Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Deterrence

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9883
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Feb 2017 21:22

One big problem with our scientists, is their inability to use precise language.
They all seem to have dementia, mix words and statements, use hyperbole, have some problems with the english language to a certain extent. Their use of the language is limited to the words used in scientific journals - see them fumble when they have to talk to an ingliss speaking dork reporter who is looking for inconsistancies.

Has anyone seen Manohar Parikar talk? He is India's best defence minister to date.

Now to take these statements given out by such people, one can make just about any argument because these guys have given imprecise and contradictory statements that are all over the place.

The TN underperformed, no one in the fauj trusts the scientists on this. Every one is OK with the fact that the Fission is proven, weaponized and is scalable.

Fact remains that India will someday test its TN, and prove it.
Then all these guys will come on media admitting with sly smiles saying, "Wot to do onlee! State secret onlee! Official secrets act wonlee"

The TN fizzled and underperformed.

Revolutionary weapons probably refers to 3rd Gen (neutron weapons) and 4th Gen (Pure fusion weapons - using lasers/antimatter) per Sikka ji. Though a few weeks after the Paki tests, when the Chinese claimed that they have Neurton bomb capability, Indian scientists retorted back saying, "we too have it"

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Feb 2017 21:56

Gagan wrote:
no one in the fauj trusts the scientists on this.

No one in fauj is interested whether it is fissan or fujan. Only we are obsessed. They want to know how much bang can be delivered and how. They want functionality not technical mumbo jumbo

Tomorrow if NoKo nukes LA no one is going to feel happy that it was fission and not Teller Ulam. Only BRF are masters of rona dhona on this issue.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4781
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 08 Feb 2017 22:18

Guess where the B61-12 has been "tested" so to say. Also, why is the B61-12 not based on Teller-Ulam, in your view? It is based on radiation implosion. Are you saying the basic design of the B61 is not based on the Teller-Ulam or are you saying the 12th derivation is not?

Regardless, you somehow think that all the critics who have questioned the scientists are mistaken and since as you claim the "establishment" has not claimed the TN device to be based on Teller-Ulam then it probably is not. You further claim that "yield-dial" may not refer to Teller-Ulam. Between these uncertainties are some hard facts. Facts based on easily understandable proofs such as proven yields that only tests can provide. You are right, my mind has been made up on what will serve Indian interests and no amount of scientific weapon design arguments - is going to change the same. To be clear, I do think the TN design tested was a fizzle. Who is hiding what, where and why is a mystery. I have stated this before, even if the TN device worked as per design 100% - my position is further tests are needed to secure India's deterrence needs. You and I have differed and I have no wish to litigate the case again.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9883
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Feb 2017 22:21

Shiv ji,
They do.
They are very untrustful of the BARC walas claims. Faujis by their very nature want proof they can touch and see. The phyjicks phormulas don't work with them.

If you ask a fauji in SFC, they will probably say, deterrence is achieved. Because that is the right thing to say. And it really is - the person at the receiving end will burn in hell with a big blast, doesn't matter if it is 20KT or 100KT or the 300 KT walas. But tell them this is a Fujon bum, and ...

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9883
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Feb 2017 22:25

The fact is that the guys tried to to too many things in one go.
I think they wanted to verify fusion, and they wanted to weaponize it, and they wanted to make it dial-a-yield. All in one test ! The first ever field test! And the only possible chance they would have got.

And now it has underperformed!

If the primary was boosted too, then the implications could be anything

They really should have carried out the 6th test, but I think they realized that there would be no way to cover their tracks with a standalone test that underperforms.
I think they have done a wonderful recitation of "Ashwathama mara gaya" after that.
Last edited by Gagan on 08 Feb 2017 22:28, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Feb 2017 22:26

Gagan wrote:Shiv ji,
They do.
They are very untrustful of the BARC walas claims. Faujis by their very nature want proof they can touch and see. The phyjicks phormulas don't work with them.

