Nuclear notebook by the federation of American scientists is an open source non partisan reference accepted by the academic community regarding nuclear arsenal size of various countries. The bulletin is annual.
It depends on "threshold" of governing powers involved. It need not even be direct nuclear confrontation. Just like how Russia gave nukes to Belarus as "ally" same way Pakistan could have threatened to give nukes to its "allies" in middle east. That is not applicable for India & Pakistan.
Neither Korean army can maintain its strength after crossing the most heavily militarized & mined border in the world. Only reason NK behave so unrestrained is because of their nukes.
You are really underestimating the power of nukes. If Ukraine had even a dozen left from erstwhile USSR there would never be a Russia Ukraine war.
What if scenario but not really applicable in reality.
That I agree with but it would have been a very precise assassination unlike thousands of exploding pagers.
I wanted to point out the difference in doctrine between counter force (US & Russia) vs. counter value (everybody else). There are differences between the two over what can and cannot be done.
US was running submarine deterrence patrols as early as the 60s. We will have to start doing that at some point to fully deter China.
Really? His forces couldn't even suppress Ukraine without getting assistance from Iranian drones, NK ammunition & Chinese tech on top of handicap imposed by US to not allow its supplied long range weapons to be used to attack deep into the Russian territory & you think his conventional attack threat can really threaten NATO. Only reason Russia is gaining against Ukraine is because of the threat of its nukes to force limits on NATO/US assistance to Ukraine.
China, India & Pakistan all share borders with each other unlike US which is literally ocean away from all its enemies so US situation can't be compared with others.
He's threatening a nuclear attack not conventional and this has been the case since over a year back.
Bingo! exactly what I'm getting at.
Yet people confound the two doctrines easily. Westerners don't understand fully the limitations of the doctrines here and people here think their doctrines are capable of more than in reality.
Your ability dictates your doctrine. What you can and cannot do.
Both UK & France went nuclear by the early 60s because Nikita had threatened both that his missiles could reach their capitals and they feared an isolationist US may not come to their help. In such an event both UK & France would be operating under a credible minimum doctrine.
Neither India, Pakistan or China can prevent a conventional war from breaking out with the nukes they have. Two examples.
Because politicians/generals talk one way for the public & another way for the real audience. It doesn't matter who use nukes first in India Pak war the end result would be total destruction of all major cities of India & complete annihilation of Pakistan. That is why only insane ppl in power in either country would ever think about launching a nuke first & thankfully no such insane person has ever been able to come to power in either country till now.
Because political leadership of Israel at that time was not reckless enough as Netanyahu of today & would not have agreed to launch nukes in response to an attack not posing any existential threat to Israel at that point. That war was mainly to take back occupied territories by Israel in previous war.
Your ability dictates your doctrine. What you can and cannot do.
Credible minimum deterrent means you don't need thousands of nukes to deter the other. You do not plan to fight a war using nukes but rather as a credible punishment if struck with them. In a sense nukes here are political weapons and not military.
With a counter force doctrine its about total war. You intend to fight with nukes like other arms because you have so many to begin with. You can make nuclear threats over conventional attacks.
During the berlin airlift there were 5,000 marines in Berlin managing things. They were surrounded by tens of thousands of Soviet troops nearby. Would not have been difficult to take out the marines and stop the Americans but the Soviets never did because the threat was a nuclear strike on Russia if they did.
Both UK & France went nuclear by the early 60s because Nikita had threatened both that his missiles could reach their capitals and they feared an isolationist US may not come to their help. In such an event both UK & France would be operating under a credible minimum doctrine.
However within NATO, UK nukes would be under American control. When one goes they all go. With France the Americans don't have control of French nukes but the French don't have autonomy either. They would be operating under counterforce in alliance with the US.
In a way you are agreeing with me. Ability dictates doctrine
You mentioned limitations of delivery tech. I'm talking raw numbers. If you don't have enough your options are limited. They would be deployed to protect your assets and would not be free for discretionary use. Hence why both China & India are no first use. Because they don't have enough for a first strike as they are reserved for a response to one. If you get what I mean.
