06-06-2008, 10:41 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Jun 6 2008, 07:49 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Jun 6 2008, 07:49 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Does India need more nuclear tests?
Can somebody give more explanation
[right][snapback]82405[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can make the same points that I have made elsewhere , If anybody cares to listen.
India has to have the capability to take out hardened structures in the event of a conflict. these hardened structures may house the enemy's command and control structure. Strategic warfighting takes place in waves and it is not just a matter of targeting the enemy's population centres.
Let me illustrate with an example, Say , the Chinese launch a first strike on us and destroy our land based deterrent. In this event we may only have our SSBNs left for retaliation. Now , what do these subs do? do they launch SLBMs on population centres or on military targets?
If these SLBMs have only 15-20 kt weapons then attacking hardened structures in no longer a possibility. They would target population centres but leave the Chinese C&C unscathed. this means that China's strategic warfighting capability would also remain intact. Subsequently, the Chinese could launch the next wave on whatever we have left and bring an end to our civilization. On the other hand if the SLBMs had "big bums" in the form of MIRVs they could have taken out China's warfighting capability with a second strike and limited damage to India.
The larger point is , unless we have the capability to take out the enemy leadership which in this case is the totalitarian Chinese state , deterrence will not be achieved. Say, tomorrow China is in a recession and the communist party is finding it difficult to hold on to power , they may start a conflict over Tibet which can have the potential to de-generate into a nuclear conflict. they may wargame and find out that in a nuclear exchange , in which they strike first , India does not have the ability to target them (the Chinese leadership) but can only take out a few cities . In this event they may be tempted to do something rash. remember during war the Vice-chairman of the Central Military Commission i.e the head of the PLA becomes the de facto CEO of China. And military people can make"tough decisions".
This is just a scenario and I hope it is far-fetched, but like our politicos are fond of saying we must be ready for all eventualities.
So what will it take to be ready?: in my opinion,
1. Weapons in the 200-250 KT range that can be MIRVED and put atop an SLBM.
2. Point #1 indicates the need to develop weapons with far greater yield to weight ratios . this counts because our potential adversaries are putting in place ABM defenses and we are opting for a minimum credible deterrence. this in turn means that we won't have a huge number of warheads and also not all of them will reach their intended target due to the ABM defenses. So MIRVING high yield weapons is the way ahead.
3. A point has been made that CEPs would obviate the need to have "large yields" . However in the course of a first strike our satellite guidance assets may be destroyed
considerably reducing accuracy. for this scenario , we need to have large weapons to assure the obliteration of the intended target.
4. A new generation of pure fusion weapons are on the anvil. the blast effect of these weapons is considerably higher than standard weapons where some of the energy is lost as radiation. Such clean weapons will remove some of the stigma attached with nuke use and create problems for the strategic war fighter.
Now all the points above are technical points. Achieving what has been detailed above requires "testing" either live or in a Laser ignition facility which can validate up to 90-93 per cent criticality.
India till date has only one thermonuclear test and it is anybody's guess if the data generated from that test is enough to develop a new generation of improved weapons.
5. There is also a question of standard testing for warhead maintenance. this can be done in an LIF as well.
The political and economic argument either in favour of/ or against testing is a separate issue. If the geo-economic/geo-political environment is not found to be conducive for testing , at the very least a Laser ignition Facility should be set up. Also in all of this I have assumed that we have a triad in place.
Can somebody give more explanation
[right][snapback]82405[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can make the same points that I have made elsewhere , If anybody cares to listen.
India has to have the capability to take out hardened structures in the event of a conflict. these hardened structures may house the enemy's command and control structure. Strategic warfighting takes place in waves and it is not just a matter of targeting the enemy's population centres.
Let me illustrate with an example, Say , the Chinese launch a first strike on us and destroy our land based deterrent. In this event we may only have our SSBNs left for retaliation. Now , what do these subs do? do they launch SLBMs on population centres or on military targets?
If these SLBMs have only 15-20 kt weapons then attacking hardened structures in no longer a possibility. They would target population centres but leave the Chinese C&C unscathed. this means that China's strategic warfighting capability would also remain intact. Subsequently, the Chinese could launch the next wave on whatever we have left and bring an end to our civilization. On the other hand if the SLBMs had "big bums" in the form of MIRVs they could have taken out China's warfighting capability with a second strike and limited damage to India.
The larger point is , unless we have the capability to take out the enemy leadership which in this case is the totalitarian Chinese state , deterrence will not be achieved. Say, tomorrow China is in a recession and the communist party is finding it difficult to hold on to power , they may start a conflict over Tibet which can have the potential to de-generate into a nuclear conflict. they may wargame and find out that in a nuclear exchange , in which they strike first , India does not have the ability to target them (the Chinese leadership) but can only take out a few cities . In this event they may be tempted to do something rash. remember during war the Vice-chairman of the Central Military Commission i.e the head of the PLA becomes the de facto CEO of China. And military people can make"tough decisions".
This is just a scenario and I hope it is far-fetched, but like our politicos are fond of saying we must be ready for all eventualities.
So what will it take to be ready?: in my opinion,
1. Weapons in the 200-250 KT range that can be MIRVED and put atop an SLBM.
2. Point #1 indicates the need to develop weapons with far greater yield to weight ratios . this counts because our potential adversaries are putting in place ABM defenses and we are opting for a minimum credible deterrence. this in turn means that we won't have a huge number of warheads and also not all of them will reach their intended target due to the ABM defenses. So MIRVING high yield weapons is the way ahead.
3. A point has been made that CEPs would obviate the need to have "large yields" . However in the course of a first strike our satellite guidance assets may be destroyed
considerably reducing accuracy. for this scenario , we need to have large weapons to assure the obliteration of the intended target.
4. A new generation of pure fusion weapons are on the anvil. the blast effect of these weapons is considerably higher than standard weapons where some of the energy is lost as radiation. Such clean weapons will remove some of the stigma attached with nuke use and create problems for the strategic war fighter.
Now all the points above are technical points. Achieving what has been detailed above requires "testing" either live or in a Laser ignition facility which can validate up to 90-93 per cent criticality.
India till date has only one thermonuclear test and it is anybody's guess if the data generated from that test is enough to develop a new generation of improved weapons.
5. There is also a question of standard testing for warhead maintenance. this can be done in an LIF as well.
The political and economic argument either in favour of/ or against testing is a separate issue. If the geo-economic/geo-political environment is not found to be conducive for testing , at the very least a Laser ignition Facility should be set up. Also in all of this I have assumed that we have a triad in place.