India's Nuclear Doctrine

Should India have tested a Megaton warhead during Pokran?


  • Total voters
    168
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
No you are not completely right, if that was the case then why USA and USSR developed megaton thermonuclear weapons.
Mainly because the early generation ICBMs, the TITANS, ATLAS, the SS-7s were POS as far as accuracy is concerned. If you aim for the Chrysler Building in New York, you might hit the Statue of Liberty. Thus, the big throw weights to compensate.

As accuracy increased, the yield was reduced. At present, we're using 60-120 kts warheads.

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.
It's a lot more complicated than that and it was luck that prevailed more than anything else. Armies on both sides of the Iron Curtain were readied, willing, and determined to fight WWIII. How we avoided it is a big mystery to me.
 
I

INDIANBULL

Guest
Mainly because the early generation ICBMs, the TITANS, ATLAS, the SS-7s were POS as far as accuracy is concerned. If you aim for the Chrysler Building in New York, you might hit the Statue of Liberty. Thus, the big throw weights to compensate.

As accuracy increased, the yield was reduced. At present, we're using 60-120 kts warheads.

It's a lot more complicated than that and it was luck that prevailed more than anything else. Armies on both sides of the Iron Curtain were readied, willing, and determined to fight WWIII. How we avoided it is a big mystery to me.
yea 100-300kt nuclear warhead is sufficient to wipe a city like beijing completely and no need of megaton city busters but as somebody was saying a simple fission weapon is not that much a punch. So to detter comies we need atleast few hundred of 100-300kt warheads but that 13kt nuke cannt stop the commies for sure from starting a war. I mean the threat to completely wipe off a major chinese city like beijing or shanghai will definitly deter commies to start a war on AP.
I think we definitly have a 100kt warhead of boosted fission type fitted on agnis but its to heavy to be MIRVED on ballistic missiles.

As far as cold war is concerened MAD played a big role in stopping things going out of hand.
 

advaita

New Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
Nobody is selling national interests mate.
Last time i heard an erstwhile PM lost a suit in US when trying to prove that someone had cast aspersions on his character by claiming that the gentleman was a CIA operative ..... I wonder what happened to the appeal.


You need to read up more on the points that go behind the nuke-deal.
Why do we need to test Neutron weapons ?
Last time also heard that in one of the Isreali outings..... US intervened in favour of Isreal not because US was convinced of Isreals' logic......but guess what.....they detected Nuke signatures......on one of there air bases.....and when the US send its recce planes to look deeper the Isrealis actually gave that plane a chase with planes they fully knew could never match the height.....

Just some food for thought....
 
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
yea 100-300kt nuclear warhead is sufficient to wipe a city like beijing completely and no need of megaton city busters but as somebody was saying a simple fission weapon is not that much a punch. So to detter comies we need atleast few hundred of 100-300kt warheads but that 13kt nuke cannt stop the commies for sure from starting a war. I mean the threat to completely wipe off a major chinese city like beijing or shanghai will definitly deter commies to start a war on AP.
I think we definitly have a 100kt warhead of boosted fission type fitted on agnis but its to heavy to be MIRVED on ballistic missiles.
You've never been exposed to nuclear war doctrine. A small weapon can do a lot more killing than a big weapon if it hits the right target. If you want to attack Beijing, hit its water and sewage treatment centre. More people are going to die from chloera than they would under a 5 megaton blast.

As far as cold war is concerened MAD played a big role in stopping things going out of hand.
I counted 5 time when we deliberately c_ocked the nuclear trigger.
 
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
Last time also heard that in one of the Isreali outings..... US intervened in favour of Isreal not because US was convinced of Isreals' logic......but guess what.....they detected Nuke signatures......on one of there air bases.....and when the US send its recce planes to look deeper the Isrealis actually gave that plane a chase with planes they fully knew could never match the height.....

Just some food for thought....
It wasn't the US.

Aug 23, 2007 19:21 | Updated Aug 23, 2007 19:21
Russia confirms Soviet sorties over Dimona in '67
By DAVID HOROVITZ

The chief spokesman of the Russian Air Force, Col. Aleksandr V. Drobyshevsky, has confirmed in writing for the first time that it was Soviet pilots, in the USSR's most-advanced MiG-25 "Foxbat" aircraft, who flew highly-provocative sorties over Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona in May 1967, just prior to the Six Day War.

