Indian Ballistic Missile Defense System

[LETHALFORCE]

I am saying that at this point in time, there's no shield against ballistic missiles. If ever it'll materialize it'll be AAD/PDV - which probably will be pretty good (I am not dissing this system at all).

With Akash, Barak etc. India has a decent air defense system. So, it's unlikely Pak will launch its nuclear payload on F16 or a cruise missile (even though it might have been an attractive option at some point in time).
Right now for Pakistan BMs (Shaheens etc) maybe a more credible option! As such AAD/PDV (or the newer variant AD-1/AD-2) should be deployed ASAP.

interesting you mentioned Shaheen. A close friend in the Indian defense
industry told me Indian govt wants S-400 to neutralize Shaheen (along with paki airpower)

 

[LETHALFORCE]

http://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/70740

Game Changer Over Kashmir; What the S-400 in Indian Hands Will Mean for Pakistan and Potential Responses to its Deployment

With the Indian military set to induct five battalions of the S-400 air defence system into service in the early 2020s, a number of the new weapons systems are likely to be deployed near the hotly disputed territory of Kashmir and the Indian-Pakistani border where the bulk of India’s forces are currently stationed. The S-400, widely considered the most advanced long range surface to air missile system in the world, is set to be a game changer in the balance of power between India and Pakistan, with its deployment seriously undermining the Pakistani position. The weapon's 400km range when deploying highly precise 40N6 hypersonic missiles in particular poses a considerable threat to Pakistani aircraft deep into the country’s territory. Deployed to Himachal Pradesh, the S-400 will provide India with coverage over almost all of Kashmir, while deployed to Jalandhar it would allow the Indian military to shoot down Pakistani jets over Islamabad itself. Should India choose to deploy the system as far West as Amritsar, the S-400 will be able to threaten Pakistani aircraft over Peshwar. Pakistani territory is long, but not deep, and this plays into Indian hands.

With the S-400 capable of engaging up to 80 targets simultaneously, including a combination of aircraft and both ballistic and cruise missiles, the weapons system poses a considerable threat to Pakistani forces in the event of war. With the S-400 designed to shoot down some of the fastest, highest flying, stealthiest and most manoeuvrable fighters designed, namely the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 Raptor air superiority fighter, Pakistani’s older, lighter and unstealthy aircraft should provide the system with little challenge - and the air force could well suffer heavy losses in the opening hours of a conflict should it deploy its fleet within range of the S-400. With just two battalions of the S-400 able to cover more than half of Pakistani territory, this poses a considerable threat. Even the Pakistani fifth generation light fighter jets currently under development under Project Azm are unlikely to far well against the S-400. Pakistani support aircraft including Il-78 aerial tankers, Y-8 AWACS platforms, and Falcon 20 electronic warfare aircraft, large and unmaneouvehable as they are, would also be denied access to most of the country’s own airspace and would be highly vulnerable even at extreme ranges.

Compounding this threat the Pakistani ballistic missile arsenal, heavily relied on as an asymmetric measure to neutralise larger Indian forces, which includes advanced platforms such as the Ghauri, Ababeel and Shaheen 3, would all be vulnerable to the S-400 - with each Indian air defence battalion well within its limits to intercept and destroy dozens of these missiles at a time. The result would be not only an inability of the Pakistani Air Force to protect its own skies, let alone engage Indian forces on an offensive, but also the blunting of the country’s retaliator capabilities. The implications of the S-400 therefore are truly severe for Pakistani security.

There are a number of measures the Pakistani military can take to strengthen their defences with the S-400 in mind. While Pakistani aircraft will be unable to effectively respond to incursions by India’s own fighters due to the S-400’s presence, the country’s own air defences will remain unaffected. While operating without air support will put an immense strain on Pakistani surface to air missile platforms, a strengthening of the country’s air defence network could go a long way towards denying Indian fighters control of the skies. Fortifying air defence sites and radar installations, possibly in underground bunkers as per the approach taken by North Korea, remains a highly viable option. Acquiring more advanced air defence systems, possibly the Chinese HQ-9C or even the S-400 itself, would also be a viable strategy, which would effectively create a no fly zone for the air forces of both countries and thus nullify the Indian advantage.

