India's Nuclear Doctrine

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by Sabir, Aug 25, 2009.

?

Should India have tested a Megaton warhead during Pokran?

  1. Yes, absolutely

    73.4%
  2. No, it was not required

    18.4%
  3. Maybe , not sure

    8.2%
  1. IndianHawk

    IndianHawk Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    3,737
    Likes Received:
    8,179
    You're missing the point . Calling out demands action. Action will have consequences. Why didn't USA called out paki nukes ?? It wanted paki in the lap.

    USA knew about our missile program including SLBM! Which posses a threat to USA as nuclear submarines with nuclear missiles can reach across the globe!!

    Still not an utterance of discomfort??

    USA knows that nuke deal was a farce !! It was simply accepting that they can't control indian nuke program so why hinder relationship.

    Same thing applies to an unclaimed test. When you claim you actually challenge others and then they are forced to respond whether they want or not , whether they can or not!

    If we claim we force USA to respond, if we don't what USA gains from making an enemy out of India other then praise by some libtards!!!

    Let's have a case study

    Consider yourself to be USA high ranking official. You just learned that on an island in Indian ocean there was an earthquake of 7-8 richter scale.

    Few hours letter you learn it was a MT blast. But indians are quite. You talk to Indian ambassador he calls it just another earthquake. But he also reminds you about 100 billion $$ trade , he talks about weaponary he is interested in worth some 30 billion $$ over next decade or two.
    Finally he ditched you to meat the Russian ambassador :biggrin2:

    What would you do?? Team up with China to call India out and start an era of enmity??( You are not even sure what chinese will do??) Chinese already know that India had the capability they already know that they are targeted by Russian and Americans MT warheads and they trade even more with India than USA !!

    They probably want USA India to fall apart for now and deal with India separately later.

    Since India didn't claim chinese are not directly challenged either , besides telling chinese people that India has MT warheads hanging over their heads is not a smart move anyway!!

    UK has been promised a trade deal in future. France is offering additional rafale to Carry the warhead and Russian have already confessed their eternal love to new delhi . Germany and Japan are concerned but Indian told them very clearly this was just an earthquake.

    Now calling out India will also give pakistan an excuse to test higher yield weaponary. China will be happy for that.

    India could also go rouge and start supplying nuke tech to Iran or Vietnam.

    How do you sanction a 3 trillion $$ economy . That has never happened in the history of the world before!! Usually 2 trillion plus is considered as great power and are UNSC members considered beyond any sanctions.

    Even in UNSC Russia will veto sanctions france might abstain.

    Or you could simply tell to everyone concerned that it was an earthquake only!!
    Of course they will find out later but no one would care by then !! How much do we care for history today anyway.

    Think carefully and take it lightly it is all hypothetical after all.:biggrin2:
     
    aditya10r and Superdefender like this.
  2. spikey360

    spikey360 Crusader Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,592
    Likes Received:
    2,973
    Location:
    The Republic of India
    ^^
    Haha!
    Yeah, all that you said is quite plausible. But consider the following
    1. There are some fake laws called international laws, which must be fakely shown to be upheld, otherwise every nation of the world will start weapons research.
    2. I agree sanctions against India would achieve nothing. Hell, they achieved nothing against NoKO.

    But still they would impose or try to impose some costs. Money is not everything in life. US is after all a mad dog. It even tried to sanction Russia a few years back. So I wouldn't put my money on us not being sanctioned. Sanctions will happen. Maybe they won't set back our weapons programme, but they would still impose some costs.
    So I will always remain of the opinion that if we test, we must declare. It will also boost our own morale.
     
    aditya10r, Willy2 and IndianHawk like this.
  3. IndianHawk

    IndianHawk Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    3,737
    Likes Received:
    8,179
    I agree with you. But then again the core question is what is our objective with a MT test??
    To establish ourselves as a super power ??
    I think not!! USA never tested a 50 MT bomb in response to Soviet testing tsar bomba! Yet it is the USA which is considered more powerful of the dual.
    Even the Chinese are making do with limited nuclear weapons against USA which has thousands warheads. Why??

    It's the priorities. Our priority right now is
    not to get into a major war so that we can grow peacefully for next 30 years and become the behemoth of world economy.
    For that we need to keep our enemies china pakistan scared of our nukes. While have peaceful interaction with rest of the world economically.

