India's Nuclear Doctrine

Should India have tested a Megaton warhead during Pokran?


  • Total voters
    159

Amrk

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2017
Messages
207
Likes
559
Country flag
The Recent Declassification of India's Secret 'Long Telegram' Shows Why It Went Nuclear

“The main argument in favor of India going nuclear is the Chinese threat” — L.K. Jha (Secretary to Prime Minister) March 5, 1967

“A nuclear stand-off with China is essential as soon as possible” — P.N. Haksar (Secretary to Prime Minister) 1968

The Counsel of History




Indian Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar recently made a controversial “personal” comment that perhaps India must revisit its no first-use nuclear policy. However, the only available document on Indian nuclear policy has been the “Draft Nuclear Doctrine,” which has fostered perpetual speculation on the vector and valences of Indian strategic doctrine. We have had little historical perspective on how Indian doctrine has absorbed Chinese and Pakistan nuclear threats ever since India carried out its first underground nuclear test — “Smiling Buddha” — in May 1974. There is still no consensus on what the historical reasons were for India to cross the no-bomb line or what internal discussions were taking place between the scientists and the prime minister’s office. However, newly declassified documents from the prime minister’s office, which include letters between the prime minister’s office and the Department of Atomic Energy, as well as correspondence between the prime minister and scientists help establish the specific considerations that went into the making of India’s nuclear doctrine. It revises arguments such as those of George Perkovich, that, in the second half of the sixties, “the (Indian) scientists acted without benefit of a national security strategy or requirement.” The documents reveal disquiet among India’s strategists about China’s repeated nuclear tests from 1964 onwards.

India’s “Long Telegram” and Crossing the No-Bomb Line

Perhaps the single most important document for establishing the evolving history of India’s nuclear weapons policy comes from P.N. Haksar, Secretary to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that may be dated to 1968. The note is titled “Need for India In a Changing World to Reassess her National Interest and Foreign policy.” (PN Haksar, Installment IIIrd, Subject File 290, NMML, New Delhi ('LONG TELEGRAM').

The revealing document tends to defy most assumptions held about India’s nuclear policy regarding the level of “stand-off capability” that was being considered in the Prime Minister Secretariat. P.N Haskar wrote:

i. the making of nuclear arms in the shape of medium range (2,000-3,000 miles) capable, from sites within India’s frontiers, of striking with success not only a few chosen targets in Tibet but of ranging as far afield as the industrial heart of China in Manchuria and in the great river valleys south of it which include some of her principal industries and urban centers of population

ii. The development simultaneously of submarines driven by nuclear power fitted out to carry nuclear missiles

iii. This nuclear arms program should be based on adequate stockpiling of those sensitive instruments and machinery…. which will be difficult to import from abroad increasingly

Haksar distinguished between the role of nuclear India as opposed to other nuclear powers. Haksar also reveals his thought that India’s nuclear ambition should be clearly communicated with the United States at a relevant time. The nuclear specter of China remained the overwhelming consideration. Haksar seemed to appreciate nuclear balancing in Europe and wrote of India’s “own security require that she becomes a nuclear power to establish a genuine balance of power with China.”

Haksar wrote this for the benefit of the Indian prime minister almost fifty years ago. This was India’s equivalent of George Kennan’s “long telegram” to the State Department. The long telegram also carried an unsparing assessment of Pakistan as “an unstable state contrived artificially” whose internal logic compelled the “inevitable and chronic hostility of Pakistan to India.” Haksar was India’s Kennan and much of what he assessed has become part of India’s enduring strategic culture. A study of it is central to any constructions of Indian strategic thought. The Indian long telegram assesses the great power approach to Indian nuclear ambition. Haksar acutely felt a “growing convergence of interest in Washington, Peking and Moscow of keeping India under pressure and using Pakistan for the purpose.” He also wrote of both Moscow and Washington having similar a view on balancing India and Pakistan: “making the development of nuclear arms by her (India) that much more difficult by providing measured quantities of arms to Pakistan.” It also gives a window to understanding the Russia-Pakistan rapprochement that was taking place, which had implications for China’s nuclear strategy towards both India and Soviet Union. Haksar grappled with Soviet attempts to gain leverage with Pakistan with the argument that Russia was weaning away Pakistan from China for its own reasons because “close understanding between Pakistan and China may bring nuclear tipped missiles aimed not only at India but the Southern flank of Soviet Union.” Therefore, the dangers of Pakistan and China colluding were not only for India but also for the Soviet Union, and that too in nuclear terms. Haksar self-reflection shows a strategist forming his thoughts rather than a draft where the thoughts are already complete. Uncertain of Soviet strategic intentions, Haskar’s writing reveals a realist exploration of the limits of Indo-Soviet cooperation even as in this same year (1968) military cooperation between India and Soviet Union had begun in earnest. The larger subcontinental strategy of Soviet Union was still not clear.



