India Successfully Tests Missile Capable of Carrying Nuclear Warhead to Beijing

Originally posted by darkhero

Do you Americans have to have problems with China? just out of curiosity

[edit on 14-4-2007 by darkhero]

Well I think its a god-given right to have problems with nations that develop a nuclear missile reach JUST for your sake.

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by darkhero

Do you Americans have to have problems with China? just out of curiosity

[edit on 14-4-2007 by darkhero]

Well I think its a god-given right to have problems with nations that develop a nuclear missile reach JUST for your sake.

well, sounds like a good pirate logic. If you don't have to have problems with certain nations, I can't see any reason they want to spend money to develop those missiles.

From another point of view, China has probably 20 missiles able to reach US, you have, I guess, more than 200, maybe 2000. I am not a fun of weaponry, but I read a news a while ago that Bush was shocked when he realized how many nuclear warheads you have. Also, I can't see any reason they attack you first.

But you can eliminate most nations, perhaps even China, without nuclear weapon. So what the hell you still want so many of them, just for fun? or maybe want to eradicate human beings?

Originally posted by darkhero

But you can eliminate most nations, perhaps even China, without nuclear weapon. So what the hell you still want so many of them, just for fun? or maybe want to eradicate human beings?

We like having our kids playing in playgrounds made from radioactive isotopes. I confessed it! That is why we have so many...

But seriously, we have so many because of the COLD WAR. Russia has even more than the US does, but theirs isn't ready to be launced and circling around the world like the US's is.

The point is...China has basically ALL of their nuclear weapons aimed at the US. Seems a little strange doncha think?

Originally posted by darkhero
well, sounds like a good pirate logic. If you don't have to have problems with certain nations, I can't see any reason they want to spend money to develop those missiles.

But it was China who went ahead and developed ICBMs solely to target the US. They may have been justified in doing so with the Korean escapade et all, but by simpleton logic; they specifically developed missiles with 8000+km ranges to target CONUS. They had enough reach for Russia/India etc. but they chose to pursue a deterrent specifically targetted at the US.

From another point of view, China has probably 20 missiles able to reach US, you have, I guess, more than 200, maybe 2000. I am not a fun of weaponry, but I read a news a while ago that Bush was shocked when he realized how many nuclear warheads you have. Also, I can't see any reason they attack you first.

Who do you mean by "you" ?
If by "you", you mean American then let me tell you that I'm not American.. farout from it.. closer to the thread topic in terms of nationality infact

Anyways, presuming "you" is the US and not India; not there is no reason why China will pre-empt a nuke strike against the US; not with the overwhelming superior second strike capability the US has.

But you can eliminate most nations, perhaps even China, without nuclear weapon.

You mean the US can militarily(w/o nukes) eliminate most nations?
Not most.
Esp not the major military powers especially China. In a conventional war the US would not achieve military superiority against China esp if it was an all-out iraq-esque campaign.Same case with the USSR/Russia.

So what the hell you still want so many of them, just for fun? or maybe want to eradicate human beings?

So you(the US or anybody else who can and wants to) have nukes so that you are NEVER faced with a situation where some power
(more stronger than you) makes you suffer 'unacceptable' losses.
Don't be so knieve..
Nukes aren't a joke.



[edit on 15-4-2007 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
The point is...China has basically ALL of their nuclear weapons aimed at the US. Seems a little strange doncha think?

All their ICBMs, yes..
They have the major part of their arsenal(IRBMs,MRBMs etc) pointed at Russia and maybe India.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
But there are certain things about this test(and others before) which set it apart from run-of-the-mill IRBMs. With HAMs and a series of other post re-entry guidance systems, the missile CEP becomes extremely accurate and
can compete against ABM systems(non-MIRV counter measures). Also a totally composite RV gives the option of various re-entry angles thus reducing missile failure possibilities and increasing range/payload flexibility.

