Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

[Austin]

Kakodkar was born on November 11, 1943. Age: 68 yrs.

R Chidambram was born on Born November 12, 1936. Age: 72 years.

No retirement for these gentlemen?

Yeah , why are these people still in GOI ?
RC should have been leading a retired life and playing with his grandchildren

[Sanjay]

They are retired. They are responding to charges made by two other retirees.

[shiv]

N^3,

Though I was able to understand most of the points you made about Khetolai, there is one which I am missing.

What makes it sure that it is because of the s1 that the damage was done to Khetolai?

What if the other, I mean s2, was the cause of the damage?

I hope I am not asking who is Sita after the page number nearing 3digit.

I am not N3 and you are not asking who is Sita.

S1 and S2 were detonated simultaneously. Therefore the damage at Khetolai was due to yield of S1 plus S2.

Now if either of them had been any greater - say by double or triple or even 10 times more what would have happened in Khetolai is the question.

[Sanku]

Now if either of them had been any greater - say by double or triple or even 10 times more what would have happened in Khetolai is the question.

At what depths is a part of the question.

[Sanku]

They are retired. They are responding to charges made by two other retirees.

Surely not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anil_Kakodkar

is the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India and the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajagopala_Chidambaram

is the Principal Scientific Advisor to the Government of India and former Director of India's primary nuclear research facility, BARC.

[shiv]

Shiv, Santhanam, Chidambaram & Co. and Iyengar are all correct in their own ways.

This was the impression I got. The whole maya of 100 pages has been to make some "more correct" than others.

PKIs latest response posted on the previous page is in no way incompatible with what RC and Sikka said yesterday. I was just wondering how much ROTFL would have occurred in various nations if India had said its deterrent is based on reliable 200 kt TN warheads.

Everyone knows we have not tested and the people who have tested know how unreliable things might get in terms of yield. The latter is what Santhanam and Sikka are saying.

[Sanjay]

Shiv, the comment that SFC today will not accept a FBF 700kg warhead of 1980s vintage because the confidence level then is not what they want now is symptomatic of a very conservative mindset and one which I do not think persists.

Well Sanku - I did not think AK was still in harness. RC I view his job as retirement - kind of like Kalam's position !

[enqyoob]

N^3,

Though I was able to understand most of the points you made about Khetolai, there is one which I am missing.

What makes it sure that it is because of the s1 that the damage was done to Khetolai?

What if the other, I mean s2, was the cause of the damage?

I hope I am not asking who is Sita after the page number nearing 3digit.

Jimmy, no problem, the issue here is more that after 1,700,000 pages in the Civilian Nuclear Deal Ro-Dho and this POK-Fijjal Ro-Dho, there are several who do not ASK who "Seeth" was to "Rama" but insist that Seetha be banned from wimmens' 400m and her gold medal revoked.

The answer to your question is that S1-S2 were simultaneous - apparently they were triggered with the same switch. I am sure that this was done to make sure that no one outside could figure out the division between the two, and the fission-fusion breakdown. WHY the GOI has to be that secretive about the breakdown is surely subject to different interpretations, I am not going into that here. Point is, however, is that the TOTAL yield of S1+S2 had to be used in calculating the damage threshold to Khetolai. It doesn't matter whether the damage was to come from S1 or S2, since the waves formed one continuous earthquake.

So my argument is simply that the test designers knew that the blasts would be simultaneous, and they had to calculate the total effect.

a) If the ACTUAL total yield was 60KT, then there is no disagreement. It matches what GOI claimed.

b) If the ACTUAL total was only 40KT, (Santanam alleged at least a shortfall of 20KT?) then one must ask what would have happened with another 20KT (50%) on top of what happened, and that too coming on top of the bigger of the two shockwaves. It's pretty clear that it would have been a disaster.

And if it was supposed to be a 100 KT or 200KT blast, then Khetolai would have looked like this

So that's why no "gender test" is needed for Seetha and her winning the 400m is no fluke. Ain't no "peering" or "re-viewing" by outsiders going to be done there either.
**********************************************************************************

Now back to resolving the whole tamasha:

The solution is clearly there in the Official GOI statement.

What the GOI has claimed (ever since 1998) is that the "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" has been obtained, and that India "HAS THE CAPABILITY TO BUILD" up to 200KT weapons. NOT that the tests were of weapon samples.

Because the tests were conducted in 1998, not 1964, there is no need to actually do a 200KT bum to prove that what holds at 20KT fusion will also hold at 200KT fusion.