The Haskar “long telegram” cites Zulfikar Ali Bhutto being under house arrest at the time but acknowledges the possibility of the “flamboyant” Bhutto taking Pakistan closer to China as indeed turned out to be the case. Ayub was seen by both the United States and Russia as a counterweight to India and neither of them wanted to strengthen the war-making capacity of Ayub, but rather his war-deterring capacity towards India.

Another immediate provocation for this “long telegram”: in 1968 Pakistan was looking to set up a nuclear reactor in East Bengal and was holding discussions with Westinghouse before ultimately withdrew. After Soviet statesman Alexei Kosygin’s visit to Pakistan in the same year, it settled for commissioning a feasibility study by Soviet “Technopromexport.” Soviets considered the cooperation a pure commercial transaction in the manner that France described much of its arms and nuclear sales. One of the reasons why Westinghouse withdrew from the bid was because, according to the Indian embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan wanted to retain used fuel rods. If Pakistan had succeeded in creating the impression that it had a nuclear explosive device in East Bengal or even a nuclear facility in East Bengal that would have made any intervention by India in that region out of question. This is not to give the impression that India had designs on breaking off East Bengal much before 1971, but it was a factor that could not have been taken lightly by India.


By 1967, as revealed by a cable from External Affairs official J.S. Mehta from the Indian embassy in Washington to the Chairman of Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) Prime Minister Secretariat that there were differences between the U.S. administration and Congress on the ICBM capability of the Chinese nuclear program. The administration felt that Chinese ICBM would only be ready by 1971-72 and miniaturization of warhead would have to precede any ICBM capability. Congressional hearings revealed that China was still struggling with submarine missile launch. Sidney Graybeal, an advisor to President Kennedy during Cuban missile crisis and a CIA expert on Chinese rocketry, informed Indian EZ official K.P. Jain that China was going to test an ICBM by placing a satellite in orbit irrespective of the size of the payload. The missile test itself would be into the Indian Ocean off the coast of Tanzania and the CIA was monitoring the presence of Chinese technicians in Tanzania. It was also apparent that the Cultural Revolution had not slowed down Chinese nuclear program. In April 1970, K.R. Narayanan (Policy Planning Division-MEA Ministry of External Affairs) wrote on the launch of the earth satellite by China as a follow up to his 1964 paper when he was Director of the China Division. At about this time Haksar had written that India’s “India’s future status in the world and her own security require that she becomes a nuclear power so as to establish a genuine regional balance of power with China.” In March 1969, the Government of India answered in Lok Sabha that it “did not consider it necessary to seek any nuclear umbrella.” (MEA, 1969) As a former Chairman of Indian Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. M.R Srinivasan told the author, “no one in current memory knows that an Indian thinker as P.N. Haksar was already thinking in terms of a triad and it has till now remained hidden in the archives.”

The April 1970 satellite launch established that China had acquired MRBM range. Indian agencies were all basing their nuclear calculation around China. China’s nuclear program established the success of the Communist leadership in navigating through domestic political and economic upheaval while keeping the nuclear program a consistent priority. Subramanian Swamy had written in the October 1970 issue of United Service Institution of India Journal that in a nuclear conflict with a major power, China would have to rely on second strike with fifteen to twenty missiles to undertake assured destruction. (Swamy, 1970) Ten would be decoys and ten pointed at cities to penetrate Nike-X. Calculating for eluding sprint missile detonation height among other things, it would succeed in destroying at least three cities by radioactive fallout, which was a sufficient deterrent for China. This argument was a way of arguing that even a smaller number of missiles with appropriate strategies could give sufficient deterrence for counter value massive retaliation. This was a counterpoint to the United Nations study on the minimum deterrence, which placed the arsenal at one hundred warheads, thirty to fifty aircrafts and fifty missiles.

