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

[Tronic]

What if the Chinese are not even trying? What if they stuck with counter-value instead of counter-force?

Well, two things here.

1) Until the K-4 comes on line, the only way you're forcing the Chinese to change their game is to put the boomer right off their coast, forcing them to hunt for them. Otherwise, the K-15 is going to mean diddlily squat to the Chinese.

2) On the receiving end, it matters very little if the nuke is delivered by an AGNI III or by a K-4 from the Bay of Bengal. You're not changing the Chinese defence posture.

So, how is this a game changer?

In actuality, it is a game stabilizer. India no longer feels her nukes are threatened to the point of use them or lose them.

Right. I forgot the title of the thread. I should have stated earlier that I also do not believe that this test is a "game changer". It is nothing more than a technological stepping stone.

And yes, I believe that game stabilizer is what is intended from these SLBM developments as well.

[zraver]

SSN's and the SLBM's they carried are a type of major power space race. By developing and fielding a a true SLBM force India elevates herself to the level of a p5NWS. This is a game changer in the prestige race. She will catapult ahead of IsrelThis puts a lot of pressure on China diplomatically. The US and Russia want India on the UNSC as a P6. The UK is likely to follow the US lead and France owes India a favor for selecting the Rafale. China is the block. But China's reasons for blocking are increasingly false which leaves China looking like a bully which when combined with her aggressive behavior in the waters around China is going to bite her in the ass in the long run. India like China was a allied victory in WWII, has nukes, modern technology, will soon have SLBM, large population etc. The gap between China and India is less than between any of the allies and the RoC in 1945...

[Officer of Engineers]

The UNSC Permenant Member game is so old that it's stale. China objects to both Japan and India but supports Germany and Brazil. US rejects Brazil and Russia rejects Germany. The P5 knows the game (as do all who lobby for their inclusion) and don't push each other to expand the UNSC veto members.

But in the final analysis, it's what the US wants. The US replaced the ROC with the PRC and no one stopped her. If the US wanted India in, she would have done it a long time ago.

No one is going to change the UNSC. It's a tit for tat lobbying for browny points on the Permenant wannabes. US, UK, Russia, and France gets browny points with India. China gets browny points from Germany and Brazil. All the while knowing that no one is actively pushing for an increase in the veto members.

[zraver]

The UNSC Permenant Member game is so old that it's stale. China objects to both Japan and India but supports Germany and Brazil. US rejects Brazil and Russia rejects Germany. The P5 knows the game (as do all who lobby for their inclusion) and don't push each other to expand the UNSC veto members.

But in the final analysis, it's what the US wants. The US replaced the ROC with the PRC and no one stopped her. If the US wanted India in, she would have done it a long time ago.

No one is going to change the UNSC. It's a tit for tat lobbying for browny points on the Permenant wannabes. US, UK, Russia, and France gets browny points with India. China gets browny points from Germany and Brazil. All the while knowing that no one is actively pushing for an increase in the veto members.

Germany will never be in, the UNSC is already too white and well its Germany (ditto for Japan). However eventually either or both India and Brazil will get in. India is the the most prepared to be a P5 member.

[Firestorm]

Germany will never be in, the UNSC is already too white and well its Germany (ditto for Japan). However eventually either or both India and Brazil will get in. India is the the most prepared to be a P5 member.

Why would any member of the UNSC want to increase the number of countries which have the veto? It is against their interests. Especially with a countries like India. Indian and US interests don't always align. The US doesn't want India to get in any more than the Chinese do, regardless of what they might say. Probably the only country the US won't have a problem with is Germany, since they will toe the American line on most issues just like the UK. But the Germans don't have nukes. I guess that is a requirement for getting in.

[Firestorm]

I don't know about the future, all i can do is comment about now which is a question about the future. What is going to happen when these two decide to put nukes on subs. What changes are required in their thinking to allow that.

This is uncharted territory.

Not for the Chinese. They have had boomers for a while now. Its the present for them, not the future.

Exactly, so if they won't mate land based missiles then sea based is out of the question as well.

How so? For land based missiles, you can get a chance to mate them later and still use them. You can't mate warheads to missiles on the high seas. This practical problem should force every country which relies on its boomers for the nuclear triad to mate the warheads before the subs leave port. The Colonel is sure the the Chinese haven't done so, hence my confusion.

The problem with a nuke on a sub is countries do not like them in the vicinity. It causes alarm and that is not the intent of deterrence to begin with. We have this inherent contradiction to deal with here.

The sub doesn't have to be in the vicinity if the SLBM's are long ranged. It can safely sit in the southern Indian ocean where enemy ASW assets are sparse. I'm guessing the Chinese already have such missiles and India is currently making one. Indian and Chinese ASW capabilities are nowhere near those of the USN. I guess sub captains in both navies would be more concerned about the Americans finding them rather than each other.

[zraver]

Why would any member of the UNSC want to increase the number of countries which have the veto? It is against their interests. Especially with a countries like India. Indian and US interests don't always align. The US doesn't want India to get in any more than the Chinese do, regardless of what they might say. Probably the only country the US won't have a problem with is Germany, since they will toe the American line on most issues just like the UK. But the Germans don't have nukes. I guess that is a requirement for getting in.

