Summary of Indian Nuclear Forces

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by pyromaniac, Apr 5, 2009.

  1. SATISH

    SATISH DFI Technocrat Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    270
    I think I posted an article on this.
     
  2. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,082
    Likes Received:
    329
    Thanks Satish , for that, actually , I have said on basis of Wikipedia.

    Thanks and Regards for your posting the useful article.
     
  3. Adux

    Adux Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    4,021
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    2000 Nukes of what design and purpose? There lies the biggest dampner in our spirits!
    The Question should be what is the minimum number of nukes required to afflict Complete destruction of Pakistan and China at the same time, that would be India's minimum credible deterance! We as a nation, atleast the generation born in 60's, 70's and even 80's are complete idiots!
     
  4. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,292
    Likes Received:
    11,513
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Three nukes per target is the standard practice adopted by the west and other nuke powers considering failure to explode. Plus we have to consider a first strike by our enemy to take out our nukes. So 200 should be the bare minimum for today and our fissile material output is only increasing.
     
  5. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,082
    Likes Received:
    329


    I agree with you Yusuf on that,




    and for Adux what I can say that, it is simply Ashley Tellis's assumption not an estimate , advocated by any of us in this forum , neither you nor me can do anything on that , and / or we have independence to accept or reject that opinion.
     
  6. Adux

    Adux Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    4,021
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    you are doing a great dis service to yourself by assuming that i am some amatuer fanboy as well as thinking you youirself have no right to question ashely tellis because he is who he is. I on the other hand will question anybody and everybody on whatever i feel like... I will take it with a big bag of salt about the 2000 nukes, with the way our reactors are running as well as the apathy we show to our defence
    if he has given an assertion, he better table the basis of that!
     
  7. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,292
    Likes Received:
    11,513
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Did Ashley Tellis say this or write it somewhere? If he has written it somewhere, then I'm sure it was a typo. An extra zero added there. China itself doesn't have more than 400 maybe 500 nukes
     
  8. Soham

    Soham DFI TEAM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,972
    Likes Received:
    70
    2000 friggin nukes ? What is this guy playing at ?

    I strongly doubt we have more than 150-200. A more reasonable figure would be 80-120.
    It makes no sense(especially for us) to have 2000 nukes. Investing all those billions in conventional arms would make much more sense in the South-Asian theater.

    Buying all that "never-to-be-used" payload to be kept in cold storage is idiotic. 50 nukes are enough to turn Pakistan into a nuclear wasteland.
    What we need is conventional leverage.
     
  9. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,082
    Likes Received:
    329

    Adux, I have no intention to think you as amateur fanboy, what you think is based only on assumption.I/you is reference here, nothing is personal.

    I always keep in view of the fact while posting that my post should not insult any other respected members of this forum.

    I have the strongest objection of you using the term ' dis service to your self ' to me. This is unexpected from a fellow member.


    With hope that misunderstanding between us ends here,


    let us get back to the topic :

    the Wikipedia link is :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

    you will find link of Ashley Tellis's analysis in that link.
     
  10. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,082
    Likes Received:
    329
  11. INDIANBULL

    INDIANBULL Guest

    Guys well the exact no of nukes in our arsenal is a very different issue and having a quantity of stockpile of weapons grade Plutonium, reactor grade plutonium, tritium and enriched uranium lying in our reactors is a different issue, please dont mix both things. As we have sufficient fuel to make >1000 nukes but we may not need such a large arsenal and instead need about 200-300 nukes for a minimum credible detterence. But that doesn't mean that we cannt make more nukes if it becomes ncessary.

    A huge quantity of spent fuel is lying idle in Tarapur phwrs, which can be converted to weapons, it is estimated that India has atleast 4200kg of reactor grade Plutonium outside IAEA safeguards and another 4100kg of reactor grade Pu under IAEA safeguards and this total amount is sufficient to make 2000 nukes alone and we have also some undisclosed quantity of U-235 from our centrifuge plants.
     
  12. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,082
    Likes Received:
    329
    True , Indian Bull, you spoke of my mind, I agree you with this totally.

    Regards
     
  13. pyromaniac

    pyromaniac Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    Thats true...if I remember right(I posted a article about this too) the estimated capability is about 1800-2400. However, the fact that India has chosen not to convert this into nuclear bombs is what prompted the United states to draw up the Civilian nuclear cooperation deal. It viewed this action as a very mature decision on the part of India.
     
