It’s been more than a decade since the Buddha smiled again.
A debate has exploded in the Indian media about the circumstances of India’s hydrogen bomb test, with a group of scientists questioning the yield of the test.
The government claimed a yield of 45 kilotons; while the sceptics say the yield was much less at 25 kilotons.
K. Santhanam who claims the thermonuclear bomb was a ‘fizzle’ called for more nuclear tests to develop hydrogen bombs.
The argument in a nutshell is that if India doesn’t have a bomb big enough with which it can threaten an adversary, then the adversary may be emboldened to carry out a nuclear strike.
However, many experts demur given the changed international environment.
The controversy came right before President Obama made a call for all UN states to ratify the NPT.
The nuclear bomb at Hiroshima had a smaller estimated yield of 14 kilotons and killed 80,000 people instantly.
The logic of having nuclear weapons when other friendly and not-so- friendly countries have it is derived from deterrence theory.
However, strategic analysts differ widely on the size of the deterrent.
To put it plainly a nuclear bomb is as effective as the number of people it can kill.
But a consensus on how many deaths are enough seems to be elusive.
Do we need the big bomb at this stage?
Or do we need more of smaller ones as argued by Manoj Joshi?
Is it possible to agree at the number of deaths that would be unacceptable to the other side and then work back to how many bombs or how big a bomb we need?
Trackback
28 comments so far
Previous | 2 | 1 | Next
Of course India needs a bigger bomb and a change to the no first use policy.
Whats the use of making an A bomb and then sitting silently while enemy forces nuke the hell out of you first probably crippling your ability to retaliate with anything let alone nukes.
If one country is allowed to have a nuclear program every other country should have a right to do so as well.
Its quite amusing to see the only country to use an A bomb to go around trying to disarm to or make nuclear deals with other countries.
- Posted by JohnIndia does not need bigger or smaller bombs. It needs a different nuclear policy. The no first use policy is just asking for it. It opens up India to Pakistan based terrorism, implicitly backed by Pakistan’s nuclear prowess, and it opens up India to serious threats from China which has no such policy. The policy paints India into a corner.
Those Gandhian principles are great. But they aren’t practical for the real world. India needs a new nuclear doctrine designed to counter the actual threats it faces today. That’ll pay off far more than any improved bomb or delivery technology.
- Posted by Keitheven if we have a big bomb, will be we safe? How safe will be we with smaller bombs?
- Posted by rTo have nuclear weapon is to invite others to nuke you first. Its a silly game because even the winner lose.
- Posted by whyI would suggest at least a 3-5 MT bomb in 5 years, however.
- Posted by venkyQ.1: Name the ONLY civilized country on earth who dropped the nuclear bomb on other civilized country, killing lakhs of innocent people ? [Marks: 20]
- Posted by rajasomething big enough to wipe out half the population should be big enough… might need a couple though.
- Posted by bobA-bombs are dirtcheap. Its much more expensive to by jets
- Posted by azad