg per bomb and hence over 3000 bombs can be made. The current requirement is around 4-5kg per bomb and hence the warheads will only be higher at about 4000-5000.

Since I don’t have any secret contact within either government, so I will only take public information which is provided by someone who is obviously know more about nuclear program than me.


http://fissilematerials.org/countries/india.html


https://www.sipri.org/media/press-r...cekeepers-declines-new-sipri-yearbook-out-now


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2017.1337998



Certainly, you are more than welcome to provide the source of your data.

Again, the idea that underground silos ca be destroyed by nukes is wrong. Nukes can't wipe out entire areas either. USA has shown that even propane tanks cant be exploded by nuke heat. So, the missile, unless hit directly by nuke at point blank range, is unlikely to be destroyed. The nuclear counter force, first strike is only meaningful in crippling logistics and infrastructure, not in destroying everything and all enemy missiles and bases.

Then I wonder why Russian and Chinese spend billions of dollars to put their missile on TEL. Wait, isn’t India is doing the same thing?


Sorry, I think we don’t need to continue as obviously you are not living on our planet.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

No, they are calling for improvement of the quality and tech level of nuclear arsenal, not the number.

That is your understanding. How can one improve quality of nukes? Were the quality of nukes till now bad?

Firstly, you can’t use importing uranium for weapon publicly as they are under the watch of IAEA;

Secondly, the low grade Uranium, but enrich it to weapon-grade uranium is expensive and time consuming.


I don’t understand how Americans’30000 nukes in 1965 can prove that nukes are cheap?

US had over 20 aircraft carriers in 1965, by your logic, aircraft carrier should be cheap, so why does India only have 2 now?

India does not need imported Uranium for making bombs. India has 210 thousand tons of Uranium in India itself. You can see the geological survey of India for this data. The imported Uranium does not come from Mars in highly enriched form. People in Canada, Australia etc enrich the low grade uranium extracted from their soil. Indian soil also has uranium to be obtained in same manner. By the way, India uses plutonium, not enriched Uranium for bombs. So, the natural uranium is run in PHWR reactors to get plutonium. It is a 2 year process from extraction to plutonium separation, but can be done continually. We get electricity from the process which will cover the cost of the process. Plutonium is obtained for free as byproduct.

Aircraft carrier needs to be maintained operational with huge fuel expense and battle group. Also, the accusation of arms build up will come. Since India does not have enough oil to sustain this, India better not make too many carriers. But warheads don't require regular expense or maintenance from expensive imported materials. So, you make it one, it stays there for long time without draining any more resources.

So, yes, making nuclear bombs is cheap and it was even told by Indian nuclear scientist Homi Bhabha. But soon after he was assassinated in a plane crash. Considering that India spends over 50 billion dollars in defence, spending on nuclear bombs as a one time investment appears more sensible.

Well, Pakistan was smart and rational at 1971. She was simply cornered by India. Not initiating a war was a worse option than losing a war.

Pakistan would have lost the war regardless. Pakistan was not cornered but started the war foolishly. It was better to not have started the war at all.

In nuclear war, yes, India is a small country by all means

Is there a different standard for nuclear war and other war? How and why? How did India get any smaller?

Since I don’t have any secret contact within either government, so I will only take public information which is provided by someone who is obviously know more about nuclear program than me.


http://fissilematerials.org/countries/india.html


https://www.sipri.org/media/press-r...cekeepers-declines-new-sipri-yearbook-out-now


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2017.1337998



Certainly, you are more than welcome to provide the source of your data.

Just because useless people decide to write big blogs does not mean they know everything. Liars and cheats are common and even so called intellectuals regularly lie. So, we take the physical quantity of Uranium available into picture, not some fake articles that never explain the amount of production of fissile material, science behind it, give calculations etc. Just insisting that something is civilian and won't be used for bombs is absurd.

Simple way to calculate is to assume that entire domestic Uranium is used for plutonium or weapons production.

Then I wonder why Russian and Chinese spend billions of dollars to put their missile on TEL. Wait, isn’t India is doing the same thing?


Sorry, I think we don’t need to continue as obviously you are not living on our planet.

