Pakistan says Indian ballistic missile system a destabilizing development.

[Secur]

That's another matter You won't able to see the result since ....

Next time , kiddo , when you do not understand something , try not to debate about it and make yourself look like a fool or argue against the obvious . You didn't know a single thing about the concept of " First or Second Strike " , " Long term effects of a nuclear war " or " Nuclear winter " yet were trying to be an expert on the matter with your nonsensical " I have more land hence I will win " and I was literally laughing during the whole conversation .

Sweet dreams , if you weren't already the whole time .

 

[acid rain]

Actually , 99.8% kill probability means a near perfect defense against incoming missiles which is an extremely exaggerated claim . Powerful countries like US , Russia and China have been developing the ballistic missile defense systems for decades and still they consider them " unreliable " to prevent catastrophic and unacceptable damage .

Launch multiple interceptors , but dummy missiles which are relatively very low cost and able to mimick the " flight trajectory " of an actual one have always been there and even missile with multiple warheads . They can easily overwhelm the system and nullify this advantage of numbers .

"powerful"countries and India are in the process of developing and testing of BMD's with consideration for various countermeasures that mayy be emmployed,

as for launching "dummy missiles" if its launched it will be considered as a possible nuclear strike and counter strikee will take place, why would someone launch dummies and waste the window of opportunity to get in their missiles to cause maximum damage before getting themselves hit for maximum damage?

If its to overwhelm the system then its a wasteful exercise and wastage of resources for nothing when thhe dummies will also probably be taken down along with the live ones. The window closes pretty fast in such cases.

 

[SAN 1971]

Next thing , kiddo , when you do not understand something , try not to get in a debate or argue against the obvious . You didn't know a single thing about the concept of " First or Second Strike " or " Nuclear winter " yet were trying to be an expert on the matter .

I never claimed that I have done PhD in nuclear physics from CALTECH , Did I ??

But certain things are easily available in public domain , even you are not expert since you are just copy pasteing thre the info which, I have read many a time before.

 

[Secur]

I never claimed that I have done PhD in nuclear physics from CALTECH , Did I ??

But certain things are easily available in public domain , even you are not expert since you are just copy pasteing thre the info which, I have read many a time before.

Then how did you claim a certain victory for India in a nuclear exchange , when you didn't know the ABC of the nuclear warfare even .

Yes , I am copy pasting what I read before , the only difference is that I understand it and frequently mentioned and explained them before bringing out the sources to end this useless discussion . If you had read , you wouldn't have been talking about any victory but just destruction and wastelands after a war .

"powerful"countries and India are in the process of developing and testing of BMD's with consideration for various countermeasures that mayy be emmployed,

as for launching "dummy missiles" if its launched it will be considered as a possible nuclear strike and counter strikee will take place, why would someone launch dummies and waste the window of opportunity to get in their missiles to cause maximum damage before getting themselves hit for maximum damage?

If its to overwhelm the system then its a wasteful exercise and wastage of resources for nothing when thhe dummies will also probably be taken down along with the live ones. The window closes pretty fast in such cases.

Indeed they are , however one must remember that attack has always evolved faster than defense .

Launch them at the same time , actually this is the tricky part here , no one knows what inside that missile if its a conventional or a nuclear warhead , so without confirming it and starting the MAD sequence would be suicidal even if no nuclear threat was there in the first place for the country . The window of opportunity is small , no doubt , but it isn't so small as you portray and no defense shield guarantees a certain , absolute kill as 99.8% fantasy claim says . Your organizations exaggerate things a lot and before time when it goes operational .

How will you determine if it is a dummy or an actual ? Take both down , actually increases the possibility of a live one reaching its target . Not to mention , the interceptor costs 10x than a dummy .

 

[SAN 1971]

Then how did you claim a certain victory for India in a nuclear exchange , when didn't know the ABC of the nuclear warfare even .

Yes , I am copy pasting I read before , the only difference is that I understand it and frequently mentioned and explained them before bringing out the sources to end this useless discussion . If you had read , you wouldn't have been talking about any victory but just destruction and wastelands .

Victory will be ours, since the area affected by sub kilo ton yield is very small.Max of 25sq km.
So victory will be ours.You can kiss you Kashmir good bye if any such case arises.

 

[Secur]

Victory will be ours

I am just glad that your army's top brass doesn't think like that , otherwise they wouldn't have mobilized and backed off knowing the consequences of a nuclear war .

 

[SAN 1971]

I am just glad that your army's top brass doesn't think like that , otherwise they wouldn't have mobilized and backed off knowing the consequences of a nuclear war .

If they had known the consequence as you are depicting then in first step , they wouldn't have mobilized.But they did and backed off fue to International pressure.

 

[Secur]

If they had known the consequence as you are depicting then in first step , they wouldn't have mobilized.But they did and backed off fue to International pressure.

