Agni-V ICBM: New capabilities, technologies, strategies

[Bade]

negi, Say you proved with 100% accuracy that your device measured 1MT in an underground test. Well it is all underground anyway and a non-believer can still claim, show me the same over an atoll or build a city size replica and show me the after effects, before I believe your claim.

Now what if nuclear physics is not really understood by anyone to make a bum work with 100% accuracy in yield. It will detonate always but not with stated yield each time. What to do onlee. A thousand tests then it is and maybe still only a slightly better resolution to the answer, and then you give up and accept and plan accordingly.

Not claiming either one scenario is true, but a possibility.

[Amber G.]

seismic signatures are reliable for underground tests, what about atmospheric ones which was perhaps most of the tests for a long time.

Iirc the atmospheric tests are easier to measure i.e. in layman's terms they go by the rough size of the fireball itself it gives a relative figure if not absolute.

Bade may already know this, but yes, atmospheric tests are easy to detect and measure.. See my post on bhangmeter.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... r#p1043108

(BTW the bhang of bhangmeter (coined by Reines) does come from hindi भांग the story is that they joked that one would have to be on bhang to believe that such a simple device as a bhangmeter would work - But it was used quite effectively)

Google for bhangmeter or NUDET for more info.

The device can estimate the yield (if it can see the fireball).. probably within 10-20% range and it is a fairly simple device.

Everyone knows the story of Fermi, who estimated the yield by just dropping a piece of paper and see it's path in the blast wave. (His estimation, it turns out came out quite accurate)

Besides, if one can see the profile of radioactive fall out, and design of the bomb one can estimate the yield too..

One thing I wonder why, I have yet to see any one mention it anywhere in current news or blogs, radioactivity released by some of the major atmospheric tests was much more than Fukushima (and Chernobyl combined)... one simply can't do a major atmospheric test and keep it hidden.

Added later: the similar info at:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2A#p904402

[koti]

Just a little doubt.
How can anyone calculate the yield of an underground test if the parameters like soil density and well depth are classified?
Are the Seismic signatures independent of these parameters?

[member_20317]

Seems like the Britards and now as is claimed the Indians are both in the same bathtub when it comes to first test going boing.

But a lot depends on how conservative the design is. Could be that both the Britards and the Indians over designed the bum. This being speculation only. However it seems even the Britards had these four lettered words shoved up their ..., which made them hasten the whole thing and that is why perhaps...

[vina]

The stated knowledge (could be reverse psyops refer FAS) is that all nuclear tests have been a success the first time for most who tried. The hard part to get it right is not nuclear physics but the enabling technology to get the nuclear physics going, which needs to be tested and can be done without a full blown test as many times as one wants.

Exactly. Moreover, there would have been a clear separation between the "physics package" (DAE) and the other conventional stuff (DRDO) and the DRDO folks probably wont know the details of the physics and the overall design of the package beyond what they were let known.

As far as the other conventional stuff, the weapon would have been proofed and tested tens of times with an inert substitute like say lead or something that would mimic the Pu quite well in physical properties and got a good knowledge of the key behind the weapon design such as the shockwave propagation / hydrodynamics of the core getting crunched, the time/density of core as it gets crunched and when criticality would have started and a rough handle on when the entire thing goes Kaboom!

Beyond that point, it is "Hail Mary" and you have to just guess that the theory works and the predictions of yield are quite close to actuals. That is where testing to fill that gap would be needed.

My suspicion is that exact yield values for each test will vary considerably irrespective of how well one tested the other parts. And it is inherent to the process and not much can be done about it. In that case the need arises to see what the variation in yield is for identical configurations and hence the multitude of tests in the past.

Part of the need for the "thousands" of tests that the Americans and Russians did, was they developed tens of warheads for multiple applications ( for missiles, bombs, aircraft weapons, depth charges, tactical, strategic.. etc. etc) and all needed to be tested. Moreover, they built and inventoried that in hundreds and the need to test for reliability of inventoried arsensals to check behavior with time of storage!