If you ask a fauji in SFC, they will probably say, deterrence is achieved. Because that is the right thing to say. And it really is - the person at the receiving end will burn in hell with a big blast, doesn't matter if it is 20KT or 100KT or the 300 KT walas. But tell them this is a Fujon bum, and ...


No Gagan. We are going to differ on this. If you can speak for all faujis my word about all faujis is equally valid. No one understands physics. All faujis understand bang. No one cares whether its fusion of fission. Do you thing a fauji cares whether his artillery shell has HMX or TNT or its chemical formula?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9883
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Feb 2017 22:32

Shiv ji
Faujis like to go into the very minute detail of the weapon they handle. They are all very scientifically oriented, well educated, smart guys.
They know BS when they see it.
Arty corps guys want to know safety limits all the time - quantity and type of explosive, explosive power, blast range, trigger type, some electronics etc etc
I wonder what the SFC guys think

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Feb 2017 22:36

ShauryaT wrote:Guess where the B61-12 has been "tested" so to say. Also, why is the B61-12 not based on Teller-Ulam, in your view? It is based on radiation implosion. Are you saying the basic design of the B61 is not based on the Teller-Ulam or are you saying the 12th derivation is not?

I have said nothing of the sort.

ShauryaT wrote:Regardless, you somehow think that all the critics who have questioned the scientists are mistaken and since as you claim the "establishment" has not claimed the TN device to be based on Teller-Ulam then it probably is not. You further claim that "yield-dial" may not refer to Teller-Ulam. Between these uncertainties are some hard facts. Facts based on easily understandable proofs such as proven yields that only tests can provide. You are right, my mind has been made up on what will serve Indian interests and no amount of scientific weapon design arguments - is going to change the same. To be clear, I do think the TN design tested was a fizzle. Who is hiding what, where and why is a mystery. I have stated this before, even if the TN device worked as per design 100% - my position is further tests are needed to secure India's deterrence needs. You and I have differed and I have no wish to litigate the case again.


Sorry Shaurya - you are welcome to move the goalpost from Karnad to what you think. What I think is what I think. You did not like it when I pointed out yet another booboo from him. You say that something was a failure without knowing about the design. How would anyone judge a success without knowing design? Ultimately if a bomb goes bang it works. How much bang and whether it can be increased or decreased is something for we have to depend on scientists. If you choose not to depend on them that is quite OK. You permission or assent is unnecessary. Ultimately a bomb that goes in an Indian delivery system will be what the scientists say and not what you or any other sceptic thinks.
Last edited by shiv on 08 Feb 2017 23:13, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Feb 2017 22:40

Gagan wrote:Shiv ji
Faujis like to go into the very minute detail of the weapon they handle. They are all very scientifically oriented, well educated, smart guys.
They know BS when they see it.
Arty corps guys want to know safety limits all the time - quantity and type of explosive, explosive power, blast range, trigger type, some electronics etc etc
I wonder what the SFC guys think

No. Not chemical formula and mechanism of action. They want to know safety and the damage it will do. Whether the damage is done my fission or boosted fission they don't care.
Last edited by shiv on 08 Feb 2017 22:53, edited 1 time in total.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9883
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Feb 2017 22:44

Agree!

I am not questioning the BARC's knowledge of physics or the science. Like the discussion we had on twitter with Disha-ji. He states and I fully endorse, that the science is well known - this much of X rays will cause tritium to start fusing.
I am questioning the engineering and the design of the final product.

They have deployed a corrected product - not by changing the laws of physics, but by changing the design and maybe some materials used. This is untested. Furthermore, they have deployed a series of scaled up products on the basis of that one underperforming test that they later "corrected"
The icing on the cake is they say that we don't need to test any further!

