How credible is India's second strike capability?

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
dont forget India still uses soviet type Doctrine even in Missile strikes too, like firing 10-100 of missile at a time, this makes only some missiles intrecepted by the air defence system,
You really have absolutely ZERO CLUE. Admins, is this the postings you want in this sub forum?

http://kms2.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengi...762-8A6A-162E1FFAE026/en/641014_warplan_E.pdf

Look closely, on the Czech front alone, never mind the rest of the Warsaw Pact and never mind the strategic exchange, the Czech front calls for 131 nukes on the 1st day. One single army group on one day is going to unleash 131 nukes, never mind what NATO is going to throw back in response but the Czechs, not the Soviets, the Czechs were prepared to lobbed 131 nukes. That is 31 more nukes than India is supposed to have.

same followed by chinese too,but it will suit them.
I've quoted Marshall Rie enough here but perhaps you don't understand Sundarji. Him and Rie are from the same cloth.
 

Zmey Smirnoff

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
104
Likes
0
Ok, I'll be the first one to ask, what is the KT-rating of the most powerful operational Indian IRBM warhead?


Because it makes no sense to count the warheads if thier potency is unknown.

Wiki states that the most powerful Indian test was ~60kt. Now, until someone provides a credible link disputing that, I will assume that the most powerful Indian warhead is 100kt. We'll up the stockpile to 100 warheads too.

Now, I will update the math as soon as someone offers different numbers, but assuming 100KTx100 heads is the actual Indian arsenal... I got bad news.

India does not have second strike capability against Pakistan. India just barely has the first strike capability! And if my math is off (which it is) and not ALL Indian warheads are 100kt, and India doesnt have full 100 - you may not have the first strike capability either. At least not in the same sense as first strike of US/Ru/UK/Fr/Cn.

Here is a useful tool to approximate the power if 100kt warhead against a regular modern city on a flat terrain.

HYDESim: High-Yield Detonation Effects Simulator

With the current (assuming) arsenal India has a choice in a nuclear war with Pakistan - either destroy the cities, or destroy the military. There are just not enough nukes to do both. And given the FACT that not all missiles will launch, not all warheads will hit their targets, and of those not all will detonate properly... I dunno what to tell you guys.

I see a lot of optimism about taking on China, but India doesnt have enough assets to take on Pakistan. Pakistan is in the same pickle too, btw. Both countries have enough nukes to make the enemy bleed, but not nearly enough to destroy their militaries.

Well, I'm prepared not getting any "thanks" for this post, but at least we might move a little bit closer to reality here.
 

constantin

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
12
Likes
0
No first strike policy means India can not attack first with nuclear weapon. India is maintaining this policy which has generated faith over India in the diplomats of other nations.
If some county attacks India with nuclear bomb, India's main priority will be to destroy that country completely but for that it needs a good second strike capability because the enemy nation will first destroy all possible places where India keeps its nuclear arsenal.

India's nuclear submarine will play an important role in its second strike capability. It can remain under water hidden from all for several year if India's mainland is ever attacked they can respond in few minutes.

A known airbase of India in Tajikistan (If I am not wrong) is another important thing for India's second strike capability.

Hypersonic Nuclear missile like Shourya which is launched from underground cannister gives India an upper hand in second strike as they can remain hidden from spy satellites and enemy can not destroy them.
 

Sabir

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
2,116
Likes
790
In second strike the obvious attitude is “If I fall, I will take you too with me, at least some of you” and it is the fact that Pakistan with a smaller arsenal maintains effective deterrence against India and so is India against China. Because at the end of the day leaders are not going to sit to calculate respective casualties to find out whether they have won the battle or not. No sane leader is going to risk life of millions of his own countrymen to crumble his enemy. Now if we consider Chinese leaders are too daring to be considered sane and they do not bother some Indian strikes far from their major population centers while annihilating major parts of India in the process what options we have then. (Assume their unknown nuke inventory is big enough to scare big powers even after spending for India)

