Indian Nuclear Testing

[Officer of Engineers]

In fact they believed in it strongly enough to launch the Pakistan-India war that you referred to, and provoke other incidents which could have lead to war.

But what you have just wrote is also a strong indication that the Pakistanis appreciate there's a limit to push India and a 1st strike is way beyond that limit to which by that point, it ain't Parliment deciding a retallitory strike but the Head Indian In Charge. If Kargil is any indication, they don't dare to even support one single battalion.

Sir, generally a conventional deterrence does not prevent sub-conventional attacks - as a thousand examples will prove, including your own ongoing war in A'stan. BUT India does have a case study where a threat of a massive conventional attack in mid-1980s significantly dried up the infiltration of arms and men in an insurgency-hit area long enough for local law-enforcement to wrap up the domestic holdouts. This same approach did not work by 1992 in another insurgency hit area. Why? Paks had acquired, and Indians knew that they had acquired, a nuclear capability. A conventional saber-rattling alone would achieve very little. So it is impossible to discount how they can leverage a superior nuclear arsenal to significantly change the lower-level paradigm.

And you've just described Stuart Slade's Nuclear Warfare 101. India deciding to go for the nuclear option elminated her conventional option against Pakistan.

[Officer of Engineers]

To go back to your original question, yes, it matters whether one kills with a 200KT weapon in 30 mins, versus when one kills the same numbers with a 20KT weapon over 6 months. It is a psychological and political distinction, and it also devolves down into military distinction.

It may surprise you that about the same number of people will die in 6 months in both the 20kt and 200kt cases. Some will die earlier than others but those left will die within six months.

However, in both cases, far more will die from cholera than from the nuke blast. That's because after a certain distance, most of the energy goes up in the mushroom cloud and is wasted as flames and burning gases with zero further lethality.

[Cactus]

And you've just described Stuart Slade's Nuclear Warfare 101. India deciding to go for the nuclear option elminated her conventional option against Pakistan.

No, sir, Pakistan's decision to acquire nuclear weapons coupled with its nebulous doctrine severely constrains India's conventional options against Pakistan - for now. You can bet India will try to force the same constraints on Pakistan, plus constraints on Pakistan's sub-conventional options as well. Just having a bare nuclear deterrence arsenal isn't cutting it. A paradigm shift must be engineered. That is what is happening now.

[Officer of Engineers]

No, sir, Pakistan's decision to acquire nuclear weapons coupled with its nebulous doctrine severely constrains India's conventional options against Pakistan - for now.

You didn't think 1974 explosion was going to force a Pakistani response? That India's acqusition of nukes would forced the Pakistanis to respond in kind?

Also, there is nothing new in Pakistani actions. I've seen it before. China against the USSR. Having nukes does not stop one power or its nuclear armed opposition from exercising military actions to settle affairs in their favour. It just try to prevent a nuclear war. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Now, ask yourself this. Is there a Pakistani keyholder who would be so willingly to invite 100 nukes onto Pakistani cities? Because that in the end is exactly what you're suggesting. No matter how many nukes the Paks will deliver onto India, the end result would still be 100 Pak cities full of burning babies if they're lucky, eating fecess and drinking urine if they're not.

You can bet India will try to force the same constraints on Pakistan, plus constraints on Pakistan's sub-conventional options as well. Just having a bare nuclear deterrence arsenal isn't cutting it. A paradigm shift must be engineered. That is what is happening now.

And that was Stuart Slade's point. Nukes create more barriers than paths. To rid of those barriers, you have to move away from nukes as your primary focus.

In many ways, India and Pakistan are still infants to the nuclear weapons states. They're still in awe with nukes without having gone through the experience that it limits far more than it projects.

Yes, the Chinese are developing a first strike capability but with conventional instead of nuclear warheads, just as both the US and Russia had already done.

Does anyone seriously think a nuke could have done a better job at knocking Baghdad than 800 cruise missiles did?

[remotescada]

Things are not as linear and simplistic as you think. Possession of a nuclear device changes the scenario drastically.

Had Iraq possessed nuclear bombs the scenario would have been different.
It would have been difficult to for any one to initiate a nuclear war

If Pakistan did not possess the nuclear bombs and the delivery mechanisms the situation in Afganistan would have been different and fairly simple to handle.

Today Pakistan uses the double barrel threat 1) Permanent refrain that the bombs could fall in the hands of Talibans/Fundamentalists and hence give them the finacial support to defeat the Talibans and use that money for building the military machine agaist India.

US wily nily buys this arguement--assuming that Pakitany army is 'weak enough' to loose them(NUKES) to this rag tag army of Talibans.

