India's Nuclear Doctrine

[Daredevil]

india under our present netas wont ever never think of retaliation itself(nov 26) then how can we think of first use of nuke :blum3:

Exactly, out netas don't have balls for conventional strike, I wonder if they have balls for nuclear first strike :blum3:

But for second strike, they are forced to do it.

 

[natarajan]

congress has poor records in war except under indhira gandhiwe lost kashmir,1962 war becoz of congress ahimsa policy and at present under mms ,just stop dreaming and we can be happy if he dont give kashmir and arunchal to neighbours.

 

[INDIANBULL]

What according to you, is the purpose of a nuclear strike ?

Our purpose is clear to deter the enemy not to use first nuclear strike or it will be punished with impuinity with our 2nd strike. With NFU pakistan cant dare to fire a nuke on us but with India decalrin first use of nukes it will have grave consequences in a conventional conflict with pakistan as pakistan with all their rabid generals may try to preempt our nuclear strike and can launch massive nuclear strike on India.

 

[INDIANBULL]

Exactly, out netas don't have balls for conventional strike, I wonder if they have balls for nuclear first strike :blum3:

But for second strike, they are forced to do it.

LOL i think the opposite, will our netas with their pissed dhotis will dare to launch a 2nd strike with massive nuke firing on enemy or they will just succumb to international pressure.

 

[NSG_Blackcats]

A bit out of topic but the less we speak about our politicians the better. But the duty of every Govt. is try to stop a war and not go for a war. The war must be the last option.

 

[Soham]

Our purpose is clear to deter the enemy not to use first nuclear strike or it will be punished with impuinity with our 2nd strike. With NFU pakistan cant dare to fire a nuke on us but with India decalrin first use of nukes it will have grave consequences in a conventional conflict with pakistan as pakistan with all their rabid generals may try to preempt our nuclear strike and can launch massive nuclear strike on India.

So the purpose of a first strike is to deter the enemy from carrying out a nuclear attack ?
Now how are you going to fit in this scenario in an Indo-Pak conflict ?
How can we be assured that our first strikes will eliminate all enemy launch platforms ? And why do we even need nukes to eliminate launch platforms ?

Our intent is different from the psychological factor that Pakistan relies on.

 

[Soham]

A bit out of topic but the less we speak about our politicians the better. But the duty of every Govt. is try to stop a war and not go for a war. The war must be the last option.

Lets pay heed to this advice and stop dragging politics into this.
There's no ruling party in the universe that wouldn't order a retaliatory strike.

 

[INDIANBULL]

That NFU doctrine is better one and gives us excuse to build a more massive nuclear forces triad rather than a first strike doctrine but looking at the MMS and UPA way of functioning and selling national interests by signing 123 and other weapons deals i think it has already slowed development of our nuclear forces as we cannt test a Thermonuclear and neutron weapon which we direly need to test.

 

[natarajan]

A bit out of topic but the less we speak about our politicians the better. But the duty of every Govt. is try to stop a war and not go for a war. The war must be the last option.

then the thread itself a imagery and its like action story :blum3:
better some one move it to articles

 

[Soham]

That NFU doctrine is better one and gives us excuse to build a more massive nuclear forces triad rather than a first strike doctrine but looking at the MMS and UPA way of functioning and selling national interests by signing 123 and other weapons deals i think it has already slowed development of our nuclear forces as we cannt test a Thermonuclear and neutron weapon which we direly need to test.

Nobody is selling national interests mate.
You need to read up more on the points that go behind the nuke-deal.
Why do we need to test Neutron weapons ?

 

[INDIANBULL]

So the purpose of a first strike is to deter the enemy from carrying out a nuclear attack ?
Now how are you going to fit in this scenario in an Indo-Pak conflict ?
How can we be assured that our first strikes will eliminate all enemy launch platforms ? And why do we even need nukes to eliminate launch platforms ?

Our intent is different from the psychological factor that Pakistan relies on.

I am talking of NFU doctrine not first use policy. !st use doctrine will invite nuclear attack on India with pakistan trying to preempt our nuclear strike and may fire nukes on in a miscalculation with all their rabid army generals.

 

[INDIANBULL]

Nobody is selling national interests mate.
You need to read up more on the points that go behind the nuke-deal.
Why do we need to test Neutron weapons ?

