India expanding military nuclear site: US think tank

[Spitfighter]

Well the more nukes are not for Pakistan.

To completely destroy Pakistan, 10-20 are more then enough, the rest are for China or may be as India wants to become a super power, it may face more enemies at that stage or just for safe side, it wants to increase its nuke numbers.

Not entirely true, it would take something like 4-5 nukes (unsure of the yield, but I think its about 50-75kt each) to completely destroy a city the size of Bombay.

Here's a really old article, you've probably seen it before. Notice that even with 24 (12 each) ground bursts ~ 30 million (15 mil each) people are killed.

NRDC: The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan

A few changes to the article though, since its old. India apparently has scalable thermonuclear warheads ranging from 45-200kt. Pakistan has fission based warheads at about ~50 kt. Even at these yields, I doubt we would wipe each other out because we would...

a) Initially use tactical nukes against each others military spearheads. India would push (attempt) in Rajasthan (Sindh) and Kashmir. We'd probably stay put in Punjab and try to blunt Pakistan's counter assault. The barren desert of Sindh/Rajasthan would be the ideal target for a first strike and will clearly be first on the list.But if that doesn't work...

b) Pakistan would target major Indian cities ('A country') next if it fails to blunt the offensive and is on the verge of defeat (severed in half, unlikely India would go this far). India would reciprocate accordingly.

Its hard to say how intense the Pakistani first strike would be, because in this case they would get as good as the give. A few nuclear strikes would/should stop the offensives as either side would realize that there's more where that came from. Although it is hard to see how chain of command would be preserved in such a scenario. An all out attack however would mean absolute annihilation (nuclear strike followed by an invasion), so I doubt Pakistan would launch all its warheads. A limited nuclear strike would put an end to the hostilities IMO.

c) India and Pakistan are semi industrialized countries, i.e most of our people live in rural areas ('B country'). These places have the least strategic value and will therefore be the last places to get hit, if at all. Military targets and urban areas would the worst affected.

Thus under any circumstance, a majority of our populations would survive. Pakistan would lose a greater percentage of its population, though the number of casualties would be about the same on both sides.

I'm fairly confident that we will make it to step 'a' and hit the brakes, thus becoming the 2nd and 3rd country to use nuclear weapons, but since the damage would be confined almost entirely to military targets both countries would live to fight another day.

Make no mistake, Kashmir has dragged on for 60 years and its not going to get solved anytime soon, it would probably take a cataclysmic event (step 'a' minimum) to force both sides to compromise and resolve their differences. Think about it, neither side changed positions even after Kargil so conventional war and the threat of nuclear weapons alone will not suffice.

 

[M8R]

Complete Destruction is not much of an issue.The fact is even as if the cities are not destroyed the people will die because of radiation thats the major problem.Of course if Pakistan only had 4-5 nukes we could just nuke all water areas of india and poison all water supplies and Indians would die of radio activated water same for Pakistan as all the water comes from India..so scenario works both ways.

 

[Spitfighter]

Complete Destruction is not much of an issue.The fact is even as if the cities are not destroyed the people will die because of radiation thats the major problem.Of course if Pakistan only had 4-5 nukes we could just nuke all water areas of india and poison all water supplies and Indians would die of radio activated water same for Pakistan as all the water comes from India..so scenario works both ways.

Only Pakistan is downstream...

And what you've suggested wouldn't work in any case.

 

[keeninterest]

India of today visualizes its role limited to the Indian sub-continent and a few adjoining regions so primarily two countries as adversaries come to focus namely Pakistan and china, but as we grow our profile beyond, to other regions and play a more dominant role at a global stage such a rise is bound to create irritants, and it’s a simple fact of life, you cant keep everyone happy, and possibly someone happy all throughout.