If someone wants to have that proved to them in REAL WEAPONIZED TEST, well... they can provoke India by conducting a nuclear attack, and then they can see the PROOF in their own cities.

The pressing technical issues are in the delivery systems, in ensuring
a) storability of the delivery system
b) reliability and speed of launch
c) reliability of the C^3 and decision chain for launch
d) guidance accuracy and precision
e) survivability against counter-measures.

All of these are vastly different in technology between 1964 and 2009. So there's no sense in arguing that "All the P-5 have BIG mijjiles and bums, we also want BIG mijjiles and bums" without proper consideration of what is appropriate.

As for the "SHARK!" analogy, it may be true that "public perception" may be be more terrified by the shark, but ppl planning wars tend to be a little less worried about that, and are far more worried about the realities, viz, the piranha, forget the barracuda. Any nation that is likely to attack, or threaten to attack, India with nukes, is not one where the PUBLIC gets to decide what to fear.

[enqyoob]

At what depths is a part of the question.

There u go, Jimmy, see what I mean? The depth is NOT part of the question or the answer. Because the depth was obviously part of the calculation to figure out what would have happened at Khetolai with any given DESIGN yield. So if the chosen depth was X, the Max Safe Design Yield of S1+S2 was Y. This is what the govt. permitted the designers to use.

I don't know what Y was, or X was, and I don't care.

What matters is that ACTUAL Y > DESIGN Y because there WAS damage at Khetolai, and it was serious, expensive damage. 1.5*(Design Y) would have been catastrophic.

But then, ONCE we see that ACTUAL Y > DESIGN Y, one has to agree that yield estimation practice in India for weapon design is conservative. Which takes all the fun out of 1,700,000,000 pages of allegations to the contrary.

[enqyoob]

And just as an exercise, nothing for or against any specific postors, I recommend a browsing of the thread titles on the various pages of the BR Forum these days.

1. POK-2 Attempt 1
2. POK-2 Attempt 2
3. Sharm-el-Sheikh 1
4. Sharm-el-Sheikh 2
5. End-User Agreement Capitulation 1
6. End-User Agreement Capitulation 2

I gave up at this, but if nausea does not stop you, you may want to test your resistance to torture by finding many more like this. I mean, one DOES get a bit tired of this, hey? Why have BRF when we have such wonders as The HINDU, REDIFF, IVARTA, HINDUSTAN TIMES, CNN, AP, DAWN, NEW CHINA NEWS AGENCY, PEOPLE'S Weekly (Official Organ of the CPI(Maoist) ), FOIL Newsletter, and ALMS CONTROL DONK?

While the only REAL news of concern, such as

Poll: ARIHANT IS REALLY MADE OF PLASTIC - SHOCKING REVELATIONS!!

gets cruelly suppressed?

[RamaY]

In countries where there is no difference between politics and military and the country's decisions are made by a small group not having to answer the entire nation the decision would be easier. It is not a choice of the SFC as far as I can tell.

Shiv-ji,

This statement is factually incorrect in all aspects, including the very purpose of this thread. A small group decided what is the success criteria and confirmed that the "desired" goals are met and the program completed, the "entire" nation be damned.

I can give you as many examples as you want in culture, law-and-order, civil supplies, employment, health, education, banking & financial systems, military, Para-military, police, administration, legislature, environment, media what not each and every as aspect of this nation.

[shiv]

Shiv, the comment that SFC today will not accept a FBF 700kg warhead of 1980s vintage because the confidence level then is not what they want now is symptomatic of a very conservative mindset and one which I do not think persists.

Ah - if that mindset extends to our neighbors then all their 3 MT warheads are junk.

[geeth]

>>>Because the tests were conducted in 1998, not 1964, there is no need to actually do a 200KT bum to prove that what holds at 20KT fusion will also hold at 200KT fusion.

This is the crux of the whole....ahem...fijjile matter, discussed over the past month or so.

There are two contentious issues. One is that the fusion didn't work and hence no question of scaling up a design which is faulty. I for one is more or less convinced that the TN devise worked and is scalable. But I am a layman and my conclusion could be as dumb as the bum.

Second is that even if the TN devise was a success, it needs to be weaponised to gain the confidence of the end user and give proper sleep to many forum members. Yes, in an ideal situation, it would have been possible. But having not tested it yet, IMO, we must wait for the chance and explode it, and STILL should not sign CTBT.

My view is that nothing has been lost..yes we could have tested it before, but then the pressure to sign CTBT would have been much more than what it is today.

[NRao]

On Pakistan having "far more" deterrence, what is "far more"?

