Political will to use N weapons

hit&run

United States of Hindu Empire
Mod
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,180
Likes
37,586
I keep bringing these documents but no one is reading them

Nuclear Warfare 101
Nuclear Warfare 102
Nuclear Warfare 103

Stuart Slade was a nuclear weapons targeteer. Most of you need to understand what is required to fight a nuclear war before I can present Dr Jeffery's The Minimum Means of Reprisal paper which while focuses on the Chinese details very well the concept of nuclear deterrence as opposed to nuclear warfighting.

Most of you are right now focused on nuclear warfighting and not on deterrence. There is a big difference.
Above links are very informative,realistic and seems like helping USA to ensure no future nuclear attack is possible in given context.
But In past and in future textbook deterrence was/may not be of any help,

1.There are thousands of cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki(many states those who don't have such deterrence).

2.why nuclear technology/weapons are proliferating very fast specially post cold war?

3.Why Saddam hussein was threatened of nuclear consequences in first war.

4. why pakistan and india are set to increasing nuclear stock pile/deterrence?

5.Smart bomb /Terrorist attack/attack without signatures?

6. Nuclear accident/Misinterpretation(minimum reprisal or minimum revenge)



I mean; will someone read these articles (literally making fun of these nuclear war fights because of practicalities in deterrence) before setting fuse on 'Fat man'?
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,733
India made a smart choice of "No First Use" (NFU) policy of nuclear weapons as it would serve as effective deterrent against other nuclear powers (China and Pakistan) in the event of conventional war without escalating it to the nuclear war and deter others from using nuclear weapons. As pointed out in previous posts, China, Pakistan and India have nuclear warheads in the number ranging from 50-200 or even more in case of China. With these numbers, China or Pakistan doesn't have a chance of causing enough damage in first nuclear strike on India to blunt the second strike capability of India. So, there will be consequences for both China and Pakistan if they chose to use nuclear weapons on India and it will be more so in the case of Pakistan owing to its relative small size viz India.

Just a naive assumption.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
1.There are thousands of cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki(many states those who don't have such deterrence).
I have absolutely no clue as to what you mean here.

2.why nuclear technology/weapons are proliferating very fast specially post cold war?
It's gone down. Way down. Most of NATO/Warsaw Pact countries are extremely capable of producing their own nukes. Some even did. When I went in, 4th Brigade was in the process of withdrawing the last tac nukes from Canada's inventory. As a result, only 4 countries of the entire Fulda Gap armies built and maintained nukes.

Even still, the entire nuclear inventory went down from a high of 62,000 nukes world combined to around 22,000 -23,000.

The world today is a lot safer than when I was in.

3.Why Saddam hussein was threatened of nuclear consequences in first war.
Halabja

4. why pakistan and india are set to increasing nuclear stock pile/deterrence?
India is easy to read on this score. She's about 40-60 nukes short of the 200 she wants.

Pakistan is even easier. She reached the limit of applicable uranium designs and wants to move onto plutonium designs. 64kgs of urnaium is required for critical mass as opposed to 8kgs of Pu. For any decent guidance package for her missiles, she needs to free up weight and room.

5.Smart bomb /Terrorist attack/attack without signatures?
We have the signatures of every nulcear reactor in the world, upto and including SSBNs.

6. Nuclear accident.
With a warhead? It's got to be armed before it can be initiated. Though there was one test device that was going to be used after Nagasaki that the scientists jokingly want to assemble on the spot instead of being in the air.

I mean; will someone read these articles (literally making fun of these nuclear war fights because of practicalities in deterrence) before setting fuse on 'Fat man'?
Every bit of evidence suggests that your targeteers are fully aware of these factors.
 

hit&run

United States of Hindu Empire
Mod
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
11,180
Likes
37,586
I have absolutely no clue as to what you mean here.

i mean nuclear bullying may encourage wanna be states to develop accident prone nuclear programme or may reduce the tolerance/threshold in future.

