• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

Agni III test fired successfully: India joins the ICBM club!

Yes well america's missle defence capabilities are vastly outgrowing your pathetic Nuclear program.
 
Winner said:
Strategically speaking, India is a 3rd class nuclear power. The 1st league are the US and Russia (still), the 2nd is China, France and Britain.

Pakistan is somewhere between 3rd and 4th class.
Click to expand...
Maybe your problem of reasoning that India is not a "formidable nuclear power" because you say that they are, in a hierarchic sense, under the number of other nation-states such as US,Russia,and others which in fact all it does to qualify is to have and obtain a ability to stike an nuclear warhead by rocketry whether its sophisticated or not.So it does not matter that you are placed in the number of hiearchy because the means to do it precede on how sophistcated you are to do it.
 
cubsfan6506 said:
Yes well america's missle defence capabilities are vastly outgrowing your pathetic Nuclear program.
Click to expand...

The current NMD system is not designed to shoot down more than a two dozens of missiles at the same time. You'd need more interceptors.

The key is to have a way how to shoot down a missile in every stage of its flight. US is worning on that, but it is very expensive.

I hope that we'll allow you to build part of this system here in Czech Republic (interceptors will probably be stationed in Poland, while the tracking radar will be here). It's better than nothing.
 
CartesianFart said:
Maybe your problem of reasoning that India is not a "formidable nuclear power" because you say that they are, in a hierarchic sense, under the number of other nation-states such as US,Russia,and others which in fact all it does to qualify is to have and obtain a ability to stike an nuclear warhead by rocketry whether its sophisticated or not.
Click to expand...

You probably don't understand what I mean. People often have a lot of misconceptions of how nuclear strategic forces work.

The golden rule is: Quality matters! ;)

1st league (US, Russia)

- they have advanced ICBMs (MIRVed warheads, decoys, solid fuel, advanced targeting systems, high precision, reliable warheads)
- they have nuclear submarines with loads of SLBMs (Submarine-Launched B.M.)
- they have a strategic bombers capable of delivering nuclear-tipped cruise missiles (ALCMs)
--> together, this is called a "nuclear triad"
- they have deployed and reliable early warning systems (satellites, radars)
- they have an limited anti-ballistic systems (Moscow, the US NMD system)


2nd league (China, France, Britain)

- they have a capability to strike almost anywhere in the world,
- ...but they have not a completed or reliable nuclear triad
- they don't have their own reliable early warning systems
- they have no ABM systems
- their missiles or other delivery systems are either not very advanced (China), or the size of the stockpile is not adequate (Britain).


3rd league (India, Israel, maybe Pakistan)

- they usually have very limited ability to strike beyond their immediate vicinity (no inter-continental capability)
- they lack most of the things mentioned above
- they have limited number of less-sophisticated warheads (except Israel)

4th league (North Korea, Iran is on its way)

- they have a nuclear weapon, but extremely limited or no way how to successfully deliver it on target.
 
Winner said:
You probably don't understand what I mean. People often have a lot of misconceptions of how nuclear strategic forces work.

The golden rule is: Quality matters! ;)

1st league (US, Russia)

- they have advanced ICBMs (MIRVed warheads, decoys, solid fuel, advanced targeting systems, high precision, reliable warheads)
- they have nuclear submarines with loads of SLBMs (Submarine-Launched B.M.)
- they have a strategic bombers capable of delivering nuclear-tipped cruise missiles (ALCMs)
--> together, this is called a "nuclear triad"
- they have deployed and reliable early warning systems (satellites, radars)
- they have an limited anti-ballistic systems (Moscow, the US NMD system)


2nd league (China, France, Britain)

- they have a capability to strike almost anywhere in the world,
- ...but they have not a completed or reliable nuclear triad
- they don't have their own reliable early warning systems
- they have no ABM systems
- their missiles or other delivery systems are either not very advanced (China), or the size of the stockpile is not adequate (Britain).


3rd league (India, Israel, maybe Pakistan)

- they usually have very limited ability to strike beyond their immediate vicinity (no inter-continental capability)
- they lack most of the things mentioned above
- they have limited number of less-sophisticated warheads (except Israel)

4th league (North Korea, Iran is on its way)

- they have a nuclear weapon, but extremely limited or no way how to successfully deliver it on target.
Click to expand...
That is a very good list and to me an transparent one but all of these nation-states (exception to Iran) that are listed of having the capability of transporting nuclear weapons by whatever means is all qualified as being "formidable nuclear power.":)

Your hiearchy is right but on how you define the phrase "formidable nuclear power" is what make it misleading because it is false.
 
