Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Indian Nuclear Testing

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

  • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Did you get the part that China would not be able to nuke the US in any way shape or form?
    I was commenting on your opening comment -

    "It just complicates the other guy's war plans to make him think it's not worth the effort."

    What I have been saying. A two pronged strategy:

    1) Do your best not to make the big guy want to attack you

    2) Convince the big guy that even after all this, for some reason he still does, he might lose a few of his cities, a million or more of his people, before he destroys us.

    That he will destroy us is a given. So if the big guy still attacks, our deterrence has not worked. We have already lost. He has been given a choice, and he has made his choice. Now we have to make ours, while we still can.

    The deterrence lies in making him ask the first question -is it worth attacking and losing a few of my cities.

    And we can make him ask that question only by

    1) Being able to hit him

    2) Continuing to be able to hit him even after a massive preemptive first strike

    Once he has answered the question, and has decided to attack anyway, we have already lost. Slade's dissection of defeat vs destruction becomes an academic throw of dice then, dependent fully on what we think or believe the big guy would do. When and IF he would say enough.

    Can we take the risk of finding out he will not stop before flattening us completely? Will we go down then without hitting back, while we still could?

    That is a question we will have to leave for him to find out ...... that is the final half of the deterrence. The second question after the first.

    If the Americans decide to intervene in any scenario, they will destroy the opposing force's nuclear threat to the CONUS before anything else ... before they will come to the rescue of her allies.
    And no, I do not believe it is a cast iron clad certainty that the US will take out the entire Chinese arsenal before they can launch. Col. DCL does not either when he talks about the Chinese NFU doctrine instantaneously morphing into a Use it or Lose it one.

    Deterrence is not warfighting and you have been putting up the warfighting scenario without understanding the implications. China is expecting to lose all her ICBMs without nuking any American city. Get it?
    Col. DCL disagrees. As do I.

    Your scenario dates back to the faceoff with the Soviets when the Chinese had 12 working nukes.

    Things have changed.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
      Your scenario dates back to the faceoff with the Soviets when the Chinese had 12 working nukes.

      Things have changed.
      You stupid idiot. China has 250 nukes but only 20 ICBMs! No, things have NOT changed!
      Chimo

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        In case you didn't get it ... and you didn't. In all the cases I've listed, the MNP told the NNP, "Go ahead. I dare you."
        I got it.

        But in all 3 cases the MNP did not attack.

        And in your first scenario, US and USSR, both were MNPs.

        Comment


        • Nothing to do with the NNP. Everything with the US telling the USSR to back off. And no, in the first scenario, the USSR had no way to nuke the US. That was why Cuba was so important.
          Chimo

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            You stupid idiot. China has 250 nukes but only 20 ICBMs! No, things have NOT changed!
            With regard to China not having ICBMs then, but right cheek by jowl with the Soviets, you have a point. In terms of delivery against the USSR then vs against the US now.

            But China did not have survivability of its nukes then. They were all land based.

            They have a working submarine based leg of the triad now, which will ensure survival. And the increase in number of warheads works there as well.

            And as I said some days ago, I do not believe any country can have a credible working nuclear deterrent triad if its boomers are carrying duds. Which I guess is the current belief.

            But are you sure? How many cities would you bet on that?
            Last edited by sated buddha; 11 Oct 14,, 13:30.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
              They have a working submarine based leg of the triad now, which will ensure survival. And the increase in number of warheads works there as well.
              NOT ONCE has Chinese SSBNs gone on patrol with nukes aboard. Not a single time.

              Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
              But are you sure?
              100%. The civilian control CMC is so tight fisted with their nukes that the 2nd Artillery Force went conventional just so they can bypass the civilians.

              Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
              How many cities would you bet on that?
              Against the Chinese? All of them.
              Chimo

              Comment


              • Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
                Col. DCL disagrees.
                And no, the Col and I do NOT disagree. He was the one who helped me through understanding General Sundarji. For small nuclear powers like China, India, Pakistan, and Israel, to avoid nuclear war, you have to be prepared to lose your entire nuclear arsenal. All of it. Lose it. Not use it. Use it just once and you've just bought nuclear war onto yourself.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  You stupid idiot. China has 250 nukes but only 20 ICBMs! No, things have NOT changed!
                  Not so. According to USAF, CHina has 15 D-31, 15 D-31A and 6-11 D-41. That translates into 36-41 ICBMs. And half of them have multiple warheads. China also has a JL-2 in development and planning to outfit 3 type 94 submarines with JL-2s.