No matter how much you test nuclear weapons you can only make it so much better. Despite the HAM and the composite reentry vehicle, this missile would still be picked off by most ABM's . Also a 300 kt nuke will do little to cripple a foe like china. IF India wants true nuclear deterence they should be concentrating on developing a missile that can put at least a 3-5Mt payload on places like Shanghai, Hong Kong and Beijing with MIRV options and ABM countermeasures. A 300-kt payload would take out only 5-8 city blocks at best and irradiate the rest of the place. It would only be a bloody nose as opposed to a 'stab'. Where as a 5Mt payload would make the island of Hong Kong disappear and irradiate the surrounding hillside instantaneously.

The Chinese have many such weapons with various delivery options and if they launch even one against, say Mumbai, you would loose the city and its people forever. Not to mention cripple the Indian economy and industry. Presently even with this missile operational and nuclear weapons the Indian nuclear deterrence against china is equal to less than half the threat Pakistan's deterrence is against India. This test is actually too little and I am surprised why there isnt a more proactive approach when the Chinese had the ability to build a neutron bomb way back in 88 ?


[edit on 15-4-2007 by IAF101]

Originally posted by IAF101
No matter how much you test nuclear weapons you can only make it so much better. Despite the HAM and the composite reentry vehicle, this missile would still be picked off by most ABM's.

That's quite a generalised statement. Care to elaborate?

Also a 300 kt nuke will do little to cripple a foe like china. IF India wants true nuclear deterence they should be concentrating on developing a missile that can put at least a 3-5Mt payload on places like Shanghai, Hong Kong and Beijing with MIRV options and ABM countermeasures.

MIRVing payloads multiplies the number of redundant warhead in an attempt
to 'saturate' and overwhelm inbound ABM interceptors.
Agreed, they definitely are useful in such situations and if you want to target
a spread-fire approach over a very large area(all live warheads).
But India is still in the process of achieving MIRVing, and it will happen in the near future.
Having said that, the AABM countermeaures on the missile provide assistance in boost phase ABM systems and lower the risk of interception for each of the MIRVs; see Topol-M..

A 300-kt payload would take out only 5-8 city blocks at best and irradiate the rest of the place. It would only be a bloody nose as opposed to a 'stab'. Where as a 5Mt payload would make the island of Hong Kong disappear and irradiate the surrounding hillside instantaneously.

Yes and in order to successfully build and deploy a 3-5MT warhead, one needs to TEST 3-5MT yield devices.
Simulations are only so powerful enough to test yields under 0.5MT yields; and India uses the max processing power available to it.
Testing is now quite a bleak prospect for India considering the current global scenario.

The Chinese have many such weapons with various delivery options and if they launch even one against, say Mumbai, you would loose the city and its people forever. Not to mention cripple the Indian economy and industry. Presently even with this missile operational and nuclear weapons the Indian nuclear deterrence against china is equal to less than half the threat Pakistan's deterrence is against India.

True, and China has the testing experience advantage(which is directed towards the USSR and the US might I add). India makes best with what it has.

300KT blast radius:

Article on 300KT Airburst
Immediate Mass Fire radius of 300KT warhead:
IMHO thats deterrence enough.

This test is actually too little and I am surprised why there isnt a more proactive approach when the Chinese had the ability to build a neutron bomb way back in 88 ?

Because there is a very strong anti-nuke lobby in India and the govts in power at that time were involved in various other issues like IPKF Sri Lanka etc..
Minimum credible deterrence has been the goal right from the beginning anyways.
Not WMDs that would pummell the world 2-3 times over.




[edit on 15-4-2007 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by IAF101
Presently even with this missile operational and nuclear weapons the Indian nuclear deterrence against china is equal to less than half the threat Pakistan's deterrence is against India.

Are you saying that a Pakistani deterrence with yields of 5KT-15KT(max), total stockpile of 30-50(Max)warheads out of which only 25% are >10KT and all of which are bulky fission uranium devices is a more credible deterence than a Indian deterrence of 100-250(Max)warheads ranging from tactical subKT yields yields to 300KT strategic yields?
I fail to see any correlation..