  14. Adux

    Adux Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    4,021
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Gents,
    Having 1 million tons of petro fuel doesnt mean that we have enough petrol pumps or enough cars to use that fuel effectively and efficiently!!!!similarly... Thinks are a bit more complicated than we have the fuel, lets build bombs!
     
  15. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,292
    Likes Received:
    11,513
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Where are you getting the figure of reactor grade plutonium from? 4200kgs is a lot of fissile material
     
  16. INDIANBULL

    INDIANBULL Guest

    True to effectively use a that kind of fuel we need to:

    1: refine the desing of our nuclear weapons, i.e. make them lighter, more efficient in yield, so we have to test nukes a few times more.

    2:We need to test our thermonuclear weapon design a few times, we need to make city busters in the range of 500KT-1MT and then MIRV them on our ballistic missiles. This will ensure complete anhilation of our enemy and a credible 2nd strike capability.

    3:Ofcourse we need to make more ballistic missiles, SLBMs and nuclear tipped cruise missiles and other delivery systems.

    4: Plutonium quantity will not be a hurdle with the start of operation of our breeder reactors as they will produce more fuel than the consumption.

    5: We need a good command and control system, We need SSBNs to hide and make our nuclear arsenal more secure in case of a first strike.
     
  17. kuku

    kuku Respected Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    3
    Was any data on the current nuclear reactors released when the congress was contesting for the nuclear deal?
     
  18. INDIANBULL

    INDIANBULL Guest

    http://nsspi.tamu.edu/projects/p0/p0_pub5.pdf

    4. URANIUM USE AND PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION ANALYSIS The primary source of weapon grade plutonium production is from two reactors: CIRUS and DHRUVA. The thermal power rating for CIRUS and DHRUVA is 40 and 100 MWth respectively. Since these reactors do not have a declared operational history, a capacity factor of 50% and 80% is assumed for CIRUS and DHRUVA respectively to compute plutonium estimates.

    This predicts that the CIRUS reactor produces 9.6 kgs of weapon-grade plutonium per year using 10.5 tons of natural uranium fuel. DHRUVA, with a much shorter cycle of 67 days uses 6.35 tons of natural uranium as fuel and produces 5.53 kgs of weapon-grade plutonium per cycle. Considering a pragmatic situation of five core changes per year, DHRUVA can produce 28 kgs of plutonium per year. Calculations of these core fuels show that the total plutonium production of India by 1997 was 393 kgs after accounting for losses in reprocessing. Extrapolating the computations with similar assumptions and inputs, the plutonium reserves would have been 633.5 kgs by the year 2006. Table 1 shows a summary of the historical plutonium production by India.

    http://www.indiaresearch.org/Indo-USStrategicDeal.pdf

    Assessment
    Let us look at facts to understand merit of this argument.
    1. Indian strategic nuclear weapons use approximately 3 Kg Plutonium.
    2. India has large un-safeguarded Plutonium stockpile (conservatively estimated to between
    3,000 Kg and 6,000Kg), a fraction of that will suffice to make hundreds of nuclear weapons if
    India choose to exercise the option.
    3. Indian PHWR reactors that are outside IAEA safeguard when operated for efficient power
    generation would have cumulatively required just 5,842 tonnes. India is estimated to have
    mined about 9,200 tonnesI of natural-uranium, indicating that about 55%II of the fuel and 8%
    of its reactor capacity was used in low fuel burn mode, generally associated with operating
    the reactors in mode optimized to generate weapon grade Plutonium. This corresponds to
    about 2,400Kg weapon grade Plutonium enough for 800 strategic nuclear weapon.
    4. Current Indian reserves of uranium estimated between 77,500 – 94,000 metric tonnes,
    enough to support 12,000 MWe power generation for 50 yearsIII.
    5. Current Indian PHWR reactors that are outside IAEA safeguard annually require 116 tonnes
    of natural-uranium when operated in a mode optimized for power generation. When
    operated in a mode optimized to generate weapon-grade Plutonium they require just 747
    tonnes of natural-uranium annually, in the process they generate 745 Kg weapon grade
    Plutonium, which is enough for 248 nuclear weapons per year.
    From above one can clearly see that there is no merit in the argument that US-India civilian
    nuclear agreement will be of any consequence to Indian nuclear weapons programs.
    Conclusion
    In conclusion the Indo-US agreement on civil nuclear reactors does not help Indian military
    program:
    1. India already has fissile material enough to make more than 800 warheads.
    2. Its Fast Breeder Reactors can generate limitless fissile material for weapons or civilian
    applications.
    Date: 02-May-2006 Author: Arun Sharma
     

Share This Page