You seem to be out of your mind. TEL is important but is not the only thing. Mobility is always crucial in attacking enemy. It is not just to avoid getting hit but also to have versatility of attacking from different places to increase or decrease range and better accuracy. Also, it is important to fire from different locations for different threats. Hence mobility is needed.

 

[Enquirer]

’

Firstly, you can’t use importing uranium for weapon publicly as they are under the watch of IAEA;

India does not need imported Uranium for making bombs. India has 210 thousand tons of Uranium in India itself. You can see the geological survey of India for this data. The imported Uranium does not come from Mars in highly enriched form. People in Canada, Australia etc enrich the low grade uranium extracted from their soil. Indian soil also has uranium to be obtained in same manner.

A little context and perspective is required before those statements are shot off.

Firstly about decade ago, India was starved for Uranium even when the energy needs of the country were spiraling due to increased economic growth.

Secondly, India chose to separate its weapons program and energy program with the expectation that imported Uranium would fuel the reactors (and more reactors could also be built) while the paltry Uranium mined locally would be used for the weapons program.

Two things changed in the last 5-10 years that probably changes the above equation entirely (I haven't seen any analyst worth their salt capture and dwell on these aspects - unfortunately)

1.) India discovered the Tummalapalle Uranium deposits conclusively - probably the largest deposit in the world (even though the mining is catching up in pace).
2.) Cost of Solar & Wind energy plants has plummeted drastically.

Both of the above, in my opinion, makes imported Uranium a lot less attractive to India. Even though India is prudent to stockpile imported Uranium (just in case), and that's what it's doing. And not to mention nuclear reactors themselves are not that critical to India's energy needs.

But the kink is that India still imports billions of dollars worth solar panels from CHINA!!! That's why it's not surprising that India's embarked on building 20 DOMESTIC design reactors (probably will use domestic Uranium too).

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Firstly about decade ago, India was starved for Uranium even when the energy needs of the country were spiraling due to increased economic growth.

Secondly, India chose to separate its weapons program and energy program with the expectation that imported Uranium would fuel the reactors (and more reactors could also be built) while the paltry Uranium mined locally would be used for the weapons program.

The word is that USA wanted India to give up weapons programme and hence made this deal. India was not starving of Uranium. Even without Tumallepalle, India still has over 100 thousand tonnes of Uranium. Also, Indian coal reserves are massive enough to not worry about 2-3 GW of nuclear energy.

By all means, US-123 agreement was under foreign pressure rather than Indian needs.

But the kink is that India still imports billions of dollars worth solar panels from CHINA!!! That's why it's not surprising that India's embarked on building 20 DOMESTIC design reactors (probably will use domestic Uranium too).

Solar is not a substitute for conventional energy. Solar is too flickering and unstable. Indian reactors, by the way, are PHWR which means all of them are capable of producing weapons grade plutonium. There is hardly any reason to assume India will not use the reactors for dual use in generating electricity and also producing Plutonium.

 

[Enquirer]

The word is that USA wanted India to give up weapons programme and hence made this deal. India was not starving of Uranium. Even without Tumallepalle, India still has over 100 thousand tonnes of Uranium. Also, Indian coal reserves are massive enough to not worry about 2-3 GW of nuclear energy.

By all means, US-123 agreement was under foreign pressure rather than Indian needs.

Once again you get into this epileptic fit of throwing anything and everything to win an argument!!

India suffered severe Uranium shortages that forced it negotiate heavily with the nuclear suppliers!
https://thebulletin.org/2008/08/indias-nuclear-fuel-shortage/

Having a deposit is different from actually being able to extract it on an annual basis!!

The 123 agreement helped India strike large Uranium deals with Kazakhstan, Australia etc....

Solar is not a substitute for conventional energy. Solar is too flickering and unstable.

You probably live in a place where technology news hasn't reached you in decades.
Do read up on 'pumped hydro'. India's had pumped hydro plants to store wind energy for decades!!!
Also, once the plants are connected to the grid, cloudy days in one area are compensated by power inflow from other storage facilities!

Indian reactors, by the way, are PHWR which means all of them are capable of producing weapons grade plutonium. There is hardly any reason to assume India will not use the reactors for dual use in generating electricity and also producing Plutonium.