                  Another US source put it between 50-75 ICBMs. See here:http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf

                  Entirely a different scenario from the 70s-80s.
                  Last edited by Blademaster; 11 Oct 14,, 22:16.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    And no, the Col and I do NOT disagree. He was the one who helped me through understanding General Sundarji. For small nuclear powers like China, India, Pakistan, and Israel, to avoid nuclear war, you have to be prepared to lose your entire nuclear arsenal. All of it. Lose it. Not use it. Use it just once and you've just bought nuclear war onto yourself.

                    Against USA or USSR, yes that is true but against each other, not so.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      Against USA or USSR, yes that is true but against each other, not so.
                      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.
                      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?
                      - General Sundarji
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                        Not so. According to USAF, CHina has 15 D-31, 15 D-31A and 6-11 D-41. That translates into 36-41 ICBMs. And half of them have multiple warheads. China also has a JL-2 in development and planning to outfit 3 type 94 submarines with JL-2s.

                        Another US source put it between 50-75 ICBMs. See here:http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf

                        Entirely a different scenario from the 70s-80s.
                        The only one that be sure of is the DF-31 of which there are 15. The DF-31A has not reach regimental status yet. The DF-41 is still in development. The JL-2 ... well, it's been in development forever and has not been seen being loaded onto SSBNs.

                        The last Chinese warhead that was tested is too large to be MIRV in any of the current generation of missiles, meaning all these missiles are single warhead. The only Chinese rocket that can be MIRV with tested Chinese warheads is the DF-5.

                        All told, 20 ICBMs, all silo based and all silo locations identified. Could be more as reloads but once you taken out the silo, the point is moot.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
                          So when you equate two nuclear powers, one with 10,000 nukes, and the other with 250 nukes (or even 1800), there can only be one reason for that.
                          No, we DO NOT treat China as an equal to the USSR. We sign bilateral arms control agreements with Russia. We did not even bother inviting China to the talks.

                          Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
                          Both of them can hit you.
                          One can hit us. The other can try but he's not even trying.

                          Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
                          One of them can destroy you as much as you them. The other can kill a few million of your civilians before you destroy them.
                          No, the other is offering his nukes as a scarficial lamb so he can attain his other goals. For every bomb that is dropped Chinese nukes is a bomb NOT dropped somewhere else where the Chinese need a free reign.

                          Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
                          But in terms of your perception, be it one of the two MADs - Mutually Assured Destruction or Minimal Assured Destruction, you consider both to be major nuclear powers.
                          Both are considered nuclear weapons states.

                          Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
                          That is extremely telling, and I believe it vindicates my argument.
                          Wrong. Wrong. And Wrong.

                          Both are targets. We do NOT change the way we fight nuclear war just because one is a handicap. We use the same exact methodology fighting a nuclear war against the Chinese as we do the Russians. No holds bar. And that includes India.

                          BTW, YOU HAVE NO ARGUEMENT. YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER OF INDIAN NUCLEAR DOCTRINE.

                          General Sundarji is ... and you have absolutely no idea just how brilliant this man is.

                          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.

                          - General Sundarji
                          Key words - nuclear weapon-safe

                          Threatening a nuke strike against a superpower after he conventionally took out your ICBMs is NOT nuclear weapon-safe.

                          And no, you are not a General, nor a defence minister nor no one. You have absolutely no say in India's nuclear weapons doctrine. I strongly suggest you read up on the architects of your nuclear weapons doctrine. They are brilliant men and they don't think as amateur as you.
                          Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 12 Oct 14,, 15:26.
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • SB

                            Here is one of the things that you are not getting. And it took some time for me to think back to the cold war days to remember.

                            The three nuclear powers were/are like 3 men facing off in a fight.

                            The US is sizing up the USSR. The USSR is sizing up the US. We can both go toe to toe with each other. It just depends on who throws the first punch and gets the advantage. BUt we are wise enough to know that we are both getting hurt real bad.

                            All of a sudden the third guy (China) walks up. Also ready to fight. He is not our friend but he isn't the USSR's friend either. Not a real big player, but big enough to sway the balance.

                            We both hold off because we don't know which side he will jump in on. I could beat up the USSR and the USSR can beat me up. But neither one has the energy (missiles) to take on the other two.

                            Its the country thats gonna sucker punch someone in the back of the head.

                            You mentioned England and France, and why the USSR didn't see them as a threat/target them. They are the third person in the fight but they are US allies. Russia knows that to jump on one of them means that the other country and the US is also getting in the fight.

                            The two big guys know this and we sing treaties between each other. We also keep the little guys from using their nukes by letting them know that we won't step in. The UK had plans to nuke Argentina if the Falklands war went bad. We let them know that we were not starting WW3 over that little island.

