06-28-2013, 05:43 AM
[quote name='ramana' date='25 June 2013 - 03:34 AM' timestamp='1372111013' post='116698']
Osmanbhai, If we take notional 15 kt and back calculate the HOB then we get ~ 540 m.
I think that tallies with your calc of ~488 m.
Good enough from the video without time stamp.
So pratikhsa karo for next A V splashdown video.
[/quote]
Yes. I hope to see Agni V with those MIRV's. Either way the calculation, if fine for AI. We could use A1 for two roles like Arun pointed out. Counter-force and Counter-value. We really don't have the gradation made out in terms of counter-force and counter value at the lower end of our missiles. A-IV clearly looks like counter-force, but I could be wrong.
I met a submariner today who served in the US Navy and is trained in nuclear physics. I hope to run the numbers on the SHP and other numbers by him to estimate the approximate number of nuclear warheads we will carry. He was all like all missiles we carried were no good. They only existed because the other guys had them. He even showed me a model of the submarine he served on. Interestingly, the model he had looked a lot like the original Airhant picture with lots of missile tubes at the back in all sixteen. He says now the torpedoes are side launched as the front end is all sonar now. He of course served on a submarine many many many years ago. But he was quiet happy to talk about it.
The second Arihant picture from the video with only four missile tubes is possibly DDM to give the impression we don't have too many missiles in our subs. We are a chota nooklear pawaar. I think the missile tubes vs missiles and consequently, the number of missiles and number of warheads will lead to the wrong estimates. Only elukundalawada knows how many we have and some people at the top of the chain. I think this is good. Keep the enemy confused until the final deployment. I am impressed with DRDO and how they selectively leak stuff and then do other stuff to muddy the waters.
As to why I was worried about prevailing winds and stuff:
It was more of a doctrinal question. We have moved from the not mated and stored position or are moving out with the undersea triad. If this is true, how far did we move? Did we move from no first strike to as Shyam Saran put it "No first strike against non-nuclear powers" or "no first strike until we are hit with even a small battle field nuke?". If we moved as Shyam Saran put it to a hair trigger second strike, we might still have hopes of winning the war with Pakistan on the nuclear front with no or minimal losses on our end. Otherwise, the scenario is laid out below for a full blown destruction of the world ... If we do hope to destroy Pakistan and survive and yet not get to the end of the world ... 15-16KT vs the Megaton monsters makes a lot of difference...
So the question, I ask doctrinally is, " Should we plan to wage nuclear war against Pakistan and not get to MAD?" or "Should we be a MAD power with Pakistan?". With a BMD going up and other plans I am not so sure we are exactly being good boys here w.r.t Pakistan ... w.r.t to China maybe we need to be a MAD elephant with some extra long tusks to keep out the 7th fleet or analogues ...
"Now look at this bit of game theory. Lets assume India and Pakistan are engaged in a war. Pakistan strikes Indian territory with nukes. India will retaliate against Pakistan. Do you think this is a rational play? It's only partly rational. The real rational player will strike both Pakistan and China. What do you think two front war means? Prepare for a two front war is a signal from Raksha Mantri. If you induce war in this region we will retaliate with a "second" strike. A rational game theory requires you to destroy as much of China as possible after your population centers in India are taken out. You will cease to be a viable "second" strike power after the war is over with Pakistan. Therefore as a rational nuclear player you will strike Chinese population centers. They may hit back at India but then most of our population centers are gone. Shyam Saran also hinted at this recently when he said the traditional bipolar nuclear analysis does not apply to India.
So what does China do? You tell me. If this is the "two-front" war. What is the incentive of USA and UK incase Pakistan nukes India with permanent deterrent patrols and without deterrent patrols?
Without permanent deterrent patrols:
a) Nuke Pakistan to stone age under UN authority;
<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> Try and seize Indian nukes to prevent India escalating the war to China even if China induced the war;
c) a and b;
d) Let the war escalate to China with possibility of a scorched China being as rational as a rational nuclear player India ...
If I am an Indian planner I will definitely look forward to permanent defensive patrols. This is the only rational option. To me "two-front" war is synonymous with this rational player. Therefore, our doctrine is to make Indian nukes as good as the best. Survivable, global patrol with MIRV SLBMs. This is a credible deterrent for a rational player.
Therefore based on these reasons I believe we will have permanent deterrent patrols. 2/3rd of our nuclear assets by 2020 or 2025 will be submarine based. Most of these will be MIRV missiles."
