India's Nuclear Doctrine

Should India have tested a Megaton warhead during Pokran?


  • Total voters
    159

Vijyes

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2016
Messages
1,978
Likes
1,701
Going by your logic, every other country should have a nuclear bomb by now. On other hand, there is nothing like Atom bomb. It was a misnomer.
Designing one is not a small deal. Its the design, not the fuel which matters most. You want to have maximum yield from minimum fuel and it could be achieved by design only. Currently design for Indian nuclear warhead is somewhere in 1Kt per kg yield. Means for 100 Kt yield we are using 100 kg of fissile material. Now for us with severe drought of fissile material, this design is not economic.

CNC and Lase cutting could only provide you with the vessel to hold the materials, it can't help you out with the procedure to carry out a controlled detonation of secondary stage to have a massive primary blast.
Many countries can make crude nuclear bombs today. Even south Africa had very advanced nuclear program before giving up. What stops many countries is economical and political fallout. Also not having a nuclear enemy or nuclear neighbor helps. And not many are looking to be super powers which must posses the nukes.



Your logic is correct . But we need nuclear weapons for survival against an all out war with china. Economic consideration are thus secondary in this matter. So even if we have a basic design which is not very efficient on fuel count but just as explosive as supposed to be we can bear the cost for the security it provides.

As for fuel we are importing uranium from many countries now and our own resources are increasing multiple times via continous find in andhra Pradesh.

Meanwhile we must be working on design optimization. What do they do in barc anyway.
First, nuclear weapons are easy to make and are much less complicated than making a computer. Countries like syria and Iran did try to make them several times but western countries bombed or cyber attacked them.

It is not complicated and once even a single testing is successfully done, it can be assumed that the rest of the technology is easy to make.
 

Khagesh

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,274
Likes
864
Young Gun The Great :devil::devil::devil::devil: This time please please please let it be a Tsar Bomba Ka Baap.


North Korea did not just change the scenario in the Far East it may change the whole bloody world pretty soon. Because they are likely to test in the middle of pacific and whatever North Korea has obviously will be with the Pakis too.

CNN already seems to have changed its headlines. :pound:


http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/kim-jong-un-on-trump-comments/index.html
North Korea could test hydrogen bomb over Pacific Ocean, says foreign minister
By Joshua Berlinger and Zahra Ullah, CNN
Updated 0257 GMT (1057 HKT) September 23, 2017
(CNN)North Korea could test a powerful nuclear weapon over the Pacific Ocean in response to US President Donald Trump's threats of military action, the country's foreign minister has warned.


http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...s-strongest-hydrogen-bomb-test-pacific-ocean/
North Korea Threatens ‘Strongest Hydrogen Bomb Test Over Pacific Ocean’
On Thursday, North Korea’s Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho said his nation may soon conduct a hydrogen bomb test over the Pacific Ocean.
It could be the most powerful detonation of an H-bomb in the Pacific. We have no idea about what actions could be taken as it will be ordered by leader Kim Jong-un,” Ri told reporters in New York, where he was attending the United Nations General Assembly.

Fox News, among many other media outlets, view Ri’s remark as part of dictator Kim “Rocket Man” Jong-un’s furious backlash against President Donald Trump’s address to the U.N. Kim has publicly vowed to retaliate against Trump for his comments, and to intensify his regime’s efforts to obtain reliable nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles.


 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,175
Likes
8,013
Country flag
Many countries can make crude nuclear bombs today. Even south Africa had very advanced nuclear program before giving up. What stops many countries is economical and political fallout. Also not having a nuclear enemy or nuclear neighbor helps. And not many are looking to be super powers which must posses the nukes.



Your logic is correct . But we need nuclear weapons for survival against an all out war with china. Economic consideration are thus secondary in this matter. So even if we have a basic design which is not very efficient on fuel count but just as explosive as supposed to be we can bear the cost for the security it provides.