It's gone down. Way down. Most of NATO/Warsaw Pact countries are extremely capable of producing their own nukes. Some even did. When I went in, 4th Brigade was in the process of withdrawing the last tac nukes from Canada's inventory. As a result, only 4 countries of the entire Fulda Gap armies built and maintained nukes.

i can provide reliable links(physicstoday.org etc) where china has/is proliferated nuclear technology to Pakistan or actually detonated herself these bombs plutonium designs in pakistan. For china is now Tom and jerry show just she has to switch on the pakistani CD player.

Even still, the entire nuclear inventory went down from a high of 62,000 nukes world combined to around 22,000 -23,000.

The world today is a lot safer than when I was in.

World is less safer as 1/6 of humanity lives in india given the fact only you trust over optimistic Dr. jeffery neither USA nor india and not even china herself. Have you heard china is changing her historic posture of The Minimum Means of Reprisal/Revenge( in chines ). Due to
1.Overwhelming U.S. superiority in conventional weapons (particularly advanced precision-guided munitions) undermines traditional nuclear deterrence.

2.The United States is seen as having used force in a variety of circumstances over the past decade, often without UN Security Council authorization; this has created some unease in Russia and China over a possible U.S. role in existing or potential regional conflicts (for example, a clash over Taiwan or a conflict similar to Russia’s 2008 war with Georgia over South Ossetia, as i mentioned before Iraq and pakistan in stone age post 9/11).

3.China perceive U.S. missile defense plans as potentially harming their ability to deter a U.S. strike. Th e U.S. justification for missile defenses—the need to intercept missiles launched by “rogue” states such as Iran and North Korea—is not regarded as credible in Beijing.

4.The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review issued by the George W. Bush administration created the impression that the United States plans to integrate nuclear weapons into an array of other military assets and lower the nuclear threshold


India is easy to read on this score. She's about 40-60 nukes short of the 200 she wants.

No india was never in position to afford these liabilities, before pokhran II for 30 years there was never a need to improvise nuclear warhead.

Pakistan is even easier. She reached the limit of applicable uranium designs and wants to move onto plutonium designs. 64kgs of urnaium is required for critical mass as opposed to 8kgs of Pu. For any decent guidance package for her missiles, she needs to free up weight and room.

They wont mind doing that, China factor!
Only answer to satisfy my insanity is that why china was ineffectual in opposing exemption to india by NSG countries.


We have the signatures of every nulcear reactor in the world, upto and including SSBNs.

Pardon my ignorance, can you provide my links sir. I be very thankful to you.

With a warhead? It's got to be armed before it can be initiated. Though there was one test device that was going to be used after Nagasaki that the scientists jokingly want to assemble on the spot instead of being in the air.

:D:D

Every bit of evidence suggests that your targeteers are fully aware of these factors.

Why US is engaging China and Russia on Nuclear Disarmament ?
Why US is engaging China and Russia on Nuclear Disarmament?
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,733
OOE sir,

In the event of a full-scale war between Pakistan and India and Pakistan on the verge of loosing a major chunk of their land, how likely is that Pakistan is going to launch nuclear weapons especially when the trigger is with a general (CAOS) and not a civilian authority like PM or President.

My hunch says that it is very unlikely unless he is mad. Any ideas about this?.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
i mean nuclear bullying may encourage wanna be states to develop accident prone nuclear programme or may reduce the tolerance/threshold in future.
Nuclear blackmail? The only time the Chinese did that was against the US and it backed fire.

i can provide reliable links(physicstoday.org etc) where china has/is proliferated nuclear technology to Pakistan or actually detonated herself these bombs plutonium designs in pakistan. For china is now Tom and jerry show just she has to switch on the pakistani CD player.
You mean that one Pu air sample that Los Alamos Labs contiminated? There are several arguments against it, namely LA Labs screwed up and thus we cannot verify where the Pu came from, either from Pakistan or China or North Korea ... or the most likely explaination, from India.

One air sample is way too small for a Pu based bomb and the thinking now is that the sample drifted in from India's own tests but since the sample got contiminated, it cannot be verified.

However, given what we learned from AQ Khan's own notes from Lybia and Switzerland, the Pakistanis are nowhere close to a Pu bomb.

However, I am willing to examine your sources.