The ONLY thing I can think of is IF there is a China-Pak nexus (which I think there is), and China uses Pakistan to threaten India. Yes, then there is. BUT, IF Pakistan has 100 nukes and India has 25, that does not constitute "far more". For the simple reason that with the 25 India has, perhaps India can make sure that even what survives in Pakistan is not worth it.

I can deter Saudi Arabia with two nukes (that is two nukes which get to their target, so IF I were to compute 25% of my missiles can reach their destination, I will need 8 nukes+missiles).

SSridhar,

True, TNs will help. BUT, what if I were to lay waste China's capacity to grow food for the next 50 years or so? Is that not a deterrent?

It is said that the US has devised ways to save their leadership (which includes ALL fields - not just politics. The story goes that the US have identifies some 5-10 people is ALL professions that have absolute priority - to be saved in the event of a nuclear was. AND, they HAVE stocked up of ALL essential metals and other resources - to the best they can). So, the deterrence in this case is to threat that.

In short India has to only devise a threat to what the enemy values most after a nuclear war.

IF India were to lob a few nukes over Pakistan, what can survive there? In fact, with the prevailing winds, a LOT of western sections of India will be lost too. You can say goodbye to a lot of Punjab - the bread basket of India.

Same with China, their leadership will survive, but that land that was nukes cannot be rehabed for quite a long time.

Then comes what Shiv posted. IF China destroys India what confidence will ANY other nation have that China will not use nukes on them? And, perhaps for no rhyme or reason.


Also, Indian testing is a political issue, NOT a BARC issue. Reading tea leaves it seems that the Indian scicom did ask for more tests, perhaps the politicians said why. They computed the probabilities of every event and came to this decision. (Yes, it is a matter of probabilities.)

Pakistan should have better nukes, perhaps even better missiles. But, that certainly does not translate into "far more" deterrence.

[shiv]

In countries where there is no difference between politics and military and the country's decisions are made by a small group not having to answer the entire nation the decision would be easier. It is not a choice of the SFC as far as I can tell.

Shiv-ji,

This statement is factually incorrect in all aspects, including the very purpose of this thread. A small group decided what is the success criteria and confirmed that the "desired" goals are met and the program completed, the "entire" nation be damned.

If you are correct we should be testing no? And if that small group had their say the Thermonuclear devices should be weaponized no.

Neither are we going to test, nor have the thermonuclear devices been weaponised. The rest of your post is complete fluff as far as this thread is concerned. Just as well to talk of babies and mothers dying at birth. We have "weaponized" that capability fully and some of the elite want to turn a blind eye to that. No?

[Austin]

The solution is clearly there in the Official GOI statement.

What the GOI has claimed (ever since 1998) is that the "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" has been obtained, and that India "HAS THE CAPABILITY TO BUILD" up to 200KT weapons. NOT that the tests were of weapon samples.

Because the tests were conducted in 1998, not 1964, there is no need to actually do a 200KT bum to prove that what holds at 20KT fusion will also hold at 200KT fusion.

Just because the test is conducted in 1998 , does not make it any better than those conducted in 1950 , unless you do a weaponised test and prove it works with the real thing , else its just a tall claim.

Real weapon test is no substitute for SCIENTIFIC PROOF , not to mention the SCIENTIFIC PROOF itself lacks credibility beyond the usual parrots of the establishment.

They said the same thing for Agni , 3 is enough , but when they fired the 4th from the batch , it veered ofcourse and they patched it up quickly in a month and fired it to prove it works, the reason they give is statistics and computer can substitute for the real thing..... not true .

Such statistics and computer are also available to others like Russia , who go for the full extra length needed to test and then their military keeps testing to check operational readiness and reliability.

If someone wants to have that proved to them in REAL WEAPONIZED TEST, well... they can provoke India by conducting a nuclear attack, and then they can see the PROOF in their own cities.

Sure , and you will see skeleton will fall from the cupboard

[shiv]

Now if either of them had been any greater - say by double or triple or even 10 times more what would have happened in Khetolai is the question.

At what depths is a part of the question.

S1 and S2 were both tested at depths ranging between the surface and "more than 200 meters"

There was damage at Khetolai

Assume S1 and S2 both fizzled - there was damage at Khetolai

Assume S1 fizzled and S2 worked - there was damage at Khetolai

Assume S1 worked and S2 fizzled - there was damage at Khetolai

Now if both had worked as planned would the damage at Khetolai have been more, or the same, or less? That is the question.

The fact of damage at Khetolai does not disappear no matter what depth you assign either test. The yield could only have increased given the idea that at least one was a fizzle. The depth is a constant.