    An unclaimed test precisely does that. It scares china and pakistan leadership, military while not scaring the world.

    If rest of the world thinks we are pussies for not openly testing so be it , what do we care!!!

    As economy grows power automatically justifies itself. Who opposed Chinese ASAT test?? Or Chinese proliferation?? Everyone profits from Chinese prosperity and everyone profits from India prosperity .

    As we grow economically it will soon be justified for us to posses MT warhead openly as today AGNI or Arihant are justified.
     
    aditya10r likes this.
  4. Chinmoy

    Chinmoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,898
    Likes Received:
    7,209
    My concern has never been about whether we do have a Mt warhead or not. My concern is always about design. We are not a nation which could afford large quantity of fissile material in implosion or boosted fission device design.

    Even with boosted fission device we could have a yield of Mt, but the design would be inefficient at the best. So the question is, had we put down the design from blue print to simulator or not.
     
  5. Flame Thrower

    Flame Thrower Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2016
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    2,673
    I believe that economic constraints is stopping us for going for next nuke or MT nuke test.

    Even if we go for nuke test, Russia can veto sanctions, but that comes at a cost of $ 100 billion.

    France would ask for more rafales, scorepenes many other rounding say $ 50 billion to stay abstain.

    Well, Japs and Germans might not make noise, but G4 is relation will be under huge strain.

    Brits with whom the negotiations were sort of in our favor will all go down the drain.

    USA well, might fund Pak which is against our plan on Isolating Pak.

    The economic strain is way too high for testing nuke. Right now, our priority is to grow; improve economic situation.

    45 kt Nuke and 1 MT nuke both are for detterence. Yes, I want have 1 MT nuke test, but I'm afraid cost of testing nuke is too high(I am sure we can afford it) which is bound to come down in future like.

    Well this is my opinion.
     
  6. square

    square Strategic Issues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2016
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    1,449
    the fact is :

    once you achive a fission bomb , the H-bomb is no big deal....
    infect , any fussable radioactice isotrop can be made into a fussion bomb , the core temperature at the initial fission is enough to trigger a fussion .......

    studies has also shown that even some non radioactive isotrop became unstable under conditions of a fission nearby.....

    with a proper heavier fussionable isotrop , any yield size is posible , these numbers of kt or Mt are just counts..
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
  7. S.Balaji

    S.Balaji Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2015
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    714
    I don't think economics or growth trajectory constrain the current dispensation from testing....if dat had been the case they would not have forayed into demonetisation, gst, doklam etc....We were a lot poorer 20 years ago when our PM Vajpayee announced pokran 2....we weren't an economic power house then...we just stepped into globalisation 6 years back then....but nevertheless in '98 BJP tested, factoring in sanctions, economic slowdown etc bcus for NDA security always trumps economics...they were willing to risk economy slowdown then.....they will do it now....

    I think once u test u have to declare ur intentions to assuage the world, u reinforce ur peaceful credentials to the world.....similar to what Vajpayee/Fernandez did in may '98....

    As far as world's reaction is concerned it will be much more mellow than the shrillness of 98.....world order is changing....Japan is breaking out of its pacifist cocoon .....USA is withdrawing from its role of world's police man..letting down Ukraine, Georgia, Turkey/Saudi (in Syria), South China sea littoral countries in the face of adversary Russia and China.....the dragon is belligerent n willing to coerce the weak into its slave ..I think we have a lot of good will cus of our soft power....I think world would happy to see India transform from a soft power to a mighty democratic military power to be a bulwark against the Communist dragon that had made many enemies of its neighbours.....

    I think it s reasonable to assume Modi/Nirmala to announce successful fusion /fission devices testing in near future B4 the elections n more importantly validate efficacy of all our designs. Jai hind.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
    IndianHawk, aditya10r and spikey360 like this.
  8. indus

    indus Living in Post Truth Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2017
    Messages:
    2,395
    Likes Received:
    7,401
    Aren't MT scale warheads a thing of past when missile accuracy used to be less. Nowadays with more accurate positioning & MIRV tech Megaton is not really an effective weapon other than the psychological effect it connotes.
    IMO India should focus on MiRV tech and maneuverable warheads that are more difficult to kill by BMD shields. Plus they introduce ambiguity as to where the real targets are and make defending a whole lot complex game.
     
