Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 587
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Raja Ram »

shiv,

That is why I had asked earlier if India did indeed possess the ability to test and/or simulate without contravening the provisions of CTBT and its monitoring mechanism. I had gone through your thought process already maybe :D .

Additionally on reading the CTBT there is also a provision that calls for setting up of monitoring facilities should the CTBTO call for it and also an undertaking that access will be provided if such a demand is in accordance with the purpose of the treaty.

You have to think through the implications of these as well. The current monitoring network has a significant "island" as pointed out by shiv. Their website has a picture of it. What happens to the island should India sign is a question to ponder over.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote: By the way, what happens to the neutron brahmastra?
Brihaspati = I believe that this whole business of neuron bums was conjured up in the context of a massive Soviet attack on Western Europe. the question that was asked was that if they were hit American nukes - that would still make Europe, (and not the US) unlivable due to fallout. Hence the "solution" of neutron bombs that would kill Soviets by radiation but leave very little fallout, leaving Europe livable for the locals.

In my view neutron bombs are useless for retaliation under NFU. The retaliation must destroy buildings and kill people and leave the area unlivable in an adversary nation that has attacked us with nukes. Retaliation means causing maximum misery for decades, if not centuries.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by brihaspati »

No I was thinking of using the land for good purposes especially if conditions for a first use can be promoted.
added later: seriously, not meant as a joke. PRC is runoured to have one. Good lands both to the east and west of India. Why not use them?
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ShauryaT »

shiv wrote:
Very rarely, if at all, can the answer to that question be in the affirmative. In such circumstances deterrence will prevail.
This means that if any country decides that she is willing to lose an unspecified large number of cities along with an enormous number of civilian casualties, deterrence will not work.
KS is making an assumption based on the Hindu rational mind, that people will sue for peace and India will accept such a peace, before taking that option.

MAD between the SU and USA assumed large scale massive destruction on both sides. Between China and the US, First, I am not sure how strong the chinese deterrent really is against the USA. Until, its recent advent of solid fueled missiles, the previous one, were liquid fueled, low in number and could be taken out by US forces, by some assessments. So I am not sure, if we can call that as deterrence in the classic sense. However China did field other types of weapons, aimed primarily at India and presumably as a deterrent against the SU, after the US entente. The same weapons could be used against the US in a close to home Taiwan like situation.

We need a policy that works for India, with our most likely opponents. Other scenarios can only be a guide. Assumptions need to be validated. TSP, who serves as a proxy for PRC - especially in the nuclear arena has the express posture of an India only targeted set of weapons. Is NFU the best policy in that context? Are we not saying to TSP, go give it a try first and BTW we will accept all other nonsense from you, until you try and hope that when TSP does try, they will not try to take out all our assets and C&C centers along with politicians. Also, BTW: Hope PRC and USA do not intervene on TSP's behalf.

Against PRC, is a unilateral NFU the best policy? Are we not mature enough to keep the use of nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantor of our sovereignty and way of life - and leave it to executive decision alone?

What NFU tells our opponents is Arunachal and Kashmir are dispensable - under certain scenarios.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

Raja Ram wrote: That is why I had asked earlier if India did indeed possess the ability to test and/or simulate without contravening the provisions of CTBT and its monitoring mechanism.
The irony here is that when every individual human is faced with taking one of two roads with little to choose between them, he must choose one based on his faith that it is the right one.

If one set of Indians says that such ability (to test and/or simulate without contravening the provisions of CTBT) exists, we might take their word on faith.

Of course, we need not take their word on faith. We can doubt them and that too is a voluntary choice that we can choose to make.

But if we choose to doubt them and state the reason for doubting them as "They are traitors" or "They are liars" - then you can increase the burden of doubt and decrease the possibility of faith.

But unless one is telling the truth and has evidence that the people one is accusing are really liars - the possibility exists that the lies may be emanating from the person making the accusation rather than the accused. The words "satyameva jayate" roll off the tongue more easily than the ability to implement it.
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3986
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by vera_k »

shiv wrote:The CTBT appears non discriminatory, but it is clearly discriminatory in favor of those nations who have already acquired the data and skills for sub-threshold testing (un detectable by the CTBT defined monitoring system).