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by IAF101
Presently even with this missile operational and nuclear weapons the Indian nuclear deterrence against china is equal to less than half the threat Pakistan's deterrence is against India.

Are you saying that a Pakistani deterrence with yields of 5KT-15KT(max), total stockpile of 30-50(Max)warheads out of which only 25% are >10KT and all of which are bulky fission uranium devices is a more credible deterence than a Indian deterrence of 100-250(Max)warheads ranging from tactical subKT yields yields to 300KT strategic yields?
I fail to see any correlation..

The correlation is not the number of rocks you have, but the ability to throw them at your opponent.

China has SLBM's in the MT range and with ranges over 4000kms+ apart from the huge arsenal of land based systems. They are also in the possesion of numerous air-deliveable options, not to mention enhanced radiation weapons. Plus back that with a robust industrial base and a superior research capability, larger treasury and superior conventional force. It all comes down to disadvantage - India.
India has a max of 150, no more, all reports indicate that. And out of those 150(optimistic side here!) 30% are more than 100kt add to this a couple of fission devices at best and you can sum up the Indian nuclear deterrence. Compare this to a dedicated Chinese strategic arsenal of 100+ land based active warheads alone and the air-assets, the short range weapons ( which covers most of India here!) and not to forget the SLBM's with more than 50% of the devices 400kt + you can see the what I'm talking about.

The Chinese went with a plan to respond to a US nuclear attack and well haven been able to obtain a credible deterrence yet, so you can understand the totally different levels of the individual nations nuclear ability.

(BTW I pulled those figures from FAS)

[edit on 16-4-2007 by IAF101]

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by IAF101
No matter how much you test nuclear weapons you can only make it so much better. Despite the HAM and the composite reentry vehicle, this missile would still be picked off by most ABM's.

That's quite a generalised statement. Care to elaborate?

That statement quite simply means that the missile India should be testing should be one which carry way more payload than what is possible with this Agni-III. If this is to be a second strike capability.

MIRVing payloads multiplies the number of redundant warhead in an attempt
to 'saturate' and overwhelm inbound ABM interceptors.
....... see Topol-M..

This is all very good, but the fact remains that India doesn't have it now. Any mordern ABM is designed to counter MIRV warheads and more. MIRV is the first stage of a credible deterrence, this has not been achieved so far.

Yes and in order to successfully build and deploy a 3-5MT warhead, one needs to TEST 3-5MT yield devices.
Simulations are only so powerful enough to test yields under 0.5MT yields; and India uses the max processing power available to it.
Testing is now quite a bleak prospect for India considering the current global scenario.

Technically India has tested on 2 different occasions, with more than 6 tests at least. Why have they never tested a staged thermonuclear device in all those tests ? Also there is nothing binding India from testing again or procuring the data from others. There seems to be no moves in either direction.

IMHO thats deterrence enough.

For Pakistan perhaps but not a real foe. So far India's attempts at its perceived "deterrence" has been deterrence against Pakistan, which it has conventional superiority anyways. The deterrence against a more formidable opponent is insufficient at best against the Chinese.

Minimum credible deterrence has been the goal right from the beginning anyways.
Not WMDs that would pummell the world 2-3 times over.

Pummel the world over ? I doubt India has to bother about that, especially with 300kt weapons. It appears that the minimum deterrence thing seems more of a cosmetic deterrence than an actual deterrence considering the lack of any real potent weapon to cause real damage. Perhaps this would suffice for India's current needs but in all practicality I dont think India should be satisfied with such a minimalist approach at deterrence.

Its funny that the NPT came up in this thread.

It makes me chuckle that people say we should trust countries who haven't signed the NPT and therefore have no restrictions on developing or sharing their nuclear weapons technology with anyone over those that have.

Isreal, India and Pakistan never signed it.

North Korea pulled out of it after giving the correct notification.

Iran signed it.

Think about it.



[edit on 16/0407/07 by neformore]

[edit on 16/0407/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by neformore
Its funny that the NPT came up in this thread.