Pakistan could also move to deploy artillery such as its Nasr missile systems close to the border, which would be capable of targeting S-400 batteries deep into Indian territory - thus forcing India to deploy the systems further from the border and reducing the area coverage of Pakistani territory. To keep its missile forces viable, Pakistan could also invest in both submarine launched ballistic missiles to target India from its Southern coast, an undefended area which will likely not be covered by the S-400, as well as developing more advanced ballistic missiles capable of reaching higher speeds and manoeuvring in flight, would all serve to improve the viability of the country’s missile forces against the S-400. While the upcoming S-500 has been designed as the first air defence platform capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles - the S-400 cannot. Indeed, more advanced missiles could well be used to launch precision strikes on Indian S-400 batteries in the early stages of a conflict and thus neutralise the threat to Pakistani aircraft - while also allowing Pakistan to bring its older missiles into play. Ultimately while the S-400 is set to be a considerable game changer, all is not lost for Pakistani forces which can take a number of measures to better handle the threat. With both countries now under the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and unlikely to resort to a major open conflict to resolve disputes in future, the prospects for the S-400 being actively employed against Pakistani forces nevertheless remains slim.

 

[Enquirer]

interesting you mentioned Shaheen. A close friend in the Indian defense
industry told me Indian govt wants S-400 to neutralize Shaheen (along with paki airpower)

I am not so sure about how effective S-400 would be against ballistic missiles.
S-400 & A-135 were systems developed by Russia almost around the same time.
The former being an anti-aircraft (air) defense system (Russia officially does not claim this to be ABM)...
while the latter being an anti-ballistic missile system.

Now Russia has upgraded both the systems.
The former to S-500 & the latter to A-235. The respective designations as anti-aircraft(air defense) & anti-ballistic
defense system is mostly retained, even though S-500 now has a high altitude missile that can do anti-ballistic work.

It's quite possible that in Russia's mind anti-ballistic would mean that the system will need to take down ICBMs; maybe an upgraded S-400 is good enough for an SRBM/MRBM.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

I don't want to sound too optimistic but the first layer Indian defense may possibly be
3 layers PAD/AAD/PDV along with swordfish radar AKASH etc.. In the fist layers is
a formidable defense. Second and third layers are extra padding. You gave a number
of 90 percent of all three layers but Indian scientist have thrown numbers as high as
97% just for the indigenous layers. There is no country that can match this level of
missile defense. Any nation that wants to challenge this is surely on a suicide mission.

PAD was liquid fueled missile and hence it will be replaced with a solid fuel PDV. So, it is AAD/PDV - 2 layers only

Dude, please!
You've a 'Moderator' label in your profile. Please moderate your jingoism with facts & reality.

There aren't 3 layers of ballistic missile defense.
If AAD/PDV materializes then it will be the ONLY layer of defense against ballistic missiles! It's ok to call AAD & PDV as different layers as they do intercepts are different altitudes. Also PDV replaces PAD - they don't coexist.

Akash cannot hit an incoming Ballistic missile! It hasn't yet been tested against a supersonic target for crying out loud! And somehow you feel confident it'll hit a hypersonic BM!!

The PDV will neutralise missile before re-entry and AAD will neutralise it after re-entry. They are two different layers. If PDV strikes the missile in upper atmosphere, there will be no use for AAD to neutralise the same target again.They may be complementary but since they act on same target but at different height, they are two separate layers.

 

[Enquirer]

The PDV will neutralise missile before re-entry and AAD will neutralise it after re-entry. They are two different layers. If PDV strikes the missile in upper atmosphere, there will be no use for AAD to neutralise the same target again.They may be complementary but since they act on same target but at different height, they are two separate layers.

Thanks for echoing my statements, that the 2 different missiles with 2 different altitude ceiling 'could in some way' be regarded as 2 layers.
But then no one is saying S-400 as having multiple layers, even though it has multiple missiles, all with different altitude ceilings.
Consistency is not anyone's virtue?

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Thanks for echoing my statements, that the 2 different missiles with 2 different altitude ceiling 'could in some way' be regarded as 2 layers.
But then no one is saying S-400 as having multiple layers, even though it has multiple missiles, all with different altitude ceilings.
Consistency is not anyone's virtue?

S400 is one system. But is mainly a SAM, not BMD. The BMD ability of S400 is not yet known. But, S400 does not come as a layer. It is a complete system on its own, not just one single SAM. It is just too expensive for normal usage. Hence we need other layers.

 

[sayareakd]

S400 is one system. But is mainly a SAM, not BMD. The BMD ability of S400 is not yet known. But, S400 does not come as a layer. It is a complete system on its own, not just one single SAM. It is just too expensive for normal usage. Hence we need other layers.