If India feels she belongs in the latter group - she can join.
Exactly right. The thought had occured to me that perhaps Santhanam went public because there hasn't been any progress on this front. There's certainly not been much in the press regarding laser ignition facilities or sub-critical testing. In fact the last statement from 1998 is that sub-critical testing was not being contemplated.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by brihaspati »

No, only the TSP government and TSPA is dispensable. Everything else belongs to us.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by brihaspati »

shivji,
to maintain faith in a gov's abaility to bring out spectacular tools while pretending previously that it didnt have them, that gov has to show from time to time some concrete proof and achievements using similar prior tools. GOI has not really showed it. So we cannot trust claims of capability. It could be a Saddamic bluster of WMD cpability aimed at Psy-ops.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote:
to maintain faith in a gov's abaility to bring out spectacular tools while pretending previously that it didnt have them, that gov has to show from time to time some concrete proof and achievements using similar prior tools. GOI has not really showed it. So we cannot trust claims of capability. It could be a Saddamic bluster of WMD cpability aimed at Psy-ops.
The dilemma of course is to maintain that bluff without revealing it. Revealing it lays one open to attack with the attacker confident that he will not lose. Deterrence is always a game of "who blinks first"

Let me use the example of Pakistan (whose bluff you have called). India is not taking the risk of calling Pakistan's bluff.

In Pakistan there is no debate about their arsenal - only confidence. That confidence does not allow even the slightest "chink" of doubt - (pun unintended).
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by brihaspati »

I would not be so confident of their confidence! :) They could be wearing nappies for that matter while posing confidence. Too much shouting of confidence as TSP typically emits, without acknowledging any of current difficulties - is fishy sign for me. If India really attacked fully prepared, TSP will crumble.

As for "revealing" dilemma, what I meant was something like the US - showing from time to time capabilities in real confrontations with weapons deemed secret or denied upto that point. GOI has rarely done that.
Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 587
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Raja Ram »

I feel shiv is right. It is a matter of trust and India is not going to release any information that can provide clues to the NPA crowd. India has claimed that it has exploded sub-kiloton devices in POKII and it has the capability to design and simulate. Trust it or disbelieve it is individual choice and predilection based.

But more important than all this is the need for nuclear weapons. If our position is that nuclear weapons are not needed and in the long run we must aim for disarmament, then what we have is enough. We are not interested in using them or whether others believe if we have enough capability and strength to pull off a NFU.

My question is if this is India's position why stop with just CTBT alone, why can't we sign NPT also? NPT is discriminatory it is said. So what India is perfectly willing to accept discrimination by accepting CTBT too isn't it? In any case, we believe that nuclear weapons power status is not necessary for India. So we must stop this vacillation and continued mistaken policies of the past and accede to all treaties. Such a move will provide great impetus to our grand plans. Our leaders know best.
Last edited by Raja Ram on 09 Sep 2009 08:24, edited 1 time in total.
Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 587
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Raja Ram »

shiv wrote: "Detterence is always a game of "who blinks first." "

Shiv ji,

Even in this India is unique as per KS who was a co-creator of the DND. We are not even interested if the adversaries are deterred are blinking. In our minds we have deterred and that is all that matters. :roll:
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

Raja Ram wrote:
My question is if this is India's position why stop with just CTBT alone, why can't we sign NPT also? NPT is discriminatory it is said. So what India is perfectly willing to accept discrimination by accepting CTBT too isn't it? In any case, we believe that nuclear weapons power status is not necessary for India. So we must stop this vacillation and continued mistaken policies of the past and accede to all treaties. Such a move will great impetus to our grand plans. Our leaders know best.
:rotfl:

I am tempted to use the words dharma and adharma

NPT discriminates against India and is therefore adharmic

CTBT discriminates less against India and more against others and could therefore be dharmic.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

Nuclear deterrence is based on a game called "chicken"

Imagine two drivers heading towards each other on the same lane of a road at 100 kmph. To swerve is to "lose", and to "stay" is to win

The consequences of not swerving are very costly to both, so either both will swerve or one (the "chicken) will swerve first. If both don't swerve both are destroyed. The "points" for this game can be seen in this picture

Image

A policy of NFU changes the game from "chicken" to a much simpler and easily predictable game of tit for tat.
Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 587
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Raja Ram »

very nice "chicken" game shiv, but we are vegetarian yogi beggar onlee as per KS, therefore we are not interested in playing this chicken game. Also, being a yogi and enlightened onlee, we do not want to play tit for tat also no?

