India's Neutron bomb capability

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,951
Country flag
re: India's Neutron bomb capability

LF how much stock of non-weapon grade plutonium, we have?

from wiki

"While the plutonium used in Shakti III has been reported in some sources as "reactor-grade", it may have been fuel-grade, which is intermediate between the former and weapons-grade"

Pokhran-II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
What is a neutron bomb? I never understood that, is it just a thermonuclear bomb with a another name?

How is it that it does not destroy structures but only kills life?
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,797
Likes
48,276
Country flag
Precision-Guided Munitions and the Neutron Bomb | Cato Institute


Precision-Guided Munitions and the Neutron Bomb

"The weapon adds very substantially to the capability of the United States and its allies to deter an attack based upon a tremendous preponderance of armor"¦that would be one of the characteristics of a Soviet attack on the central front [in Europe]," claimed Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger to justify the neutron bomb. He continued: "We think [it] enormously increases our deterrent, our ability to demonstrate to the Soviets"¦that we have the capability to respond, and to inflict a cost which we hope they would regard as unacceptably high."[1]

That statement epitomizes the deception being used to rally support for the neutron bomb. Such claims have resulted in the "informed" U.S. population being about evenly divided in opinion as to whether this country should deploy that weapon.[2] But in Europe it is another matter — paticularly since Ronald Reagan's inadvertent statement that a limited nuclear war could be confined to that continent. The people there have become even more skeptical about all U.S. nuclear weapons including the neutron bomb.

The neutron bomb, or "enhanced radiation warhead" as it is called in scientific circles, is basically a hydrogen bomb without the uranium-238 jacket which would absorb neutrons to increase the blast. By eliminating that jacket the full fusion emission of neutrons is released. A one-kiloton neutron bomb will spread a lethal dose of neutron radiation to exposed people over a one-mile radius. It would take a 13-kiloton fission (atom) bomb to produce a combined lethal dose of neutron and gamma radiation over that same distance.[3] Although the lethal radius for people inside tanks would be somewhat less because of the protection, pure neutron radiation is more penetrating than a mixture of neutron and gamma, and the lethal radius would be greater for a one-kiloton neutron bomb than for a 13-kiloton fission warhead. But the radius of destruction from blast and heat would be considerably less for the former. Neutron warheads are now in production for the Lance missile and the eight-inch artillery shell. Soon they will be available as projectiles for the more numerous 155-millimeter cannons.

So far it looks as if the claim that neutron bombs reduce "collateral damage" is true — collateral damage being a euphemism for associated civilian casualties. The neutron bomb does seem to provide a greater penetrating dose of lethal radiation in a prescribed area without the wider-spread heat and blast effects typical of other designs. If we had only to choose among nuclear warheads, the enhanced radiation variety does seem to be the most desirable.

But this discussion of prompt effects is too confined and does not address subsequent fallout and lingering radiation from any nuclear weapon. Neither does it address the motivation behind the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Soviets have promised to build neutron bombs if the United States deploys them, and that would be a gross escalation of the arms race. Egon Bahr, a leading West German disarmament expert, has concluded that the Soviets have already tested a neutron bomb.[4] Other nations are also certain to pursue development of enhanced radiation weapons. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, James P. Wade, Jr., told Congress that France is firmly committed to deploying such a device.[5]

Even worse, if the neutron bomb should ever be used in the surgical manner advertised by U.S. strategists, it could very easily and most likely trigger total nuclear war. Former Defense Secretary Harold Brown persistently warned that it is not at all clear "that an initial use of nuclear weapons — however selectively they might be targeted — could be kept from escalating to a full-scale thermonuclear exchange "¦The odds are high, whether the weapons were used against tactical or strategic targets, that control would be lost on both sides and the exchange would become unconstrained." [6]

In light of these consequences it is a serious misrepresentation to imply that our only choice is among types of nuclear weapons and that there is no alternative to nuclear weapons for the defense of Western Europe. It is this notion that I wish to challenge in this paper. There are viable alternatives to the deployment of nuclear weapons to deter a massive armored attack, and the technologies for those conventional alternatives are being vigorously pursued. The Pentagon story changes abruptly when its spokesmen are trying to persuade Congress to finance non-nuclear, antitank weapons. Let us take a closer look.