Now, where the Indian Nook establishment has given the Kool-Aid and which the Politicos and Gubmint have drunk in gallons in glee is that they will be able to computer model /simulate the behavior of inventoried weapon's shelf lives and performance. That is believeable with the P-5 and the huge data they have from testing, I am not sure with the DAE's case on that with some 4 tests in all!

As time passes the core physics processes are also being measured independently and getting understood better and hence may be the need for tests also decreases.

That could be the saving grace. All the other conventional stuff of stored weapons can be independently tested of course with an inert core.

[Amber G.]

BTW, Ramana et al - you never answered/responded to these .. (asked many years ago)

1.wrt to your formula R=K*Y^(1/n) for cavity/crater wrt to Pokharn II
<clicky>

2. Name of one expert in each category, (since it was claimed that there are tons of them) who could be selected.
See here:<clicky>

3. Last but not the least, from here ..

>>>
But to be truthful I have some questions let us see if you (generic “you” - greatful if any one can shine some light. If nothing else, the discussion would be “technical” So here are some points, which had been talked about in last 100’s of pages but I think never resolved... Thanks in advance to anyone who answers etc..

1 What exactly are ‘hydrodynamic .. fiber optic’ sensors… How/why they are ‘better’ than Coax? (Seems like lot of statements like light travel faster in fiber did not make much sense to me.)

2. What are ‘sacrificial neutron sensors’ which can get ‘full spectrum’ of neutrons. (particularly would like to know how one measure spectrum (vs intensity/flux) in time span of a micro-second? - What kind of detectors is one talking about?

3. What are ‘sacrificial xray sensors” (whose data is supposed to settle the debate between fusion vs fission part of S1). I mean how (even in theory) one can determine the origin of X-ray photon as it applies to S1 event.

Thanks in advance.

>>>>

I ask these, because even after 100's of pages of previous discussion
NOT a single evidence has been given which proves that AK lied and bomb was a fizzle. (Can some one give the *strongest* irrefutable proof of the fizzle? with link- I would like to know that. )

[Amber G.]

Half knowledge is dangerous. Unfortunately pro-establishment figures don't get that.

Even the French tested at full yield before signing the CTBT in 1996.

The PRC tested at full yield even while Indian political leaders were visiting.

Its only Indian scientists who talk of scaling a non-linear phenomenon and adding vials or test tubes of gas.

I don't know what to make of "scaling a non-linear phenomenon" and why talking about this is good (or bad or even relevant)? Can you expand on that.

BTW I am sure that you know that the first atomic bomb ever used based on U235 was NEVER tested at full yield (or even at a one millionth of the yield)

Point was, the scientists felt fairly confident that it will work, having measured things like cross-section areas of U235 etc.. so they did not test. (Gun type trigger was not as complicated as implosion used for Pu device, which they did test)..

In 1998, Indian scientists had much much better data, technology, and understanding of nuclear physics than Americans did in 1940's..

[negi]

^ Boss the stuff we dropped on pakis in Kargil was also never tested ; IAF rigged the vintage bombs literally on the field and yes that is something worthy of being proud about but lets be honest it is not something to be repeated/emulated.

Yes Americans never tested their U235 design before actually dropping the thing on Japanese ; but frankly speaking no on else had a similar weapon at that point in time and moreover they were racing against time as they had Ru in the race so basically they went for broke. Question you should ask is why did these very Americans tested hundreds of bombs after having sent the Japanese to stone age ?

[pankajs]

And yet this is what http://nuclearweaponarchive.org has to say on W87 designed and tested in 70'

Design traces its origin to the LASL device tested in the 250 Kt Almendro shot (Operation Toggle), 6 June 1973 (13:00:00.08 UCT). 10 nuclear tests were required to certify the W-87 for stockpiling, including a full yield test prior to March 1976.

Perhaps many more tests were done before this design was finalized for weaponization.

[saumitra_j]

Folks, please watch this video of Dr Kakodkar. Dr Kakodkar is very clearly stating the reasons for differences between what Dr Santhanam thought was the yield and what BARC felt. I would highly recommend watching this video before getting worried about the sizzle v/s fizzle debate

[vina]

Perhaps many more tests were done before this design was finalized for weaponization.

