Indian Defence News & Discussions

[Oracle]

^ Hah! I wanted to start a thread to discuss what you posted. Now I can discuss it here itself.

Doctrines evolve over time. Btw, I think India is changing its nuke targeting policy w.r.t Pakistan to counter-force from its earlier counter-value nuke targeting policy, while retaining the same counter-value doctrine w.r.t China.

[Double Edge]

^ Hah! I wanted to start a thread to discuss what you posted. Now I can discuss it here itself.

Doctrines evolve over time. Btw, I think India is changing its nuke targeting policy w.r.t Pakistan to counter-force from its earlier counter-value nuke targeting policy, while retaining the same counter-value doctrine w.r.t China.

There are people who advocate it and i don't know the reason. Political mileage, attention seeking ? no idea

It makes no sense for reasons mentioned in the previous post.

OOE mentioned he wanted to see the training for Rafales to understand their purpose for nukes delivery.

There is another point he made long back. Nuke shelters.

China built them. They are known to exist.

Where are ours ? That's what you need if you go up against a counter force opponent which the soviets were.

Your Swedish video, also spoke about renovating former nuke shelters.

China & India did not go counter force for numerous reasons, primary among them being cost.

And the Paks can achieve this, yeah : D

[Oracle]

Internet speed is really pissing me off. Then, it's the climate here. Daytime temperature range is 35-38 degrees celsius. It rains endlessly in the night, not that it takes away the heat a bit.

I will create a new thread to discuss it, and I know you and the Colonel will give me endless nights over that.

[Oracle]

Ok, what if I tell you that open source intel suggests that 60% of nuclear tipped rockets will not work (varies by country but 60% is a good measure). Also, Pakistani nuclear arsenals are recessed, ie nukes are stored away from their delivery vehicles, effectively doubling the number of targets that needed to be hit. That is, if you have one nuclear tipped rocket, you only have one target. If the nuke is stored away from the rocket, you have 2 targets: the nuke and the rocket. As of right now, only the N5 can get away with conventional strikes against hardened targets, ie a nuclear silo or a heavy bunker but this require 2 hits. An earth penetrator to be followed by an thermobaric/FAE warhead. 60% of your rockets will not work as planned.

How many rockets do you need?

You have said before, that to be sure, 3 nukes are meant for 1 target. 1 might not detonate, 1 might miss the target etc. So 3 for 1, right.

Let's do the math for a pre-emptive nuke strike:

Pak has ~ 140 nukes. So, 140 * 3 rockets per target = 420 rockets. That's a big number. This is the 40% rockets that work.

Now, Pak nukes are recessed. So we have 2 targets now instead of 1. So we need 420 * 2 = 840 rockets.

Add to it 60% rockets will not work. Assuming 840 rockets work, that is 40% of the total rockets.

So total rockets required would be 2100.

Then we also have to take into consideration decoys that will be fielded by the PA. And we have to consider the China problem after targeting Pakistan.

Assuming PA fields 50 decoys, we need 150 rockets. Again 60% will fail. So another 375 rockets.

In all essence, we need atleast 2100 + 375 + 500 (deter China) rockets. Grand total = 2975.

It's a recipe for disaster, we should instead spend money on our creaking infrastructure. 500 nukes are enough to deter China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's do the math for pre-emptive conventional strike:

Targets ~ 140 * 2 (being recessed and all) = 180. I'm going with the same logic here, i.e., 3 rockets per target of which 60% will fail.

We need 3 earth penetrator and 3 thermobaric warheads per target. So 6 rockets per target.

Total rockets needed = 180 * 6 = 1080 rockets, this is 40% missiles that will work. 60% will fail. So we need, a total of 2700 missiles.

Assuming 50 decoys, we need 6 missiles * 50 decoys = 300 rockets. 60% will fail. So we need, 750 rockets.

So we need a total of = 2700 + 750 + 1500 (deter China) = 4950 rockets.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colonel, are my calculations correct? Maybe I missed something.

^ Hah! I wanted to start a thread to discuss what you posted. Now I can discuss it here itself.