I am not depicting anything , your armed forces have depicted it in the past . In '87 , they weren't really aware if we had any delivery system , turned out we had bought some from North Korea . The second time , they had to do something for public consumption and to put pressure on Pakistan , which failed after IA lost 700+ soldiers during mobilization and then backed off !

 

[SAN 1971]

I am not depicting anything , your armed forces have depicted it in the past . In '87 , they weren't really aware if we had any delivery system , turned out we had both some from North Korea . The second time , they had to do something for public consumption and to put pressure on Pakistan , which failed after IA lost 700+ soldiers during mobilization and then backed off !

IA lost 700 soldiers during mobalization ??
It's new news for me, give me the link to your source, if it is available

I have said you earlier in coalition government you have to take care of dovish leaders also.

 

[Secur]

IA lost 700 soldiers during mobalization ??
It's new news for me, give me the link to your source, if it is available

No , 789 soldiers .

"During Operation Parakram up to July 2003, a total number of 798 Army personnel suffered fatal casualties," said Defence Minister George Fernandes in Lok Sabha on Thursday.

Op Parakram claimed 798 soldiers - Times Of India

 

[acid rain]

Indeed they are , however one must remember that attack has always evolved faster than defense .

Launch them at the same time , actually this is the tricky part here , no one knows what inside that missile if its a conventional or a nuclear warhead , so without confirming it and starting the MAD sequence would be suicidal even if no nuclear threat was there in the first place for the country . The window of opportunity is small , no doubt , but it isn't so small as you portray and no defense shield guarantees a certain , absolute kill as 99.8% fantasy claim says . Your organizations exaggerate things a lot and before time .

How will you determine if it is a dummy or an actual ? Take both down , actually increases the possibility of a live one reaching its target . Not to mention , the interceptor costs 10x than a dummy .

Defense evolves based on the offense plus most possible future evolution of that offense.

BMD's are area specific, so if you launch a "dummy" BM (no idea what that is, did you mean a BM with a conventional warhead) meant for the covered area BMD will be activated so will the counter strike - both wont wait for the enemy missile to complete its flight and land the strike, so yes the window is extremely small because both the missiles will be hitting their respective targets (not in the case if the BMD takes it down) almost simultaneously.

As for knowing if the missile is a conventional one or not, most countries get prior information via satellite tracking about missiles being fuelled and prepped, so in all probability, depending on the status of the war, decisions will be taken whether the incoming missile is a conventional one or a nuclear one and the counter strike will match that.

As for the kill probability of the BMD, a three layered BMD has more chances of taking down a BM.

The interceptor system costs more because of the continous radar tracking, automatic activation and launch systems (one time cost) and multiple missiles simultaneously launched, and how did you come up with the 10x cost of the dummy (whatever that is)? and, how can one quantify it with what the BMD actually saved by preventing the strike?

In fact the enemy's cost go up because he needs to launch multiple BMs without knowing how many would be intercepted.

 

[SAN 1971]

No , 789 soldiers .

"During Operation Parakram up to July 2003, a total number of 798 Army personnel suffered fatal casualties," said Defence Minister George Fernandes in Lok Sabha on Thursday.

Op Parakram claimed 798 soldiers - Times Of India

Ok, news seems to be authentic.
In between did Pakistan also lost any lives during mobalisation ??

 

[Secur]

Defense evolves based on the offense plus most possible future evolution of that offense.

BMD's are area specific, so if you launch a "dummy" BM (no idea what that is, did you mean a BM with a conventional warhead) meant for the covered area BMD will be activated so will the counter strike - both wont wait for the enemy missile to complete its flight and land the strike, so yes the window is small because both the missiles will be hitting their respective targets (not in the case if the BMD takes it down) almost simultaneously.

As for knowing if the missile is conventional one or not, most countries get prior information via satellite tracking about missiles being fuelled so in all probability depending on the status of the war decisions will be taken whether the incoming missile is a conventional one or a nuclear one and the counter strike will match that.

As for the kill probability of the BMD, a three layered BMD has more chances of taking down a BM.

The interceptor system costs more because of the continous radar tracking, automatic activation and launch systems (one time cost) and multiple missiles simultaneously launched, and how did you come up with the 10x cost of the dummy (whatever that is) and how can one quantify it with what the BMD actually saved by preventing the strike.

In fact the enemy's cost go up because he needs to launch multiple BMs without knowing how many would be intercepted.

Still , the evolvement is slower than the attack .

Well , a dummy missile is one which hasn't got any warhead but yet behaves and mimicks the trajectory and behavior of an actual missile . I wish I could explain it better with links and stuff but leave it for another thread . I know the BMD's will be activated and the counter strike will begin , but do you expect the adversary to wait and watch or launch a couple of missile again ? This is a chain reaction , so to speak .