As for fuel we are importing uranium from many countries now and our own resources are increasing multiple times via continous find in andhra Pradesh.

Meanwhile we must be working on design optimization. What do they do in barc anyway.
Crude nuclear bomb and a well designed low yield weapon are two different faces of a bomb. You could have a canister full of HEU with a rod of plastic explosive in middle. It is too a short of bomb with right fuel, but it is known as a dirty bomb instead of a nuclear bomb.

Lets talk about our Nooclear neighbour. Its a well known fact that they had mated nuclear warhead with Nasr missile for battlefield use. But their design is based on implosion. Now in this design, only 25% of the fuel undergoes fission and rest is scattered useless. This could be very well compared with a dirty bomb instead of a well efficient design which could churn out most of its fuel. The equation is simple in layman term, the more fuel you burn, the more yield you derive from the design. So design of a nuclear weapon does matter.

As far as economy is concerned, I was talking about economy of fissile material. We don't posses a lot of it. We do have dual purpose of it unlike our neighbour. If we take the official count of 120 warheads with us and assume that every warhead is of 100Kt and we do have a out put of 1Kt per kg, then we have used 12 tons of fissile material in this. But unofficially we do posses more warheads. So it matters how efficient our design is and how much we could derive out of each kg of our fissile material.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,175
Likes
8,013
Country flag
First, nuclear weapons are easy to make and are much less complicated than making a computer. Countries like syria and Iran did try to make them several times but western countries bombed or cyber attacked them.

It is not complicated and once even a single testing is successfully done, it can be assumed that the rest of the technology is easy to make.
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
 

Superdefender

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2016
Messages
1,207
Likes
1,050
Usually a 100kg warhead yields 100kt. Have our scientific minds found technology to get the same 100kt yield out of 50kg warhead?
 

Vijyes

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2016
Messages
1,978
Likes
1,701
Usually a 100kg warhead yields 100kt. Have our scientific minds found technology to get the same 100kt yield out of 50kg warhead?
The warhead also includes several items for packaging which adds weight. I don't think the weight can be further reduced to that extent.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,134
Likes
839
Country flag
Lets talk about our Nooclear neighbour. Its a well known fact that they had mated nuclear warhead with Nasr missile for battlefield use.
I doubt that. The yield of the nuclear warhead is so low that would make the whole weapon useless. 1kt yield? That won't impose any meaningful damage to any army ever trained how to fight in nuclear condition.

People should have a look of US and Soviet WW3 plan to understand why tactical nuclear weapon is kind of expensive toys that only these 2 can afford.
 

Vijyes

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2016
Messages
1,978
Likes
1,701
I doubt that. The yield of the nuclear warhead is so low that would make the whole weapon useless. 1kt yield? That won't impose any meaningful damage to any army ever trained how to fight in nuclear condition.

People should have a look of US and Soviet WW3 plan to understand why tactical nuclear weapon is kind of expensive toys that only these 2 can afford.
Artillery shells were also made nuclear by USA. It may not cause a serious damage but even 1kT will cause larger damage than other conventional warheads of same size. A circle with radius of 100 metres will be hit very hard and almost every equipment within it will be wiped out and the damage to infantry and battle formation can be upto a circle of radius 300 metres.

In terms of area - 2(pi)r^2, 100m circle is 0.063km^2 and 300m circle is 0.6km^2 which is a big area
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,175
Likes
8,013
Country flag
I doubt that. The yield of the nuclear warhead is so low that would make the whole weapon useless. 1kt yield? That won't impose any meaningful damage to any army ever trained how to fight in nuclear condition.