We certainly have to convey the message that their big cities are not out of our reach. Beside stockpiling nukes, deploying higher range missiles, building SSBN we can consider to be present in places from where Beijing , Shanghais etc are not very far.
But here I am not agreed with Constantine. Until we are having missiles like Agni-III in sufficient numbers base in Tajikistan will not give any advantage to deter China as it is also far from major populated areas.( if there leaders are not sane as per our assumption). Better India should persuade countries like Vietnam which doesn’t have good relation with China. Till that happens hope leaders in China are good enough to bother even those people who live within India’s missile’s range.

One more thing- Building a capability just to destroy Chinese military capability without attacking the cities- is a simply impossible task…China is to large for that. So our prime concerns should always be Chinese cities ?( Ohhh…I am not talking about nuke-ing the cities in reality …just to play the nerve game.)
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
Ok, I'll be the first one to ask, what is the KT-rating of the most powerful operational Indian IRBM warhead?

Because it makes no sense to count the warheads if thier potency is unknown.
And I am NOW GETTING EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED IN TEACHING YOU WHAT IS KNOWN! The TARGET determines the yield, NOT YOUR SCIENCE. If your target requires a greater yield than your science can deliver, then CHOOSE ANOTHER TARGET!

India does not have second strike capability against Pakistan. India just barely has the first strike capability! And if my math is off (which it is) and not ALL Indian warheads are 100kt, and India doesnt have full 100 - you may not have the first strike capability either. At least not in the same sense as first strike of US/Ru/UK/Fr/Cn.

Here is a useful tool to approximate the power if 100kt warhead against a regular modern city on a flat terrain.

HYDESim: High-Yield Detonation Effects Simulator

With the current (assuming) arsenal India has a choice in a nuclear war with Pakistan - either destroy the cities, or destroy the military. There are just not enough nukes to do both. And given the FACT that not all missiles will launch, not all warheads will hit their targets, and of those not all will detonate properly... I dunno what to tell you guys.

I see a lot of optimism about taking on China, but India doesnt have enough assets to take on Pakistan. Pakistan is in the same pickle too, btw. Both countries have enough nukes to make the enemy bleed, but not nearly enough to destroy their militaries.

Well, I'm prepared not getting any "thanks" for this post, but at least we might move a little bit closer to reality here.
Oh please do me the math because right now I can chop you down to squat!
 

IBRIS

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
1,388
Likes
770
Country flag
Indian Navy in April 2004 for the first time in it's history released it's Indian Maritime Doctrine". The 135-page document was made public on 23 june 2004.
Indian Maritime Doctrine
The Indian doctrine clearly outlined desirability of force projection beyond the Indian shores. Primary new naval doctrine is to give the Indian Navy an enhanced role in light of India's overall aspiration to great power status. This envisioned is by "nuclearizing" the Indian Navy and placing within it India's credible second-strike capability. India's Nuclear Doctrine of August 1999 emphasized the need for a nuclear triad, which marked a definite shift from coastal defence to power projection, and littoral warfare to aid the land forces in a conflict. Indian Navy is increasing it's presence in the designated areas of the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal. India's growing involvement in South-east Asia was welcomed as a possible counterbalance against an increasing chinese presence and assertiveness in the region. Taiwan Strait Crisis, Spartly Islands incident made several nations and ASEAN states wary of chinese aggression.

Upgraded Godavri Class Frigates (Project-16A), Project 15A, Ins Arihant, with 3 more Nuclear Submarines from Russia. India is thus one of the world's top naval powers behind the United States, France, Russia, UK.

Second strike is more preferable launched from high seas rather than from land and is more attractive from belove the surface, submarines also implicitly take an important role in the context of India's naval doctrine.
 

