Pakistan's terrible idea to develop battlefield nukes

[notorious_eagle]

Cold Start assures that within 48 hours India can have 100,000 troops deployed, with a running flow of troops and equipment continuing. So it can mobilise faster than Pakistan and push a few hundred kilometers in before Pakistan. By then the rest of our force can be mobilised, and make a massive push, leaving BF nukes as the only option.

Question: Has India been able to achieve this?

Due to massive advancement in Early Warning Technology, it is simply impossible for India to mobilize without Pakistan noticing it. Mobilizing 100 000 troops is no joke, it takes a lot of preparation which is impossible to hide. When the trucks start getting fuelled, tanks start to get oiled, mechanized vehicles get ready, soldiers start training and massive supplies start coming into the cantonments, this is something you cannot hide and will raise an alarm at the other side.

Your entire premise is wrong assuming that IA can mobilize before PA. If history is something to go by, PA can pride itself in her mobilization time. While it took India more than a month to mobilize in 2001, PA had brought Divisions from as far away as Balochistan and KP to her Eastern borders in less than 2 weeks. And i can assure you, that time has been cut by more than half. Thus, your entire premise is wrong in assuming that IA can mobilize faster than PA.

Once Pakistan uses BF nukes, the NFU conditions are fulfilled, we can retaliate, launch our own nukes, burn down all Pakistani nuclear facilities and raze their cities to the ground. Since India has SLBMs, IRBMs, and ICBMs, we can effectively destroy most of your nukes without the fear that we won't have enough left over for the cities. If Pakistan retaliates, it will surely hit Mumbai or Delhi, both of which have ABM systems, which will be even better by next year.

ABM systems . Are they online? The US is yet to perfect her ABM technology but Indians here are claiming there ABM technology works 100%. I forgot, as Taimi Khan said Indian technology is from Mars.

Pakistan is in possession of nukes that number in triple digits, its more than enough to fry up all of India. If you think that India will not be effected by a nuke strike, than you are simply living in a fools dream. Both countries will be razed to the ground and there are hardly going to be any survivors. Whomever unlucky people whom do survive will beg to be killed. It does appear that your General Staff has realized that Pakistan does has the capability of destroying India, that is why they were smart enough to not start a conflict .

What would Pakistan choose? Retreat, save 180 million, or continue?

Simple. If Pakistan goes down, it will make sure that she takes India down with her.

 

[Ticker]

Ticker yaaar waisee eik cheez tou bataaa - Why is that we're the ones who're always portrayed as having a conundrum ? If you (Pakistan) use the nukes, albeit battlefield nukes, that means the 'no-nuclear' thing is violated and we're under no compulsion to fOok you over even if it means using nukes. Why doesn't it ever go to the tune of - We've just parked our air-craft carrier a hundred Kms from Karachi....what if the Pakistanis target the flotilla with a couple of battlefield nukes ? What then ? Our men our dead, our boats are sitting at the bottom of the ocean...do we reply back by using battlefield nukes in turn on their FOBs, their formations etc or is that going to escalate things so much that they'd be willing to do everything nuclear just short of bombing our cities ? What then..? Should we proceed...shouldn't we proceed ? Perhaps we shouldn't have parked the carrier there or perhaps we shouldn't have crossed the LOC over or perhaps a limited conflict is the only possible thing on the card or do we call their bluff, if it is a bluff, and carry through with an all-out war ? What if we're wrong...? What happens then ?

I personally think that unanswered, unquantifiable and yet cruelly important questions like that being asked and sought answers of on both sides is what the 'Nuclear Deterrent' is all about ! Tuu bataaa is that line of reasoning correct or am I assuming too much ?

The US launched Manhattan Project in August 1942 and concluded it successfully in July 1945 with the test of first nuclear bomb in the Jornada del Muerto (Journey of Death) desert and called it the Trinity. Three weeks later on August 6th and 19th respectively, two atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki leading to an unconditional surrender by Japan. Britain, France and China joined the race in 1952, 1960 and 1962 respectively.