An aerial view of the the Dimona reactor.

Gideon Remez and Isabello Ginor, who co-wrote the recent book Foxbats over Dimona, which asserts that the Soviet Union deliberately engineered the war to create the conditions in which Israel's nuclear program could be destroyed, on Thursday described this "extraordinary disclosure" as "official confirmation of the book's exhibit A and the source of its title."

Published in June by Yale University Press, the Israeli duo's book asserted that the Soviets flew sorties over Dimona in the still-experimental and top-secret Foxbats both to bolster a deliberate Soviet effort to encourage Israel to launch a war, and to ensure that the nuclear target could be effectively destroyed once Israel, branded an aggressor for its preemption, came under a planned joint Arab-Soviet counterattack.

Soviet nuclear-missile submarines were said to have been poised off Israel's shore, ready to strike back in case Israel already had a nuclear device and sought to use it. The Soviets were also said to have geared up for a naval landing on Israel's beaches.

The book, hailed by experts such as the former US ambassador to Israel and Egypt Daniel Kurtzer for marshalling a "compelling argument," nonetheless featured what the authors acknowledged was a dearth of incontrovertible documentation that would back up central aspects of their thesis. They noted at the time that it was "entirely possible that few corresponding documents ever existed," that key documents may have been destroyed, and that "the accounts of numerous Soviet participants refer to orders that were transmitted only orally down the chain of command."

However, a delighted Remez and Ginor told the The Jerusalem Post that official confirmation of the Soviet Foxbat sorties had now been published by Drobyshevsky in an article posted on the official Web site of the Russian Defense Ministry. The "extraordinary disclosure of a hitherto secret operation," they noted, "apparently was included inadvertently - in a statement that was published in a completely different context": to mark the anniversary of the test pilots' school from which one of the pilots who participated in the 1967 flights graduated.

The relevant section of Drobyshevsky's article states (in translation): "In 1967, the military valor and high combat training of Col. Bezhevets, A.S. (now a Hero of the Soviet Union, an honorary test pilot of the USSR, [and] retired Air Force major-general), were demonstrated while carrying out combat operation in Egypt, [and] enabled [him] to perform unique reconnaissance flights over the territory of Israel in a MiG-25RB aircraft."

Remez and Ginor said this high-level admission of the Soviet sorties, which was first posted on the ministry's Web site last October, "comes as close to an official document as one can hope for in the foreseeable future, given the prevailing circumstances in Russia."

They noted that it corroborates the personal testimony of Bezhevets's senior colleague, Lt.-Gen. Aleksandr I. Vybornov, who is quoted in the book as having described the missions on several occasions.

The book's findings were first published by the Post on May 16, under the heading "Soviets engineered Six Day War 'to destroy Israel's nuclear program.'"

Remez and Ginor told the Post that this article "was widely reproduced" and "aroused intensive discussion" in the FSU. Several respected news media outlets, notably the Russian daily Komsomolskaya Pravda, they said, "contacted some of the veterans who were among the main sources for the book, and they reiterated their accounts."

Among such veterans confirming their stories was Gen. Vasily Reshetnikov, the commander of the Soviet strategic bombers, said to have been given maps for the planned strike at Dimona.

The "conventional view" of the events leading up to the 1967 war, Remez noted when the book came out, "is that the Soviet Union triggered the conflict via disinformation on Israeli troop movements, but that it didn't intend for a full-scale war to break out and that it then did its best to defuse the war in cooperation with the United States." The book, he said, "totally contradicts everything that has been accepted."

Having received information about Israel's progress toward nuclear arms, the book asserts, the Soviets aimed to draw Israel into a confrontation in which their counterstrike would include a joint Egyptian-Soviet bombing of the reactor at Dimona.