                            I'm pretty sure that we have told Pakistan the same about launching a nuke strike against India.

                            General Sundarji saw this. India is in a bind. Your 2 opponents are Pakistan and China. Strike one and you leave yourself vulnerable against the other. The US and Russia would sit this one out.

                            Comment


                            • Extending that bar-fight analogy, the USSR under Stalin was relentlessly aggressive and expansionist. Kissinger in "Diplomacy" goes through great lengths to show that while Churchill and some US policy makers saw the USSR as a threat, most US policy-makers had their heads in the sand. The USSR had to act blatantly aggressively for many years for NATO to come into force, and for the US to start seriously flexing its muscles.

                              That's how you ended up in that bar-fight scenario to begin with. You really have to make yourself into a target. China is playing this smart: they are flexing their muscles on border disputes and are opaque with regards to the military doctrine. But they aren't mass producing ICBMs or deploying SLBMs. From a US policy-maker's perspective, that's something to be concerned about, and we'll hold certain red-lines, but we aren't psyched about starting another bar fight (even after we won the last one!)
                              Which is great from China's perspective, they are still integrated into the world economy and can still flex their muscles on their territorial claims and maybe win them in the future.
                              The moment China starts mass producing ICBMs is the moment things escalate uncontrollably.

                              Okay. India's perspective. From India's perspective, your key opponents are China and Pakistan. Because of this you actually get positive attention from the US "pivot" to Asia. You then suggest developing ICBMs which threaten the US. Uhhhh......what?
                              Why would a US policy-maker stick his neck out for you when you are creating ICBMs that can threaten us?

                              I don't disagree with you on India's need to eventually develop an ICBM, but that's taking an extremely long view. At the moment that offers you nothing. At the moment your key strategic problem is this:
                              http://weakonomics.com/wp-content/up...-India-GDP.png
                              The US can help you overcome that, but not if you are going to target it with nuclear missiles!
                              Last edited by GVChamp; 12 Oct 14,, 17:51.
                              "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                                And for you to understand the US.

                                That's why we won't stop at a million.
                                I think I undrstand that, as does the rest of the world. Disproportionate reprisal.

                                However, as I have been stressing, the cornerstone of my arguments is not a first strike inviting US reprisal. It is deterrence for a US first strike. And in that calculus, even if the deterrence involves 2-3 US cities, or 6-7 (based on China's 20 odd ICBM's @ 3 per city), that is way too many for the US to risk a first strike on. If the US and its military planners cannot guarantee taking out ALL the enemy nukes in that first strike.

                                Now the population density of the US versus that of India and China is way way diferent. Even if you compare urban megapolis centers. And the US nukes have a lt larger yield. So US strikes on Chinese and Indian cities will yield way higher casulaties to Chinese or Indian strikes on US cities.

                                Even if you talk about ONLY our top 8-10 cities, which you would not stop at (and we understand that), its over a hundred million. By that time, we are already dead as a nation state. Even probably a unified civilization. After that point 100 million, 500 million, is academic. Just kill scores.

                                But if in their dying throes, Chinese or Indian nukes do impact over your cities, even 3 to 6 of yours, that's not 50,000 dead. Not even with your well in place and rehearsed nuclear response drills. Not even with the lower yields of the nukes. Because the lowest yiled nukes today are way bigger than those that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And see how many those killed.

                                We are talking a few million of yours as well.

                                So my premise of deterence (and not a first strike inviting retaliatory US reprisal strikes) was that the US would not, could not risk civilian causalties on that scale.

                                Not when they had a choice, and it was in their hands to avoid it.

                                Because as you correctly said, it is the iron clad guarantee of the US response that would ENSURE that any nation that was either on a adversial course with the US or even not aligned with the US and wished independence of existence and decision, would if they could:

                                1) Develop a means of hitting the US

                                2) Hit the US once the US attacked, while they still could, because they would at that point be certain that the US was not going to be restrained and stop at strategic destruction.

                                So if the NNP's nuclear deterrent failed to prevent a US strike, then the knowledge of the US's natural warfighting psyche would ensure that such a US strike would bring about strikes on US soil.

                                Worst case, a use it or lose it dying response. Best case, shocking the US enough to stop.

                                The alternative is to trust in US restraint. And do nothing. And as you, a former fighting man of the US have confirmed, that has never been the American way.

                                Hope I have explained my point better now in terms of both the deterrent premise as well as the inequitability of corresponding numbers in the decision calculus of the US versus developing powers.
                                Last edited by sated buddha; 13 Oct 14,, 07:05.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X