It is believed that the Technical Director Manhattan Project, Robert Oppenheimer, born to an affluent Jewish family, named the test explosion ‘Trinity’. He is believed to have done so in reference to the divine Hindu Trinity of Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Preserver), and Shiva (the Destroyer). This may well be a conjecture and the name Trinity may actually had been based on the Christian belief of union of three entities (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), in to one powerful Godhead. Oppenheimer is said to have recited the following passage from Bhagwad Gita, after the first atomic explosion:

If the radiance of a thousand suns
Were to burst at once into the sky,
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...
I am become Death,
The shatterer of Worlds
​

The US monopoly of nuclear weapons technology gave birth to the strategic notion of ‘Preventive War Strategy’. However, unable to morally justify nuclear use against non-nuclear states a new concept of ‘Preventive Attack Strategy’ was formulated sanctifying its use only after confirming signs of impending enemy attack before launching the first nuclear strike. After 9/11 the Americans disregarded the morality and announced ‘Pre-emptive War Strategy’, almost akin to the earlier perceived immoral ‘Preventive War Strategy’.

With acquisition of nuclear capability by Soviets in 1949, US monopoly was converted into a nuclear superiority. To maintain quantitative and qualitative edge over each other, a nuclear armed race resulted in production of thousands of nuclear weapons and platforms. Availability of such a destructive capability in such abundance reinvigorated the concept of deterrence and a nuclear deterrence regime emerged. The nuclear haves also decided to limit and restrict this capability from the have-nots. The reinvigorated nuclear deterrence regime resulted in formation of various nuclear strategies and doctrines which in differing environs governed the use and non-use of nuclear weapons even to this day.

To deter future wars, US formulated the strategy of ‘Massive Retaliation’ which also by default relegated the conventional response capability. However, realizing that such response cannot be promulgated in all wars which were limited and conventional in nature, strategy of ‘Flexible Response’ was formulated to react across the entire spectrum of possible challenges combining the nuclear and conventional responses. The fear that Europe may become a nuclear battle ground and the unpredictable Soviet response resulted in formulation of the strategy of Assured Destruction (MAD). The strategy highlighted the irrationality of a nuclear exchange and further strengthened the notion of deterrence.

This was followed by Schlesinger doctrine evolved in 1972. This strategy opted a limited nuclear option, an escalation control through selective strikes and pauses between the strikes to allow for negotiated cease-fire. However after a fundamental review of Soviet nuclear strategy in 1977, a Countervailing Strategy was devised dictating that at a variety of levels of exchange, aggression would either be defeated or would result in unacceptable costs that exceed gains.

Unable to counter the perceived Soviet threat through this strategy, a new strategy was formulated to foresee that the US must prevail in any future conflict. This resulted in Reagan’s Speech of 23 March 1983, dubbed the Star Wars speech. US government spelled out a radically new approach which attempted to reduce the nuclear arms to the level of redundancy by destruction of ballistic missiles before they could reach their target and was clearly aimed at US domination not much different than the post 1945 era. The era of developing a potent Anti Ballistic Missiles thus began and continues till to date.

Irrespective of US strategies, the Soviets envisaged exercising opacity and use of nuclear weapons as part of the overall war fighting spectrum. They believed in first use in conjunction with a strong conventional response. The British, French and Chinese opted for a minimum deterrence in order to inflict unacceptable damage to the adversary.

The progression of nuclear environment between India and Pakistan though have some influences from above historical perspectives, yet also considerably differ due to a common border and over 60 years of acrimonious and distrustful relationship sullied by many wars. These environments can to some extent be remotely considered identical to East-West German environment during cold war and Russo-Chinese skirmishes in June 1969, which led to some veiled threats of use of nuclear weapons by both the countries. In both cases however, the nuclear deterrence prevailed.

More later please.

 

[Contrarian]

How so? Balance of forces and the lack of numbers is certainly not on India's side. IN has to commit forces for her huge coast line and also throw numbers to block Pakistan's coast too.

It is. Not every inch of India's coast needs to be protected. A few major ports and shipping channels need to be protected only on the West Coast. Even if they are unguarded, Pakistan does not possess the wherewithal to exploit it. No Pakistani surface ship will be able to go. At best a few shells or missiles will be lobbed. What does that achieve in a military context? Nothing.

No one is questioning IN's technological capability. If PN and IN slug it out in the open sea, PN will get annihilated in a matter of hours. But for coastal defence, i am not so sure. The scenario is a bit similar to USN and PLAN, the defensive weapons that PN possess are quite lethal and can make a serious dent on IN's strategy. The strategy of sea denial is much cheaper than sea supremacy.

