How credible is India's second strike capability?

hit&run

United States of Hindu Empire
Mod
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,467
Likes
40,618
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 don't have that - basically your 2nd strike is useless !!
Are you comparing India's second strike capabilities in comparison to USA or it should be a very generalized overall approach?

Do you think Pakistan or china will be able to dismantle/overwhelm all nuclear installation land or sea based of India and will not suffer so called second strike nuclear attack from India.

In case of Pakistan we are born forward and distance is not a challenge and can reduce reaction time by many folds.

In case of china the challenge is difficult but not slim even if India has to use the options of Fighter air craft given the fact china after first strike wont be able to plug its airspace completely due to its great border length with India (far more then USA has to plug against Russia from Alaska)

The information i can share with you regarding Rail launch prithvy 300+ km range(with a view of Pakistan) can be readily rushed into civilian rail tracks as all army installations have fully functional railway tracks. Furthermore i don't buy that security will a major issue in any part of India but for discussion sake i may add to this that North and western Indian regions are very secure, peaceful with high density complex rail network.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,728
Likes
18,874
Country flag
China and Indian CND

Our nuclear deteriance with respect to china.

CND means after first strike by the enemy, we should have enough nukes strike capabilites, so that enemy will take so much damage, which will be unacceptable to him. (in the present case we have to add chines S300 and HQ9 for anti missile role).

China is huge compaire to us in almost all aspects, to detair china, we need hundreds of reliable nukes and reliable delivery systems, we have to make sure that they survive first strike by china.

At present we have A3, which is not operational as of now, Agni1 and 2, which can reach many parts of china, but not where our defence planners want them to be and which hurts more in case of China.

We can rely on SU30 MKI and other fighers with mid air refuel capabilites, but given the fact that chines have 3 times more fighter, then we are this is risky exercise.

Our ATV is still undergoing trials, its K-15 missile is long way from being operational it will take few years, their is no sigh of A3 SL as of now, since the range of K-15 given as 700KM, (max to be 1000 or 1200 KM ) is insufficent to meet the needs of our second strike doctrine with respect to china.

China at present has more then 500 nukes at its disposal. Any nuclear attack from its side will give devastating blow to our country, still we need to have enough reliable nukes and delivery system to give counter devastating blow to china. This counter devastating nuclear strike should take out their (assumption) 90% of economy and industrial capacity, 80% or so of their military and all of their major cities.

If we add to these nukes and delivery system along with one which will not survive first strike that will give us idea of what our CND should be.

From the looks of it appears that at present we dont have CND with respect to china.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,791
Country flag
A point that has not been made is our second strike may not be the same for China as it would be for Pakistan. For Pakistan we have 3 options for a second strike(land,air,sea) but for China we really maybe be limited to only 2 options, I will exclude the air options because the fighters would have to get deep into Chinese airspace to be effective which would be unlikely(especially since we don't have long range bombers). By the land route for China we would have to jump to our longest range AGNI's we would have no other options depending on how deep we want to strike that would make the other 90% of our missiles ineffective due to their range. By sea we just developed the ATV now we currently have one for that we would need SLBM, MIRV and something possibly of higher kilotonnage. All 3 of these things are not ready at this moment , again we would have to go with the AGNI'S for this role, so basically against Pakistan 90-100% can be used for a second strike with China we are limited to 10% of our missiles with further development still needed like MIRV, testing etc...
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
3,956
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.
Zmey. The time for such high yields is over. A 20-40Kt is more than enough for future wars. OOE made it clear that large yields were required in the cold war era because the accuracy of the delivery systems were not good. More advanced delivery systems with superior seekers ensured the reduction in the CEP of missiles.

The yields of the strategic warheads of all Nuclear powers will only decrease as time passes.

Indian scientists already boast a CEP of 40m for Agni series and even lesser for the K-15.

21st century materials will be mini nukes and the ability to target places where the sun don't shine.
 

Rajan

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
41
Likes
1
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?
Its six times the Shourya missile been tested by the DRDO. The missile already under production. Will be soon deployed. Again the K-15 and the Shourya is the same missile. Its been tested from underwater platform.

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.
I have mentioned Agni-3 for its greater range not about canister based missile. Agni-3 has far greater range than mentioned 3500 km. Watch the BR graph.

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.
I want you to read your earlier post again....

"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."

So I mentioned about such DRDO projects.

First you said that after 3/4 years we will have capability to hit Pakistan not Chia but now... "So there is no chance of Agni-5 being deployed before 2013/2014. Please do correct me if I am wrong." !!!!:wink:

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.
What do you mean by 'assumptions'?? Agni-3 was 'assumption' before it was first test fired. Prithvi was 'assumption' before it was test fired. DRDO is working on A-3SL for many with with these capabilities. They are been developed and ready to test fire. We will soon get them. The A-5 will be test fired next year.