We haven't seen it work to perfection or at least they way it was advertised. Syrian war showed that Russians have preferred to kept its capabilities under rap, even when massive cruise missile attack took place from USA.

 

[sayareakd]

About mid course and booster phase interception. After watching this video.


We seriously need to think about having interceptor missiles in space, that will reduce responce time, plus detection and counter action would be fast.

We have enough knowledge and experience of space, we could do this on our own, lets go after protecting our sovereign national interests. Screw all treaties.

 

[Enquirer]

S400 is one system. But is mainly a SAM, not BMD. The BMD ability of S400 is not yet known. But, S400 does not come as a layer. It is a complete system on its own, not just one single SAM. It is just too expensive for normal usage. Hence we need other layers.

Once again, thanks for echoing that S-400 is not a formal BMD (despite the euphoria caused by some).
My post was to point the inconsistency in other posts wherein S-400 is considered a BMD, but the different missiles in the system with different altitude ceiling are not differentiated into 'layers' like they prefer to do with AAD/PDV.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

We haven't seen it work to perfection or at least they way it was advertised. Syrian war showed that Russians have preferred to kept its capabilities under rap, even when massive cruise missile attack took place from USA.

Russia did not have a surprise attack. USA had informed Russia before cruise missile attack. So, Russia had already moved out and there was no need to use S400. Russia was not provoked by USA in any manner.

About mid course and booster phase interception. After watching this video.


We seriously need to think about having interceptor missiles in space, that will reduce responce time, plus detection and counter action would be fast.

We have enough knowledge and experience of space, we could do this on our own, lets go after protecting our sovereign national interests. Screw all treaties.

The system in orbits are not easy to control. They are already moving at speeds of few km per second. Now, to nullify initial momentum and then make it target incoming system is difficult.

Biggest practical problem is that these missiles can't be tested. What if the test missile from space ends up hitting Europe or Australia by mistake? It is not always possible to tell the location of incoming test missiles in such high speed and uncertain atmosphere without a chance at initial testing.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

We haven't seen it work to perfection or at least they way it was advertised. Syrian war showed that Russians have preferred to kept its capabilities under rap, even when massive cruise missile attack took place from USA.

Many people claimed s-300 in iran protected them from an israeli attack??
i think s-400 would be even more of a threat?? russia has s-300 in syria.
still shot down a israeli f-16. Many NATO nations have bought or plan to buy
s-400. Turkey, Greece,(s300) saudi arabia etc...


https://globalnews.ca/news/4018304/...after-bombing-iranian-backed-positions-syria/

 

[no smoking]

So, according to your logic the first strike country launches several dud BMs and then will launch real nuclear tipped BMs.

While the defending country will continually launch ABM against incoming BMs. It will keep destroying the duds and also few real nuclear armed BMs. But it won't launch a nuclear counter attack, until the time its ABM fails to destroy an incoming nuclear BM - which explodes and kills a few million.

Firstly, no, I am saying other countries, such as China, will send in the BM with conventional warhead to destroy only those BMD systems which are deployed to protect the major cities. Their nuclear tipped BM will only come when they believe your BMD system is destroyed or below the minimum effectiveness.


Secondly, for not-first-use policy countries, they are not going to launch a nuclear BM simply because the enemy start shooting BM. They will only do that when they are positive the incoming BMs are nuclear armed. NFS is nuclear war avoiding strategy not war fighting strategy.

You're saying that both India and China will be ok if few million citizens get vaporized by nuclear missiles, but they'll protect only their nuclear arsenal???

No, I am saying: for countries like China, India, they adopt counter-value strategy with their nuclear forces. Their nuclear BMs only target enemy’s major cities because they simply don’t have the number of warheads to eliminate your nuclear arsenal.

 

[Enquirer]

Firstly, no, I am saying other countries, such as China, will send in the BM with conventional warhead to destroy only those BMD systems which are deployed to protect the major cities. Their nuclear tipped BM will only come when they believe your BMD system is destroyed or below the minimum effectiveness.


Secondly, for not-first-use policy countries, they are not going to launch a nuclear BM simply because the enemy start shooting BM. They will only do that when they are positive the incoming BMs are nuclear armed. NFS is nuclear war avoiding strategy not war fighting strategy.





No, I am saying: for countries like China, India, they adopt counter-value strategy with their nuclear forces. Their nuclear BMs only target enemy’s major cities because they simply don’t have the number of warheads to eliminate your nuclear arsenal.

Mate! Your logic's gone on a walkabout!