They want to take the secrets to their funeral pyres and leave their legacies intact. Can't blame them at all! they were given very limited time and just one chance by the politicians. The failure is of the political leadership - not BARC here. BARC and DRDO would love to test again. It is not politically correct for them to say so - the resulting media firestrom will result in political problems for the leadership, and them eventually.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14217
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Deterrence

Postby svinayak » 08 Feb 2017 23:05

Gagan wrote:Agree!
They have deployed a corrected product - not by changing the laws of physics, but by changing the design and maybe some materials used. This is untested. Furthermore, they have deployed a series of scaled up products on the basis of that one underperforming test that they later "corrected"
The icing on the cake is they say that we don't need to test any further!


All P5 nations have done the same thing. They have tested more than 50 times and also shared data among them.

India with few test has come to this stage. This process of correction is part of the evolution of the weapon system


There are system and process to transfer the skill to new teams and expand the teams. This process will continue for refining and development
Last edited by svinayak on 08 Feb 2017 23:08, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Feb 2017 23:07

Gagan wrote:Agree!

They want to take the secrets to their funeral pyres and leave their legacies intact. Can't blame them at all! they were given very limited time and just one chance by the politicians. The failure is of the political leadership - not BARC here. BARC and DRDO would love to test again. It is not politically correct for them to say so - the resulting media firestrom will result in political problems for the leadership, and them eventually.

These are allegations. They are, on this forum a sort of "chip on the shoulder".

I have always asked - do we have a deterrent or not? If not why do the Chinese and Pakistanis think we have a deterrent. Are they debating what Kakodkar said or what Chidambaram did? They must be foolish not to know as much as we seem to know.

The bottom line is not Chidambaram's grave secret but the world's worst kept secret, the fact that working nuclear bombs are not that difficult to build. The problem is getting fissile material and a good delivery system. Once those things are in place no sane person faced with that bomb is going to say - Ha - that 5 kiloton bomb is a fizzle - I can't die. I need 1 megaton to kill me.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9883
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Feb 2017 23:12

The P5 continue to test. The last one of them, China, probably hot tests in North Korea to this date.
India probably tests too - although how much leeway with the weapons program MMS allowed them in the last decade is unknown. Probably very little.

But a mature power will say - balls to the world, I have to field test this, 1. to know the yield and exact safety limits and to get a better design, and 2. to cock-a-snook at the adversaries in a d**k measuring contest.
That ability to field test to a full yield and come on TV and say so, no matter the opprobrium internationally is what deterrence is all about.
The intent to TEST is as important as the intent to USE.

Our guys are being squeamish about even testing. Bhagwan only knows what they will do, if they have to someday actually use that thing onlee.

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1561
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Deterrence

Postby nirav » 08 Feb 2017 23:14

shiv wrote:
Gagan wrote:
no one in the fauj trusts the scientists on this.

No one in fauj is interested whether it is fissan or fujan. Only we are obsessed. They want to know how much bang can be delivered and how. They want functionality not technical mumbo jumbo

Tomorrow if NoKo nukes LA no one is going to feel happy that it was fission and not Teller Ulam. Only BRF are masters of rona dhona on this issue.


+1
With the declared doctrine of MR, I highly doubt if SFC has earmarked a grand total of 1 bamb for a specific target.

Even if it allegedly fizzles again a multiple delivery of prasadams is enough to meet our MR objectives.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Feb 2017 23:16

The intent to test is a sign of weakness and a sign of being unsure. A self goal for deterrence. No one wants to show that.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Feb 2017 23:19

How much yield is enough yield and why?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9883
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Feb 2017 23:21

Kya shiv-ji,
You are trying to defend the indefensible.
I agree with you that they have proven FBF.
Bharat Karnad has a point, "China says we have 1.5 MT, the only thing India has is a 20-25KT field tested one"
Make no mistake, 25 KT which is scaled up to say 60KT is a big bad monster.

So should we be satisfied, close this thread and post on the love and marriage nukkad dhaga instead?

