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
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ShauryaT »

NRao wrote:KS seems to have added a couple of things and removed one critical data point for sure.
"removed" as in because it is damaging to his case? What is it? Do we now expect him to make a water tight case in a single article to pass muster? He is not your joe blow, we are talking about. He was the director for the test site and the lead from DRDO. Dismiss him casually at your own risk.
No matter what there is nothing meaningful in this new article, nothing that can add to the debate.
I already pointed out, what is "new and meaningful" in the article. Some time back, folks were clinging on to the 150 meters DOB for S2, as revealed by Chengappa, here we have a direct contradiction, supported by an ex BARC director.
His numbers on Chinese MT devices do not add up.
How do you make this claim? I have read as much of these reports and they do add up, if one looks beyond the DF 5's, 31's and JL1.
Indian capabilities do add up to deterrence.
Based on the theory that deterrence ke liye kuch bhi chalega? Some of the very best Indian military and defense analysts, who have made a name for themselves as specialists in the area, disagree.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Prem Kumar »

NRao wrote: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 Sir: what he has added in this article (& also the previous one that Shiv pointed out that was a few weeks ago) is very significant. It is the shaft depth of course. So, lets not dismiss it lightly. Thankfully this article in Business Standard is a more cogent read than his usual ones where the vagueness of details made one gnash his teeth in frustration.

I am sure his points about mass spectrometry versus RCM accuracy would be debated. But the one about how a "supposedly 3 times powerful (by BARC's measurement) TN weapon placed only an extra 20 metres below yields no crater" needs some serious explanation. And the counter argument that "the strata 1 KM away was so different that it absorbed all the shock" just doesnt cut it.

The shaft-depth argument is, in my opinion, more powerful than anything else he has produced so far. For us public, who will never know the details, its so far been a case of he-said, she-said and each one of us believed what we wanted to believe (sizzle or fizzle or somewhere in between). But the shaft-depth argument is "common-sensical" to the layman and it does point to something fishy.

The curious fact is why RC hasnt come out and stated what the actual depth of the TN shaft is. Surely this data is not "strategic" that cannot be divulged. And if it was indeed more than 120 metres, RC can prick KS's bubble right away.

At this point, my vote is with KS - in the absence of any compelling explanation from the other side.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ShauryaT »

If one sees carefully, what KS has done is provided data points for only the areas where some other existed - either directly or through proxy. His bet is that if he is accused of revealing classified data, the defense would be, that another version existed. Do not know, if that will help his case.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

Prem Kumar wrote: what he has added in this article (& also the previous one that Shiv pointed out that was a few weeks ago) is very significant. It is the shaft depth of course. So, lets not dismiss it lightly. Thankfully this article in Business Standard is a more cogent read than his usual ones where the vagueness of details made one gnash his teeth in frustration.

I am sure his points about mass spectrometry versus RCM accuracy would be debated. But the one about how a "supposedly 3 times powerful (by BARC's measurement) TN weapon placed only an extra 20 metres below yields no crater" needs some serious explanation. And the counter argument that "the strata 1 KM away was so different that it absorbed all the shock" just doesnt cut it.

The shaft-depth argument is, in my opinion, more powerful than anything else he has produced so far. For us public, who will never know the details, its so far been a case of he-said, she-said and each one of us believed what we wanted to believe (sizzle or fizzle or somewhere in between). But the shaft-depth argument is "common-sensical" to the layman and it does point to something fishy.

The curious fact is why RC hasnt come out and stated what the actual depth of the TN shaft is. Surely this data is not "strategic" that cannot be divulged. And if it was indeed more than 120 metres, RC can prick KS's bubble right away.

At this point, my vote is with KS - in the absence of any compelling explanation from the other side.
On shaft depth of 120 meters:

IIRC the first time it seems to have appeared is in 2002ish (BK's book/article/something - I will have to go back to provide a better ref). IF at all it seems to have "corrected" the one reported by Chengappa (as more than 200 meters). Which is fine - I have no quarrel with that.

The quarrel I have with EITHER depths is that no one can take just the depth - and I mean no ONE - and come to a conclusion. The depth has meaning ONLY IF the composition of the soil is given AND the corresponding radius of a crater is also recorded.

Now, as I have posted before, the equation is there for anyone to see and therefore compute. There is ample amount of data for an arm chair person to come up with his/her own - which is what I did.

Now, his depth of 120 meters has really no meaning by itself. What he is saying in addition is that the soil composition is very similar to the S2 (when he says that S1 was only 20 meters more than S2).

Now, for THAT composition (please check the Toman curves) the depth or yield is NOT very sensitive. That is the radius of a device does not change with large changes in yield/s.

Going by POK-I and POK-II (S2) yield to radius, we still can come up with something for S1, which is fine. BUT that does not address his earlier contention of 60-70 (and then 72) meters radius.

Now, why has he removed the radius in the latest article I have no clue - BUT it actually leads me to speculate, and, obviously I am left with nothing other than the equations (Toman and POK-I/POK-II) to help me speculate.