So it is not really NFU but NU - meaning Non Use doctrine. We are not bothered to drive on the same road, we have a car and we will drive in different road altogether. Oh our car is very powerful onlee. So cross our road if you dare.

Of course irritated rakshaks may feel that in that case our Draft Nuclear Doctrine (DND) is really NU - meaning No Use. But such irritation is not shared by the vast majority of progressive India and their leaders.

Gee - Enlightened Moderation, Honour and Dignity everything is so familiar now. ?'
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

I allowed my mind to mull over the CTBT question for the last day and concentrated on thinking about all the supposed benefits of the CTBT.

In fact the only feeble "benefit" of the CTBT is that it is an international agreement that is supposed to make a better world. Even that thought is meant only for suckers. Everything points towards the idea that the CTBT is only a tool to create imbalances where suckers go to sleep while the cheaters cheat.

One of the thoughts that went through my mind was the question of Pakistan. In theory, if you assume that India has acquired some rudimentary sub threshold testing capability and imagine that Pakistan has not done that - then you can fool yourself into imagining that forcing Pakistan to sign the CTBT will arrest progress of its weaponization. This thought is nonsense because Pakistan is getting designs from the biggest proliferators in the world the US and China and Pakis signing CTBT will be worth less than camel piss.

So whether India tests or it does not test, or whether India desires world leadership or it does not desire world leadership - getting suckered into an agreement like the CTBT would be a 60, 000 kiloton Tsar Bomba mistake as compared to the "5 to 60" kiloton fizzle of Sharm el Sheik.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ramana »

shiv wrote:I allowed my mind to mull over the CTBT question for the last day and concentrated on thinking about all the supposed benefits of the CTBT.

In fact the only feeble "benefit" of the CTBT is that it is an international agreement that is supposed to make a better world. Even that thought is meant only for suckers. Everything points towards the idea that the CTBT is only a tool to create imbalances where suckers go to sleep while the cheaters cheat.

One of the thoughts that went through my mind was the question of Pakistan. In theory, if you assume that India has acquired some rudimentary sub threshold testing capability and imagine that Pakistan has not done that - then you can fool yourself into imagining that forcing Pakistan to sign the CTBT will arrest progress of its weaponization. This thought is nonsense because Pakistan is getting designs from the biggest proliferators in the world the US and China and Pakis signing CTBT will be worth less than camel piss.

So whether India tests or it does not test, or whether India desires world leadership or it does not desire world leadership - getting suckered into an agreement like the CTBT would be a 60, 000 kiloton Tsar Bomba mistake as compared to the "5 to 60" kiloton fizzle of Sharm el Sheik
Tatastu! We agree!
CTBT wont freeze the P_5 as they have other means to verify.

It wont freeze the rogues for bigger rogues proliferate.

So all the advice by experts to sign CTBT is not logical.

And CTBT legitimizes the inequity of the NPT towards the P-5 as such India should never sign this unequal treaty.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by samuel »

1. We don't appear to have low yield tactical nukes that work well.
2. Perfecting them will need lots of tests.
3. It is impossible to do this in simulation alone. Anyone who has written numerical codes to integrate such simple things as solitons will tell you, simulation is one grand jacking off.
4. If you want simulations to be predictive, you need to solve inference problems from data and models, for calibration, parameterization, state estimation etc.
5. The more the data the merrier. Imagine solving a hydrodynamical equation through complex media with all sorts of shocks in system of equations. Now You are asked to estimate, for your finite element model, what the "effective diffusivity" must be at every grid node. If you think you know the answer or believe someone if they tell you they do, then what can I say. This requires lots of data samples across "cavity." then based on some smoothness you have the parameter field, which is yet approximate.
6. If laboratory or small-scale experiments can be substituted for real or full-scale ones good, otherwise gotta do the latter.