The ATV-2 hull already in Vaijag from Hazira Gujarat and the L&T also started work for ATV-3. There is nothing that tomorrow we are going for an war. I talked about under-construction things not conceptualized.

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.
In defence program 3/4 years is nothing. We will get a good Second strike against China with in four years.

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.
The Patriot system fielded against Iraqi missiles in Gulf War-1 (1991) was an old missile. But the new PAC-3, GEM and GEM+ had a very high rate of success in GW-2 (2003). Check it. Our AAD, PAD and future AD-1, AD-2 has a great potential to be a good ABM. They are tested like real time situations. We have also cooperated with Israel, Russia and France.

Again no other missile except Patriot had chance to met a war so do not undermine their capabilities. They also been tested in a real war like situation by the countries like USA, Russia, Israel.
 

rony

New Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
7
Likes
0
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.
Credible source lol i am afraid to reveal it even if got a one credible source, know why?
Even our dept of Atomic energy is not going to reveal that secret to DRDO, i wonder what sources are you talking about. Every source is based on assumptions and guesses and nobody except Indian SFC or DAE is gonna know the no of nukes in our arsenal.


Anything less than 50kt should not be even considered in a grand scheme of things. Subkiloton is a champagne popper in modern warfare.
Well these nuclear doctrines(NFU etc) are followed in peacfull times only and things would definitly change during even a political crisis or some activity on borders. Definitly we have Boosted fission nukes with 100-200kt yeild, perhaps we also have some Thermonukes with 200kt yeilds(though there seem to less confidence on them than boosted nukes). But definitly >50kt boosted nukes are there and i am sure they make a large chunk of our nuclear arsenal and their weight also matches with payloads of Agni missiles(1-1.5tonn). Now dont ask for credible sources because these things are not talked openly by govt but are revealed behind the doors to the elite concerned about nation's security and i have read the comments of those elitemen who are the best source of info regarding these matters.

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.
I agree but war will not be precipitated on the spot and before that things will deteriorate. before a war and particularly a nuclear one gets started, border movements and armed mobilisations and preparations on enemy side will be visible with satellites and a political crisis or some terror attack or border skirmish will be there which will not precipitate a nuclear war overnight.
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.
Nuclear devices are complex but not as complex as a fighetr jet, a cruise missile or a ballistic missile, we can make a nuke but cannt make a fighter aircraft on our own, we dont even have a home made cruise missile. I am of the view that nukes can be easily mass produced in a short time if you have heavy stockpiles of Pu. The thing whcih will take more time is making delivery vehicles and naturally the production of missiles will ramp up during a crisis situation as during 2002 crisis there was no war between India and pakistan but both parties operationalised their missiles to a active state. So there will always be a room to ramp up the production of delivery vehicles.
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.
That is true but it is not as India will declare publicly that it is going to increase the no of nukes in its arsenal instead things will be done in dark, naturally enemy will assume many things and will do their job according to their security requirements.
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?
Again we are assuming presently and even US has stated that Pakistan is expanding its nuclear arsenal so this cat and mouse game will go on and we will do what will suit us.
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.
That is your assumption only and i assume things differently. Arms race at a small scale is going on in this subcontinent for many years and pakistan has already paid a big price trying to get a parity with india.


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.
By dirty bomb i mean a bomb made of reactor grade Plutonium, it is also considered dirty because it gives a low yeild but more radioactive fallout and yes we definitly have tested a nuclear device made up of reactor grade Pu in may 1998 tests, i think there are many credible sources about that, you google it out or go to wikipedia for that. Also these nukes are well suitable for making tactical nukes but will they ever be weaponised as tactical nukes, well that is upto govt to decide and again no credible source.
 

NSG_Blackcats

Member of The Month OCTOBER 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
3,489
Likes
1,555
Its six times the Shourya missile been tested by the DRDO. The missile already under production. Will be soon deployed. Again the K-15 and the Shourya is the same missile. Its been tested from underwater platform.
I will be really glad if you can kindly provide the link to prove your claim that Shourya is test fired 6 times by DRDO. I will be grateful if you provide a reliable link about the mass production of Shourya and its deployment. As per you K-15 and Shourya are same. So there is no difference between a SLBM and a ballistic missile? So as per you if we develop a ballistic missile we can use it as SLBM? Correct me if I am getting it wrong.