Just because a device that is 3 times more powerful placed just 20 meters deeper does not provide much information. Please take a look at the Toman curves - ONLY to get an idea of what are the correlations- I do not expect others to get into computations, but just accepting what anyone says (either side - this is not a knock on Santhanam) in not my cup of tea.




THAT said, here is my bottom line:
1) Does India have TN - probably IMHO.
2) However, even IF India does not have, India - for sure - has deterrence. I am not willing to buy Santhanam's argument of deterrence. To me it is very childish. I am willing to keep an open mind about the S1 success/failure and yes, post-deterrence China will kill India - no two ways about that. BUT, his argument/point about Indian deterrence is very silly (IMHO). BUT, I would like to differentiate between the man and that message/point. I am not trying to knock him. It is just what he says ONLY WRT deterrence I consider silly.
3) I find his count of the number of nukes China has to be very suspicious, but I will wait for a while

JMTs.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

The curious fact is why RC hasnt come out and stated what the actual depth of the TN shaft is. Surely this data is not "strategic" that cannot be divulged. And if it was indeed more than 120 metres, RC can prick KS's bubble right away.
Slow day.

My read:
1) Chengappa in 2000 was given access to all these yahoos. He reported more than 200 meters. Now Ramachandran has reported about 230 meters
2) The 120 meters was first reported in 2002, then again in 2007(?). I have not read either, but, IF Prasad ALSO reported 120 meters, since he retired in 1996ish, he too could have got it (along with BK) from one source: Santhanam (again this is my read)
3) Depth does matter. And, it matter even more if the composition of the soil is reported. Having said that IMHO - from what I have read - it is the least accurate means of determining anything. HOWEVER, it is THE ONLY (as far as I know) open source means of any of us computing independently

Bubble bursting - very, very true. 120 vs. 230 meters. That is a HUGE discrepancy. HUGE.

However, IF the soil is granite one would not see a crater at either depth (for yield of either side). IF it is not granite, even then NO MATTER what yield (between the two sides) one will NOT see a 60-70 meter crater in radius.
At this point, my vote is with KS - in the absence of any compelling explanation from the other side.
Here is my voting record (I did not know we were voting on this. : ) ):

1) On S1, it is leaning RC. Open.
2) On nuclear device yields: RC, India has capability of 100 Kt and more
3) On deterrence. RC without a doubt.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Gagan »

There has to be two ways to approach deterrence.
1. One way is to wield N weapons and threaten to kill millions, like all N powers do, and so does India.
2. The other way is to use the Nukes and the huge blast they produce along with accurate missile systems to try and take out the enemy's nuclear weapons capability.

China's Delinga site is far removed from human habitation, and a nuclear attack there will take out Nuclear weapons and missiles without resulting in massive civilian casualties. This theory being stated, fact is that there are several underground silos there, and they are far spaced - several kilometers apart, so that perhaps with the exception of the US and Russia, no one can saturate nuke that area to ensure that china is nooke noode.

So India is left with only the population murdering option, and for this I suppose a 20 kt Fission is sufficient and deterrence does exist wrt china - atleast in terms of massive population murder is concerned.

But nuclear war is more nuanced. There exists the real possibility of usage of low yield tactical nuclear weapons against armed formations, missile silos, command centers etc. India's draft doctrine does say that any such attack will trigger an all out attack. But the question is will it really?

I say that chinese deterrence will still exist, causing India to debate weather to retaliate with massive population murder in response to a tactical nuclear attack, because India does not have the numbers or the size of nuclear weapons to be able to kill off say ~75% chinese population in those chinese plains. It is another matter that the chinese possession of both numbers and megaton explosive power will annihilate India should India use its own nukes. This is why some people doubt the concept of deterrence.

WRT Pakistan if India can say that there is a window for a low key military operation without escalating to nuclear exchange, a similar analogy then exists wrt china, where china might use tactical nukes against indian military formations and get away with it.

So the solution lies in possession of both tactical AND megaton powered TN nukes, and a demonstration of belligerence, to convince the challengers that should the push come to shove, India will use what it has, for all round, all weather deterrence. Also to be able to deploy sufficient numbers and explosive power on submarines for safekeeping till the rainy day. (The sub launched nukes are a separate subject in themselves)
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

Santhanam notes some limitation WRT to the 80 Kt yield. Can someone explain that? TIA.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Gagan »

NRao wrote:Here is my voting record (I did not know we were voting on this. : ) ):

1) On S1, it is leaning RC. Open.
2) On nuclear device yields: RC, India has capability of 100 Kt and more
3) On deterrence. RC without a doubt.
My corresponding vote for the same:
1. S1 - not fully successful in 1998. It is possible that an improved version was likely made based on data points from that test. But on May 11 1998, S1 Failed.