7. Thus we must reserve the right till we can conduct appropriate laboratory experiments or small enough scale ones. Simulation wont do, but coupled physical-numerical systems are ok.

8. On this basis CTBT makes no sense to me.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

Abdul Xerox Khan was detained by Musharraf at the behest of the US.

Maybe I am reading too much into it - but I am sure Xerox Khan's release was also given the go ahead by unkil. It is interesting that Xerox is now wagging his tongue and talking about proliferation to Iran. Now Iran has signed the CTBT - but adhering to CTBT means nothing because American designs that have gone to China and the to Pakistan can reach Iran.

One question that comes to mind is how much opposition Ombaba will face re CTBT and whether there is a concerted effort to derail that.
Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7113
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Muppalla »

We should test but this time we should test it differently. Take one of the islands from A&N, Lakdweep or Maldeevs and makes sure that island doesn't exist after the test. Let all the folks collect the data.
Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 587
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Raja Ram »

shiv/ramana,

Allow me to be a devil's advocate for a while. While shiv has concluded that CTBT is not having any benefits but is just another mechanism to for the P5 to perpetuate their dominance as high castes in line with NPT - how can we ignore the other real benefits that are likely to accrue to India if we sign:

1. Just like the IUCNA, India can claim that we have now been accepted as a responsible nuclear power and have been recognised as de facto nuclear power and can claim special status.

2. India by signing the CTBT will be seen as great statesman state and a leader in bringing about nuclear disarmament. In recognition we may even get the UN security council seat as a permanent member (there too without veto rights)

3. No need to do any further testing at all. We can claim we have deterred everyone already. The very fact that the rest of the world has contrived and created a new precedence of a unique "entry into force" arrangement for this treaty in order to ensure that India complies, is a back handed recognition of India's great nuclear weapons prowess. India as a responsible player and respecter of treaties, can illafford to test and jeopardize the chances of millions of poor people in South Asia for a better life. Also not testing anymore will help goodwill and understanding with China. Signing will demonstrate to them that we are not a threat to them and we don't want to compete with them.

4. Because of signing, we will get access to the latest greatest technologies and there will be a huge inflow of capital and investment that will guarantee an average 9% GDP for the next decade. This means unhindered progress.

5. Signing this treaty is not connected in any way to the strategic objectives of India. India believes in getting the world rid of nuclear weapons and that this will happen. India believes that in the new world order India will be a knowledge and economic super power and this are the only things that matter. India does not want to be a nuclear power and has only reluctantly become one. It is ready to give up this status in the larger cause of total nuclear disarmament. So signing this is no big deal.

6 Finally, what is the fuss all about? If we do need to test, we can always pull out of the treaty invoking supreme national interest clause or just withdrawing from the treaty.

All very logical explanations onlee. Any idea why this cannot be sold?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ramana »

IUCNA gets you NSG waiver that you need for power reactor fuel. What will CTBT give you except shackle your future capability?
Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 587
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Raja Ram »

ramana wrote:IUCNA gets you NSG waiver that you need for power reactor fuel. What will CTBT give you except shackle your future capability?
Yes IUCNA achieved amongst other things NSG waiver. Although the final deal was different from the one that was agreed to initially. On cost benefit analysis, it was still a deal that we can live with.

But ramana, the point I had made then was this deal negotiation represented a departure from two basic principles that have always been sacrosanct. I had written this many times in the past.

1. Sovereign decisions of India will be made India alone and no one can have a say on it.
2. Sovereign options of India will be maintained at all times and will not be subject to negotiations - whatever, may be the economic or political cost or benefit that may accrue by doing so.

The latter took a dilution when that deal was being negotiated. It was because India wanted to seize an opportunity. I still am ok with that deal as long we follow up with actions and legislative mechanisms to protect from some of the intrusive provisions of the enabling act on their side i.e. Hyde Act. Hopefully specific actions will materialize and on the legislative mechanisms, one has limited hope on this. Maybe at a future date, a future GOI may redress this at an opportune time.

