Agni V Missile

[Known_Unknown]

KU, All KT warheads do not impact on same place so it is more effective than single MT warhead.

Yes, but it is unfair to compare India's 10-12 MIRV'd nukes of maximum 220kT yield with Russia's 10 MIRV'd 750 kT nukes on the R36M which is currently in active service.

Also, the MIRV'd KT warheads may not impact exactly on the same spot, but very close to each other (a few km apart) since there is little room to maneuver when they're all hurtling down, launched from the same missile.

 

[plugwater]

Yes, but it is unfair to compare India's 10-12 MIRV'd nukes of maximum 220kT yield with Russia's 10 MIRV'd 750 kT nukes on the R36M which is currently in active service.

Yes, we cant compare ourselves with Russia but we can compare with US warheads, which is good enough to me.

Also, the MIRV'd KT warheads may not impact exactly on the same spot, but very close to each other (a few km apart) since there is little room to maneuver when they're all hurtling down, launched from the same missile.

It depends on when warheads get separated in mid course phase. Check this pict, effects of MIRV.

 

[Yusuf]

Just remember what a 13KT bomb did and it's after effects.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Guys, the whole point is that India's nuke scientists have designed nukes to a MAXIMUM yield of 220kt in a daisy-chained configuration. India does not have any nuke designs of higher yield. I already demonstrated that currently in-service Russian ICBM's are fitted with MIRV'd 750 kt nukes. Every other nuclear power has megaton nukes, and none of them have gotten rid of them entirely.

What happens when an enemy's pre-emptive strike disables your missile installations? Would you rather mount an air raid with a 100 kT nuke or a 5 MT nuke?

 

[plugwater]

Effect of 200KT warhead.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Just remember what a 13KT bomb did and it's after effects.

Wrong analogy. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were almost entirely comprised of wood frame structures.

 

[nitesh]

What happens when an enemy's pre-emptive strike disables your missile installations? Would you rather mount an air raid with a 100 kT nuke or a 5 MT nuke?

All will be disabled? How will enemy come to know about all of their locations? This is taking speculation to highest level

 

[Yusuf]

May be so, it still killed a lot of people. An guess what? India is still deterred by CHIC4s of Pakistan.

 

[plugwater]

What happens when an enemy's pre-emptive strike disables your missile installations? Would you rather mount an air raid with a 100 kT nuke or a 5 MT nuke?

Second strike will be done by missiles mostly. In case of air raid i prefer MT(which we do not have) instead of KT.

 

[Yusuf]

The megaton nukes apart from covering for inaccurate missiles also were designed to take out silos. India does not have to take out silos as we are not going to launch first. We will just target population centers and nothing else in response. A crowded Shanghai is a good target for 4 250kt bombs. Hundreds of thousands killed.

 

[Known_Unknown]

May be so, it still killed a lot of people. An guess what? India is still deterred by CHIC4s of Pakistan.

India is ruled by pussies, so let's not bring that into the discussion. A photo below of Hiroshima after the atomic explosion. As you can see, all the concrete-steel structures are still standing, while the wood frame structures have been blown to bits. In a modern Indian city, all buildings are made of concrete-steel.......they will not only survive the impact, but also protect the people inside and lessen the impact of the blast:

 

[Yusuf]

Saar, air blast, high pressure waves and high temperature will burn up humans even if the building stands tall.

The modern nuclear targets are water supply systems, sewer systems etc which will cause more long term damage. We don't have to compulsorily get a pin fall to win that massages our ego. We need to do enough to inflict pain. We don't have to kill them 10times over.

 

[Pintu]

With Russian help, India to join ICBM big league soon

Friends , I am a layman, but would not it violate MTCR ? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards

 

[A chauhan]

However i would like to hit Rawalpindi and Islamabad with 5 nuclear warheads for better and accurate results than one single MT warhead, the size and the shape of a city determines the size and destination of warhead, if the city has circular and big shape then we need bigger warhead , and if the city is rectangular then 3 or 5 small warheads will do the job; rest of the job will be done by radiations, no need to pollute the environment by an overkill. However i agree with KU that concrete structures must be destroyed.

 

[Phenom]

If you take BMDs into account, many missiles with smaller yield makes more sense than one big missile. If 10 100 KT missiles are launched and even if 3 or 4 gets intercepted then the remaining can still make the target unlivable, but if 1 MT is launched and if it gets intercepted, the target will effectively be left untouched.

 

[plugwater]

Friends , I am a layman, but would not it violate MTCR ? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards

BS article, dont take it seriously.

 

[plugwater]

If you take BMDs into account, many missiles with smaller yield makes more sense than one big missile. If 10 100 KT missiles are launched and even if 3 or 4 gets intercepted then the remaining can still make the target unlivable, but if 1 MT is launched and if it gets intercepted, the target will effectively be left untouched.

Single warhead with multiple decoys can make it look like multiple warhead. You are correct though MIRV is more safe than single warhead.

 

[Yusuf]

For the benefit of new guys and those who have not read this, please do. This is how the west evolved its strategies in nuclear warfare.

http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_101.html
[URL="http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_102.html"]http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_102.html
[URL]http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_103.html[/URL][/URL]

 

[sayareakd]

why you want to take out whole city when with precise strike you can take out target of interest only at the same time fool the enemy's BMD, having bigger warhead is disadvantages in the sense it causes lot of damage, plus with single warhead and midcourse interceptor of enemy, better to go for small nuke warhead with Maneuverable MIRV.

 

[bengalraider]

I see a lot of people commenting on blast radius and fireballs and what not but no comments on radiation at all, make no mistake gentlemen the fireball is not the big culprit when it comes to killing people in a nuclear explosion(though it is the most immediate) the big killer is the humble invisible"gamma ray, this radiation will go through most regular thickness walls(concrete or otherwise) to cause immense destruction to organic tissue..this can be achieved much more cheaply with a small bomb than with a big one.
Also Nuclear weapons are expensive the process of enriching uranium to a weapons grade level is prohibitively expensive and hence it makes sense to spread out the material into smaller lots and have a large number of widely dispersed small nukes instead of having a few large bombs.