We need to test thermonuclear and neutron bombs mate and without a fully proven thermonuclear design we cannt punish enemy with impuinity.

 

[NSG_Blackcats]

then the thread itself a imagery and its like action story :blum3:
better some one move it to articles

There is nothing wrong in having a discussion and exchange of views about a scenario we may face in the future.

 

[Soham]

We need to test thermonuclear and neutron bombs mate and without a fully proven thermonuclear design we cannt punish enemy with impuinity.

I assure you, the nuclear weapons in possession are more than sufficient to boil a human body if that's what you mean by "punish enemy with impunity". There has to be an end to this madness.
We need to invest in conventional systems, not last-resort payloads.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Let's do the math.

The Chinese has about 1600 missiles that can accept a nuclear warhead and about another 12-36 depending on the status of their current SSBN program.

They have about 200 warheads stored in two hardened sites.

So, just simple math of 3 nukes per target, that's 4800 nukes for the missiles alone, I have not even started on their planes yet. Now, the hardened sites will require a multi-megaton warhead with near pin point accuracy, something that India has not done nor anywhere close to doing.

Or you can just target their entrances and vent shafts ... which again would require 3 nukes each which is basically about 9 nukes just to lock the Chinese nukes into their storage. That is if you can time it just right. One mushroom cloud over the target site is going to throw the other nukes off target.

Ok, let's get to the SSBNs. Chinese SSBNs normally do not go on patrol with nukes aboard. So, there is a chance you can get them before nukes are transferred. However, the SSBNs are in a reversed slope entrance to their hardened base and since India does not have multi-megaton nukes, you might as well be throwing firecrackers at it.

So, for a devastating 1st strike with no guarrantee of preventing massive Chinese nuclear retalliation, you need 5000 nukes. Actually, you need more but I am assuming that Indian missiles are as accurate as American and Russian missiles just for arguement sakes.

Now, can India afford this arsenal? More over, does she want to? To put this in perspective, currently, the Russian nuclear arsenal is around 14,000 warheads but only 1200-1500 are actually usable. The rest are just being kept around for arms control negotiation purposes only.

 

[INDIANBULL]

I assure you, the nuclear weapons in possession are more than sufficient to boil a human body if that's what you mean by "punish enemy with impunity". There has to be an end to this madness.
We need to invest in conventional systems, not last-resort systems.

No you are not completely right, if that was the case then why USA and USSR developed megaton thermonuclear weapons. Small nukes with simple fission weapons cannt stop a conventional or a nuclear war but it is the Thermonuclear weapons wchich can detter our enemy to initiate a war e.g Cold war nevr turned into a Hot one because both parties knew that they can completely anhilate each other(MAD) but if there were no Thermonuclear weapons the small arsenals wouldnt have stopped the war.

 

[Soham]

Let's do the math.

The Chinese has about 1600 missiles that can accept a nuclear warhead and about another 12-36 depending on the status of their current SSBN program.

They have about 200 warheads stored in two hardened sites.

So, just simple math of 3 nukes per target, that's 4800 nukes for the missiles alone, I have not even started on their planes yet. Now, the hardened sites will require a multi-megaton warhead with near pin point accuracy, something that India has not done nor anywhere close to doing.

Or you can just target their entrances and vent shafts ... which again would require 3 nukes each which is basically about 9 nukes just to lock the Chinese nukes into their storage. That is if you can time it just right. One mushroom cloud over the target site is going to throw the other nukes off target.

Ok, let's get to the SSBNs. Chinese SSBNs normally do not go on patrol with nukes aboard. So, there is a chance you can get them before nukes are transferred. However, the SSBNs are in a reversed slope entrance to their hardened base and since India does not have multi-megaton nukes, you might as well be throwing firecrackers at it.

So, for a devastating 1st strike with no guarrantee of preventing massive Chinese nuclear retalliation, you need 5000 nukes. Actually, you need more but I am assuming that Indian missiles are as accurate as American and Russian missiles just for arguement sakes.

Now, can India afford this arsenal? More over, does she want to? To put this in perspective, currently, the Russian nuclear arsenal is around 14,000 warheads but only 1200-1500 are actually usable. The rest are just being kept around for arms control negotiation purposes only.

Sir, could you also provide a similar insight vis-a-vis Pakistan ?