CartesianFart said:
That is a very good list and to me an transparent one but all of these nation-states (exception to Iran) that are listed of having the capability of transporting nuclear weapons by whatever means is all qualified as being "formidable nuclear power.":)

Your hiearchy is right but on how you define the phrase "formidable nuclear power" is what make it misleading because it is false.
Click to expand...

For the purpose of this thread, "formidable nuclear power" = a state possessing the capabilities to deliver a crippling SECOND strike after being surprisingly attacked by another nuclear power.

Only Russia and the US are capable of that in 99% of cases, Britain and France could manage that in say... 70% of cases (both countries have nuclear submarines, which are hard to kill in a first strike), China in 10% of cases and the other are not able to do that at all.
 
Winner said:
For the purpose of this thread, "formidable nuclear power" = a state possessing the capabilities to deliver a crippling SECOND strike after being surprisingly attacked by another nuclear power.

Only Russia and the US are capable of that in 99% of cases, Britain and France could manage that in say... 70% of cases (both countries have nuclear submarines, which are hard to kill in a first strike), China in 10% of cases and the other are not able to do that at all.
Click to expand...
I don't want to enlongate this discussion on what it means to be an "formidable nuclear power" but i will say for the last that it is stupid to make number comparison of probability by way of percentage on regarding retalitory counter-measure missile strikes.All it does mean is not what or how many times it can strike but on how capable they are in doing so.
 
CartesianFart said:
I don't want to enlongate this discussion on what it means to be an "formidable nuclear power" but i will say for the last that it is stupid to make number comparison of probability by way of percentage on regarding retalitory counter-measure missile strikes.All it does mean is not what or how many times it can strike but on how capable they are in doing so.
Click to expand...

It makes a lot of sense.

Mutually Assured Destruction is based on a capacity to deliver a second strike. In order for it to work, both sides must be convinced that if they strike first, they will inevitably get destroyed too.

But if there is only, say 10% chance the enemy will be able to do that if you strike first, you might feel compelled to conduct the first strike and hope for the best.

Countries in 3rd or 4th league do not have the capacity to strike back, so they're not formidable. This is, I think, pretty obvious. If you disagree, ok, you can come up with your own definition. This is how I see it.
 
Winner said:
Mutually Assured Destruction is based on a capacity to deliver a second strike. In order for it to work, both sides must be convinced that if they strike first, they will inevitably get destroyed too.
Click to expand...
I have to concede that say that you define "Mutually Assured Destruction" is somewhat plausible but you leave out many contingencies such as the weaker nation can get the best of the stronger nation by trickery and deciet.Ever heard of secret bunkers and other means of using nukes secretively?

But if there is only, say 10% chance the enemy will be able to do that if you strike first, you might feel compelled to conduct the first strike and hope for the best.
Click to expand...
That is what define "formidable nuclear power" and it does not mean how good or precise but just capable to hit and sucessfully conduct an nuclear attack.

Countries in 3rd or 4th league do not have the capacity to strike back, so they're not formidable. This is, I think, pretty obvious. If you disagree, ok, you can come up with your own definition. This is how I see it.
Click to expand...
Lets say that a nuclear weapon was detonated in nation-state A by way of not knowing where it came from and that nation-state A accuses nation-state C of doing it when in fact nation-state B did it,tell me,is that formidable?
 
CartesianFart said:
Lets say that a nuclear weapon was detonated in nation-state A by way of not knowing where it came from and that nation-state A accuses nation-state C of doing it when in fact nation-state B did it,tell me,is that formidable?
Click to expand...

Oh my gods, lets put the word "formidable" aside, please.

What I am trying to say is, that sole possession of nuclear weapons does not make any country invulnerable and powerful. There are also other factors which have to be taken into consideration (I talked about many of them earlier).

Specifically, India may have a missile capable of hitting Bejing, but that doesn't mean India can actually threaten China, or that it can deter China from a first strike. Detterence isn't automatic, you have to reach some level of nuclear "preparedness" in order to deter any agression.