 

[no smoking]

How does this make sense? Everything is done to achieve an objective. First strike or at east instant retaliation to detection of B flying your way is the best way to achieve the objective - take minimum loss and inflict maximum damage.

There is one important factor: due to the limited number of nuclear warheads, NFS countries undertake only counter-value principle in their nuclear war planning, in other words, their nuclear BM are only targeting enemy’s major city. So, first strike or instant retaliation won’t make any difference to your nuclear force as they are not part of enemy strike target.


Instead, by instant retaliation, there is a potential risk that you turn a conventional war into a nuclear war when the incoming BMs are conventional armed. In this case, you are not minimzing your loss but increase it dramatically.

Why does it not matter whether incoming missiles have warheads or are duds? How is it meaningful to not simply retaliate massively instead of take damage by multiple waves of enemy missile? The first wave will be meeting the ABM missile and large number of the first wave missiles will be intercepted. So, loss is minimised. Why would anyone wait for the explodion?

Because your nuclear missiles are not targeting enemy’s nuclear force either. For NFS countries, they don’t have the number to escalate, nor de-escalate. Once,

Who made this declaration? Iskander missiles are for striking the TELs or BMD system. But there are more missiles for doing other work.

What you mean? I am just saying: Russians assign the Iskander missile to the job of killing BMD.

The idea of war is to wipe out hostility, either by wiping out hostile people or by slavery under force. It is just a matter of timings and situation that will determine the type and intensity of attack. Fixed doctrine does not work

Sure, the doctrine can be changed, but it can’t be changed overnight. There are a lot of work need to do when you change your doctrine, you can’t pull out a new doctrine from thin air: you have to get your force trained under new doctrine, you have to acquire new weapons, more importantly, you have to spend a big amount of money for this change because, in general, new doctrines are more expensive. So far, we haven't seen any sign that India is moving away from current doctrine yet.

 

[Kshithij]

There is one important factor: due to the limited number of nuclear warheads, NFS countries undertake only counter-value principle in their nuclear war planning, in other words, their nuclear BM are only targeting enemy’s major city. So, first strike or instant retaliation won’t make any difference to your nuclear force as they are not part of enemy strike target.


Instead, by instant retaliation, there is a potential risk that you turn a conventional war into a nuclear war when the incoming BMs are conventional armed. In this case, you are not minimzing your loss but increase it dramatically.






Because your nuclear missiles are not targeting enemy’s nuclear force either. For NFS countries, they don’t have the number to escalate, nor de-escalate. Once,





What you mean? I am just saying: Russians assign the Iskander missile to the job of killing BMD.






Sure, the doctrine can be changed, but it can’t be changed overnight. There are a lot of work need to do when you change your doctrine, you can’t pull out a new doctrine from thin air: you have to get your force trained under new doctrine, you have to acquire new weapons, more importantly, you have to spend a big amount of money for this change because, in general, new doctrines are more expensive. So far, we haven't seen any sign that India is moving away from current doctrine yet.

Doctrines are nothing more than lip service. There is no need to tell anyone the number of nuclear warheads to anyone. India might just as well have 20000 warheads and still keep quiet

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

There is one important factor: due to the limited number of nuclear warheads,

Why would anyone limit nuclear warheads? How is it meaningful to relate NFU to limited number of warheads? NFU is just intent, not capability. No one is speaking of limiting nukes here

Instead, by instant retaliation, there is a potential risk that you turn a conventional war into a nuclear war when the incoming BMs are conventional armed. In this case, you are not minimzing your loss but increase it dramatically.

Assuming that a war can be won without going full blown is absurd to say the least. Either you don't plan to win the war, in which case you are unfit or you go full scale at your convenience. Making assumptions of the enemy's fairlplay is not how wars work

Because your nuclear missiles are not targeting enemy’s nuclear force either. For NFS countries, they don’t have the number to escalate, nor de-escalate. Once,

How is number related to doctrine? Doctrine is intent and not capability. It is possible that the country has low number of nukes but it is not related to doctrines.

Sure, the doctrine can be changed, but it can’t be changed overnight. There are a lot of work need to do when you change your doctrine, you can’t pull out a new doctrine from thin air: you have to get your force trained under new doctrine, you have to acquire new weapons, more importantly, you have to spend a big amount of money for this change because, in general, new doctrines are more expensive. So far, we haven't seen any sign that India is moving away from current doctrine yet.

Doctrine is intent and it can be changed in a minute. Unless you are claiming that India is a retard that does not keep vigilance and readiness to face any circumstances, there is no point claiming anything of this sorts. As far as I see, if India has 50k nukes and 10k in canisters and submarine ready to be launched instantly, even then India can still claim NFU.

