Bharat Rakshak

^^^^ Here we go again! NRaoji By this time you can prolly draw those Toman curves in your sleep!

There is no way out, except that one of the parties is a liar. For the record, I like the direct and blunt manner in which KS has come out. No respect et al, non sense. Calling it as he sees it.

I have/had no doubt that there are multiple TN weapons of varying yields in BARC inventory. The question is are they deployable. The irony is the military has always shied away from confirming this, at every opportunity. There is a unique setup, where all control of all things nuclear weapons is under BARC, until the NCA is activated. AK is questioning, how does KS know, because of the unique isolation the BARC enjoys, where virtually no one outside of the BARC leadership and the PMO is supposed to know. Even the damn defense minister, is outside of this loop. Amazing! But, that is only the theory. KS has worked in RAW, BARC (not in 1998), DRDO and was the President of IDSA.

AT the very least, we need multiple institutions to be on the same page. The BARC, DRDO and the Military. Once we have that, this debate goes away.

Fwiw I agree with following for I have always maintained a similar view on this topic.

ShauryaT

For empahsis

All in all Services care two hoots about the alleged 'capability'/'potential' or whatever suitable term one would want to choose as far as bomb making is concerned they have to devise a doctrine around 'tested' warheads , of course chanakians can ridicule this and say "we need not follow the US and west and in fact be the first one's to demonstrate deployment of untested nukes based on SIMULATION" .

I wonder how good this SIMULATION solution is and why not build something on similar lines for DRDL,ISRO,HAL,Midhani and even BEL so that the don't have to waste money and resources on testing new weapons for the simulation package will guarantee whatever blueprint be drawn on paper works as envisaged.

If Agni-II test or even Bulava's development curve is to go by there is no substitute for field tests.

And Dr. Kakodkar realizes this that is why he clearly says "possibility".

I do not see this December 8th 2009 article in Mainstream, by Ashok Parthasarathi, K. Santhanam and P K Iyengar posted on BRF.

The article seeks to refute R. Ramachandran’s September 12-25, Frontline article (Available Here) “Pokhran Row” :

Very Serious Scientific Data Falsification by Ramachandran-Chidambaram

That may be so - but he is talking about people to other people and using the word liar is a mistake in India. In fact Santhanam is being nailed and crucified on that mistake. All this reference to "respect for Santhanam" is a pointed barb that indicates to third parties that one man is "decent" and the other man is a rabble rouser. In India these perceptions make all the difference simply because it is so easy for both parties to call each other liars. When that happens both parties views are rejected. But when one chooses to play the "moral high ground" card - he is essentially checkmating the other guy.

All this blunt/forthright-shorthright stuff may be good for Yamerika - but in India a certain value is attached to the manner in which things are said. It is typically American to "speak your mind and be blunt". Anyone who tries to do that in India scores a self goal as Santhanam has decided to do repeatedly.

A man may be the most knowledgeable and truthful person on earth, but if he doesn't know how to talk and communicate he is a zero. That seems to be Santhanam's voluntary choice. He is reaching the stage when his words are more likely to be dismissed outright than ever before and unless he can come up with something better he is only a step away from media ridicule and censure. This is self-neutralization with a vengeance. He his handing his own head on a platter for the AEC to play football with because of his language and abrasiveness.

From that, this:



This is/has(?) going beyond my capability. I am not sure what to think of this entire episode.

My gut feel is that there is a simple explanation to this. Will wait. There has to be another shoe to drop.

Interestingly they have: "Ramachandran-Chidambaram". They have added "Chidambaram" when the original article did not have "Chidambaram".

This is getting to be nasty.

Why can they not just keep it to figures? Doing that may help make some progress (either way).

Three left feet IMO.

Note that if graph 1 is fabricated, there is no need to make a detailed argument about the Ce-Mn fluctuation as has been done at the beginning of the article.