What I wrote in another forum.
Osmanbhai, If we take notional 15 kt and back calculate the HOB then we get ~ 540 m.
I think that tallies with your calc of ~488 m.
Good enough from the video without time stamp.
So pratikhsa karo for next A V splashdown video.
[/quote]
Yes. I hope to see Agni V with those MIRV's. Either way the calculation, if fine for AI. We could use A1 for two roles like Arun pointed out. Counter-force and Counter-value. We really don't have the gradation made out in terms of counter-force and counter value at the lower end of our missiles. A-IV clearly looks like counter-force, but I could be wrong.
I met a submariner today who served in the US Navy and is trained in nuclear physics. I hope to run the numbers on the SHP and other numbers by him to estimate the approximate number of nuclear warheads we will carry. He was all like all missiles we carried were no good. They only existed because the other guys had them. He even showed me a model of the submarine he served on. Interestingly, the model he had looked a lot like the original Airhant picture with lots of missile tubes at the back in all sixteen. He says now the torpedoes are side launched as the front end is all sonar now. He of course served on a submarine many many many years ago. But he was quiet happy to talk about it.
The second Arihant picture from the video with only four missile tubes is possibly DDM to give the impression we don't have too many missiles in our subs. We are a chota nooklear pawaar. I think the missile tubes vs missiles and consequently, the number of missiles and number of warheads will lead to the wrong estimates. Only elukundalawada knows how many we have and some people at the top of the chain. I think this is good. Keep the enemy confused until the final deployment. I am impressed with DRDO and how they selectively leak stuff and then do other stuff to muddy the waters.
As to why I was worried about prevailing winds and stuff:
It was more of a doctrinal question. We have moved from the not mated and stored position or are moving out with the undersea triad. If this is true, how far did we move? Did we move from no first strike to as Shyam Saran put it "No first strike against non-nuclear powers" or "no first strike until we are hit with even a small battle field nuke?". If we moved as Shyam Saran put it to a hair trigger second strike, we might still have hopes of winning the war with Pakistan on the nuclear front with no or minimal losses on our end. Otherwise, the scenario is laid out below for a full blown destruction of the world ... If we do hope to destroy Pakistan and survive and yet not get to the end of the world ... 15-16KT vs the Megaton monsters makes a lot of difference...
So the question, I ask doctrinally is, " Should we plan to wage nuclear war against Pakistan and not get to MAD?" or "Should we be a MAD power with Pakistan?". With a BMD going up and other plans I am not so sure we are exactly being good boys here w.r.t Pakistan ... w.r.t to China maybe we need to be a MAD elephant with some extra long tusks to keep out the 7th fleet or analogues ...
"Now look at this bit of game theory. Lets assume India and Pakistan are engaged in a war. Pakistan strikes Indian territory with nukes. India will retaliate against Pakistan. Do you think this is a rational play? It's only partly rational. The real rational player will strike both Pakistan and China. What do you think two front war means? Prepare for a two front war is a signal from Raksha Mantri. If you induce war in this region we will retaliate with a "second" strike. A rational game theory requires you to destroy as much of China as possible after your population centers in India are taken out. You will cease to be a viable "second" strike power after the war is over with Pakistan. Therefore as a rational nuclear player you will strike Chinese population centers. They may hit back at India but then most of our population centers are gone. Shyam Saran also hinted at this recently when he said the traditional bipolar nuclear analysis does not apply to India.
So what does China do? You tell me. If this is the "two-front" war. What is the incentive of USA and UK incase Pakistan nukes India with permanent deterrent patrols and without deterrent patrols?
Without permanent deterrent patrols:
a) Nuke Pakistan to stone age under UN authority;
<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> Try and seize Indian nukes to prevent India escalating the war to China even if China induced the war;
c) a and b;
d) Let the war escalate to China with possibility of a scorched China being as rational as a rational nuclear player India ...
If I am an Indian planner I will definitely look forward to permanent defensive patrols. This is the only rational option. To me "two-front" war is synonymous with this rational player. Therefore, our doctrine is to make Indian nukes as good as the best. Survivable, global patrol with MIRV SLBMs. This is a credible deterrent for a rational player.
Therefore based on these reasons I believe we will have permanent deterrent patrols. 2/3rd of our nuclear assets by 2020 or 2025 will be submarine based. Most of these will be MIRV missiles."
What I wrote in another forum.