Because first among equals is a place the US will enjoy for some time to come. However as the gap between white and dark skinned races closes there is going to be a building surge of international pressure to add more color to the UNSC. This pressure will eventually build until the UNSC either adapts, imposes its rule by force (neo colonialism) to the changing world demographic or falls apart. Of the contenders for a permanent seat, only India meets all the requirements to be considered an equal.

Also while the US and India don't often get along, they get along more often than not, especially since the cold war. With China increasingly the bull in the China shop and the US economy increasingly unable to bear the strain of going it alone India is not just a wanted, but a needed addition to the world order.

For these same reasons China opposes India, but China is about to find out why being number 2 in the world is a bad place to be politically. When your number 2 number 1 and numbers 3 (Unless 3 thinks its number 2), 4 and 5 tend to end up in alignment against you eventually. Number 2's climb always threatens the world order which means the security of 3+ is endangered.

France tried to topple the UK and failed, Germany tried twice and ended up divided. The Soviets tried against the US and bankrupted themselves. In fact i can't think of a single number 2 that ever rose to number 1 by beating number 1. The new number 1 usually comes out of left field like the Arabs after Rome and Persia or the US after WWI.

[Officer of Engineers]

Germany will never be in, the UNSC is already too white and well its Germany (ditto for Japan). However eventually either or both India and Brazil will get in. India is the the most prepared to be a P5 member.

You're not getting it, Jason. It's a game that the P5 plays. There has been exactly ZERO official meetings about increasing UNSC veto members. In fact, the P5 never even got together as a group to unoffially discuss increasing UNSC veto members.

[Officer of Engineers]

Not for the Chinese. They have had boomers for a while now. Its the present for them, not the future.

The JL-2 is not operational yet. And those of us sitting outside of Chinese decision circles do not know why. The JL-1 is too short range to threaten CONUS. So, the sea leg of the Chinese Triad is nowhere close to being acceptably ready.

How so? For land based missiles, you can get a chance to mate them later and still use them. You can't mate warheads to missiles on the high seas. This practical problem should force every country which relies on its boomers for the nuclear triad to mate the warheads before the subs leave port. The Colonel is sure the the Chinese haven't done so, hence my confusion.

You do what the Soviets did. You load them only in times of crisis. It's also a political, diplomatic, as well as a military warning sign. If you see Chinese boomers going to sea with nukes, you know they think things are that serious.

The sub doesn't have to be in the vicinity if the SLBM's are long ranged. It can safely sit in the southern Indian ocean where enemy ASW assets are sparse. I'm guessing the Chinese already have such missiles and India is currently making one. Indian and Chinese ASW capabilities are nowhere near those of the USN. I guess sub captains in both navies would be more concerned about the Americans finding them rather than each other.

Hence why I don't consider the K-15 to be a game changer. You need to be sitting off Chinese shores to be effective. And since the Chinese do not have a counter-force arsenal, there is absolutely no difference for them between an AGNI III delivered nuke or a K-4 delievered nuke from the Bay of Bengal.

The Chinese could not stop either one.

[ambidex]

Mounting nukes on boomers has to come with your trust on boomers itself.

Arihant is yet to start its sea trail and reactor go critical. Aukla/Chakra on lease can't be mounted with nukes for obvious reasons.

I doubt India has got the capability the rescue its subs from bottom of the oceans, can guess same about Chinese subs as well, just recently we had done some exercises with Americans for the same.

[ambidex]

If its given that your subs have the tail of American subs and they will make sure you do not fire the BMs, at the same time you do not have the capability to rescue your boomers with nuke mated BMs then I can see why Chinese aren't doing it and why Indians would be doing the same.

Am I going in right direction ?

[Doktor]

I still wonder if the reports of Russian nuclear sub patrolling the Gulf of Mexico for a month last summer were true and if so, what does it say about US ASW network?

[Officer of Engineers]

I still wonder if the reports of Russian nuclear sub patrolling the Gulf of Mexico for a month last summer were true and if so, what does it say about US ASW network?

That we're all going broke. The Somali coast took a hell out of a lot of deployments. And the Libyan War didn't help any. Ships that usually patrol the corridors are now elsewhere and there's no back fill anywhere.

[Double Edge]

No, that's not it. One on one, the Chinese knew that they can't take on the Soviets. That they could not even inflict unacceptable damage onto the Soviets. What they could do is to tilt the balance against the Soviets. In other words, they might win round one against the Chinese but they would definetely lose in round 2 against the US.

What Zhou En-Lai (Mao was a babling fool by then) did was to get the Americans to jump in on round 1 instead of waiting for round 2. In that, they would discourage Moscow from going to war.

That's my point.

If the US is required as backup then what good was the Chinese arsenal at the time. If this was Israel then fine because they don't have a deterrent and the US has to back them. But my understanding is the Chinese DID have a deterrent.

So then i wondered whether maybe their arsenal was not mature enough at the time in which case this would not be a valid test of the concept of deterrence. But if it was then the utility of the concept of deterrence still remains to be validated. It's as you said, can deterrence raise enough doubt in the adversary to deter them or not. An open question. In the case of the Soviets it didn't.

Chinese tested in '64 because they sensed a split with the soviets. Five - eight years ('69) - ('73) the Soviets questioned them.

Deterrence remains a plausible idea (in theory) but its only test did not deliver as I would have expected.

Am i still missing anything here ?

[Officer of Engineers]

Am i still missing anything here ?

Yes you are. "Deterrence is not warfighting" does not happen in a vaccum. 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.

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.

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.