 

[advaita]

Let's do the math.

The Chinese has about 1600 missiles that can accept a nuclear warhead and about another 12-36 depending on the status of their current SSBN program.

They have about 200 warheads stored in two hardened sites.

So, just simple math of 3 nukes per target, that's 4800 nukes for the missiles alone, I have not even started on their planes yet. Now, the hardened sites will require a multi-megaton warhead with near pin point accuracy, something that India has not done nor anywhere close to doing.

Or you can just target their entrances and vent shafts ... which again would require 3 nukes each which is basically about 9 nukes just to lock the Chinese nukes into their storage. That is if you can time it just right. One mushroom cloud over the target site is going to throw the other nukes off target.

Ok, let's get to the SSBNs. Chinese SSBNs normally do not go on patrol with nukes aboard. So, there is a chance you can get them before nukes are transferred. However, the SSBNs are in a reversed slope entrance to their hardened base and since India does not have multi-megaton nukes, you might as well be throwing firecrackers at it.

So, for a devastating 1st strike with no guarrantee of preventing massive Chinese nuclear retalliation, you need 5000 nukes. Actually, you need more but I am assuming that Indian missiles are as accurate as American and Russian missiles just for arguement sakes.

Now, can India afford this arsenal? More over, does she want to? To put this in perspective, currently, the Russian nuclear arsenal is around 14,000 warheads but only 1200-1500 are actually usable. The rest are just being kept around for arms control negotiation purposes only.

We think alike, just on different sides.
Though how you arrived at 5000 fig. for Indian arsenel requirement.....
I think Indians should start emulating the Chinese in everything, though only with Indian Ideals in the midst.
Economically we should start the Money laundering operations that China does (we Indians can beat them at it any day).
Defence we should invest in the art of esclatioin and using fear to deter thoughts better.
Using covert to get what cannot be got overt.

Though I think the Indians will not do all this....Most of the present generation lacks the guts to do this.

I think we will have to settle for something less. PoP centers.....

 

[roma]

i think the china nfu is a fake as is all assurances that they give for peace.... india should have had enough experience by now of their ability to do flip-flops ... they did some in 1962 and now regarding arunachal again they backtracked on their earlier agreement that populatedd areas were not under negtiation and not required to change flag .... the list goes on ...basically their NFU is of zero value and defence planners in india should take that into consideration.

 

[NSG_Blackcats]

Let's do the math.

The Chinese has about 1600 missiles that can accept a nuclear warhead and about another 12-36 depending on the status of their current SSBN program.

They have about 200 warheads stored in two hardened sites.

So, just simple math of 3 nukes per target, that's 4800 nukes for the missiles alone, I have not even started on their planes yet. Now, the hardened sites will require a multi-megaton warhead with near pin point accuracy, something that India has not done nor anywhere close to doing.

Or you can just target their entrances and vent shafts ... which again would require 3 nukes each which is basically about 9 nukes just to lock the Chinese nukes into their storage. That is if you can time it just right. One mushroom cloud over the target site is going to throw the other nukes off target.

Ok, let's get to the SSBNs. Chinese SSBNs normally do not go on patrol with nukes aboard. So, there is a chance you can get them before nukes are transferred. However, the SSBNs are in a reversed slope entrance to their hardened base and since India does not have multi-megaton nukes, you might as well be throwing firecrackers at it.

So, for a devastating 1st strike with no guarrantee of preventing massive Chinese nuclear retalliation, you need 5000 nukes. Actually, you need more but I am assuming that Indian missiles are as accurate as American and Russian missiles just for arguement sakes.

Now, can India afford this arsenal? More over, does she want to? To put this in perspective, currently, the Russian nuclear arsenal is around 14,000 warheads but only 1200-1500 are actually usable. The rest are just being kept around for arms control negotiation purposes only.

China has no first use policy. If I am not wrong this entire thread is regarding Pakistan as it do not have a no first use policy. If India ever decides that it will reverse its policy of no first use it does not mean that it will use nuclear missile at the first instance against china.

Regarding affordability of nuclear arsenal; India only wants to have credible nuclear deterrent that will make China think twice before attacking India. If someone told you that can India afford SU-30MKI in 1980 you must had answered in the negative. But now India can even afford Eurofighter Typhoon or Rafale. So thinks are changing.