Line of Actual Control (LAC) : India & Tibet Border Updates

Saaho said:
a. Thats you enemy's headache, not yours. Remember, they have more to loose if a nuclear war breaks out. I doubt that Chinese are so stupid to risk losing everything before confirming that the attack is indeed a nuclear tipped ballistic missile.
b. There is no difference in radar detection of a ballistic missile like Prithvi and a guided rocket with a range of 400 KM like Chinese WanShii rockets. If rocket artillery with a range of 400 KM is all kosher, there is no need to worry about a ballistic missile like Prithvi.
c. China herself deploys ballistic missile in tactical role. Biggest example is DF-21D which is employed in anti carrier role.
d. Iran also attacked US bases with ballistic missiles. Didn't start a nuclear war.

India has no CM with range required. BMs are actually cheaper. Brahmos is actually more expensive. Lastly, subsonic CMs can be easily intercepted.
Click to expand...


Ok, let's start bottom up -

a) Iran hit US with BMs, true. But point is, it was more for the public consumption than for the actual intent of hitting US. US already had Intel and they probably hit an airbase which was already vacated. Hence, no retaliation.

b) DF - 21 is deployed against carriers. If used by China on US (United States) during an active war, you think US will wait for the missiles to come down to judge if it was a nuke or not? I honestly don't think so. Having and using are two very different ball game.

c) As far as I know, and correct me if I am wrong, it is not possible to mount a nuke on a rocket artillery of range say 400 KMs. Also, the trajectory of the rockets will be a big give away as to its nature. For a SRBM, it will still follow a ballistic trajectory, which is not the case for rocket artillery. So, you mean, it is not possible to distinguish between a BM and rocket artillery using satellite and/or radar?

d) In a conflict, I don't think decisions are taken like - we hit a BM with conventional w/h, it's upto the adversary to decide if they want to go nuclear or not. I don't think any responsible country would like to create an ambiguity that can be fatal for both and that too unnecessarily. The MAD scenario is bad for both, and that's not all, it's bad for generations to come.

Lastly, nirbhay can hit the targets easily. Also, yes, it is true that subsonic missile can be intercepted, it is also true that it can go below radar in a terrain hugging mode. Tomahawk has ample such instances. And no, not comparing Nirbhay with Tomahawk directly.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Ironhide, Bali78 and Volcano
Defc0n said:
Ok, let's start bottom up -

a) Iran hit US with BMs, true. But point is, it was more for the public consumption than for the actual intent of hitting US. US already had Intel and they probably hit an airbase which was already vacated. Hence, no retaliation.

b) DF - 21 is deployed against carriers. If used by China on US (United States) during an active war, you think US will wait for the missiles to come down to judge if it was a nuke or not? I honestly don't think so. Having and using are two very different ball game.

c) As far as I know, and correct me if I am wrong, it is not possible to mount a nuke on a rocket artillery of range say 400 KMs. Also, the trajectory of the rockets will be a big give away as to its nature. For a SRBM, it will still follow a ballistic trajectory, which is not the case for rocket artillery. So, you mean, it is not possible to distinguish between a BM and rocket artillery using satellite and/or radar?

d) In a conflict, I don't think decisions are taken like - we hit a BM with conventional w/h, it's upto the adversary to decide if they want to go nuclear or not. I don't think any responsible country would like to create an ambiguity that can be fatal for both and that too unnecessarily. The MAD scenario is bad for both, and that's not all, it's bad for generations to come.

Lastly, nirbhay can hit the targets easily. Also, yes, it is true that subsonic missile can be intercepted, it is also true that it can go below radar in a terrain hugging mode. Tomahawk has ample such instances. And no, not comparing Nirbhay with Tomahawk directly.
Click to expand...

Also Tagged to @vstol Jockey And @Falcon

__________________________________________________
Seeing our Government and Military Response and Posturing on the LAC makes me wonder about Two Things

1 Either we have lots of " Undeclared and Hidden " Military strength
OR

2 We have a Secret Agreement with USA
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker, JustCurious, Yashpatel604 and 5 others
STEPHEN COHEN said:
Also Tagged to @vstol Jockey And @Falcon

__________________________________________________
Seeing our Government and Military Response and Posturing on the LAC makes me wonder about Two Things

1 Either we have lots of " Undeclared and Hidden " Military strength
OR

2 We have a Secret Agreement with USA
Click to expand...

Both are true to some extent. Additionaly China is not as strong as people think. Currently is politicaly isolated and also facing internal trouble. But this last point though I am not sure if GoI can exploit it completely for its advantage.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Chain Smoker, HariPrasad, Shaktimaan and 1 other person
STEPHEN COHEN said:
Also Tagged to @vstol Jockey And @Falcon