There was also an argument at the time that India should go in for a tactical weapon arsenal instead of strategic systems. As the PMO documents reveal, this was considered head on by the Department of Atomic Energy. The Indian atomic establishment argued that if China were to meet determined resistance from our ground forces while crossing the Himalayas, she could make use of tactical nuclear weapons and demoralize our troops. It concluded that the argument that India could impact the military situation by possessing only tactical weapons was a fallacy and that India needed to focus on developing strategic delivery capability rather than settling for a small tactical arsenal.



If China is using a nuclear weapon to bully or to annihilate our forces, we can expect China to escalate the conflict if the limited use is successfully countered by us. China is known to be developing a strategic nuclear weapon system involving long range guided missiles. Therefore, the only way by which we could deter Chinese escalation would be to ourselves have a strategic system capable of inflicting an unacceptable damage on China. (PMO File Manufacture of Atomic Bomb File No. 56/69/70-Parl; PMO (Prime Minister Office), NAI; New Delhi, India)

The only way to stop China from escalating was to have second-strike capability inflicting unacceptable damage. According to the Department of Atomic Energy, “paper tigers do not provide security, that is, you cannot bluff in regard to your military strength.” India would require a total defensive system rather than a prototype by a scientist. However, since Indian cities were within range of China’s intermediate missile arsenal, India would require longer ranges missile to bring Chinese cities within their striking capacity. The completion of the reprocessing facility at Tarapur, which had begun in 1968, was a pointer in the direction the prime minister’s office was thinking.

In conclusion, it would be a mistake to ascribe the wisdom of Indian nuclear doctrine and strategy merely to those who came in at the weaponization operationalization stage. The archival history establishes that doctrinal inquiries went back to the mid-1960s. China was and remains the main nuclear threat for India. Indian nuclear doctrine considers China to be its main nuclear rival. Former National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon told the author that since Pakistani delivery platforms are essentially based on Chinese systems, it made them an extension of the Chinese nuclear threat.

Vivek Prahladan is a visiting researcher at Keio University in Japan.

Image: An Indian Air Force Jaguar GR-1 Shamser (Sword of Justice) ground attack aircraft. Wikimedia Commons/U.S. Air Force

 

prohumanity

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,290
Likes
1,347
Don't talk about Chinese threat or Paki threat or US threat....In a nations like a threat is a threat...THREATS keep changing...today it is Paki..tomorrow China...day after NATO......Don't let people narrow down in believing that a specific country is threat..
The planning of a nation for its safety should be based on THE THREAT....from any nation on face of Earth.
Western propaganda wants you to believe China is a threat...you prepapre narrowly.20 years from now, China becomes your friend and the other guy becomes your enemy...and you are unprepapred to deal with this new enemy.
 

Cutting Edge 2

Space Power
Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2017
Messages
984
Likes
1,934
Don't talk about Chinese threat or Paki threat or US threat....
Why not? What is the down side?:troll:

We have freedom of speech and we do have a Paki and Chinese threat, hence we discuss about Paki and Chinese threat.

THREATS keep changing...today it is Paki..tomorrow China...day after NATO
I agree.

Don't let people narrow down in believing that a specific country is threat..
We are a democracy. We need people's consent before any decision regarding defence. To do this we need an enemy with a face. We can't say "oh lets spend billions and billions of taxpayer's money on something that we may need in future against someone we don't know yet." This type of logic only works in dictatorships.

The planning of a nation for its safety should be based on THE THREAT....from any nation on face of Earth.
I agree but such type of long term strategic thinking is very hard to explain to general public.

Western propaganda wants you to believe China is a threat...
Our newfound love with west is barely 15 years old, where our territorial issues with China goes back to 1960's. Is it western propaganda that China invaded us and took Aksai Chin from us? Is it western propaganda that China is building CPEC on OUR territory.

you prepapre narrowly.
20 years from now, China becomes your friend and the other guy becomes your enemy...and you are unprepapred to deal with this new enemy.
I agree. Ideally our military should be capable of taking any force in the world but unfortunately right now we don't have resources(read money) to match against country like USA. Maybe in future (when our economy becomes strong) we will heed your advice and build the most fearsome military on earth.:shoot:
 
Last edited:

TPFscopes

Rest in Peace
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
1,235
Likes
2,604
Why not? What is the down side?:troll:

We have freedom of speech and we do have a Paki and Chinese threat, hence we discuss about Paki and Chinese threat.


I agree.


We are a democracy. We need people's consent before any decision regarding defence. To do this we need an enemy with a face. We can't say "oh lets spend billions and billions of taxpayer's money on something that we may need in future against someone we don't know yet." This type of logic only works in dictatorships.


