India's Nuclear Doctrine

[zolpidam]

I think it will stupidity on our part if we will wait our own people to kill than start doing something , India may declare no first use policy but in real war should not do that

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Whatever he says makes sense to me, but them I am clean slate. Is there any indication (or lack of it) that the Pakistanis (or Indians for that matter) think along similar lines?

The fact you haven't nuked each other would suggest thinking along the same lines.

Ashley J Tellis did a fantastic study in the link I provided but I am going to provide a summary of his point by another India watcher, Sumit Ganguly

Behind India's Bomb: The Politics and Strategy of Nuclear Deterrence | Foreign Affairs

The deterrent nature of India's nuclear doctrine is reflected at the operational level of policymaking, about which Tellis provides a scrupulous discussion based on what can be gleaned from open sources. India has unequivocally renounced the first use of nuclear weapons. Though it is tempting to dismiss this commitment as mere boilerplate, there is strong reason to believe that it is actually sincere. It is consistent with New Delhi's declared nuclear doctrine, it permits India to announce its basically pacific intentions toward its adversaries, and it conforms to the expectations of a "force-in-being" that cannot provide rapid recourse during a crisis. The commitment to deterrence through the threat of punishment emphasizes India's lack of interest in using nuclear weapons to pursue either territorial or political expansion and its intention to use them instead simply to give pause to any would-be attacker or blackmailer.

So, is there a possibility that the non-western thought process around handling of nukes is different?

This seems plausible in light of Pakistan's declared policy of possible first use. Bruce Riedel has talked about how, during ther Kargil conflict, the Pakistani military prepared for a nuclear exchange without informing the PM

http://asr2.myweb.uga.edu/Fall 2004/Readings/Bruce Rydel - Kargil Lessons - CASI.2002.doc

And I still can't help feeling shaky when I read the article about Brigadier Amanullah. I know your views about him though...
A Modest Proposal From the Brigadier - The Atlantic (March 2002)

I had thought of that. Would the Pakistanis actually be stupid enough to use nukes? Brigadier Amanullah's poisoned views would suggest that their targeteers think along the same lines. There is no way to prevent an Indian nuclear counterattack. If you can imagine Indian babies being burned alive by Pakistani nukes, then you must also be able to see Pakistani babies being burned alive by Indian nukes. That alone would give pause to anyone.

Incidently, nuclear bombadiers, missileers, and targeteers by policy must be family men. This is true across the board with the N5. There are strong suggestions that India and Pakistan follows the same policy.

However, be that as it may, it's no longer what Pakistan thinks but what the Chinese and Americans think. Despite President Clinton's faulty intelligence report that Pak nukes were ready (they were not according to Musharraf), the Americans did pressed the 2 man nuclear release authority onto the Pakistanis.

Couple that with the fact that it has been five years since the Americans first became concern with the possibilities of Pak nukes in Al Qaeda hands and the amount of time the Americans have spent in country ... well, let me say that within less time, we have determined that Moscow had lived up to SALT I & II.

The Chinese, of course, have the same concerns.

And given Indian reports about insurgent attacks on Pakistani nuclear complexes, I strongly suspect that India knows where each and every Pak nuke is ... and vice versa for Paksitan.

Both countries may lack the electronic nuclear detection grid that we enjoy but both countries know how much a janitor makes.

 

[INDIANBULL]

Dumbass kid, did you not read MULTI-MEGATON? And does the fact that I'm Canadian to the core still escape you.

RAND | Monograph/Reports | India's Emerging Nuclear Posture: Between Recessed Deterrent and Ready Arsenal

And I know far more about nukes than you could ever will.

Your dumbass again bragging about yourself, nodoubt its a popular chinese trait which anyone can detect easily. I have never said that i am a nuclear expert and nor i am interested in any compettion with your dumbass, neither i give a shit about your nuclear expertness.
The fact is i just tried to explain things my way and i am just interested in learning more about nuclear matters not in bragging about my knowlege about nukes. Anyway you again deny the fact that 200kt Thermonukes doesnt matter, and you have posted links of a foreign political strategis not indian one. I have posted above the links from an Indian strategic point of view which clearly shows that our startegic planners are developing Thermonukes and other high yeild nukes to target various chinese high value taregets like chinese cities and it has been mentioned various times in our media by various analysts that we need to develop bballistic missiles to target chinese cities like beijing nd shanghai.
At last your links to ashley's study also shows that India will and is developing Thermonukes to take out big chinese cities.