Agni-3 has far greater range than mentioned 3500 km. Watch the BR graph.
I want to go with DRDO regarding the range of Agni-3. They have developed and test fired it and they have the right data as per me not any blog writer or any other forum. If someone says Agni-3 has a range of 6000km I cannot prove him wrong as I don’t have the data.

First you said that after 3/4 years we will have capability to hit Pakistan not Chia but now... "So there is no chance of Agni-5 being deployed before 2013/2014. Please do correct me if I am wrong." !!!!
We are discussing about second strike capability here. If we have SLBM and canister based missile we have the highest chance of surviving the first strike. I was taking in this context. As we have test fired Shourya and K-15 we might have this capability by 2013/2014 against Pakistan. I will be great if we can deploy SLBM version of Agni-5 by 2013/2014.

What do you mean by 'assumptions'?? Agni-3 was 'assumption' before it was first test fired. Prithvi was 'assumption' before it was test fired. DRDO is working on A-3SL for many with with these capabilities. They are been developed and ready to test fire. We will soon get them. The A-5 will be test fired next year.

The ATV-2 hull already in Vaijag from Hazira Gujarat and the L&T also started work for ATV-3. There is nothing that tomorrow we are going for an war. I talked about under-construction things not conceptualized.
Here we are discussing how credible is our second strike capability in current scenario. We are not discussing what will be our capability some 4 / 5 years down the line. As of now we don’t have the reliable second strike capability (I am taking in context of SLBM and canister based missile.)

In defence program 3/4 years is nothing. We will get a good Second strike against China with in four years.
I will be more than delighted if we have this capability in 3 /4 years. But our past record suggests something else. (Like to bring to your notice it took us 20/25 years to acquire an advance jet trainer.)

The Patriot system fielded against Iraqi missiles in Gulf War-1 (1991) was an old missile. But the new PAC-3, GEM and GEM+ had a very high rate of success in GW-2 (2003). Check it. Our AAD, PAD and future AD-1, AD-2 has a great potential to be a good ABM. They are tested like real time situations. We have also cooperated with Israel, Russia and France.

Again no other missile except Patriot had chance to met a war so do not undermine their capabilities. They also been tested in a real war like situation by the countries like USA, Russia, Israel.
I am not undermining anything. I am just reflecting some facts from history. There is a difference between a War like situation and a War (I hope you do understand the difference between equal and equivalence). As I have mentioned in my previous post I am optimistic like you about our ABM system.

regards
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,387
Country flag
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?
-----

Inexhaustive list of the several possible reasons why India adopted NFU in the first place are:

1. To appear responsible and peaceful.
2. To assuage Chinese bellicosity as we were and still are yet to develop a credible nuclear deterrence vis a vis China
3. Most Pakistani high value targets are near Indian borders so we would rather use our superior conventional military capabilities to "frighten" Pak than Slam-a-bad.
4. Our reluctance to use nuclear weapons and our reluctance to hide our timidness.
5. Policy of defensiveness and nuclear deterrence

-----

At this point in time departure from NFU policy would make up appear as a belligerent state and is ill-advisable. It will only embolden the Chinese (who by repeated incursions are mocking our lack of nuclear deterrence) and the Pakistanis (who are once again the blue-eyed of US) and get us severe censure from US and West(who are looking for an exit strategy in Astan and depending on China to finance their debts)

-----

In the future, irresp. of NFU or NFU policy, if we are able to develop a credible missile shield and second strike capability; it will lead to an arms race with China (as then Chinese nuclear advantage wrt India would be compromised) and Pakistan (as Pakistan's nuclear deterrence would cease to be credible). The only way out for India, then, would be to have the ability to mass produce reliable cheap ABMs and at the same time hone our second strike capability to counter the increased number of BMs.

-----

If in the future we are not able to develop a credible missile defense shield but are able to develop a credible second strike capability; then depending on the situation and leadership we would have to tune our NFU policy.

If Pakistan continues its terrorism policy; then we can threaten to abandon our NFU policy. This situation can possibly escalate though.
If China-India relations detoriate; then again we can make veiled threats of abandoning NFU policy. This situation can again rapidly escalate.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
3,956
There is too much being read into the NFU policy. The NFU policy is as significant as the US End User agreement since they are only meant to silence critics and nothing else.

Once a war crosses the nuclear threshold, there is no question of implementing the NPT rules, other unilateral policies or following the NFU.....because there will be no one left to quarrel with, diplomatically or militarily.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,387
Country flag
There is too much being read into the NFU policy. The NFU policy is as significant as the US End User agreement since they are only meant to silence critics and nothing else.
Also it makes no sense in adopting an all options are open policy if we don't have all options available to us.

