Retaliation against a Nuclear attack on India

[trackwhack]

There is another very very simple way of looking at this. What is the problem with matching your enemy's destructive arsenal? What is the sense in maintaining a severely out of balance arsenal?

When China feels the need to point 10 times the destructive power at a country with area 1/3rd her size, we feel it is enough to maintain an arsenal 1/10th the destructive power to cover 3 times the area? How exactly does that work?

 

[Yusuf]

Track, what they did in the past in terms of killing their own does not hold good. Just see how scared they are of their people that they keep soon things to make sure they keep growing or else they will be toppled over. The days of Mao slaughter are over. I don't think the Chinese will take the CPC taking them to slaughter house lightly.

 

[Iamanidiot]

The Chinese have nukes for deterrence and India is last on the mind of Chinese nuke planners Trackwhack and NRJ got it wrong and Yusuf and Ice berg got it right

 

[nrj]

I am not worried about Chinese nuclear offensive. I don't expect it either.

My point is simple, Megaton test is required for power projection.

Whether to maintain Mt stockpile or not is way too complex and conditional issue.

 

[trackwhack]

Nuclear deterrence against India does not justify the size of the Chinese arsenal against us. The only way to deter an arsenal of that size is to maintain one of similar size against them.
Yusuf, you keep mentioning not to believe western hype about us not having large warheads. Agreed. But maybe you should also not believe Western hype about not needing megaton warheads. Also, I am yet to get a proper answer on why the P5 maintains an active arsenal of Megaton warheads.

Also, do you think it will positively or negatively impact our commercial nuclear interests if we prove to the world that our arsenal does not require a large amount of fissile material?

 

[Iamanidiot]

Nuclear deterrence against India does not justify the size of the Chinese arsenal against us. The only way to deter an arsenal of that size is to maintain one of similar size against them.
Yusuf, you keep mentioning not to believe western hype about us not having large warheads. Agreed. But maybe you should also not believe Western hype about not needing megaton warheads. Also, I am yet to get a proper answer on why the P5 maintains an active arsenal of Megaton warheads.

Also, do you think it will positively or negatively impact our commercial nuclear interests if we prove to the world that our arsenal does not require a large amount of fissile material?

The Chinese do not have a total stockpile of 200-300 and another stockpile for 1800 nukes.this is the view of the most experienced PLA watchers in the internet.I don;t where you got the Chinese have 3000 nukes I don't know.

 

[trackwhack]

The Chinese do not have a total stockpile of 200-300 and another stockpile for 1800 nukes.this is the view of the most experienced PLA watchers in the internet.I don;t where you got the Chinese have 3000 nukes I don't know.

Must I remind you that the P5 is excluded from IAEA inspections on their reactors? There is absolutely no way of determining Chinese stockpile. This is where Pakistan's initial stockpile came from too. Further, fissile weapons stockpile has hardly any bearing on fusion weapons. You need but 2 kgs of weapons grade plutonium for megaton warheads.

Fact is, no one knows the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal because they are bloody good at keeping it confidential. The count could be anywhere between 500 and 3000 or maybe even more. If the US and Russia felt it justified to have that many, why would China not feel so. They are after all trying to become the number one economic and military power in the world.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Must I remind you that the P5 is excluded from IAEA inspections on their reactors? There is absolutely no way of determining Chinese stockpile. This is where Pakistan's initial stockpile came from too. Further, fissile weapons stockpile has hardly any bearing on fusion weapons. You need but 2 kgs of weapons grade plutonium for megaton warheads.

Fact is, no one knows the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal because they are bloody good at keeping it confidential. The count could be anywhere between 500 and 3000 or maybe even more. If the US and Russia felt it justified to have that many, why would China not feel so. They are after all trying to become the number one economic and military power in the world.

Track whack go to WAB and read Colonel OOE's posts a person who dedicated his life as a PLA watcher.He is the source of knowledge for me and Yusuf and may be ice berg
Indian Nuclear Testing

How secure are Pakistan's nukes?

@Trackwhack and NRJ read these threads thoroughly

 

[Yusuf]

Track,

Megaton warheads were required in the cold war days when missiles were not accurate and they had to take out hardened silos.

India didn't test any "big" bomb as it does not have the place to do it and also does not need it.

Primary US warhead on a Trident is the W88 which has a yield of upto 475kt and the W76 which has a yield of 100kt.

The primary US warhead the B61 part of the enduring stockpile has a variable yield of upto 350kt and the W80 a derivative of the B61 has a max yield of 150kt. All in current stockpile.

 

[trackwhack]

Track whack go to WAB and read Colonel OOE's posts a person who dedicated his life as a PLA watcher.He is the source of knowledge for me and Yusuf and may be ice berg
Indian Nuclear Testing

How secure are Pakistan's nukes?