It makes me chuckle that people say we should trust countries who haven't signed the NPT and therefore have no restrictions on developing or sharing their nuclear weapons technology with anyone over those that have.

Isreal, India and Pakistan never signed it.

North Korea pulled out of it after giving the correct notification.

Iran signed it.

Think about it.

Also think about the fact that neither Israel nor India have never shared their nuclear technology with anyone, even without any compulsion on their part. Whereas Iran which did sign the NPT defies its own pledges and seeks to develop and share its nuclear technology.

Signing a piece of paper is meaningless, it is the idea behind the pledge that is more important. Israel and India have done so of their own volition.

Originally posted by IAF101
Signing a piece of paper is meaningless, it is the idea behind the pledge that is more important. Israel and India have done so of their own volition.

Oh yes. Israel never shared its nuclear technology at all. Except for with South Africa....

I agree, the piece of paper is meaningless. After all EVERY nuclear power has broken it, in fact the idea behind the pledge is a joke.

And so, therefore, is singling out certain countries because of it. And thats where the hypocrisy I was trying to point out with my initial post in this thread comes into being.

The collaboration between South Africa and Israel cannot be proven. The most you can provide is hearsay and conjecture. Besides Israel has never signed the NPT, there is nothing wrong on it doing so.

Where as Iran has signed the document and pledged that it will not seek to aquire nuclear weapons. Yet it is breaking that promise now. Thus it is right that it faces punishment and it be chastised for this. UN Security sanctions are fully appropriate here. It has used technical skill provided to it for energy purposes to gain knowledge and then produce weapons. That is not only seeks to cheat the international community but endanger it as well.

Originally posted by IAF101
The correlation is not the number of rocks you have, but the ability to throw them at your opponent.

China has SLBM's in the MT range and with ranges over 4000kms+ apart from the huge arsenal of land based systems. They are also in the possesion of numerous air-deliveable options, not to mention enhanced radiation weapons.

Yes but Like I've stated before, all of China's nuclear arsenal(long range- high yield) is US-specific.
Also, a majority of the Chinese short/medium range -subMT yield arsenal is NOT India specific!
The main targets are Japan?, Taiwan and the Former Soviet Republics(Europe too??).

So, stating that India develop a deterrence level to match china's ENTIRE deterrence which is directed across 5-6 separate countries and 3 continents would be the most aggressive nuclear posture since the peak of US-Soviet stockpiles.
Infact , the Soviets may have been justified in having large stockpiles because they perceived nuclear threats from CONUS, Europe and China.

Anyways my point being, India wants to maintain a 'balanced' minimum N-deterence which will evenutally factor in 3500-5000km MIRV-ed SLBMs with 300KT yields.

Plus back that with a robust industrial base and a superior research capability, larger treasury and superior conventional force. It all comes down to disadvantage - India.

Frankly China would not want to get intoa conflict(conventional or otherwise)
along the borders it shares with India, because all of what you have mentioned above, is totally wanting for about 500-1000km inwards.
True, China can move the majoirty of its forces(which are in the East and North) in due course, but the losses faced till then would be difficult to overcome, thus complicating the whole conflict and raising it to a more dangerous threshold.
China aims to keep India in check not through direct military deployment, but through indirect bolstering of Pakistani capabilities.

India has a max of 150, no more, all reports indicate that. And out of those 150(optimistic side here!) 30% are more than 100kt add to this a couple of fission devices at best and you can sum up the Indian nuclear deterrence.

Well you should judge :

1)The timeframe of those reports
2)The number of nuclear reactors dedicated to military purposes(22 until the recent segregation, now 8)
3)The production capabilities
4)The nuclear doctrine

and then extarpolate the current stockpile.

The 30% estimate is quite accurate IMO, because most of the warheads are in the sub KT - 25KT yield range for tactical/military usage.
Frankly, nuking cities is not very high on the Indian Nuclear Doctrine.There's a democratic process by which that has been decided and thats the way it is.

