Kanson wrote:
Ok, let's scrutinize your claims.
Santanam episode was fairly examined in other threads; we don't know this episode is part of grand strategy. So lets leave Santanam episode for a while.
Actually, why don't you specify what the grounds for your claims were? Its pretty interesting to see you wish to avoid the entire
point of my post which was that Santhanam, with BARCs knowledge and agreement, had control of the testing and as such would
have been well aware of what to expect and not and does not agree with the test results...and was also backed by other BARC guys..
...instead you wish to avoid this, and focus on the hypothetical tangential in my post, which I mentioned as such. What grand strategy and why should we avoid this?
Quote:
One & only fact that you cited for your assertion that other than BARC guys like DRDO do involved in designing of
Nuclear weapon is from nuclearweaponarchive.org and rest you provided are all your assertion and imagination. Let's first
talk of that one & only fact.
So Kanson, you talk of talking to experts and what not, but you seem to be totally unaware that the entire portion in that link is from Weapons of Peace...hmmm, interesting..
Next, a problem with understanding .. at your end apparently...because you miss the point that what I mentioned was a logical
hypothetical based on known data...and given current Indian MIC capabilities, which you seem to be unaware of..and even so, that hypothetical (whether DRDO was involved in making the bomb etc) was tangential to my main point, that KS was the test in charge and hence knew what to expect, measure and how to do so..something backed by even ex AEC folks...you miss this point and get out some argumentative spiel about "assertion and imagination".
This is not DRDO versus BARC, Kanson & it doesn't fall into that simplistic template either. Its about criticism of the manner in which doubts were addressed. Here you had Kalam (ex DRDO) asked by the GOI to solve the debate and support BARC and you had Homi Sethna counter him and say this:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... omi-sethna"Homi Sethna, a former top atomic boss..."I fully support Santhanam and I stand by his statement that India needs more nuke tests to be conducted ," Sethna, the guiding force behind India's first nuclear test in 1974, said."http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... -santhanamThere is a "strong reason to believe that the thermonuclear device had not fully burnt and, therefore, further testing was called for," Iyengar, a former Atomic Energy Commission Chairman, said in a statement yesterday...Iyengar ex AEC himself says this about the role of KS:
Santhanam was one of the four leaders associated with Pokhran-II and must certainly have known many of the details, particularly with regard to the seismic measurements, Iyengar said....this is what makes the issue serious to any observer. Its quite obvious that KS is not a crank, or a rogue voice but merely expressing the views held by several senior folks across the spectrum, including AEC etc.
Then there are the other guys like BK - no great shakes technically or even on policy, but does repeat stuff mentioned by contacts, he was exNSAB after all..again saying TNW fizzled..
Quote:
In this quote, Ramanna, Srinivasan K. Subba Rao, Ramamurthy, P.K. Iyengar are BARC people. The quote explains in developing Conventional explosives(known as lens) for Nuclear package under guidance and supervision of BARC scientists. I don't know how anyone can say, this gives the impression that, "They would have been involved in many design level details and possibly even manufacturing"I hope you agree, involving in some work, and having authority on that work is different. Many construction workers do involve in construction a building/bridge but the person who knows and have complete knowledge and understanding of that work is Chief Engineer, right? 'many design level details' - Again this statement is your assertion. What is that 'many' you want to say and where is the proof?
Sorry but do you even think this merits a serious response? Because what you did here was make a complete mockery out of basic engineering principles.
The link clearly mentions that the TBRL team (referred to in usual journalistic shorthand by only its directors name) was tasked by NagC then DRDO head (After whom the missile was named BTW) to develop the explosive lenses. Clearly on the basis of the fact that they had the expertise to do so, and that it maintained secrecy...and you compare them to under informed construction workers! Brilliant!
And what an ..analogy. A Chief Engineer and bridges...lets see, my close relative, with whom I grew up was a chief engineer, and he informs me that apart from him, the Superintending Engineer, the Executive Engineer, the private contractors all had access to design data and often knew significant portions better than he..because it was their job to do so!
And so, the TBRL team gets allotted the task of the conventional explosive lenses, for which part it would have been their job to find out how to get the task done with current technology, work with BARC team to see what could be done, with both team modifying their expectations, and design work portions accordingly...and in turn the TBRL head does 500 test shots and then delivers the final piece...and this is not manufacturing? What is it then?
Quote:
Again, your assertion/imagination.
So, a hypothetical based on prior events, and current fields of specialization (e.g. who exactly works on conventional explosives in India) is mentioned, and the reasoning explained and you come out with this...brilliant...so no evidence provided that BARC can do the entire job on its own including the conventional explosives part (which could have been one way to do it) or point out that BARC was tasked with doing the entire piece by GOI (which could be another way to do it...). ..nope, just a handwave & thats a counter...