@Trackwhack and NRJ read these threads thoroughly

Sir, with all due respect, facts that even the CIA are unaware of, a China watcher would not know. Even so, he has stated himself that there are 200 plus nukes for ready strike against India by China and then 500 more in time. And our deterrence is a few 10's of nukes that pale in comparison to their yields.

I have read enough arguments and counter arguments to all these points. My unanswered questions are.

1) Why does India find megatonne warheads unnecessary when the P5 has an active arsenal and at least one (probably 2) of them have them pointed at us? Yusuf, your argument does not hold water because megatonne warheads may have been created 40 years back, but they still exist and in very very large numbers.
2) Why are we defining our strategic nuclear policy as credible minimum deterrence, when,

a) it is neither credible - we have not tested large warheads that are supposedly deployed - 200KT. Credibility comes with testing and achieving results. Not by ambiguity as Yusuf mentioned earlier.
b) nor deterrent - we dont have the arsenal and hence wont have the political will to enter a nuclear fist fight. Deterrence comes through balance. Look at the cold war. Both powers had arsenals that ensured total, absolute destruction of each other.

Wake up - we are in a cold war with the Chinese. We are their primary threat - economically (obvious) and politically (Tibet). From their perpective, the world does not have enough for two powers. The strategies are open and obvious - look at the support for Pakistan, look at their military posturing, look at their strategic thought process of trying to split India along federal lines. Do you not see similarities between this and the cold war?

 

[addiction]

Sir, with all due respect, facts that even the CIA are unaware of, a China watcher would not know. Even so, he has stated himself that there are 200 plus nukes for ready strike against India by China and then 500 more in time. And our deterrence is a few 10's of nukes that pale in comparison to their yields.

I have read enough arguments and counter arguments to all these points. My unanswered questions are.

1) Why does India find megatonne warheads unnecessary when the P5 has an active arsenal and at least one (probably 2) of them have them pointed at us? Yusuf, your argument does not hold water because megatonne warheads may have been created 40 years back, but they still exist and in very very large numbers.
2) Why are we defining our strategic nuclear policy as credible minimum deterrence, when,

a) it is neither credible - we have not tested large warheads that are supposedly deployed - 200KT. Credibility comes with testing and achieving results. Not by ambiguity as Yusuf mentioned earlier.
b) nor deterrent - we dont have the arsenal and hence wont have the political will to enter a nuclear fist fight. Deterrence comes through balance. Look at the cold war. Both powers had arsenals that ensured total, absolute destruction of each other.

Wake up - we are in a cold war with the Chinese. We are their primary threat - economically (obvious) and politically (Tibet). From their perpective, the world does not have enough for two powers. The strategies are open and obvious - look at the support for Pakistan, look at their military posturing, look at their strategic thought process of trying to split India along federal lines. Do you not see similarities between this and the cold war?

very well said...I really doubt the credibility of our minimum credible deterrence and wonder why should a country of over billion people should have minimum deterrence!!!

I will call it as "subsidized suicide"" whereas we should have the most offensive capability against all our neighbors who pose any threat to us and especially against China which is being led by inhuman people (read ccp) with their expansionist and arrogant foreign policies! time to prepare for a complete knockout game with China...

 

[Yusuf]

Track, they may have some megaton warheads but their primary bulk is not. Trident is the primary carrier of nukes and they don't carry megaton warheads and so is the B61. So no they are not using megaton bombs.

The west has been there done that as far as nuclear warfare goes and that's when they realized that all te megatons and thousands of bombs were actually useless and they cannot fight wars.

What you are suggesting is an idea tried an rejected by the west. China cannot let any cities go in a mushroom cloud. They will not nuke us.

For your information, for the better part of the cold war the western intel grossly overestimated Chinese arsenal.

 

[Yusuf]

Check the arsenal of US

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/usnukes.html

Megaton warheads are a minority in their otherwise large arsenal. Again the role is to strike hardened targets and carried by bombers.

 

[addiction]

Track, they may have some megaton warheads but their primary bulk is not. Trident is the primary carrier of nukes and they don't carry megaton warheads and so is the B61. So no they are not using megaton bombs.

The west has been there done that as far as nuclear warfare goes and that's when they realized that all te megatons and thousands of bombs were actually useless and they cannot fight wars.

What you are suggesting is an idea tried an rejected by the west. China cannot let any cities go in a mushroom cloud. They will not nuke us.

For your information, for the better part of the cold war the western intel grossly overestimated Chinese arsenal.

And dude, cold war didn't break out as a full fledge war just because of sucg overestimation of each other's capability! So, if you can estimate that the opponent does not have the capability to retaliate, they will attack you with or without notice!

So basically, we have to keep our strong enemy guessing until we build that kind of capability...