Sea denial means at best Pakistan can throw up a defensive zone. IN can implement a blockade without crossing that limit. And while i question PN's ability to come up with anything close to sea denial. With the assets PN has, it cant do what you claim.

Already seen, most of the new fancy toys (P8 and Akula etc) are mostly aimed at China as they hardly provide any advantage against Pakistan.

Well, the AAW is geared towards Pakistan. And its not as if P8's or Akula's are not going to be used against Pakistan. Its a war against Pakistan, not China. All resources will be mobilized against Pakistan, especially all maritime ones. IN hardly has to maintain a balance in the east, unlike IAF. PLAN cant do anything in IOR.

Do you mind naming one for me please? I would any day on my life put my money on a Harpoon II compared to any other ASM missile.

Put your life/money, doesnt mean others would too. BrahMos is but one of the major AShM's.

Indeed the defence is commendable, but this is where strategy comes in. It will be up to PN war planners on how they manage to break the fleet's defences. PAF with her Mirage III were able to break the defences of USS Kity Hawk and fly past it in a practice exercise, so don't for a second think that IN's fleet will be safe because a US CBG is probably a thousand times better protected than an IN CBG.

Great. Where all do you expect to deploy your very limited air assets? IN alone will have an fighter complement of 100 jets by the decade end. That would be 1/4th of the entire projected PAF fighters.

Let alone that PAF has to contend against IAF which is technologically and quantitatively superior.

That apart, PAF will also have to simultaneously provide air cover/defence to PA!

A Harpoon II whether on surface ship or coastal battery is a very serious threat whether you like it or not.



As i said, this is where strategy comes in.

No its not. It used to be a good while back. Today technology allows such coastal batteries to be bombed on the first day itself. They are not as mobile and consequently easy to put out.

No Pakistani Naval warship will remain standing if it goes to a fight even from its harbour. Its that simple. Pakistan's defence is based on submarine and coastal batteries. Your procurements also reflect this.

For an effective blockade, yes IN will need to bring her ships to close down Pakistan's EEZ. IN will need to maintain a continuous presence of her fleet and effectively stop the ingress/egress of civilian ships for it to be considered an effective blockade. The question is how many ships can IN throw at this venture and how many casualties are they willing to accept? A continuous round the clock blockade is going to be an expensive venture in both monetary terms and in terms of blood as PN will continuously harass IN with strikes from the coast, air, sea and under sea .

You realize that with PN surface ships destroyed, and a continuous ASW screen put up, there is not much left for PN to do?

I know that you are knowledgeable in military affairs. Please take a moment out to consult with those serving in Navy in different countries or even PN. If your surface ships are destroyed, and your ports are bombed.

The only threat there is, is from PN submarines, not coastal batteries. They will be bombed at the outset along with the ports. Every SAG of IN will have a fleet wide MRSAM capability backed by fighters. Even if you are able to locate the SAG's and even if you are able to fire a volley of AShM's, even then it would be hard to make even the SAG operationally invalidated. The AAW being put up is too big for PN to penetrate easily. With the resources PN possess it is very hard. Your procurements must reflect what you say that PN would be able to get past the AAW repeatedly! They do not. And unless it is repeatedly, one off successful strikes are not likely to stop IN or the blockade.

At best you maintain say a 100 sq km area denial by your subs which in themselves would be under great pressure. Loss of even one of the subs will be extremely hard for PN.

Even beyond that ring a blockade can be implemented. Your EEZ does not need to be constantly patrolled for a blockade. And though it will, your cargo handling infrastructure needs to be bombed for it to be rendered operationally inactive. If your allies are unable to land oil/gas/military gear on your ports, then it becomes a defacto blockade.

Losses are acceptable part of any war. However, in case of Naval Forces, Pakistan will not be able to inflict a high level of losses in any case.

In any case, every loss of asset of IN, will be alongside loss of assets for PN, which will pinch PN that much greater and erode their capability to put up the next strike on IN. This loss of capability of PN per asset is much greater and very severely limits PN strikes for a longer duration.

They are more than welcome to. But looking at their posture from 2001 and 2008, it does appear that they want to refrain from it because they know how unfruitful this venture would be.