Energy efficiency of these reactors are low, that's the reason why India was keen to import reactors from USA, Russia, Japan etc!!!
Most foreign reactors use 'enriched' uranium. And spent fuel is heavily monitored - cannot be bypassed like India did in 74.
India has also agreed to put ALL its civilian nuclear reactors on IAEA inspections - that prohibit diversion of spent fuel to military purpose!

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Once again you get into this epileptic fit of throwing anything and everything to win an argument!!

India suffered severe Uranium shortages that forced it negotiate heavily with the nuclear suppliers!
https://thebulletin.org/2008/08/indias-nuclear-fuel-shortage/

Having a deposit is different from actually being able to extract it on an annual basis!!

The 123 agreement helped India strike large Uranium deals with Kazakhstan, Australia etc..

As I said, these are fake news or propaganda. India is capable of extracting required amount of Uranium from Indian mines. The extraction was sabotaged. The mines can be extracted at the rate of at least 1% of reserve ratio. The unnecessary shill voice and excuses don't cut.

Even coal was imported arbitrarily from Indonesia and spoilt Indian economy. Look at the statement of Piyush Goyal who stated that previous govt showed short sightedness in setting up power plants that can run only on imported coal.

You probably live in a place where technology news hasn't reached you in decades.
Do read up on 'pumped hydro'. India's had pumped hydro plants to store wind energy for decades!!!
Also, once the plants are connected to the grid, cloudy days in one area are compensated by power inflow from other storage facilities

All this is well know. But they don't work out as you desire. Things like frequency mismatch, limited hydro pump available etc limits wind. Solar is especially bad. Just look at Germany example. They started it in 2000 to go for renewable energy. The failure in Germany is a very good example.

Energy efficiency of these reactors are low, that's the reason why India was keen to import reactors from USA, Russia, Japan etc!!!
Most foreign reactors use 'enriched' uranium. And spent fuel is heavily monitored - cannot be bypassed like India did in 74.
India has also agreed to put ALL its civilian nuclear reactors on IAEA inspections - that prohibit diversion of spent fuel to military purpose!

India does not need few GW of imported reactors. Also, the power efficiency of PHWR is good enough per ton of Uranium. PHWR uses natural uranium and hence produces lower electricity per ton of input. Foreign reactors use 5% enriched Uranium and hence produces more power per input. But that does not mean PHWR is bad. Uranium consumption wise, PHWR is as good as LWR reactor. PHWR can be refueled without stopping the reactor. The advantage of Indian reactors far outweigh foreign ones.

India has separated its civilian from other reactors but the other reactors also include power generating plants like Kaiga which produce plutonium simultaneously.

 

[Enquirer]

As I said, these are fake news or propaganda. India is capable of extracting required amount of Uranium from Indian mines. The extraction was sabotaged. The mines can be extracted at the rate of at least 1% of reserve ratio. The unnecessary shill voice and excuses don't cut.

Even coal was imported arbitrarily from Indonesia and spoilt Indian economy. Look at the statement of Piyush Goyal who stated that previous govt showed short sightedness in setting up power plants that can run only on imported coal.

Much of what you're stating is obviously your personal opinion - that's bereft of facts and reality.

You're talking like Trump! When cornered with facts - you yell fake news!!!

First you said, India has shit load of Uranium and doesn't need imported stuff; now you're saying that domestic mining itself was sabotaged!! So signing 123 agreement, India could restart mining? Or still wanted to import?

All this is well know. But they don't work out as you desire. Things like frequency mismatch, limited hydro pump available etc limits wind. Solar is especially bad. Just look at Germany example. They started it in 2000 to go for renewable energy. The failure in Germany is a very good example.

As I predicted, news doesn't reach you in time. Or you're unable to process it.
Germany got into the Solar bandwagon not for economic reasons but with a deliberate desire to go green!!! It was an early adopter when prices were prohibitively expensive.
Prices have plummeted drastically! Germany is a small consumer - one should look at how fast China is putting up Solar power plants!!!

Frequency mismatch???? ROFL !!!! Get serious buddy!