I agree but such type of long term strategic thinking is very hard to explain to general public.


Our newfound love with west is barely 15 years old, where our territorial issues with China goes back to 1960's. Is it western propaganda that China invaded us and took Aksai Chin from us? Is it western propaganda that China is building CPEC on OUR territory.



I agree. Ideally our military should be capable of taking any force in the world but unfortunately right now we don't have resources(read money) to match against country like USA. Maybe in future (when our economy becomes strong) we will heed your advice and build the most fearsome military on earth.:shoot:

What you have described is ideal situation. Reality is if it was't for our two hostile neighbours our military would have been among the ranks of Thailand and Myanmar.
Totally agreed with you.
It is China and Pakistan , who continuously hurting Indian regional sovereignty.
So, we can call it a Threat.
 

kunal1123

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
572
Likes
1,039
Country flag
idrw.org
India-Japan Nuclear Energy Pact Comes Into Effect Today
2-3 minutes


SOURCE: INDIA



The agreement between India and Japan for the cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy came into force on Thursday. This agreement between the two nations was inked on November 11, 2016, during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Tokyo. As per Japan Times, the pact can be terminated only if India carries out a nuclear test. With an aim to boost business ties, Japan signed the pact to sell nuclear power equipment and technology to India.

Japan, led by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, signed the pact with New Delhi for the very first time with a country that isn’t a member of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The law of the treaty does not permit the non-members from developing and having nuclear weapons. The five nations that fall under the treaty are United States, China, Russia, United Kingdom and France. These nations, as per the treaty, have tested and built nuclear before January 1, 1967. The Nuclear Suppliers Group that consists of 48 countries like US, Japan, UK, China etc.

According to Al Jazeera, critics in Japan voiced concerns as they could foresee a risk in exchanging country’s technology with New Delhi. But, Abe put a full stop at the critics by saying that the deal has been inked for ‘peaceful’ commercial use. Same words were spoken by his counterpart PM Modi. This pact allows India to reprocess fuel and enrich uranium. Enriched uranium is required for making nuclear weapons and to do so a written permission will be required by Tokyo.

On inking such a pact with India, Abe in 2016 had said: ” It has been set in such a legal framework that India will act responsibly for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.” He also to the world informed that he has got India to participate in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

PM Modi called this a historic move then that will help India in combat the climate change. Japan is the only country to witness the nuclear attack which is Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II.


now what is that............................. participate NPT India..............?????????????????
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
5,002
Likes
13,130
Country flag
now what is that............................. participate NPT India..............?????????????????
This is bol bacchan to calm down no-nuke morons in Japan. The fine print of agreement only says that in event India breaks it's commitment and tests nuke still Japan will only asses the situation and can't break agreement outright.

All in all Japan has accepted both India as a nuclear power and it's right to test nukes
 

kunal1123

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
572
Likes
1,039
Country flag
This is bol bacchan to calm down no-nuke morons in Japan. The fine print of agreement only says that in event India breaks it's commitment and tests nuke still Japan will only asses the situation and can't break agreement outright.

All in all Japan has accepted both India as a nuclear power and it's right to test nukes
where do u get that to know is that fine print available to verify . till then only public release info is valid.......
well even if is only for saying India should not deter from it old stand ( npt only if allowed as nuclear power status).
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
5,002
Likes
13,130
Country flag
where do u get that to know is that fine print available to verify . till then only public release info is valid.......
well even if is only for saying India should not deter from it old stand ( npt only if allowed as nuclear power status).
Read it in Japani news paper. Search Google for it. Japani anti nukes lobby wanted clear wording to abort treaty in case India goes for test but the treaty allows leeway for test according to conditions.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...use-despite-opposition-concerns/#.WXEFgYHhXqA

Tokyo has insisted that the treaty enables a strong response — by suspending cooperation — if India were to conduct nuclear tests. Unlike nuclear deals with Jordan and Vietnam, however, the India-Japan accord does not specify nuclear testing as a condition for terminating the agreement.

Opposition parties have asked the government why there is no mention of “nuclear test” as a condition to halt the pact. During negotiations, India had firmly rejected adoption of the wording.