Anyhow today Indian Navy chief and our scientists confirmed the fact that we need to test Thermonuclear weapons more times to prove their effectiveness and its all about this point that i am trying to highlight that yes we need to develop a credible nuclear arsenal, test more nukes including thermonukes.




Joined: 13 Aug 2004 02:12 pm
Posts: 4879
Location: refurbished T600 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 938610.cms

Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

NEW DELHI: The 1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests might have been far from the success they have been claimed to be. The yield of the thermonuclear
explosions was actually much below expectations and the tests were perhaps more a fizzle rather than a big bang.

The controversy over the yield of the tests, previously questioned by foreign agencies, has been given a fresh lease of life with K Santhanam, senior scientist and DRDO representative at Pokhran II, admitting for the first time that the only thermonuclear device tested was a "fizzle". In nuclear parlance, a test is described as a fizzle when it fails to meet the desired yield.

Santhanam, who was director for 1998 test site preparations, told TOI on Monday that the yield for the thermonuclear test, or hydrogen bomb in popular usage, was much lower than what was claimed. Santhanam, who was DRDO's chief advisor, could well have opened up the debate on whether or not India should sign CTBT as claims that India has all the data required and can manage with simulations is bound to be called into question.

``Based upon the seismic measurements and expert opinion from world over, it is clear that the yield in the thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was claimed. I think it is well documented and that is why I assert that India should not rush into signing the CTBT,'' Santhanam told TOI on Wednesday.

He emphasised the need for India to conduct more tests to improve its nuclear weapon programme.

The test was said to have yielded 45 kilotons (KT) but was challenged by western experts who said it was not more than 20 KT.

The exact yield of the thermonuclear explosion is important as during the heated debate on the India-

US nuclear deal, it was strenuously argued by the government's top scientists that no more tests were required for the weapons programme. It was said the disincentives the nuclear deal imposed on testing would not really matter as further tests were not required.

According to security expert Bharat Karnad, Santhanam's admission is remarkable because this is the first time a nuclear scientist and one closely associated with the 1998 tests has disavowed the government line. ``He is not just saying that India should not sign the CTBT, which I believe is completely against India's interests, but also that the 1998 thermonuclear device test was inadequate.

His saying this means that the government has to do something. Either you don't have a thermonuclear deterrent or prove that you have it, if you claim to have it,'' said Karnad.

Sources said that Santhanam had admitted that the test was a fizzle during a discussion on CTBT organised by IDSA. Karnad also participated in the seminar. He told TOI that no country has succeeded in achieving targets with only its first test of a thermonuclear device.

``Two things are clear; that India should not sign CTBT and that it needs more thermonuclear device tests,'' said Santhanam.

The yield of the thermonuclear device test in 1998 has led to much debate and while western experts have stated that it was not as claimed, BARC has maintained that it stands by its assessment. Indian scientists had claimed after the test that the thermonuclear device gave a total yield of 45 KT, 15 KT from the fission trigger and 30 KT from the fusion process and that the theoretical yield of the device (200 KT) was reduced to 45 KT in order to minimise seismic damage to villages near the test range.

British experts, however, later challenged the claims saying that the actual combined yield for the fission device and thermonuclear bomb was not more than 20 KT.

Key Pokharan scientist R Chidambaram had described these reports as incorrect. He has also argued that computer simulations would be enough in future design.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Nice side stepping the issue. And obviously, you have not checked the link. Ashley J Tellis is the open source authority on Indian nuclear matters and if you have checked his footnotes, which is immaculate using open Indian sources, then it is clear how he arrives at his conclusions.

And obviously, you have no clear understanding of the nuclear issues and by the same token, your 200kt claims is at least now in doubt.

I was not the one who started the name calling. I think it is clear who got his hackle up when he cannot defend his position.

