Ok. I also want the same. I was only against the claims of anyone who thinks that he is better than each and everyone. Let's get back to topic.??
Agni & Prithvi Ballistic Missiles : News & Discussions
- Thread starter Sathya
- Start date
No. Warheads come as a whole package, along with heat shield. What you are saying is the canopy and warhead bus or Post boost vehicle which can be changed for different types of warheads and canopy keeps the missile aerodynamic shape intact while going up. On the way down there is no canopy and warhead's own heat shield has to work.,and it cannot be retrofitted on the spot. But yes, the actual "Atom Bomb is a separate structure residing inside the heat shield.
We saw this clearly in North Korean Hydrogen bomb press released? Kim is stood beside the actual nuke and the Heat sheild is the green thing in the foreground,also explained in the diagram hanging on the wall.
Missiles are not general purpose vehicles as you put it. SLV are general purpose. Any misisle is bespoke made to carry a certain type of warhead.
No wonder India made missiles to carry nukes and didn't use SLV . Both are rockets and go to space,don't they?
Also look around. With every Missile you will see designated type of warhead. Not that it will carry any available warhead and the rest of the space in the canopy can be filled with Styrofoam as you put it.
For example W76 assigned for Trident 1
W88 and W76 assigned for Trident II
W78 , W87 for Minuteman-3
Likewise India or any country builds missiles for certain warhead not as general purpose missile.
However i agree that missiles can carry certain designated types of warheads , but in that case there is visible evidence.
EXample isMinuteman missile in different visibly differentiable configurations for carrying different numbers and types of warheads. (This is a Museum Display picture but depicts actual configuration)
Have we seen any Indian Ballistic Missile in such visibly different configurations? (Except Shuriya K-15)
You are free to post any pics in this regard.
We are finding it hard to develop a multi caliber capable assault rifle and you are asking us building missiles which can carry different different warheads....
The reason to differentiate is to ensure the other side knows what is what, instead of triggering launches from both sides. There is a reason, why the BrahMos and Nirbhay are not designated as nuclear launch vehicles anywhere in the Indian official releases, but always as nuclear capable by our media. There is a nice discussion by @Hellfire somewhere on the forum. You could read that.
None at the technical level, but massive differences at the level you employ them.
You need to clearly demarcate weapons that will be used for nuclear warfare and for conventional warfare so that the enemy knows you are attacking them with nuclear weapons when the time comes. Or else the minute we launch one Brahmos for conventional use, the enemy will retaliate with nuclear weapons because they will assume it's a nuclear attack.
Is it applicable for nation having First use policy? They will surely bluff to get their first strike pass through.
No, India rarely displays its missiles i public but keeps it a secret. Even the launch of missiles are not publicised in videos.
But Indian scientists have been very clear in saying that the warhead weight can be varied to increase range or increase payload for shorter range. This is a clear indication that the maximum size of warhead is limited by the size of the cone but the minimum size can be varied.
Warhead is the bomb.
This is a reentry vehicle, not a warhead:
This is a war head:
Warheads are never kept exposed but always covered with a cone. The cone can be toughened ones for ballistic missiles or a relatively weaker ones for cruise missiles.
Here is an official definition of warhead: What is a nuclear warhead? What is fissile material?
This is how reentry vehicles are fitted in nose cones:
Don't mistake nose cone for reentry vehicle. It is not necessarily true. Nose cone can be different from RV even if there is just 1 warhead. Generally this configuration is better to ensure that multiple sized warheads can be mounted as per needs without having to redesign the missile
You are assuming that if India attacks with conventional weapons, the opponent will also respond conventionally. But, the whole point of war is that there is no rules towards enemies. Rules exist only between allies in war. So, there is no reason to make such assumptions. Gambling based on hopes is inappropriate. Either go all out or don't escalate beyond small arms and shelling
If you fire a brahmos at pakistan, do you expect pakistan to make assumptions that it must have been conventional bomb because Indian media says so and hence we will only fire conventional missiles? Or do you expect Pakistan to take no chance and go all out firing all the missiles they have at India?
I dont see any value in it. Why wont someone bluff and do a first strike using vehicle declared for conventional use?
Is he right, or is he wrong? If he is wrong, give him the facts to prove him wrong. It's not about your mood; park it before you enter a discussion.
I asked for evidence here: Agni Series Ballistic Missiles : News & Discussions . He never answered back. So, obviously, it is indeed offensive to see such kind of shoot and scoot comments.
Point made...
There is no fer of destruction once oil runs out which is happening soon. Nukes don't kill everything but merely destroys infrastructure and economic production which will come down anyways once oil depletes. So, what should one fear at all?Nuclear strike these days is equal to kids throwing candies at each other.
One attempts to bring a "guest" with potentially a different and challenging perspective - maybe wrong, maybe right. It should increase interaction and create a healthy appetite for debate. However some find this a challenge and rather put down. What this leads to is 10 people with similar passions and beliefs thus numbing the nerves to create a debate or discussion.
Alas one will continue until the penny drops.
We dont have very small warhead with high yield now because we dont have MIRV capable missile. Once we have that, surely you will see smaller warheads.
There's no need to bluff. If you are going for a nuclear strike, then go all out with your dedicated strategic weapons.
There are weapons earmarked for conventional warfighting and there are weapons earmarked for strategic deterrence. There is no need to combine the two. As far as India is concerned, our policy is NFU. But we will use nukes if there's a threat of NBC weapons being used against us. We don't need nuclear tipped Brahmos then, we will simply go all out with our strategic arsenal.
What you are referring to is a tactical nuclear strike, which is pretty useless because conventional weapons are highly specific and more flexible.
Regardless, if it's necessary to use Brahmos in a nuclear strike because of its specific capabilities, like sea skimming, then we can. But that's a decision that will probably be taken when we are already in a nuclear war.
Stands to reason that nobody will do something for the heck of it. Only if there is some specific need.
Difference between conventional and Nuclear is just a made up one. If you expect anyone to lose a war because they refuse to use nukes first, you are being delusional. There is nothing called separation between conventional missiles and nuclear missiles. Missiles and their warheads will be used according to objectives and operational necessity.