Should india have a credible chemical weapons programne for tactical use

Maharaj samudragupt

Kritant Parashu
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
7,034
Likes
20,106
Country flag
We had and dismantled it after ratifying chemical weapons convention.

Further, lack of decentralised oxygen facilities shows, we are not prepared at all for bio chemical warfare.
Iam saying about offensive capabilities
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,474
Likes
1,207
Country flag
I know this may sound harsh but given that we deal with an enemy which has genocidal designs for our nation, hence india must keep enough deterrent against such an radicalized enemy.
Because nuclear option is too dreadful
Which country has genocidal designs for India?
 

nWo 4 Life

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2021
Messages
2,168
Likes
10,898
Country flag
I am not an expert in this realm, but from what little I have read about it, I know that Chemical weapons act very quickly but can be detected easily and affect only a limited area. Conversely, biological weapons have an inbuilt delay system due to the use of living organisms, their effect takes a long time to manifest itself. In the same context, nuclear weapons affect instantaneously, and the use of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) may lead to strategic nuclear exchange.

Consequently, the pattern seen over the years suggests that nations invest in chemical weapons first, biological weapons second, and nuclear weapons third. This minimises risk and maximises investment with limited resources, while increasing technological capabilities at each stage.

Though appearing simple, CW is a very confused area due to the fine distinction between the weaponisation and the employment of ammunition loaded with nerve gas, napalm or CS gas. Napalm and CS gas are conventional munitions related to chemical munitions in design only.

Ask any soldier and he'll tell you that CW is a very strange weapon which cannot be seen and thus difficult to fight and protect against. One is never sure of the efficacy of protective gear like clothing and masks. It is not possible to say with certainty when the area is clear of the harmful effect of the CW agents. During pendency of this confirmation, even the simplest tasks become difficult to perform. All military action, including the use of weapons and other equipment, becomes difficult for the soldiers in the field in a CW situation.

For example, the US Army conducted Combined Arms in a Nuclear/Chemical Environment (CANE) exercises from 1983 to 1992. The results will give you some idea of the effect of fighting in protective clothing, due to physical degradation and psychological isolation:

• A 52 per cent drop in direct fire and 360 per cent rise in friendly fire.
• A 46 per cent drop in battle intensity and 25 per cent less enemy engagement.
• A 22 per cent drop in threat forces killed in offensive attacks, a 25 per cent drop in defensive actions by night and a 11.5 per cent rise in day actions.

• A 47 per cent rise in radio traffic took 53 per cent longer to be understood.
• A 209 per cent rise in calls for indirect fire support in the offensive and an 11 per cent drop in defence.
• A 340 per cent rise in time taken to replace the chain of command.
 

maximus777

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
260
Likes
1,214
Country flag
We had and dismantled it after ratifying chemical weapons convention.

Further, lack of decentralised oxygen facilities shows, we are not prepared at all for bio chemical warfare.
The premise is India will not make a distinction if it's CW v/s nuke or tactical v/s strategic. If WMDs of any nature are used against us, it will trigger a massive nuke second strike (which will be strategic MT city busters in all likelihood) is at least what the doctrine says. Whether we have the cojones to put this into practice is any one's guess! But considering Indian public would be baying for blood in such a scenario, no Indian govt would be able to resist succumbing to that pressure.
 

nWo 4 Life

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2021
Messages
2,168
Likes
10,898
Country flag
The premise is India will not make a distinction if it's CW v/s nuke or tactical v/s strategic. If WMDs of any nature are used against us, it will trigger a massive nuke second strike (which will be strategic MT city busters in all likelihood) is at least what the doctrine says. Whether we have the cojones to put this into practice is any one's guess! But considering Indian public would be baying for blood in such a scenario, no Indian govt would be able to resist succumbing to that pressure.
If the Porkies and John Chinaman are smart, they wouldn't ever launch WMDs on us directly. It would be through proxies by smuggling nuclear or chemical material inside the country to "non-sponsored terrorists" who can then build a crude device or even threaten to blow up any kind of radioactive material in a crowded place or temples or such.
 