    aditya10r and spikey360 like this.
  9. Chinmoy

    Chinmoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,898
    Likes Received:
    7,209
    I am not basically talking about yield here, but design. What you are saying are basically Dirty Bombs design. According to the article and the yield of Shakti test, the design which India used is of boosted fission, not staged fusion.
    Now in boosted fission you use fusion to only assist the fission. Fission design is not for optimal yield no matter what you do. Part of fissile material does go in waste after the initial burst of neutrons.
    Now with improve targeting, kt yield is enough for any strike. But designing one with heavy isotope and refining it upto Taylor Limit is where the challenge lies. Boosted fission doesn't solve the purpose of having weapon grade Uranium or Plutonium in lower quantity in our stoke. If we do want to increase the stock pile, then staged thermonuclear design has to be there.
     
  10. AmoghaVarsha

    AmoghaVarsha Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    1,083
    Location:
    Aryavrat
    The problem with Indias nuclear doctrine is that we dont have a official chain of succession.

    The Prime Minister is the de facto leader and his cabinet will decide whether to use the nuclear option.But if you incapacitate the PM during a war there is no official successor till Cabinet meets and elects one and then he is sworn in.

    This is a huge gap.
     
    Adioz likes this.
  11. Adioz

    Adioz शक्तिः दुर्दम्येच्छाशक्त्याः आगच्छति Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,419
    Likes Received:
    2,647
    Location:
    Bottom of the Andaman sea planting mines for PLAN
    AFAIK, MT warhead is much more useful as an NEMP weapon.
     
    aditya10r likes this.
  12. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,992
    Likes Received:
    749
    A full scale MT test is a must step for H-bomb. It is verifying the whole theory, physical designs of the whole bomb and each individual component. Only after the success of this, you can start the next step--partial scale test.
     
  13. IndianHawk

    IndianHawk Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    3,737
    Likes Received:
    8,179
    :bs:

    There is no technological basis for your assertions. Not a single one .
     
  14. Superdefender

    Superdefender Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,207
    Likes Received:
    1,043
    Does India Need Thermonuclear Weapons?
    Friday, September 22, 2017
    By: IDSA.in - Sanjay Badri-Maharaj