China says they have a neutron bomb - they most possibly field tested one. (who knows in Ras Koh?)
BARC guys also say we have it - they know the physics and the theory. But they have not tested it.
Is deterrence affected by the above interaction? No it isn't.
But are we happy with the above situation?

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1561
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Deterrence

Postby nirav » 08 Feb 2017 23:23

Another thing, it was stated back then that we *can* scale it upto to what's needed.
The yeild was deliberately kept low was to avoid damage to areas adjoining pokhran.

They'd have no qualms deploying the big ones, if the time comes.
And even if the big ones 'fizzles' the bang will still be HUGE.

Eventually, the objective of having these weapons is deterrence which if it fails for any reason other objective is MR.

I'd say the deterrence is working quite well since '98.
One could even say it's working since Pokhran I !

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9883
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Feb 2017 23:32

See that's the thing Nirav ji
The primary doesn't have to be that big - substantial savings on precious fissile material and weight of the device. Which has a bearing on range of the deliver platform.

If I have a design that is suspect,
1. I will have a FBF big primary and hedge my bets. If the secondary ignites, then sone pe suhaga
2. I will have an unproofed light TN for every 2 FBF heavies on a missile, and hedge my bets.

Is deterrence in place with the above situation? Yes of course!
Are we happy with the above situation?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Feb 2017 23:33

We argue with what is convenient:

  • The new design helicopter looks like a French one - so maybe...
  • Dhruv had inputs from MBB of Germany
  • New assault rifle looks like AK design
  • Russia helped us with nuclear reactor with sub
  • Chidambaram and Kakodkar are lying when they speak of yield
  • But Chidambaram and Kakodkar are telling the truth when they claim that we have had no help from any other country

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9883
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Feb 2017 23:34

Say, tomorrow, we have to deploy the K-4 or the K-5 on the Aridaman.
China has just tested a 10 MIRV ICBM.

What will we put in our MIRVed missile?

Each stumbling block, and each lie, has a compounding effect.

If we all want India to be P3, then there have to be no stumbling blocks, no hedging of the bets.

kumarn
BRFite
Posts: 416
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 16:19

Re: Deterrence

Postby kumarn » 08 Feb 2017 23:35

Gagan wrote:Kya shiv-ji,
You are trying to defend the indefensible.
I agree with you that they have proven FBF.
Bharat Karnad has a point, "China says we have 1.5 MT, the only thing India has is a 20-25KT field tested one"
Make no mistake, 25 KT which is scaled up to say 60KT is a big bad monster.

So should we be satisfied, close this thread and post on the love and marriage nukkad dhaga instead?

China says they have a neutron bomb - they most possibly field tested one. (who knows in Ras Koh?)
BARC guys also say we have it - they know the physics and the theory. But they have not tested it.
Is deterrence affected by the above interaction? No it isn't.
But are we happy with the above situation?


If the conjecture that the chinese 'might' have tested is good enough then our scientists saying we have it should be good enough. No? Or have the baniyas a higher burden of proof?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Feb 2017 23:39

Gagan wrote:See that's the thing Nirav ji
The primary doesn't have to be that big - substantial savings on precious fissile material and weight of the device. Which has a bearing on range of the deliver platform.

If I have a design that is suspect,
1. I will have a FBF big primary and hedge my bets. If the secondary ignites, then sone pe suhaga
2. I will have an unproofed light TN for every 2 FBF heavies on a missile, and hedge my bets.

Is deterrence in place with the above situation? Yes of course!
Are we happy with the above situation?