A seriously (alas it could be why) committed and a professional Pakistani
army can obliterate them pretty quicky--but they do not want.
2)Continued acts of terrorism against India knowing fully well that India will not like to risk a full fledged nuclear war as a responsible nation as the victory will be phyrric- no winners in the real sense.
It is high time that US and other responsible mojor economiesof the world work towards consolidation of real democracy in the world and avoid supporting dictatorial regimes for shot term gains.

[Officer of Engineers]

Things are not as linear and simplistic as you think. Possession of a nuclear device changes the scenario drastically.

They do. They put a full stop to otherwise acceptable options.

Had Iraq possessed nuclear bombs the scenario would have been different.

Saddam was asked the question, what would have happenned had he had the atomic bomb. "I would not have invaded Kuwait."

If Pakistan did not possess the nuclear bombs and the delivery mechanisms the situation in Afganistan would have been different and fairly simple to handle.

That's pure hogwash to anyone who has lived through the Cold War. Pakistan did not have any nukes in 1979 and it was the Soviets who left.

Today Pakistan uses the double barrel threat 1) Permanent refrain that the bombs could fall in the hands of Talibans/Fundamentalists and hence give them the finacial support to defeat the Talibans and use that money for building the military machine agaist India.

From the American PoV, is that a bad thing? But that is another thread.

US wily nily buys this arguement--assuming that Pakitany army is 'weak enough' to loose them(NUKES) to this rag tag army of Talibans.

The Americans don't buy this arguement. Implicit in the Nuclear Notebook, Pakistan Nuclear Forces 2009, the Americans know where Pak nukes are and how to take them out.

A seriously (alas it could be why) committed and a professional Pakistani army can obliterate them pretty quicky--but they do not want.

Yes and no, they can win the battles easily enough but unless they do a Mongol, an insurgency will remain.

2)Continued acts of terrorism against India knowing fully well that India will not like to risk a full fledged nuclear war as a responsible nation as the victory will be phyrric- no winners in the real sense.

If not a full fledged nuclear war, how about a full fledged conventional war? The Pakistanis are just as afraid of being obliterated as anyone else.

It is high time that US and other responsible mojor economiesof the world work towards consolidation of real democracy in the world and avoid supporting dictatorial regimes for shot term gains.

India has relations with Iran.

[remotescada]

They do. They put a full stop to otherwise acceptable options.

Saddam was asked the question, what would have happenned had he had the atomic bomb. "I would not have invaded Kuwait."

That's pure hogwash to anyone who has lived through the Cold War. Pakistan did not have any nukes in 1979 and it was the Soviets who left.

From the American PoV, is that a bad thing? But that is another thread.

The Americans don't buy this arguement. Implicit in the Nuclear Notebook, Pakistan Nuclear Forces 2009, the Americans know where Pak nukes are and how to take them out.

Yes and no, they can win the battles easily enough but unless they do a Mongol, an insurgency will remain.

If not a full fledged nuclear war, how about a full fledged conventional war? The Pakistanis are just as afraid of being obliterated as anyone else.

India has relations with Iran.

What i said was Afgan situation today not 1979 --which is an imbroglio
of a differnt kind-handling a nuclearized Pak, weeding out the Alquaida, containing the Taliban

I donot share your perception that' pakistan would not like to be obliterated"
They know that India would not start a war and hence their institutionalized tacit support for terrorist attacks on India.

Now a conventional war is not going to be the option at all
ANY war -eventually will erupt in to a nuclear war--or it may start as a preamptive nuclear strike by eother side

India has diplomatic relations with all the countries including Iran-and no
tacit understanding.

[Officer of Engineers]

What i said was Afgan situation today not 1979 --which is an imbroglio
of a differnt kind-handling a nuclearized Pak, weeding out the Alquaida, containing the Taliban

Still go against your assertion that Afghanistan would have been a piece of cake without a nuclearized Pakistan.

I donot share your perception that' pakistan would not like to be obliterated"
They know that India would not start a war and hence their institutionalized tacit support for terrorist attacks on India.

They started the Kargil War and could not chickened out fast enough.

Now a conventional war is not going to be the option at all
ANY war -eventually will erupt in to a nuclear war--or it may start as a preamptive nuclear strike by eother side

If you have followed this thread, I have listed 3 examples of nuclear weapons states going to war with each other without resorting to a nuclear exchange.

Sino-Soviet, Soviet-Israeli, Indo-Pak. I can think of a 4th at the moment, Soviet-South African.

India has diplomatic relations with all the countries including Iran-and no
tacit understanding.

You have big time trade with Iran.

[Skywatcher]

What about Soviet America during the Korean War?

