Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Indian Nuclear Testing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    self delete

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by calass View Post
      OOE..thanks for the explanation...my mistake was thinking that the nukes are to be used as weapons and not as deterrence.But does not the premise of the chinese nuke weapon being only as a deterrent something that stands on flimsy ground considering that their top leadership is completely in the shadows?
      Not sure what you mean here. The Chinese nuclear arsenal is a recessed one. The nukes are kept away from their delivery vehicles and is under guard by the Central Military Commission. The rockets belong to the 2nd Artillery Force, in essence two different command structures though the 2AC answers to the CMC. That means for the Chinese to make a 1st strike, they have to mate the nukes to the rockets would would take at least 5-6 hours and in the case of the older rockets, a day since they're also unfueled.

      Chinese SSBNs also do not go on patrol with nukes on board.

      Therefore, any preparation for a nuke strike is quite visible and time consuming. More than enough time to warn anyone.

      Incidently, this is the way the Indian arsenal also performs.

      Originally posted by calass View Post
      That been the case,I still think India needs a lot more than 200 nukes and nukes a lot stronger than 20 KT along with the required delivery systems.
      As I stated, India already lost this arms race long before it began.

      Originally posted by calass View Post
      IMO preparing for a nuke war is the best way to avoid one.
      PLA Field Marshall Nie and Indian Army General K. Sundarji don't agree with you, the architects of their respective country's nuclear doctrines.

      Originally posted by calass View Post
      I see conflict between the 2 countries as inevitable and India better protect herself.
      Then, is it not your government's responsibility to avoid conflict? Especially a nuclear conflict? War is never a good answer though at times, it may be the lesser of two evils. That in itself is a sad comment.

      A soldier only knows only two ways to peace: avoid war, failing that through victory. We prefer to avoid war since our butts are to be the first one to be shot off.

      I want you to read the architect of the Indian nuclear doctrine: General K. Sundarji

      In war-fighting, whether conventional or nuclear, whilst calculating relative strengths, more is always better. But for deterrence, more is not better if less is adequate.

      Dreams of ‘disarming first strikes’ leading to the temptation to ‘go first’ and the consequent instability of Small Nuclear Power equations are think-tank myths.

      I strongly suspect that the genie has already escaped from the bottle, and proliferation has already occurred, making it too late to keep the area nuclear weapon-free. I believe that the emphasis must now shift to keeping the area nuclear weapon-safe.

      If a minimum nuclear deterrent is in place, it will act as a stabilizing factor… Why all this fuss about India and Pakistan, while not much is heard about the Israeli nuclear arsenal?

      Many arguments… are used to harangue India and Pakistan, pointing out that they are foolish (children) to believe that by going nuclear they are augmenting their national security, when by Western reckoning they are only increasing their vulnerability to nuclear chastisement (by the legitimately nuclear adults of the world, the USA, China, etc.). This kind of patronizing attitude is so infuriating…

      For a sober, mature status quo power like India, a unilateral declaration of no first use should be axiomatic.

      Possession of nuclear weapons would give Pakistan the confidence to face a larger neighbour with security and honor… This confidence on the part of Pakistan is to be welcomed as it is a positive asset for national sobriety and regional stability.

      Why would the Chinese want to fire nuclear weapons at us – just because we are supposed to have deployed some nuclear weapons that have the range to reach China?

      India has to maintain a minimum deterrence in respect of both China and Pakistan; the result of this might lead to some apparent imbalance in nuclear weapons and delivery means between Pakistan and India. The fears that this might engender in Pakistan are natural, and India must handle the issue sensibly and with sensitivity.
      An extremely brilliant man, an outside the box thinker. If he was alive at the time, he would have come up with the strategy, "What's the best way to take a castle? A donkey loaded with gold."

      Originally posted by calass View Post
      Edit:- why conflict would be inevitable is due to shortage of resources in the world.
      I don't buy that. What have we run out of? Things have became expensive, yes, to the point that we use something else instead.

      Originally posted by calass View Post
      Today's world cannot support great power aspirations of another 2 billion plus people.
      Then, would it not be you two allied together against the West?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by calass View Post
        Can the IA really fight on 2 fronts..what would be the tactics,a holding action across the Himalayas while they sort out Pakistan across the plains first?
        That option has been taken off the books. The Chinese had at one time planned to attack through both borders (Sino-Indo and Indo-Pak) but that is a full war spectrum that the PLA (and the InA) no longer wish to pursue. Instead, they seek a punitive expedition type doctrine instead of a full war.

        Comment


        • #49
          Thanks for entertaining my questions OOE....it will be very interesting to see what is going to happen in that part of the world in the not to distant future.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            That option has been taken off the books. The Chinese had at one time planned to attack through both borders (Sino-Indo and Indo-Pak) but that is a full war spectrum that the PLA (and the InA) no longer wish to pursue. Instead, they seek a punitive expedition type doctrine instead of a full war.

            Yes, a limited war would do the trick. To get on par with the other party entails more spending on defense, the effects are not obvious in a few years, but will show in the long run, it depends on what you want.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              That option has been taken off the books. The Chinese had at one time planned to attack through both borders (Sino-Indo and Indo-Pak) but that is a full war spectrum that the PLA (and the InA) no longer wish to pursue. Instead, they seek a punitive expedition type doctrine instead of a full war.
              Colonel, India seems to have quietly shelved Cold Start doctrine. The Strike Corps remain as they are with their original mission. The re-organizational focus now is entirely on adding more counter-offensive capabilities to the old Holding Corps, now renamed Pivot Corps.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                Colonel, India seems to have quietly shelved Cold Start doctrine. The Strike Corps remain as they are with their original mission. The re-organizational focus now is entirely on adding more counter-offensive capabilities to the old Holding Corps, now renamed Pivot Corps.
                My thanks, Cactus. I don't follow the InA that much and therefore, ignorant of the minute changes that has no PR grandiose statements attached to it.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  Ahhh, it's so nice talking to adults.
                  :)) :)) :))
                  Yes, without the Indian "tactical" nukes. :))
                  " THe SiLEnt KNighT.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                    Colonel, India seems to have quietly shelved Cold Start doctrine. The Strike Corps remain as they are with their original mission. The re-organizational focus now is entirely on adding more counter-offensive capabilities to the old Holding Corps, now renamed Pivot Corps.
                    Any source for this statement?. I'm yet to see a report that cold start has been shelved. It would never happen without any buzz in think-tank circles.
                    Question everything, answer nothing.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Question to pro's here.

                      Under what circumstances China would use nukes on India?. I know both have declared NFU nukes policy. But, if China feels that it has not accrued any gains from an offensive on India at sometime in future and that war is a stalemate, would it use nukes out of desperation or would it declare that it has won the war and do a PR offensive to save its face. Just a speculative question.
                      Question everything, answer nothing.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by greatindian View Post
                        Any source for this statement?. I'm yet to see a report that cold start has been shelved. It would never happen without any buzz in think-tank circles.
                        Perhaps wording such as 'manoeuvre warfare doctrine' is more in vogue.

                        Anyway lets not side track the thread.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by greatindian View Post
                          Question to pro's here.

                          Under what circumstances China would use nukes on India?. I know both have declared NFU nukes policy. But, if China feels that it has not accrued any gains from an offensive on India at sometime in future and that war is a stalemate, would it use nukes out of desperation or would it declare that it has won the war and do a PR offensive to save its face. Just a speculative question.
                          I think the latter more than the former.

                          Some history. Chinese nukes were never mated to their rockets nor the rockets fueled to launch, even during the worst crisis of an impending Soviet attack. I know Lin Biao had given warning orders but they were never obeyed.
                          Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 06 Sep 09,, 21:43. Reason: brain fart. Mistaken Lei Peng for Lin Biao.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            I know Lei Peng had given warning orders but they were never obeyed.
                            But why?
                            Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'...till you can find a rock. ;)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              There are a few things to be honest I have problems assimilating with this:

                              1. Limited war:
                              War is limited in whose eyes, the attacker or the defender? Defender being the recipient of the initial attack.
                              Look at it this way you the attacker sees it as limited, but will the person you attack see it as limited or see it as hard and fast basic war? There are no rules in war like board games. So in reality you don’t just say “Oh look I am just going to have a limited war with you, Ok?”.
                              Perception is the key not the words. The problem then arises on controlling that perception and it is their perception, (defenders) not yours, (the attacker).
                              From discussions I have seen re Cold Start, a concept based on limited war and keeping armed conflict below the nuclear threshold relies heavily on perceptions. But things can easily get out of control. A defended sector collapses and the forward push goes that much too far and perceptions are changed. It suddenly is not a limited war, that threshold of limited war or worse the nuclear threshold is now breached.

                              2. First strike - Who:
                              First strike as it is obvious. But where I come to problems is the constant discussion of who will do it. The discussions tend to with respect to India to hang on either Pakistan or China going first. Since China and India have a NFU policy, why would that be raised? Pakistan has supposedly stated it have moved to a NFU as well, though the formality seems vague. This comes back to my earlier post re Fear. But fear is dangerous. It has the ability to change a NFU to a FU policy overnight. Fear is a funny thing. If the populous has fear then by its contagious nature politicians catch it, it spreads.
                              From my limited readings about Cold Start has the potential to force a first strike by Pakistan. Is that what is really the underlying issues in Cold Start? What has been written so far implies that is not the case, but we came back to perceptions and fear.
                              (The last big Cold Start exercise was 2007 and that concluded with a nice Brazen Chariots picture show. There have been several Brazen Chariots exercise since 2007 but these are on a small scale cf the big exercises. There possibly could be discussion that Cold Start is running or on the shelf but it in itself may be minor overall.)
                              Would China use First strike against India? The most probable answer is no. China would not see winning the battle and loosing the big world picture economically or politically smart.

                              One question not asked or raised is under what conditions will India go for a first strike against China or Pakistan?
                              OK I know never happen. Well?

                              If this sounds out of whack, Ok apologies.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Ratus Ratus View Post
                                2. First strike - Who:
                                Captain, I want to start off by showing this image,



                                This was taken from a sight manage my Kylie. The obvious question to those who can read this pic is, does the Chinese even need a nuke for a 1st strike?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X