Well, it seems that what got tested multiple times going back to 70s were "candidate designs " and in case of W-88, there seems to have been no testing at all! So there is some amount of "Hail Mary" when you go from a candidate design to an operational weapon. If you are a "purist" you will want to insist on a multiple tests (large no ) and periodical tests. If that is the case, Unkil and Rodina too (ok, PRC you can do tests by putting on the NoKo Boorqa, but I don't think Unkil and Rodina would like to be made suckers like that as well) , it means that Unkil and other P-5 folks too are frozen with respect to weapons designs.

I don't think I buy that story. Unkil would have never signed any CTBT or anything that freezes it's capability. They must have extremely good confidence in their ability to come up with new designs without testing and the efficacy of their stockpile stewardship program via simulation.

Now whether we and Unkil are in the same boat , given our rather limited test database is a different question.

[Manish_Sharma]

Arun S on BRF would indeed be a big plus. Does he write someplace or publish in any journal, So far I have only found his stuff on Scribd.

Karan, here you can read all from him on missiles and nuclear issues:

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... 0018c3ed41

[Singha]

hopefully the two types of cansisters mentioned are hot and cold launch types. we need a complete reusable pool of tech in that dept, every missile going forward will have a cansister incl in due course our desi VLS for the barak8 follow ons like VL-astra for close in defence to replace the barak1 and kit up other ships...and vl-nirbhay...AAD...

[Hari Seldon]

The spillovers in tech from one area to another is hopefully what is in evidence in the speed with which follow-on subsystem tests seem to be happening (e.g., the canisterized Tessy-V will be tested this year itself versus who knows when).

So when basic canister related technologies got prototyped, proofed and field tested with the shourya, the quite different (I would imagine) canister designs for Agni V received a boost in terms of leapfrogging scheduled development.

Which is why perhaps itis oh-so-critical to make some breakthrough in jet engine development. Tech spillovers from other more rapidly advancing areas can then seep in and leapfrog entire stages and phases in development. Perhaps.

[SaiK]

Even DAY design is not all that gas, for each intended yield, there should at least exist on test to prove the design. Yes, we don't need 100s of testing.. but we need one or more tests till the design yielded the right tonnage.

For that matter, larger yields means for aam mind more secret x-ray emissions to fuse more maal. that itself a criterion for testing... and validating that can only be done by sensor network.. so, next time (if), hello experts, GoI,MoD, and Scientists, please announce your test plan... for aam minds.

--
canisters: okay, now the advantage on pressurized gas ejected and its application is the question, which is more technically challenging in terms of ignition at the right time. plus, the ejection itself is another beast of tech.

on the hot launch, it should fairly easier if the canisters have openings to let the emissions out.. but then again dangerous since cansiter design has to look into the temperature issues, and shoudl be able to withstand.

quite challenging times ahead.

--

Hari, which jet engine technology you are talking about? please to explain.. it is very much need of the hour.

[pragnya]

DRDO is working on submarine-launched ballistic nuclear missiles, and indications are that some tests are likely in the coming months.

Range

Although the range of the missile was restricted to around 5,000-plus km by the Government’s mandate, sources said that it could be extended to about 8,000km easily.

MIRV Capability

The missile was officially described as also an MIRV (Multiple Independently targetable Re-entry Vehicle) with a capacity to carry 5 or 10 nuclear warheads of up to 1.5 tonnes weight (total) which could be delivered during the flight at different intervals and targets.

It was not disclosed though if the MIRV capability was demonstrated in the maiden test.

Gulshan Luthra on Agni 5

[Amber G.]

Folks, please watch this video of Dr Kakodkar. Dr Kakodkar is very clearly stating the reasons for differences between what Dr Santhanam thought was the yield and what BARC felt. I would highly recommend watching this video before getting worried about the sizzle v/s fizzle debate

Thanks for posting the video. Highly recommend for people to watch it.