2. 100Kt - Sure, easily done. Except obviously, that it is untested. India is capable enough to build very high yield weapons, including the 3rd gen TNs - the only cribbing is that there is a problem with verification of what the scientists have acheived because there is no overt testing. India is known to be working on 4th gen TNs as per that article from CAT, and that was a decade ago. When Russia can get 400 KT from Joe -4, an FBF/Sloika in 1950, India can do much better in 1998 or in 2009. The question is how deliverable it is, and how reliable it is.

3. Deterrence - complicated stuff. I would agree with you but with the caveat of that unlikely but possible scenario that I posted above.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

Nuclear Deterrence
Nuclear deterrence is the theory that possessing nuclear weapons sufficient to destroy or severely decimate an enemy nation's military and civilian population will deter that enemy from attacking.
It is a theory, which is why there are so many opinions. And, which is why an entity that formulates a posture (in most nations) consist of people from all aspects of the spectrum - a posture will not hold much value if it was authored by one "side" or the other - no matter which side.

The "deterrence" I talk/post about is WRT China (since that is what Santhanam brought up).

Irrespective of which country - China or Pakistan - it is critical to understand that there is "deterrence" and a "post-deterrence". Perhaps it will be more clear if I were to say "pre-deterrence" (it really does not exist).

India has to worry about a Chinese MT only IF India is 100% certain that under all circumstances (during a conflict) China will resort to a nuclear attack on India. IF India is certain that China will do so 99% of the time, then that 1% falls under "deterrence". We can sit and discuss and theorize what constitutes that 1% - but we will never be sure about what that is. For that 1% (from the Chinese PoV) will change with time.

And, even if most Indian strategists agree that India does not have deterrence, it has no meaning. Since, assuming India has 10 strategists, each could have a totally different view of why India does not have deterrence. Some of their concerns may overlap - and that is fine.

In my view, from what I have read so far, versus China India has more than sufficient deterrence. Versus Pakistan, I do not know, but I feel safe enough to state that India needs MORE against Pakistan and much, much, much less against China. And, IF I were to include a country like the US the deterrence would be far less than that against China.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote:Santhanam notes some limitation WRT to the 80 Kt yield. Can someone explain that? TIA.
Santhanam has his dagger out for specific people and says things to suit that. Many of Santhanam's statements do not pan out in my view as being accurate either from public source or from statements made by the opposing camp. Am I, as a private citizen of India, expected to take the attitude that Santhanam as a respected retired official from super agency RAW and the efficient and patriotic DRDO should be given great respect and that his word on these issues should be taken as the words of Krishna in the Gita. Of course not, and I choose to believe what I want and whom I want.

I personally give his words only some weight and not much more. He appears to have a huge chip on his shoulder and he spends his time cursing and bringing down people and their reactions to hios statements rather than streeing on the operation aspects of deterrence or lack of that. In India that is the surest way of ensuring that to erode your own credibility. The more I read his rants the more I am inclined to yawn and move on. We just don't know the truth Santhanam or no Santhanam. Even his contention that two more tests are needed sound like rubbish to me. When China has done probably hundreds of tests how can 2 more make any difference. Surely he is doing the same fudging that he accuses the AEC of doing. He says China has 200 three megaton nukes - so how can just 2 more tests suffice?

If you take Santhanam's views as the truth (which people are welcome to do) the it means India has no deterrence.

What does that indicate? It indicates diddly squat because other than rona dhona there is nothing that anyone can do about it. Either India has deterrence or it does not. Santhanam says no deterrence so fine. No deterrence. So what? Am I unpatriotic for saying that? Maybe. But I am in august company - Santhanam himself who has sat around for over a decade knowing the truth.

So India has no deterrence. Why worry now? I mean does a retired RAW/DRDO person have some special powers that will make India do 200 tests over the next 20 years? Of course not. So what is Santhanam doing by creating this ruckus? Other than character assassination of some personalities nothing can be achieved. Heck if you look at power brokers in India - leave alone Sonia - look at the late YSR and others you see who yields power in India. Heck even the Ambanis and asssorted private individuals have real clout. What power to influence events does Santhanam have? The word again. diddly squat. And all he has done is to stir up some muck which does not have a hope in hell of making any difference to India and its non deterrence. It only makes waves on BRF and attracted some mild media attention. That's all. So exactly what will Santhanam achieve?

IMO zilch. Nothing he has said or done has made a difference to anyone who matters. Or to deterrence, present or absent.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

Shiv,

My research shows that there is no limit, but, I was/am trying to if I am missing something.

The fact that he has repeated it more than once I took it mean that there could be some between-the-line reading of that figure.

From what I can tell so far - that figure is a HUGE mistake.

Let us see.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9265
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Amber G. »

NRao wrote:Santhanam notes some limitation WRT to the 80 Kt yield. Can someone explain that? TIA.
I asked that question here too. I also email Santhanam but got no reply.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote:Shiv,

My research shows that there is no limit, but, I was/am trying to if I am missing something.