People should have a look of US and Soviet WW3 plan to understand why tactical nuclear weapon is kind of expensive toys that only these 2 can afford.
Actually it would be of sub Kt yield. But more then that, it is about polluting the whole marching column. It is more about psychological warfare then tactical. Who would want to venture in a area polluted with nuclear fallout? Warhead like those of Nasr are more dirty bombs then pure nuclear weapon.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,175
Likes
8,013
Country flag
Usually a 100kg warhead yields 100kt. Have our scientific minds found technology to get the same 100kt yield out of 50kg warhead?
Not necessarily. It could yield higher or lower depending on the design.
 

Vijyes

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2016
Messages
1,978
Likes
1,701
Actually it would be of sub Kt yield. But more then that, it is about polluting the whole marching column. It is more about psychological warfare then tactical. Who would want to venture in a area polluted with nuclear fallout? Warhead like those of Nasr are more dirty bombs then pure nuclear weapon.
Here are some videos to debunk the myths of blast effects :
US soldiers exposed to blast effects but survive -

Blast of 2kT tactical nuke at 3km above soldiers heads but soldiers live happily for over 80 years before dying recently -
 

lcafanboy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
3,498
Likes
11,772
Country flag
If we take the official count of 120 warheads with us and assume that every warhead is of 100Kt and we do have a out put of 1Kt per kg, then we have used 12 tons of fissile material in this.
It takes only 6-12 kgs of plutonium and 10-20 kgs of HEU for fission bombs and only a few grams of tritium and deuterium are added for hydrogen bombs rest is weight of other things like explosives, trigger and electronics, casing, etc. So we have not used 12 tons of fissile material. And we have a minimum 450 ready to use warheads from 1994 itself. And fissile material for 3000 warheads more already known to all P-5 nations. We are not assembling bombs as this material is being used for nuclear powered submarines and future nuclear Power aircraft carriers.

So chill and relax we have enough for both Porkies and lizards......
 

Vijyes

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2016
Messages
1,978
Likes
1,701
It takes only 6-12 kgs of plutonium and 10-20 kgs of HEU for fission bombs and only a few grams of tritium and deuterium are added for hydrogen bombs rest is weight of other things like explosives, trigger and electronics, casing, etc. So we have not used 12 tons of fissile material. And we have a minimum 450 ready to use warheads from 1994 itself. And fissile material for 3000 warheads more already known to all P-5 nations. We are not assembling bombs as this material is being used for nuclear powered submarines and future nuclear Power aircraft carriers.

So chill and relax we have enough for both Porkies and lizards......
2-3 kg weapons grade plutonium is needed and 25-30kg 99% enriched uranium is needed for a warhead. In case of reactor grade plutonium, we need 4kg of plutonium per bomb. You must be joking to say 6-12 kg plutonium is needed per bomb. The Nagasaki bomb, which was the first ever plutonium bomb explosion (they didn't do even a test before) was made of 6kg plutonium. The Hiroshima bomb had 60kg Uranium. Bombs have got much more efficient after that.

If higher yield is needed, boosted fission will be used, not increase plutonium content.

India has plutonium and not uranium and that can't be used in submarines. If India had enough warheads, why not finish off Pakistan once and for all so that the daily irritating behaviour can end? I don't think anyone will risk nuclear war to protect Pakistan. Pakistan is not a great deal
 

lcafanboy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
3,498
Likes
11,772
Country flag
2-3 kg weapons grade plutonium is needed and 25-30kg 99% enriched uranium is needed for a warhead. In case of reactor grade plutonium, we need 4kg of plutonium per bomb. You must be joking to say 6-12 kg plutonium is needed per bomb. The Nagasaki bomb, which was the first ever plutonium bomb explosion (they didn't do even a test before) was made of 6kg plutonium. The Hiroshima bomb had 60kg Uranium. Bombs have got much more efficient after that.

If higher yield is needed, boosted fission will be used, not increase plutonium content.

India has plutonium and not uranium and that can't be used in submarines. If India had enough warheads, why not finish off Pakistan once and for all so that the daily irritating behaviour can end? I don't think anyone will risk nuclear war to protect Pakistan. Pakistan is not a great deal
We have HEU and related technologies but it is exclusively being and will be used only for Nuclear powered Submarines and future Aircraft carriers.