    In the aftermath of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) testing a “thermonuclear” weapon on 3 September 2017, the focus upon that country’s nuclear capability has been on the yield of the said test. Estimates for the yield vary widely – between 50 kilotons1 and 250 kilotons – reflecting the usual lack of consensus among seismologists in interpreting seismic data from suspected nuclear tests. Invariably, comparisons are likely to be made between North Korea’s undoubtedly powerful test and India’s proven nuclear capability to date.
    One of those questions is likely to be whether India’s deterrent is “credible” given doubts that have been articulated by Dr. K. Santhanam about the test of a thermonuclear device in 1998. Santhanam has argued that the Shakti-1 device failed to achieve its designed yield and as such has to be considered a failure. That, in turn, means more tests are needed to establish India’s thermonuclear capability. It should be noted, however, that Santhanam’s claims were met with a detailed and rigorous rebuttal by Dr. R. Chidambaram and Dr. Anil Kakodkar. Kakodkar went even further and claimed, during the course of an interview with Karan Thapar, that India has produced and deployed several thermonuclear weapons:
    Karan Thapar: We have a credible thermonuclear bomb?
    Anil Kakodkar: Why are you using singular? Make that plural.
    Karan Thapar: So you are saying to me that we have thermonuclear bombs – in the plural?
    Anil Kakodkar: Yes.
    For the purposes of this article, it will be assumed that Kakodkar is being less than truthful and that India has not deployed any thermonuclear weapon. Two questions arise in this regard:
    Is India’s deterrent credible without thermonuclear weapons?
    Does India need thermonuclear weapons?
    The answer to each of these questions is “yes” because, first, the credibility of India’s deterrent is independent of whether or not it has deployed thermonuclear weapons, and second, India’s deterrent, as it evolves, would benefit from the flexibility of design, weight and yield that thermonuclear weapons allow.
    Credibility of the Deterrent ::
    It is unfortunate that Santhanam, among others, has adopted the stance that the “failure” of the thermonuclear test in 1998 means that the Indian nuclear arsenal has been limited to fission weapons with an yield of 20 to 25 kilotons. This is patently untrue for, as was confirmed by Chidambaram and Kakodkar, the primary stage of the thermonuclear device was a fusion-boosted-fission device. Therefore, any discussion of India’s arsenal must perforce include fusion-boosted-fission weapons.
    It should also be stated that the yield of a weapon need not necessarily mean that it is a fission, fusion-boosted-fission, or fusion bomb. The largest deployed fission weapon was the Mk.18 gravity bomb, which, weighing some 8,600 pounds, had a yield of 500-kilotons. Using some 60 kg of Highly Enriched Uranium, 90 of these weapons were produced before being replaced by fusion weapons and converted into lower yield systems. Outside of the United States, France deployed the 70-kiloton AN-22 fission bomb, which weighed a mere 700 kg, as well as the MR-31 fission warhead (mated with the S-2 Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles), which too, while weighing 700 kg, had a yield of 120 kilotons.
    There is some anecdotal evidence for India developing fission weapons approaching these French weapons in terms of yield. Indications are that the first Indian nuclear weapons design had a mass of about 1000 kg with a yield of 12 to 15 kilotons. Subsequently, however, perhaps by 1982, when rumours of a fresh round of nuclear tests were in circulation, the said weapon had been scaled down to a more manageable mass of between 170 and 200 kg. It appears that a 100 kiloton fission weapon was later produced for aerial delivery with a mass of 200 to 300 kg. If this information is indeed accurate, it would mean that India had perfected a relatively high-yield fission weapon with a relatively low mass for its class. One would expect that missile warheads of similar designs and yields would be feasible.
    With respect to boosted-fission weapons, the largest to date was the 720 kiloton Orange Herald device, which was tested by the United Kingdom in 1957. Given, however, doubts regarding whether fusion boosting actually increased the yield, it is unclear whether Orange Herald should be referred to as the largest fission bomb tested or the largest fusion-boosted-fission tested. France had greater success with deploying fusion-boosted-fission weapons with the 700 kg, 500 kiloton, MR-41 warhead, which armed the M1 and M2 Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs).
    A possible confirmation of India deploying the fusion-boosted-fission weapons might be found in the following sentence written by Admiral Arun Prakash in 2009 (at the height of the controversy generated by Santhanam’s statements questioning the success of the 1998 thermonuclear test):
    “In the midst of the current brouhaha, we need to retain clarity on one issue; given that deuterium tritium boosted-fission weapons can generate yields of 200-500 kt, the credibility of India’s nuclear deterrent is not in the slightest doubt.”
    An even more potentially revealing comment was made in 2011 by Dr. Avinash Chander to the Business Standard. He said:
    “Now we talk of [accuracy of] a few hundred metres. That allows a smaller warhead, perhaps 150-250 kilotons, to cause substantial damage.”