[SaiK]

10 warheads of 150kgs then is the max petal configuration.

so, considering a miniaturized s1 yield of 35KT (implosion), we can distribute a 350KT precisely distributed to 10 pre-determined targets within prespecified target area.

my assumption here is, that s1 was 150kgs miniaturized thermo (the dud yield).

BTW, by impoving deterrence meaning, more testing, we could do the same in 100KT - 200KT miniaturzed heads for each of thsese 10 petals. Now, the shroud design of A5-MIRV should tell us a lot.

that means anywhere between 1MT to 2MT is possible (distributed tonnage), destruction on the enemy with A5-MIRV vehicle.

Again, only by testing the same 350KT wala, can be converted to 2MT wala.

[Amber G.]

Arun S on BRF would indeed be a big plus. Does he write someplace or publish in any journal, So far I have only found his stuff on Scribd.

Karan, here you can read all from him on missiles and nuclear issues:

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... 0018c3ed41

You can also read from our own brf archives..(http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewforum.php?f=8..

[Amber G.]

^ Boss the stuff we dropped on pakis in Kargil was also never tested ; IAF rigged the vintage bombs literally on the field and yes that is something worthy of being proud about but lets be honest it is not something to be repeated/emulated.

Yes Americans never tested their U235 design before actually dropping the thing on Japanese ; but frankly speaking no on else had a similar weapon at that point in time and moreover they were racing against time as they had Ru in the race so basically they went for broke. Question you should ask is why did these very Americans tested hundreds of bombs after having sent the Japanese to stone age ?

Boss, please read my post again to see that point I was trying to make is that there is no law, (or tradition) that makes it necessary that *all* designs have to be tested (or not tested)..

You depend on your experts to see how confident they are..if you don't trust them get the one you trust. India decides (by using its experts) what needs to be tested, how often etc.. talking about what talking heads think about what French (or Americans ) did is just ...
"सब बातें है, बातों का क्या?"..

[ramana]

AmberG, The U-235 gun based design did not need to be tested as there were no uncertainities in it. However the PU design used at Nagasaki was tested due to the uncertainity of the implosion design. So its not all apples.

As for rest of my statements on non-linearity I stand by my words.
BTW its not AK that is the person at issue.

i do not wish to argue as we ll know our mutual postions and they will not change. Only time and events will prove who is right or wrong.

Hopefully it never comes to that.

[ramana]

DRDO is working on submarine-launched ballistic nuclear missiles, and indications are that some tests are likely in the coming months.

Range

Although the range of the missile was restricted to around 5,000-plus km by the Government’s mandate, sources said that it could be extended to about 8,000km easily.

MIRV Capability

The missile was officially described as also an MIRV (Multiple Independently targetable Re-entry Vehicle) with a capacity to carry 5 or 10 nuclear warheads of up to 1.5 tonnes weight (total) which could be delivered during the flight at different intervals and targets.

It was not disclosed though if the MIRV capability was demonstrated in the maiden test.

Gulshan Luthra on Agni 5

I guess he was reading something else!

MIRV was not demonstrated in this flight. It is for much latter.

As to greater range if the chosen trajectory is high loft it can be achieved as is. The re-entry velocity was already 7km/sec without the T/S ignition. Please read the archived articles in the thread.

Two importatn points brought out by Mr Luthra are

High definition cameras on board the ships recorded the impact and the fireball of explosion with water rising high in the air.

So it was a spalsh down and then fuze functioned. IOW the RV is very robust to have survived the spalshdown and functioned. As the body is very hot I would expect it to break up upon hitting the waters. This one is better than that.

and from the DRDO press release:

Air Marshal K J Mathews, the present SFC Commander in Chief was at hand to witness the test firing. He described the success of the Agni-V as “historical” for India.

So it was quasi-induction flight with the SFC commander at hand to witness the flight.

[Bade]

AmberG, regarding bhangmeter. The detection of atmospheric blast is possible with reasonable accuracy (vela series of sats) but estimating yield from them depends on how well one measured the delay between the twin peaks of the characteristic nuke blast due to the fast expanding shock wave briefly masking the initial outgoing signal, isn't it ?

