India's Neutron bomb capability

Discussion in 'Strategic Forces' started by LETHALFORCE, Mar 25, 2009.

  1. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    11
    Again, I repeat! How FAST!

    Which one would you like? The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists? ARMSCONTROLWONK, Federation of Atomic Scientists, The Heritage Foundatioin? ArmsControl.com?

    Are you really that stupid not to recogninze the point. The DEFENCES ARE UP AGAINST NEUTRON BOMBS! PERIOD!

    Let me put it another way. You want to hit a Pakistani Army HQ in Islamabad? Look for a swimming pool!

    Get it?
     
  2. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Thank You for that information. Puts things in perspective.
     
  3. AkhandBharat

    AkhandBharat Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    78
    Location:
    Brokeland
    Is this what you are talking about?


    Thanks, Can you point me to the article in those sources that tell you China has abandoned neutron bomb development?


    OFCOURSE I GET IT! What you don't get is that the army will not create swimming pools on the border, which is where China has the highest probability of using ERWs mated with a supersonic CM.
     
  4. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    11
    And you're still not getting it. Delta v is delta v regardless if it's cruise missile or ballistic missile. Do you understand now? Do you understand basic physics at this point? Delta v is delta v.

    As for the PATRIOTS and SCUDS, if you have read further, you would have found out the software targetted the heat source, ie the flametail, and not the warhead. Never-the-less, the PATRIOTS intercepted a hypersonic vehicle as per YOUR criteria.

    Do you get it now?

    Doctor Jeffery Lewis, The Minimum Means of Reprisal, and The Ambugious Arsenal, the Nuclear Notebook, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, FAS WMD China.

    Oh God, I give up. You're right. The Chinese have Klingon GAVINs with Cloaking Devices hiding the GAVINStar.
     
  5. AkhandBharat

    AkhandBharat Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    78
    Location:
    Brokeland
    As per our discussion, you do agree now that it will difficult to intercept hypersonic missiles even if it is fire-and-forget. a 10% success is not a success.
    Thank you. I'll read up on it.

    Like I said, no one is building swimming pools anywhere near border deployment.
     
  6. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    You sure are persistent.

    A Neutron bomb can be countered. That's why its a waste of time. Other nuclear weapons cannot be countered. Therein lies the fault.
     
  7. AkhandBharat

    AkhandBharat Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    78
    Location:
    Brokeland
    I chatted with him over the shoutbox. He agreed that Hypersonic missiles cannot be intercepted but he claimed it can be avoided. I don't think any division has that kind of mobility.

    Moreover, regarding ERW, a neutron bomb can be countered but IA or any army for that matter won't be using the counter (swimming pool) during mobilization. Hence, the counter is not fool proof and a window of opportunity exists.
     
  8. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Then a Neutron bomb will not be a major game changer. An atomic bomb can give you the same level of destruction and there is no counter for it. With a neutron bomb a window of opportunity exists, but with an atomic bomb there is no such opportunity. Just pray it misses.

    So, it is basic to realize that a Neutron bomb will only decrease the probability of a successful nuclear strike.
     
  9. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    2,480
    sounds to me that a neuton bomb is more applicable when you are fighting to clear intruders inside your own country, condition being - a bordertown , y ou dont wanna destroy your own resources, use the radiative neutron bomb to minimise damage.

    when you are targetting enemy territory and it dosent matter to you to preserve the facilities , then a heavy fusion or fission device is more applicable ??
     
  10. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,291
    Likes Received:
    11,487
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Radiation in your own country will kill a lot of people and it's effects will last for generations of new born.
     
  11. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    2,480
    certainly ! even having reactors , nuclear driven power plants run that risk too eg Chernobyl, and in britain , italy that was one reason for severely limiting the use of the same , now with safer measures they might be doing a re-think - but the risk is still there .... also even withpeaceful nuclear generators and other facilities there is the risk of sabotage and terrorism
     
  12. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,291
    Likes Received:
    11,487
    Location:
    BANGalore
    The difference being that the nuclear reactor is safe till you scenario. But exploding radiation bombs definitely radiation will be spread.
     
  13. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    21,921
    Likes Received:
    9,248
    rediff.com US edition: US expert says India does not need neutron bomb

    US expert says India does not need neutron bomb


    Nitish S Rele

    The recent call by ex-chairperson of the Atomic Energy Commission, P K Iyengar, for India to develop and test a neutron bomb has stirred up a debate in the United States of America.

    Iyengar told a group of scientists at the Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education in Bombay last week that India should not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty unless it had conducted tests on the neutron bomb.

    George Perkovich, author of the recently published book India's Nuclear Bomb, for one, believes India does not need a neutron weapon even if it were to be used only as a deterrent against Pakistan.

    "If the purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter one's possible adversaries from using nuclear weapons, then it is not evident that one needs fourth-generation nuclear weapons to achieve this," he said in an exclusive interview with rediff.com.