Fact is that seismology is not very helpful here. It is astrology that we need.

Now where's ****r**?

[shiv]

Just because the test is conducted in 1998 , does not make it any better than those conducted in 1950

That is in fact what R Chidambaram has claimed

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper451.html

Figure 7 gives the testing frequency (the number of tests done per year) of U.S over the years till they stopped nuclear explosive testing in 1992. The growth in computing power over the years is plotted in the same figure. There is a clear inverse correlation.

In fact, in the early years of nuclear weapons development, it was faster and cheaper to test out a new idea by actual nuclear explosive detonation than to carry out a computer calculation, and the lower computing power available was also compounded by inadequate physics knowledge. The situation is very different now.

[RamaY]

Shiv-ji

I am confused. Are you saying that our weapon designers are confident of our FBF designs to take them to 200KT level? And we have enough dung to make tens if not hundreds of those big-boys? And the designers are confident of validating TN designs using sub-critical tests?

If KS has any point, why would the other scientific community divert the attention from KS’s “need to test and NO seeteebeetee” argument by muddying the waters further? Wouldn’t it be purposeful to make their political bosses answer KS’s questions from policy perspective?

On the fluff comment: it was a response to your comparison between democratic Vs dictatorial decision making process and we will talk about it some other time.

[JimmyJ]

Thank you N^3 Shiv & Sanku that clears my mind to see where all the Signs are pointing.

Expecting more press releases from GOI will come in these days clearly stating that India in not interested to join NPT as a non NWS. Obama probably can leave the White House at the end of the term as a full talk little action Mr. President

[Raj Malhotra]

As more information has become available, I will again update and reproduce my post:-

I think Santhanam left 3 clues (pieces of info) in his paper. The first was that fission bomb was 25kt which has been confirmed by Santhanam now.

The second clue was about the designed yield of TN which I am trying to unravel and third clue I have discussed below. My conclusion of design yield is 500kt to 1MT (1MT=1000kt).
The third issue/clue is what is the dispute between BARC & DRDO. We are reading that dispute as dispute about yield. I don’t think that is the dispute. It would be idiotic to assume that Santhanam was not told about the “design yield”. Note-GoI & BARC are saying that he was not aware of “design” (not yield). The dispute (my guess) is about fusion Burn. That is why Santhanam says that BARC & DRDO agreed on S2 in which the actual yield was 25kt but reported as 10-15kt. And (my guess) is the reason he says that they disagreed was that DRDO (probably) said that (almost) nil fusion burn took place in S1 and the test is not adequate for weaponization and BARC said that (some) fusion burn did take place and hence test was adequate for generating data for FBF and TN. I think that is why BARC is saying that DRDO-Santhanam has no data (from instrumentation) and they have kept/held drilled – radioisotope data close to their heart. Santhanam is saying that he has adequate data from his own instrumentation and hence (almost nil) fusion burn took place. I rely upon the following to support my point:-

India nuclear tests 'successful'

Mr. Chidambaram said proliferation sensitive information such as the composition of materials used or their quantities had not been revealed so it was "speculative" on the part of others to calculate the yield.

"No one outside the design team has the data to calculate this fission-fusion yield break-up or any other significant parameter related to fusion burn," the two men said in a statement.

Santhanam's views on nuke test are a clincher: ex-AEC chairman
Agencies Posted online: Friday , Sep 25, 2009 at 1145 hrs
Mumbai : In the midst of the controversy over the success of the 1998 thermonuclear test, nuclear scientist P K Iyengar has said the views of former DRDO scientist K Santhanam on the issue are the "clincher".
There 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 on Thursday.

He rejected the statement attributed to him by government's Principal Scientific Advisor R Chidambaram on the outcome of the 1998 thermonuclear test, saying he was "misquoted" by him on something he had written in 2000.

He said Chidambaram had "tried to imply that I am in agreement with the official number for the yield of the thermonuclear test of 45 kilotons and that I, therefore, also agree that the thermonuclear device was a success. This is not correct. What I wrote in a newspaper article published in August 2000 was that if one goes by the numbers for the total nuclear yield put out by the Department of Atomic Energy, which I see no reason to dispute, the yield of the thermonuclear device detonated on May 11, 1998, was around 40 kilotons. This is a rather low yield."

The crux of that article was that even if one were to accept without question the DAE yield of 40 kt, there is a strong reason to believe that the thermonuclear device had not fully succeeded, Iyengar said.