    To discount these statements – one by a former Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee and the other by a former Director-General of DRDO – would be folly, to say the least. To these must be added Kakodkar’s consistent assertions that India can field weapons up to a yield of 200 kilotons. It should be noted that even a prominent sceptic like Dr. Bharat Karnad acknowledges that India’s boosted-fission capability is significantly more reliable than its thermonuclear capability.
    Data gleaned from the French fission and boosted fission designs makes it clear that the weight of such weapons at even higher yields fits in easily with India’s Agni family of missiles which have payloads ranging from 1000 to 1500 kg. Karnad asserts that Agni-I has been optimized for a 20 to 30 kiloton warhead, the Agni-II for a 90 to 150 kiloton warhead and the Agni-III for a 300 kiloton warhead. However, given that India’s 15 to 20 kiloton fission warheads and the 100 kiloton fission weapon developed in the 1980s weighed between 170 and 300 kg, it is somewhat surprising to see a claim that the Agni-I with a payload of 1000 kg would have a warhead with a yield of 20 to 30 kilotons. In other words, it is possible that the warhead of Agni-I may have a significantly higher yield than the 20 to 30 kilotons claimed by Karnad.
    From a perspective of nuclear yield, it can therefore be argued that India’s needs are adequately met by tested and reliable fission and fusion-boosted-fission designs which can be scaled to meet the varying yield requirements up to a certain magnitude. In this regard, at least, the credibility of India’s deterrent does not require thermonuclear weapons.
    Does India need Thermonuclear Weapons?
    Despite the credibility of the Indian deterrent being unaffected by a fully proven thermonuclear capability, it is submitted that the development of thermonuclear weapons is an essential part of weapons development and that it will also make the deterrent more flexible.
    Thermonuclear weapons need not have higher yields than either fission or boosted-fission weapons. For instance, the French TN-75 fitted to the M45 SLBM has a yield of only 100 kilotons. But they are inevitably lighter, with the 300 kiloton TN-80/81 warhead of the ASMP missile weighing a mere 200 kg. These lightweight, but relatively high-yield, warheads would enhance the potential efficacy of any Indian strike, particularly in respect of stand-off air-delivered munitions where the payload/yield trade-off has a direct bearing on the performance of an air-delivered missile.
    Thermonuclear weapons achieve this superior weight to yield ratio by virtue of requiring less fissile material. This point is important for India since its reported fissile material stocks of weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium are relatively modest. Given that the Mk. 18 weapon used some 60 kg of HEU, and the Orange Herald device used 117 kg of HEU, it can be seen that large yield fission weapons use a considerable quantity of fissile material. Thermonuclear weapons requiring only the critical mass necessary for a fission trigger, offer the prospect of making more efficient use of India’s fissile material stocks.
    Thermonuclear weapons also offer the prospect of variable yield weapons. Indeed, shortly after the 1998 tests, Dr. Frank Barnaby suggested that an operational nuclear weapon could have variable yields of 5, 50 and 500 kilotons. Such flexibility obviates the need for India to maintain a separate inventory of fission weapons to provide lower-yield options alongside larger fusion-boosted-fission weapons. This would inevitably make fusion weapons a potentially cost-effective option.
    Furthermore, if India is considering multiple warheads for missiles – the purported Agni-VI for example – then the lower weight of thermonuclear weapons would be essential for this purpose. Thus, the French M4A and M4B SLBMs housed six TN70/71 warheads. While each warhead had an yield of 150 kilotons, the TN70 weighed less than 200 kg and the TN71 less than 175 kg. Britain has also followed this model for the Trident D-5 SLBM force. In contrast, fusion-boosted-fission weapons of similar yields will, as shown earlier, weigh some 700 kg, making them unsuitable for multiple warhead purposes.
    Conclusion ::
    India has not defined its deterrent requirements in either quantitative or qualitative terms. Inferences are drawn from the text of its nuclear doctrine and based on the possible targets in the territories of its rivals and adversaries. While thermonuclear weapons are not necessary for maintaining a credible deterrent, they serve the purpose of enabling India to make effective use of its relatively limited fissile material stockpile. Since India’s deterrent requirements will evolve with time, it behoves a country with limited resources to maintain as flexible a deterrent as possible. To this end, thermonuclear weapons, offering variable yields and light-weight warheads that use less fissile material, should be an essential component in India’s arsenal.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Article Written by - Sanjay Badri-Maharaj
    Dr. Sanjay Badri-Maharaj is an independent defence analyst and attorney-at-law based in Trinidad and Tobago. He holds a PhD on India's nuclear weapons programme and an MA from the Department of War Studies, Kings College London. He has served as a consultant to the Trinidad and Tobago Ministry of National Security.