The Soviets' intended central intervention in the war was thwarted, however, by the overwhelming nature of the initial Israeli success, the authors write, as Israel's preemption, far from weakening its international legitimacy and exposing it to devastating counterattack, proved decisive in determining the conflict. Because the Soviet Union's plan thus proved unworkable, the authors go on, its role in stoking the crisis, and its plans to subsequently remake the Middle East to its advantage, have remained overlooked, undervalued or simply unknown to historians assessing the war over the past 40 years.

The Israeli authors' thesis, they told the Post this week, had now won over Komsomolskaya Pravda's Col. Viktor Baranets, a noted military correspondent and former General Staff officer. They quoted him as having written recently that "the time has apparently come to set the record straight. So far, the facts have often been replaced by inventions. No one can dispute the obvious: the USSR 'orchestrated' that war... The USSR was prepared for an invasion of Israel. The confessions of our own officers prove this."

The Russian media also recently contacted Bezhevets himself, the authors said, but even though he has now been officially praised by his own Defense Ministry for making the Foxbat flights over Israel, he denied doing so. According to Remez and Ginor, this "indicates that Drobyshevsky's [Defense Ministry] statement relied not on the pilot's testimony but rather on the air force's own documentation." This, in turn, they said, "illustrates the point... that full and direct documentation of the Soviet role in 1967 is still being suppressed."

Remez, a longtime prominent Israel Radio journalist, fought in the Six Day War as a paratrooper. Ginor was born in the Ukraine, came to Israel in 1967 and is a noted analyst of Soviet and post-Soviet affairs.
 

LETHALFORCE

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,968
Likes
48,929
Country flag
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 ?
I agree with Bull a neutron bomb would be a better weapon to use, it would have the devastation of a nuke without the fallout; something we have not even discussed in this use of nukes by 2 countries so close to each other.

In the nuke deal we got to choose where our reactors are on in the civilian or military side ,we placed all our fast breeder reactors on the military side; In many ways the nuke deal with USA is beneficial if we choose to build up our nuclear arsenal simply because we can import fuel for our
civilian reactors and use our indigenous uranium for our military side reactors.
 
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
We, ie NATO, abandonned neutron weapons when the Soviets started installing swimming pools and water tanks around their facilities.
 
I

INDIANBULL

Guest
You've never been exposed to nuclear war doctrine. A small weapon can do a lot more killing than a big weapon if it hits the right target. If you want to attack Beijing, hit its water and sewage treatment centre. More people are going to die from chloera than they would under a 5 megaton blast.

I counted 5 time when we deliberately c_ocked the nuclear trigger.
So why not use a cheab Cholera warhead instead of spending so much on nukes, your reply is absurd, in a nuclear war we want to punish enemy with impuinity and destruction. Our goal is destroy their infrastructure and economy if they use nuclear first strike.
 
I

INDIANBULL

Guest
I agree with Bull a neutron bomb would be a better weapon to use, it would have the devastation of a nuke without the fallout; something we have not even discussed in this use of nukes by 2 countries so close to each other.

In the nuke deal we got to choose where our reactors are on in the civilian or military side ,we placed all our fast breeder reactors on the military side; In many ways the nuke deal with USA is beneficial if we choose to build up our nuclear arsenal simply because we can import fuel for our
civilian reactors and use our indigenous uranium for our military side reactors.
But there is nothing like a pure neutron bomb that can destroy life without sparing infrastructure, most of the big five rely on Thermonuclear weapons rather than a neutron bom,b which infact is a mini Thermonuclear bomb.

But LF we need to test more nukes in a warhead form, 5 tests are not sufficient enough to make a complete detterent.
 

LETHALFORCE

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,968
Likes
48,929
Country flag
But there is nothing like a pure neutron bomb that can destroy life without sparing infrastructure, most of the big five rely on Thermonuclear weapons rather than a neutron bom,b which infact is a mini Thermonuclear bomb.

But LF we need to test more nukes in a warhead form, 5 tests are not sufficient enough to make a complete detterent.
Bull almost all of the testing by nations will be done almost exclusively by supercomputers,same for India.
 