You would know that it was the Army which backed out. At the outset of any war, IN will , not if, implement a blockade. 3 ports of Pakistan will - not if - be bombed to stop any cargo movement in and out.

The gap b/w IN and PN is ridiculously large and only growing at a very alarming pace for Pakistan. The capability gap is too big for Pakistan to be able to stop a blockade. The solution is only investing in assets. Pakistan has not done that for a decade, seems unlikely for the next decade as well.

Well that is an assumption and an assumption only not backed by any proof .

Cheers

You only have history to go by for the basis of that assumption.

 

[Ticker]

It is. Not every inch of India's coast needs to be protected. A few major ports and shipping channels need to be protected only on the West Coast. Even if they are unguarded, Pakistan does not possess the wherewithal to exploit it. No Pakistani surface ship will be able to go. At best a few shells or missiles will be lobbed. What does that achieve in a military context? Nothing.

Sea denial means at best Pakistan can throw up a defensive zone. IN can implement a blockade without crossing that limit. And while i question PN's ability to come up with anything close to sea denial. With the assets PN has, it cant do what you claim.

Well, the AAW is geared towards Pakistan. And its not as if P8's or Akula's are not going to be used against Pakistan. Its a war against Pakistan, not China. All resources will be mobilized against Pakistan, especially all maritime ones. IN hardly has to maintain a balance in the east, unlike IAF. PLAN cant do anything in IOR.

Put your life/money, doesnt mean others would too. BrahMos is but one of the major AShM's.

Great. Where all do you expect to deploy your very limited air assets? IN alone will have an fighter complement of 100 jets by the decade end. That would be 1/4th of the entire projected PAF fighters.

Let alone that PAF has to contend against IAF which is technologically and quantitatively superior.

That apart, PAF will also have to simultaneously provide air cover/defence to PA!

No its not. It used to be a good while back. Today technology allows such coastal batteries to be bombed on the first day itself. They are not as mobile and consequently easy to put out.

No Pakistani Naval warship will remain standing if it goes to a fight even from its harbour. Its that simple. Pakistan's defence is based on submarine and coastal batteries.

You realize that with PN surface ships destroyed, and a continuous ASW screen put up, there is not much left for PN to do?

I know that you are knowledgeable in military affairs. Please take a moment out to consult with those serving in Navy in different countries or even PN. If your surface ships are destroyed, and your ports are bombed.

The only threat there is, is from PN submarines, not coastal batteries. They will be bombed at the outset along with the ports. Every SAG of IN will have a fleet wide MRSAM capability backed by fighters. Even if you are able to locate the SAG's and even if you are able to fire a volley of AShM's, even then it would be hard to make even the SAG operationally invalidated. The AAW being put up is too big for PN to penetrate.

At best you maintain say a 100 sq km area denial by your subs which in themselves would be under great pressure. Loss of even one of the subs will be extremely hard for PN.

Even beyond that ring a blockade can be implemented. Your EEZ does not need to be constantly patrolled for a blockade. And though it will, your cargo handling infrastructure needs to be bombed for it to be rendered operationally inactive. If your allies are unable to land oil/gas/military gear on your ports, then it becomes a defacto blockade.

Losses are acceptable part of any war. However, in case of Naval Forces, Pakistan will not be able to inflict a high level of losses in any case.

In any case, every loss of asset of IN, will be alongside loss of assets for PN, which will pinch PN that much greater and erode their capability to put up the next strike on IN. This loss of capability of PN per asset is much greater and very severely limits PN strikes for a longer duration.

You would know that it was the Army which backed out. At the outset of any war, IN will , not if, implement a blockade. 3 ports of Pakistan will - not if - be bombed to stop any cargo movement in and out.

You only have history to go by for the basis of that assumption.

A major stand off between the US and Iran is Iran's threat of closing the Persian Gulf. The US is ready to go to war with Iran if Iran actually does attempt this.

Indian naval blockade can only be successful if Indian Navy also blocks access from Persian Gulf to Pakistani ports.

Will the Indian navy be able to do this is a moot point.

And will it hamper shipping in this world common, when a naval war is being fought at the mouth of Persian Gulf. It definitely would.

With Pakistani A2/AD systems in place, Indian Navy will certainly find it extremely difficult to venture closer to the Pakistani coast, despite its stand off systems, which increasingly are not in a position to provide a credible stand off.