No , actually that presents the most challenging aspect of the whole thing , it has to be determined whether the missile is carrying conventional or non conventional warheads since every missile can carry both . What if a cruise missile was launched at a base with conventional warhead and it was mistaken as nuclear and the MAD sequence started due to a misunderstanding ? The " eyes in the sky " cant look at underground nuclear sites making things more difficult .

I am not denying the increased probability of the intercept , I am merely denying the 99.8% claim .

I know why it costs more , dummy costs 10x less than it hence easy to manufacture in large numbers and fired in a salvo and disguised with a couple of Ballistic missiles for every target .

No , the enemy can use the dummy + BM/CM combo and get the job done .

There's a reason why Russia and US consider these shields as unreliable .

 

[acid rain]

Still , the evolvement is slower than the attack .

Well , a dummy missile is one which hasn't got any warhead but yet behaves and mimicks the trajectory and behavior of an actual missile . I wish I could explain it better with links and stuff but leave it for another thread . I know the BMD's will be activated and the counter strike will begin , but do you expect the adversary to wait and watch or launch a couple of missile again ? This is a chain reaction , so to speak .

No , actually that presents the most challenging aspect of the whole thing , it has to be determined whether the missile is carrying conventional or non conventional warheads since every missile can carry both . What if a cruise missile was launched at a base with conventional warhead and it was mistaken as nuclear and the MAD sequence started due to a misunderstanding ? The " eyes in the sky " cant look at underground nuclear sites making things more difficult .

I am not denying the increased probability of the intercept , I am merely denying the 99.8% claim .

I know why it costs more , dummy costs 10x less than it hence easy to manufacture in large numbers and fired in a salvo and disguised with a couple of Ballistic missiles for every target .

No , the enemy can use the dummy + BM/CM combo and get the job done .

There's a reason why Russia and US consider these shields as unreliable .

Russians and the US consider this unreliable because of the sheer number of missiles (thousands) they anticipate that will launched at each other in a crippling strike and from land, air, sea and undersea, not in our case where we are talking about a hundred or less. They would be quite confident about solitary missile launches that can and will be taken down.

The defense evolvement will consider all aspects of countermeasures because the BMD developing countries are also developing the strike missiles too so the endeavour will be to deliver a complete package in the end including mid course and even at early stage interception, with the final being the terminal stage interception.

An empty warhead? my contention is why would someone do that and risk massive counter strike of real missiles and that too when the window is small.

As for determining nature of warhead, as I said earlier will depend on the situation of the war...prevailing circumstances will determine that as for silo launching - sure it cannot be detected but our missiles are mostly platform based and again fueling of missiles are based on surveillance, if a massive strike is planned it most probably will be picked up.

How did you come up with the 10x figure?

As for taking down CMs, that a different topic and can surely be done along with the BM.

 

[Secur]

Russians and the US consider this unreliable because of the sheer number of missiles (thousands) they anticipate that will launched at each other in a crippling strike and from land, air, sea and undersea, not in our case where we are talking about a hundred or less. They would be quite confident about solitary missile launches that can and will be taken down.

The defense evolvement will consider all aspects of countermeasures because the BMD developing countries are also developing the strike missiles too so the endeavour will be to deliver a complete package in the end including mid course and even at early stage interception, with the final being the terminal stage interception.

An empty warhead? my contention is why would someone do that and risk massive counter strike of real missiles and that too when the window is small.

As for determining nature of warhead, as I said earlier will depend on the situation of the war...prevailing circumstances will determine that as for silo launching - sure it cannot be detected but our missiles are mostly platform based and again fueling of missiles are based on surveillance, if a massive strike is planned it most probably will be picked up.

How did you come up with the 10x figure?

As for taking down CMs, that a different topic and can surely be done along with the BM.

No , they do not consider it unreliable because of the number of missiles involved , its the built-in counter measures and MIRV which make them so . Sure , they risk an all-out nuclear war at even the slightest disturbance in the world arena concerning them . Actually , we aren't talking about a hundred or less , that is foolish to assume , the equation isn't 1 missile per nuclear warhead but several reserved for conventional warheads too .

Still , the attack evolves fast , that is a universal rule The missile gets counter measure and the fight of catching up with others continues . Have you read about the new technologies incorporated in Shaheen 1A ? You can increase the kill probability by making multiple layers or firing several interceptors for one missile but we can decrease it by using BM/CM + dummies combination which are relatively low cost and in the long run , make this shield economically nonviable .

No , an empty missile . Which doesn't focuses on accuracy but rather than on mimicking the behavior of a real missile . The misunderstanding is an issue , I told you before , even if a Nasr carrying a conventional warhead is being launched , nobody knows what inside it .

Yeah , that is one of the indicators , sure . But still there's no way to make certain the nature of the strike , is there ? Submarine launched missiles aren't for First Strike .

A conservative estimate , a dummy doesn't cost much whilst the interceptor costs is in millions of dollars .

I am not denying that .