Adding to concerns is a provision that gives special consideration in cases where a third-party state acts in a way that threaten’s India’s national security. This has sparked controversy because the language is vague as to Japan’s response under the scenario.
 

lcafanboy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
3,479
Likes
11,590
Country flag
‘It’s India’s nuclear power that Pakistan fears’: Highlights from Shahid Khaqan Abbasi’s first international interview
Published September 21, 2017 SOURCE: FIRST POST

In his first international television interview as the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi dismissed US’ allegations that the country was hosting terrorists on its soil. Speaking to CNN International, Abbasi maintained that, despite differences, Pakistan was together with US on its stand against terror. Abbasi spoke to the channel on the sidelines of the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly. Abbasi told CNN International that his country was an ally in the war against terror and it viewed India as a threat instead. Here are the highlights from the interview:

On Pakistan-US ties

Abbasi said that 70-year-old relationship between Pakistan and US’ relationship had seen its own ups and downs and Afghanistan was not the only thing which defined the situation. “We have always been an ally, especially a partner in the war against terror. We may have difference of opinion, especially based on the modalities of how we operate, but we want to work with the US to counter this menace of terrorism,” the prime minister said. Abbasi, who replaced deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif in August, had met US vice-president Mike Pence on the sidelines of the General Assembly on Tuesday. Pence briefed Abbasi of ways that Pakistan could work with the United States and others to bolster stability and prosperity for all in South Asia. It was the highest contact between the two countries since Trump announced his new policy on Afghanistan and South Asia in August where he warned Pakistan for the nation’s continued support to terrorist groups. Trump had said that Pakistan had much to “gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan,” much to the dislike of Pakistan. During his meeting with Pence, Abbasi also expressed concern over the greater role that Trump advocated for India in his new Afghan policy. Interestingly, Trump in his maiden speech at the General Assembly on Tuesday touched upon the subject of countries acting as ‘safe havens’ for terrorists. In a not-so-veiled reference, Trump referred to countries who are sheltering, supporting and financing terror groups like Al Qaeda and warned them. On 30 August, Pakistan’s National Assembly had passed a resolution dismissing South Asia policy. The lawmakers said it was a lack of respect from Washington for the country’s sacrifices in the war against militancy and its successes against groups like Al Qaeda, Islamic State or the Pakistani Taliban.

‘India as a threat’

Rejecting US’ claim that Pakistan was not taking enough measures to stop terror on its soil, Abbasi said that terrorism is a threat for everyone. “For us, India was the force that we have fought three wars with. India is a threat to Pakistan, we accept that,” Abbasi said. He explained that it was India’s nuclear power that Pakistan feared. “We have to defend ourselves several times. We developed nuclear weapons against the threat that India posed,” the prime minister said. At an event organised by the Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday, Abbasi had also affirmed that Pakistan had developed short-range nuclear weapons as a counter to the India’s Cold Start doctrine. At the same event, he also alleged that the Indian aggression along the Line of Control (LoC) was meant to draw attention away from the actual struggle of the Kashmiris “who have today risen against the Indian occupation there.” Demanding the implementation of the UN Security Council resolution on Kashmir, Abbasi had also maintained that Pakistan wanted normal relations with India “but on the basis of trust and respect.”

Trump and terror

Speaking on US’ earlier move to suspend military aid to Pakistan, Abbasi said that his government expected no major change in US’ stand. “I met US vice president Pence on Tuesday and explained our role to him. We don’t expect a significant shift. We are willing to work with the US to fight the war against terror. The enemy is the same,” he said. Trump administration had in July decided to block $350 million in coalition support fund to Pakistan after denying that Islamabad had taken “sufficient actions” against Haqqani terror network. Speaking to channel, Abbasi added, “We are trying to work with President Trump. We listen to his viewpoint, speeches, policy statements. As Pakistan, we need to work with the US, on issues related to the world, especially terror.”

On North Korea’s missile programmes

Calling North Korea’s irresponsible firing of missiles “a cause of concern,” Abbasi expressed that Pakistan was against the country’s programmes. “North Korea needs to submit to the international regulatory authorities. We have not contributed to North Korea’s programme, that should be very clear. We have always stressed North Korea to behave responsibly, as per the world community wants,” he said. North Korea has received much criticism from other nations for carrying independent nuclear programmes, with the UN also imposing sanctions after its sixth and largest nuclear test. However, Pyongyang had defended its action saying that it was doing so to protect itself from “hostile” US forces.

http://idrw.org/its-indias-nuclear-...is-first-international-interview/#more-148476 .
 

lcafanboy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
3,479
Likes
11,590
Country flag
US spies had info on India’s nuclear missiles years before launch – NSA leaks
Published time: 20 Sep, 2017 21:23
Get short URL


K-15 Sagarika, a nuclear-capable submarine-launched ballistic missile © missiledefenseadvocacy.org


The Intercept last week, and traced back to the from National Security Agency’s Signal Intelligence Directorate internal newsletter, SIDtoday.