Quote:
This takes the cake. You think, this is similar to the movie scripts, 'C'mon, I need to know everything what is inside before I transport your maal', huh?
You mentioned, 'down to the last detail', Pls don't take it otherwise, but that claim is outlandish. People who involve in such projects often use the word 'compartmentalization'. If you are in doubt, you can check with experts, who actually made their hands dirty in those projects, next time.
Actually, whats outlandish and comparable to movie scripts (the bad ones apparently) are your laboured attempts at sarcasm with juvenile smilies...since you don't seem to want to be civil, I can also proceed on the same way...lets not get there, shall we.
Lets see what I wrote:
So, even considering the DRDO guys did not contribute to the design itself (very unlikely based on prior events), they would have definite need to know the specifics of the bomb design to learn about what it could tolerate in terms of forces, pressures, design fuzing for it, switches etc. Apart from knowing the physical specifics of the packages down to the last detail so as to accurately model it for their delivery - via Agnis etc. Every pound of weight, etc will count.So what did I mean? Its pretty much there in black and white. It means that if these guys who make the missile need to make sure its payload reaches its target and intended altitude etc - and need to make the missile also suitably rugged or design specific so that it doesn't damage the payload...they will need to know the exact dimensions of the payload and as much as possible...and what it can and cannot withstand..
And you bring in compartmentalization and mention "experts who actually made their hands dirty in these projects, next time"...hmmm... if you are arguing about something as clear cut as what I wrote, you really need to take your own advice..and talk to all those guys, far more than I or anyone else here..
Lets see, in simple terms again - DRDO needs to make a missile, the high level guys will work with project leads at BARC and figure out whats possible, get specifics about what the payloads can or cannot withstand, and then specific subteams in both organizations will work on their specific tasks without being aware of the bigger picture. That is compartmentalization. That does not mean the seniors on either side don't know what's going on.
Even today, DAE and DRDO work together closely on many projects, including many strategic ones, beyond this nuke business...so please don't give me this motherhood and apple pie "gyaan" about compartmentalization, experts who made their hands dirty etc...
Heck, lets look back at history. Raja Ramanna – a man who gave DRDO impetus, was a BARC man..
http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/nl/nov2004/welcomenov04.htmIncidentally, Ramana supported the Pokhran-2 tests and was positive about the results...which should tell anyone here about how deep the divide amongst the eminent scientists runs about what was a success and what was not and second, I couldnt give a dang about giving points to counter or not...all I am bothered about is the fact that there is no consensus and the system couldn't handle this..
Quote:
But the briefing is done by DRDO, right ? And not anyother guys, right? Whoever may be the audience who want to know about the missile, only people who were asked to talk about these missiles are DRDO guys. That's the point i'm also raising.
Your point is mistaken I am afraid, because you are cherry-picking what I wrote about the entire process...the point is India's missile program has multiple stakeholders involved, and one agency - i.e. DRDO is not the only auditor of whether its products are complete. This is actually a plus, though the process could be improved further (a single directorate of weapons design, at least for the larger national programs like the LCA etc).
Point is the development process is an iterative, involved process with the user having significant transparency and insight into the entire cycle! Plus its not a given that DRDO alone will necessarily conduct the briefing - there will be examples where even the user representatives who have been part of the development process can be part and parcel of the briefing. I am not going to go dig out my notes on the Prithvi - but there were several Army guys who were part of the process, and later user training as well..
Quote:
Yourself has give me points to counter. I don't know you can import Nuclear bum and so there is no need to 'convince a customer' for the reasons you say.
No, I haven't given you any points to counter...I was very specific about what I wrote. What's happened is yet again, you have gone and misunderstood something...and then gone off on point scoring.
Heres what I wrote:
These are all hard lessons learnt in order to convince a customer of the validity of each system, when imports are often available and used to benchmark local systems. DRDO also brings in ISRO members to audit technical aspects of their programs. The A-3 failure IIRC had an ex ISRO chair auditing.I said imports are often available. Not always. Always would have meant all local programs had import alternatives available. But I didn't and they don't. Imports are available for tactical missiles. That's where DRDO has learnt a hard lesson to involve the user and make sure it gets enough buy in. I mention Agni in the last sentence and also mention ISRO. Its obvious that these both refer to strategic programs and events regarding strategic missiles, where imports are not available.
Quote:
True, once canisterized, these army people, going to fire the missile in times of need. So they need to 'train' by firing missile etc. Nuclear or conventional bum is part of that missile. By firing the missile they also train invariantly firing those bums. Have you anywhere heard of 'Field Workshop' for nuclear bums currently in practise? What is the need to know the insides of nulcear bums separately. If you have a problem and need to service them, there is separate agency to handle that.