Zmey Smirnoff

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
104
Likes
0
I will reiterate the importance of not only increasing the number and range of the delivery platforms, but significantly increasing the yield of Indian nuclear weapons. 100Kt is a tactical weapon that can destory a dozen city blocks... not more than that. ICBM silos, underground facilities and various hardened military targets cannot be penetrated by 100Kt (or less) warheads. To reliably de-populate a large city India would need 10-15 warheads, and thats a luxury you simply cannot afford.

India does not possess sufficient arsenal to deter China in case of all-out war. Second strike or first.

I also caution our analysts from falling into complacency when it comes to enemy's readiness to sacrifice civilians to achieve victory. If there is an all-out war between Inida and China/Pakistan ... I'm sorry... There are no good news for India in that kind of scenario.

Finally, too many of you think that NFU is some sort of holly grail of nuclear policy. To believe that NFU cannot be ignored or violated at the whim of the high command is a mistake. NFU is a diplomatic move that country with small nuclear arsenals are forced to engage in while they built up the stockpile. Proverbial "saying good dogie, while you looking for a stick thats big enough".

NFU has a meaning in India-Pakistan conflict only, because both countries' arsenals are... toy-like. China's arsenal is well ahead in range, potency and quantity. Chinese NFU is for big boys like Russia or US, not for India.
 

rony

New Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
7
Likes
0
Yeah true, present Indian arsenal may be around 100-200 nukes with yeilds ranging between subklioton to 100kt and yeah this number is far lower to completely anhilate either China or Pakistan but that doesnt mean that in crisis situation we will be keeping the same numbers of nukes as in peacefull conditions. I mean there should be absolutely no doubt in our enemy's mind that we have a huge stockpile of reactor grade Plutonium and unseperated spent fuel lying in our power reactors which is outside IAEA and 123 safeguards which in a crisis situation can be mobilised to make >1000 nukes and after the comissioning of our first FBR reactor in 2010 we will be producing weapons grade Pu to make 100 nukes per year, my point is that it is false to assume that we only have the fissile material for making 100-200nukes and this will prove to be disastrous for both china and pakistan to underestimate our fissile material stockpiles. I mean dirty bombs made up of reactor grade Pu will spread so much casualty, terror and loss of life for centuries to come and will be a death blow to both china and pakistan.

Guys i am confident that we pretty much have the capability and raw materials to make as many nukes as we want but much depends on the state of strategic thinking of our leaders, our politicians are too slow to take decisions on these matters and at the end that is the thing which matters most even though we have all the resources to make bigger nuke arsenal.
 

Rajan

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
41
Likes
1
india has always maintained no first use policy but are they actually right in their approach or do they need to rethink on this matter with the changing times and geo-poitical equations?

how would the future indian policy look and how much of it would affect the stability of the region?
India should not go for a first use policy and that should be our tool for developing a strategic missile defence program as well as second strike policy. It will only increase the stability in the region. From Philippine to Morocco there should be only one super power for entire south-east, south, middle-east Asia and Africa (except Hyperpower Uncle) by 2020 and we should work toward this.

1. Put Agni-3SL with 4 to 12 MIRVs.
2. Agni-5 road-mobile ICBM with MIRV.
3. Improve Shourya as a quick reaction missile. Its a formidable missile with great potential, I like it a lot.
4. Develop a ground, air and space based early warning system with combines power of ISRO and Armed forces.
5. Give missile/air defence as most priority other than any system.
 

NSG_Blackcats

Member of The Month OCTOBER 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
3,489
Likes
1,555
When we talk about second strike capability it means our enemy would fail to neutralize our nuclear weapons in the first strike. So Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) has the highest chance of surviving the nuclear strike. The second highest chance of surviving a nuclear strike is canister launched missile. Now we need to check how effective is our SLBM and canister launched missile programe.