Read more

Greenwald: Terrorism used as ‘pretext’ for mass data collection

The papers were part of the trove of documents that was handed over to journalists by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013, in one of the largest leaks ever of US intelligence data.

One of the freshly released documents, titled “New collection access yields ‘spectacular’ intel,” has revealed US spying activities against India carried out by NSA sites abroad. It states that an NSA facility in Australia, codenamed RAINFALL, “had successfully geolocated signals of a suspected Indian nuclear weapons storage facility” in October 2004.

A Thailand-based “Foreign Satellite collection facility” codenamed LEMONWOOD then collaborated with NSA’s Unidentified Signal and Protocol Analysis Branch at NSA in “isolating these signals” and confirming their relation to the Indian nuclear weaponry. Additional equipment was than deployed to LEMONWOOD to “expand the modest collection.”

“Immediately after fielding this equipment, collection of this new network began to provide what is being called ‘spectacular’ activity,” the document said.

READ MORE: CIA’s secret spy tool helps agency steal data from NSA & FBI, WikiLeaks reveals


According to the Intercept, this activity eventually allowed the US to obtain data about the Sagarika and Dhanush nuclear-capable missiles, years before they were test-fired by the Indian military.

Sagarika, a submarine-launched ballistic missile, has been in development since the 1990s. It was first successfully tested in 2008. The missile can be launched from both ground launchers and from underwater, and can carry a payload of up to 500 kilograms for a distance of up to 700 kilometers.

READ MORE: Terrorism a lower threat 'even if 9/11 happened every year' – Snowden


Dhanush, a sea-launched short-range ballistic missile, can carry the same payload of 500 kilograms up to a distance of 250 kilometers. It was first successfully test-fired in 2016, more than a decade after the NSA obtained information about the project.

According to the SIDtoday article cited by the Intercept, the NSA had also obtained information “on India’s possession of two different types of airdropped bombs.”

The first one was described in the paper as a “very large Fuel Air Explosive,” while the other one may have belonged to a “new generation of airdropped nuclear weapons.”

https://www.rt.com/news/404008-india-nuclear-missile-us-nsa/

More than the US spying on India's nuclear missiles which is a known and given fact, I am interested in knowing what type of Bombs the article is pointing at (highlighted in red). Can some one confirm?
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,061
Likes
7,706
Country flag
US spies had info on India’s nuclear missiles years before launch – NSA leaks
Published time: 20 Sep, 2017 21:23
Get short URL


K-15 Sagarika, a nuclear-capable submarine-launched ballistic missile © missiledefenseadvocacy.org


The Intercept last week, and traced back to the from National Security Agency’s Signal Intelligence Directorate internal newsletter, SIDtoday.


Read more

Greenwald: Terrorism used as ‘pretext’ for mass data collection

The papers were part of the trove of documents that was handed over to journalists by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013, in one of the largest leaks ever of US intelligence data.

One of the freshly released documents, titled “New collection access yields ‘spectacular’ intel,” has revealed US spying activities against India carried out by NSA sites abroad. It states that an NSA facility in Australia, codenamed RAINFALL, “had successfully geolocated signals of a suspected Indian nuclear weapons storage facility” in October 2004.

A Thailand-based “Foreign Satellite collection facility” codenamed LEMONWOOD then collaborated with NSA’s Unidentified Signal and Protocol Analysis Branch at NSA in “isolating these signals” and confirming their relation to the Indian nuclear weaponry. Additional equipment was than deployed to LEMONWOOD to “expand the modest collection.”

“Immediately after fielding this equipment, collection of this new network began to provide what is being called ‘spectacular’ activity,” the document said.

READ MORE: CIA’s secret spy tool helps agency steal data from NSA & FBI, WikiLeaks reveals


According to the Intercept, this activity eventually allowed the US to obtain data about the Sagarika and Dhanush nuclear-capable missiles, years before they were test-fired by the Indian military.

Sagarika, a submarine-launched ballistic missile, has been in development since the 1990s. It was first successfully tested in 2008. The missile can be launched from both ground launchers and from underwater, and can carry a payload of up to 500 kilograms for a distance of up to 700 kilometers.