Doctrines evolve over time. Btw, I think India is changing its nuke targeting policy w.r.t Pakistan to counter-force from its earlier counter-value nuke targeting policy, while retaining the same counter-value doctrine w.r.t China.

Now that the assessment is done, I have doubts about Vipin Narang's theory about Indian pre-emptive nuke strikes against Pakistan. The numbers are just not there. India needs another 20 years at the least to have that kind of nuke capability, that is if India doesn't bankrupt itself. But why do these asses write articles such as the one he wrote?

[Officer of Engineers]

Colonel, are my calculations correct? Maybe I missed something.

There will be far more than 50 decoys. Even Pakistan can build a baloon missile decoy under $500US. Your head hurting yet?

There are ways to cut down on the number of missile requirements but that is going far deeper into strike packages and hard kill/soft kill balances.

But it's a numbers game. The purpose of a military is to defend the civilian way of life and that also includes allowing them to buy the ROLEX watches; not to demand their last grain of rice so we could have the latest shiny bullet. So, there is a point where the military is no longer supporting the civilians but the civilians supporting the military. An Indian pre-emptive 1st strike capability far surpasses that point.

[Double Edge]

^ Hah! I wanted to start a thread to discuss what you posted. Now I can discuss it here itself.

Doctrines evolve over time. Btw, I think India is changing its nuke targeting policy w.r.t Pakistan to counter-force from its earlier counter-value nuke targeting policy, while retaining the same counter-value doctrine w.r.t China.

There is another reason why counter force with the Paks is redundant.

The Indian army is crazy enough to fight the Paks, nukes or not and believes they can win.

[Double Edge]

I have doubts about Vipin Narang's theory about Indian pre-emptive nuke strikes against Pakistan. The numbers are just not there. India needs another 20 years at the least to have that kind of nuke capability, that is if India doesn't bankrupt itself. But why do these asses write articles such as the one he wrote?

What article ?

[Oracle]

There will be far more than 50 decoys. Even Pakistan can build a baloon missile decoy under $500US. Your head hurting yet?

There are ways to cut down on the number of missile requirements but that is going far deeper into strike packages and hard kill/soft kill balances.

But it's a numbers game. The purpose of a military is to defend the civilian way of life and that also includes allowing them to buy the ROLEX watches; not to demand their last grain of rice so we could have the latest shiny bullet. So, there is a point where the military is no longer supporting the civilians but the civilians supporting the military. An Indian pre-emptive 1st strike capability far surpasses that point.

Yes, head hurts. If the cost of balloon missile decoys are so less, Paks will have 100s of it. That adds another complications for a splendid first strike. Some things that bother me:

#1. From time to time, we see the IA conducting user trials of the Agni series of missiles, that have gone into production. They say, they take a random rocket from the lot and test it. Tests are successful. So, where is the 60% failure rate? What is it that the government is not telling us? Can you give me a source of this 60% - 80% failure rate?

#2. Instead of using conventional ballistic missiles, we can use nuclear tipped cruise missiles (Brahmos, Nirbhay). These are more accurate than BMs. Maybe 5 Brahmos for a single target. The idea is not to kill Pakistani civilians, but to defang the PA by striking their assets first.

#3. What if in a first strike India cuts off the head of the PA and the civilian farcical government first. No communication flows, the masses run amok and crisis erupts. The India Army goes in and does the rest.

Could you please expand on your bold bits.

[Oracle]

There is another reason why counter force with the Paks is redundant.

The Indian army is crazy enough to fight the Paks, nukes or not and believes they can win.

Good video. Nukes or no nukes, I will still go with the Indian Colonel's assertion about Cold Start. It's there, it's WIP, it's meant to inflict unacceptable damage on Pakistan, and it's undergoing continuous tailoring as threat perception changes around us.

What article ?

Read and get confused. :D

India, Long at Odds With Pakistan, May Be Rethinking Nuclear First Strikes

I am not reading it again, but I know I'll come around and re-read it the 100th time.

[Officer of Engineers]

#1. From time to time, we see the IA conducting user trials of the Agni series of missiles, that have gone into production. They say, they take a random rocket from the lot and test it. Tests are successful. So, where is the 60% failure rate? What is it that the government is not telling us? Can you give me a source of this 60% - 80% failure rate?