India has test fired Shaurya which can be launched from a canister only once. It has a range of 700km. So it will be 3 / 4 years when it can deployed. Now as the missile has a range of only 700 km it will effective against Pakistan and not against China. We have to develop a canister launched missile with a range of 5000km to have the desired effect on China. So we yet do not know whether there is any such project undertaken by DRDO at the moment. If any of our members have any such information about this project please do share. So after 3 / 4 years we can say we have some capability of second strike against Pakistan but not against China. As of now we don’t have that capability (I am taking of canister launched missile) neither against Pakistan nor against China.

Now let’s check out our SLBM program. DRDO has test fired Sagarika from the pontoon on 27th Feb 2008. It has a range of 700km. This missile is yet to be integrated on a submarine and test fired from a submarine. So it is not known when we can deploy a SLBM. Again the range of Sagarika is only 700km. So it can have the desired effect on Pakistan not on China. We have to enhance the range of our SLBM to 5000km so that it can reach major part of China. But the timeframe for developing such capability is not known. So our SLBM program will take at least 4 to 5 years.

As of now we cannot say our nuclear tipped missile can never be neutralized in the first strike. So how can we say we have a credible second strike capability?
 

Zmey Smirnoff

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
104
Likes
0
Yeah true, present Indian arsenal may be around 100-200 nukes
Could you please provide the credible source confirming 100+ or 200 number of warheads please. My sources all show less than 100. Thank you in advance.

with yeilds ranging between subklioton
Anything less than 50kt should not be even considered in a grand scheme of things. Subkiloton is a champagne popper in modern warfare.

to 100kt and yeah this number is far lower to completely anhilate either China or Pakistan but that doesnt mean that in crisis situation we will be keeping the same numbers of nukes as in peacefull conditions. I mean there should be absolutely no doubt in our enemy's mind that we have a huge stockpile of reactor grade Plutonium and unseperated spent fuel lying in our power reactors which is outside IAEA and 123 safeguards which in a crisis situation can be mobilised to make >1000 nukes and after the comissioning of our first FBR reactor in 2010 we will be producing weapons grade Pu to make 100 nukes per year, my point is that it is false to assume that we only have the fissile material for making 100-200nukes and this will prove to be disastrous for both china and pakistan to underestimate our fissile material stockpiles.
I'm sorry, but this is a big mistake. Simple overview of military history over the last 100 years will tell you, that countries fight wars with what they have operational at the moment such war begins. To hope to produce hundreds of weapons immediately before or immediately after the start of the war is a pipedream. Here is why.

1. Since India is not manufacturing nukes continuously, the process will take much time to initiate. And during first months will be extremely slow. I dont need to tell you that nuclear devices are extremely complex weapons and you cant just start manufacturing them overnight.

2. The beginning of such manufacturing will deteriorate the pre-war situation tremendously. India's enemies will not sit idly watching India making hundreds of nukes and waiting for you to be done. And I hope you dont expect them to.

3. Two can play that game. Three even. What do you think will happen with Pakistan's and China's nuclear production when India decides to start making nukes "like sausages"? Realistically?

As the end result of such ad hoc arms race, the war will start sooner and India will have not reach numerical superiority... or even parity.

I mean dirty bombs made up of reactor grade Pu will spread so much casualty, terror and loss of life for centuries to come and will be a death blow to both china and pakistan.
Lets separate the fact from fiction. "Dirty bomb" is an invention of CNN. Simple as that. Such weapons were never made, never tasted and never used. EVER. The biggest expert on "dirty bomb" effectiveness is Rudy Bakhtiar and Wolf Blitzer.


Guys i am confident that we pretty much have the capability and raw materials to make as many nukes as we want but much depends on the state of strategic thinking of our leaders, our politicians are too slow to take decisions on these matters and at the end that is the thing which matters most even though we have all the resources to make bigger nuke arsenal.
The problem is, you arent alone in that confidence. Pakistan and China are just as confident.
 

Rajan

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
41
Likes
1
When we talk about second strike capability it means our enemy would fail to neutralize our nuclear weapons in the first strike. So Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) has the highest chance of surviving the nuclear strike. The second highest chance of surviving a nuclear strike is canister launched missile. Now we need to check how effective is our SLBM and canister launched missile programe.