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
So why not use a cheab Cholera warhead instead of spending so much on nukes,
Not cholera, that would be against the BWC but have you not noticed that Baghdad was hit with 800 cruise missiles on the first day of that war?

your reply is absurd, in a nuclear war we want to punish enemy with impuinity and destruction.
And here is where you do not understand, if you have to fight a nuclear war, your nuclear doctrine has already failed. The whole idea is NOT to fight one and you avoid one by giving the other side incentives not to try, up and including denying them the acceptable political reasons to try.

Our goal is destroy their infrastructure and economy if they use nuclear first strike.
No, it's not. It's retalliation and there are a whole different set of circumstances that must come into play. How many nukes have you got left? What kind of delivery vehicles you have left? After these two questions are answered, then you can proceed with targetting priorities.

The fewer nukes you've got left, the fewer the options and you have the maximize the damage you can do and hitting the Great Hall of the People ain't it.
 
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
The site you've listed already stated that this is an idealized simulator. It does not take into effect the concrete building blockage.
 
I

INDIANBULL

Guest
Not cholera, that would be against the BWC but have you not noticed that Baghdad was hit with 800 cruise missiles on the first day of that war?

And here is where you do not understand, if you have to fight a nuclear war, your nuclear doctrine has already failed. The whole idea is NOT to fight one and you avoid one by giving the other side incentives not to try, up and including denying them the acceptable political reasons to try.

No, it's not. It's retalliation and there are a whole different set of circumstances that must come into play. How many nukes have you got left? What kind of delivery vehicles you have left? After these two questions are answered, then you can proceed with targetting priorities.

The fewer nukes you've got left, the fewer the options and you have the maximize the damage you can do and hitting the Great Hall of the People ain't it.
So what should we do stop building nukes and sit in home and pray that nuclear war never happens and forget that our enemies got a H-bomb ready to strike on our @$$.
Why dont you know that we are building nuclear subs for that scenario and dont you know that enemy will target some high value targets i.e. some millitary installations or some of our big cities and i dont think our nuclear arsenal is lying idle in both of them. How you suppose that enemy can destroy our continously mobile nuclear arsenal which is supposed to be spreaded widely across land, air and sea, can even china afford to launch 1000 nukes at hundreds of the suspected locations, your staements are oxymoron.

Mod Edit: No derogatory language please.
 
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
So what should we do stop building nukes and sit in home and pray that nuclear war never happens and forget that our enemies got a H-bomb ready to strike on our @$$.
For one thing, how about listening to what your strategic planners are telling you. In case you haven't noticed, I am not a decision maker. I was not the one who decided what India should have. You're the one with the wet dreams and instead of trying to understand your own nuclear doctrines and what your strategic planners are telling you, you're just lusting for big peeing contest.

Why dont you know that we are building nuclear subs for that scenario and dont you know that enemy will target some high value targets i.e. some millitary installations or some of our big cities and i dont think our nuclear arsenal is lying idle in both of them.
And you think the enemy has not thought this through? And you think that your strategic planners also has not thought this through that the enemy has thought this through?

How you suppose that enemy can destroy our continously mobile nuclear arsenal which is supposed to be spreaded widely across land, air and sea, can even china afford to launch 1000 nukes at hundreds of the suspected locations, your staements are oxymoron and you definitly seem to be a moron.
Since you're the one who refused to accept what your strategic planners are telling me, I think it is clear whose statements are oxymoron.

In case you still don't get it. I am not an Indian decision maker. I can only try to understand their decisions.
Mod Edit: No derogatory language please.
 

Blademaster

New Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
9,675
Likes
28,005
Armies on both sides of the Iron Curtain were readied, willing, and determined to fight WWIII. How we avoided it is a big mystery to me.

I counted 5 time when we deliberately c_ocked the nuclear trigger.
Sanity and realization of that one could lose everything. A classic game of chicken.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
New Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,330
Likes
11,874
Country flag
Colonel Sir,
can you please insert the 3 link to the articles on nukes again here?

Guys READ that. It will give you all a better understanding of nuclear warfare.
 

Soham

DFI TEAM
New Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,972
Likes
91
Country flag
From Pakistani PoV or Indian vis-a-vi the South Asian nuclear balance?
The Pakistani PoV, sir.
How they intend to play the nuke card despite being aware of the fact that an Indian retaliation can be pure devastation.
 

Articles

Top