Gagan - all our missiles are designed for 1 tn warheads going 3000 or even 5000 plus km. They all have diameter of 1 meter or over. None of these is needed for a slim Teller Ulam design. They are more suited for a layer cake design which can be cold tested easily. Radiation compression cannot be cold tested. What route would you take if you were told that you could not test but had to get a reliable design

I would either get help from Russia (or someone) or design the easiest and surest that can be cold tested. This is all open source info. No secret. If you imagine that there was Teller Ulam design then you also have to claim that people told lies. I would use Occam's razor here

This is all open source stuff. I think we should stop talking about igniting secondaries and FBF(usion) when we have no proof that we are using a Teller Ulam design.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9883
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Feb 2017 23:41

Shiv-ji
Lets look at the situation more appropriately.
Everyone in india knows about aviation, the science is will known. We have a 1000 planes flying in india. The IAF has a 700 aircraft fleet.
The science and theory are known to many people.
But when our engineers and scientists actually have to go build an LCA, then we have to get collaboration.

Same story with the Kaveri.

Why did the first A-3 test fail? They had back flow from the exhaust which burned the control cables. Is it a bad design flaw? Didn't they correct it and then prove it again? Why did then then start making composite motors and now maraging steel bodies?

What it they had said after the first failed test, "we have tested the prithvi, and it performs per expectations, we don't need to test"

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Feb 2017 23:43

Gagan wrote:Kya shiv-ji,
You are trying to defend the indefensible.


Kya Gagan ji. You are using rhetoric as defence?

Gagan wrote:
So should we be satisfied, close this thread and post on the love and marriage nukkad dhaga instead?

China says they have a neutron bomb - they most possibly field tested one. (who knows in Ras Koh?)
BARC guys also say we have it - they know the physics and the theory. But they have not tested it.
Is deterrence affected by the above interaction? No it isn't.
But are we happy with the above situation?


No one is asking you to be happy. As far as deterrence is concerned we need to ask if the Chinese are happy or unhappy about what we have. if they are unhappy deterrence is working

nirav
BRFite
Posts: 1561
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Deterrence

Postby nirav » 08 Feb 2017 23:48

BMs as a reliable and accurate delivery system and its warhead, the prasadam are apples and oranges.

If we take this inadequate testing logic further, one could argue that all our BMs are phyrred into the sea, generally in a south heading in bay of Bengal.

Will the mijjiles work if fired on land , in West direction or east?
One side is with the Earth's rotation other is against.
We've never tested THAT.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9883
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Feb 2017 23:49

shiv wrote:I think we should stop talking about igniting secondaries and FBF(usion) when we have no proof that we are using a Teller Ulam design.


Shiv-ji
Isn't this open source enough?
He said — and this astonished me — that based on the 1998 data Indian designers could even design “yield-dialed” weapons by, as Sikka said, simply reducing/increasing the fissile material and changing the mass of chemical explosives to set off the fission implosion in the first stage.

Why talk of a "First Stage" onlee?
What comes after a first stage? Is there a second stage to follow?

We think that the second stage part underperformed.
The FBF primary is like the "sloika". The FBFs are the sloikas.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 08 Feb 2017 23:51

Gagan wrote:Why did the first A-3 test fail? They had back flow from the exhaust which burned the control cables. Is it a bad design flaw? Didn't they correct it and then prove it again? Why did then then start making composite motors and now maraging steel bodies?


Are you tying to say here that they are trying to get better and better missiles with no confidence that the warhead will work? It is your imagination that a Teller Ulam warhead was tested and failed. In fact all fission/boosted fission warheads can be tested easily by using a non fissile metal ball instead of the actual Pu ball. Once you put the fissile material in you will definitely get a nuclear explosion. Trigger, compression, safety and neutron generation are all that have to be looked at. It is only in the radiation compression design that tweaking and hot testing is needed.

That aside why do you believe we are trying to increase accuracy. Most likely because our yields are not that high so we wuld prefer a CEP in meters rather than kilometers. if you have a megaton warhead a CEP of a few KM won't matter . But with 50 or 100 kt you need better accuracy.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9883
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Feb 2017 23:54

nirav wrote:BMs as a reliable and accurate delivery system and its warhead, the prasadam are apples and oranges.

If we take this inadequate testing logic further, one could argue that all our BMs are phyrred into the sea, generally in a south heading in bay of Bengal.