[remotescada]

Bingo, yes, absolutely.

India has nothing to worry about militarily versus Pakistan as the former is ahead of the latter by light years.

But India needs a credible nuclear deterrent to keep China in check and to stop further Chinese encroachment. So signing the CTBT is putting India’s security interests at stake. India is stronger and more confident than in 1998 so testing should continue until India is at the technological level of the US, UK, Russia and China.

India shouldn’t listen to the West and feel pressured into signing the CTBT. The US and the West have their own interests in Pakistan and China, and they’ve already reached a level of military/nuclear advancement that puts them in a strategically comfortable posture.

National pride and security is at stake so I hope for ONCE the government does the right thing.

Nebula82.

I absolutely agree with your pov

[remotescada]

Also, wouldn't further nuclear testing improve India's nuclear propulsion capabilities (for the subs and even aircraft carriers down the road) and India's nuclear triad capabilities?

As a confidence booster yes. I am not sure in case of the power systems for submarine.

But the reactors for the aircraft carrier & submarine are in a differnt genere of technology as the yield in the case of
a reactor has to be continuously controlled and its more difficult to manage in a confined space vis a vis compared the uncontrolled version- nuclear fission bomb-- or a Electric power generating Boiler feeding Nuclear reactor

[Officer of Engineers]

What about Soviet America during the Korean War?

Good point. And while we're at it, Sino-US during the American Vietnam War.

[remotescada]

Extremely improbable is the proper term.

Let me put it this way. You have ONE 12 kt bomb and you want to kill a city. Where do you aim? Water and sewage.

You have ONE 30 kt bomb and you want to kill a city. Where do you aim? Water and sewage.

You have ONE 120 kt bomb and you want to kill a city. Where do you aim? Water and sewage.

You have ONE 3 mt bomb and you want to kill a city. Where do you aim? Water and sewage.

In other words, you aim for the one spot where you know you have the best chance of killing a city. You don't aim for City Hall just because you've got a MT bomb and hope to get the water and sewage while you're at it. You aim for the one thing you know would cripple the city no matter what else gets destroy.

Thermo nukes is just a feel good. Nuclear planners on both sides of the Indo-Pak border don't give it too much squat.

First of all, it won't. The logistics isn't there and 2nd, you're working on interior Lines of Communications while the Chinese are being stretched two ways. Unless there is the industrial disparity like between the US and Nazi Germany (and even then, the Germans put up a hell of a fight against two superpowers in being), such a scenario is akin to the Martians invading India.

Antimony's asumption is an unlikely secenario seemingly --(Sino {Pak} Pincer like attack on India from Northwaest of India via Pakistan -along side the Pakistanis--it will however have a tremendous momentum
and you cannot be cocky on your assumptions . As a matter it is one of the possibilities


There are no logistics problem today the Chinese are building the infrastructure very rapidly in Tibet. Moreover a planned offensive is a concerted long affair to build the forces silently(not an 'overnight' affair )
and can be done via the karakoram highway-Aksai Chin IN POk AREA BEYOND DURAND LINE WITH THE CHINESE.

IN FACT IF THIS SCENARIO TAKES PLACE THEN IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO CONTAIN THIS DUAL ATTACK -SHEER SPEED AND NOS--WITHOUT THE DEVIL'S ALTERNATIVE

.

[remotescada]

Still go against your assertion that Afghanistan would have been a piece of cake without a nuclearized Pakistan.

They started the Kargil War and could not chickened out fast enough.

If you have followed this thread, I have listed 3 examples of nuclear weapons states going to war with each other without resorting to a nuclear exchange.

Sino-Soviet, Soviet-Israeli, Indo-Pak. I can think of a 4th at the moment, Soviet-South African.

You have big time trade with Iran.

YOU HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD THE IMPERATIVES THE KARGIL CONFLICT

PAKISTAN CLAIMED THAT IT IS NOT THE PAKISTANI ARMY BUT THE" FREEDOM FIGHTERS' OF KASHMIR AND JEHADIS WHO HAD CROSSED THE LINE OF CONTROL(1971) AND INDIA COULD DRIVE THEM OUT. So it was a mere bloody evacuation exercise although leading to 500+ casualties.


2Sino soviet engagement--while this took place chinese were a "nobody' militarily or economically

You donot kill a rat with a howitzer

3 Soviet Israeli engagement

________________do________________and the US backing percludes any long or major engagement.




PS Pakistan is a major friend of IRAN --We have not supported iran on the nuclear issue

[Officer of Engineers]

Take a hint, little boy. I told you I lived through those times. Go somewhere else to pleasure yourself.