What's new

Nuclear weapons: India keeps pace with Pakistan, but focuses on China

well after commission prototype fast breeder reactor
in kalpakaam.India would have capacity to produce additional 30 nukes per year. India is planning to have 6 pfbr by 2020.


No nukes for peace - Times Of India
articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.../
 
.
The Indian nuclear stockpile is only going to increase. So it should come as no surprise.

1. Submarine - The main reason of existence for the Arihant is second strike. So, if you assume 12 Sagarikas that means 12 warheads, maybe, per sub. 4 subs that's 48 warheads there. Now, the hing to remember is, once deployed this is the first time you will have Indian nukes deployed operationally. This is a serious up-gradation of capabilities.

2. Land based missiles - Missiles are going to be MIRVed. Numbers are going to increase here too. Prithvi + Agni. That's a decently big number.

3. Air based - Free fall bombs, equipping the air delivery section. It is not one air base. Also, the CBGs deployed in all probability will carry nukes to be delivered through the air.

All this means, increased costs and increased role of the IN in being the sharp edge of the Indian nuclear sword.
 
.
We have more plutonium based weapons,which are more complex and costly.Missiles need plutonium weapons,uranium for aircraft delivery.

Also our miniature nuke delivery system is brahmos.Unlike pakistan it doesn't need huge range,because 300 km covers all important industrial and population centres of pakistan.
 
.
The figures are based upon a year old research, numbers have accelerated quite fast.
 
.
Guys, Which is the deadliest one, Plutonium based nuke or Uranium Based? Some Clear Ans would be great>>>
 
.
Guys, Which is the deadliest one, Plutonium based nuke or Uranium Based? Some Clear Ans would be great>>>

Plutonium is used in hydrogen (fusion) nuclear weapon, these are much more deadly than Uranium-235 based fission bombs.
 
.
This study suggests India has less number of nuke weapons than pak..... But spend more than double that of pakistan..... I wonder why????.... Can anyone shed lights to this????

Quality and quantity are two different aspects, and both have cost components. After a certain threshold the cost component of quality rises much faster as compared to cost component of quantity.
 
.
Plutonium is used in hydrogen (fusion) nuclear weapon, these are much more deadly than Uranium-235 based fission bombs.

Oh I see... and i Hear in this thread that Uranium Nukes can't be used on A missile delivery ? why is that? and as for i know all most all of Pakistan's Nukes are based on Uranium (Correct if wrong). But then why the hell they build Missiles for delivering nukes if Uranium based can't be mounted on a Missile?
 
.
Oh I see... and i Hear in this thread that Uranium Nukes can't be used on A missile delivery ? why is that? and as for i know all most all of Pakistan's Nukes are based on Uranium (Correct if wrong). But then why the hell they build Missiles for delivering nukes if Uranium based can't be mounted on a Missile?

No, they can be mounted as a warhead on missiles, however they are much more bulky and produce far less yield.
 
.
OK two important things here:
1. India has taken Pu route for its program and the total cost includes following factors:
a. Cost of Fuel handling from Reactors
2. Cost of Fuel re-processing.
3. Cost of fabrication
on the other hand Pak uses enriched Uranium route which has primary cost of centrifuge plant. Now if the repost is to be believed, obviously Pak is doing it on a more efficient and economical scale.

Second, I read Army chief's interview sometime back and he made some interesting observations when asked about Pak stockpiling N weapons. He observed that any country's inventory is based on threat perception. for example analysts in India would believe that we may have to use them against both China & Pak in the worst scenario. However Pak has only one target and such an inventory doesnot justify the threat perception. It obviously believes that in case of a conventional war, it is near impossible to beat India (although it can inflict a serious damage). Thus you need to have an arsenal big enough to act as a deterrent and may be it has a Doctrine of limited use if situation warrants.

As for the numbers, As Markus says take it with pinch of salt. what is important here is the amount of Pu available that can be weaponized. more importantly in modern times you don't need Megaton monsters. If unfortunate situation arises all we see is limited use of strategic bombs in order of few hundred (or less) kilotons.

explanation given by you seems right
 
.
Guys, Which is the deadliest one, Plutonium based nuke or Uranium Based? Some Clear Ans would be great>>>

The effect depends on the yield of the weapon not the fuel used. in other words, a 50 kiloton Uranium or plutonium weapon would have same affect including the longlived fission isotope yield
 
.
Hmm we posses more plutonium weapons than pakistan acc to this article then?Uranium based weapons can't be used on missiles anyway.

Source? U235 is more commonly used than plutonium for nuclear warheads. What is the use of nuclear warheads which cannot be delivered by missiles?
 
.
Source? U235 is more commonly used than plutonium for nuclear warheads. What is the use of nuclear warheads which cannot be delivered by missiles?

I have limited understanding of nuclear physics,from what i understand plutonium is a byproduct of uranium ,and its plutonium that is used in most modern weapons.Pure uranium warheads with primitive fission recations were heavy and could be carried by aircraft.
But a fusion[thermonuclear warhead]reaction can be very difficult.Only usa,russia,france,uk,china and india have done thermonuclear tests.There was also controversy on how successful india's thermonuclear tests was.
 
.
I have limited understanding of nuclear physics,from what i understand plutonium is a byproduct of uranium ,and its plutonium that is used in most modern weapons.Pure uranium warheads with primitive fission recations were heavy and could be carried by aircraft.
But a fusion[thermonuclear warhead]reaction can be very difficult.Only usa,russia,france,uk,china and india have done thermonuclear tests.There was also controversy on how successful india's thermonuclear tests was.

Plutonium is generated as a result of beta decay chains from U 238 (U238 + neutron..U239..beta decay..Neptunium239..beta decay..Plutonium239).
Most countries use U235 highly enriched for their weapons using centrifuge technology. Some countries that donot have this centrifuge technology have opted Pu route.
Thermonuclear design involves boosting or stagging. Essentially what it means is you have a primary fission device that on explosion generates enough temperature and pressure to initiate a fusion reaction of tritium (called secondary) which generates the majority yield of weapon. in some designs you also have a tertiary tamper shield that also contributes to the yield.
250px-Teller-Ulam_device_3D.svg.png


700px-BombH_explosion.svg.png


How-To-Make-An-Atomic-Bomb-2.jpg
 
.
This study suggests India has less number of nuke weapons than pak..... But spend more than double that of pakistan..... I wonder why????.... Can anyone shed lights to this????

All rubbish news. Any closer to realistic list would look like so you may guess the approx numbers:

Russia And US [both have nukes beyond threshold no point is rating]

China [55 years to nuclear program]

France [65 years to nuclear program]

India [43-45 years to nuclear program]

UK [65 years to nuclear program]

Israel [46-48 years to nuclear program]

Pakistan [33 years to nuclear program]

NK
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom