Nuclear Deterrence - Printable Version +- Forums (http://india-forum.com) +-- Forum: Indian and International Forces (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Forum: Military Discussion (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=22) +--- Thread: Nuclear Deterrence (/showthread.php?tid=144) |
Nuclear Deterrence - Arun_S - 06-04-2010 [quote name='gangajal1' date='04 June 2010 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1275630507' post='106720'] Expansion of India's highly enriched Uranium production is necessary for running the Nuke Sub fleet. It is highly unlikely that India will use this HEU for weapons production. [/quote] FYI, due to long term close proximity to warheads in cramped submarine quarters, US and other countries were forced to reduce Plutonium in fissile material to bare minimm and use Higly enriched Uranium insted for the secondary and tertiary fuel for their warheads (which are all Thermo Nukes, that gives lowest possible warhead weight and for teh limited rocket energy longest reach/range). Given Indian TN fiasco in 1998, Arihant's MIRV nuclear missile deployment will be forced to use mixed MIRV payload of proven Fission/FBF with ostensibly debugged TN warhead with HEU tertiary (Even military grade Pu is moderately radioactive, whose radioactivity is few order more than HEU) . And for Arihant that TN design will be different design compared to Land / Air delivered Nuclear warheads. So Arihant TN will use HEU based TN, while the rest of the forces will use the debugged TN of 1998 vintage that use a concoction of various isotopes of Plutonium that are mildly radioactive. Bottom line is that submarine based tirade leg required HEU not only for nuclear reactor but also for TN warhead. (I know in India value of life is cheap, but life of crew that bear Indian nuclear deterrence better not be cheap). Nuclear Deterrence - Guest - 06-04-2010 And on cue there is news that India is expanding the RMP. More Boomers on the way. Nuclear Deterrence - gangajal1 - 06-05-2010 [quote name='Arun_S' date='04 June 2010 - 09:55 PM' timestamp='1275668240' post='106729'] So Arihant TN will use HEU based TN, while the rest of the forces will use the debugged TN of 1998 vintage that use a concoction of various isotopes of Plutonium that are mildly radioactive. [/quote] How can they use a HEU based TN in Arihant since without testing even the debugged 1998 vintage TN is not reliable? I can understand using FBFs but how can they depend on unreliable TNs. Nuclear Deterrence - laltaputu - 06-05-2010 [quote name='Gagan' date='04 June 2010 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1275670572' post='106733'] And on cue there is news that India is expanding the RMP. More Boomers on the way. [/quote] That may be write but if we still lag behind everyone in nuclear warheads(by SIPRI) Then what will we have to put on those boomers AGNI3SL with 8 MIRV means ARIHANT class will carry 32 warheads since more 2 arihant class is in making we will need 96 warheads(also heard a navy man say that in an interview) but according to SIPRI we have only 70-80 warheads that not enough to deploy on the boomers so what will our aircrafts,other missiles carry flower petals Nuclear Deterrence - laltaputu - 06-05-2010 [quote name='Arun_S' date='04 June 2010 - 09:55 PM' timestamp='1275668240' post='106729'] Given Indian TN fiasco in 1998, Arihant's MIRV nuclear missile deployment will be forced to use mixed MIRV payload of proven Fission/FBF with ostensibly debugged TN warhead with HEU tertiary [/quote] Given the TN device in P2 failed and we don't have a reliable and working TN warhead and we lost our testing right after agreement with USA isn't it possible for BARC and DRDO to covertly test the TN warhead covert testing has happened in the past so nothing new about that or the confidence by which mr kakodkar is saying that we have more that one tn bomb from 45-200+kt is it possible that they have all ready done a covert test Nuclear Deterrence - Arun_S - 06-05-2010 With MMS capping Indian nuclear deterrence by signing teh deal with USA, the next poor mans option is stated in this article, that will allow alternate