What if Indian Navy sinks a foreign flag carrier thinking it is a Pakistani bound ship, or Pakistan does the same thinking it is an Indian ship.

Such blockade would also affect and restrict the air space above the area. US uses the air space for provision of logistics as well as air support to its troops deployed in Afghanistan, which even after the major troop draw-down, would occupy certain number of bases there.

What about flights of hundreds of civilian air carriers in the war zone.

What if, in future, the Chinese and the Central Asian countries also start using the ports at Gawadar or Karachi for their trade and energy transfer. Would it not affect them. I think it would.

And the last but not the least is the nuclear brinkmanship which would come in to effect.

All these factors, despite the strength Indian Navy possesses, go against imposition of Indian naval blockade of Pakistan.

But still, after all this, India feels that it can impose a naval blockade, go ahead.

When we go down, we will take the whole of you with us.

 

[Contrarian]

A major stand off between the US and Iran is Iran's threat of closing the Persian Gulf. The US is ready to go to war with Iran if Iran actually does attempt this.

Indian naval blockade can only be successful if Indian Navy also blocks access from Persian Gulf to Pakistani ports.

Will the Indian navy be able to do this is a moot point.

And will it hamper shipping in this world common, when a naval war is being fought at the mouth of Persian Gulf. It definitely would.

No. Please check the map again. Blockading Pakistani in no way affects international oil shipping. The only reason the US would go against us is if we block international oil routes. Something we will not do. And something that cannot be done in any case as it is far off from Pakistani coasts.

Unless Pakistan itself wants to block oil routes, which it is welcome to do, as that would make USN join IN in destroying Pakistani assets, no spill over of war will affect oil tankers.

With Pakistani A2/AD systems in place, Indian Navy will certainly find it extremely difficult to venture closer to the Pakistani coast, despite its stand off systems, which increasingly are not in a position to provide a credible stand off.

Infact Pakistani AD systems are in themselves pretty bad!
Let alone talk of AD on Pakistani ships! Pakistani land based AD is very bad.
Our stand off systems are increasingly effective in providing us with a credible stand off strike range. Hopefully with the 1000km range subsonic and cheap CM Nirbhay to be tested next month, it will take stand off strikes at Pakistan to a different level. All Indian Navy capital ships will have LACM's.

What if Indian Navy sinks a foreign flag carrier thinking it is a Pakistani bound ship, or Pakistan does the same thinking it is an Indian ship.

Why would we need to sink any foreign flag carrier when Pakistani ports capable to handling the kind of cargo carried in those ships will be destroyed. What difference does it make even if a ship is standing in open waters carrying cargo for Pakistan but unable to land it?

Lastly, in case of a blockade, all foreign ships are given fair warning to not enter the area from which a blockade is enforced. Any ship entering that area is entering at own risk. Even when such ships enter, they usually ask the force enforcing the blockade to let them pass as they are carrying humanitarian assistance! No ship will carry military supplies to you through a blockade.

If you are banking on international pressure to stop a blockade, you are mistaken. The only Navy capable of stopping an Indian Naval blockade in IOR is USN, and they will not interfere till the time, the international oil routes are disturbed due to India.

Such blockade would also affect and restrict the air space above the area. US uses the air space for provision of logistics as well as air support to its troops deployed in Afghanistan, which even after the major troop draw-down, would occupy certain number of bases there.

That is a what - if scenario. The US can is also using the Northern Route. It is not solely dependent on Pakistan though Pakistan is cheapest from a logistics POV.

What about flights of hundreds of civilian air carriers in the war zone.

What if, in future, the Chinese and the Central Asian countries also start using the ports at Gawadar or Karachi for their trade and energy transfer. Would it not affect them. I think it would.

Please. As i have said before. What good are these carriers standing off Pakistani waters, when the infrastructure to deload them, or to land and handle the cargo including ports and rail links destroyed.

And the last but not the least is the nuclear brinkmanship which would come in to effect.

All these factors, despite the strength Indian Navy possesses, go against imposition of Indian naval blockade of Pakistan.

But still, after all this, India feels that it can impose a naval blockade, go ahead.

Nope. Implementing a naval blockade on Pakistan is easier than ever before. The technological and numerical capacity of the IN today allows it to impose a blockade in a much easier way than it could before. The gap today is bigger than ever before. And it continues to grow.