Nuclear Warfare 102 by Stuart Slade, a nuclear weapons targeteer. I also found it mentioned in RAND but since they re-organized their library, I cannot find the study.

No, they don't test an AGNI rocket out of the inventory. They test one, they have to buy a new one. All they can do is check, double check, and tripple check and fix any flaws they find. If they find a systematic flaw, then that is fixed in the next maintenance cycle. US ICBMs go through a maintenance cycle every 8 months. I don't know about the Russians today but for START II, only 25%, their readied force, goes through a 2 year maintenance cycle.

#2. Instead of using conventional ballistic missiles, we can use nuclear tipped cruise missiles (Brahmos, Nirbhay). These are more accurate than BMs. Maybe 5 Brahmos for a single target. The idea is not to kill Pakistani civilians, but to defang the PA by striking their assets first.

That is the same as an air strike package delivery. You will have to do SEAD first, most especially knocking out Pakistani AWACS. Pakistani F16s have look down, shoot down capabilities. It would be prudent to assume JF17s have the same capabilities.

#3. What if in a first strike India cuts off the head of the PA and the civilian farcical government first. No communication flows, the masses run amok and crisis erupts. The India Army goes in and does the rest.

C4ISR, including NRA, is considered a primary target. It is both protected and treated as s nuclear asset. Redundency is built in, ie the 2IC in a backup HQ would assume command.

Could you please expand on your bold bits.

It's a bit complicated to explain in layman's terms. Soft kills are actions that are easier to do but only prevents a weapon being deployed, ie you blow up the fuel storage so that a plane don't have fuel to fly. It doesn't destroy the plane. You have to come back again and again to prevent new fuel trucks driven in to fuel that airplane but it does give you time to complete other tasks.

Within context, Pakistani nukes are stored within hardened complexes. Where in those complexes is a big guess and you can assume they're compartmentialized so that the destruction of one does not mean the destruction of all. So, what do you do? You nuke the doors. You may or may not blast open the doors and cause more damage inside but you can be sure the doors are shut until they can get it open and clear the debris.

As for the 2nd part, don't go broke in trying to keep up with the Jones. Soviet citizens had to endure bread lines in order to pay for ICBMs.

Read and get confused. :D

India, Long at Odds With Pakistan, May Be Rethinking Nuclear First Strikes

I am not reading it again, but I know I'll come around and re-read it the 100th time.

Don't bother. This guy knows crap about military affairs. As I keep telling people. Never, ever look at intent. Always look at capabilities.

[Oracle]

There are people who advocate it and i don't know the reason. Political mileage, attention seeking ? no idea

I think it's the fear that millions of men, women and children will burn, if India didn't go nuclear first. Btw, those who advocate this policy doesn't call for burning Pak men, women and children. They call for a counter-force doctrine, that is first-strike against Pak military targets. I have done the calculations and missed it by some hundred more nukes w.r.t decoys, but that is not what we want. We should keep buying deadly weapon systems and when the time comes, let the Indian Army march into Pak. Pak's doctrine calls for using nukes on its own land to ward off the advancing Indian Army columns. Those are low yield KN nukes. So, I prefer conventional missiles over nukes. In trying to destroy a terrorist state, India should not screw up the whole world and kill millions of innocents through radiation that the air will carry to far off lands.

Use conventional warheads, and use it first. But first, develop the economy, keep buying military hardware, and build more and more rockets.

There is another point he made long back. Nuke shelters.

China built them. They are known to exist.

Where are ours ? That's what you need if you go up against a counter force opponent which the soviets were.

Your Swedish video, also spoke about renovating former nuke shelters.

China & India did not go counter force for numerous reasons, primary among them being cost.

And the Paks can achieve this, yeah : D

How many has the Chinese built? Can it fit all of its 1.3 billion people?