From Pioneer, 24 Sept., 2009

FLASH | Thursday, September 24, 2009 | Email | Print |
Can build nuke deterrence upto 200 kilotons: Kakodkar
PTI | Mumbai
Explaining how the two-stage device needed a thorough understanding of advanced seismology and radiochemistry, Chidambaram said "our results were so accurate that we disclosed the yield on the same day of the explosion which no other country has done as science has evolved in the last two decades."
"We do not understand how without the knowledge of the design and therefore, without knowledge of the fusion-fission break-up and the quantity of thermonuclear material in the device and its isotopic composition, he has tried to calculate the efficiency of the fusion burn," he said.

Hence my conclusion, till refuted. BARC tested a 500kt to 1MT TN as S1 which failed and produced only 25kt. The 6th test was pulled as it was 100-350kt and would have produced only 5-10kt on fizzle which would have been difficult to disguise. India does not have FBF Or TN. BARC thinks that it can design FBF or TN on this data and Santhanam says NO!!!!!!!!!
This theory was only supported by speculation till today, as I was watching CNBC and a Gentleman Gopal (something) titled as Nuclear expert) said (as per my hearing during channel surfing) that we need 825kt yield to match Santhanam’s statement (he was rubbishing Santhanam with assistance of Karan Thapar but proving my point).
I also quote:-

I will throw a wild card out especially in light of General Malik's comments regarding "megaton weapons".

SP's Military Yearbook of 1992-93 indicated that India had prepared designs of nuclear weapons of between 20KT and 1MT...

Make of that what you will.

I would add another thing - despite how they may act, no part of the Indian scientific, military or political establishment is fundamentally stupid. Somewhere - sometimes very deep down - there is a hard core of pragmatism.

I am reproducing my last post again, to encourage somebody to give more answers. I will be glad to be proved wrong.

So if an expected crater radius of 72m and DOB of 230 m is for what yield?
K Santhanam gives the crater radius for the S-2 in his op-eds.

This is the multi-million dollar question, which i think will reveal the difference between three yields of S-1 "design yield" vs "claimed yield =43kt" vs "actual yield =20kt". I think that Santhanam has already given info that part of yield of Fission bomb was used to save H&D of TN. Now the only reason he & PKI could be so sure of failure is that "design yield was way higher". So what was the yield that could be contained in 230m depth shaft in hard rock pink granite with 72m subsistence crater (my guess would be anything between 500kt-1mt). One way would be to feed data into Sikka article to get 72m subsistence crater instead of retarc (from 43kt)

So Guys waiting for the answer to Ramana's question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I don’t have mathematical capability to do 3D simulations and somebody will have to help)

The resident experts STILL are ignoring my queries therefore I will try to connect some dots in my own limited way:-

1. PKI said that if 10% fusion fuel burned then it would lead to 20kt fusion yield. It meant that PKI was talking about 200kt fusion yield which means something like 500kt to 1MT yield of the TN. My assumption is that TN nuke design started during PKI time and he knew that the TN was supposed to yield 500kt to 1MT and hence was not even satisfied with “then” reported 50kt yield.

2. Santhanam talked about 350kt to 1MT yield TNs, why ??. Why did General Malik refer to 1MT bomb?

3. SBM has referred to weight of 484kg for S1, it is too much for chotu 43kt TN, as I said before that even in 1960s the TN of this yield weight around 50kg.

4. Arun_S talks about boosted primary, boosted spark plug and tertiary, hence 50kt design yield is way toooooooo less for such a configuration.

5. Why would a team of scientists testing a TN for the first & perhaps the last time test a 43kt chotu TN? I think village thing is a red herring.

6. My take is that 230m shaft in “pink granite hard rock” could take a 500kt-1MT TN explosion.

7. My (revised guess) is that S1 was meant to be 500kt-1MT device in which even the boosted primary fizzled leading to FBF yield of 17kt instead of 40-50kt and 2-4kt fusion yield instead of 200kt fusion yield with minor yields from spark plug and tertiary.

8. Ashely Tellis also said that primary failed to boost, this observation may have been based on intelligence reports.

9. My guess is that the 6th test was pulled as it was the lighter smaller, say 150kg-350kt yield TN whose fizzle would have given 4-5kt yield and would have been difficult to disguise as chotu TN.

10. It has been stated (by Santhanam?) has stated that FBF was 17kt but this NOT equivalent of stating that it burned properly.

11. TN test has not resulted in weapon even after 11 years.

Note:- Just read Arun _ S post:- My comments are in bold

7. My (revised guess) is that S1 was meant to be 500kt-1MT device in which even the boosted primary fizzled leading to FBF yield of 17kt instead of 40-50kt and 2-4kt fusion yield instead of 200kt fusion yield with minor yields from spark plug and tertiary.