The fact that he has repeated it more than once I took it mean that there could be some between-the-line reading of that figure.

From what I can tell so far - that figure is a HUGE mistake.

Let us see.
Raogaru - Santhanam's main mileage came from pushing someone else down - an act that received high level sponsorship on this forum. Outside BRF there was nobody to sponsor Santhanam's words over anyone else's words (all are equally incredible) and the attention the issue gets is an indicator of exactly how much of what any given person says will be believed and followed up after a point.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

Amber G. wrote:
NRao wrote:Santhanam notes some limitation WRT to the 80 Kt yield. Can someone explain that? TIA.
I asked that question here too. I also email Santhanam but got no reply.
Now send him another email cursing AEC and making allegations against personalities and see if you get a reply to that. Or post his email id here and I will do that and post the reply on here.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

Another data point, as an example of the way different people think:

Why their IT hates our IT
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Kanson »

Nrao/Amber ji

This 80 Kt figure came to foreground when K.Subramanyam countered K.Santhanam garu when he started cribing about India's deterrence less state with only 25 kt A-bomb. As K.Santhanam used the A-bomb to putforth his argument, K.Sub used the same A-bomb and stated that India successfully fabricated 80 Kt A-bomb (actual quote is 60-80 kt). Operative word here is successfully fabricated. In one single shot K.Sub rendered K.Santy's data point as useless and questioned his knowledge on India's N arsenal or his intention behind this glib talk of no deterrence, so to say. That article was co-authored by K.Sub and Arunachalam (boss of K.Santy). In short its between two KS. So Santy couldnt hide his bewilderement that he was countered thoroughly in various ways.
It is astonishing to see the same people who argued vociferously for decades that H-bombs were central to our Credible Minimum Deterrent, suddenly do a volte-face and say A-bombs (which, for technical reasons, cannot be made to have yields more than 80 kT) are enough! Why?
Never in anywhere i read, K.Sub said, we dont have H-bomb or to that effect. He just used the A-bomb theory to set aside his argument.


Regarding limitation, if any, it has to do with the vehicle that carries the bomb. You may refer to WOP, Chengappa, in detail for the limitations.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Prem Kumar »

NRao wrote:
My read:
1) Chengappa in 2000 was given access to all these yahoos. He reported more than 200 meters. Now Ramachandran has reported about 230 meters
2) The 120 meters was first reported in 2002, then again in 2007(?). I have not read either, but, IF Prasad ALSO reported 120 meters, since he retired in 1996ish, he too could have got it (along with BK) from one source: Santhanam (again this is my read)
3) Depth does matter. And, it matter even more if the composition of the soil is reported. Having said that IMHO - from what I have read - it is the least accurate means of determining anything. HOWEVER, it is THE ONLY (as far as I know) open source means of any of us computing independently

Bubble bursting - very, very true. 120 vs. 230 meters. That is a HUGE discrepancy. HUGE.

However, IF the soil is granite one would not see a crater at either depth (for yield of either side). IF it is not granite, even then NO MATTER what yield (between the two sides) one will NOT see a 60-70 meter crater in radius.
Completely agree with you on Point (3). That's why the depth disclosure is so important. It lets us average Abduls do some math. Based on your comment, I dug up the Toman curve from the BRF page (I used this http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... crater.pdf)

If you plug in the following values:

a) Yield of TN = 45 KT; Depth = 120m
b) Yield of A-bomb = 15 KT; Depth = 100m

the following are predicted by the curve:

a) For TN, Ds = 39. Rs is between 42 to 48 (between hard rock and alluvium). The crater radius is between 129m - 147m!!
b) For A-bomb, Ds = 45. Rs is between 38 - 47. The crater radius is between 64m - 104m!!

I just eyeballed the graph - so I may be off by a bit. But neither the TN nor the A-bomb results make sense based on the Toman curve. The business-standard report said the A-bomb "diameter" was 25m. Even accounting for DDM'itis and lets assume the report meant "radius", its still way off.

I seriously doubt if the Toman curve is applicable at all (unless I have made a goof up in my calculation)!!

However one thing is clear. If the curves look Toman-like, then we can draw one conclusion (assuming the shaft depths are correct). There is no way the TN crater would be "smaller" than the A-bomb crater if the desired yields were achieved. However this is what seems to have been observed.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

Prem Kumar wrote: b) For A-bomb, Ds = 45. Rs is between 38 - 47. The crater radius is between 64m - 104m!!
The 1974 test - Pokhran 1, at depth 107 meters which was quoted in recent articles as having been as low as 2 kilotons (by one of Santhanam's supporters) - and about which PK Iyengar is variously stated to have attributed yields of 8 to 11 kt had a radius of 47 meters.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

I seriously doubt if the Toman curve is applicable at all (unless I have made a goof up in my calculation)!!
Please suggest an alternative.

And, IF you do not have an alternative then a Toman-curve or some such "curve" has to stand - even if it 2/3 data points between POK-I and POK-II (as I stated earlier).