Technically every existing dam can be turned into a 'pumped hydro' (not hydro pump) storage plant! Hoover dam in US is going to become the world's largest battery!
Lot of tiny dams in India are also being converted into large Pumped Hydro storage plants(check out Pinnapuram).

India does not need few GW of imported reactors. Also, the power efficiency of PHWR is good enough per ton of Uranium. PHWR uses natural uranium and hence produces lower electricity per ton of input. Foreign reactors use 5% enriched Uranium and hence produces more power per input. But that does not mean PHWR is bad. Uranium consumption wise, PHWR is as good as LWR reactor. PHWR can be refueled without stopping the reactor. The advantage of Indian reactors far outweigh foreign ones.

India has separated its civilian from other reactors but the other reactors also include power generating plants like Kaiga which produce plutonium simultaneously.

Again, highly opinionated conclusions - that you feel is good enough!!!
You don't understand long term energy strategy! It's easy to jerk knee on a forum!

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Much of what you're stating is obviously your personal opinion - that's bereft of facts and reality.

You're talking like Trump! When cornered with facts - you yell fake news!!!

First you said, India has shit load of Uranium and doesn't need imported stuff; now you're saying that domestic mining itself was sabotaged!! So signing 123 agreement, India could restart mining? Or still wanted to import?

Do you read? I said India is capable of mining Uranium but is not doing so because UPA was foreign agency based government and worked against Indian interest. It is just like govt in South Korea or Japan is not making nuclear bombs because they are under USA occupation and USA runs the country. Same was with India.

India did not get a single ton of Uranium till 2014 from 123 deal. The 123 deal only served in ruining Indian nuclear weapons project by bringing important reactors under IAEA ambit. 123 deal was an attempt to sabotage Indian weapons programme

As I predicted, news doesn't reach you in time. Or you're unable to process it.
Germany got into the Solar bandwagon not for economic reasons but with a deliberate desire to go green!!! It was an early adopter when prices were prohibitively expensive.
Prices have plummeted drastically! Germany is a small consumer - one should look at how fast China is putting up Solar power plants!!!

Frequency mismatch???? ROFL !!!! Get serious buddy!

Technically every existing dam can be turned into a 'pumped hydro' (not hydro pump) storage plant! Hoover dam in US is going to become the world's largest battery!
Lot of tiny dams in India are also being converted into large Pumped Hydro storage plants(check out Pinnapuram)

Who will give you water to pump in the first place? Where will you find water in such large quantity just lying next to a dam waiting to be pumped? Germany's intention to go green was fully ruined. Germany now pretends that it is greener by burning wood in the name of biofuel. That is a retarded thing to do and does not make practical sense to cut forest to produce electricity! Germany's solar and wind capacity faces huge problems in grid connectivity. They are considered extremely unreliable as a result.

Again, highly opinionated conclusions - that you feel is good enough!!!
You don't understand long term energy strategy! It's easy to jerk knee on a forum!

India needs imported Uranium for long term energy needs but not imported reactors. However, Indian reactors are also needed for weapons programme.

What India did was to make Indian PHWR reactor under IAEA which makes no sense. Getting foreign reactors to secure fuel for long term energy is reasonable but making Indian PHWR under IAEA or substituting Indian reactors with foreign ones are not.

 

[Enquirer]

Do you read? I said India is capable of mining Uranium but is not doing so because UPA was foreign agency based government and worked against Indian interest. It is just like govt in South Korea or Japan is not making nuclear bombs because they are under USA occupation and USA runs the country. Same was with India.

India did not get a single ton of Uranium till 2014 from 123 deal. The 123 deal only served in ruining Indian nuclear weapons project by bringing important reactors under IAEA ambit. 123 deal was an attempt to sabotage Indian weapons programme



Who will give you water to pump in the first place? Where will you find water in such large quantity just lying next to a dam waiting to be pumped? Germany's intention to go green was fully ruined. Germany now pretends that it is greener by burning wood in the name of biofuel. That is a retarded thing to do and does not make practical sense to cut forest to produce electricity! Germany's solar and wind capacity faces huge problems in grid connectivity. They are considered extremely unreliable as a result.



India needs imported Uranium for long term energy needs but not imported reactors. However, Indian reactors are also needed for weapons programme.