The Christian Science Monitor recently reported that there "are 19,500 tanks in the Soviet-controlled forces of the Warsaw Pact aimed at Western Europe. Of these, 12,500 are Soviet tanks in Soviet units. NATO has 7,000 tanks on its side facing the 19,500."[7] The article went on to point out that this "massing of Soviet tanks facing Western Europe is one of the important elements in the power politics of Europe. For years it has meant a Soviet capability of mounting a massive armored offensive into Western Europe."[8]

During a speech in El Paso, Texas, former Defense Secretary Brown pointed out the pitfall of this type of comparison. He said that there is "a tendency to compare NATO and [Warsaw] Pact forces in terms of static measures, like numbers of tanks." He went on to explain that "this kind of shorthand obscures other important differences between them. To name only two, NATO designs its forces to repel, not to launch, a tank invasion. And its ground forces are designed and deployed to take advantage of the classic principle that the attack needs at least a substantial numerical edge to overcome the natural advantages of prepared but mobile defense."[9]

Brown elaborated on that statement in his fiscal year 1982 posture statement: "Let me illustrate this general point with the case of ground forces. The Soviets have a substantial advantage in numbers of troops and armored assault vehicles. Therefore, we need to deploy greatly improved anti-armor weapons for our ground forces and to maintain air superiority in order to deny the Soviets air cover for an armored attack."[10] He then went on to describe three generations of conventional antitank weapons which the United States has deployed or has in production or development. These will be discussed in detail later.

During hearings in 1978 before a House Appropriations subcommittee the former Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Dr. William J. Perry, presented his evaluation of the superior Eastern Bloc forces:

"¦the reason they push so hard in things they can do well, like building lots of tanks and building lots of airplanes, is an attempt to compensate for what they perceive as our technical superiority"¦. The difficulty with their approach is that they never have a chance to use those great quantities of weapons. If they don't have a chance to use them in the next few years they have made the wrong decision because they have, today, 20,000 tanks deployed in Europe. In the meantime we are developing something called precision-guided weapons which will allow 155-millimeter artillery shells to destroy tanks. By the time that becomes operational they have the wrong force deployed. Twenty thousand tanks of the design they have will be the wrong thing in the early '80s"¦.[11]
Those precision weapons Perry was referring to are operational, and they are not nuclear. It was also in 1978 that the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C., announced that the United States and NATO forces have 49 separate types of antitank weapons in their inventory or under development, which range from hand-carried devices (evolutions of the World War II bazooka) to air-launched, precision-guided munitions from airplanes and helicopters. It concluded that "all of these antitank weapons"¦have increased the superiority of defense over offense."
 

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
I don't think India's has a strategy of using neutron bombs. It is not appropriate for a defensive mindset country.

India's military strategy is limited to 'reprisal' or economic and military losses for the enemy; and holding its borders secure.

The most appropriate weapon for India is the small Thermo-nuclear (50KT yield) weapon that can kill anything in 5km radius. It is ideal against Islamabad and major cantonments. If India has very accurate missiles, then a 50KT nuclear warhead is more than sufficient.
 

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
I think India should steer clear of very small (and portable) warheads.

Securing nuclear warheads is a very serious and complex task.

It is best to have heavy warheads (500kg or more) with decent yield which can be mounted on missiles or dropped from aircrafts.
 

warrior monk

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
650
Likes
1,114
doesnt India posses a H bomb, a thermonuclear bomb?
We have Staged fusion and boosted Fission based weapons upto 250 kt yield device have been designed by India . If we want megatonne yield bombs we need to test the govt needs to decide they can test but it will have ramifications in our nuclear deal . We have enough plutonium for a much larger arsenal than Pakistan's arsenal.
We are the largest producer of tritium in the world due to our CANDU type reactors , which is used for staged fusion and boosted Fission based weapons . India scientists have an ingenious way of extracting tritium which even stumped US.
Last year we sold tritium to US for their thermonuclear weapons till they shore up their own facility.
 

anupamsurey

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
1,032
Likes
514
Country flag
so if we have two staged bomb then it means that we have H bomb, right. then why they keep mentioning "must ". in the article .
 

sgarg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
No, what you have is a boosted fission bomb not H bomb, completely different weapon.