Er, who exactly is going to talk about "field workshop" for nuclear bombs (or bums as you wish to refer to them). This entire discussion, speculation etc will lead to stuff about how these are stored, who owns what, timing, processes etc and all that has no business being speculated on an open board unless we are talking of what other countries do.
All said and done, if we see what was done for other payloads, the users will be involved in development of these systems with their inputs at the level that either match their policy/force requirements and second, deployability - which feeds into training. SOPs will be then drawn up, with specific portions available to the operators at need to know basis.
So yes, there will be people from the users who'll know about nuclear bums - more so than the vast majority of people anyway, and they may even grow to become experts in the field over time, if further specialization occurs one day with SFC growing more important. They won't need to know as much as the developers but they can act as auditors over a period of time.
Quote:
If it can be viewed in another angle, this is taking one's word against another person word. For the discussion, How you know that Santanam's claims are not motivated? If people want not to believe AK's words, what is there to believe in Santanam's claim. Just becoz Santanam is head for test preparations? If so who is Anil Kakodkar then?
Right, so a guy who raises doubts, must be motivated. We shouldn't see whether he was right or not, or whether the institutional capability exists to handle those doubts within the framework of the system..VKS raises issues about IA ammo...gets attacked.. KS says tests had an issue...gets attacked...people who raise concerns are not always right and may not always be accurate either, but to dismiss them out of hand is also wrong.
So.. KS is given the job of being the test evaluator and he does that job diligently and does not buy into what the other guys say.
This is actually a plus and exactly what the role is meant to be. Sort of like how CEMILAC acts independent to ADA, HAL etc despite being under DRDO, MOD but acting like an independent (and diligent) auditor. And this makes him “bad”.
The issue is not of how bad KS was to raise this, or how AK has to be lying if he does not agree (why? he has another point of view and may actually believe what he says about test results) but of the systemic flaw that did not evaluate this issue beyond just having both guys "agreeing to disagree" and then leaving the auditor in the position that he felt that he had to raise the issue publicly. Its a systemic flaw.
Now, for all this business of taking one person’s word against that of another…well guess what, happens all the time, in product development, especially complex design and development challenges, especially those in which multiple agencies work and cooperate..
Such issues often arise, its to KS's credit that he broke omerta and said his piece. We'd seriously be in trouble if everyone kept silent even when they did not agree with the other side..however, this is a breakdown of the system...in the ideal world, he should not have had to do this...he would have been satisfied that his concerns were addressed ...or better still, both sides would have had an agreement of what to do, if the TNW test failed..it seems this was not done.
The bigger picture here is there needed to be some sort of structural framework by which the entire issue could be analyzed and all stakeholder's satisfied without bruising organizational egos or harming individual careers. This business of person versus person just misses the point totally. I couldn't care less if the TNW failed and AK made a widget that did not work. His legacy is already secure in getting us to this point. Similarly, I couldn't care less, if KS was wrong, and he was shown to be so. The problem is there was not a system in place that could reconcile the test "view" with the developer view.
That is the challenge here…instead whats happening is people are fixating on personas…KS, AK etc will go a decade from now, the point is the system remains and must be fixed…theres nothing to say that if tests are held again, everything will be fine, what will we done if the TNW MK2 fails, even if TNW MK1 had worked? We need a game plan in place..
Quote:
Why you want to know? I'm asking what is the need to know? Even if BARC do have, why we are expecting BARC to reveal those details? These org work in Strategic realm, just as Supreme Court ordered media, by that extension ordinary juntas, not to delve, reveal and discuss Army/troop movements, there is no need for BARC to reveal anything. And it is also our ignorance to expect BARC to reveal what it does or explain to us in all possible ways to convince us on the work they do and make sure that is believable/acceptable to aam junta like us.
Yeah, what is the need to know problems have occurred, what is the need to debate anything, in which case lets not discuss at all, right?
Heh, everyone here are busy commenting on everything from missiles to other topics, and you are suddenly concerned about a public, non specific debate, using only pure open source information about possible alternatives to tests?
If you think the TNW is a glorious success, sure that’s ok. There are others who are not so sure including ex AEC folks and its clear theres no consensus per se.
All I am concerned about is whether there are ways in which the issue can be resolved, with minimal impact to India and Indian interests. Considering we are not decision makers, we can just hope those who are, are doing what needs be done.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Of course, there is a vast difference between Agni-IV and Agni-V payloads. But the basic system was the same. But Agni-V had much more visibility and we wanted to make sure that all the elements of Agni-V were good. Agni-IV as a system did its job.