India already have missile with 700 km range Shourya (for Army) and K-15 (for Navy) which can target Pakistan. This missile also has capability to maneuver when attacked by a BMD system. Also note that current Agni-3 can go much longer range than it was actually told.

India has test fired Shaurya which can be launched from a canister only once. It has a range of 700km. So it will be 3 / 4 years when it can deployed. Now as the missile has a range of only 700 km it will effective against Pakistan and not against China. We have to develop a canister launched missile with a range of 5000km to have the desired effect on China. So we yet do not know whether there is any such project undertaken by DRDO at the moment. If any of our members have any such information about this project please do share. So after 3 / 4 years we can say we have some capability of second strike against Pakistan but not against China. As of now we don’t have that capability (I am taking of canister launched missile) neither against Pakistan nor against China.
A new missile called Agni-5 is under development for many years, will be test fired anytime next year. This new missile will be capable of hitting targets 5000 km away with 4 to 12 MIRVs. It will be road mobile and canisterized.

The Hindu : Andhra Pradesh / Hyderabad News : Agni-V design completed, to be test-fired in 2010
The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Nation | Missile muscle, Pokharan silence 5000-km Agni to fly from safe haven
ICBM test to launch India into Big Five - India - NEWS - The Times of India

Now let’s check out our SLBM program. DRDO has test fired Sagarika from the pontoon on 27th Feb 2008. It has a range of 700km. This missile is yet to be integrated on a submarine and test fired from a submarine. So it is not known when we can deploy a SLBM. Again the range of Sagarika is only 700km. So it can have the desired effect on Pakistan not on China. We have to enhance the range of our SLBM to 5000km so that it can reach major part of China. But the timeframe for developing such capability is not known. So our SLBM program will take at least 4 to 5 years.
Agni-3SL with 3500 km range underdevelopment for last five to six years. It will join K-15 on board second ATV nuclear submarine. It is also a MIRV missile.

As of now we cannot say our nuclear tipped missile can never be neutralized in the first strike. So how can we say we have a credible second strike capability?
Who said we have credible second strike capability? We dont have currently but soon we will.

Note that through 'no first use' policy we can develop a second strike policy and a missile defence system which is much much more complex and sophisticated than missile+nuke='first use policy' based option. :113:
 

F-14

Global Defence Moderator
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
1,563
Likes
25
for a second strike to work we need a grate deal of Redundency in our nuke C2 system here is a qustion for all the debaters what if we have a launch at New Delhi and the entier cabinet is killed in a nuke attack so in such a situation the Chairman of the Chifes of staffs might take control of the national arsalen But do we have a system like the us TCOMO ( Take Command And Move Out ) or project looking glass system where by the Chairman of the Chifes of staffs can take be safe in the sky and still strike back at the enemy ?
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,693
Country flag
I will reiterate the importance of not only increasing the number and range of the delivery platforms, but significantly increasing the yield of Indian nuclear weapons. 100Kt is a tactical weapon that can destory a dozen city blocks... not more than that. ICBM silos, underground facilities and various hardened military targets cannot be penetrated by 100Kt (or less) warheads. To reliably de-populate a large city India would need 10-15 warheads, and thats a luxury you simply cannot afford.

India does not possess sufficient arsenal to deter China in case of all-out war. Second strike or first.

I also caution our analysts from falling into complacency when it comes to enemy's readiness to sacrifice civilians to achieve victory. If there is an all-out war between Inida and China/Pakistan ... I'm sorry... There are no good news for India in that kind of scenario.

Finally, too many of you think that NFU is some sort of holly grail of nuclear policy. To believe that NFU cannot be ignored or violated at the whim of the high command is a mistake. NFU is a diplomatic move that country with small nuclear arsenals are forced to engage in while they built up the stockpile. Proverbial "saying good dogie, while you looking for a stick thats big enough".