__________________________________________________
Seeing our Government and Military Response and Posturing on the LAC makes me wonder about Two Things

1 Either we have lots of " Undeclared and Hidden " Military strength
OR

2 We have a Secret Agreement with USA
Click to expand...
Please read my posts from July onwards. I had very clearly stated that QUAD is very much in play. Later a news came that IN had deployed ships with USN in SCS. Now we are getting news of the kind of intelligence we are getting from the satellites of QUAD countries. I had also quoted the example of yom kippur war when US flew sorties of SR-71 to find gaps in the deployment of Egyptian forces which allowed Israeli forces to go thru one such gap in Sinai to get behind the Egyptian forces and turn the tables in the war.
Same has been the case here. We were able to pin point all the positions occupied by PLA and plan our moves carefully armed with such intelligence. The delay in initiating the moves was to cater for time needed to put all the formations in places and have the required amount of stock of supplies and ammo in place should PLA go on the offensive.
The near daily probing patrols by PLA which we are witnessing is actually a build up to an intense short battle. They are trying to locate our positions thru these patrols. With each passing day, the war in Aksai Hind is being pushed to Late october/ early november as the CCP meeting is due in Oct and Xitler will not like to go in this meeting with dead PLA soldiers.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Chain Smoker, JustCurious, Yashpatel604 and 10 others
vstol Jockey said:
Please read my posts from July onwards. I had very clearly stated that QUAD is very much in play. Later a news came that IN had deployed ships with USN in SCS. Now we are getting news of the kind of intelligence we are getting from the satellites of QUAD countries. I had also quoted the example of yom kippur war when US flew sorties of SR-71 to find gaps in the deployment of Egyptian forces which allowed Israeli forces to go thru one such gap in Sinai to get behind the Egyptian forces and turn the tables in the war.
Same has been the case here. We were able to pin point all the positions occupied by PLA and plan our moves carefully armed with such intelligence. The delay in initiating the moves was to cater for time needed to put all the formations in places and have the required amount of stock of supplies and ammo in place should PLA go on the offensive.
The near daily probing patrols by PLA which we are witnessing is actually a build up to an intense short battle. They are trying to locate our positions thru these patrols. With each passing day, the war in Aksai Hind is being pushed to Late october/ early november as the CCP meeting is due in Oct and Xitler will not like to go in this meeting with dead PLA soldiers.
Click to expand...
Sir, can India defend these hill top/ridge positions in case China decides to use CM and/or high precision ammunitions followed by ground assault ?I would assume India may not have built bunkers within a short span of time. What will be India's strategy in such scenario ?
 
vstol Jockey said:
With each passing day, the war in Aksai Hind is being pushed to Late october/ early november as the CCP meeting is due in Oct and Xitler will not like to go in this meeting with dead PLA soldiers.
Click to expand...
This will be the case if China doesn't initiate war. What can he do if Indian forces goes on massive offence and inflict casualties on Chinese side? His image will be lost
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious
Defc0n said:
a) Iran hit US with BMs, true. But point is, it was more for the public consumption than for the actual intent of hitting US. US already had Intel and they probably hit an airbase which was already vacated. Hence, no retaliation.
Click to expand...
If US had intel, they would have stopped the missile attack completely. They did not. Why will they allow Iran to hit US bases in allied soil, many still had US personnels?


Defc0n said:
b) DF - 21 is deployed against carriers. If used by China on US (United States) during an active war, you think US will wait for the missiles to come down to judge if it was a nuke or not? I honestly don't think so. Having and using are two very different ball game.
Click to expand...
My point exactly. If China invests in and deploys a ballistic missile based system to hit US flat tops then the risk of starting a nuclear war is overstated. Else, why will China invest in such a system?

Defc0n said:
c) As far as I know, and correct me if I am wrong, it is not possible to mount a nuke on a rocket artillery of range say 400 KMs. Also, the trajectory of the rockets will be a big give away as to its nature. For a SRBM, it will still follow a ballistic trajectory, which is not the case for rocket artillery. So, you mean, it is not possible to distinguish between a BM and rocket artillery using satellite and/or radar?
Click to expand...
It is not possible to tell a rocket artillery with range 400 KM apart from a ballisitic missile when they are launched using radar and IR satellites. Because there is no difference! Both rocket artillery and SRBM follow ballistic trajectory! The only difference can be in guidance as rocket artillery is often unguided and payload capacity. But modern rocket artillery like WeiShii rockets can even be guided and payloads are hard to tell from a radar trace. Also it is possble to mount a tactical nuke warhead in a rocket artillery. It is even possible to launch a tactical nuke using an arty howizter.