What is important is that this established that sovereign options that India has can be viewed as something negotiable. That is a departure from past consensus. One can argue there is nothing wrong it. It is a type of argument.

So if we are willing to negotiate on sovereign options for some tangible gains, will not India seek some tangible gains like the one that you mentioned we got from IUCNA. What could those gains be? I have given a list. Is this tangible enough? Are these gains enough? Enough to barter away our sovereign options by signing up to something like CTBT? You and me may not agree, but there could be a significant section of our leadership and our population that may settle for this kind of deal making. There is little that can be done to stop them, should they wish to do so.

The other point you mention is also interesting, Do we want to shackle our future capability? But it presumes an assumption that we want this capability. Do we really want to retain this capability? Does it come in our calculus of strategic objectives?

Again I can only answer for myself and say that it would be suicidal and really wrong not to have this capability. I feel that this and a strong conventional capability and economic growth must go hand in hand and not one preceding the other. That the vision of India should not be limited to only a couple of dimensions. That any vision should be based on a realistic assessment of the world and not an aspirational ideology that others have scant regard or value for. No matter how right such an ideology may be. Without a more balanced vision, we risk the very thing that we so badly want economic growth.

Like you, I too would like to be dead against signing such a lemon treaty like CTBT. I think it is suicidal to do so. Matters for little though.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Sanku »

Raja Ram is absolutely on dot, this is going to be the exact reasoning rolled out when India signs CTBT and we are all not going to be able to do anything about it.

Nehru also believed that a police force was enough for India since we didn't want war, and we all know who crucial Nehruvian thinking is to some elements of political spectrum.
Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 587
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Raja Ram »

Sanku,

I would at the same time point out to you an earlier post in this thread. There is no evidence of official Indian statement or indications by anyone and that includes the PM that we are ready to sign CTBT. In fact the last official statements on the topic relate to clearly enunciating as to why India will not sign up to this treaty and these were made by members of the present administration.

So we cannot assume that India will sign the CTBT. Not until we see any evidence from the statements and actions of GOI.

Nehru is not exactly Mr. Popular in many amongst the young generation, but even I who is actually from the post Nehru era can relate to the context in which he operated. Our much vaunted nuclear capability owes a lot to this great Indian. We may argue about his legacy but not on his commitment to see India amongst the leading nations of the world. Not even his most ardent and trenchant critics in his time has questioned that. His contributions are immense like many other great Indians of those times.

In any case it is not germane to this thread to discuss these things further so I shall stop.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Sanku »

Raja Ram wrote:I would at the same time point out to you an earlier post in this thread. There is no evidence of official Indian statement or indications by anyone and that includes the PM that we are ready to sign CTBT. In fact the last official statements on the topic relate to clearly enunciating as to why India will not sign up to this treaty and these were made by members of the present administration.
Raja Ram, I hope you are right, but I have a slightly different point -- given the wide variance in the words that are given by GoI on various issues and its later actions, especially over the last few years, using GoIs words as an indicator is to me an exercise which will only misdirect.

We should look at GoIs actions -- its words are worthless.

In any case my point was not that GoI will sign the CTBT tomorrow, nor I did remotely mean that you allude to that happening, I was only saying that your description of the rationale that GoI will give is on dot, since we have seen such very similar actions recently and as also the various statements on the GoIs world view also tie in very neatly to that of Nehru's world view in another era.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Arun_S »

brihaspati wrote:By the way, what happens to the neutron brahmastra?
That has to await mastery of fusion fuel burning first.
So no TN weapon, also mean no neutron brahmastra.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Sanku »

