Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Game Changer: India Tests K-15 SLBM From Bay Of Bengal

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Not my job to start a war but it was my job to fight a war and I am damned confident that I can fight my war. Is my confidence misplaced? Do you dare to find out?
    If USA doesnt have confidence on its military of stopping a possibly be a solitary and a obscure chance of North Korea launching Nuclear Missile at US Mainland. I think India and China will call that bluff.

    1) North Korea, Iran, and truth be told, even Pakistan don't have a proven nuke.
    2) 350 combined Indian and Chinese nukes targetted at 3 warheads a piece - that's 1050 warheads. Yeah, the Americans got nukes to spare. So have the Russians.

    You have to find them first.

    Comment


    • #62
      India cannot move to a counter-force doctrine without massively increasing the number of warheads it has. And that doesn't seem to be on the cards. Basically, you need to have enough warheads (and missiles) to target 2-3 against each enemy nuke. And you need more left over to take out enemy cities in case you miss a few and they blow up some of your cities anyway. This is far beyond India's (or even China's) capability as of now.

      This of course is in addition to the need for missiles with a very low CEP.
      Last edited by Firestorm; 01 Feb 13,, 07:28.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Firestorm View Post

        This of course is in addition to the need for missiles with a very low CEP.

        Admiral's view comes from this snippet, maybe we are slowly increasing the number nukes.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
          If USA doesnt have confidence on its military of stopping a possibly be a solitary and a obscure chance of North Korea launching Nuclear Missile at US Mainland. I think India and China will call that bluff.
          First of all, the US doesn't have to stop what North Korea does not have. North Korea does not have a working nuke nor a working ICBM.

          2ndly, the US military have extreme confidence.

          Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
          You have to find them first.
          No we don't. We just have to attack every place that they can be.
          Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 01 Feb 13,, 11:44.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
            As he should, since it is newspaper meant for a general audience. But I was more interested in his talk about Counter Force which he seem to have deducted from the mentioning of CEP by DRDO head. I have never even heard of this concepts until I started reading the posts here.
            He's trying to educate you by hinting that cities are not the only targets and that the increase accuracy has now increased the instability of an arms race with Pakistan, something that neither country should want ... or can afford.

            Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
            What does this tell you about Indian Nuclear Doctrine and Posture, who will this be viewed in Bejing, That is India's intention of attacking cities?
            Nothing and no one. Indian nuclear doctrine is deterrence, not war fighting.

            Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
            What about his thought about Indian Nuclear Doctrine moving to Counter Force?
            It isn't.

            Originally posted by Defcon5 View Post
            If you have already discussed this, will you be kind of enough to show me the link to that thread, I will read up.
            I tried googling Stuart Slade (a real ex nuclear targeteer) and his three essays (Nuclear Warfare 101, 102, and 103). It seemed that they have disappeared from the server that they were usually on and I am not about to post those essays that takes up too much space. So, if you can find them, they will give you the basis of nuclear war fighting.

            Then, you might try your hand at Chinese Field Marshall Rie and Indian General Sunjarji. Both these gentlemen practiced a very unique and effective doctrine that you will have an extremely hard time to understand. Deterrence is not war fighting.

            Comment


            • #66
              Stuar Slade:

              Spoiler!


              For some reason PDFs wont upload.

              Sundarji and Rie are not available online.
              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

              Comment


              • #67
                Stuar Slade:

                Spoiler!


                For some reason PDFs wont upload.

                Sundarji and Rie are not available online.
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Thus, the threat posed by nuclear weapons is a lot more effective and valuable than the likely results of using those weapons
                  So this is "deterrence is not warfighting"?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Thanks Doktor, Much apperciated.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      Yes you are. "Deterrence is not warfighting" does not happen in a vaccum.
                      ok, now i understood why you argued that China did succeed in deterring the Soviets. Very subtle.

                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      It is very situational and requires a read of the strategic situation, forcing you to adjust your needs as the situation changes. The Soviets were well prepared to lose Vladivostok but not Moscow. They correctly assertain that the Chinese would not be able to take out Moscow but the Americans could. Zhou En-Lai, by allying China to the US, placed Moscow under direct threat if they so do attacked China and thus deterred a Soviet attack.
                      I saw nukes or weapon systems as the only component of deterrence available, which is the situation presently and it coloured my view.