way to build and test thermo nuclear device, (at least that will allow determining the debugged design is in really fixed or not): Keyword is [url="http://www.indiaresearch.org/WayToACredibleDeterrent.pdf"]Way To A Credible Nuclear Deterrent -Arun Vishwakarma @ IRF[/url] Quote:Thermo-nuclear (TN) warhead: Nuclear Deterrence - ravicv - 06-10-2010 [quote name='laltaputu' date='03 June 2010 - 08:04 PM' timestamp='1275623807' post='106717'] http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/2010/06/pakistan-surging-ahead-on-nuclear-front.html is this report by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) credible if it is they why are we lagging in nuclear weapons although our nuclear program started before pakistan pakistan now have more warheads than us [/quote] Don't worry about this mismatch. It's a petty thing. As long as the Indians can prostrate, they'll think they are safe. That's the time tested Indian style deterrence <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> . Problems might only arise if Indians start growing a spine, which isn't likely. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Nuclear Deterrence - ramana - 06-11-2010 What is the significance of the oft repeated 1.5 Tonne A-II/A-III payload? What is the probable configuration? Nuclear Deterrence - sai_k - 06-14-2010 Going by the moratorium, and given that we declare our capability (not intentions) by testing.. and thus we could baseline our thoughts on such a condition that we can't be delivering a petal which has a net effect not more than 50kt [340kg each per arun ji],.. that means currently we can only do about 4 to 5 petal configuration [on a 1.5 ton payload].. and given the understanding that for each petal configuration, we can't have a target separation not more than 1k-km. {please correct my safety net vision, here} :- Say, if I have to counter for a second strike, would it serve to take care of shangai-beijing-honkong-chengdu-shenyang.., and subsequent strikes following to take further distribution of petals to cover more targets? If it does, then I am feeling safe. [assumption here of course, I have excluded ABM evasion technology - to be 100% perfect] Nuclear Deterrence - Arun_S - 06-15-2010 [quote name='ramana' date='11 June 2010 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1276195676' post='106841'] What is the significance of the oft repeated 1.5 Tonne A-II/A-III payload? What is the probable configuration? [/quote] The oft repeated 1.5 tonne A-II payload is expected to be about 1,300 kg including decoys. Clearly indicating they have something very heavy but something they have very high confidence on. A-III OTOH is MIRV configuration and the petal shape and size very similar to A-II albeit with somewhat lighter payload of ~700 Kg. So 1500 kg means 2 petals. So other sources have indicated A-III standard confign to be 3 petal confign with A-II like payload. Nuclear Deterrence - Arun_S - 06-15-2010 [quote name='sai_k' date='14 June 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1276521054' post='106898']that means currently we can only do about 4 to 5 petal configuration [on a 1.5 ton payload].. and given the understanding that for each petal configuration, we can't have a target separation not more than 1k-km. {please correct my safety net vision, here} :-[/quote] With maneuvering RV the MIRV targets can be few hundred kilometers away (may be upto 1000 km if range is pared down).OTOH while hypersonic glide and maneuvering is known capability of teh RV of Agni-II, one does not yet know if that is also true for MIRV on Agni-III/V also. Nuclear Deterrence - ravicv - 06-16-2010 [quote name='Arun_S' date='14 June 2010 - 12:08 PM' timestamp='1276545649' post='106911'] With maneuvering RV the MIRV targets can be few hundred kilometers away (may be upto 1000 km if range is pared down).OTOH while hypersonic glide and maneuvering is known capability of teh RV of Agni-II, one does not yet know if that is also true for MIRV on Agni-III/V also. [/quote] It is true for the A-III/V in principle. It might help if the A-III/V RV's were "Shivlinga" shape like the A-2 RV. Nuclear Deterrence - ravicv - 