Compare this to a dedicated Chinese strategic arsenal of 100+ land based active warheads alone and the air-assets, the short range weapons ( which covers most of India here!) and not to forget the SLBM's with more than 50% of the devices 400kt + you can see the what I'm talking about.

Dedicated to whom?!
Ask the Chinese..
Anyways, their nuclear bombers wouldn't very effective over Indian territory; those are mainly for PACCOM/Taiwan/Japan.
Infact China's military posturing(conventional even) is quite minimalistic towards India. Most of the military forces in that region are occupied with maintaining the Tibet Autonomous Region.

The Chinese went with a plan to respond to a US nuclear attack and well haven been able to obtain a credible deterrence yet, so you can understand the totally different levels of the individual nations nuclear ability.

They too seek to achieve minimum N-deterrence vis-a-vis the US.

Like I said, They(China)/India are not in the business of generating loads of warheads even though the industrial base for that is there. These countries want minimal deterence against the already inflated arsenals of the original nuclear powers.It may seem cliched but these countries are actually trying to
keep the global N-count to a desirable minimum.

Originally posted by IAF101
That statement quite simply means that the missile India should be testing should be one which carry way more payload than what is possible with this Agni-III. If this is to be a second strike capability.

No-can-do w/o further live testing..

This is all very good, but the fact remains that India doesn't have it now. Any mordern ABM is designed to counter MIRV warheads and more. MIRV is the first stage of a credible deterrence, this has not been achieved so far.

MiRVing is on the program.Will happen...
Lets hope there's no nuclear holocaust till then!

Technically India has tested on 2 different occasions, with more than 6 tests at least. Why have they never tested a staged thermonuclear device in all those tests?

The first test in 1974, was more of a fart other than anything else. There was no active/aggressive military nuclear weapons program at the time, and the test had more political objectives than anything else.
Infact I would go so far as to say that it was quite analogous to the NK fart last year(except the yield was not so pathetic: 10-15KT)

The 5 tests in 1998 achieved many firsts across various fields:

Shakti 1 : Thermonuclear 45KT detonation for a deployable yield of 200-300KT
Shakti 2 : Light weight boosted fission device for aerial delivery with tactical yield of 12KT
Shakti 3/4/5: All subKT yields with various fuels such as reactor-grade plutonium.

All these tests were required in order to even get to the current operational N-deterence India has as of today.
Maybe one MT yield and a neutron test could have been included in the 98 series, but I dont know if India had the know-how for the two at the time and/or subterranean tests were possible for the same.

Also there is nothing binding India from testing again or procuring the data from others. There seems to be no moves in either direction.

Frankly speaking, I'm surprised at how you are overlooking the consequences(political/social and mainly economical)that would arise by testing a live nuclear device. This is true of anybody today, already nuclear or not.
Remember the 'Ban French wines' campaign and the Muarora Atoll PR disaster for the French?
India has targeted ecenomic growth as its primary objective in order to achieve global recognition/affluence. The military objectives are to safegurd this growth.
Testing a live device now(most obvious would be megaton yields and neutron devices) would be catastrophic for the economic objective.
I don't think that India has formally declared a unilateral cessation of all future live N-testing, so its definitely on the cards, but very unlikely in the near future IMHO.

For Pakistan perhaps but not a real foe. So far India's attempts at its perceived "deterrence" has been deterrence against Pakistan, which it has conventional superiority anyways. The deterrence against a more formidable opponent is insufficient at best against the Chinese.

Not really..Not after considering all of what I have said before.. right from what are the primary targets of the majority of China's N-arsenal to the falacies of China's conventional edge over India in the areas of concern.

It appears that the minimum deterrence thing seems more of a cosmetic deterrence than an actual deterrence considering the lack of any real potent weapon to cause real damage. Perhaps this would suffice for India's current needs but in all practicality I dont think India should be satisfied with such a minimalist approach at deterrence.

Maybe.. I don't see India increasing the yields of warheads in the Megaton range or even testing neutron bombs anytime soon.