The only thing Santhanam is managing to say is that Chidambaram et al are unable even to cook up a graph convincingly. I mean a proper accomplished liar would cook up a graph that cannot be disputed. Why cook up a disputable graph if you want to prove a point unless you are so incompetent that you do not know how to cook up a graph? In the end that is what Santhanam may want to prove about Chidambaram.

This is laughable, that too coming from a person who claimed to be a know-all director of POK-2 test. Ok let me ask this question. Can anyone, in simple terms, explain what he try to say and the difference he try to pick up ?

While the first "design" he is referring to is about either no testing (fizzle) or a very small data sample or even just a simulated test, while the second "design" is of a well tested device - say tested some 3-10 times.

That statement to me is OK, understandable.

Sir, if you watched the interview, the reference is to confidence of Army with the TN weapon. Unless TN weapon is deployed by the army where is the question of any confidence wrt to TN weapon. Or, Why would General Malik talk about TN weapon if the Army doesnt deployed the TN weapon. From Suresh Mehta's statement one can infer that military and developement agencies are on the same page. He expressed confidence in them and the weapon.

I take strong offense to the loose remarks against Bombaywallahs , we are the next Shanghai of India as per some promise

Technically speaking confidence in the design is nothing but assured performance of the design.

NRao - FWIW even in my nuclear physics lab, the graphs we plotted had "counts" on Y axis. (Because that is what one did "counted" the events) My Blatt and Weiskoff (Theoretical Nuclear Physics - Old standard text book) , (and other text books on Nuclear spectra) has figures quite similar to what posted in the graph 4 (and yes, some do not have any units on Y axis because one is interested in relative height only) ... a quick internet checking (even wiki - has "counts" on Y axis for gamma ray spectrum) ...

So I have no idea where one gets adjectives like "fabrication" "appalling" etc..May be KS et al see something I don't.

Besides, a simple courtesy email/mail (as it is a routine practice) to the author of the graph (RC) should have been sent for clarification before using adjectives like "appalling" (and if no reply received, KS et all should have mentioned that RC has not replied to their query).... The authors make no note that they have tried to get clarification from the author of the graph(s)... before drawing the most uncharitable conclusions...

This is quite unbelievable from any respected scientist.

Added later: See this http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/gamma/images/spec.gif
or just Wiki article and the graph(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_spectroscopy

I had said this long back. IF RC has cooked, then he did a masterful job - he has managed to convince someone like Bush to sign off on a nuclear deal and arm twist the NSG too.

But that aside, you do have a point.

One small observation.



Actually it does say "Pokhran" - the left side for waveform does say that.



The "Gamma-ray" side does not ...................... because - as the title suggests "typical sample" - it is a control graph. This graph (Gamma-ray) has been "lifted" - it has to be, else it cannot serve the purpose for which it is there. Correct?



Well ................. that is an easy problem to solve (wonder why it did not strike them).



On Graph 1, IF I were to go with the 120 meter depth, then it does not make any sense. BUT, IF I were to go with the 230ish meter depth, then each unit on the x-axis should represent about 50 meters each.

Perhaps I will revisit it in the AM.

True, just that the method used to "assure" the performance could be questioned - when there are multiple methods and the user does not know the method. Which is what is happening here.

But, you are right.

Negi saab, dont worry. All Nuclear powers has to go through the same problem when CTBT is enforced. Not just India. France latest N weapon is based on simulation with no field test.



You are very wrong in comparing Agni-Ii test failure and Simulation. If there is anything wrong wrt simulation it is called design fault and what happened in Agni is QC problem or material fault. Hope you know the difference between the two.

The simulations of missiles vs, nukes was posted on the previous page - apples and oranges.

It is not simulations that matter, it is what level of confidence (among other things) that is critical. Urban planning is entirely simulated - in 25 year increments.

Weren't those graphs (Ramachandran) in some other paper - much earlier?

These are the videos from that link that Amber G posted. Anil Kakodkar's Interview on Devil's Advocate.
Link

As I watch these videos, Karan Thapar asks exactly the questions raised on the forum and very pointedly, and AK responds categorically.