Neither India, Pakistan or China can prevent a conventional war from breaking out with the nukes they have. Two examples.
Kargil was more than a border skirmish yet the Paks were not deterred from starting a war over it. Revenge for Siachen who under Musharraf a decade earlier was lost.
After the parliament attack, Musharraf said if one Indian soldier crossed the LoC he would nuke India. This charade continued until the first raid in 2016 which they denied happened and the second raid which saw an attack in Pakistan proper. Again they played it down.
Pak nukes did not prevent the conventional Indian raids. More troubling for Pakistan since they claim first use but blinked when tested.
Another example is yom Kippur in '73. Egyptians attacked Israel. They had to have known at a minimum the Israelis had the ability to deliver a nuke or more with their jets yet were not deterred. Why? Same reason.
Now if Iran hypothetically gets nukes the Israelis say Iran can use nuclear blackmail against Israel. Like was said about Pakistan.
Nope. Not a damn chance. Israeli jets will attack Iran. Nukes or not. Because nuclear can't deter conventional. A bigger Balakote yes?
But I've not succeeded in getting Israelis to agree
I'm not getting into use because it's game over at that point. What I'm talking about is deterrence. In a way you can say the scope for a response has reduced after both became nuclear. So instead of another Kargil we get a Balakote.
And how would the Egyptians know that beforehand ? That too after the audacity of '67. It's the other way around. Israel today is incapable of another' 67. They don't have an offensive mindset anymore. This happens after 50 yr association with Americans. Israel only has a right to self defense. No longer a right to win the war.
Russia mainly used Iranian drones for depleting the Ukraine air defenses like S300, Buk M1. That's the reason the Ukraines got Patriot PAC3. Those drones where good enough to attack a large static infrastructure, but are useless in attacking any hardened shelters in air bases. Once Ukraine uses their air defenses, if its within the range of a Lancet drone it will be taken out, the air defenses will be observed by a Orion drone for smoke trails, later model versions had thermals which meant that it could easily find them. Once a really high value target is found like a S300 or PAC 3 or IRIS-T there radars are taken care by Anti radiation missiles fired by SU35 or more likely taken out by a hypersonic missile fired by land based iskander or air launched by Mig 31.
Another way of phrasing what you said is doctrines aren't written in stone. But they do impose limitations which should be understood. I will demonstrate this later.
Non superpowers don't have enough nukes to destroy a country. A city or more yes. And that's the deterrence. No one will agree to lose even one city let alone more.
This is a common challenge to the concept of no first use. Especially by those from NATO or Russia because there is no such concept for them. NFU is nonsense as far as they're concerned because by definition first use always was an option and valid action.
I gave you the example of the marines in Berlin. That was early 60's. But this applies only to the superpowers.
When you talk about mass you are missing how our doctrine works. Minimum credible deterrent shows you don't need mass to deter. This isn't comprehensible to westerners because they try to interpret through their lens and go wrong. Now if the opponent is fine with losing a few cities then you don't have much deterrence in which case you need to build up the stockpile. Not by a crazy amount but by more than at present.
Open to conjecture. For the first three weeks they took heavy losses until the US agreed to supply them. If you watch the recent biopic 'Golda', hero of '67 and then defense minister Moshe Dayan was begging her to allow him to use nukes as the IDF was faring badly in the opening stages and her flat no was because the Americans were against.
So you are agreeing then that a conventional conflict against a nuclear non super power is feasible so long as it doesn't go too far. Isn't it.
Another way of phrasing what you said is doctrines aren't written in stone. But they do impose limitations which should be understood. I will demonstrate this later.
Non superpowers don't have enough nukes to destroy a country. A city or more yes. And that's the deterrence. No one will agree to lose even one city let alone more.
This is a common challenge to the concept of no first use. Especially by those from NATO or Russia because there is no such concept for them. NFU is nonsense as far as they're concerned because by definition first use always was an option and valid action.
But try and think it through. Why does India say no first use in the first place?
Because it leads to conflict stability. If India says NFU. Then China or Pakistan don't have to plan for a decapitating Indian first strike. Because we won't have enough for a second strike.