NFU has a meaning in India-Pakistan conflict only, because both countries' arsenals are... toy-like. China's arsenal is well ahead in range, potency and quantity. Chinese NFU is for big boys like Russia or US, not for India.
I dont think anyone has made a tactical nuke at big in yield as 100KT.

The W54 which was a well known one and here are the details for it.

There were four distinct models of the basic W54 design used, each with different yield, but the same basic design. These were:

Mk-54 (Davy Crockett) — 10 or 20 ton yield, Davy Crockett artillery warhead
Mk-54 (SADM) — variable yield 10 ton to 1 kiloton, Special Atomic Demolition Munition device (photo showing SADM components
W-54 — 250 ton yield, warhead for AIM-26 Falcon air to air missile
W72 — 600 ton yield, rebuilt W-54 (Falcon warhead) for AGM-62 Walleye

Tactical nukes are not for destroying city blocks. They are for use against armies, for a tank formation, for bridges etc.

There was a post by someone else who suggested a tactical thermocuke. God please understand what a tactical nuke is.
All thermonukes are strategic weapons.

In general guys please understand what a first and a second strike is. I think a lot of people have misconception about a first strike. A general feeling that i have got is that most people feel that a first strike is against population centers. Grossly wrong. A first strike is against military targets to take out the C3, their nukes, delivery systems etc. A first strike has to be a crippling one that destroys the enemy's ability to retaliate, particularly with nukes. That is why the super powers developed so many weapons that could destroy all that and still they felt it was not enough. And thats the reason why with even 20,000 warheads the super powers felt that nuke wars cannot be won and they started talking about reducing nukes.

Second strike is a strike after suffering a first strike (if it happens) destroys an army or population center. It is a revenge strike. And it would certainly be on major population and industrial centers.

People, event the most hawkish among the hawks in the Indian strategic circle has never talked about first strike or re evaluating the NFU. They know its not workable. Apart from the US and Russia no one has the capacity to take out all the enemy has in a first strike and still they are not sure if they would succeed. So with about 100 or 200 nukes you are certainly not going to do anything in a first strike.
If India were to launch a first strike against Pakistan for example on cities like Karachi, Lahore, Pindi, Peshawar, then yes it would kill a few million people, but then it would leave India naked to retaliatory strike from them and nukes on Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore would wipe out 100 million. Is that what we want? NO we dont.

Most people here are talking in a manner as if to win a nuke war. It was realiized long back that a nuke war CANNOT be won.
 

Zmey Smirnoff

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
104
Likes
0
I dont think anyone has made a tactical nuke at big in yield as 100KT.
Tactical nuclear weapons are defined by the manner in which they used, and not the yield. 350KT Bazalt ASM is used against a fleet, its a tactical weapon. When 40Kt IRBM warhead lands on enemy's AFB, its strategic.
When 15kt Little Boy is dropped on Hiroshima its also strategic.


------------------------------------------

The question posed by this thread had been answered. Right now India does not possess second strike capability against Pakistan because those nukes that survive Pakistan's first strike will not be enough to cause significant damage to enemy's military OR population centers. Damage them - yes. Destroy them - not in a million years.

India does not possess second strike capability against China because China's first strike is likely to destroy vast majority of India's arsenal. Remaining few nukes wont be able to damage China's military potential, nor inflict severe damage to the population centers.
 

mattster

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,166
Likes
849
Country flag
I dont see why this is such a complicated question - in my view there is a very simple answer to this question.

A credible 2nd strike capability does not exist unless you have proven SLBM technology and the weaponised MIRV warhead to go with it. Plus a 2nd strike is only credible if you have systems that are ready to be launched as soon as you see missiles coming at you, even before they hit the ground.

A country like India is unlikely to have fully assembled nukes on ICBM or IRBM mobile platforms - trucks or railroad mounted systems. The reason I say this is because the internal homeland security in India is so bad. They may have them in dis-assembled state in a secure location.