    Source Link: http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/does-india-need-thermonuclear-weapons_sbmaharaj_220817
     
  15. Vijyes

    Vijyes Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    1,683
    Location:
    Bharat
    Sigh! Even Iran has nuclear bombs. Nuclear bombs are 1940s technology. Precisely, atom bomb is 1945 technology and thermonuclear bomb is 1950 technology. It is plainly stupid to assume India can't make them or even countries like Pakistan or Iran.

    Nuclear bombs are point sources of energy. It is better to make 3 MIRV/MRV warheads of 100kT and drop them apart by 5km each. That will ensure bigger destruction.

    The weight of 100kT warhead will be less than 150kG using modern precision machining process like CNC and laser cutting.

    The 45kT may have been boosted fusion but may also have been thermonuclear bomb miniaturized to reduce earthquake damage. India can test nuclear weapons in Andaman Islands as they witness regular earthquake, almost every hour. We don't need to disclose that and it will not be suspected either.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2017
    IndianHawk likes this.
  16. square

    square Strategic Issues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2016
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    1,449
    presently there are three effects of a nuclear explosion in common knowledge..
    1) fire ball .... a very small radius of 1.5km for a 1Mt yeild has a temperature of 3000 c for few seconds.........most people think it will vaporise everything in that radius....No , it will not , coz the time duration is very short , it will only ignite ....sure humans will be all killed in that radius , but every thing will not vaporise...
    2) shock wave....for a 1Mt yeild , the effective radius in a desert if 5 km...but in a dense city , each building will absorbe energy as the wave flow....and it will dye soon ....
    3) fallout.....for a 1Mt yeild , the fallout distance could be 25km , people won't die due to fallout ,heroshima studies has shown that people even live to 90+ years after reciving severe radiation...

    so , if we only look at the above three , sure , a large number of devices are required , with great accuracy , MIRV and all.......

    but...

    there is a 4th effect which is not in polpuler culture....

    4) black soot.....these are the partially burn carban particals which rise up with the explosion ....studies has shown that just 100 devices detonated at a distances in short time , can throw up 5teragram black soot ..
    this soot will absorb sunlight and rise upto stretosphere , damaging the ozone......once it reach stretosphere , it will spread around the whole earth and block the sunlight .....
    temperature at the surface will drop , and temperature up will be more....this new differential will create new wind pattern.......
    the wholei ecosytem of the earrh will change in few days time.....
     
  17. Vijyes

    Vijyes Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    1,683
    Location:
    Bharat
    It won't do any such things. This is an assumption that nuke will burn entire cities and the soot released will block sunlight. Reality is that most of the fire directly in contact with atmosphere is doused by the shockwave. Some fires in the internal side of the structures can't be doused. Fields that are set on fire will be doused by the shockwave.
     
    Indian Sniper.001 likes this.
  18. Chinmoy

    Chinmoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,898
    Likes Received:
    7,209
    Going by your logic, every other country should have a nuclear bomb by now. On other hand, there is nothing like Atom bomb. It was a misnomer.
    Designing one is not a small deal. Its the design, not the fuel which matters most. You want to have maximum yield from minimum fuel and it could be achieved by design only. Currently design for Indian nuclear warhead is somewhere in 1Kt per kg yield. Means for 100 Kt yield we are using 100 kg of fissile material. Now for us with severe drought of fissile material, this design is not economic.

    CNC and Lase cutting could only provide you with the vessel to hold the materials, it can't help you out with the procedure to carry out a controlled detonation of secondary stage to have a massive primary blast.
     
    Indian Sniper.001 and spikey360 like this.
  19. IndianHawk

    IndianHawk Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    3,737
    Likes Received:
    8,179
    Many countries can make crude nuclear bombs today. Even south Africa had very advanced nuclear program before giving up. What stops many countries is economical and political fallout. Also not having a nuclear enemy or nuclear neighbor helps. And not many are looking to be super powers which must posses the nukes.

    Your logic is correct . But we need nuclear weapons for survival against an all out war with china. Economic consideration are thus secondary in this matter. So even if we have a basic design which is not very efficient on fuel count but just as explosive as supposed to be we can bear the cost for the security it provides.

    As for fuel we are importing uranium from many countries now and our own resources are increasing multiple times via continous find in andhra Pradesh.

    Meanwhile we must be working on design optimization. What do they do in barc anyway.
     
  20. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,992
    Likes Received:
    749
    Nobdy assumes India/Pakistan/Iran can't make them. The argument is all about whether or not they are able to make them until today. Theoretically there is not technology can't be achieved, even time machine is possible if you are given enough resources, manpower and time.

    Firstly, the idea of testing nuclear weapons in a place witnessing regular earthquake is laughable: 1. your test may trigger unexpected natural disaster; 2. Frequent natural earthquake will also make the nuclear explosion data collected unreliable; 3. Earthquake will make your preparation of nuclear test extremely difficult and dangerous;

    Secondly, explosion has different shape of seismic data recorded by machine comparing to earthquake; more importantly, the depth of the source of wave will tell you it is an explosion or earthquake: it is highly unlikely you would put your nuclear device 10km under the ground. So, people can easily identify the suspicious "earthquake" even you don't disclose.
     

Share This Page