This is a MUST watch video.

Kanson you know playing semantics is dangerous but then I like it now that you have done an 'equal equal' with respect to the French how about putting US in the same boat 'RRW' .... ???

But then since we are using logic sourced from west of our borders (apologies did not mean it,would let it stay as testimony to my EB tendencies ) why not even do an equal equal in terms of number of tests of a given type of a warhead ? ( I think not many come close to us unless photochor and his countrymen qualify )

As for my analogy about SIMULATION yes its idiotic and does not make any sense , but that's precisely my point SIMULATION proves nothing as far as armed forces and their preparedness is concerned they care a zilch if the paper on SHOCK-3D or radio chemical analysis of POK-II yield stands the scrutiny they are being subjected to, Armed forces accept. deploy and devise doctrine based on 'proved and tested' warheads, and my point was 200kT device has never been tested, so the talk about it being a part of MCD makes little sense.

As I watched and listened to the programme live (on 13 Dec 2009 on CNN-IBN's Devil's Advocate) , I felt dissatisfied and unconvinced with Dr Kakodkar's dismissal, in one fell swoop, of DRDO's report to the Govt, saying their instrumentation was faulty. There was no mention of "calibration" of the instruments being wrong -- a 'data point' that was being discussed in these (Pokhran) threads some time ago, and which was strongly contested by Dr. K Santhanam. In any case, if it was only a calibration error, perhaps there was/is some way to make post-facto correction(s) to the readings from those instruments - a form of "fudging" indulged in by many researchers

I recollect that during the programme, both words, "instrumentation" (which to me, means a system comprising of multiple instruments and other equipment / subsystems such as measurement devices, recorders, transmitters, power supplies, cables, etc), and "instruments" (plural) were used to describe DRDO's measurement set up. I am sure that in a test of this kind, where the instrumentation might get destroyed due to the event, thereby leaving very little opportunity for later trouble-shooting analysis of what went wrong, a great amount of redundancy would have been built into the entire paraphernalia. Unless there was a common cause failure afflicting all the redundant equipment which had not been foreseen by the designers earlier (as otherwise it would not have been truly redundant), I am not convinced that the entire system could have become faulty and all readings from it rendered useless. If indeed that was the case, Dr Kakodkar could have just inserted a few words, without revealing any sensitive information about the cause(s) of failure, to indicate that in spite of redundancy, the entire system failed.

By the way, did DAE co-locate any of its own siesmic instrumentation near abouts where DRDO had placed theirs? Did these, and only these give "correct" readings?

I think this whole interview was meant for consumption by those who are supposed to be deterred by India's CMD as a means of reparing the 'damage' that might have been caused by the recent controversy about the yield of the only TN device tested, and not meant for Indian Citizens

US hasnt ratified yet, so we cant do the equal equal thing now. We have to wait for that tamasha to begin.

It make sense. But if can you able to give a count of tests done for each type of warhead it will be a real fun. I'm not making any loose statement. Once you made that count, i will tell you how good those 1000 tests are.
May be you should ask the American and Russian armed forces how they have devised the doctrine becoz being sinatories to Threshold test ban treaty with limits the testing yield to 150kt they cannt test Warheads like W88 to full yield. So they are in the same quandary that you say we are now. I guess we are equal equal now.

Kanson ji this is hilarious but fwiw

W-71 (I guess the largest in terms of yield what Unkil has tested )

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

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

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

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

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

And yes coming back to semantics W88 is a warhead and not a TN device I don't think POk-II S-I device was a TN warhead and hence an improper analogy even from an argument's pov .

Coming to British they had all the designs passed by Unkil and even conducted joint testing with Unkil .

The actual exchange is:



My take is that since he is talking about deterrence, he is referring to the fact that in response to any nuclear attack it is possible for India to have a range of responses from a few kilotonnes to 200 kilotonnes i.e. the arsenal available to India's armed forces gives them a range of possible responses in terms of available warheads.