When we go down, we will take the whole of you with us.

Please do spare us. We bow in front of the mighty Fort of Islam - Pakistan.

 

[Ticker]

No. Please check the map again. Blockading Pakistani in no way affects international oil shipping. The only reason the US would go against us is if we block international oil routes. Something we will not do. And something that cannot be done in any case as it is far off from Pakistani coasts.

Unless Pakistan itself wants to block oil routes, which it is welcome to do, as that would make USN join IN in destroying Pakistani assets, no spill over of war will affect oil tankers.


Infact Pakistani AD systems are in themselves pretty bad!
Let alone talk of AD on Pakistani ships! Pakistani land based AD is very bad.
Our stand off systems are increasingly effective in providing us with a credible stand off strike range. Hopefully with the 1000km range subsonic and cheap CM Nirbhay to be tested next month, it will take stand off strikes at Pakistan to a different level. All Indian Navy capital ships will have LACM's.



Why would we need to sink any foreign flag carrier when Pakistani ports capable to handling the kind of cargo carried in those ships will be destroyed. What difference does it make even if a ship is standing in open waters carrying cargo for Pakistan but unable to land it?

Lastly, in case of a blockade, all foreign ships are given fair warning to not enter the area from which a blockade is enforced. Any ship entering that area is entering at own risk. Even when such ships enter, they usually ask the force enforcing the blockade to let them pass as they are carrying humanitarian assistance! No ship will carry military supplies to you through a blockade.

If you are banking on international pressure to stop a blockade, you are mistaken. The only Navy capable of stopping an Indian Naval blockade in IOR is USN, and they will not interfere till the time, the international oil routes are disturbed due to India.


That is a what - if scenario. The US can is also using the Northern Route. It is not solely dependent on Pakistan though Pakistan is cheapest from a logistics POV.


Please. As i have said before. What good are these carriers standing off Pakistani waters, when the infrastructure to deload them, or to land and handle the cargo including ports and rail links destroyed.


Nope. Implementing a naval blockade on Pakistan is easier than ever before. The technological and numerical capacity of the IN today allows it to impose a blockade in a much easier way than it could before. The gap today is bigger than ever before. And it continues to grow.


Please do spare us. We bow in front of the mighty Fort of Islam - Pakistan.

OK. Please go ahead and impose a naval blockade.

How did it become a religious discussion and where did Islam come in to this. ha ha ha .....

Bigotry is thy name - isn't it - can't live without it.

 

[ajtr]

What has Palestine got to do with Pakistan's nuclear thresholds.

Just an example to show that pakistan has no red lines.It will flash nukes even for palestine issue.

 

[The Deterrent]

Just an example to show that pakistan has no red lines.It will flash nukes even for palestine issue.

Pakistan's Keyboard Generals may not have any red lines, but its National Command Authority does.

 

[Hyperion]

You only have history to go by for the basis of that assumption.

The exact purpose of nukes is to assure, absolute fear in the heart of an adversary. That has been achieved. If you think Pakistan is incapable of manufacturing TN warhead and having the balls to act on it, you're sadly mistaken! Simple fact is, if we are no more, no one around us should be there either. That is what is taught at Command College, not how to pu**y-foot decisions and have an orgasm over the consequences.

You try to strangle us, just before we die, we take the air out of your balloon as well. Simple as that. Doesn't matter how good your tech and strategy is, our bombs blow as good as yours, and the kaboom is equally as loud.

Dude, you think way too much. One small nuke from our side, and one small one from your side, both sides will be shitting in their pants. Game over. Economy dead. Every one goes back home.

 

[Ticker]

Just an example to show that pakistan has no red lines.It will flash nukes even for palestine issue.

I don't think so.

In the late 80s, Yasar Arafat (marhoom) went to Russia before visiting Pakistan. In Moscow, he stated that Kashmir is part of India and that Pakistan should acquiesce and accept it.

Since then, there is a downtrend in love of Palestinians in this part of the world.

And Pakistan's nuclear weapons are only meant for India - these are only India centric.

pata nahin kya kya keh detay hein aap og bhi na .... kahan ki billi kahan ki meyaun

 

[Hyperion]

Just an example to show that pakistan has no red lines.It will flash nukes even for palestine issue.