What cannot stand is just plain words (WRT depth/radius/etc) from no matter who it is.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

However one thing is clear. If the curves look Toman-like, then we can draw one conclusion (assuming the shaft depths are correct). There is no way the TN crater would be "smaller" than the A-bomb crater if the desired yields were achieved. However this is what seems to have been observed.
What is clear is that even at the yield claimed by Santhanam there should have been a crater. And, we do not see one there.

The math:
Depth: 120 meters
Yield: 20 Kt
Ds: 50ish.
Rs: 47ish
Radius: 111ish meters

So what could be the possible explanation for that?

Let me expand that idea a wee bit more:
Depth: 120 meters
Yield: 5 Kt
Ds: 75ish
Rs: 41ish
Radius: 65ish meters

I can agree that there should be a crater bigger than S2. OK, it was a fizzle @ 45 Kt AND we did not see a crater bigger than S2.

BUT, Santhanam agrees that there was SOME yield? And, at even a small yield we SHOULD have seen a crater - small, but a crater.

BUT, we ALL agree that there was no crater - not even a small one ................ some dust went up and the earth heaved, etc, etc, etc. Everything settled and no crater.

So, what gives? At Santhanam's yield at 120 meters there should be crater.

Is it that 120 meters it is granite? Or is the depth wrong? After all there is another depth.

I am open.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Gagan »

:shock:

What yield will be required to destroy the shaft mouth and the A frame? I would say a very small yield, perhaps even a subkiloton yield.

If the depth is indeed 120m, the only possibility is a complete fizzle for
1. There to be no crater
2. The shaft and the A frame to remain intact.

The test team pulled out a device from underground. Did they pull out S1 from under the ground then if it failed to explode? It is possible that some electronic component malfunctioned/wires got damaged. The damage to the structures seen could have been from the neighbouring S2 going off.

[/wild conjecture]
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

My thoughts in brackets:

Depth issue chronology - as far as I can tell - open to comments/remarks/changes:

2000: Changappa: Depth "more than 200 meters" (He was given access to everyone, so this is not a "leak")
2002: BK: Depth 120 meters (I am not sure what the source is - article out of print so could not confirm anything. However, my assumption is that BK did not have official access to anyone, but I could be wrong. IF I am right then this a "leak")
2007ish: BK : Depth 120 meters (Via Dr. Prasad? Again the same logic: no official access, therefore a "leak", actually a "double leak" - someone had to tell Dr. Prasad in the first place, who then seems to have told BK)
2009: Ramachandran: depth 230 meters or so ( Again no official access, some THINK he had access and was voice of BARC. So, this falls between a "leak" and somewhere else)

JMTs. To show where I come from.

Comments are welcome.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

If you bury a device deep enough the shaft mouth will not be destroyed. The more I read Santhanam's repeat info the more it becomes clear that he has said all that he wants to say about the explosions but has plenty more to say about people :roll: who are now ignoring him. And that IMO is the correct thing to do because there are many holes in his statements apart from his insistence on cursing people. I think too much time is spent on the assumption that Santhanam is always right (because he is RAW, because he is DRDO, because he is outside the system) and others are invariably wrong or may be liars - attributes that mysteriously cannot be assigned to Santhanam. Santhanam could be plain wrong in addition to having a huge chip on his shoulder.

Why not drop the issue on a simple assumption. All are wrong. All are incompetent bums. There is no meaningful deterrent and that India will never be able to test no matter how much we curse anyone. Once we reach this obvious conclusion it gets easier to think the way Kuldip Nayar, Arundhadi Roy etc do. They were intelligent enough to know long ago that the DRDO and AEC were incapable bums who will only fight and curse each other and claim that everyone other than oneself is an idiot - as Santhanam does. Nayar and Roy also realise that India's deterrent is meaningless and we will not test. The only option available to India is to talk peace with Pakistan and China. Out of weakness - which we know is a fact because Santhanam has said so.

We spend endless hours trying to avoid facts and which require us to explain how Santhanam is right, the AEC and other establishment people are wrong, and ARoy and K.Nayar are wrong. By simply saying Santhanam is wrong along with his former techie colleagues we understand where India stands. Sign the CTBT as a non nuclear weapons state and be done with it. Santhanam's objections are plain silly. Nobody in India is going to do the "two tests" he wants when everyone knows that two tests are worthless. India does not have the fissile material for the 200 tests we need to do to catch up with China. Every way you look at it the Kuldip Nayars and ARoys are right. Especially judging from the talk and behavior and credibility of the AEC and DRDO.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

I FEEL the issue lies in the depths: 120 vs. 230ish meters.

How can one make such a big mistake ........................ I do not know.

However, there is precedence in such areas.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote:I FEEL the issue lies in the depths: 120 vs. 230ish meters.
As I see it, the big picture that is being missed by concentrating on this is as follows.