FWIW

By calling AK a liar KS IMO has crossed the line and has lost any sympathy he may have had with the general public in India.

Two questions (may be naive, indicating my lack of 'domain' knowledge) :

First (gurus in BRF knowledgeable in geology may please enlighten me on this)

Assuming that cavities 'A' and 'B' are about 1 Km apart along the surface of earth's mantle, and that cavity 'A' is located about 150 metres deep from the surface while cavity 'B' is at about 200 metres depth, is it possible that, even at such short distances, one cavity is in alluvium and the other in hard granite? In other words, considering the large size of the earth's mantle, can there be such wide singularities in its properties?

Second (applies only if possibility of existence of such alluvium/granite singularities as above is contested):

Is the Pokhran range not accessible to even knowledgeable Govt. agencies, independent of both DAE and DRDO, -- such as ARC (Aviation Research Centre) -- so that they could gather one or more borehole data now, somewhere midway between the two cavities, and determine the seismic characteristics of the area in an attempt to bring DAE and DRDO analysts to a common conclusion (If necessary the borehole data could be maintained Classified and not made public) ?

here are some pointers,

There was venting during one of the US tests, that could be due to such a geological singularity of cracked soil

'Makran' granite from Rajasthan is popular

its the army that dug the pits, it knows if they had drilled into a granite layer or can get expertize from ONGC, Reliance, Mining companies for geological survey of a site, this can throw light on the drilling process into hard rocks or dynamite strength needed to blow them as well

I see people "appreciating" Mr. Santanam's "directness" & "Bluntness" in calling Dr. Kakodkar a Liar. Sorry, but I just lost all respect I had for this guy Santanam. He sounds like a cornered petulant child. He is also a loose canon who is shooting off his mouth to assuage his humongous ego. Airing this kind of laundry in public is detimental to the country but it appears that he does not give a damn. Calling someone a liar when they cannot respond because their hands are tied is a very low despicable act.

Please note, I am not saying that you should accept everything the BARC guys tell us. Not on your life. But these kinds of things should be raised in the appropriate forums. If the problem is no such forum exists, then you should try and build one rather than playing this game.

It will take a LOT more evidence than what this dude is offering for me to believe that BARC people lied, conspired and managed to cover-up something like this. Also, they pulled in AEC and the GOI and the Army into this. I am sorry but I think very highly about the people's integrity and character in BARC, I am not saying that they cannot fail. I think like everyone else, they experience their share of failures but they would not lie. They would inform the appropriate chain of command. I am willing to bet everything I have on that.

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

By doing so what KS is saying is that a just-retired AEC boss can lie in a public interview - please note lie and not fudge, be evasive, less than truthful etc - about something as fundamental as the state of India's deterrence. What signal does that send? I'm not even taking into consideration RC's stature as a nuclear scientist.

To me it means that KS is saying that AEC is a disreputable organisation whose boss for more than a decade can easily lie about something as fundamental as this. Does that mean the culture of the organisation is such that people are taught to lie and get away with it? Inquiring minds would question if other former AEC stalwarts like PK Iyenger and Shetna were also lying when they came out in support of KS? Of course this pre-supposes that KS is a lily white seeker of truth and nothing but the truth.

Sorry for the mini-rant. But it's one thing to have a former BRF stalwart calling certain people a liar and quite another to have one of the people in this sorid drama calling other important people liars.

My POV is very simple. I don't claim to be an expert in this matter and neither do I understand the maths involved very well.

However, as far as the sizzle side of the debate is concerned, we've had two PMs and their NSAs coming out in support of this POV. We've had Army and Navy stalwarts - highly respected folks - coming out in support of the idea that India has a robust deterrence. And of course we've had the AEC and DAE as institutions coming out in support of this stance. Curiously KS' organisation DRDO has been pretty quiet in this whole issue.