 

[INDIANBULL]

Yea i am not nuclear/defence expert but i am only enthusiast about defence matters, nowhere i have claimed to have more knowlege about nuclear issues but i have just put some questions regarding these matters, anyhow i cannot go into major techniclaities simply coz of my restriced or no knowlege about political strategies but as a citizen of India i must show anxiety about these developements if they are not in right direction. My point is simple that India should test more thermonukes and boosted fission devices to improve the quality of our nuke arsenal and a making NFU policy more credible, today my doubts are confirmed by the statements made by our scientists that we should test thermonukes few times more and that is it. Developing nukes with 200-300kt range are on Indian agenda and these thermonukes are certianly meant for taking out chinese high value targets including beijing and shanghai and that is the fact not digestable to you because

 

[John]

Nice side stepping the issue. And obviously, you have not checked the link. Ashley J Tellis is the open source authority on Indian nuclear matters and if you have checked his footnotes, which is immaculate using open Indian sources, then it is clear how he arrives at his conclusions.

And obviously, you have no clear understanding of the nuclear issues and by the same token, your 200kt claims is at least now in doubt.

I was not the one who started the name calling. I think it is clear who got his hackle up when he cannot defend his position.

who cares, the fact is we don't need very big nukes, we are not butchers, we will spare your Chinese cities from nukes we have compassion even on our enemies. just like after 1971 when we released over 93000 Pak POWs a day after the war. We will use our tactical small nukes for military installations, so your bases, naval stations, air forces bases will have our full nuke attention and not your cities. and since you guys are cowards we know you'll launch against our cities hence we are working on ballistic and cruise defense. but hey we'll get that covered by 2015, none of Chinese weapons will be any use against India. none. even our KALI 5000 would have been weaponized by then. chances are china falls victim of its own heavy megaton nukes. haha.. The fact is our brahmos 1 and 2 will wipe out most of PLAN, PLAAF, PLA.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

My point is simple that India should test more thermonukes and boosted fission devices to improve the quality of our nuke arsenal and a making NFU policy more credible, today my doubts are confirmed by the statements made by our scientists that we should test thermonukes few times more and that is it.

I have never addressed testing here. And in fact, I have stated that India will need to test in the future when her arsenal become an aged problem. Since India has not signed the NPT nor the CTBT, then it is clearly within her right to do so (although she should expect penalties from both the US and the NSG but that is another topic).

Developing nukes with 200-300kt range are on Indian agenda and these thermonukes are certianly meant for taking out chinese high value targets including beijing and shanghai and that is the fact not digestable to you because

What is not disgestable to me is your refusal to understand you can take out Beijing and Shanghai without a 200kt warhead. Let me ask you this. Where is ground zero for Beijing and Shanghai for a 200kt warhead?

You have refused to understand that a 40kt or even a 15kt warhead will kill Beijing and Shanghai just as dead. Fine people would not have died by a blast or by radiation poisoning but by cholera instead but dead is dead.

2ndly, you have obviously not considered that no water ... and no sewage would shut down every factory in the city. Never mind the people, if the factories cannot get rid of their own garbage, they don't have workers breathing, let alone working.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

who cares, the fact is we don't need very big nukes, we are not butchers, we will spare your Chinese cities from nukes we have compassion even on our enemies. just like after 1971 when we released over 93000 Pak POWs a day after the war. We will use our tactical small nukes for military installations, so your bases, naval stations, air forces bases will have our full nuke attention and not your cities. and since you guys are cowards we know you'll launch against our cities hence we are working on ballistic and cruise defense. but hey we'll get that covered by 2015, none of Chinese weapons will be any use against India. none. even our KALI 5000 would have been weaponized by then. chances are china falls victim of its own heavy megaton nukes. haha.. The fact is our brahmos 1 and 2 will wipe out most of PLAN, PLAAF, PLA.

Can we get some semblance of reality here?