World is less safer as 1/6 of humanity lives in india
India is not the world.

given the fact only you trust over optimistic Dr. jeffery neither USA nor india and not even china herself.
Dr Jeffery is explaining Marshall Nie, the Chinese nuclear weapons targeteer. Dr Jeffery is not a decision maker, nor am I nor you for that matter. He merely accumlates open source intel. I like him because he collects far more open source intel than anyone else.

Have you heard china is changing her historic posture of The Minimum Means of Reprisal/Revenge( in chines ). Due to
And yet, not one single new warhead has been added even though China has enough fissible materials for 5000. Not one CSS-4 has been MIRVed. Chinese SSBNs still go on patrol without one nuke on board. During this entire time, the 2AF increased their conventional strike force by a factor of 40 missiles per year while not increasing one single nuclear armed brigade nor increase the number of missiles per nuclear armed brigade.

A hint about China/PLA watching. Look at the regiment/brigade badges. Anything else will drive you mad with speculation.

No india was never in position to afford these liabilities, before pokhran II for 30 years there was never a need to improvise nuclear warhead.
You had component form nukes for over 30 years. And a lot of zero yield testing done between PI and PII and you're still doing a lot of zero yield testing today.

They wont mind doing that, China factor!
No clue as to what you mean here.

Only answer to satisfy my insanity is that why china was ineffectual in opposing exemption to india by NSG countries.
The way it was presented to me was that the Chinese diplomat was so frustrated that he left the room and told the Indian delegates to call him back when they got things settled with the other NSG delegates.

Pardon my ignorance, can you provide my links sir. I be very thankful to you.
Google nuclear forensics.

Why US is engaging China and Russia on Nuclear Disarmament ?
Because all 3 are members of the N5 and all N5 got treaty obligations.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
OOE sir,

In the event of a full-scale war between Pakistan and India and Pakistan on the verge of loosing a major chunk of their land, how likely is that Pakistan is going to launch nuclear weapons especially when the trigger is with a general (CAOS) and not a civilian authority like PM or President.

My hunch says that it is very unlikely unless he is mad. Any ideas about this?.
If a military man, and I stress a military man, I don't think Musharraf as a military man, nukes would be the furthest thing from my mind. There are a lot more tools in the inventory, including thermobaric systems that can do the job just as well without crossing the nuclear threshold.

And plus, you don't have to rely on the egg heads to put it together.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,733
If a military man, and I stress a military man, I don't think Musharraf as a military man, nukes would be the furthest thing from my mind. There are a lot more tools in the inventory, including thermobaric systems that can do the job just as well without crossing the nuclear threshold.
The current COAS of Pakistani army is Ashraff Kayani. Musharraf is in exile.

If thermobaric bombs were good enough to achieve the goals, then why people fear nuclear weapons more?. Is it because of the after effects caused by nuclear weapons like radiation and subsequent genetic diseases (case in point Hiroshima/Nagasaki explosion) in the population exposed to radiation?.
 

advaita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
Not a very comfortable thought, especially when you're on the front lines, and imagining your family being burned alive and seeing those CF-104s, taking off, not hard to imagine whose babies they were going to burn.

All to no avail.
imagining

Exactly that is why Detterance has to be present at every level. Even totality.
Also pls bear in mind word TOTALITY was in capitals meaning not just Bio warfare (which country is actaully following any of these multilateral treaties).
In later posts you yourself mentioned zero yield tests by Indians. I am sure others are much ahead.
 

advaita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
OOE sir,

In the event of a full-scale war between Pakistan and India and Pakistan on the verge of loosing a major chunk of their land, how likely is that Pakistan is going to launch nuclear weapons especially when the trigger is with a general (CAOS) and not a civilian authority like PM or President.

My hunch says that it is very unlikely unless he is mad. Any ideas about this?.
Only time nukes were used it was used by the one who did not really need to. That one usage so changed the civiliation that got hit that they are afraid of ruffling feathers of everybody even today.