Boosted primary did not fizzle. Even Santhanam has stated that recently in press. It performed correctly per design (17 kT). (Sorry-I disagree till my core question is answered as what would produce 72m subsistence crater in pink granite at 230m depth)

9. My guess is that the 6th test was pulled as it was the lighter smaller, say 150kg-350kt yield TN whose fizzle would have given 4-5kt yield and would have been difficult to disguise as chotu TN.

Yes but for many reasons:

• 1.) RC and Sikka knew immediately the TN failure mode was very basic to fusion design, and it would definitely fail on the send TN article too.
  
  2.) Even if they wanted to take that shot to increase FBFB Primary Trigger reliability, there was no 20 kT pure fission Weaponized bum left on the 3rd day, to transfer Pure Fission yield to TN fusion. India would be exposed naked with nothing to mask failure. I think they did the right thing to pull out that shot. (What happened to dozens of weapons lying around with IAF, they could have lowered one in the shaft along with S6)
  
  3.) I also think fabrication of some critical parts in TN was extremely expensive and time consuming, why waste it, instead it will help time-wise to get to next series of test. (come on>>>>>>>>> expensive>>>>>>>> give me a break. Equipment/material is normally expensive due to capital expensive plant to produce & once the plant/pilot plant is there, the cost of material itself is not material in strategic programmes)

  10. Santhanam (through Arun_S?) has stated that FBF was 17kt

  Wrong to attribute it to Santhanam. (apology!!!!)

[Austin]

Just because the test is conducted in 1998 , does not make it any better than those conducted in 1950

That is in fact what R Chidambaram has claimed

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper451.html

Figure 7 gives the testing frequency (the number of tests done per year) of U.S over the years till they stopped nuclear explosive testing in 1992. The growth in computing power over the years is plotted in the same figure. There is a clear inverse correlation.

In fact, in the early years of nuclear weapons development, it was faster and cheaper to test out a new idea by actual nuclear explosive detonation than to carry out a computer calculation, and the lower computing power available was also compounded by inadequate physics knowledge. The situation is very different now.

But US and India are not in the same league right ?

The US has tons of data and have experimented with every kind of TN device and gathered a very large sample of data , which gives them the confidence to rely on computer calculation.

India has just one device to its credit and can claim because US can do it with confidence , so can we ?

That argument I think is very flawed , and its just used to hide ones own weakness.

Computing can never be a substitute for real test , much like simulator can never be a substitute for real flying.

[John Snow]

Sethna was Gujrati and had good rapport with Desai.

Sethna is a Parsi. All the Parsis I know speak GujArati.

Sethna can also be the last name of a Gujarati Bohra.

An underperforming or failed to explode (but real device) is not a decoy.
Decoy is to fool the enemy, but real device that does not funtion to be called a decoy is most expensive foolish and expensive act.

just a nota bene

[Sanjay]

Raj Malhotra, I disagree with your conclusions. I do not think the evidence supports the assertions made.

Regarding simulations it depends on how you go about it - in India simulations were validated by tests. In the US things were the other way around.

Again - please separate the need to test more from India's capability.

[NRao]

Hence my conclusion, till refuted. BARC tested a 500kt to 1MT TN as S1 which failed and produced only 25kt.

I am not if you had the time to read through the BR article that was referred to you by Shiv (when you made a similar post - previous to this one).

What I am pretty sure of is that a 500 Kt device would NOT match the 72 meter radius claimed by Santhanam. It would be a far larger crater. So, IF Santhanam is very sure of the radius of a crater, he MUST be very sure of the yield too and I am sure he knows where to find equations IF he is not aware of the Toman equation - so that is not an issue.

ramana computed at approximate yield - for a 72 meter radius crater, at the reported depth - to be about 150 Kt. However, even that is a "fizzle".

In short, the Toman curve/equation should "refute" your assertion.

[shiv]

On Pakistan having "far more" deterrence, what is "far more"?

Raoji - to me it appears that most people feel "If I have a bigger bomb the other person will look at me and be more scared of my bigger bomb, just the way I am scared of his big bomb"

No law exists against having such thoughts even if they are flawed, or at the very least simplistic (although maybe such a law should exist)

But like I said - if I am sitting here in Bangalore waiting for a nuke to hit me - I do not find myself saying "I hope its a mere 20 kt fission bomb and not a 3 megaton thermonuclear bomb". For a person who is threatened by the possibility of being hit - the power and energy of the bomb that hits him is not what scares him. He is scared of bombs of all sizes.