    Director of the Secure World Program of the W Alton Jones Foundation, a $400 million philanthropic institution in Virginia, Perkovich recently lifted the veil of secrecy around India's nuclear ambitions.

    In his books he quoted widely from recently de-classified US documents and interviewed high-level Indian and American officials, key Indian scientists, military leaders, diplomats and politicians.

    In addition to managing the Secure World Program, Perkovich also oversees a $14 million Sustainable World Program.

    "The capacity to destroy Lahore and Rawalpindi and perhaps a few other targets should be more than sufficient to deter Pakistan. First-generation fission weapons can do this -- even 50-year-old nuclear weapon technology destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If this capacity is insufficient, then it is difficult to see how more sophisticated designs would change the situation. Hitting Lahore with a 15 kiloton weapon would be an unmitigated disaster, and it's hard to see how a 250 kiloton weapon would improve the deterrent."

    Perkovich doesn't believe that a deterrent against China is more problematic. "First, it's not clear what India seeks to deter China from," he said. "I have not found Indian or military strategists who posit a plausible military threat from China."

    On Iyengar's call on CTBT, Perkovich said that no nuclear weapon scientist truly welcomes a test ban. "All nuclear weapon scientists want to keep doing the experiments that give their lives excitement and professional gratification."

    Perkovich also felt that Iyengar's comments revealed a long-standing desire of top Indian scientists to show off their brilliance by keeping up with the nuclear laboratories of the US.

    "There is no national interest in doing this, but only personal and institutional interests," he claimed.

    "In the US this ego-driven approach to nuclear weapons has been played out primarily in competition between our own nuclear laboratories."

    As examples, Perkovich cites scientists at Los Alamos who make a breakthrough only to be topped by scientists at Livermore.

    The author admitted that India has nuclear warheads that explode reliably and with a yield large enough to devastate a major city. "In the real world - as opposed to the bizarre theoretical world of the US-inspired deterrence theory and nuclear laboratory fantasies - the basic capacity to deliver even fission weapons onto large population centers is sufficient," he said.

    Perkovich believes that throughout India's nuclear history, there are examples where top scientists have tried to hijack national policy "and where scientists made claims of expertise and capability that simply were unwarranted. This feels like another such episode."
     
  14. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    2,480
    The Neutron Bomb is v useful for negotiating with Pak especially in the border areas with india
     
  15. nitesh

    nitesh Mob Control Manager Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,550
    Likes Received:
    1,279
    Location:
    Bangalore
    Care to explain how?
     
  16. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,291
    Likes Received:
    11,487
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Negotiating, esp in the border areas??
    What's that supposed to mean?

    And how would a neutron bomb be a useful tool when nukes are not?
     
  17. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Not tactical. There is no such safe area. If we nuke the enemy hoping to take their position. Expect another nuke to hit the same part by the enemy to wipe out your forces. Radiation fallout will not matter. If you are supposed to die, you die. Simple as that.
     
  18. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    11
    No, I do not agree. Difficult but not impossible. Has it occurred to you that once we learned what went wrong that we would go ahead and correct it? It's software that was the problem, not the hardware. Writing code is a hell of a lot easier than building a new missile.

    And if in fact you thought things through, you will note that the Kuwait War PATRIOTS would be perfect against your BRAHMOS. SCUD was a straight ballistic missile. You aim, fire, and let it drop where it will. There is no guidance. That was why the PATRIOTs failed. The PATRIOTs aimed for the back of the missile in the theory that once you knock it off course, it won't hit its target. You cannot knock something off course when it has no course.

    Switch that to your BRAHMOS. A straight line of flight with its engine and not gravity as its main delivery means. Hit the back of the missile and you lost your engine, not to mention being knocked off your line approach.

    And no, you don't use one bomb to kill a division. Even a neutron bomb at best will kill the HQ, not the three brigades in that division and if they are anything like a professional military, those 3 brigades can reform themselves back into a division within hours.

    If you're talking Pakistan, they have 3 canals dugged.

    Minimise is relative. You still have a nuclear blast and afterwards, safe is relative. You have to wear complete NBC gear and wash yourself and your clothes completely wehn you go into a decontiminated area. You can't even take off your mask for water when outside. You will need a good rain before you even consider taking off NBC gear and after that, you need a gieger counter everywhere you go and be ready to put the gear back on.

    And good luck if your mask ever get its filters plugged from all that dust.

    There is a reason why no N5 power ever employ ERW in our arsenals, mainly because it is militarily extremely easy to counter and it would hinder your own side more than it would prevent the other side from working.
     
  19. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    11
    Oh, one more thing. After a neutron bomb deployment and your force passes through the affected area, they would have to stop and wash themselves clean (while in NBC gear with themselves in NBC gear being last to wash) and I mean they have to wash everything from tanks to trucks to the engines inside. Anywhere where air has been exposed, it has to be at least sprayed clean.

    Kinda stopped your attacking force dead in its tracks, doesn't it?
     
  20. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,291
    Likes Received:
    11,487
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Unless the troops wear a water tank two meters wide all around!!!!
     

Share This Page