If one bit of fudging about depth has been done by someone or the other, it is quite likely that a whole slew of things could have been fudged. IOW proving the actual depth does not prove that other things have not been fudged, hidden or lied about.

Secondly the depth is bring argued about in such great detail because that doubt has been raised recently by Santhanam. Settling that detail once again gives no guarantee that a thousand other details cannot subsequently be raised as reasons for doubt and argument.

Nothing is certain and nothing is going to be certain except the fact that India has only tested (twice) fission bombs that yielded between 2 and 25 kt depending on whom you want to believe. If you take a fission figure of 15-25 kt you find that Santhanam, K Subrmanayam, Arunachalam, Karnad or anyone else - all are agreed that that is one yield figure around which our deterrence has to be based.

Beyond this point everything boils down to personal views of "strategists". Some are unhappy with the figure 15-25 kt fission but there is bugger all they can do about it. Others are satisfied with that figure.

What is there to argue?
ankit-s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 30 Nov 2009 16:09

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ankit-s »

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_ar ... ar_1323152



Quoting senior kakodkar:
He ruled out the need for further thermonuclear tests and said the country has several hydrogen bombs with a yield "much more" than 45 kilo tons.
"Much more than that. I said from up to low kilotons to 200 kilotons," Kakodkar said when asked whether the hydrogen bomb has a yield of 45 kilo tons.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Kanson »

Army should be confident of N-arsenal: Kakodkar
"I think that is guaranteed. Army should be fully confident. There is no doubt about the arsenal at their command," he said to a private news channel.

Kakodkar, who retired from service on November 30, was asked about former Army chief V P Malik's remarks that nuclear scientists should assure the armed forces about the efficacy of the thermonuclear device.

He ruled out the need for further thermonuclear tests and said the country has several hydrogen bombs with a yield "much more" than 45 kilo tons
Anyone following the subject realise the importance of this news item. For the first time, an official of his stature came open and publically confirmed the presence of H-bomb in N arsenal. So far people like R.Chidambaram used words like "we have capabilities", "we can fabricate" to express the presence of H-bomb.
ankit-s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 30 Nov 2009 16:09

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ankit-s »

Anyone following the subject realise the importance of this news item. For the first time, an official of his stature came open and publically confirmed the presence of H-bomb in N arsenal. So far people like R.Chidambaram used words like "we have capabilities", "we can fabricate" to express the presence of H-bomb.

His thermonuclear statement should put everything to rest as far as the fracas is concerned.

The crater got burried, its time we bury those speculations and put them behind us.

From now on it is sizzle.....and lets stop connecting the dots with fizzle.

Cause the guy never blabbers - He always delivers.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Austin »

'Use plural, India has thermonuclear bombs'

After weeks of doubt, it is time to ask the question: how credible is India's thermonuclear deterrent? That is the key issue Karan Thapar discussed in this week's Devil's Advocate with the former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr Anil Kakodkar.

Karan Thapar:
Dr Kakodkar, four leading scientists--Dr K Santhanam, Dr P K Iyengar, Dr H Sethna and Dr A N Prasad--have raised serious doubts about India's thermonuclear tests of 1998.

Dr Santhanam says we have hard evidence on a purely factual basis that not only was the yield of the thermonuclear device far below the design production, but that it actually failed. Do you have a problem on your hands?

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.

Karan Thapar:
I am glad that you began talking by the yield because both Dr Santhanam and Dr Iyenger have questioned the yield of the thermonuclear tests.

Dr Santhanam says that the DRDO seismic instruments measured the yield as something between 20-25 kilotonnes which is hugely different from the claim put out by the Atomic Energy Commission that it was 45 kilotonnes. How confident are you of the 45-kilotonne yield?

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.

Karan Thapar:
Dr Santhanam says that the Bhabha Atomic Energy Center accepted the DRDO's instruments and their estimation for the yield of their fission bomb but not for the fusion or the thermonuclear. He says how can it be that the instruments worked in one case and not the others?

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.

Karan Thapar: But do you have proof that the yield of the thermonuclear test was 45 kilotonnes?

Anil Kakodkar: Yes. In fact we have within limits of what can be said and I must make it clear here that no country has given so much scientific details on their tests as we have given and this we have published with the maximum possible clarity.

Karan Thapar: The problem is that even in 1998, foreign monitors questioned the yield of the thermonuclear tests. At that time, Indian doubts were only expressed in private. Now, Indian doubts have burst out into the open and they are being heard in public.

Does it not worry you that these doubts continue--now both abroad and at home--and that they have continued for 11 years?

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.

Karan Thapar:
And all these five or six different ways of measuring the yield have come to the conclusion that the yield was 45 kilotonnes for the thermonuclear device?

Anil Kakodkar: That's right.

Karan Thapar: So in your mind there is no doubt about it whatsoever?

Anil Kakodkar: Absolutely not.