 

[indus]

Why would anyone limit nuclear warheads? How is it meaningful to relate NFU to limited number of warheads? NFU is just intent, not capability. No one is speaking of limiting nukes here.

Number of warheads is limited by the amount of weapons grade fissile material available with the country. The whole point of civil nuclear deals is to prevent dual use of fissile materials. The waste/ processed fuel from power plants is not used to augment nuclear weapons, thus limiting the amount of fissile material available with the country. So theoritically nobody limits number of warheads but practically they are limited. When a country has few warheads it wont risk itself annihilation by firing first and losing those precious warheads also. The retaliating country if has a larger capability then will guarentee total destruction of the attacker, who will not have anything to save itself. This way NFU becomes a tool to make nukes only a defending weapon hence reducing the probablity of nuclear exchange.

Assuming that a war can be won without going full blown is absurd to say the least. Either you don't plan to win the war, in which case you are unfit or you go full scale at your convenience. Making assumptions of the enemy's fairlplay is not how wars work.

What is the meaning of full blown. Wars are not fought on our whims and fancies where we go full scale on our convenience. Its not convenience but objectives that decide the scale of operations. We had a limited war in 1999 under nuclear overhang.

How is number related to doctrine? Doctrine is intent and not capability. It is possible that the country has low number of nukes but it is not related to doctrines.
Doctrine is intent and it can be changed in a minute. Unless you are claiming that India is a retard that does not keep vigilance and readiness to face any circumstances, there is no point claiming anything of this sorts. As far as I see, if India has 50k nukes and 10k in canisters and submarine ready to be launched instantly, even then India can still claim NFU.

Dont sound so childish. What use is a Doctrine if it cannot be used or applied. Doctrine is intent but that intent is implemented through the capability that you have. Doctrine can be changed in a minute but to implement it on the ground takes years. For example we have the Doctrine of CMD( Credible Minium Deterrence) aganist China. But in reality CMD became effective only when A5 came online as it only gave India the capability to hit anywhere in China. So Doctrine has to be backed up with capability, else its of no use. Btw even USofA does not have more than 6 -8,000 warheads and plan to reduce them under START, SALT treaties with Russians. So ur figures are not realistic, just fantasies.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Number of warheads is limited by the amount of weapons grade fissile material available with the country. The whole point of civil nuclear deals is to prevent dual use of fissile materials. The waste/ processed fuel from power plants is not used to augment nuclear weapons, thus limiting the amount of fissile material available with the country. So theoritically nobody limits number of warheads but practically they are limited. When a country has few warheads it wont risk itself annihilation by firing first and losing those precious warheads also. The retaliating country if has a larger capability then will guarentee total destruction of the attacker, who will not have anything to save itself. This way NFU becomes a tool to make nukes only a defending weapon hence reducing the probablity of nuclear exchange.

What kind of absurdity is this? Do you even know what you are saying? India has 2.1lakh ton of Uranium. India is capable of mining at least half of it. Each ton of uranium has 7.1kg of U235. Running it in PHWR reactor gives 5kg plutonium for complete exhaustion of U235 per ton of natural Uranium. This means that 1 ton of natural uraium can produce 1 bomb (both atom bomb as well as hydrogen bomb by adding second stage). India can produce 1 lakh bombs easily by using Indian Uranium only

Civili nuclear deals is for imported Uranium only. So, let us not mix up things here. India is using Indian Uranium for production of nuclear bombs, not civil uranium from imports.

Finally, total destruction is a myth. Nuclear bombs alone can't cause total destruction. Nuclear bombs are big bombs but not enough for total destruction. In fact, a cyclone has more power than nuclear bombs. Just look at the rains and floods that have wiped out cities in Kerala and made people homeless for example. Even nuclear strikes could not have caused that amount of destruction.

What is the meaning of full blown. Wars are not fought on our whims and fancies where we go full scale on our convenience. Its not convenience but objectives that decide the scale of operations. We had a limited war in 1999 under nuclear overhang.

Why will India launch nuclear bombs arbitrarily without objectives? If there is objective, only then will India launch a nuclear missile. That objective arises because of situation. If enemy launches a ballistic missile at Indian city and the radar detects it, that will create objective for launching mass retaliation. And attacking before enemy gets to refuel and launch another wave is convenient and prudent.