We have a minimum 450 warheads from 1994 itself, which are enough for both but we can't start a nuclear war as it will lead to economic chaos and destruction for India too and effects can't be simulated, it will be suicidal at best, like in movies hero kills villain but villain to kills hero, so no actual gains........

We have true tactical nuclear weapons unlike porkies these are 155mm howitzer launched battlefield weapons.

We do have fissile material enough for 3000 nukes but not all fissile material can be converted into nukes as we have submarines and aircraft carriers that will need these. Maybe figures for quantity/bomb could be wrong but it doesn't change the fact we have enough for both..............

These are the only facts which are important...........
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,175
Likes
8,013
Country flag
Here are some videos to debunk the myths of blast effects :
US soldiers exposed to blast effects but survive -

Blast of 2kT tactical nuke at 3km above soldiers heads but soldiers live happily for over 80 years before dying recently -
Had I written anywhere that they would be roasted? I just mentioned about venturing into a polluted warzone, not a test zone. The people in video you have posted did ventured there in danger zone, but had it been shown how they had been kept in isolation after that and been cleaned thoroughly thereafter before venturing among others. Now you could say that with NBC suit protection we needn't worry about that, but just imagine each and every soldier in a column wearing those and going to war.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,175
Likes
8,013
Country flag
It takes only 6-12 kgs of plutonium and 10-20 kgs of HEU for fission bombs and only a few grams of tritium and deuterium are added for hydrogen bombs rest is weight of other things like explosives, trigger and electronics, casing, etc. So we have not used 12 tons of fissile material. And we have a minimum 450 ready to use warheads from 1994 itself. And fissile material for 3000 warheads more already known to all P-5 nations. We are not assembling bombs as this material is being used for nuclear powered submarines and future nuclear Power aircraft carriers.

So chill and relax we have enough for both Porkies and lizards......
What yield are you talking about here. What design are you prescribing here?
 

Vijyes

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2016
Messages
1,978
Likes
1,701
What yield are you talking about here. What design are you prescribing here?
For plutonium bomb, the only possible way is implosion. Yield is about 15-20kT, non-fusion bomb
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,134
Likes
839
Country flag
Artillery shells were also made nuclear by USA. It may not cause a serious damage but even 1kT will cause larger damage than other conventional warheads of same size. A circle with radius of 100 metres will be hit very hard and almost every equipment within it will be wiped out and the damage to infantry and battle formation can be upto a circle of radius 300 metres.

In terms of area - 2(pi)r^2, 100m circle is 0.063km^2 and 300m circle is 0.6km^2 which is a big area
Any army ever had proper training under nuclear war circumstance can minimize that damage. For example, the training of Soviet army can make the majority of a armored battalion survived from an attack of an US h-bomb with 10k yield. If soviet army could managed to do this, how many tactical nuclear weapons does Pakistan need to stop Indian army 20 years after cold war? Does Pakistan have that much nuclear material for such scale of nuclear force?
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,134
Likes
839
Country flag
Actually it would be of sub Kt yield. But more then that, it is about polluting the whole marching column. It is more about psychological warfare then tactical. Who would want to venture in a area polluted with nuclear fallout? Warhead like those of Nasr are more dirty bombs then pure nuclear weapon.
Who would want to venture in a area polluted with nuclear fallout? Any army came through cold war would have planned and trained to do this. Even today, anti-nuclear is still part of every major army drill. I will be surprised that Indian army hasn't received such kind of training.
 

Chinmoy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
5,175
Likes
8,013
Country flag
Dear All, I have created this thread to discuss the NFU policy and its implication in changing geo politics and strategic shifts. Please discuss topics related to this in this thread.

Aside Mods, if any such thread does exists, please do merge this with it.

@Razor @Dovah @sayareakd
 

Articles

Top