X post

Although Austin had posted this piece before and highligheted the portion where the Adm asks for hot tests of warheads for the SLBM, this piece has a few more insights which are directly related to the discussion ongoing on this thread and hence would like the liberty to re post some pieces

http://www.forceindia.net/guestcolumn1next.aspx
But the trouble with excessive secrecy is that while it may or may not deceive the enemy, it can certainly obfuscate the truth and lead you to the wrong conclusions; often with deleterious consequences. Now that the submarine is out of the closet, we need to discuss some aspects of this project which has a vital bearing on national security.
India must be unique amongst nations that undertake major expenditure on defence R&D in that both timelines and cost ceilings are infinitely flexible and neither accountability nor responsibility for delays, or even failure, are ever affixed. Subjective in-house ‘peer reviews’ can never be a substitute for hardnosed audits and progress-checks by independent experts, as well as end-users. The dismal story of projects like the Kaveri turbo-jet engine, the Light Combat Aircraft, the Arjun battle tank and the Trishul surface-to-air missile could have been very different, had they not been wrapped in furtive secrecy and been subjected, instead, to periodic scrutiny and oversight.
Compare the above two for what is the current status on the TN device.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Philip »

Unless there is serious movement on N-disarmament and a new initiative like SALT ,where the established N-powers collectively decide to substantially reduce their arsenals,"rising" N-powers like India,Pak,Israel,NoKo and other aspirants,will hesitate to sign on,leaving the N-club lording it over the rest of us.What the N-club should actually do is to start an international conference including the rising stars and the aspirants,under IAEA/UN ausipices,where the issue of N-disarmament can be thrashed out.It will take some time,but unless this willingness to reduce their arsenals substantially is seen by the have-nots,N-proliferation will continue unabated with rogue states like Pak and its Count Dracula ,AQ Khan,ready and willing to sell anything to anyone,taking the world closer to the brink.Pakistan is the epi-centre of the globe's problems both for Islamist terrorism and for N-proliferation.Count Dracula,himself has just admitted that Pak supplied NoKo with N-tech in exchange for missiles and missile tech.It will similarly sell itself to those willing to part with chemical and bio-weapons! The sooner the global community comes down with a heavy hand upon Pak,the safer will we all be.

We cannot sign away the nation's security until a new SALT treaty comes into being.We have two "villains" to deal with on two fronts,China and Pak,who are bum-chums.We need as I've said in the ATV thread,two separate SSBN forces each dedicated to dealing with the two villains.Pak has according to the latest US expose 80-90 N-weapons and appears with its clandstine new plutonium production wanting even more! Against whom are these weapons for?It already has enough for deterring India,in fact half that amount would do (40-50).I suspect that Pak is the equivalent of a nuclear BPO,an NPO,where N-weapon production has been outsourced to it by special clients like the Saudis,who already have Chinese BMs and are the chief Islamic godfathers of the Paki state.Paki N-warheads on Chinese missiles is what the Saudis and Pakis have most probably beautifully worked out.The Israelis can do nothing to stop this from happening,because the Pakis have both warheads and delivery systems to attack Israel if they come under any Israeli attack.Paki warheads can also be produced for their friends the NoKo regime,who might be struggling to produce enough to keep the US at bay.I do not think that they would supply Iran with warheads,as the Iranians are Shiites and enemies of the Sauds.Selling them N-tech was enough for the Iranians to start their own programme which is far behind that of the Pakis.

With this scenario,where India is faced with tested Chinese warhead designs being made in Pak,sold to its closest friends and clients,India is faced with an expanding strategic challenge.It is inconceivable that we could even contemplate signing the CTBT under these circumstances and the overwhelming need of the hour is for future tests to take place,not just another P-3,but a dedicated series of tests to satisfy our N-scientists and military that we have not just a credible deterrent,but a series of warhead designs available and the data obtained from the tests,with which to design future N-weapons.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

Philip wrote:Unless there is serious movement on N-disarmament and a new initiative like SALT ,where the established N-powers collectively decide to substantially reduce their arsenals,"rising" N-powers like India,Pak,Israel,NoKo and other aspirants,will hesitate to sign on,leaving the N-club lording it over the rest of us.What the N-club should actually do is to start an international conference including the rising stars and the aspirants,under IAEA/UN ausipices,where the issue of N-disarmament can be thrashed out..

Well Philip - I think this is one of the most original thoughts on this issue that I have read in a while. I think the future of nuclear disarmament is a future in which all countries are equalized rather than the maintenance of haves and have nots.