Who knows how India would position itself and play its cards a decade from now heck we didn’t even know the lone surviving super power would cozy up to china a few years back when bush administration was around and let them play a much bigger role or had someone back in 1990 said that in another two decades India would synergize its interests with the US and find a common ground would have been laughed off calling it an insanity, world is just so full of uncertainties and interests keeps evolving so very likely an adversary today could patch up and play an interest group in collaboration or a country with which you share common interests today could well act as an adversary tomorrow so nukes with high yield, well distributed, well stocked and ICBMs in decent numbers become a necessity.

JANA,

Coming to your specific question, “I always wondered that would US allow India to undermine US power status?”, I will like to devide my answer in four parts:

1 To begin with let us accept, US’s immediate concern is not India but the rise of china which holds a bigger promise of uprooting them from that status, and since there is an ideological difference which led to the cold war in the past, chances are the irritants will be more between them which will keep the US pre-occupied than US try to focus on India and find and workup the existing differences and on the contrary they do share a lot of core values and the Americans though they might not be explicit about it, but they do see India as some sort of a counter to the chinese, so there remains a very strong common interest.

2 India if it is governed by either the congress or the bjp the chances remain very high that both these parties will like India to align with the US, let us look back post the 1998 nuclear tests and it was the bjp which made sure India got along with the US very well, infact the very famous Clinton visit of those days is seen as the foundation stone to a strong relationship that India and the US share today and the same paradigm has been continued by the congress party with a little more vigour.

The potential of rocking this party is held by the left parties but then they hardly have any representation but incase they were to form a non-congress, non-bjp government then yes rest assured this relationship will cool off.

3 India today is happy to let the US take center stage in the world affairs, the only thing India does not want is they interfere in India’s policy making and from the look of things the Americans have kept a guarded distance.

India is not up for international military cooperation with the US, something that the Americans want, and India is happy to see Americans play a dominant role, now I am not sure for how long will this lull continue but if India was to keep its role confined to areas where we would not be in a direct conflict with the American interests till then I don’t really see an irritant emerging.

4 The core area where I find the two in the opposing positions in times to come will be in search of energy resources and with a growing Indian middle class whose consumption is growing this will one day put these two countries in some sort of a confrontation but if this is coupled with other irritants will the situation escalate otherwise it will be one of those passing phases that we just saw off with the Russians.

The conclusion is that from the looks of things Americans will be happy to see India rise and play a much bigger role that will be supportive of them, and seriously doubt Indians have any intention to rock that boat.

 

[Chinna Gounder]

Still India has only 70-80 warheads...i dontr think so..

it could be anywere in the 150-200 range.

But wat we should be concentrating now is the miniaturisation of the existing designs and increasing the yield to abt 250 kt.

 

[arun]

Everyone thinks about race, nationality, tribe or whatever, no one thinks like a human being.

These same nukes which the world is getting to defend itself, one day would lead to their own destruction.

Looking at the advances in synthetic life, robotics and AI, I think that what you are saying may become true in the distant future. The Terminator scenario may become reality. Or we might decide to 'modify' ourselves with synthetic genes, bionics and AI enhanced intelligence.

Then there is the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons. A terrorist nuclear strike could have unforeseen consequences including a nuclear war. Especially if we take the behaviour of states like North Korea, Iran and Israel (yes, it too) into account. God help us!

Still, I have to support India making enough nukes and missiles to deter China and even the US. Realpolitik

 

[Dr.Evil]

the same Indians were angry over information about Pakistani nukes by another think tank while the same are advocating expansion of Indian nuclear sites.


What a world. And isnt it funny that one think tank is scaring India by spreading disinformation that Pakistan is increasing nukes to take over or over take India while the other think tank is coming up with news of expansion by India.


Good psyops by zionists

We were not angry about pak having more nuclear warheads, We were the ones congratulating you about it, Please go ahead and become Number one in the Number of nuclear warheads.

The present arsenal of 60-70 Nuke warheads are more than enough for india, We would wasting our taxpayers money if we produce more. The only thing we should be concentrating should be on miniaturising the Nukes.