06-16-2010 [quote name='Gagan' date='04 June 2010 - 09:04 AM' timestamp='1275670572' post='106733'] And on cue there is news that India is expanding the RMP. More Boomers on the way. [/quote] That looks to be the major reason. Nuclear Deterrence - Arun_S - 06-18-2010 [quote name='laltaputu' date='05 June 2010 - 10:56 AM' timestamp='1275715134' post='106750'] the confidence by which mr kakodkar is saying that we have more that one tn bomb from 45-200+kt is it possible that they have all ready done a covert test[/quote] Regarding covert test: Are you saying BARC did covert TN test that went un-noticed and its yield was 45-200KT or its yield was below the fizzle TN yield that R Chidambram did in 1998 with claimed yield of 45 kT? In either case if BARC did manage to 45kt + yield ( a very big yield) unnoticed by world, then BARC's deterrence is also unnoticed and unproven by world thus deters nobody. Nuclear Deterrence - Arun_S - 06-18-2010 duplicate Nuclear Deterrence - Guest - 06-19-2010 Bharat Karnad's book "India's nuclear weapons policy" mentions things that lead me to a different take on the significance of the 1.5 ton payload of A-III/V (A-V s referred to as A-IV) by BK. Keep in mind that BK in that book is extremely skeptical about the TN test in 1998. He was probably fully aware of the "fizzle" and hints that many BARC people themselves have the same opinion regarding RC. The facts of interest are this: 1. For the 1.5 ton payload of A-3 and A-4 (now A-5) BK mentions the following 3 configurations. 8*125kt MIRV (A-5), 3*300kt MIRV (A-3) and 1*1MT single (A-5), all TN. 2. Indeed, 8*125kt for a 1.5 ton payload represents a very high level of miniaturization (compare with what is stated in the open abt trident I, say). 3*300kt represents a lesser degree of miniaturization. 3. The 1*1mt is interesting. Of course, this is untested. However, 1MT for a 1.5 ton payload is very poor miniaturization. Look at astronautix for details on 1960's soviet missiles. I have read there that one of them had a 5MT yield for a 1.7ton payload. I have also read on nuclearweaponarchive.org of 1MT for 450-500kg being achieved by the advanced powers well in the 60's and 70's. 4. It looks like this 1MT single warhead for 1.5 ton payload is a very conservative design. Something that is very heavy but something that they (DRDO, BARC and the users) have high confidence on. Also, despite all talk about MIRV's only this single very heavy payload config of A-3 is tested, and the same will be true for A-5 as well in the near future. 5. Given Chandraguptji's estimates of 1500kg being just the payload (not accounting for decoys etc- with real throwweight being 2500+ kg), this looks all the more plausible. It also explains why A-3 is arnd 3500 km and A-5 has around 5000km range. 6. Regarding, Israel, nuclearweaponarchive.org comments that they could have pure fission and sloikas without testing, two stage thermonukes without testing too, but with the caveat that the resulting two-stage TN would be heavy and unwieldy if it is to be reliable. Boosted fission with tritium gas was mentioned as unlikely for israel in the abscence of testing. 7. Maybe in our case too, there may have been this reliable, but heavy and unwieldy TN, still missile delivered by compromising on the missile's range in order to accomodate this heavy payload.... Opinions ? Nuclear Deterrence - sai_k - 06-21-2010 Q: Did we declare a moratorium on sub-critical testing? Nuclear Deterrence - ramana - 06-23-2010 Abnormal radiation detected near Korean border Quote:On May 15, however, the atmospheric concentration of xenon .. on the South Korean side of the inter-Korean border was found to be eight times higher than normal, according to South Korea's Science Ministry. Is this proof of the NoKo test leaking from its bowels? isnt xenon a signature of fission? Nuclear Deterrence - Arun_S - 06-29-2010 [url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6103481.cms?prtpage=1"]Ending freeze, India, Canada sign N-deal[/url] Quote:TNN, Jun 29, 2010, Nuclear Deterrence - ramana - 07-04-2010 x-posted... Hiten Wrote:Raja Menon - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Options for India |