In retrospect it appears that the NPT was designed to keep a small group of haves,while CTBT is designed to accommodate slightly larger group of haves. This is not the way to go about "disarmament" - and indicates that the prime movers of "disarmament" are basically hypocrites.

The behavior of nations reflects the behavior of all life in nature - where any available gap or opening representing a weakness gets attacked. The US saw fit to arm its poodle boy Britain. The USSR shared with China, and China similarly armed its prostitute Pakistan. Pakistan in turn proliferated to North Korea, Libya, Iran and probably Saudi Arabia. I will not bother asking "Where will it all end?". Its not going to end unless efforts are made globally.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by samuel »

<deleted>
Last edited by samuel on 11 Sep 2009 20:58, edited 1 time in total.
samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by samuel »

But which do you prefer: Everybody has a gun or nobody?

The formeris "suicidal" (in my view) the latter is impossible.

Things exist in a perpetual state of approaching an unreachable limit, and capitalizing our advantage during the process is I think what it is about. In other words, let's talk about a nuclear free world but not go there with nothing but a Nehru.

I think of this translating as:

1. We will test as long as it is necessary to perfect and maintain readiness of deterrent. We don't have the technology for laboratory/numerical-test yet. So we need to keep testing to maintain readiness and improve quality of arsenal.
2. We will test to demonstrate validity of deterrent unambigously (may be a slightly scaled back version).
3. We will have "living document" mapping threat -> response. There will generally be no secrets about this, though there may be some clauses not public.
4. We'll find a way to make it ourselves, that should be the preferred route anyway.
5. We will tell everybody that we will honor our commitments to non-proliferation and cease to make or use nuclear weapons, tactically or strategically when a comprehensive nuclear disarmament treaty is reached in the world.

S
Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1130
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Hiten »

We've yet to see the end of it
K. Santhanam ji writes another article
Pokhran-II: an H-bomb disaster
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

Hiten wrote:We've yet to see the end of it
K. Santhanam ji writes another article
Pokhran-II: an H-bomb disaster

The information here is a rehash of the info in an article published earlier
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20091115/edit.htm#1
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ShauryaT »

Slightly new tit bits, I see in the new article. DOB of S2 confirmed at about 100 meters, also, matches A.N Prasad's 2007 interview with BK.
However, the shaft containing the TN device was only 20 metres deeper than the shaft for the A-bomb. Such a small difference cannot “explain” the fact that there was no crater at all.

Had the TN test really worked, the 120-metre deep shaft at the bottom of which the TN device was placed would have been totally destroyed, and its deepest portions even vapourised.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ShauryaT »

One more data point from the article.
Some experts have argued that the damage that even a 25 kT A-bomb can cause to enemy city targets with large populations would be unacceptable to any adversary, and so, such A-bombs would be enough for us to deter even China, which has already deployed 200 H- bombs of 3.3-5 megaton yields each — 200 times more powerful than what we have. Around 50 of these are in Tibet targeting us.
KS is not a cow boy, he is a Ka boy.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Gagan »

The main question is that where do Indian capabilities stand today.

Two Agni 2 missiles, a system that has already been deployed failed in succession.

I am convinced that the TN did not perform as per expectations. India has unproven TN technology, and unless Russia or someone else passed on technical info I find it difficult to see how physics knowledge can be converted into a fully functional and successful engineering model in the absence of tests.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

Gagan wrote: unless Russia or someone else passed on technical info I find it difficult to see how physics knowledge can be converted into a fully functional and successful engineering model in the absence of tests.
Even if Russia did that it would not translate into a workable weapon unless we did 200 tests and 400 launches of missiles, some live with weapon. All other nuclear nations have done something like that - so the point is moot.

India is never going to get there - certainly not with 2 more tests or even 20 more tests.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

KS seems to have added a couple of things and removed one critical data point for sure.

No matter what there is nothing meaningful in this new article, nothing that can add to the debate.

His numbers on Chinese MT devices do not add up.

Indian capabilities do add up to deterrence.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

Two Agni 2 missiles, a system that has already been deployed failed in succession.
So did the Chinese missile's dependable third stage - one that had never failed, ever.
Locked