I am just as scared of Pakistani 16 kt nukes as Chinese 3 Megatons.

In order to reach the conclusion that India is deterred but the Chinese and Pakistanis are not scared at all that India is aiming 20 kt nukes at them (i.e. "not deterred") one would have to assume that

1) All Chinese and all Pakis are irrational and not scared of being hit
or
2) Yindoos are rational cowards and are scared of others nukes.

If the Chinese and Pakistanis are irrational, then any talk of "deterrence" pointless. Even 5000 Tsar Bombas will not deter them

That leaves us only with the possibility that Yindoos are indeed cowards who rationally fear Chinese and Pakistani nukes.

But if Yindoos are cowardly and rationally scared of Chinese/Pakistani nukes what is the rationale for Yindoos to build nukes to attack Pakistan or China? We already know that they are not deterred and we admit that we are deterred by them. Surely it is better to build defences against nuke attack and not bother too much about attacking them back?

And in fact this is exactly what India is doing. India is trying to build up anti missile defences while keeping nukes to a minimum. The thought process really suggests that Yindoos are rational cowards who are deterred and prefer protection, but do not want to attack with huge bums because we are convinced that size of bum is not going to deter Pakis and Chinese more.

Our national attitude tells a great story about the national mindset. Only most people who have it explained to them is this way do not want to believe it and go into denial. For change to come, the national mindset needs to be changed. Or as RamaY believes a small Indian oligarchy can change everything. Try changing it boss.

[geeth]

>>>I think Santhanam left 3 clues (pieces of info) in his paper. The first was that fission bomb was 25kt which has been confirmed by Santhanam now.

Why do you keep harping on this point, when RC & AK had clearly said their reading is that it is 12-15 KT? Is it that even when they say a lower yield, they cannot be trusted, but to run and take cover behind Santanam's 'number'?

[Raj Malhotra]

Another Red Herring used apart from damage to village is that computer simulation has improved therefore there is no need for tests. Kindly note that basic core design of "light" TN was perfect in 1960's and even thereafter hundreds of tests were conducted to validate weapon design and stocks by USA & USSR.(and this very different from one test which is first and last one). Even a kid knows that if you the data you feed is rubbish, the results you get is rubbish. Note- IIRC France even with advanced computers and tests could not perfect neutron weapon and needed a US designer for it. Incidentally what was the need for 6 test by France (widely rumoured to be USA) in 1996 (?). Why is China testing through North Korea?

I wonder why don't they simulate the Kaveri, Arjun, LCA, GSLV etc on computer.

[shiv]

Sethna can also be the last name of a Gujarati Bohra.

Difference between "can be" and "is"

She can become pregnant, but she is not pregnant

India can make 200 kt TN bombs but India has not made them

India can test, but will not

Homi Sethna can be Bohra, but is a Parsi.

Decoy is to fool the enemy,

Decoy can be to fool friends an allies also no? We have been fooled by BARC.

[Raj Malhotra]

Raj Malhotra, I disagree with your conclusions. I do not think the evidence supports the assertions made.

Regarding simulations it depends on how you go about it - in India simulations were validated by tests. In the US things were the other way around.

Again - please separate the need to test more from India's capability.

Thanks for a well reasoned and articulated post to disagree with my post (No offence-in lighter vein)

[Raj Malhotra]

>>>I think Santhanam left 3 clues (pieces of info) in his paper. The first was that fission bomb was 25kt which has been confirmed by Santhanam now.

Why do you keep harping on this point, when RC & AK had clearly said their reading is that it is 12-15 KT? Is it that even when they say a lower yield, they cannot be trusted, but to run and take cover behind Santanam's 'number'?

It is my view and I want to harp on it. You can harp on your view point. And the whole thread is to question RC & Sikka.

[Raj Malhotra]

Hence my conclusion, till refuted. BARC tested a 500kt to 1MT TN as S1 which failed and produced only 25kt.

I am not if you had the time to read through the BR article that was referred to you by Shiv (when you made a similar post - previous to this one).

What I am pretty sure of is that a 500 Kt device would NOT match the 72 meter radius claimed by Santhanam. It would be a far larger crater. So, IF Santhanam is very sure of the radius of a crater, he MUST be very sure of the yield too and I am sure he knows where to find equations IF he is not aware of the Toman equation - so that is not an issue.

ramana computed at approximate yield - for a 72 meter radius crater, at the reported depth - to be about 150 Kt. However, even that is a "fizzle".

In short, the Toman curve/equation should "refute" your assertion.