                      But back then what you've pointed out is that nukes were just one component of deterrence. The Chinese also had the additional option to ally with the Americans in order to deter the Soviets.

                      Deterrence needs to be seen in as broad a light as possible otherwise we miss the answers that might be available for less cost.

                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      China today is no longer an ally of the US and thus have to adjust her deterrence stance, relying more on her weapons systems than any ally but she still plays at least the friend role. While China is on the target list, no one is actively exercising delivering nukes to China and that includes India.
                      Right, so here China has to depend on herself alone just like India would have to. The situation is different today.

                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      China is not threatening India to the point where India is having nuclear delivery or nuclear receiving exerises ... and vice versa. That was not the case during the Cold War where civil defence drills went up the ying-yang, especially in Beijing.
                      Given what you've said here over the years, I don't believe that China or India will target each other with nukes. The possibility is low. Conventional is a higher possibility but not inevitable if managed properly.

                      My belief in this gets challenged on a constant basis as the domestic narrative is different. We read regularly about the range of our missiles and how they can cover all of China. Just see Defcon5's article on the last page for yet another reminder.

                      But in your what-if thread you asked, has India ever conducted nuke drills, and the answer was a no. India did not expect any then neither does it right now and i don't see that changing as yet.

                      Deterrence powers cannot (in theory) threaten others. That is not their purpose. They don't make the first move.

                      The origins of China & India's nukes are for the war fighting powers.
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Feb 13,, 00:42.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                        Deterrence needs to be seen in as broad a light as possible otherwise we miss the answers that might be available for less cost.
                        Congratulations. You've just reached my A-HA moment followed by my WOW moment.

                        What I found amazing is that the Indian Officers here seems to take these concepts like duck to water and I'm struggling through it. I wish there was a course on this.
                        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 04 Feb 13,, 06:10.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by observer7 View Post
                          So this is "deterrence is not warfighting"?
                          Not exactly. It is still "si vis pacem, para bellum."

                          Rie and Sundarji are basically saying you don't need "para bellum" if you can have the right but armed peace.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            Congratulations. You've just reached my A-HA moment followed by my WOW moment.

                            What I found amazing is that the Indian Officers here seems to take these concepts like duck to water and I'm struggling through it. I wish there was a course on this.
                            Sir,

                            Don't be so harsh to yourself. You have walked us through many of the dark alleys when we seemed to be totally lost.
                            sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                              Not exactly. It is still "si vis pacem, para bellum."

                              Rie and Sundarji are basically saying you don't need "para bellum" if you can have the right but armed peace.
                              Both were simply buying the time, the ultimate goal is to be a war fighting nation. Once you get the deterrence then its just a matter of numbers.

                              Numbers comes with time (How much time USA took to become war fighting nation), level of threat (read cold war) and economy. If having a deterrence level of stockpile qualifies you to be a target of nukes then letting you have the deterrence is the line a war fighting nation wouldn't like to see you cross. They can't stop you producing war-fighting stockpile which is an inevitable entity.

                              No ''para bellum'' or caring not to alarm is just a deception and Gen. K Sundarji and Rie were able to do it successfully. I would have done the same throwing/floating a theory/deception after knowing technological limitation my nation has with a view we be able to overcome those in far foreseeable future.

                              My wild guess; China becoming a war fighting nation in next 10-20 years.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by ambidex View Post
                                No ''para bellum'' or caring not to alarm is just a deception and Gen. K Sundarji and Rie were able to do it successfully. I would have done the same throwing/floating a theory/deception after knowing technological limitation my nation has with a view we be able to overcome those in far foreseeable future.
                                Rie disobeyed Lin Biao's orders to mate warheads to rockets and to fueled rockets ready for launch.

                                Originally posted by ambidex View Post
                                My wild guess; China becoming a war fighting nation in next 10-20 years.
                                China stopped fissile material production in the 90s (confirmed by the IAEA) and have at most enough materials for another 400 warheads. Not even beginning to approach the hands on stock the Americans have.

                                China and India are also champions of the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty. The treaty is in limbo because of Pakistan whose position is that it is unfair for her to have by far the smallest stock of any of the NWS.
                                Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 04 Feb 13,, 15:31.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X