Once a war crosses the nuclear threshold, there is no question of implementing the NPT rules, other unilateral policies or following the NFU.....because there will be no one left to quarrel with, diplomatically or militarily.
p2p you have made a very important point here.
Once a war crosses the nuclear threshold....
This essentially means it will be our adversary who will be the ones in drivers seat ie they will be the one to dictate escalation levels.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
3,956
p2p you have made a very important point here.
Once a war crosses the nuclear threshold....
This essentially means it will be our adversary who will be the ones in drivers seat ie they will be the one to dictate escalation levels.
Not necessary. Let's say the Chinese have launched a number of short range conventional missiles at our bases in the NE. The onus falls on us to not escalate it to a nuclear war. We can respond in kind or escalate by activating our SLBMs and Missile Silos. There is always a small window of seconds to minutes in which time a decision is to be taken for our response.

Simple really. If the an enemy cruise missile or ballistic missile launch is detected and its course takes it towards a large target like a city, an assembly point, a CP(Command Post) or a big dam; we will be within our rights to escalate to a nuclear war. Meaning we don't have to wait to be hit first. This will ensure our second strike will be successful.
 

Sridhar

House keeper
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
3,474
Likes
1,050
Country flag
India will Wipe Off Pak, But at Cost of 500 Million People

The portion on nuclear warfare appears in the chapter titled 'Eight Missiles in Baghdad', in which the author of the book claims that Clinton told him that New Delhi would nuke Pakistan annihilating the entire country, if anyone in Islamabad triggered the nuclear bombs against it.

In private, he (Clinton) disclosed, Indian officials spoke of knowing roughly how many nuclear bombs the Pakistanis possessed, from which they calculated that a doomsday nuclear volley would kill 300 to 500 million Indians while annihilating all 120 million Pakistanis. The Indians would thus claim "victory" on the strength of several hundred million countrymen they figured would be left over,"he writes.

news.outlookindia.com | India will Wipe Off Pak, But at Cost of 500 Million People
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,696
Country flag
500 million is a bit of an exaggeration. Even if you consider them to possess 90 nukes which is the most recent estimate, they cant kill half the Indian population with that. And all this provided India doesnt detect them fueling their birds and mating the warheads with it.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,387
Country flag
I don't think you understood me p2p but you made a point which I have been trying to make.

If we have an all options on the table approach we can be the ones to initiate and dictate the escalation of the hostilities.

In the 2 scenarios you mentioned

1."If the an enemy cruise missile or ballistic missile launch is detected and its course takes it towards a large target like a city, an assembly point, a CP(Command Post) or a big dam; we will be within our rights to escalate to a nuclear war."

2. Let's say the Chinese have launched a number of short range conventional missiles at our bases in the NE. The onus falls on us to not escalate it to a nuclear war.

it is not us but the adversary which has already escalated or initiated the war we are merely replying based on our interpretation of the situation. By adopting a NFU policy we cannot undertake a pre-emptive first strike and we will have to base our response on the the Chinese or Pakistani actions.

The point which I am trying to make badly is that, we are not in a position to launch nuclear weapons pre-emptively but we can only commit to a second strike. Millions of Indians will have to die before millions of our enemies are killed.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,696
Country flag
The fear of losing their own millions of citizens is what will prevent the enemy from launching a nuke strike. Deterrence!!
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
I have an extreme problem with this thread. NONE of you are decision makers and some are pretend soldiers.

PLA Field Marshall Rie and Indian CAS General Sundarji makes a hell of a lot of sense. The amateur MAD pretend armchair generals on this thread makes none.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
3,956
it is not us but the adversary which has already escalated or initiated the war we are merely replying based on our interpretation of the situation. By adopting a NFU policy we cannot undertake a pre-emptive first strike and we will have to base our response on the the Chinese or Pakistani actions.
Well, That's because our foreign policy is not aggressive. If we have to fight, the enemy will have to fire the first shot.

The point which I am trying to make badly is that, we are not in a position to launch nuclear weapons pre-emptively but we can only commit to a second strike. Millions of Indians will have to die before millions of our enemies are killed.
We are in a position for pre-emptive strikes. Like I said, the NFU is for silencing critics. Even the Americans can launch pre emptively based on threat perceptions. If our intelligence is good enough, we can even launch our nukes well before theirs. When it comes to a modern war between nuclear powers it will be information that is most essential.