Defc0n said:
d) In a conflict, I don't think decisions are taken like - we hit a BM with conventional w/h, it's upto the adversary to decide if they want to go nuclear or not. I don't think any responsible country would like to create an ambiguity that can be fatal for both and that too unnecessarily. The MAD scenario is bad for both, and that's not all, it's bad for generations to come.
Click to expand...
The threat also depends upon number of launches. The hair trigger scenario makes sense in case of de-capitation strikes. Like US had with soviets. With China-India, such a scenario is simply not present. Few BMs cann't be taken as a de-capitation strike.

Defc0n said:
Lastly, nirbhay can hit the targets easily. Also, yes, it is true that subsonic missile can be intercepted, it is also true that it can go below radar in a terrain hugging mode. Tomahawk has ample such instances. And no, not comparing Nirbhay with Tomahawk directly.
Click to expand...
Nirbhay missile is not operational nor it is in mass production. There has only been few recent successful tests but there has not been a user trial.
 
Last edited:
Bali78 said:
Sir, can India defend these hill top/ridge positions in case China decides to use CM and/or high precision ammunitions followed by ground assault ?I would assume India may not have built bunkers within a short span of time. What will be India's strategy in such scenario ?
Click to expand...
Yes we can as the pickets are on one side of the ridge and the soldiers rest area is on the other side of the slope. The reverse slope gives best protection from anykind of enemy ammo. Moreover if the enemy uses his arty, our arty will also open up. The human wave strategy of PLA was demolished by us in Nathu La in 1967 by use of massive arty fire. Unlike 1962, when we held lower ground and PLA had the higher ground which allowed our troops to be defeated by arty fire, the present situation is reverse of 1962.
The rudimentary defenses using stones and pits and sanghars can be built within two days. Within seven days you can build very effective layered defenses with trenches mutually supporting eachother and within about 15 days you can build fortified bunkers. We occupied most of these hill tops between 29th aug to 02 sep on the both banks and around 5-6th sep between F-2-F6 on the north Bank. You can now decide what must be the state of the Indian defenses now.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: HariPrasad, Chain Smoker, JustCurious and 8 others
HariPrasad said:
It all depends on target. Camp can be hit with BM but bunker like target requires Brahmos.
Click to expand...
Excalibre is all we need and we NOW have plenty of them. The world is supporting us. So called San Tzu or drug addict Sanju is no more relevent. A Brahmin called Chanakya has demolished him to smithereens. So called Art of War, stands nowhere against Arthashastra. You guys forgot to take notice when CDS stated that it is time to follow Arthashastra. He stated it in mid August. You can google it.
Sanju gaya Maa Chuda$nay. Ab chalegi sirf Chankaya kee. remember SFF!!! why and for what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HariPrasad, Chain Smoker, rockstarIN and 3 others
vstol Jockey said:
Soviets and US forces tried it and realised that it also causes problems for their own troops. While your statement is correct, the use of arty for nuke delivery has been discontinued. As of now no nation deploys nukes thru arty.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know that. I was just pointing out that it's possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Defc0n
randomradio said:
Yeah, I know that. I was just pointing out that it's possible.
Click to expand...

I was aware of this as well.
For reference, there was a test called "Atomic Annie" which tested a nuclear shell. However, the point is, I was speaking of feasibility, having a nuclear warhead on a rocket artillery will have two major problems

- The miniaturisation of the warhead, I am not sure if such miniaturisation is possible. Experts can say that.

- The range, which was pointed out by @vstol Jockey
 
randomradio said:
You can put a nuke even on a small artillery shell.
Click to expand...
Indeed!


Defc0n said:
For reference, there was a test called "Atomic Annie" which tested a nuclear shell. However, the point is, I was speaking of feasibility, having a nuclear warhead on a rocket artillery will have two major problems

- The miniaturisation of the warhead, I am not sure if such miniaturisation is possible. Experts can say that.
Click to expand...

Honestly, what does anyone think Nasr is? Its a tactical nuke mounted on a rocket arty. Nasr is what a guided rocket arty will look like, its range is also in the same order 70 KM.

Lightest nukes are during cold war were 23 KG in weight and fit in less that 300 mm rocket.

Pinaka for instance has a warhead weight capacity of 100 KG and a range of 80 KM.

Make Pinaka a bit wider, 300 mm rockets are not unheard of, Weishi 32 comes to mind. And mount W54 in nose cone. Boom you have a nuke arty rockets.
en.wikipedia.org

W54 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Hell, with just 23 KG warhead mass, Pinaka will fly 100 KM.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom