Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 23 Jul 2014 04:15

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 261 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
PostPosted: 14 Dec 2009 20:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10513
Location: Illini Nation
[quote
1) The seismic devices failed, so where does the seismic data come from?
2) KS repeatedly said DRDO was responsible for all instrumentation, not just seismic, Kakodokar talks only about seismic, who is lying?
3) Who are the other groups run by who get data from 5-6 different sources? Who are they run by, who do they report to?
[/quote]

2) Neither one is lying. It is the interpretation of data that is in question and how it was used. Note that KS originally asked for a blue-ribbon panel - one to look into the "method" used and then EBuzz came up with looking into the data itself. But, to answer this question (#2): BARC also relied on various instruments - including seismic ones. However, KS has questioned the usage of these instruments AND result of those instruments too (they being 30 years old, too far, etc). So, that is where that is.

My feel is that it is the anger within that is triggering these words. And, I can understand the feeling of KS, et al - frustration of being stone walled and not being taken seriously by others (in GoI). The escalation is word usage is to trigger a proper response. Which I do not think will ever come (which is why I suggested that they take an alternative path to all this).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Dec 2009 21:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10513
Location: Illini Nation
I do not know who is lying and who is not.

I am painfully aware that what is posted on the web can be very easily misinterpreted - we cannot see emotions that we experience in face to face talk - so take this any way one wants.

Here are some of my thoughts:

What I can say is based on what has transpired I would expect someone else - who was involved with these tests - to come forward. If there were some 3-5 BARC teams/groups that were involved with gathering data, and, assuming that each team/group had between 2 and six scicoms, we should have between six and 30 people out there that know what went on. And, some of those should have retired in the past ten years. So, I have wondered why "other/s" are not saying anything.

Media. I am fairly convinced that the media has a certain amount to a whole lot of bias. This IMHO has actually prolonged this problem. If we were to look at this problem objectively there is not much to it. And, neither side has added too much value every time they have said/written something. (And, I do not see any more values being added.)

Also, the media is not smart enough to ask the right questions and even worse in editing the original write ups. I feel that their bias prevents them from doing the proper job.

CTBT. This was one of the original concerns (Obama twisting Indian arms, etc, etc, etc). Since CTBT has not come up for some time, I am assuming that it is a dead or a non issue.

Deterrence. Another of the original concerns. It seems KS relates this to TNs and therefore unless the TN issue gets resolved this will not.

TN: This will never get resolved - unless China tests. (Even a US test will not be as relevant as a Chinese test.)

(Indian) Strategists: I am very surprised that this group has missed the boat. The best source I can find seems to be Tellis. (In fact BK's latest article on IAF seems rather pedestrian.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Dec 2009 21:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25
Posts: 2816
Sanku writes:

Quote:
Two things
1) Care to show what KS said before which now he himself contradicts
2) In any case the discrepancy is easily explained by different roles.


1) Asked and answered here many times, very clearly.
a) KS was quoted right after the tests as saying that the test yields were limited by need to avoid damage at neighboring villages.
b)Villages were damaged (proved by photos and news articles, many many many times). Sanku-proof, if I may say so, begging your pardon etc.
Therefore yield was greater than or equal to max permissible yield. There is no other (honest) way to interpret that. CERTAINTY. UNLESS, of course, KS was lying then, along with all the others. And Indian designers are idiots who design tests with a yield that destroys villages with people still inside, along with the military base itself.

2) So you are quite aware that there is a "discrepancy" between KS' statements in different roles (which were at different times). Which raises the issue of "how honest was question #1? Never mind, answer is obvious.

Also, the design yield of the nuclear tests did not change when KS '"roles" changed. How does one (honestly) describe a fellow whose statements change by 180 degrees when the sources of his income changes? "**ar" seems quite appropriate and unavoidable and well-earned. So if he was a **ar in 1998, then how can I believe that he is honest in 2009? If he was honest in 1998, then he seems to be **ar in 2009. Maybe he was "honest" in 1998 only because he was still working for India. Now he is working as Director of a Think Tank, his clients are different and have different agendas.

May I suggest that Dr. Santanam has failed to advance the "proof" that he declared he was going to provide, that the "three weeks" are long past, and the statements attributed to him have now been shown to be without basis. Maybe it's time for him and his supporters to start hoping that others will ignore him?

Maybe he should stand for public office, where honesty is assumed non-existent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Dec 2009 22:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10513
Location: Illini Nation
Quote:
a) KS was quoted right after the tests as saying that the test yields were limited by need to avoid damage at neighboring villages.
b)Villages were damaged (proved by photos and news articles, many many many times). Sanku-proof, if I may say so, begging your pardon etc.
Therefore yield was greater than or equal to max permissible yield. There is no other (honest) way to interpret that. CERTAINTY. UNLESS, of course, KS was lying then, along with all the others. And Indian designers are idiots who design tests with a yield that destroys villages with people still inside, along with the military base itself.


Hey, hey. Cheating.

What he said was BEFORE checking with instruments. What he said does not count. Instruments do.














JK. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Dec 2009 23:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3341
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Doubt from a skeptical mind.

Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: No, I think this is a totally erroneous conclusion. The yield of thermonuclear tests was verified, not by one method but several redundant methods based on different principles, done by different groups. These have been reviewed in detail and in fact I had described the tests in 1998 as perfect and I stand by that.
He had a perfect opportunity here to spell out, these multiple redundant methods and to which organization these groups belonged, but he did not. It would have gone a long way to clarify that the results were indeed verified by multiple methods and organizations, raising the credibility of the claimed test results.

Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: Well, let me first of all say that that DAE and DRDO we both work together as a team. DRDO did deploy some instruments for measurements but the fact is that the seismic instruments did not work. I myself had reviewed all the results immediately after the tests and we concluded that the instruments did not work.
All the seismic instruments, including the ones being used by the ARC did not work? Who is this we? AK at that time represented the BARC and the DRDO did not agree to the view of AK, that the instruments did not work. So, there is no question of “we” concluded that the instruments did not work. If the discarding of results based on DRDO instrumentation is not brushing it aside then what is? Did they have similar instrumentation at the site? Why rely on seismic instrumentation in Karnataka?

Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: Well that's not true because the instrument measure and the ground motion at the place where the instrument is located - we had to separate out the information which was coming out from the thermonuclear and which was coming from the fission test. So the point that I am making is that the seismic instruments did not work.

So there is no question of the yield of the fission test being right and the thermonuclear test being wrong because no conclusion can be drawn from those instruments either ways.
Discard and be done with it making any external validation and doubt of the test results moot? Is this how, BARC will get credibility?

Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: Well, it's unfortunate but it doesn't worry me because facts are facts and there is no question of getting worried about this. The point is that the measurements which have been done, they have been done--as I mentioned earlier--by different groups.

People who carry out the measurements on seismic instruments is a different group. People who carry out the measurements on radiochemical instruments are a different group. There are other methods that you can use, for example the simulation of ground motion. That's another group and all these groups have come to their own conclusions which match with each other.
The results from the agency/group responsible for seismic and ground motion sensors were discarded, so who were these other groups, and where was their instrumentation. While at it, why not discard the ARC results also?

Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: That's a layman’s way of looking at it. The fact of the matter is the fission device yield was 15 kilotonnes, not 25 kilotonnes.
AK is on national TV, a layman’s medium. Instead of explaining, Why KS is wrong, he is only sticking to his earlier claims. It was a perfect opportunity to discredit KS on any of his data points, such as the instrumentation being faulty, resulting in showing a higher yield than designed, the DOB of S2, crater size, etc. But, he chooses not to.

Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: Well, I think you must understand the phenomena of ground motion when a nuclear test takes place. Depending on the depth of burial and of course the medium in which it is buried, you could get several manifestations on the surface.

You could get a crater and there are different kinds of craters that one could see. You can just get a mound - the ground rises and remains there and on the other extreme it can vent out. So in case of the thermonuclear device, the placement was in hard rock—granite--and with the depth and the yield for 45 kilotonnes, one expects only a mound to rise, which is what happened.
Another perfect opportunity, to discredit any of the KS data points on the DOB of S1. Must be one amazing change of topology between the S1 and S2 shafts within 1.5 KM, at similar depths?

Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: Yes, yes, it has been seen in detailed simulations and by the way I must tell you that this simulation, which I am telling you about, is done on codes which have been actually verified in 3-D situations on the test data available from abroad and validated and these have been published in international journals.
“test data available” from public sources abroad (from the blotched US test, that is), validated in simulation and published in international journals, but unable to convince his own partners in the test?

Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: Well, first of all I respect everybody. I respect Dr Iyenger, I respect Dr Santhanam, but the fact is that Dr Iyenger was nowhere involved in the 1998 tests. He was of course a key figure in the 1974 tests. Also, the fact is that before the 1990 and 1998 tests, all work was done under cover - we were not in the open - and we required a lot of logistical support and all and that all was being provided by DRDO.

But things were still being done on a need to know basis. So to assume that Dr Santhanam knew everything is not true.
Who is exactly claiming that KS knew “everything”. He knew enough since he was director of the test program since 1996. If Dr. Iyengar enjoys his respect, why did RC et al, refuse to meet him and clarify the issue?


Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: He knew everything within his realm of responsibility.
Again, hiding behind, the iron fence around which “all things nuclear weapons” is the realm of one institution. The right thing to do, when you have a partner, who is not convinced and is not on the same page as you are is to convince that partner, through evidence and facts and reason, not brush aside their work.

Quote:
Karan Thapar: You are also saying that Dr Iyenger isn't fully in the picture and therefore his opinion is not necessarily valid.

Anil Kakodkar: He is not in the picture as far as the 1998 tests are concerned.

Karan Thapar: So he doesn't really know about the 1998 tests.

Anil Kakodkar: Well, he knows only as much as has been published and nothing more.

Karan Thapar: His comment therefore is not backed by knowledge and insight.

Anil Kakodkar: Well, that's for you to judge.
Some way to deal with a person, you respect!

Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: Immediately after the tests, we carried out a review with both teams present: BARC team as well as the DRDO team.

We looked at the measurements done by the BARC team and we looked at the measurements done by the DRDO team and I told you the conclusions and on the basis of that review, it was clear that what basis we could go by and what conclusions we could draw.

Now, the question is that if the instruments didn't work, where is the question of going by any assertions which are based on ... what is the basis of any assertions?
The BARC will conveniently judge, if the DRDO instruments worked or not and the nation is supposed to believe in BARC’s objective assessment because?

Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: No, they were not brushed aside.
Where is the question of not brushing it aside if the instruments themselves were being claimed as faulty. Instruments that were being prepared, since at least 1996, at the site. An explanation of the actions taken, based on the 1998 DRDO report would have gone a long way, to explain to the layman, the credibility of the process and hence the results.

Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: There is no hiding. There are limits to what can be revealed. These have been discussed in the Atomic Energy Commission in not one but four meetings after the 1998 tests. And there are people who are knowledgeable. Dr Ramanna was a member of the commission at that time. So where is the hiding?
Why hide behind Dr Ramanna, who cannot speak for himself. Are the other stalwarts of AEC/BARC not “respectable” enough? There are indeed limits to what can be revealed but folks, such as Chengappa and Ramachandran can seemingly get preferential access to BARC/AEC but not its ex heads.

Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: Well, let me first repeat what I said earlier. There are methods through which one has assessed the test results. Each one of them is a specialisation in itself and there are different groups, not just individuals but groups, which have looked at these. The fact is that this is also on a need-to-know basis. Now, if all of them come to conclusions which are by and large similar, what other things can you do in terms of forming a peer group of scientists?
All these groups, operate within the purview of the BARC? These groups operate independently and on a need to know basis, as claimed. So, who takes these results and compiles and cross matches them? Who provides instruction to these groups about their scope of activities?

Quote:
Karan Thapar: So there is no need for a peer group review yet again?

Anil Kakodkar: That's what I would say.
A person party to a dispute, says, there is no need for a review, is akin to an accused charged for something saying, there is no need for a trial.

Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: Well, I would say no because the important point to note is that the thermo nuclear test, the fission test and the sub-kilotonne test all worked as designed. They are diverse.

In terms of detailed design, their content is quite different. And so we think that the design which has been done is validated and within this configuration which has been tested one can build devices ranging from low kilotonne all the way to 200 kilotonnes. And that kind of fully assures the deterrence.
….
Anil Kakodkar: Well if you go by Dil Maange More, that's another story. But we are talking about a time where the knowledge base has expanded, the capability has expanded and you carry out a design and prove you are confident that on the basis of that design and that test, one can build a range of systems right up to 200 kilotonnes.
Why obfuscate?
“One can build a range of systems right upto 200 kilotonnes”? Can mean multiple things. Why not come out straight, India has built a deployable TN weapon in the range of X-X KT?

Must be the only weapons designing team in the world, not needing a test, just after a total of 6 tests, only one of them being a weapon and only one TN test, that too of not a weaponized design. BARC is to only be partially blamed for this, the serious lack of a strategic culture, shows through.


Quote:
Karan Thapar: I want to pick up on that last point that you have just made. Given that doubts continue and given that there are going to be no further tests and you are not saying that there is any need for further tests - can you say India has a credible thermonuclear bomb?

Anil Kakodkar: Of course.

Karan Thapar: We have a credible thermonuclear bomb?

Anil Kakodkar: Why are you using singular? Make that plural.
How does one define a credible TN bomb? It seems, BARC has a unique definition. First, this “bomb” has not been tested. It seems to be based on “simulations”. The one test of a full TN device, is disputed (at least by other agencies). The military is nervous on the “credibility” of this device – due to lack of tests and DRDO not being on the same page as the BARC. To make matters more interesting, the claim is we have not one but multiple “credible” TN bombs.

Quote:
Karan Thapar: The reason I ask is because Dr Santhanam writing in ‘The Hindu’ says that the thermonuclear device has not been weaponsied even 11 years after the tests.

Anil Kakodkar: How does he know? He is not involved.
Hiding behind the iron fence the BARC has created for itself? Some way to deal with ALL scientists and partners he “respects”, who doubt. He could have simply clarified by saying, if these respected individuals have any doubts, he will do X and X to convince them. No, nothing, shut them out, because, he has the power to do so. No one, except for the few in BARC/AEC and the PMO are supposed to “know”, is quite clear from the structure we have. However, when such a level of secrecy is in place, it becomes more critical to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt, to all concerned.

Quote:
Anil Kakodkar: Yes. I told you we have the possibility of a deterrence of low kilotonne to 200 kilotonnes.
Again obfuscation. Who the hell wants a low KT TN weapon for deterrence? A perfect opportunity to shut everyone’s mouth by saying, we have a deployable TN weapon of X-X yield. Did not even have to be precise, a weapons range would have been sufficient. It is statements such as these, that raise doubts, if the person recognizes the difference between a device in a lab and a weapon.

Anything is possible, in a lab is the expectation. No one doubts that in the labs of BARC, there are multiple TN weapons of varying yields, “credible” in the eyes of the BARC, through “credibility” tools, as defined and validated by themselves. On a larger point, this is where India’s polity has failed by not involving other stake holders in a crucial area of national security.

Quote:
Karan Thapar: So when people like former Army chief, General Malik say, that because of the doubts in the public arena, the Army wants assurance of the yield and the efficacy of India's thermonuclear bomb, what is your answer to them?

Anil Kakodkar: I think that is guaranteed. The Army should be fully confident and defend the country. There is no issue about the arsenal at their command.
The army has in addition to other weapons of varying yields, TN weapons of x-x range at their command, would have been a direct answer. The above, can go multiple ways, and hence not clear.

On Karan Thapar: His biases are well known and hence would have preferred the interview to be with a less biased individual. It would have helped the overall image.

Overall, An opportunity to refute any key data points of KS not taken advantage of leading credence to the statement Austin made, that AK/RC know, KS is not lying.

Hence, the saga continues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Dec 2009 23:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3341
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
NRao wrote:
CTBT. This was one of the original concerns (Obama twisting Indian arms, etc, etc, etc). Since CTBT has not come up for some time, I am assuming that it is a dead or a non issue.
Not at all. Just because it is not in the 72 hour news cycle, does not make it a dead issue. The issue remains as valid as ever.

Quote:
(Indian) Strategists: I am very surprised that this group has missed the boat. The best source I can find seems to be Tellis. (In fact BK's latest article on IAF seems rather pedestrian.)
Maybe, you want the MMRCA decision be based on a technical formula or based on "scientific processes"? Maybe, you do have a point, but BK is an analyst of the Indian defense security establishment. If you have read his works, then you will recognize the overall critiques and issues, he cites in the MMRCA related article. It is a article, full of strategic issues at hand, that India faces from an Indian perspective. Maybe that is pedestrian to you, but based on his works and having read Tellis, he simply does not compare or come close to BK's knowledge of the Indian scenario, either on the MMRCA issue or the nuclear one.

FYI: Tellis is an American citizen and serves American interests. BK is the opposite.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Dec 2009 23:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Posts: 3832
Location: Ohio, USA
Disclaimer: Following are my opinions only, subjective statements and sometimes just thoughts which may or may not have any basis. One can safely ignore the rest of the post as there is nothing more than personal opinions and my take.

*****
amit wrote:
I agree with the views expressed by LDev and ArunK about KS having crossed the line with this "liar" comment about RC. .

Amit - Yes, that and language like "Serious Scientific Data Falsification by Ramachandran-Chidambaram" KS has been embarrassing himself. As much respect as one can give to a respected scientist like KS, there is NO kind words to put it .
(For crying out loud, those graphs have been in known for 10+ years and now he suddenly discovers 'falsified data')

His 2 recent articles, where instead of giving scientific/logical arguments, he has resorted to arguments like "xyz publication is not prestigious/is not "international class" and the mere fact that someone published it there mush have ulterior motive.

What is more, that scientifically speaking *many* statements are quite odd, some borders on plane rubbish (sorry there is no other accurate way to describe those), in my opinion. I have given one example like stating max limit as 80KT for A-Bombs (with NO qualification, and ascribing it as "technical reason" without specifying what those "technical reasons" are) . There are other scientifically sloppy statements which look very odd coming out from a scientist. (I have asked the author(s) to clarify to see if I misunderstood but have gotten no reply yet)

One thing serious which KS has not clarified, and he should have, is the point raised by N^3 in a very articulate way.
As a Director of Site preparation he should have the data for all simulations of crater sizes etc. It is not just a question of seeing if the crater is 70 meter or not, one has to be absolutely sure that there would be no venting of radioactivity etc.
He never talked or educated the general public, on how deep the shaft should be, how one does that calculation, what calculations/simulations were done to plan for 50+KT device so that no venting could be guaranteed.

Open source, and rough calculations by me from what I know about the geology of Pokhran, 200 meter or more depth seem very reasonable (and 100 meter does not) for safety. (Roughly speaking to prevent venting, the safe depth varies as cube root of the yield etc) . But if I was involved in testing (as SK was involved, as director of site planning), I will damn make sure that those numbers and simulations are done as correctly as possible.

Yet, in NONE of KS's article (from what I have seen), he tried to reassure, that 'x' meters was calculated and seemed safe, and that's how much the depth was... and if 70 meter crater was expected by him, he never mentions that that is not a cause for concern as far as venting etc went. (In fact all he does, it seems, to say AK et all were wrong without giving any data about depth/geology/types of calculations performed and models used by KS)

********

Apart for above, his comments comparing "Radio-Chemical Method " vs "Mass Spectrometry method", to put it mildly, very odd... sounded like Feynman's Empror's nose problem (If you can not see the nose, simply comparing one measuring method vs other is not very useful)

********
Of course, these are my opinions only. I can easily be wrong on few things and would not mind being corrected.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2009 00:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10513
Location: Illini Nation
Just want clarification. Is MMS or AK or RC non-Indian citizens?

Or does BK have some special category of Indian citizenship?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2009 00:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10513
Location: Illini Nation
BK's article is still pedestrian. Pretty much anyone on BR could do a better job THAT one article for sure. So what if the author is a strategist in India. He better start writing something more pertinent to his stature then. (NOT a knock on BR writers.)

