Search results

That was the idea only existing in Hollywood movie. During cold war, there were too many false alarms issued by machine.

This figure means nothing as it is built based on importation source which has been always monitored by IAEA. Well, Soviet planned to use 200 nuclear warheads to disarm China in 1969, they were not stopped by the prospect of nuclear winter but the interference of another nuclear superpower...

Well, in order to reach threshold of MAD, each country need at least over 1000 nukes. However, when you get there, you will find yourselves getting into a new league - US & Russia league. They will add you into their major targets list since you now have minimum scale to their destruction as...

No. 1. As I have proved, deterrence countries will be better off pressing the button after the incoming warhead exploding, there is no benefit of doubt here; 2. The number of nuclear weapons they possess decides that they have no luxury to desclate the situation once they shoot out; 3. Unlike...

Tactical nukes are the waste in this scenario. Himalaya will cause more trouble to Chinese armor column than any tactical nuclear weapon. Indian bombers and artillery can bring more damage to Chinese armors at cheaper costs.

Deterrence is not a strategy pursuing victory in a potential nuclear war but avoiding nuclear war at any cost: the number of nuclear weapon possessed by deterrence countries is simply not enough to bring any meaningful victory. In the case of China nuclear striking India, China has two types...

No, the idea of nuclear deterrence is: The NFU countries only have MINIMUM amount of nuclear weapons enough to cause unacceptable damage to your enemy (generally 20 cities) but they have no chance to win in a nuclear war. As long as nuclear war starts, they lose. So, they would risk losing all...

There is no shift of the NFU policy. NFU policy has always been response of nuclear retaliation to any scale of nuclear attack. The point is: the nuclear war fighting countries-Russia and US adopt nuclear escalation policy because they have the number to do that. On the other hand, the number of...

Who would want to venture in a area polluted with nuclear fallout? Any army came through cold war would have planned and trained to do this. Even today, anti-nuclear is still part of every major army drill. I will be surprised that Indian army hasn't received such kind of training.

Any army ever had proper training under nuclear war circumstance can minimize that damage. For example, the training of Soviet army can make the majority of a armored battalion survived from an attack of an US h-bomb with 10k yield. If soviet army could managed to do this, how many tactical...

I doubt that. The yield of the nuclear warhead is so low that would make the whole weapon useless. 1kt yield? That won't impose any meaningful damage to any army ever trained how to fight in nuclear condition. People should have a look of US and Soviet WW3 plan to understand why tactical...

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...

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.

If he is just an ordinary keyboard warrior like you and me, no one gives shit about he says. But as a minister, his "personal belief" can be interpreted as a change of India national policy. First, because the world, especially US and Russia won't allow third country to build up a nuclear force...

Basically, at current stage, the missile defense tech is still far from mature, including American system. And the trend is: it is lot easier and cheaper to keep missile tech ahead of BMD.