Thanks for your answer. As I said, am glad to be proved wrong. I will re-read the article, the issue is what is the effect of "hard rock pink granite"?

[geeth]

>>>It is my view and I want to harp on it. You can harp on your view point. And the whole thread is to question RC & Sikka.

Point noted. So, come what may, you will question, question and question only, without any botheration about the answers. You are doing a good job, I must say.

[NRao]

Thanks for your answer. As I said, am glad to be proved wrong. I will re-read the article, the issue is what is the effect of "hard rock pink granite"?

Not trying to prove you wrong. With THAT goal I would reach no where - absolutely no where. Egos totally corrupt anything and everything.

On the topic, at 500 Kt, it really does not matter what the soil composition is.

Having said that the BR article MAY require some revision - based on what we know now. Not big deal, but just for FYI in the future.

[shiv]

I am confused. Are you saying that our weapon designers are confident of our FBF designs to take them to 200KT level? And we have enough dung to make tens if not hundreds of those big-boys? And the designers are confident of validating TN designs using sub-critical tests?.

Rama Y - what I say does not matter. What have various people said 100 pages of discussion has occurred and links posted from 1998 to 2006 in archived threads have been reposted, and you are doing the "Who is Sita" over here.

I don't know what capability we have.

I don't know how much fissile material we have

I know that:
We have not tested a 150 kt thermonuke
We have not tested a 50-80 kt FBF
We have not tested a 25 kt fission bomb
We have tested an 8-15 kt fission bomb twice

The US did thousnds of tests
China did hundreds.
Pakistan has access to all that data, and designs and nuclear material
US and China are supporting Pakistan

We are screwed no? Why the confusion?

[shiv]

I wonder why don't they simulate the Kaveri, Arjun, LCA, GSLV etc on computer.

They do. They have all failed no? That is proof of computer simulation.

PSLV on the other hand was never simulated on computer. If anyone denies this you have to give solid proof.

[NRao]

Shivji,

Actually what most people do not realize is that this entire topic of deterrence actually becomes a topic of stats at one level.

Who is to say that a missile tested 150 (as the USN has) will function perfectly in the time of a dire need? They will NOT. They cannot.

So, even China, I bet, even with a "proofed" TN has some rate applied to it (the nuke). Then some %age assigned to the missile, fuel, weather, perhaps even a sleepy attendant in the missile silo(?).

Furthermore, deterrence is such a sensitive topic that they take into account what a countries ambassador said in 1999, in Timbuktu, during a cocktail party....................... There is always a subtle under current that runs - constantly - where players leave hints, and at times things are openly discussed and negotiated.

That is not the issue that I would like to bring out though. The thing I would like to state is that deterrence is very, very, very fluid. It is a complex chess game where decisions are based on N factors, which are ALL constantly in flux. Including who is at the helm at what time. Obama is not Bush (a very obvious representation).

[NRao]

Computer simulations work very well when ALL players agree to the rules of the game. They obviously fail for a variety of reasons, but the biggest reason is that some player has changed the requirement or does not agree to some rule/s.

Modeling is used extensively in a variety of field even today: transportation, finance, marketing, etc.

[krishnan]

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?a=jj ... ar_matters

Describing National Security Adviser M K Narayanan as "babe in the woods" on nuclear matters for his comments on Pokhran-II tests, former DRDO scientist K Santhanam has said his career has been that of "a cop and a spook".

Chiding Narayanan for calling him a maverick, the DRDO scientist, who was one of the four key scientists associated with the tests in 1998, said "it shows desperation of a sort.There is a nice phrase in football- attacking the player, not the ball."

"The attempt is to give the dog a bad name. But this dog has not lost its bite," Santhanam said in an interview to Outlook magazine.

Santhanam recently stirred a controversy claiming that the nuclear tests done in 1998 were not successful as projected at that time.

Terming the scientist's claims about the tests as "horrific", Narayanan had asserted that India has thermonuclear capabilities which have been verified by a peer group of researchers.

Countering Narayanan's assertion, Santhanam said, "I am a person from a nuclear background, who spent close to 16years in Trombay, published articles in various journals. I was doing strategic analysis long before I came to Delhi.

"I may not be known to Narayanan but, if anything, I will add that Narayanan is a babe in the woods on nuclear matters. His career has been that of a cop and a spook. And I don't want to elaborate any further."

This whole thing is getting too personal and ugly

[NRao]

Yeah, it is turning ugly.

Santhanam has made is case as best as could I guess. And the GoI has made its case - they are not going to test, no need they say.

End of story.

Would appreciate if the media would realize that the topic has been discussed enough.