MiRVing is an inevitability, and so is the SLBMing of N-weapons.
Maybe a range extension to 5000-5500km is on the cards in teh near future; there's certainly some chatter about that, but its entirely up to the administration. The scientists say its just a matter of a few tweaks here-n-there on the existing missile.
ICBM with 5,500-km range can be developed in three years: DRDO

Indigenous ABM programs are being developed simultaneously with options ranging from S-300/400 to Arrow2 to PACIII.

All while diplomatic CBMs are also in progress; to ensure that no conflict ever ensues.
So I say.. Don't compare Iran and India. World of a difference here..


[edit on 17-4-2007 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by neformore

Oh yes. Israel never shared its nuclear technology at all. Except for with South Africa....

Actually its quite a long trail starting from France and then ending with that crazy N-test in the Indian Ocean which was supposedly carried out by Israel with SA's consent.

I agree, the piece of paper is meaningless. After all EVERY nuclear power has broken it, in fact the idea behind the pledge is a joke.

That's why India never signed on to it. Because it was unfair right from the beginning and never really set a timeframe for total disarmament.

And so, therefore, is singling out certain countries because of it. And thats where the hypocrisy I was trying to point out with my initial post in this thread comes into being.

But the point still remains; why did Iran, NK etc sign on in the first place?
Were they knieve/stupid enough not to see through the treaty and its hypocracies?
Or they took a risk and were too desparate for the under-the-table incentives they were being offer to sign on?
I'm 100% sure they were offered some incentives. Otherwise they(and other minnows) wouldn't have signed on..
Maybe they thought they could weasel/twist the treaty clauses at a later time or something..
It was a gamble and they took it..

Meanwhile something that may interest Marg here:

India's secret ICBM ambitions

Originally posted by IAF101

Where as Iran has signed the document and pledged that it will not seek to aquire nuclear weapons. Yet it is breaking that promise now. Thus it is right that it faces punishment and it be chastised for this. UN Security sanctions are fully appropriate here. It has used technical skill provided to it for energy purposes to gain knowledge and then produce weapons. That is not only seeks to cheat the international community but endanger it as well.

You talk about conjecture, and then come up with the first part of this paragraph.

Iran has repeatedly said its nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes, and it is allowed to pursue these ambitions by the NPT.

Show me a direct quote from the Iranian administration that says they are seeking to acquire nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by Daedalus3
But the point still remains; why did Iran, NK etc sign on in the first place?
Were they knieve/stupid enough not to see through the treaty and its hypocracies?
Or they took a risk and were too desparate for the under-the-table incentives they were being offer to sign on?
I'm 100% sure they were offered some incentives. Otherwise they(and other minnows) wouldn't have signed on..
Maybe they thought they could weasel/twist the treaty clauses at a later time or something..
It was a gamble and they took it..

Iran signed the NPT in 1968. The world was a very different place then, and certainly the administration in place now is nothing at all like the one that existed back then. Maybe they view things differently now if they are developing nuclear weapons.

North Korea is another kettle of fish. There is a continual game of chess going on between North Korea and the US - to what end I'm unsure. All I can say is that bygones are bygones between the former Axis and Ally powers of WW2, Vietnam is not an ideal place but it seems to be quiet and yet the US still has issues over the Korean War, nearly 55 years after the ceasefire was called.

Basically, what the NPT boils down to, and how its policed, seems to depend on who the US favours at the time, and thats about it really. In the late 70's the US was selling F-14's to Iran, and was about to sell F-16's as well, until the Shah was removed from power. There was also considerable interest in helping develop nuclear technology for Iran as well.

Its all have and have not politics, but as I said earlier, its meaningless. Every signee breaks the treaty each time they update their stockpiles. The US has agreements in place to "lend" weapons to Non-nuclear NATO states, thus breaking the proliferation aspects, and I'm sure the Russians have similar agreements with their allies.

Arguing that someone needs to be pursued because they broke the treaty is hypocritical, and pointless. But when did that ever stop the dogs of war?