Will the mijjiles work if fired on land , in West direction or east?
One side is with the Earth's rotation other is against.
We've never tested THAT.

Nirav-ji
Let us look at this example.

On a boat we have to big heavy water buffalos. But we have a dog also.
Problem is that dog would be a great dane, but there is a chance it could be a puny pomerarian.

Is our neighbour scared of the pomerarian? I know that he is scared of the buffalo.
Will our neighbour grudgingly accept equivalence if our dog was a great dane and not a pomerarian?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9883
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Feb 2017 23:56

Shiv ji
Now you will slowly start to use rougher words as this discussion proceeds. You don't like to lose an argument, it usually does not matter which side of the truth you stand on.
I object to your use of the word "imagination" in the post above.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9883
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Deterrence

Postby Gagan » 08 Feb 2017 23:58

Missile accuracy is independent of yield.
With a nuclear weapon, does it matter if the CEP is 200m or 30 m?
Everyone is trying to reduce the CEP.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 09 Feb 2017 00:02

Gagan wrote:
shiv wrote:I think we should stop talking about igniting secondaries and FBF(usion) when we have no proof that we are using a Teller Ulam design.


Shiv-ji
Isn't this open source enough?
He said — and this astonished me — that based on the 1998 data Indian designers could even design “yield-dialed” weapons by, as Sikka said, simply reducing/increasing the fissile material and changing the mass of chemical explosives to set off the fission implosion in the first stage.

Why talk of a "First Stage" onlee?
What comes after a first stage? Is there a second stage to follow?

We think that the second stage part underperformed.
The FBF primary is like the "sloika". The FBFs are the sloikas.


A Sloika is a one stage bomb by design. There is no second stage. The first and only stage can have a variable yield. That is what Sikka says. You don't need any second stage to increase yield. Nowhere does anyone say that there was a second stage. That is a figment of BRF imagination. You have to cook up a second stage to make scientists liars. If someone designs a second stage and tests it then the earlier one could be stage one and the new fusion secondary stage 2.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 09 Feb 2017 00:03

Gagan wrote:Missile accuracy is independent of yield.
No
Gagan wrote:With a nuclear weapon, does it matter if the CEP is 200m or 30 m?

Yes
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... enal-13433

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 31907
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Deterrence

Postby shiv » 09 Feb 2017 00:07

Gagan wrote:Shiv ji
Now you will slowly start to use rougher words as this discussion proceeds. You don't like to lose an argument, it usually does not matter which side of the truth you stand on.
I object to your use of the word "imagination" in the post above.

Sorry about that But I am yet to see any proof form anyone that a Teller Ulam design was tested. I have been saying some things for 19 years now. I have seen nothing new to change my view in 19 years. No one else has changed his views either. Asking me to be generous to "lose" an argument is not going to happen

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4781
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Deterrence

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Feb 2017 00:39

shiv wrote:A Sloika is a one stage bomb by design. There is no second stage. The first and only stage can have a variable yield. That is what Sikka says. You don't need any second stage to increase yield. Nowhere does anyone say that there was a second stage. That is a figment of BRF imagination. You have to cook up a second stage to make scientists liars. If someone designs a second stage and tests it then the earlier one could be stage one and the new fusion secondary stage 2.
Well...no one?
Two Stage TN test claimed by R. Chidambaram
Dr. Chidambaram wrote that the thermonuclear device tested was “a two-stage device of advanced design, which had a fusion-boosted fission trigger as the first stage and a fusion secondary stage which was compressed by radiation implosion and ignited.”


PS: Title of original article changed to make the point.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5678
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Deterrence

Postby disha » 09 Feb 2017 03:57

^^ On the above the issue the question was how "efficient" was the 2nd-stage burn?

If one goes alone by what Chidambaram says (2-stage was tested) what BRF rona-dhona-group, outsiders and maximalists like BK are doing is calling it "fizzle" using K. Sanathanam's observation (he was the test site preparer) who said that the yield was lesser than he expected and hence the 2nd stage was "not efficient enough".