READ MORE: Terrorism a lower threat 'even if 9/11 happened every year' – Snowden


Dhanush, a sea-launched short-range ballistic missile, can carry the same payload of 500 kilograms up to a distance of 250 kilometers. It was first successfully test-fired in 2016, more than a decade after the NSA obtained information about the project.

According to the SIDtoday article cited by the Intercept, the NSA had also obtained information “on India’s possession of two different types of airdropped bombs.”

The first one was described in the paper as a “very large Fuel Air Explosive,” while the other one may have belonged to a “new generation of airdropped nuclear weapons.”

https://www.rt.com/news/404008-india-nuclear-missile-us-nsa/

More than the US spying on India's nuclear missiles which is a known and given fact, I am interested in knowing what type of Bombs the article is pointing at (highlighted in red). Can some one confirm?
Fuel Air Explosive simply means a Thermobaric bomb. Sort of Indian MOAB or FOAB.

New generation airdropped nuclear weapon could be anything. But most probably low yield cluster nuclear ammo for strategic bombing.
 

porky_kicker

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
3,707
Likes
21,740
Country flag
Fuel Air Explosive simply means a Thermobaric bomb. Sort of Indian MOAB or FOAB.

New generation airdropped nuclear weapon could be anything. But most probably low yield cluster nuclear ammo for strategic bombing.
publicly India has this - a indigenous 500 kg FAE air dropped bomb (210 kg fuel) based on Russian ODAB-500

i wonder if India has larger FAE air dropped bomb , considering the unavailability of dedicated bombers

q.jpg
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,061
Likes
7,706
Country flag
publicly India has this - a indigenous 500 kg FAE air dropped bomb (210 kg fuel) based on Russian ODAB-500

i wonder if India has larger FAE air dropped bomb , considering the unavailability of dedicated bombers

View attachment 20312
Actually at that time period, as mentioned in the report, IAF had opted for dedicated bomber. But our govt had cancelled the idea. Actually idea of dedicated bomber was there till somewhere around 2010, but after that MMRCA idea took over.
 

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
2,600
Likes
3,008
Country flag
@Chinmoy
India claimed to have TN bombs after Operation Shakti in 1998. This has been debated several times in multiple public channels as well as in discussion sites.

Officially, we are a thermonuclear power.
The only question that remains is of yield. The Pokhran device no. 1 was a 45kT detonation. It is claimed that the device could go up to 200kT and yes, it was an actual miniaturised warhead.
I wouldn't be surprised if we have a 100kT warhead on our Agni missiles. But it would be a sweet surprise if some of them were really 200kT.
Do we have a MT range bomb? I don't think we do. But certainly have the know how to make one. Do we need a MT range bomb? Yes.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,061
Likes
7,706
Country flag
@Chinmoy
India claimed to have TN bombs after Operation Shakti in 1998. This has been debated several times in multiple public channels as well as in discussion sites.

Officially, we are a thermonuclear power.
The only question that remains is of yield. The Pokhran device no. 1 was a 45kT detonation. It is claimed that the device could go up to 200kT and yes, it was an actual miniaturised warhead.
I wouldn't be surprised if we have a 100kT warhead on our Agni missiles. But it would be a sweet surprise if some of them were really 200kT.
Do we have a MT range bomb? I don't think we do. But certainly have the know how to make one. Do we need a MT range bomb? Yes.
No way I am going to argue on the fact that India does possess Thermonuclear weapon and tested it.

But if you do read the journal, what fascinated me is infact the design. Writer is mentioning about boosted-fission design here instead of Staged design. Now as per layman logic with boosted fission design, we could achieve Kt yield, but Mt is somewhat out of range for me with this design. Moreover with the accuracy of Indian BM's I too feel that designers are more interested in bringing down the collateral damage numbers.

But on other hand, I would love to see a staged ThermoNucler warhead and if possible a pure Fusion based :)devil:) warhead on our missiles. Below are two snapshot for our wet dream consumption.

200Kt.JPG

200 Kt impact on a airburst mode.

1Mt.JPG

1 Mt impact on same airbust mode.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
5,002
Likes
13,130
Country flag
I wouldn't be surprised if we have a 100kT warhead on our Agni missiles. But it would be a sweet surprise if some of them were really 200kT.
Do we have a MT range bomb? I don't think we do. But certainly have the know how to make one. Do we need a MT range bomb? Yes.
NoKo has changed the game!!
I have a simple question if NoKo can test a megaton device what can India do???

