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

Dr Lewis is the expert here

http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/file...f_reprisal.pdf

[Doktor]

Col,

Would you qualify this piece as a good starting point on understanding Chinese nuclear policy?

I don't know pinying and I don't care to learn it. It came out after I was already long into my China watching.

[cdude]

Whenever you mention him, I doubt my google-fu. Any open resources in English?

He probably meant Marshall Nie Nie Rongzhen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. OOE is almighty, but his Pinyin was taught by some alien teachers.

Deng Xia peng, really?

[Doktor]

China's Marshall Rie.

Whenever you mention him, I doubt my google-fu. Any open resources in English?

Anything new here?

Yes, while the policies may have multiple inputs and actually, the go for nuclear launch requires several authorities (from national command down to the weapons delivery) but all that is require for a no-go is one single man.

The history of false alarms were all stopped by one man.

But the one case that we know of, a single man deliberately ignored the National Command Authority and stopped a nucleaer war. China's Marshall Rie.

[Doktor]

I'll get back to you on this one. Never thought of it this way.

Anything new here?

Sir, I don't quite understand this point. Do you mean a conventional attack? Or a nuclear one? I assume it would be a conventional attack because if it were a nuclear attack, then it countered the previous point of NOT inviting a nuclear strike.

If it were a conventional attack, then the nuclear deterrence worked? Because the attack was NOT nuclear?

Correct. You don't want to invite a nuclear attack. If you forced the Americans into a position to either nuke you first before you can nuke them, you failed in your deterrence. The Chinese would rather lose their nuclear arsenal than to invite a nuclear strike by preparing their nuclear arsenal for launch.

Does this mean the threat level is low enough as to not invite a first strike? Therefore, the deterrence worked?

Correct.

I also have an opinion on this, could be stupid, but I want to know if it is stupid and why.

Nuclear policies are still crafted by men. Men have survival instincts. Men in leadership roles (power) would like to retain their positions. Therefore, nuclear policies are crafted to extend the regime and the political life of those in charge. The bureaucracy would do anything to live on, just like a man's survival instinct.

A mad man is the wild card. We don't know what a single man would do, at any given point in time. However, men are predictable. Men behave in a very predictable manner in a herd. Nuclear policies are crafted by men in a herd that wishes to continue its function.

Does this help in understanding the nuclear policies of various nuclear powers?

I'll get back to you on this one. Never thought of it this way.

[gunnut]

It was Gen Sundarji who gave me the answer. If you have to toss a nuke, your deterrence has failed. AHA!!!!! The whole point of all of this is to NOT TO HAVE TO TOSS A NUKE. It defeats the purpose of deterrence. So, you do everything in your power NOT to invite a nuclear strike ... and that includes forcing the Americans to attack you before you have a chance to launch.

Sir, I don't quite understand this point. Do you mean a conventional attack? Or a nuclear one? I assume it would be a conventional attack because if it were a nuclear attack, then it countered the previous point of NOT inviting a nuclear strike.

If it were a conventional attack, then the nuclear deterrence worked? Because the attack was NOT nuclear?

Being nowhere close to a nuclear threshold.

Again, no nuclear threshold.

Does this mean the threat level is low enough as to not invite a first strike? Therefore, the deterrence worked?


I also have an opinion on this, could be stupid, but I want to know if it is stupid and why.

Nuclear policies are still crafted by men. Men have survival instincts. Men in leadership roles (power) would like to retain their positions. Therefore, nuclear policies are crafted to extend the regime and the political life of those in charge. The bureaucracy would do anything to live on, just like a man's survival instinct.

A mad man is the wild card. We don't know what a single man would do, at any given point in time. However, men are predictable. Men behave in a very predictable manner in a herd. Nuclear policies are crafted by men in a herd that wishes to continue its function.

Does this help in understanding the nuclear policies of various nuclear powers?

[antimony]

You have 20 examples where launch on warning was not executed. China, India, Pakistan, and Israel have recessed arsenals (ie, warheads not mated to delivery vehicles). France and the UK have large portions of their nukes on boomers, not vulnerable to a first strike.

The facts speak for themselves.

There is a forum where Stuart Slade is apparently a member and he had a post about someone who said that Clinton incapacited the US by making absorbing a first strike a policy

The policy of absorbing a first strike and then retaliating was laid down by Kennedy in 1961 and had been re-affirmed by every President since then. It reflects the absolute need to be sure that a strike really is a strike not a false warning. (one might reflect that any policy on which Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan agree must have something to say for it). We've had a lot of false warnings of inbound strikes.

Which is why launch on warning is insane, psychotic moronic idiocy. Nobody who has even the slightest understanding of what nuclear weapons are and what nuclear strategy involves would make such an asinine proposal. If this lunatic's policy had been adopted, we would have had a dozen or more nuclear wars over the last decade alone. His comments are so stupid they deny rational belief. At this point we can ignore everything else this moron says. He is simply to ignorant to have any credibility. He should be locked up in an asylum somewhere where he can't do any damage.

The first strike will not take down our C4I, bombers etc etc. The system is deliberately designed to ride out an attack. Its multiply-redundant with a plethora of interconnecting links and communication paths.

[Double Edge]

Grab a hold of a movie called FAIL SAFE (1964). I think you can watch it online.

wow, that's an 8/10 ratings movie

Grab a hold of a movie called FAIL SAFE (1964). I think you can watch it online.

[Defcon5]

You have 20 examples where launch on warning was not executed. China, India, Pakistan, and Israel have recessed arsenals (ie, warheads not mated to delivery vehicles). France and the UK have large portions of their nukes on boomers, not vulnerable to a first strike.

The facts speak for themselves.

Colonel,

World War 3 of epic nuclear proportions is not going to happen if a Rouge General from USA (just a role reversal and not plausible I know) launches a solitary nuke at Moscow.

How will Moscow react to a unauthorized Nuclear detonation by rogue element of the US Armed Forces?

So again in the real world sanity prevails, maybe not in Hollywood.

I thought the Chinese boomers are in port without (mated) nukes. Why would they be prime targets?

Even without nukes, boomers are nuclear command authorities.

[Doktor]

I thought the Chinese boomers are in port without (mated) nukes. Why would they be prime targets?