Dont sound so childish. What use is a Doctrine if it cannot be used or applied. Doctrine is intent but that intent is implemented through the capability that you have. Doctrine can be changed in a minute but to implement it on the ground takes years. For example we have the Doctrine of CMD( Credible Minium Deterrence) aganist China. But in reality CMD became effective only when A5 came online as it only gave India the capability to hit anywhere in China. So Doctrine has to be backed up with capability, else its of no use. Btw even USofA does not have more than 6 -8,000 warheads and plan to reduce them under START, SALT treaties with Russians. So ur figures are not realistic, just fantasies

There is no use for many things. These are just political gestures. Don't be childish who can't differentiate between action and rhetorics. NFU is a rhetoric, not capability based. Even minimum credible defence is a rhetoric. Only fools have criteria of minimum and maximum. In war, you do the best you can, not minimum. Agni-3 itself had 3500-5000km range. From Arunachal Pradesh, striking entire China takes just 3500km. India already had Agni-3 long time back to have the deterrence.

USA had 30000 nuclear bombs in 1965. USA is capable of having 1 lakh nuclear bombs even today. The fake treaties serve no purpose. If need arises, USA can assemble more bombs just like it did in 1960s.

Your figures are childish and lack basic understanding. You may be a coward and hence afraid of war that you pretend that there is no capability in anyone. Unless there is a restriction of nature or force above man, there is no reason to assume. If man is capable of doing it, then always expect man to do it. Pakistan can't build that many bombs as they lack the Uranium for it. But those in possession of Uranium can make the bombs and regardless of treaties will try their best to do it. Only regular monitoring and espionage is the way to ensure compliance of such treaty. Sitting at home and assuming absurdity is not the way things work

 

[indus]

What kind of absurdity is this? Do you even know what you are saying? India has 2.1lakh ton of Uranium. India is capable of mining at least half of it. Each ton of uranium has 7.1kg of U235. Running it in PHWR reactor gives 5kg plutonium for complete exhaustion of U235 per ton of natural Uranium. This means that 1 ton of natural uraium can produce 1 bomb (both atom bomb as well as hydrogen bomb by adding second stage). India can produce 1 lakh bombs easily by using Indian Uranium only

Civili nuclear deals is for imported Uranium only. So, let us not mix up things here. India is using Indian Uranium for production of nuclear bombs, not civil uranium from imports.

Finally, total destruction is a myth. Nuclear bombs alone can't cause total destruction. Nuclear bombs are big bombs but not enough for total destruction. In fact, a cyclone has more power than nuclear bombs. Just look at the rains and floods that have wiped out cities in Kerala and made people homeless for example. Even nuclear strikes could not have caused that amount of destruction.


Why will India launch nuclear bombs arbitrarily without objectives? If there is objective, only then will India launch a nuclear missile. That objective arises because of situation. If enemy launches a ballistic missile at Indian city and the radar detects it, that will create objective for launching mass retaliation. And attacking before enemy gets to refuel and launch another wave is convenient and prudent.



There is no use for many things. These are just political gestures. Don't be childish who can't differentiate between action and rhetorics. NFU is a rhetoric, not capability based. Even minimum credible defence is a rhetoric. Only fools have criteria of minimum and maximum. In war, you do the best you can, not minimum. Agni-3 itself had 3500-5000km range. From Arunachal Pradesh, striking entire China takes just 3500km. India already had Agni-3 long time back to have the deterrence.

USA had 30000 nuclear bombs in 1965. USA is capable of having 1 lakh nuclear bombs even today. The fake treaties serve no purpose. If need arises, USA can assemble more bombs just like it did in 1960s.

Your figures are childish and lack basic understanding. You may be a coward and hence afraid of war that you pretend that there is no capability in anyone. Unless there is a restriction of nature or force above man, there is no reason to assume. If man is capable of doing it, then always expect man to do it. Pakistan can't build that many bombs as they lack the Uranium for it. But those in possession of Uranium can make the bombs and regardless of treaties will try their best to do it. Only regular monitoring and espionage is the way to ensure compliance of such treaty. Sitting at home and assuming absurdity is not the way things work

Yeah. My figures are childish. And India producing 1 lakh U bombs easily is a real mature one. Sorry I took ur :bs: seriously.
EoD.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Yeah. My figures are childish. And India producing 1 lakh U bombs easily is a real mature one. Sorry I took ur :bs: seriously.
EoD.

Using such pictures appear very mature. Refuting others without giving a single shred of reasoning or cost-benefit analysis is very mature. If this is our maturity, then even god can't help you.