Either ways, millions from both sides WILL die.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,289
only for information :D

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0401/0401110v3.pdf

from page 27

Most recently, this fact was confirmed by India: it exploded a twostage hydrogen
bomb in the series of five tests which was its second experimental campaign, 24 years after its first single experiment of 1974.13 According to an official Indian statement, the device worked as expected, providing a total fission fusion yield of about 43 kilotons, a value that was intentionally kept low “to meet stringent criteria like containment of the explosion and least possible damage to buildings and structures in the neighboring villages.” A sketch of a modern thermonuclear bomb is given in Fig.4. One recognizes the same elements as in Fig.3, which are found in all thermonuclear explosives, with a number of variations. For instance, while the secondaries of early H bombs were generally cylindrical, the most modern ones are probably of spherical shape. In that case, instead of being made of plutonium or U235, the spark plug could be a DT fuze which ignites the Li6D fuel when optimum compression is reached. Finally, by chosing for the pusher/tamper an appropriate heavy material it is possible to control the total yield of a thermonuclear weapon. This is because the high energy (i.e., 14MeV) neutrons produced by fusion have sufficient energy to fission any kind of transuranic material such as all isotopes of uranium and plutonium. Therefore, while the minimum yield of a given thermonuclear design will be provided by using a non fissionable heavy material such as lead or bismuth as the tamper, the use of depleted (i.e., mostly isotope 238), natural, or highly enriched (i.e., mostly isotope 235) uranium will provide a range of increasing yields because more and more fission reactions will be produced in the tamper. This is why the pusher/tamper is sometimes called the “third stage” of a thermonuclear weapon. For example, assuming as in Fig.4 that the yield is 150kt if the pusher/tamper ismade of U238, the yield will be 300kt if the pusher/tamper is made of U235. On the other hand, if the pusher/tamper is made of a lead or bismuth, the yield will be significantly lower, on the order of 50kt. This is most probably what the Indian scientists have done in 1998 in order to be able to detonate the device at a relatively low depth into the ground, and to minimize the background signals which may overload the measuring instrumentation. Finally, if plutonium is used for the pusher/tamper a yield somewhat higher than with enriched uranium is obtained. This is why using plutonium for the “third stage” is providing the highest possible yield for a given design. This option has been implemented in some of the French thermonuclear weapons, and was an important justification for the French fast breeder program,14 as it could be for the Indian plutonium reprocessing/recycling program [26]. Consequently, although plutonium has some environmental disadvantages because it is more radioactive than U235, it offers an attractive alternative to the large scale production of highly enriched uranium because plutonium of any grade can be used for the “third stage” of a thermonuclear weapon. Therefore, any country such as Japan which has a large stockpile of separated plutonium will not need access to large amounts of U235 should it decide to make high yield thermonuclear weapons
http://www.cat.gov.in/newsletter/NL/fday/fday2005/fday_cat.pdf

Laser Plasma Interaction Studies

The advent of compact, table top terawatt ( called T3 ) laser systems since the last decade has revolutionized the field of laser plasma interaction with many potential applications ranging from table top fusion reactions to development of compact plasma - based electron accelerators. At CAT we have designed, built and commissioned a
table top one terawatt, 1 picosecond duration Nd:glass laser system with focusable intensity exceeding 1017 W/cm2.
The plasma produced at these intensities acts like a miniaturized ultrafast x-ray source of high energy photons ( up to MeV) and high energy charged particles ranging from protons to highly charged ions of heavy elements. These will have many applications in nuclear and material sciences. A high intensity pulsed laser beam of gigawatt to terawatt peak power can heat the matter to generate a high temperature plasma of hundreds of million degrees at several tens of megabar pressure,
mimicking the conditions existing in the core o f sun. We have set up a high power Nd:glass, 2-beam laser system which can provide 100 joule energy pulses of one nanosecond (10-9 s) duration. This is being used to heat hollow micro-spheres of gold ( called hohlraum ) to produce intense thermal x-ray radiation, and to study opacity enhancement in mixed element targets, and the various processes
involved in laser driven inertial confinement fusion.
and this facility is not under external review:

The Hindu : National : Nuclear separation plan seeks fine balance

The Centre for Advanced Technology, Indore, where research work on lasers and accelerators is conducted, has also not been placed in the civilian pool.

now you guys decide :D

also some more info:
http://pkiyengar.in/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/New_version_book_May_2009.124232514.pdf
 

aeroblogger

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
247
Likes
112
Now that we know that Agni-5 works, has the situation changed w/r/t second strike capability?
 

Patriot

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,761
Likes
543
Country flag
Now that we know that Agni-5 works, has the situation changed w/r/t second strike capability?
No.

Agni-V is atleast two years away from induction. In addition, we lack third leg underwater SSBNs which are also atleast 3 to 5 years away from induction.

At present , we just have deterrence & it's credibility depends on chance/ war scenario & adversary.
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top