I mentioned atmospheric tests in the context that India was not in a position to monitor US/USSR/PRC atmospheric tests without having the right assets in place. So we take what is claimed by them as the absolute truth to do dhoti shiver. I was just pointing out to that asymmetry in our beliefs versus that with Indian scientists from the DAE establishment.

[Varoon Shekhar]

[
Thanks for posting the video. Highly recommend for people to watch it.[/quote]

Not too off topic, but the video shows that Karan Thapar is not a DI, or WKK or SLIME, certainly not a typical one! At no point does he bring up the moral issues of India's nuclear weapons capability or stance, to Dr. Kakodkar. Or use words like hyper-nationalism, fascism or even jingoism. He merely asks the questions that the Indian public would ask, that too in a cultured way- keeping in mind the unpleasantness of the subject of nuclear weapons.

Excellent video, with Dr. Kakodkar calmly affirming that the device worked, and that India has the weaponised version, with a yield higher than the tested one of 45 kt.

[ramana]

Bade, If PRC tests an atmospheric one Inda can and does monitor them from their stations in the Himalayas. The debris analysis also gives them the nature of the device. India doesn't care abnout the uS or FSU tests as they dont impinge on her security calculations.

Having said that no one is testing in the atmopshere since the late 70s and thus is a moot point/ non sequitor.

[Kanson]

Strategic realm is an area governed by different rules. Usual logic and reasons might not work there. Situation could be as worse that you won't be knowing where you stand, ie you don't know for sure even the meager available information is correct or wrong. So where you start and what kind of logic you employ. There could be several levels of obfuscation. Getting the correct information in this area could be similar to unveiling the password through bruteforce - first you need to assume the length of the password and then possible number of character sets and possible number of combinations from assumed character sets and you modify and expand based upon the results.

[SaiK]

I don't think the question is on the yield of the design that went in on the S1, and nor the issue that people keep harping it is a dud. My point is this, and please ingore pok2 results for this, as we have a charter to deliver MIRV payloads, and possible configurations. If we say, we have 6 MIRVs, and each is 200KT, then did we test that 200KT?

If I go by 60KT assertion, the max yield I can configure for a 6 MIRV config, would be 360KT. But, then is that the intended design yield? These are the questions.. and not S1 dud or not dud. We (many in BR) accept with glee that our sci-chaps are not sci-fi-chaps. But, it is important to accept the argument that testing is not to prove that the previous was dud.

It is all about future config [and pl ignore - we tested >45kt, so >200kt will work argument .. it will fail reasoning w.r.t testing].

[ramana]

SaiK, If its that number you seek there are many ways of achieving that without testing. I think that is what was done.

[Kanson]

Two importatn points brought out by Mr Luthra are

High definition cameras on board the ships recorded the impact and the fireball of explosion with water rising high in the air.

So it was a spalsh down and then fuze functioned. IOW the RV is very robust to have survived the spalshdown and functioned. As the body is very hot I would expect it to break up upon hitting the waters. This one is better than that.

Usually CounterForce involves surface blast.

and from the DRDO press release:

Air Marshal K J Mathews, the present SFC Commander in Chief was at hand to witness the test firing. He described the success of the Agni-V as “historical” for India.

So it was quasi-induction flight with the SFC commander at hand to witness the flight.

There are already some info available that Agni V will be ready from first successful flight, as most of the sub systems are already tested in Agni 4.

[SaiK]

SaiK, If its that number you seek there are many ways of achieving that without testing. I think that is what was done.

Let me add a quality attribute to the requirement - the number yielded should match designed yield [for the MIRVs]. . I am sure, we can accept a lower inefficient design, if we all vote for it as acceptable.

/again: not questioning the yield based on S1 reports.. so don't bang me there. may be my post will appear like trigger happy post. but, I am just trying to see if the future config will look solid on our deterrent table.

[Amber G.]

