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

    73.6%
  2. No, it was not required

    18.2%
  3. Maybe , not sure

    8.2%
  1. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    11
    Mainly because the early generation ICBMs, the TITANS, ATLAS, the SS-7s were POS as far as accuracy is concerned. If you aim for the Chrysler Building in New York, you might hit the Statue of Liberty. Thus, the big throw weights to compensate.

    As accuracy increased, the yield was reduced. At present, we're using 60-120 kts warheads.

    It's a lot more complicated than that and it was luck that prevailed more than anything else. Armies on both sides of the Iron Curtain were readied, willing, and determined to fight WWIII. How we avoided it is a big mystery to me.
     
  2. INDIANBULL

    INDIANBULL Guest

    yea 100-300kt nuclear warhead is sufficient to wipe a city like beijing completely and no need of megaton city busters but as somebody was saying a simple fission weapon is not that much a punch. So to detter comies we need atleast few hundred of 100-300kt warheads but that 13kt nuke cannt stop the commies for sure from starting a war. I mean the threat to completely wipe off a major chinese city like beijing or shanghai will definitly deter commies to start a war on AP.
    I think we definitly have a 100kt warhead of boosted fission type fitted on agnis but its to heavy to be MIRVED on ballistic missiles.

    As far as cold war is concerened MAD played a big role in stopping things going out of hand.
     
  3. advaita

    advaita Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    2
    Last time i heard an erstwhile PM lost a suit in US when trying to prove that someone had cast aspersions on his character by claiming that the gentleman was a CIA operative ..... I wonder what happened to the appeal.


    Last time also heard that in one of the Isreali outings..... US intervened in favour of Isreal not because US was convinced of Isreals' logic......but guess what.....they detected Nuke signatures......on one of there air bases.....and when the US send its recce planes to look deeper the Isrealis actually gave that plane a chase with planes they fully knew could never match the height.....

    Just some food for thought....
     
  4. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    11
    You've never been exposed to nuclear war doctrine. A small weapon can do a lot more killing than a big weapon if it hits the right target. If you want to attack Beijing, hit its water and sewage treatment centre. More people are going to die from chloera than they would under a 5 megaton blast.

    I counted 5 time when we deliberately c_ocked the nuclear trigger.
     
  5. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    11
    It wasn't the US.

     
  6. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    23,052
    Likes Received:
    15,173
    I agree with Bull a neutron bomb would be a better weapon to use, it would have the devastation of a nuke without the fallout; something we have not even discussed in this use of nukes by 2 countries so close to each other.

    In the nuke deal we got to choose where our reactors are on in the civilian or military side ,we placed all our fast breeder reactors on the military side; In many ways the nuke deal with USA is beneficial if we choose to build up our nuclear arsenal simply because we can import fuel for our
    civilian reactors and use our indigenous uranium for our military side reactors.
     
  7. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    11
    We, ie NATO, abandonned neutron weapons when the Soviets started installing swimming pools and water tanks around their facilities.
     
  8. INDIANBULL

    INDIANBULL Guest

    So why not use a cheab Cholera warhead instead of spending so much on nukes, your reply is absurd, in a nuclear war we want to punish enemy with impuinity and destruction. Our goal is destroy their infrastructure and economy if they use nuclear first strike.
     
  9. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    11
    From Pakistani PoV or Indian vis-a-vi the South Asian nuclear balance?
     
  10. INDIANBULL

    INDIANBULL Guest

    But there is nothing like a pure neutron bomb that can destroy life without sparing infrastructure, most of the big five rely on Thermonuclear weapons rather than a neutron bom,b which infact is a mini Thermonuclear bomb.

    But LF we need to test more nukes in a warhead form, 5 tests are not sufficient enough to make a complete detterent.
     
  11. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    23,052
    Likes Received:
    15,173
    Bull almost all of the testing by nations will be done almost exclusively by supercomputers,same for India.
     
  12. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    11
    Not cholera, that would be against the BWC but have you not noticed that Baghdad was hit with 800 cruise missiles on the first day of that war?

    And here is where you do not understand, if you have to fight a nuclear war, your nuclear doctrine has already failed. The whole idea is NOT to fight one and you avoid one by giving the other side incentives not to try, up and including denying them the acceptable political reasons to try.

    No, it's not. It's retalliation and there are a whole different set of circumstances that must come into play. How many nukes have you got left? What kind of delivery vehicles you have left? After these two questions are answered, then you can proceed with targetting priorities.

    The fewer nukes you've got left, the fewer the options and you have the maximize the damage you can do and hitting the Great Hall of the People ain't it.
     
  13. INDIANBULL

    INDIANBULL Guest

  14. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    11
    The site you've listed already stated that this is an idealized simulator. It does not take into effect the concrete building blockage.
     
  15. INDIANBULL

    INDIANBULL Guest

    So what should we do stop building nukes and sit in home and pray that nuclear war never happens and forget that our enemies got a H-bomb ready to strike on our @$$.
    Why dont you know that we are building nuclear subs for that scenario and dont you know that enemy will target some high value targets i.e. some millitary installations or some of our big cities and i dont think our nuclear arsenal is lying idle in both of them. How you suppose that enemy can destroy our continously mobile nuclear arsenal which is supposed to be spreaded widely across land, air and sea, can even china afford to launch 1000 nukes at hundreds of the suspected locations, your staements are oxymoron.

    Mod Edit: No derogatory language please.
     
  16. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    11
    For one thing, how about listening to what your strategic planners are telling you. In case you haven't noticed, I am not a decision maker. I was not the one who decided what India should have. You're the one with the wet dreams and instead of trying to understand your own nuclear doctrines and what your strategic planners are telling you, you're just lusting for big peeing contest.

    And you think the enemy has not thought this through? And you think that your strategic planners also has not thought this through that the enemy has thought this through?

    Since you're the one who refused to accept what your strategic planners are telling me, I think it is clear whose statements are oxymoron.

    In case you still don't get it. I am not an Indian decision maker. I can only try to understand their decisions.
    Mod Edit: No derogatory language please.
     
  17. Blademaster

    Blademaster Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sanity and realization of that one could lose everything. A classic game of chicken.
     
  18. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,292
    Likes Received:
    11,512
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Colonel Sir,
    can you please insert the 3 link to the articles on nukes again here?

    Guys READ that. It will give you all a better understanding of nuclear warfare.
     
  19. Officer of Engineers

    Officer of Engineers Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    11
  20. Soham

    Soham DFI TEAM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,972
    Likes Received:
    70
    The Pakistani PoV, sir.
    How they intend to play the nuke card despite being aware of the fact that an Indian retaliation can be pure devastation.
     

Share This Page