DocK

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Messages
137
Likes
638
Country flag
Investing in CW is useless as

1. If you know how to then any fertilizer factory can be used to produce what you want in days.

2. Days of Auschwitz like genocide are over. Now more insidious methods are prevalent. Like in England and Sweden.

3. When we use CW we end up hampering our efforts to move ahead and attack effectively while also becoming a rogue thus losing any support from any allies we may have.

Cost benefit analysis CW is a failed move of the desperately damned.
 

nWo 4 Life

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2021
Messages
2,168
Likes
10,898
Country flag
Investing in CW is useless as

1. If you know how to then any fertilizer factory can be used to produce what you want in days.

2. Days of Auschwitz like genocide are over. Now more insidious methods are prevalent. Like in England and Sweden.

3. When we use CW we end up hampering our efforts to move ahead and attack effectively while also becoming a rogue thus losing any support from any allies we may have.

Cost benefit analysis CW is a failed move of the desperately damned.
Well, that's not entirely true. In our context, while considering the mountain scenario, the Iraq-Iran war showed that CWs are pretty much useless in that situation. In the desert too, the high temperatures create problems for effective CW and the mechanized columns have both greater protection and mobility against CW.

However, the use of CW in the plains is a good possibility. Though the area is heavily populated on both sides of our western borders and militarily it will require favorable winds and very precise targeting, the army would be better prepared than the civilians through defensive measures like protective clothing.

The air force would have a problem because the high performance aircraft cannot be flown with protective gear and also the tolerance level of chemical exposure for fliers is very low. (They need very sensitive detectors to detect very low levels of nerve agents, levels which can cause myosis, blurred and dim vision because of pin-pointed pupils.)

The navy however, is well protected against CW.

Also, countries all around the world have used CWs in a conventional war, which should be an option in our arsenal too if a war does indeed break out. And virtually no consequences have followed after the use of CWs by nations as well:

• In 1968 during the Yemeni civil war. First use of CW after the world war.
• Extensive use of Agent Orange by US forces in Vietnam against the countrys ecology.
• In 1975 and 1981, in Laos, 261 attacks by Vietnamese and Laos forces caused 6,504 deaths using T2 toxin, nerve agents and riot control agents using sprays, rockets and bombs from AN-2 and captured American L-19 and T-28/41 aircraft.

• In 1979 and 1981, in Kampuchea, 124 attacks and 981 deaths through the T2 toxin, CW agents and riot control agents.

• In 1979 and 1981, in Afghanistan, 47 attacks by the Soviets caused 3,042 deaths using nerve agents, T2 toxin and riot control agents using aircraft and helicopters firing rockets, sprays and bombs.

• In 1982, a several thousand of their 7,000 to 10,000 casualties of Iranians were caused by the mustard gas. Iraq used Mi-8 helicopter sprayers and artillery shells.

• In 1984, in the Hawizeh marshes near Basra, mustard gas caused 12,000 to 20,000 casualties of Iranians.
• In 1988, mustard and nerve gas used on four occasions around Basra against a civilian population at Halabjah. Reports indicate use of phosgene and hydrogen cyanide by Iranians and blood agent by the Iraqi forces on 17 April at Al-Faw Peninsula. Iraq used mustard gas and nerve agents against Kurds in JuneJuly. From over a million military and civil casualties, 45,000 were caused by CW.

Ultimately, I would say it all boils down to choice: How much of a defensive capability and how much of CB ammunitions is required to protect the troops? What is the balance required to survive and sustain the forces on a modern battlefield?

The military generals must appreciate that CW agents can be defined, analysed and cleaned up. They are just chemical compounds like any other chemicals. Acids, fertilizers, pesticides you name it. It can be studied and handled safely.

The best approach here would be to have a big enough arsenal of credible offensive and defensive capability so that retaliation in kind is possible and it can thus force the enemy to return to conventional warfare after exchanging a few CW weapons if inevitable.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top