Any URLs on new papers/articles/books by "Indian" strategists? And, are we allowed to post articles by non-Indian citizens or non-Indian strategists out here?

Just clarifying.

No matter where you reside, first you have to make sense, then IF you have leanings (which a lot do) then we can adjust for that.

But if you have leanings and want such leanings to supersede what (non)sense you make, it cannot be accepted as sense.

Take that at "face value".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2009 01:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10513
Location: Illini Nation
Quote:
Doubt from a skeptical mind.

...........................................................

Hence, the saga continues.


IMHO, the GoI has stated what it has to state. They have also said they cannot (and perhaps will not) say any more - which is what any government would do - nothing surprising here.

Clarifications - for instance - cannot come because of - very, very elementary reason - exposing deterrence policies. A simple google will inform us that China, India and Pakistan are still very secretive about what they have, how they have what they have and where they propose to go. So, any explanations beyond what is already out there is silly to expect.

I would love to get more info, but it is best not to seek it or actually if got hold of not to publish it (BR for one does not tolerate such "leak"s).

Neither Santhanam nor AK - in the recent past - have said anything new. As Shiv posted, this particular interview is a collection of all the questions over time ............. that is all the value it has.

And, neither Santhanam nor AK can actually provide us with any more info.

So, it can continue for reasons other than any progress being made in this sad episode.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2009 06:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22441
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
ShauryaT wrote:
On Karan Thapar: His biases are well known.


I find this the single most credible argument that you have made that does not mimic the faulty, incomplete, unconvincing mirror image arguments offered by the fizzle team led by Santhanam and the sizzle team.

Everyone has a bias, including Karan Thapar. It is also a bias to say that RC/Kakodkar etc have a bias, Thapar has a bias but Santhanam has no bias. Santhanam too has a bias and clearly does not have the ability, insight or information to show that his bias is any more credible than anyone else's biases. He has done the proverbial cervical self-suspension trick with the long rope he was given in a manner that closely resembles the less than credible obfuscatory methods of the very former colleagues whom he seeks to discredit. Truly the DRDO and AEC are a team in heart, soul and bias.

The saga will continue because everyone with a bias is free to make a statement and push it as the unbiased truth. Especially if he has a voice and standing that allows him to be heard via some media, be it the press or the internet. That is after all what happened on this forum too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2009 08:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3341
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Shiv: I do not know, what do ALL the ex scientists, who doubt, have to do to win your vote but for me, all the BARC has to do resolve this issue is to take this behind closed doors, and perform a through review with external agency participation, chiefly the DRDO and Military. Another alternative is for the BARC view to be clearly articulated by DRDO and the Military. When all parts of the GoI sing in one tune on this most crucial matter, will this issue be settled, not until then.

I started with my post, with a clear statement that I am viewing this from a skeptical mind, making it clear on what my bias is. This bias has not come along suddenly but is a result of four years of reading on a matter, I knew or still know little about. However, I do believe that things when communicated clearly and simply can cut through an argument and lay all arguments to rest. When this is not done, your biases kick in to question the motivations for the obfuscations.

I personally do not believe that there is such a thing as an unbiased view and do not claim any, but these biases do not replace an objective assessment. It is far better to know your biases, so that you can guard against them, when reading/hearing a view point, so that objectivity is not lost. This is what separates the good reporters from the crass ones, for they know what their own biases are and do their best, to not let that intervene in the interview/investigation of their subjects. Karan Thappar is two different people, when he interviews on subjects he is aligned with or opposed to and if you have watched him enough, the difference in his demeanor and line of questioning will be conciliatory or hostile accordingly.

In this saga, I have been looking for a clear guidance on the matter from the agencies and individuals concerned, that lays all doubts to rest, but sadly, I have not found it. In this case, the accused has to clear any credible doubts on the test, when the defendant, is not able to or refuses to do that, then the charges seem credible. I disagree, with the equal-equal theory that all are ha**amis.

There may not be an end to this saga, but there is a truth hidden there somewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2009 08:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22441
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
ShauryaT wrote:
for me, all the BARC has to do resolve this issue is to take this behind closed doors, and perform a through review with external agency participation, chiefly the DRDO and Military. Another alternative is for the BARC view to be clearly articulated by DRDO and the Military. When all parts of the GoI sing in one tune on this most crucial matter, will this issue be settled, not until then.