AmberG, The U-235 gun based design did not need to be tested as there weere no uncertainities in it. However the PU design used at Nagasaki was tested due to the uncertainity of the impolsion design. So its not all apples.

Precisely. To be more precise, there were uncertainties for the gun design too, but they made decisions based on expert knowledge and judgments. Fermi's and Bethes were not second guessed by the likes of Bidwais. What is more, not too many tried to claim that Fermis and Bethes did not know how to do "integral in spherical coordinates" and malign them. (For those, who do not know, many pages of BRF were filled by such a claim (that Indian Scientists are dumb to do such an integral and if they can't even do them how can you trust them). An equation where 'rho' was mistaken as 'r' was quoted again and again as a proof of shoddy understanding by Indian Scientist, till some one pointed out the error. No I am not making it up. What is more, no one, including you Ramana, to my knowledge, acknowledged that an error has been made. /sigh/

As for rest of my statements on non-linearity I stand by my words.

Can you elaborate? Honestly I want to know. What exactly you mean by non-linearity? In what context?

BTW its not AK that is the person at issue.

What exactly is the issue?

Ramana, please do take some time and answer the questions I asked before.

1. Can you give your calculation of size of crater and how it relates to yield?
2 Any new data about "sacrificial sensors" which were so often talked about to conclusively show that no fusion occurred?

TIA.

[Bade]

Since UG testing can be masked too (article posted in previous page) there is no conclusive accuracy estimate from seismic signature to claim knowledge of exact yields of others tests. In Indian case, as you said it is only PRC's that we are interested in. Lop Nur is not within range to do what vela series did, only air contamination can be inferred from the Himalayas, the nature of design but not the exact yield.

We did have a seismic network for sure since the 50's or earlier, but not as extensive as of today. So in principle can go back and use data to calibrate against US/USSR tests with their claimed yield values. And then use the same with PRCs after accounting for all differences in geology. Difficult task but doable, but the accuracy of such estimates for verification is still questionable.

The importance of using others atmospheric tests if we could have monitored then, is quite immense if you think about it. The data would have been useful to say the least, now we just have to believe all claims by others.

[Kanson]

[and pl ignore - we tested >45kt, so >200kt will work argument .. it will fail reasoning w.r.t testing].

If you watch Kakodkar interview he clearly mentioned that they can deliver weapons with yields all the way from low kT to 200 kt. If you want to counter that by your reasoning as you mentioned above, I humbly say, you should able to demonstrate in equal proposition to what Kakodkar has done.

I further state that, normally from household washing machines, TV/Music systems to high end engineering products, if we need any service or support or improvements, first stop to do that will be OEM. Becoz they are the design authority for that product. They know in and out all things about the product, strength and weakness, faults and corrective measure etc.

Similarly, the product that we are discussing so far is the baby of Kakodkar et al. He and his team is the design authority for that N device. We really don't know fully all the work done there. So if you or me or anyone saying 'it will fail reasoning' etc, to put it politely, that only shows our overbearance.

[SaiK]

Kanson, I am not countering design here. I am only countering if the design was tested so to speak. It does not require me to know complete details of the design nor I need to know nuclear physics or engineering aspects of the maal.

My reasoning is "dont we need to test" for what we want to put on the payloads. I agree "we all" have no clue to AK's achievements and their babies. I am not questioning his authority [again definitions required here] nor capability.

I am not assuming the design will work at first shot. May be it will. But, unless tested, we are not sure it will. This if we project in public, will lower our deterrence stand.

[Kanson]

^ No Sir, I'm not faulting you. But pls listen to the interview where he exactly answers the question you raised. Karan Thapar raises the same question in the interview.

[member_20317]

The last time people around here left at 'non-linear ___', they were pointing at RM & RT instabilities. Now personally I don’t even know how to spell these correctly. However, after a lot of head banging (which didnt left me any wiser & instead my head hurt a lot afterwards), I was fortunate to come to only one understanding. These instabilities are directly proportional to the Temperatures, Pressures and Times involved and that there is no place on earth where you can experiment for it except in a working TN or a 400 beam Petawatt laser. IOW, the stonewalling of BARC claim is just as opaque as the BARC claim itself. So what to do...Ram Bhajo. But what both these sides dont realise is that they need to speak more esp. to each other, if they want support from more then 20 people.