 

[Chaluboy]

I don't think 80 warheads are enough --

Consider this future scenario

3 Arihant class subs with 12 Agni (MIRV) missiles each
Assume a modest 3 MIRV warheads per missile , that still amounts to 36 nuclear warheads per sub and 108 in ALL

Plus the Warheads under the Army and IAF & the need to keep a small stockpile.Will Definitely exceed 200 Missiles
I think 250 should be our target figure though we must definitely focus on miniaturization in parallel

 

[M8R]

Only Pakistan is downstream...

And what you've suggested wouldn't work in any case.

but you use same water or will you install some ganga purification filter to filter out radioactivity?In any case..not sure why we are even discussing this stuff here..both countries have capability to destroy each other completely...and Pakistan is increasing it's capability quickly so nothing to worry about..Can't wait to see Hydrogen Bombs in Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal..

 

[barak8]

I don't think 80 warheads are enough --

Consider this future scenario

3 Arihant class subs with 12 Agni (MIRV) missiles each
Assume a modest 3 MIRV warheads per missile , that still amounts to 36 nuclear warheads per sub and 108 in ALL

Plus the Warheads under the Army and IAF & the need to keep a small stockpile.Will Definitely exceed 200 Missiles
I think 250 should be our target figure though we must definitely focus on miniaturization in parallel

do u really think India have only 80 warheads ?????

 

[Chaluboy]

do u really think India have only 80 warheads ?????

No, I dont think India just has 80 warheads,

I am just responding to those people who think 70-80 warheads is enough for india and showing how that number is inadequate.

 

[Justin Joseph]

the same Indians were angry over information about Pakistani nukes by another think tank while the same are advocating expansion of Indian nuclear sites.


What a world. And isnt it funny that one think tank is scaring India by spreading disinformation that Pakistan is increasing nukes to take over or over take India while the other think tank is coming up with news of expansion by India.


Good psyops by zionists

When was the last time India attacked a nation?

As for pakistan it is small nation and see only a nation as its enemy that is India. Also, there is danger of terrorist getting their hand on it.

On the other hand India has to take care of china which is geographically very huge for a credible deterrence we need at least 200 nukes. Because all of these nukes will not be successful as some will be destroyed before launch and some with be taken care by air defense systems etc.

Our nukes are for peace and stability of India and the world.

 

[Justin Joseph]

Complete Destruction is not much of an issue.The fact is even as if the cities are not destroyed the people will die because of radiation thats the major problem.Of course if Pakistan only had 4-5 nukes we could just nuke all water areas of india and poison all water supplies and Indians would die of radio activated water same for Pakistan as all the water comes from India..so scenario works both ways.

First of all what you have suggested is very unislamic. The water flow will also effect the pakistan.

Also, It will only affect some parts of North and East India. The area which is less developed, has most of the poverty, illiteracy in India.

And to overcome water radiation problem DRDO and BARC has already developed water filter that can filter radiated water to make it pure and safe to drink. The device is very economical and they have collaborated with the private companies to produce it on mass scale.

 

[Hulk]

but you use same water or will you install some ganga purification filter to filter out radioactivity?In any case..not sure why we are even discussing this stuff here..both countries have capability to destroy each other completely...and Pakistan is increasing it's capability quickly so nothing to worry about..Can't wait to see Hydrogen Bombs in Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal..

These kinds of comments are cause of concern prople do not understand nukes are not good you wil not be able to kill others and remain unaffected. Trust me if nuke war ever happens none of these nukes supporter or advocates of nukes will be able to say decision was right. All will suffer. I advocate nukes free world.

 

[rohailmalhi]

As for pakistan it is small nation and see only a nation as its enemy that is India. Also, there is danger of terrorist getting their hand on it.

Old joke . Get sumthing new .
Bored of hearing terrorist will get there hands on Pak nuke