Now for a moment let's take the extreme view and agree that RC, AK and Sikka are liars and indeed POK TN was a fizzle. Now if that's the case it means that two PMs, one ex-President and a host of other august officials are all liars because everyone of them have in their own way contested this fizzle claim by KS. I really don't buy the snake oil that's been peddled around that these people were all taken in by glib talk by RC (I know the focus has now shifted to AK - he's the new liar) and don't have a clue of the actual ground situation w.r.t our TN bombs and deterrence.

So I would request people who are turning KS, the ex-RAW hero, into an Indian version of the Hollywood "B" grade never say die spy out to expose all the bad guys to consider whether they really believe, that the entire spectrum of India's political leadership, its Defence forces and other institutions are either filled with liars or nitwits who can be hoodwinked so easily. And that none of them love Mother India sufficiently to come out in the open once KS blew the whistle if indeed something was amiss?

I think in this issue we've gone past the triumphant: "I told you so..." kind of debate.

It's really a sad day for India. Everyone wanted AK to clarify and give the other side of the story. The moment he does so after retirement (note this point please) KS calls him a liar. Yet some folks here are appreciative of the fact that KS doesn't pull any punches in doing so. Interestingly these same folks took great objection to the fact that the two NSAs used less than honourable phrases to talk about KS - I suppose if they had called him a liar it would have been more acceptable; they would have then displayed the much admired direct and blunt manner with no respect et al nonsence.

PS: In this fizzle-sizzle tamasha, why is there such a penchant for the fizzle crowd to call people on the other side of the debate liars - both on BRF as well as in the actual debate between the two parties? I'm really curious about this.

Wow, so it refuses to die, much as would be loved by some.....



Lot of emphasis of simulation here.

Also lot of questions which are not answered.

1) The seismic devices failed, so where does the seismic data come from?
2) KS repeatedly said DRDO was responsible for all instrumentation, not just seismic, Kakodokar talks only about seismic, who is lying?
3) Who are the other groups run by who get data from 5-6 different sources? Who are they run by, who do they report to?

Other than that, the usual, "believe us we know, and Sanathan does not"

Sigh.....

A great day for India. I was wondering after all those East Anglia University revelations: "Aiyyoooo!!! Has India lost the touch? Can the best of Indian cuisine not match the British in cooking up data?"

Note that the Khetolai Certainty still proves that KS was "**ing". Either when he was the Test Cordrinator. Or now that he is a Media Circus Figure. Take ur pick.

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

Kakodkar (along with others) has also been calling KS a lier BTW, surprising there's no moral outrage about that aspect.

It would help nail a lie if an explicit reference is shown where KS has been called a liar. A lot of folks have said he was not in the loop when in fact he claimed he was but where was the Rubicon crossed and he was called a liar.
I can say for example the fizzle crowd have their perspective wrong. But am I calling them lairs?

Well actually numerous examples exist, starting from the "maverick" description to the latest interview where Kakodakar has has said that KS is talking about things that he does not know about (not perspective, he has clearly said that wrong statements have been repeatedly made)

Yes explicitly the work "liar" has not been used; however the sad part about many views is that nothing explicit is ever said, its all about "possibilities", "should believe", "capabilities" etc etc.

Personally I fail to see the difference between explicit and implicit mentions, since the implicit mentions are pretty clear as well to me. I also fine no particular purpose in giving moral authority to X because he ONLY used the word maverick vs less to someone because he used the word "liar"

Both parties have liberally flung around mud, and we have clear data point on when the mud flinging was started.

So on BRF, it would be my recommendation on staying away from the dubious game of assigning brownie point and credibility to POVs based on use of word "out of loop" (to some one who says he was not) vs liar.

--------------------

On the issue of open questions add one more
--- What about the issue of voice vote and DRDO dossier? True, false or just ignore it?

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

Well may be AK and RC knows that he is not lying after all

After Austin's post, IMHO this question needs to be asked:

Does the fizzle crowd on BRF think AK is lying?

I think the time for niceties and innendos are over.

Me I prefer to call KS a Maverick. I know Sanku thinks that akin to calling him a liar.

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