BTW what is it with people, 8/9 pettle 20/40 kt delivered via Tessy, is also a chalta hai. On the ground these 8/9 are going to cover pretty much the same area as a single 1 mt and 8/9 times more difficult to manage for the opponent's ABM. I think testing is required for big bum but the real effort has to be on the chottus.


SaiK bhaisahab, 150 kg S1 seems too agressive for a first time TN with an inert casing, if this design itself is to go to 200 kt. JMT. I remember people nodding at about 450-550 kg during the sizzle vs fizzle debates some years back. IMO this was fairly conservative design. That is why I have some belief (though not beyond a shadow of doubt) in the BARC claim. I guess I will have to live with the uncertainity till for the second time somebody in the Indian establishment finds the detergent lines moving on western front and decide to test as a result.

[member_20317]

one of the possible reasons why we were not able to test such a lithium ki ulti batti that can produce its own 3H in a u238 anda which can act as a "third stage"* in 98 is because we had very little wgpu needed in the phirst stage..
And We did not have enough HEU to use in the phirst stage because our enrichment program was in primitive stages in those days ...so a u-235 based first stage was out of question..first stage for Yindia had to be pu based..

...if we carried out more tests in 98 we would have none wgpu left for a spare bum in case such a need had arisen.. now we have more capacity for wgpu production..even if one test fizzles we can test more , without worrying about supply of wg-pu..hence the need for a massive purex prog..

But then people from US nuke establishment and also BK are agreeing that a boosted dirty plutonium primary has little reliability problem. As such the HEU may not be a necessity in either the first stage or the casing. Only place it may be necessary (in order to ensure better probability of dhamaka) is the spark plug which due to very high pressures and temperatures involved may actually be less then even a kilogram.

So IMO the paucity of 'Strategic Materials' had nothing to do with S1. Perhaps it may have been important in the context of the whole test campaign, but even then S1 should not have gotten affected by this scarcity. 'Scarcity' may itself be another smoke and mirrors game. Who knows but God and RC.

* if i am not mistaken ravi_g is reffering to ..

Yup great minds think alike.

[SaiK]

Yes. I agree, that given classified nature of the facts, AK brings out two important facts
1. seismic sensor instruments did not work to determine yield. so there is no question of one type of maal worked, while the thermo being wrong. and I agree that there is an aspect that if everything worked or everything is measured at a specific quality measure - all worked, or all did not work [ref: muffled discussion points].
2. "we have within limits of what can be failed" - that may meet basic need [again classified, and no clue on the limit itself].

So, what I fail to reason is why people accept further testing is not required based on AK's explanations. He did not say that. [ref: dil maange more]

[pankajs]

What AK and his team have done is they have demonstrated a 45-50 kt 'maal' and I have no disagreement with this fact. They further claim to be able to scale this up to 200kt and I have again no issues with the claim itself. The fact of the matter is it is still a claim only and will be treated as such by the world. Deterrence is based on demonstration of the yield and not on claims. I believe that being the sole reason all weapons/packages are tested to their full yield at least once.

I accept that we have a TNW of 45-50 kt yield and we further claim that this TNW design can scale up to 200 kt. This is not to cast aspersions on the TNW design or the team but it will remain a claim till it is demonstrated.

[Kanson]

Deterrence is based on demonstration of the yield and not on claims.

Can you substantiate your statement that Deterrence is ONLY based on demonstration?

Deterrence is just a threat without actually taking any action - or more aptly what your adversary perceive as threat which deter him rather than what you consider as threat to your adversary. It doesn't need full demonstration as you claim.

In many cases, after demonstration, what was initially considered as a threat which deterred the adversary, failed to deter once the demonstration showed its actual value.

So Deterrence is what your adversary perceive as threat. It doesn't need demonstration to create that threat, mere Info warfare could do that with minimal show.