You're sadly mistaken. Our strategy is India centric only. Regarding Palestine, it's quite the opposite. If no Pakistan exists, neither should the second biggest threat to our security.

 

[Ticker]

Pakistan's Keyboard Generals may not have any red lines, but its National Command Authority does.

ha ha ha .... this is a new one ... Pakistan's keyboard generals.

Never heard this before. ha ha ha

 

[The Deterrent]

ha ha ha .... this is a new one ... Pakistan's keyboard generals.

Never heard this before. ha ha ha

I was referring to the people who talk of nuking US, Israel and every other disagreeing party

 

[DARKY]

---

India has a growing FBR technology... much ahead than China.

French nuclear scientist says India could be acclaimed as a world champion in a decade.

India surging ahead in FBR technology

There's already a FBR running from a decade at Kalpakkam.
The new more powerful reactor was completed in 2010 with 500-550MWe power generation capabilities.

Pakistan which imports Chinese rector designs cannot even think of such technology even after 10 years.

The Enrichment facilities in India 100+ tons of Fuel every year... which is many times more than what those poor inefficient Chinese reactors come up with.. Hence availability of Plutonium is much-much more than what's required here.. for weapon program.

The FBRs would only Double the amount Plutonium which PHWRs produce every year... Hence along with those FBRs 8 more PHWRs are being made in the current plan... Thanks to the Nuclear deal India has the opportunity to reprocess and double the Plutonium Produced the 8 Foreign LWR which would have a capacity of 1000MWe each... Increasing the Plutonium produced by Non... FBR to more than triple of What it does today by 2020.. and FBR would make that double.. increasing the figure even more.. as Plutonium is required for AWR of the 3rd stage of Indian Nuclear program which would use Thorium and make India Independent for its energy needs for another 500years to come.

However right now India is concentrating more on Tritium based weapons for Boosted fission and Thermonuclear warhead.
Boosted fission warhead is both Western and Eastern specific and generates 200KT TNT equivalent explosion.. the weight is about 800kg.
While the Thermonuclear generates the same amount(200KT)... but the weight is only 270-30
The New TN design has the capability of 450KT and would weight 350Kg making it closer to W88 warhead of US.

 

[Ticker]

India has a growing FBR technology... much ahead than China.

French nuclear scientist says India could be acclaimed as a world champion in a decade.

India surging ahead in FBR technology

There's already a FBR running from a decade at Kalpakkam.
The new more powerful reactor was completed in 2010 with 500-550MWe power generation capabilities.

Pakistan which imports Chinese rector designs cannot even think of such technology even after 10 years.

The Enrichment facilities in India 100+ tons of Fuel every year... which is many times more than what those poor inefficient Chinese reactors come up with.. Hence availability of Plutonium is much-much more than what's required here.. for weapon program.

The FBRs would only Double the amount Plutonium which PHWRs produce every year... Hence along with those FBRs 8 more PHWRs are being made in the current plan... Thanks to the Nuclear deal India has the opportunity to reprocess and double the Plutonium Produced the 8 Foreign LWR which would have a capacity of 1000MWe each... Increasing the Plutonium produced by Non... FBR to more than triple of What it does today by 2020.. and FBR would make that double.. increasing the figure even more.. as Plutonium is required for AWR of the 3rd stage of Indian Nuclear program which would use Thorium and make India Independent for its energy needs for another 500years to come.

However right now India is concentrating more on Tritium based weapons for Boosted fission and Thermonuclear warhead.
Boosted fission warhead is both Western and Eastern specific and generates 200KT TNT equivalent explosion.. the weight is about 800kg.
While the Thermonuclear generates the same amount(200KT)... but the weight is only 270-30
The New TN design has the capability of 450KT and would weight 350Kg making it closer to W88 warhead of US.

The thermonuclear test of 1998 was a fizzle. While the boosted fission trigger probably worked, the second stage could not be ignited properly and it fizzled.

India will have to conduct another set of tests to prove its claim that it has a thermonuclear device ready. India has voluntarily imposed a test ban. Also, its agreement with US would be breached and nullified if India conducts another set of nuclear tests.

This is the dilemma. Whatever your claims about thermonuclear weapons, without further tests, these would be untested devices and its deterrence value would almost be zilch. Agni 5s and 12000 KM future missiles would be mere shurlis, unless fresh tests are conducted.