Anyone with a functional brain will conclude India to posses far more advanced technology than NoKo in every sphere of science.

Now to think India doesn't have MT level warheads??? To me it sounds absurd. If we had given up on nuclear weapons I would understand. ( Like Germany or Japan) .

But we haven't. I won't doubt that Japan or Germany can come up with megaton warhead in few months. So I won't doubt Indian capabilities either.

Regarding testing I have another sincere question , let's say we test a megaton yield bomb. Earthquake is registered but we never claim the test, so who will call us out on our test .
Let's say USA and China both find out that it was not a natural quake but a thermonuclear one , so what are they going to do?? If USA calls us out on the test it will have to sanction us that means ending all alliance , severing business , loosing defense deals forever , pushing India in love with Russia again?? Meanwhile we keep denying the test. Who will the world listen too?? Chinese can't do anything other than assuring pakis. And Chinese will know what is in store for them!!

That is how deterrence works. Even without an MT test. Chinese and porkies both know very well that India can design and deploy MT warheads. There decision makers know it and that is all that matters .

What any jingo on internet thinks is irrelevant.
 

IndianHawk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
5,002
Likes
13,130
Country flag
Also how much time it took NoKo to go from 10-20 kt to 150 kt?? 7-8 years??

We have been sitting on experimental data of 45 kt for 20 years now?? Have we bee doing nothing?? This is again illogical and stupid.

Meanwhile we went from 1000 km missiles to 8000km!
We went from lower earth orbit to moon and onto Mars!! ( Where chinese can't reach as of today!!)
Our supercomputers grew multiple times more powerful.
We built nuke reactor for submarines. We build prototype fast breeder reactor!!

To even think that our warhead yield and design have not improved multiple times is a very naive thought!!

All just because we chose not to test publicly??

Maybe I'm wrong but still the I can't believe we don't posses anything that noko does??
We posses a hell lot more.
 

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
2,600
Likes
3,008
Country flag
@IndianHawk and @Chinmoy very nice posts. Really valid points.
IMHO we already have a MT range weapon as a blueprint.
But if you do read the journal, what fascinated me is infact the design. Writer is mentioning about boosted-fission design here instead of Staged design. Now as per layman logic with boosted fission design, we could achieve Kt yield, but Mt is somewhat out of range for me with this design. Moreover with the accuracy of Indian BM's I too feel that designers are more interested in bringing down the collateral damage numbers.

But on other hand, I would love to see a staged ThermoNucler warhead and if possible a pure Fusion based :)devil:) warhead on our missiles.
Yeah, that's what struck me too, he talks of fusion boosted fission. The maximum power of this design is still derived from fission and fusion just boosts the reaction with more neutrons. I bet we have this in our warheads even before Shakti series of tests. There is no doubt that India always has a credible deterrent when our threats are Pakistan and China.
As you rightly mentioned, it is fission boosted fusion (Teller-Ulam) which should be our target. Deliverable warheads of MT range are only possible in Teller-Ulam/Sloika design.
Meanwhile we went from 1000 km missiles to 8000km!
We went from lower earth orbit to moon and onto Mars!! ( Where chinese can't reach as of today!!)
Our supercomputers grew multiple times more powerful.
We built nuke reactor for submarines. We build prototype fast breeder reactor!!
You have really hit the bull's eye. It would be in'credible' to think we would not have MT even after 20 years of Shakti.

Regarding testing I have another sincere question , let's say we test a megaton yield bomb. Earthquake is registered but we never claim the test, so who will call us out on our test .
Let's say USA and China both find out that it was not a natural quake but a thermonuclear one , so what are they going to do?? If USA calls us out on the test it will have to sanction us that means ending all alliance , severing business , loosing defense deals forever , pushing India in love with Russia again?? Meanwhile we keep denying the test. Who will the world listen too?? Chinese can't do anything other than assuring pakis. And Chinese will know what is in store for them!!
Yeah, you would be right. Except for the fact that all our so called friends (read USA and West) would call us out in a matter of minutes even if we didn't claim them. In fact, not claiming them would be foolish as some scientist or the other sources would always leak and intelligence agencies of world powers always find out anyway. Also, claiming TN tests is the right thing to do. That is how MAD works.
You know I have a 6 foot sabre, I know you have 5.9 foot sabre, so I am sure that both of us will be destroyed in case we fight with them and that would stop me from attacking you in the first place.
This is also another way that deterrence works.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top