 

[trackwhack]

Check the arsenal of US

United States Arsenal

Megaton warheads are a minority in their otherwise large arsenal. Again the role is to strike hardened targets and carried by bombers.

At last count the US had 300+ active Megaton warheads. They also have close to 1000 inactive megaton warheads, however these have not been marked to be dismantled yet.

addiction: You shouldn't dude Yusuf. Respect seniority. Unless they are unreasonably intolerant of you.

 

[Yusuf]

The United States and the Soviet Union, after independently developing thermonuclear weapons, both produced some numbers of such weapons of very high yield. While most thermonuclear weapons built had yields in the range of several hundred kilotons to a few megatons, some much larger weapons were built. Weapons with yields up to 20-50 megatons were developed and deployed (one Soviet weapon of 150 mt was developed but probably never operational). Of the roughly 135,000 warheads ever built by the two superpowers, about 3% had yields over 4.5 megatons.

The United States built the greater number of multimegaton weapons, doing so in the late 1950s and 1960s mostly to equip its bomber force with a massive nuclear capability against the U.S.S.R. The U.S. largely abandoned such weapons in favor of smaller nuclear weapons, allowing more flexible delivery of larger numbers of warheads. Most of the Soviet strategic nuclear capability was in its ICBMs, but like the U.S. the Soviets deployed high-yield weapons before mostly shifting to smaller, multiple warheads.

The U.S. has now retired all of its multimegaton weapons. Disassembly of the last type removed from service, the B53, may be completed in 2006. Russia probably maintains a small number ICBMs in high-yield single warhead versions. The People's Republic of China has one type of ICBM armed with high-yield warheads. Operational multimegaton weapons in 2005 thus include:

Russia's R-36M2 Voyevoda (SS-18 Mod 6) with a 20 mt warhead (possibly 5 deployed). (The UR-100N version (SS-19 Mod 2) with a 5 mt warhead may no longer be deployed.)
PRC's DF-5A (CSS-4) with a 5 mt warhead (about 24 deployed).

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/multimeg.html

 

[Yusuf]

And dude, cold war didn't break out as a full fledge war just because of sucg overestimation of each other's capability! So, if you can estimate that the opponent does not have the capability to retaliate, they will attack you with or without notice!

So basically, we have to keep our strong enemy guessing until we build that kind of capability...

Nobody knows the actual state of Indian nukes. You know we as of 2005 we had enough reactor grade fissile material to make 2000 bombs.
Ambiguity is part of deterrence strategy.

 

[trackwhack]

The United States and the Soviet Union, after independently developing thermonuclear weapons, both produced some numbers of such weapons of very high yield. While most thermonuclear weapons built had yields in the range of several hundred kilotons to a few megatons, some much larger weapons were built. Weapons with yields up to 20-50 megatons were developed and deployed (one Soviet weapon of 150 mt was developed but probably never operational). Of the roughly 135,000 warheads ever built by the two superpowers, about 3% had yields over 4.5 megatons.

The United States built the greater number of multimegaton weapons, doing so in the late 1950s and 1960s mostly to equip its bomber force with a massive nuclear capability against the U.S.S.R. The U.S. largely abandoned such weapons in favor of smaller nuclear weapons, allowing more flexible delivery of larger numbers of warheads. Most of the Soviet strategic nuclear capability was in its ICBMs, but like the U.S. the Soviets deployed high-yield weapons before mostly shifting to smaller, multiple warheads.

The U.S. has now retired all of its multimegaton weapons. Disassembly of the last type removed from service, the B53, may be completed in 2006. Russia probably maintains a small number ICBMs in high-yield single warhead versions. The People's Republic of China has one type of ICBM armed with high-yield warheads. Operational multimegaton weapons in 2005 thus include:

Russia's R-36M2 Voyevoda (SS-18 Mod 6) with a 20 mt warhead (possibly 5 deployed). (The UR-100N version (SS-19 Mod 2) with a 5 mt warhead may no longer be deployed.)
PRC's DF-5A (CSS-4) with a 5 mt warhead (about 24 deployed).

Multimegaton Weapons

That is incorrect. The B83 is in Service - 1.2 megatons 300+ of them in service. Another 300+ in storage.

Also cancelled warheads do not mean dismantled warheads. They only mean decommissioned. They are still in storage. And there are 1000+ of these.

 

[Mad Indian]

Hmmm There is another possibility too, in case of China starting a nuke war on India, then it will give a perfect excuse for the US to nuke the Chinese... Then again I may be wrong.... But i think that situation is very likely....

 

[Yusuf]

That is incorrect. The B83 is in Service - 1.2 megatons 300+ of them in service. Another 300+ in storage.

Also cancelled warheads do not mean dismantled warheads. They only mean decommissioned. They are still in storage. And there are 1000+ of these.

Depends on which data is dated when.

Anyways, the reason they were taken off is because they didn't find any use for it.