With respect Shaurya what you are asking for is the same degree of reassurance and confidence that is displayed by the Pakistani nuclear establishment in a world in which India and Pakistan have conducted a similar single digit number of nuclear tests. What you are asking for is possible, but not necessarily desirable.

My goal is different from yours. My goal is merely to point out instances where more rubbish is being promoted as a replacement for information that is accused of being rubbish in the first place. This after all is the real saga.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2009 15:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12504
Location: In a sad place
Its just pathetically funny to see folks use double standards and do exactly the same that they accuse others of doing but at the same time claiming high moral ground.

If there was at least an attempt at neutrality, the moral outrage against the "liar" word would be remotely interesting, as it happens, it smacks of pure "holier than thou"

As it happens there is no scientific proof remote proof that the TN worked in Pok II -- other than

1) KS has no clue
2) We are the establishment
3) He is bad because he questioned us.

I feel happy for people who can keep the faith in light of tons and tons of unanswered questions.


Last edited by Sanku on 15 Dec 2009 15:25, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2009 15:24 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12504
Location: In a sad place
amit wrote:
shiv wrote:
Sanku >> Kakodkar (along with others) has also been calling KS a lier BTW,

Only in your imagination. I have all the articles archived and have read them word for word. Nobody has called Santhanam a liar yet. That is what surprises me.


Just to put it on record, AK has never used any adjective - even the famous Maverick - against KS. To say that AK "has been calling KS a lier" is IMO a gross misrepresentation. Sadly that's been par for the course in this sorid saga.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Yeah, I should have been politically correct, let me restate, "There is something in the statement that the possibility exists that Kakodakar is referring to the fact that KS may be a liar when he says that KS was not involved in the tests when KS says he was and of course simulations can show that the Maverick used by part 1 of the establishment has absolutely no bearing by the claims by part 2 of the establishment that KS may be talking about what he does not know"

Unfortunately in science and engineering, either something works or does not.

The device carried atop a Agni is not expected to be a sophist discussion dossier of 1001 pages on whether the enemy should expect to lie down and pretend to die when it reaches them or should not do that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2009 15:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12504
Location: In a sad place
enqyoob wrote:
Sanku writes:

Quote:
Two things
1) Care to show what KS said before which now he himself contradicts
2) In any case the discrepancy is easily explained by different roles.


1) Asked and answered here many times, very clearly.
a) KS was quoted right after the tests as saying that the test yields were limited by need to avoid damage at neighboring villages.
b)Villages were damaged (proved by photos and news articles, many many many times). Sanku-proof, if I may say so, begging your pardon etc.


Uh I will say this once more , (b) is your statement without proof and not what KS has said.

I will ask once more, show discrepancy in KS statements themselves. Do not bring in irrelevancies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2009 16:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22441
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Sanku wrote:
If there was at least an attempt at neutrality, the moral outrage against the "liar" word would be remotely interesting, as it happens, it smacks of pure "holier than thou"
<SNIP>
I feel happy for people who can keep the faith in light of tons and tons of unanswered questions.


It was neutrality by the righteous few that was the source of trouble. That has now been replaced by double standards by all and for all. And your consequent happiness is a source of great comfort to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2009 16:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12504
Location: In a sad place
shiv wrote:
Sanku wrote:
If there was at least an attempt at neutrality, the moral outrage against the "liar" word would be remotely interesting, as it happens, it smacks of pure "holier than thou"
<SNIP>
I feel happy for people who can keep the faith in light of tons and tons of unanswered questions.


It was neutrality by the righteous few that was the source of trouble. That has now been replaced by double standards by all and for all. And your consequent happiness is a source of great comfort to me.


Well as long as you accept that there is no issue on that point between us and we are on the same page

However the problem remains -- PoK II thermonuclear results have about the same sanctity as the Liberhan commission report.


Last edited by Sanku on 15 Dec 2009 16:42, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2009 16:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31
Posts: 6348
Sanku wrote:
However the problem remains -- PoK II thermonuclear results have about the same sanctity as the Liberhan commission report.


:rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2009 18:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2687
negi wrote:
Kanson ji this is hilarious but fwiw

Hilarious ? yup, when the same NPA where found bitching and moaning with the outcome of Jason committee report, yes, it is really hilarious.
Quote:
W-71 (I guess the largest in terms of yield what Unkil has tested )

W-87 I guess as per usual sources 10 tests including a full yield in 1976.

B-83 : Kasseri - 28 October 1975 (14:30 UCT) at 1200 Kt (B77/B83 full yield)

W-76 : 100kT tested at full yield eight times

W47 (Polaris SLBM warhead 600kT)- tested at full yield.

Shall i have to ask is emperor naked type question ? Where it is mentioned that W87 was tested to full yield ? And W76 tested to full yield eight times, sir, shall i ask for the source ?

Quote:
There are others too , yes W-88 has not been tested at full yield but then that is not the only TN warhead available as far as US security forces are concerned so again not equal equal , moreover the noise generated by the RRW lobby over the validation of new designs in fact re affirms my point about significance of having warheads which have been field tested.

It is not only with W88 which was not proof tested to full yield let alone for the full confidence test, the case about W78 look similar to ours. From NWarchive.org
Quote:
The W-78 is based on earlier secondary stage designs, probably including the W-50 Pershing warhead. The primary of the W-78 has been test fired, but the warhead has never been successfully tested at full yield. The W-78 prototype was first fired shortly before the May 1976 Threshold Test Ban Treaty went into effect, possibly in Keelson (4 February 1976) at 200 Kt, which was apparently a disappointing yield. Redesign followed, and LANL challenged LASL's estimate of the design's yield capability. Following a special review by a panel headed by former LLNL director John Foster which supported LASL's claims, production engineering was resumed.
Doesnt it look similar to our case, where one group try to find fault with other?

And the case of about W76 is well known. I dont have to add anything. All the best thing they can do now is rely on simulation.

Same goes for B61 with latest entry as bunker buster with > 300kt yield. Though B61 was thoroughly tested and proven design, in consistent with paranoria of US community, the new design is not tested to my knowledge to full yield and has to rely on simulation and lab tests.

For all warheads that go through LEP face the same problem.
From ACW.com:
JASON adds a second, more subtle message at the end of the summary. After noting that certification of certain reuse or replacement options remains uncertain, JASON concludes with “a concern.”
Quote:
All options for extending the life of the nuclear weapons stockpile rely on the continuing maintenance and renewal of expertise … The study team is concerned that this expertise is threatened by lack of program stability, perceived lack of mission importance, and degradation of the work environment.”

As I read that, this is a very polite way of saying the push for new warheads like RNEP and RRW, far from being a panacea, has endangered the stockpile by politicizing what ought to be a technical question, creating program instability and low morale
------------------------------------------
Quote:
And yes coming back to semantics W88 is a warhead and not a TN device I don't think POk-II S-I device was a TN warhead and hence an improper analogy even from an argument's pov.


Regarding semantics, warhead can be described as one which is weaponised to final configuration. If you can show that W88 was indeed tested in final configuration of full yield after its design phase, i will accept your argument. Till then pls allow me to have my laugh. :rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2009 18:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2687
ShauryaT wrote:
but for me, all the BARC has to do resolve this issue is to take this behind closed doors, and perform a through review with external agency participation, chiefly the DRDO and Military. Another alternative is for the BARC view to be clearly articulated by DRDO and the Military. When all parts of the GoI sing in one tune on this most crucial matter, will this issue be settled, not until then
Sir, I guess, you are repeating the same statement again to which i earlier brought your attention to the speech of Adm. Suresh Mehta, as senior figure in Armed forces, he gave his assent to BARC program and their weapon when this Santhanm controversy broke out.

Unless if there is a strong reason to take this stand, i see no reason to express this doubt repeatedly. May be you could also express why you feel Suresh Mehta's statement as non-credible. Even retired Adm. Arun Prakash was dismissive of Santanam's statement on deterrence. I think no more proof is needed to say military is on same page with weapon developement agencies.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 261 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group