Karan Thapar: Now, Dr Santhanam, in addition to disputing the yield, has other reasons to believe that the thermonuclear device failed. He said that given that the fission device, which produced a yield of around 25 kilotonnes, created a crater of 25 metres in diameter then the fusion bomb which produced a yield of 45 kilotonnes should have created a crater of around 70 metres in diameter. He says that that didn't happen and there was in fact no crater at all.

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.

Karan Thapar: So he's wrong in saying that it was 25 kilotonnes?

Anil Kakodkar:
That's right and secondly although the two devices were about 1.5 kilometers apart, the geology within that distance has changed quite a bit partly because of the layers that exist and their slopes but more importantly because their depths have been different.

So the placement of the device of the fission kind is in one kind of medium and the placement of the device of the thermonuclear kind is in another medium.

Karan Thapar:
So in fact what you are saying is that Dr Santhanam is making two mistakes and possibly making them deliberately.

First of all he's exaggerating the yield of the fission device and secondly he is completely ignoring the fact that the geology of the placement of the fusion was very different.

Anil Kakodkar:
That's right

Karan Thapar:
And both of those have led him to an erroneous conclusion?

Anil Kakodkar: And in fact we have gone through detailed simulation. For example in simulation you can locate the thermonuclear device where the fission device was placed and you can locate the fission device where the thermonuclear device was placed. And you get a much bigger crater now because the yield is higher.

Karan Thapar: This is a very important point that you are making.

Anil Kakodkar: Yes. And the fission device which is now placed in the thermo-heat pit now produces much less ground displacement.

Karan Thapar:
So if in simulation you place the thermonuclear device where the fission device was placed, you would get a much bigger crater--much closer to the 70 meters in diameter that Dr Santhanam would like to see.

Anil Kakodkar:
Well, I don't remember how much it was but this is actually true. This has been verified by calculations

Karan Thapar:
Dr Santhanam has yet one more reason for believing that the thermonuclear device failed. He says if it had succeeded, both the shaft and the a-frame would have been totally destroyed. Instead, writing in ‘The Hindu’, he says the shaft remained totally undamaged and as for the a-frame, he says, it remained completely intact.

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.

Karan Thapar:
And not a crater?

Anil Kakodkar: And not a crater.

Karan Thapar: What about the shaft and the a-frame?

Anil Kakodkar: Well, if the ground simply rises - and in fact you can see a lot of fracture on the ground around that for a fairly large distance so it's clear that there was a cracking of the ground for a fairly large distance, but the phenomena was that it rises as a mound, then comes down slightly but it still remains a mound. So there is no question of damage to the a-frame.

Karan Thapar:
So in fact the fact that the shaft and the a-frame survived intact can be quite easily explained. It's not proof that the thermonuclear device failed?

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.

Karan Thapar:
So you have had multiple validations of these.

Anil Kakodkar:
That's right.

Karan Thapar:
Clearly you are dismissive of Dr Santhanam's doubts. Now let me quote to you what one of your predecessors, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Dr P K Iyenger, said in a statement he issued on September 24, 2009. He says: "The recent revelations by Dr Santhanam are the clincher. He was one of the four leaders associated with Pokhran II, the team leader from the DRDO side, and he must certainly have known many of the details, particularly with regard to the seismic measurements. If he says that the yield was much lower than projected, that there was virtually no crater formed, then there is considerable justification for reasonable doubt regarding the credibility of the thermonuclear test."

Does it worry you that your predecessors seem to disagree with you but agree with Dr Santhanam?

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.

Karan Thapar:
You are making two important points. One you are saying that the DRDO and Dr Santhanam did not know everything - the fact that he was DRDO team leader does not mean that he knew everything that was happening.

Anil Kakodkar: He knew everything within his realm of responsibility.

Karan Thapar:
Everything that he needed to know but not more?

Anil Kakodkar: That's right.

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.

Karan Thapar:
Let's purse the credibility and the doubts surrounding India's thermonuclear deterrent in a somewhat different way.

Dr Santhanam says that these doubts were formally raised by the DRDO with the Government as far back as in 1998 itself. And in a meeting arranged by the then National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra, they were brushed aside in a manner which Dr Santhanam compares to a sort of frivolous voice vote.

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?

Karan Thapar:
So when Dr Santhanam says that the DRDO's doubts were brushed aside lightly, then that is wrong. They were considered and they were evaluated?

Anil Kakodkar:
I think yes. I think they were evaluated, that's right.

Karan Thapar:
And they were dismissed because they were found to be faulty. They were not just brushed aside.

Anil Kakodkar:
No, they were not brushed aside.

Karan Thapar:
In an article that Dr Santhanam has written recently on November 15, 2009 for ‘The Tribune’, he says: The Department of Atomic Energy--the department to which you were ex-officio secretary--is in fact hiding facts from successive Indian governments, from Parliament and from Indian people. How do you respond to that accusation?

Anil Kakodkar:
Well, as I said earlier, we are perhaps unique in giving out the maximum information and that too very promptly - immediately after the tests.