Nuclear weapon design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian scientists have claimed publicly that they have the expertise to build TM weapons. The actual existence is classified. India has never published its holdings.

My take is that Indian nuclear establishment has the maturity to build both TM weapons as well as radiation bombs. However the moratorium on testing may be a constraint.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
Indian scientists have claimed publicly that they have the expertise to build TM weapons. The actual existence is classified. India has never published its holdings.
First of all, Indian gov did claim that she has the bomb, the problem is that P5 don't think so.
Second, India is a country implementing NFU policy, in another words, India is trying to avoid a nuclear war. Nothing could be worse than your rival underestimate your nuke tech for NFU country like India and China.
Third, nuclear warhead need test to clarify the design, no one wants to throw billions on a pile of warhead you don't know if work or not. As long as you test it, P5 have enough tech method to find out if it is a H-bomb.

My take is that Indian nuclear establishment has the maturity to build both TM weapons as well as radiation bombs. However the moratorium on testing may be a constraint.
I doubt that. You can't develop H-bomb without maturing atomic bomb. Even after the succession of atomic bomb, there is still a huge tech gap to be filled in. So, your scientists need another at least n tests to build H-bomb.
 

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,674
Likes
7,310
Country flag
First of all, Indian gov did claim that she has the bomb, the problem is that P5 don't think so.
Second, India is a country implementing NFU policy, in another words, India is trying to avoid a nuclear war. Nothing could be worse than your rival underestimate your nuke tech for NFU country like India and China.
Third, nuclear warhead need test to clarify the design, no one wants to throw billions on a pile of warhead you don't know if work or not. As long as you test it, P5 have enough tech method to find out if it is a H-bomb.

I doubt that. You can't develop H-bomb without maturing atomic bomb. Even after the succession of atomic bomb, there is still a huge tech gap to be filled in. So, your scientists need another at least n tests to build H-bomb.
Do you think China should or would help Pak if India gets/tests thermonuclear weapon in future, cause its not easy for us to just test it like that, if we do it then pak would definitely want that capability.

China already has thermonuclear weapons and, given that India usually measures its strategic deterrent against China's arsenal, this would likely be Delhi's rationale for seeking a thermonuclear capability. Pakistan does not have any thermonuclear weapons, however, and Pakistan officials are already warning that India's acquisition of them would lead to a nuclear arms race that Islamabad does not want.
Is India Building Thermonuclear Weapons? | The Diplomat

I don't know how much accurate a supercomputer test can be, but the ambiguity surrounding India's Hbomb serves India well for now.
 

warrior monk

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
650
Likes
1,114
Third, nuclear warhead need test to clarify the design, no one wants to throw billions on a pile of warhead you don't know if work or not. As long as you test it, P5 have enough tech method to find out if it is a H-bomb.



Don't worry we have the bomb upto 250 kt anything larger than that we need to conduct test so we are not claiming MT range bombs and as we have not signed CTBT and are unlikely to do so. Though we are not currently going to test in the short term atleast because of the nuclear deal as it helps us increase our capability then who knows we will test mega tonne yield weapons to convince Beijing . Nuclear weapons were tested many times because of the lack of supercomputing facility to seismologists and bomb designers to make incremental 2d changes but with supercomputers it can be overcome as you can do all the computer simulated testing after intial testing on a super computer India has been making supercomputers since 1990 so in 1998 we didn't have such problem as we had our supercomputers to monitor our tests and today we simulate our bomb in a laboratory it is known as science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).

I doubt that. You can't develop H-bomb without maturing atomic bomb. Even after the succession of atomic bomb, there is still a huge tech gap to be filled in. So, your scientists need another at least n tests to build H-bomb.[/QUOTE]
Both our primary and secondary has been tested in our staged fusion in 1998 now we can simulate it in the labs , Beijing need not worry about it.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top