If they had fully assembled cannister launched nukes ready on rail or trucks - they would have to deal with enormous security challenges from all the internal insurgents, naxalites, and other elements.

The other option is manned missile silos - again very expensive and security is a huge issue.

Yet another option is using fighter aircraft - this is very risky and slim chance of success.

The safest option is the SLBM - where you have a highly trained crew that is highly disciplined & professional and the chances of getting discovered before you launch are slim. And if you dont have that - basically your 2nd strike is useless !!
 

Zmey Smirnoff

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
104
Likes
0
Plus a 2nd strike is only credible if you have systems that are ready to be launched as soon as you see missiles coming at you, even before they hit the ground.
Very important and valid point. Lack of unified large-scale early warning system is a huge detriment to the second strike capability. Small distance between the combatans is another.
 

NSG_Blackcats

Member of The Month OCTOBER 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
3,489
Likes
1,555
India already have missile with 700 km range Shourya (for Army) and K-15 (for Navy) which can target Pakistan. This missile also has capability to maneuver when attacked by a BMD system.
Now how many times Shourya has been test fired? If I am not wrong it is only once that too by DRDO not by the user. So we have to wait for the user trials of Shourya by Indian Army. We cannot claim that we have we have a canister launched missile until we deploy it. Now same is the case with Sagarika(K-15). It was also test fired only once by DRDO not by the user. It is yet to be test fired from a submarine. So how can we claim that we have SLBM capability?

Also note that current Agni-3 can go much longer range than it was actually told.
I agree Agni-3 have a range in between 3000-3500km. But Agni-3 has never been test fired from a canister. So there are chances of some of our Agni-3 missile being neutralized in the first strike.

A new missile called Agni-5 is under development for many years will be test fired anytime next year.
Agni-5 is yet to be test fired. So we have to wait till the test has been conducted to see its success. So there is no chance of Agni-5 being deployed before 2013/2014. Please do correct me if I am wrong.

Agni-3SL with 3500 km range underdevelopment for last five to six years. It will join K-15 on board second ATV nuclear submarine. It is also a MIRV missile.
Now there are many futuristic assumptions. War is not fought on assumptions. You are talking about second ATV. We have just launched our first ATV. We are hoping to deploy our first ATV by 2012. K-15 is yet to be test fired from a submarine and here you are talking about Agni-3SL.

Who said we have credible second strike capability? We don’t have currently but soon we will.
Yes we may have second strike capability in future. It is not going to happen before 2013/2014. We may achieve credible second strike capability against Pakistan quickly but not against China in near future.

Note that through 'no first use' policy we can develop a second strike policy and a missile defence system which is much much more complex and sophisticated than missile+nuke='first use policy' based option.
For me only one missile defense system has been tested in real war that is Patriot System of US. We all know how miserably this Patriot System failed. So it is nice to be optimistic about our ABM system. I am also optimistic like you.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
3,956
India does not have a second strike capability. We have not even reached minimum credible deterrence. Nuke wars are for the big players, not us and definitely not Pakistan.

Zmey, India and Pakistan are focusing mainly on 15-20Kt yields and not 50Kt+. Anything beyond 40Kt is not feasible as of now. Thermonukes are in question when it comes to India whereas Pak has no known stockpiles of thermonukes. But, expect Indian thermonukes to be in the 100-200Kt range. Megaton nukes are useless.
 

Zmey Smirnoff

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
104
Likes
0
India does not have a second strike capability. We have not even reached minimum credible deterrence. Nuke wars are for the big players, not us and definitely not Pakistan.
Agree


But, expect Indian thermonukes to be in the 100-200Kt range. Megaton nukes are useless.
Main strategic warheads of all major nuclear powers are 200-500KT range. Megaton nukes are a lot more useful than 20kt. Although, yes, MT+ head is a bit of an overkill, mass murder, city buster weapon. Not exaclty 21st century material.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top