Karan Thapar:
There is no hiding?

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?

Karan Thapar:
Let me put it like this: you may not be hiding facts as Dr Santhanam alleges but a controversy has arisen and it grows and it won't disappear. Many people believe that the only way to resolve this issue is to now organise a peer group of scientists to review the results of the 1998 thermonuclear tests. Would you agree?

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?

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

Anil Kakodkar:
That's what I would say.

Karan Thapar:The matter is conclusively sorted out?

Anil Kakodkar: That's right. And this has been after this controversy has been raised and it was again reviewed by the Atomic Energy Commission, we had gone through the records and the commission has come out with an authoritative statement.

Karan Thapar: Let me put to you two or three critical issues. Given the fact that you have concluded several reviews, including one recently after the doubts were raised, the doubts continue. And given that there are doubts about India's one and only thermonuclear test do we need more tests?

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.

Karan Thapar:
You are saying that India doesn't need more thermonuclear tests but the truth is that all the established thermonuclear powers needed more than one test. Can India be the exception?

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.

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.

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.

Karan Thapar:
So you are saying to me that we have thermonuclear bombs--in the plural?

Anil Kakodkar:
Yes.

Karan Thapar:
With a yield of at least 45 kilotonnes each.

Anil Kakodkar:
Much more than that.

Karan Thapar:
Much more than that?

Anil Kakodkar: Yes. I told you we have the possibility of a deterrence of low kilotonne to 200 kilotonnes.

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.

Karan Thapar:
Dr Kakodkar, a pleasure talking to you.

Anil Kakodkar:
Thank you.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

duplicate: self deleted
Last edited by NRao on 13 Dec 2009 22:35, edited 2 times in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

Well I must compliment Thapar for being very clear about who said what. It took me a lot of reading to get that clear from the 30-40 related reports I archived.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9265
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Amber G. »

Thanks to AK for an very informative interview. Thanks Austing/NRao for posting it here.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

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
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ShauryaT »

Austin, Thanks for posting.
kittoo
BRFite
Posts: 969
Joined: 08 Mar 2009 02:08

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by kittoo »

Anil Kakodkar: Why are you using singular? Make that plural.
This statement made my day.

Thanks for posting. Indeed a good interview by Thapar and he was really clear about almost everything. A great read.
ankit-s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 90
Joined: 30 Nov 2009 16:09

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ankit-s »

We have a big bomb now - Atal Bihari Vajpayee (after the Pokharan-II test)


Long live big bomb....

Long live BARC, DRDO, and its staff - along with ABV....

Salute to Kakodkar, its a feather in India´s cap - or is it Arihant´s cap......

Four such MIRV units (200KT) clustered, sitting tight (in a Indian missile) within Arihants belly would make India safe and proud.......


Pakistani Muhtarmas along with their kids would feel safe from now on!
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by negi »

Yes. I told you we have the possibility of a deterrence of low kilotonne to 200 kilotonnes.

That imho no one ever contested here on BRF nor can one even technically even think about contesting . :mrgreen:

This is :rotfl:
vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by vasu_ray »

good interview with AK,

anyways, not to stir the hornet's nest, since DRDO headed by Santhanam is one of the many groups estimating yields and each group doesn't have access to the other, the consensus on yields is done at a higher level than Santhanam.

If DRDO's instrumentation malfunctioned, then Santhanam is supposedly out of luck of knowing either yields from other groups or the consensus at a higher level, being left out due to his groups' mistake could be a strong enough grudge

then the issue of confidence in each groups' yield estimates, as each group is using different techniques, that is known only to the consensus group, this also implies that Santhanam was never told the reason in terms of data on why they consider that his instrumentation was at fault

validation of his instrumentation and the yields measured is left to his own group with no reference data from others, Santhanam should for the record state if his team's instrumentation has worked or not or why doesn't he consider the consensus group's repudiation of his results as valid, at least the latter he can't do without sufficient data

lastly AK's assertion about today's significant systems capability renders further testing pointless, then why are missile systems tested often? the assumption being we are comparing apples with apples
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

lastly AK's assertion about today's significant systems capability renders further testing pointless, then why are missile systems tested often? the assumption being we are comparing apples with apples
Missiles sub-systems/components are being enhanced.

Just BTW, the Indian (BARC) Scicom has stated that if the MD changes then India may/will have to test.

What AK is saying is that the combined tests constitute the current "design".

On "possibility", he should have said "capability".
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ramana »

Irregardless of the success or not of the TN test, he is saying there are multiple TN weapons.
I think this is the crucial fact from this interview.

If the test was successful then the reliability is high and needs few of them. If not the reliability is less and needs more of them.

So in a sense this interview moves it beyond whether TN was tested successfully or not.

----------------
Vasu, in a nuke weapon test what is being tested is the atomic reaction for all other factors can be tested with out reactive testing.

OTH, missiles have different loads and parameters for different trajectories. Hence the need for more testing of that genre.
Locked