Fictional scenario:

China and India go to war over something. War rages and India is losing. Indians therefore prepare their limited numbers of missiles and launch them on Chinese targets. China retaliates and launch 20 times as much missiles with much stronger warheads. India is devastated, China won because it was able to withstand a first strike and deliver a crushing retaliatory strike. And if China was the one who launched first, India would lose in the first round.

That is the difference between 2nd and 3rd league.

As for your scenario:

1) there are very accurate ways how to determine the source of the fissile material used in the bomb.
2) what would the nation state B gain by using a nuclear bomb in secret? Yes, it could spread chaos and cause a lot of confusion, but it would risk a total annihilation (in the case nation state A realized who was responsible) without having any possibility how to defend itself.

What you descrime only makes the state B dangerous and "rogue", not... (damn) formidable.
 
Wait you bs to us how we can eat meat and then you celebrate nukes? Well f you man....f you.

Not that I hate nukes, I love them, but I cant tolerate bs.
 
Winner said:
Oh my gods, lets put the word "formidable" aside, please.

What I am trying to say is, that sole possession of nuclear weapons does not make any country invulnerable and powerful. There are also other factors which have to be taken into consideration (I talked about many of them earlier).

Specifically, India may have a missile capable of hitting Bejing, but that doesn't mean India can actually threaten China, or that it can deter China from a first strike. Detterence isn't automatic, you have to reach some level of nuclear "preparedness" in order to deter any agression.

Fictional scenario:

China and India go to war over something. War rages and India is losing. Indians therefore prepare their limited numbers of missiles and launch them on Chinese targets. China retaliates and launch 20 times as much missiles with much stronger warheads. India is devastated, China won because it was able to withstand a first strike and deliver a crushing retaliatory strike. And if China was the one who launched first, India would lose in the first round.

That is the difference between 2nd and 3rd league.
Click to expand...
Very Good.:)

As for your scenario:

1) there are very accurate ways how to determine the source of the fissile material used in the bomb.
2) what would the nation state B gain by using a nuclear bomb in secret? Yes, it could spread chaos and cause a lot of confusion, but it would risk a total annihilation (in the case nation state A realized who was responsible) without having any possibility how to defend itself.

What you descrime only makes the state B dangerous and "rogue", not... (damn) formidable.
Click to expand...
One concept that you failed to consider..."suit-case bomb" or other means to transport nuclear weapons in secrecies for inorder to be an formidable adversary.

I knew that you would not comprehend what i am saying due to the fact i have left out the concept of "suit-case bomb" or anything that is synomous as a means of secrecies and deception.:p
 
aneeshm said:
And the Missile is named Agni - which means "fire" in Sanskrit and Hindi, and is also the name of the Hindu God of Fire. :D
...
I think the logical next step will be to bring the USA within range. Given that it is at the other end of the world, that means that the whole world will then be in range. ;)
Click to expand...

Well done India. Another civilised country capable of resorting to fairly uncivil tactics.
There's a huge host of countries (i.e most of them) which would worry me far more if they got ICBM capacity.
 
About suit-case bombs.

They could still figure out who did it, because of the ability to trace fissile material after the explosion... unless I am ******** and didn't understand what you were talking about.
 
Sobieski II said:
About suit-case bombs.

They could still figure out who did it, because of the ability to trace fissile material after the explosion... unless I am ******** and didn't understand what you were talking about.
Click to expand...
Nah,you are not a ******.:D

How is it that they can trace a certain fissile material from where it came from?Isn't all fissile material the same no matter where it is produced?
 
CartesianFart said:
Nah,you are not a ******.:D

How is it that they can trace a certain fissile material from where it came from?Isn't all fissile material the same no matter where it is produced?
Click to expand...

IIRC it is certainly possible to work out where advanced fissile materials come from prior to detonation. Post detonation? Who knows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Predator145
Crotale NG SAM (Towed version)
Replies
0
Views
305
Predator145
Predator145
Predator145
Wyrm's V-2 Missile configured as a cruise missile unit
Replies
0
Views
295
Predator145
Predator145
H
How to add air combat in civilization VII
Replies
5
Views
1K
hoplite_fan
H
H
How to add submarines in civilization VII
Replies
7
Views
979
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Predator145
Low yield tactical nuke
Replies
1
Views
824
Predator145
Predator145
Back
Top Bottom