Pakistan will certainly use it when they have to save there skins. They would like to do the same that anybody else would (give a bloody nose and then to live in hearts and minds of diaspora). And the threshold is meant not to be crossed. Once crossed then remember even the Agni pariksha is not enough (no war has to be fought if there is no fear/suspicion/jealousy/uncontrolled impulses by both parties....) and hence the Nuke war will per force turn total.
Total on both fronts.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
The current COAS of Pakistani army is Ashraff Kayani. Musharraf is in exile.
I know. I was qualifying what a military man was and I don't think Musharraf is one despite his uniform.

If thermobaric bombs were good enough to achieve the goals, then why people fear nuclear weapons more?. Is it because of the after effects caused by nuclear weapons like radiation and subsequent genetic diseases (case in point Hiroshima/Nagasaki explosion) in the population exposed to radiation?.
I want to clear up something. Nukes are far more destructive than any thermobaric system. In their small packages, they can do a hell of a lot more damage than systems 10-20 times their size.

What thermobaric and other systems can achieve is equivlent damage, not equal damage. Using tac nukes as the example, 4 Brigade had the tactic of targetting enemy HHC with a tac nuke. We replaced that with an artillery barrage instead. So, the enemy HHC dies from shrapnel ripping through their bodies and overpressure instead of being vapourized by a nuke.

However, there is no way to replace nukes in the kind of strategic damage envisioned. A Pakistani once asked me what can the US do to the entire Muslim world if a Muslim nuke hit New York. I told him, every air control tower and every harbour in every Muslim country would be gone. Yeah, most of the people would survive but no one is swimming across two oceans to get revenge.
 

advaita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
India made a smart choice of "No First Use" (NFU) policy of nuclear weapons as it would serve as effective deterrent against other nuclear powers (China and Pakistan) in the event of conventional war without escalating it to the nuclear war and deter others from using nuclear weapons. As pointed out in previous posts, China, Pakistan and India have nuclear warheads in the number ranging from 50-200 or even more in case of China. With these numbers, China or Pakistan doesn't have a chance of causing enough damage in first nuclear strike on India to blunt the second strike capability of India. So, there will be consequences for both China and Pakistan if they chose to use nuclear weapons on India and it will be more so in the case of Pakistan owing to its relative small size viz India.

Just a naive assumption.
There is a time for diplomacy and a time for war.

Both are meant to support each other but while doing total Diplomacy you limit war (covert war). What sense would it make to do total diplomacy while doing total war. See everything would depend on the threshold. Threshold is how an analog understanding of an absolute world works (by which every body is bound even the Chinese).

NFU was for the time to deflect international attention. Both in case of China and India. How is it verifiable in both Chinas and Indias case. Without verification what is the trust.

Is any NFU supported by any Insurance policy that if it fails then indemnity can be provided to the party first hit.
 

advaita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
However, there is no way to replace nukes in the kind of strategic damage envisioned. A Pakistani once asked me what can the US do to the entire Muslim world if a Muslim nuke hit New York. I told him, every air control tower and every harbour in every Muslim country would be gone. Yeah, most of the people would survive but no one is swimming across two oceans to get revenge.
Pretty theoritical. US lost 2500 people and then came Iraq+Afpak. If a nuke hits NY. Islam is gone. The pressures in a democracy are immense. One can only run a democracy based on principle. Events cannot be controlled or managed on such scales. That is why Chinese hate Democracy. There control freak nature will never be able to take the pressures of Democracy.

BTW what did it take to start WW-1 & WW-2. How much in terms of violence.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
Exactly that is why Detterance has to be present at every level. Even totality.
Afraid you misunderstood me. We were not deterred by nuclear war. We were preparing to fight one. The fact that we avoided one is not because we were too scare but because we were damned lucky. We cocked the nuclear trigger no less than 6 times and I'm not even talking about the accidental alerts here. I mean we stare each other in the eye and gave the warning orders.

Also pls bear in mind word TOTALITY was in capitals meaning not just Bio warfare
The concept of Total War was invented by the Russians in which they rather burn their own crops than to allow 1st Napoleon and then Hitler to live off of Russian soil.

which country is actaully following any of these multilateral treaties.
Would it surprise you to learn all of them? While they purposedly written loopholes and escape clauses, those countries with honour, honour their word.