 

[INDIANBULL]

Regarding the confusion about 200kt nuke well it may be tthere or it may not be, you cannt say anything about it with 100% accuracy because ashley itself has stated many times in that article that there is no info available about the exact quality, quantity and type of nuclear arsenal of India. But many other links show that we may have boosted fission weapons of >100kt yield ready in our arsenal, so nor ashely neither any other expert can claim about their figures with 100% accuracy.
Also this report is written in 2001 and lot many things have changed from then onwards, e.g. ashley wasnt able to predict Indian economy growth rate and states that India will not be able to make a credible detterent without atleast 5% per annum economic growth but India has grown substantially more than 5% from 2001 to 2009. Anothe issue ashley was not clear about was the state of Indian ballistic missile, cruise missiles and SLBMs and he was of the view that India will not able to make a succesfull nuclear triad in may decades, again he is prove wrong as we have tested SLBM many times from that time, we have developed a whole new fully solid fuelled agni-3 and are going to test agni-5 with 5k range. So there are many flaws in his report. We need some updates regarding present situation.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Data changes as does policy but what Ashley has done is to come out and explain why NFU was devised and he showed that there is real thinking and real policy behind NFU as part of a deterrence package. It's not boilerplate token to be abandon at the earliest oppertunity.

The purpose of the Indian nuclear arsenal is to avoid a nuclear attack on India, not fighting a nuclear war. Given that underlying theme, NFU plays perfectly well in carrying out that policy of avoiding a nuclear attack on India.

If the policy is to change to nuclear warfighting, then a massive build up of at least 5000 nukes is required.

 

[INDIANBULL]

I have never addressed testing here. And in fact, I have stated that India will need to test in the future when her arsenal become an aged problem. Since India has not signed the NPT nor the CTBT, then it is clearly within her right to do so (although she should expect penalties from both the US and the NSG but that is another topic).

What is not disgestable to me is your refusal to understand you can take out Beijing and Shanghai without a 200kt warhead. Let me ask you this. Where is ground zero for Beijing and Shanghai for a 200kt warhead?

You have refused to understand that a 40kt or even a 15kt warhead will kill Beijing and Shanghai just as dead. Fine people would not have died by a blast or by radiation poisoning but by cholera instead but dead is dead.

2ndly, you have obviously not considered that no water ... and no sewage would shut down every factory in the city. Never mind the people, if the factories cannot get rid of their own garbage, they don't have workers breathing, let alone working.

Again your point about spreading cholera and other diseases doesnt comply with NFU and credible 2nd strike capability, as far i can understand is that our nuclear doctrine talks about punishing the aggressor with impuinity and and with a larger nuclear attack on enemy high value targets to inflict major destruction and havoc in enemy country, well spreading cholera doesnt fit well into our nuclear doctrine beacuse our intention is to retaliate with nukes and destroy the enemy.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Dead is dead. What is the difference between dying by cholera or dying by radiation poisoning? The only thing I'm seeing here is that you want that Chinese baby to burn instead of starving to death.

 

[INDIANBULL]

Data changes as does policy but what Ashley has done is to come out and explain why NFU was devised and he showed that there is real thinking and real policy behind NFU as part of a deterrence package. It's not boilerplate token to be abandon at the earliest oppertunity.

The purpose of the Indian nuclear arsenal is to avoid a nuclear attack on India, not fighting a nuclear war. Given that underlying theme, NFU plays perfectly well in carrying out that policy of avoiding a nuclear attack on India.

If the policy is to change to nuclear warfighting, then a massive build up of at least 5000 nukes is required.

Well Ashley's report is not applicable fully in today's environment, at that time he was not clear that which India way will move regarding its nuke arsenal so he propes 5 different alternatives on which India can take a ride: 1Renounce the nuke arsenal 2 a nuclear free zone in south asia 3 maintaining a nuclear option 4 a reccessed arsenal 5 developing a ready nuke arsenal.
Now ashley certianly cannt predict future with 100% accuracy so the first 3 alternative have proven wrong absolutely.
4th alternative is also going to prove wrong as India is developing a full fledged nuke arsenal and with the commision of ATV into navy we will have a fully ready arsenal in the custody of our uniformed forces, also we already are inducting agni-1,2 and gonna induct agni-3 shortly and this way we are moving to the last alternative of possesing a ready nuke arsenal.

This report is prejudiced against Indian interests and tries to teach India how to move forward according to the wishes to west.

anyway thanks for posting a nice link about that RAND study, i am still going through it and will finish it in few days.

 

[INDIANBULL]

Dead is dead. What is the difference between dying by cholera or dying by radiation poisoning? The only thing I'm seeing here is that you want that Chinese baby to burn instead of starving to death.