The subways are a good place to start as nuke shelters. We have some of them in our metros, and are building many more. Don't know if there are plans to build actual shelters. But a good look at the Indian map will show you places where a nuke shelter is needed and where it is not. As far as NE goes, Assam needs maybe 3-4 nuke shelters. One in Guwahati, for that is the entry point to the NE. One in Silchar, as the airport here is an IAF airport. Other than that NE doesn't need any more shelters. The huge mountains will contain the radiation, if nukes fall on places in Assam I mentioned. Why waste a nuke on Nagaland? Or say Manipur?

Our problem is our infrastructure, we need 3 trillion USD by 2035 to ramp up our colonial infrastructure. Smart cities, railways, airports, roads, power, water, homes etc etc etc. By 2035, I think nukes will no longer play that active role in deterrence, as AI in weapons development will take over. Imagine a bomb that can destroy infrastructure and kill people without releasing radiation in the air. That will be preferred over nukes.

Paks have eaten grass, build nukes, and become a terrorist state. Paks will continue eating grass, build more low yield nukes and remain a terrorist state. That's guaranteed.

[Oracle]

As for the 2nd part, don't go broke in trying to keep up with the Jones. Soviet citizens had to endure bread lines in order to pay for ICBMs.

Understood.

Don't bother. This guy knows crap about military affairs. As I keep telling people. Never, ever look at intent. Always look at capabilities.

Vipin Narang is an Associate Professor of Political Science at MIT and a member of MIT’s Security Studies Program. He received his Ph.D. from the Department of Government, Harvard University in May 2010, where he was awarded the Edward M. Chase Prize for the best dissertation in international relations. He holds a B.S. and M.S. in chemical engineering with distinction from Stanford University and an M. Phil with Distinction in international relations from Balliol College, Oxford University, where he studied on a Marshall Scholarship. He has been a fellow at Harvard University’s Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, a predoctoral fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and a Stanton junior faculty fellow at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation. His research interests include nuclear proliferation and strategy, South Asian security, and general security studies.

His first book Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era (Princeton University Press, 2014) on the deterrence strategies of regional nuclear powers won the 2015 ISA International Security Studies Section Best Book Award. He is currently working on his second book, Strategies of Nuclear Proliferation (Princeton University Press, under contract), which explores how states pursue nuclear weapons. His work has been published in several journals including International Security, Journal of Conflict Resolution, The Washington Quarterly,and International Organization.

Source

Ivy League means jack if one cannot answer tough questions in layman's terms or assume things on his own. This is something many miss. I thought about his analysis for many nights, and I will still stick to conventional missiles over nukes, even if India one day has 5000 nukes. No country should use a nuke just because they have it, or threat perception demands it. There are 10 solutions to any single problem. Nukes are not a solution, nukes are the problem.

[Double Edge]

Don't know if there are plans to build actual shelters.

Then how do we do counter force ?

Drill 50 ft down in Bangalore and you hit solid granite.

[Officer of Engineers]

I think it's the fear that millions of men, women and children will burn, if India didn't go nuclear first. Btw, those who advocate this policy doesn't call for burning Pak men, women and children. They call for a counter-force doctrine, that is first-strike against Pak military targets. I have done the calculations and missed it by some hundred more nukes w.r.t decoys, but that is not what we want. We should keep buying deadly weapon systems and when the time comes, let the Indian Army march into Pak. Pak's doctrine calls for using nukes on its own land to ward off the advancing Indian Army columns. Those are low yield KN nukes. So, I prefer conventional missiles over nukes. In trying to destroy a terrorist state, India should not screw up the whole world and kill millions of innocents through radiation that the air will carry to far off lands.

That's not how it works but here is something to consider.

India is not afraid she cannot march to Islamabad. India is afraid she has to occupy Islamabad. Do you really want 200 million Pakistanis now with access to the Indian border to look for work? Do you really want another Bangladesh on your border?

[Oracle]

Then how do we do counter force ?

Drill 50 ft down in Bangalore and you hit solid granite.

I said pre-emptive like 50 times now. Pre-emptive counter-force. That is first strike. It is assumed that all Pak nukes would be taken care of in a first strike. If there remains some, and those get tossed at India, India will use its BMD to protect its cities and citizens. Even if that fails, India is ready to accept some millions dead and some cities burned to the ground, but for Paks that will be the end of their 70+ years old story. Does that make sense to you now?