In later posts you yourself mentioned zero yield tests by Indians. I am sure others are much ahead.
There has been no new N5 warhead design since the moritorium on nuclear testing.
 

advaita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
Nuclear force as a political weapon would be useless against china as they better armed with nukes.
Political use N-force is only against those country who are not armed with nukes, don't have capability to drop nukes in you country or you are capable to intercept or neutralize your enemies nuke.
We can't achieve any such condition against china, so political use of N-force against china is useless.
Had Pakistani Nukes (most inferior in the world) not changed the course for the whole bloody world.

If nukes had no political use against Nuke opponents. Then there would have been only one nuke country in the world.

The arguement fails even before it starts.

Think threshold like Mata Sita. Think fear. Think Civilizational loss. That is the way to think on both sides not just one.

Sorry pls dont mind it. I may sound polymical but am kind of heart.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
Pretty theoritical. US lost 2500 people and then came Iraq+Afpak. If a nuke hits NY. Islam is gone.
You can't wipe out a religion with nukes. The Bediouins are far too spread out to be targetted and villages of less than 800 people would be skimped over.

There are things nukes can do and things nukes cannot do. Wiping out a religion is something nukes cannot do.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
NFU was for the time to deflect international attention. Both in case of China and India. How is it verifiable in both Chinas and Indias case. Without verification what is the trust.
Pretty easy actually. Both India and China keep their warheads away from their delivery vehicles. Start worrying when they move rockets to warheads or warheads to rockets.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,733
NFU was for the time to deflect international attention. Both in case of China and India. How is it verifiable in both Chinas and Indias case. Without verification what is the trust.

Is any NFU supported by any Insurance policy that if it fails then indemnity can be provided to the party first hit.
Are you saying that China/India despite declaring NFU can go for the first strike??. Ideally there is nothing stopping them doing so, but that will create ambiguity when you fight a war which will create misunderstanding and might lead to unintended consequences. But under what circumstances they would do this?, something that has to be ponder over.

But if as a nation you want to be taken seriously by other countries and world at large, it is better to abide by rules especially when you make your own rules.
 

advaita

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
150
Likes
2
Afraid you misunderstood me. We were not deterred by nuclear war. We were preparing to fight one. The fact that we avoided one is not because we were too scare but because we were damned lucky. We cocked the nuclear trigger no less than 6 times and I'm even talking about the accidental alerts here. I mean we stare each other in the eye and gave the warning orders.
Had you not been lucky then what........ totality no. In such a case how would it be if the other guys says time out. Pretty stupid no. That is why other guy has to have enough to ensure that the guy hiting first gets a Reset button on both sides.

See I want to marry a girl. I dont believe in horoscopes. She does. I have to consult one too (even if only to doctor one - LOL)

No fear on Chipak side should obviously be met by no fear on Indian side. Otherwise it is civilizational loss. Goodbye Gita, Hello Little red book.
Though it is only my personal view but it should be better to have some Indians live an Indian life then to have all the Indians live a Chinese life.

The concept of Total War was invented by the Russians in which they rather burn their own crops than to allow 1st Napoleon and then Hitler to live off of Russian soil.
My totality is different. Quite like Chinese polymics.

Would it surprise you to learn all of them? While they purposedly written loopholes and escape clauses, those countries with honour, honour their word.
You yourself mentioned Zero yield testing. Can you guarantee it (aah no point, I will never be able to encash the guarantee. But no guarantee to Xe Hin... too).

BTW where did Avian flu, Swine flu, SARS come from. (ok i admit this one liner is a joke)

There has been no new N5 warhead design since the moritorium on nuclear testing.
You yourself mentioned Zero yield testing. Can you guarantee it (aah no point, I will never be able to encash the guarantee. But no guarantee to Xe Hin... too)
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,616
Likes
5,733
Pretty easy actually. Both India and China keep their warheads away from their delivery vehicles. Start worrying when they move rockets to warheads or warheads to rockets.
Sir, this will happen only when they have some kind of humint/elint/comint to know that mating of warhead and delivery vehicles happening. And they have to be 100% sure of such intelligence to take any further action. Does such intelligence come by so easily?? (for example in the case of China/India).
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top