If one flies, they all fly.
Use that as a trueism to figure out things. So nobody with our doctrine wants to be first.
Back in 2016, directed at Pakistan, the RM said NFU wasn't a given. That is he was introducing ambiguity into NFU.
To me this was nonsense. I was ready to call BS on the RM for the reasons explained earlier. An ambiguous NFU isn't credible. Either you state NFU or not to be credible. It's a binary.
Didn't get much agreement from people to this outright challenge of a cabinet minister.
So why did he say it? Domestic politics perhaps. A way to waylay the opposition. And even to confuse the ones making threats at India from the other side. Playing to their own domestic gallery too.
I was vindicated in 2019, three years later, several months after Balakote, where the PM at the UN stated India adheres to NFU
I gave you the example of the marines in Berlin. That was early 60's. But this applies only to the superpowers.
The first thing to do is demonstrate the weapons are viable through a test or more. This is standard messaging. To then convince the opponent is a gamble. A weak willed opponent may cave. But a more confident one will call your bluff. Then what do you do? Will you proceed with a first strike after what was said above.
Nukes at a minimum are to protect the leadership. If there is no plan to march to Delhi it won't come up. I'm saying in a conventional conflict with China the question of nukes will not come up and it would be foolhardy to try. Since neither of us plans to march to the others capital city.
When you talk about mass you are missing how our doctrine works. Minimum credible deterrent shows you don't need mass to deter. This isn't comprehensible to westerners because they try to interpret through their lens and go wrong. Now if the opponent is fine with losing a few cities then you don't have much deterrence in which case you need to build up the stockpile. Not by a crazy amount but by more than at present.
Also about delivery. Just because India may not be able to reach Beijing does it mean China would be ok with losing Chengdu say. I'm betting no.
Open to conjecture. For the first three weeks they took heavy losses until the US agreed to supply them. If you watch the recent biopic 'Golda', hero of '67 and then defense minister Moshe Dayan was begging her to allow him to use nukes as the IDF was faring badly in the opening stages and her flat no was because the Americans were against.
This also acts in another way. If the Americans didn't get supplies going then Israel would be left with no choice. Saying it was about getting the Sinai back is well and good but who's to say they would stop there and not push on to Tel Aviv. The domestic pressure to do so in Egypt would be immense. What's the contingency plan in that case.
Back off or lose Cairo.
Do you understand why such a threat is credible at a later stage but insufficient to deter the war in the first place.
So you are agreeing then that a conventional conflict against a nuclear non super power is feasible so long as it doesn't go too far. Isn't it.
My point is even a border conflict would be risking a nuclear exchange with superpowers. This is why much effort was made by both sides to ensure the two never came into contact in any theatre. War was possible by proxy only.
Bob Woodward's new book has a few quotes from Biden that illustrates my point perfectly -- they show just how little control US presidents have over Israel and their actions. This has been the common frustration of many US presidents for decades. Israel calls the shots and the US has little choice but to fall in line. But their escalation tactics in the region are now proving too much, even for the Americans. It would be funny if it weren't such a global security threat.
www.jpost.com
Now I have another recent counter example. Iran.
Only takes one for Israel. They won't be able to recover from that. The threat is Iran and their stated objective is wipe Israel of the map. Israelis could give a hoot over what I've said here. Ideally for them Iran should never have nukes.
The leadership is what I mean. Gaddafi surrendered his nuclear plans after the AQ Khan affair came to light. He was gone a decade later. Kim saw this and won't let go of his.
Dirty bombs aren't as scary as they sound and that is the Israelis saying so. In terms of weapon design they are a complete fail. Not effective. Should Iran attempt such folly it would become an imperative for the Americans to deal with Iran because the west is next.
No they wont. America is tired of war and they hell won't jump into Iran. Iran isn't Afghanistan and the Iranian Military is no joke. Iran has everything ready to make a nuclear bomb quickly but it isn't planning to because that affects its relations with Qatar and Saudis.
Not even dirty bombs. Actual proper bombs.
www.ndtv.com