What India did was to make Indian PHWR reactor under IAEA which makes no sense. Getting foreign reactors to secure fuel for long term energy is reasonable but making Indian PHWR under IAEA or substituting Indian reactors with foreign ones are not.

Dude, you're peddling in your own conspiracy theories - and not to mention all over the map without any cohesive argument!
When in that conspiracy theory mode, facts don't really matter! And it's hard to discuss anything substantial!

End note: Solar energy will rule! Energy Storage solutions are plenty! Nuclear will still form great backup!

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Dude, you're peddling in your own conspiracy theories - and not to mention all over the map without any cohesive argument!
When in that conspiracy theory mode, facts don't really matter! And it's hard to discuss anything substantial!

End note: Solar energy will rule! Energy Storage solutions are plenty! Nuclear will still form great backup!

What conspiracy theory? Facts are also conspiracy theory? Are you saying that foreign rule is not present via proxy govt anywhere? These are not conspiracy. This is how things worked.

Solar energy is a myth and will remain so. Nuclear energy is also limited. The amount of Uranium is limited and it will get exhausted in 50-60 years. In fact, coal will last longer than Uranium.

 

[sayareakd]

#BMD tracking ship, getting ready, last month's pic. Once its get inducted along with floating test range, we will start testing BMD missiles against missiles of more that 2000 kms range. #DRDO good work. https://t.co/qASHAIwBMR

Picture is dated 29.07.2018. Credit goes to group's member who posted it.

 

[sayareakd]

Congrats all, PDV missile tested in night time test.

 

[sorcerer]

India conducts successful interceptor missile test at night

India successfully conducted an interceptor missile test off the Odisha coast Sunday night, achieving a major milestone in developing a two-layer Ballistic Missile Defence system, defence sources said.

The interceptor was launched from Abdul Kalam Island, earlier known as Wheeler Island of the Integrated Test Range (ITR), at about 8.05 pm, the sources said.

This Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV) mission is for engaging the targets in the exo-atmosphere region at an altitude above 50 km of the earth's atmosphere, a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist said.

"Both the PDV interceptor and the target missile were successfully engaged," DRDO sources said.
Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/65925514.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

India conducts successful interceptor missile test at night

India successfully conducted an interceptor missile test off the Odisha coast Sunday night, achieving a major milestone in developing a two-layer Ballistic Missile Defence system, defence sources said.

The interceptor was launched from Abdul Kalam Island, earlier known as Wheeler Island of the Integrated Test Range (ITR), at about 8.05 pm, the sources said.

This Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV) mission is for engaging the targets in the exo-atmosphere region at an altitude above 50 km of the earth's atmosphere, a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist said.

"Both the PDV interceptor and the target missile were successfully engaged," DRDO sources said.

In an automated operation, radar-based detection and tracking system detected and tracked the enemy's ballistic missile.

The computer network with the help of data received from radars predicted the trajectory of the incoming ballistic missile. The PDV that was kept fully ready took off once the computer system gave the command for lift-off.

The interceptor guided by high-accuracy Inertial Navigation System (INS) supported by a Redundant Micro Navigation System moved towards the estimated point of the interception, the sources said.

Once the missile crossed the atmosphere, the Heat Shield ejected and the IR Seeker dome opened to look at the target location as designated by the mission computer. With the help of Inertial Guidance and IR Seeker the missile moved for interception.

All events were monitored in real-time by the Telemetry/Range Stations, at various other locations.

Interceptor was successfully test fired last from the same base on February 11, 2017.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

There are several things to note here:

• PDV uses IIR seeker whereas AAD uses RF seeker
• Incoming target missile simulated range is not known. Exo-atmosphere interception is really difficult as the incoming warhead will be very fast and will not slow down as it happens in endo-atmosphere due to friction with air. So, even 1500km MRBM will be too fats to intercept. This missile may be a SRBM target
• Night testing of IIR seeker is easier than day testing. When looking up, the sun may come in the way at times and shield the incoming missile. So, night test helps in avoiding sun

It appears that PDV is not very successful as AAD is. Exo-atmospheric intercept requires hypersonic missiles with high degree of control and side-way thrusters. I am skeptical about PDV in general