LOL dead is dead but why give them a chance, cholera can be easily treated with a few doses of antibiotics and in that radiationa evironment i doubt pathogen will spread so fast to take out the population, keeping in view the Chinese infrastructure and medical facilities cholera or anyother waterborne disease will be easily contained, but whynot to target that infrastructure also and wipe the whole city out with in few minutes, why should India take chance??

 

[Officer of Engineers]

LOL dead is dead but why give them a chance, cholera can be easily treated with a few doses of antibiotics and in that radiationa evironment i doubt pathogen will spread so fast to take out the population, keeping in view the Chinese infrastructure and medical facilities cholera or anyother waterborne disease will be easily contained, but whynot to target that infrastructure also and wipe the whole city out with in few minutes, why should India take chance??

There's only one way to control cholera - clean water. Anyone who tells you different haven't seen a refugee camp.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

LOL dead is dead but why give them a chance, cholera can be easily treated with a few doses of antibiotics and in that radiationa evironment i doubt pathogen will spread so fast to take out the population, keeping in view the Chinese infrastructure and medical facilities cholera or anyother waterborne disease will be easily contained, but whynot to target that infrastructure also and wipe the whole city out with in few minutes, why should India take chance??

*** Sigh *** Do you know the Chinese has a recessed arsenal?

 

[advaita]

Dead is dead. What is the difference between dying by cholera or dying by radiation poisoning?

The difference is the life that comes after the death.

The only thing I'm seeing here is that you want that Chinese baby to burn instead of starving to death.

below the belt.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

The difference is the life that comes after the death.

As a military result, none.

below the belt.

Why? I've called nuclear war exactly for what it is for over 20 years - burning babies. There is no need to sugarcoat the intended effect of attacking cities.

Those who cannot imagine babies burning alive should have no place discussing a nuclear exchange ... and those who relish it should be shot.

 

[advaita]

As a military result, none.

Why would anyone risk getting his daughter/son killed if that person is only thinking of military results (that would amount just brownie points). Military is there only to do what it is told to do and to suggest ways about just how best to do it. It never decided policies in mature countries that know how to take defeat and aspire for wins and in between these two to live.

Except Pakistan, China most other feudal countries most have already done this and are doing it every day.

Why? I've called nuclear war exactly for what it is for over 20 years - burning babies. There is no need to sugarcoat the intended effect of attacking cities.

Those who cannot imagine babies burning alive should have no place discussing a nuclear exchange ... and those who relish it should be shot.

If you are concerned about babies, I suggest you take a leave and think again. All of us already have our hands red.

Sir this was thought of by my ancestors a good 3k to 4k years back and codified 2k years back. This code is usually the one that is used by smart people in here and they have already achieved stupendous successes in more then one fields because of it. Even the ordinary people thrown up by the electoral politics in here are aware of more then just a few popular tenets of this code. Most of the lay population is already living according to this code to the extent it has been handed over to them. I strongly suggest that you allow the canadian in you a short leave and do some research.

PS: I also have a daughter 1.5y. I started thinking of these issues only after she came and only for her and others like her. And even though I dont represent the whole population but I am a definate product of this population.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Why would anyone risk getting his daughter/son killed if that person is only thinking of military results (that would amount just brownie points). Military is there only to do what it is told to do and to suggest ways about just how best to do it. It never decided policies in mature countries that know how to take defeat and aspire for wins and in between these two to live.

Except Pakistan, China most other feudal countries most have already done this and are doing it every day.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

If you are concerned about babies, I suggest you take a leave and think again. All of us already have our hands red.

You're saying that you have shed blood?

PS: I also have a daughter 1.5y. I started thinking of these issues only after she came and only for her and others like her. And even though I dont represent the whole population but I am a definate product of this population.

Like I said before, it's hard not to imagine schools being burned when it is right next door to a nuclear target. That's why nuclear war should be revolting. It is revolting.

There were drills when I thought it was the real thing and the first thought that within an hour or two, my entire family was going to burn. It's not a comforting thought and there was absolutely zero doubt in my mind that my job was to buy time for NATO nukes to burn the other side.

Guys like Stuart Slade will try to sanitize it and give it unemotional names - counter-industrial, counter-economic, counter-population but in the end, they mean to freeze, starve, or burn people. They have to suspend their revulsion in order to do their work but in the end, it is revulsion.