Now here is what the speculators are doing., and largely BK is responsible for it. Basically setting a reference for "ignition not efficient enough" as a "fizzle". Efficiency of the 2nd stage depends upon several parameters including and not limited to the amount of LiD in the 2nd stage, among of U-238 and the casing itself. This are the details which K. Santhanam is not aware off.

One has to note that the design yield of the shot was >200-300 Kt but was dumbed down to 45 Kt. One has to ask how the dumbing down is achieved? Only in India (and on BRF) we whine about the fact that dumbing down the yield was not efficient and hence a fizzle and go to town whining about it.

Think of it this way., a designer (Sikka) is given tasked to design a 300 Kt deliverable warhead (it has to fit in the missile cone of Agni-II) and dumb it down to 45 Kt. Imagine this is the conversation between PVNRajpayee and Sikka., questions are from PVNRajpayee:

Q. Do we have a Dharmo Bomb?
A. Yes sir we have.

Q. How confident you are about the yield?
A. 100% confident that it will be >200 Kt yield. 90% confident it will be 300 kt yield. 70% confident that it will be 400 Kt yield. And 100% confident it <450 Kt yield.

Q. So I can say we have confidence to deliver a big bum?
A. Yes sir you can say we have capability to deliver a big bum.

Q. For the S-II test., we cannot destroy villages. You must dumb down the bum.
A. Yes sir, we will dumb it down to <45 Kt.

Q. Good. Make sure that the village of Frito-Lay is not destroyed. No damage will come.
A. Yes Sir.

And here is the problem, when one dumb downs the yield of a device, unless one has reliable figures on the burn - one cannot be sure if the dumb down will yield <45 Kt or will it yield 35 Kt! One has to entertain the plausibility that the dumb down went too far. In fact Chidambaram was very confident and he laconically said for the other two shots on why waste them!

My own calculations based on the available material and crater width depth leads me to an yield of 37kt to 40kt. I had posted it on BRF c2005.

This basically means that the FBF trigger + the second stage worked as designed and the second stage ignited well. And this is on a deliverable weapon.
---

On this debate of fizzle., what we are missing are the chotus - the 0.2 kt and 0.5 kt (SV and SIV) and the linear implosion reactor-grade Pu - SIII. This attests to the fact that we can continue sub-critical testing in laboratory.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Deterrence

Postby NRao » 09 Feb 2017 04:56

This basically means that the FBF trigger + the second stage worked as designed and the second stage ignited well. And this is on a deliverable weapon.


Any idea how large such a seed would be? A 300kt has to fit into one of the petals. If it was a fizzle the seed would have had to be much larger, to compensate for the fizzle and yield the same. Given that Indian petals are rather compact I would think the fizzle was actually more than a sizzle.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4932
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 09 Feb 2017 05:30

disha wrote:
And here is the problem, when one dumb downs the yield of a device, unless one has reliable figures on the burn - one cannot be sure if the dumb down will yield <45 Kt or will it yield 35 Kt! One has to entertain the plausibility that the dumb down went too far. In fact Chidambaram was very confident and he laconically said for the other two shots on why waste them!


Doesn't instill much confidence. IMO, the only reason that makes sense is if the first copy didn't go off as expected. If it had, they would've gone forward w/ another for consistency. Why plan for two more to begin with and then pull back?

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5678
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Deterrence

Postby disha » 09 Feb 2017 07:43

^^ RoyG sir - your statement is a pure rona-dhona. And you are purposely indulging in "if not this than that, but since that is not this, hence this is not that" kind of circular logic. In short it is baseless intellectual masturbation.

In a nutshell you are saying if that if you plan X steps to do a mission and when your mission is achieved in Y steps where Y is less than X., and you stop there - that is a sign of under confidence!!. All facts be damned.

TBH., maybe you are more credentialed expert than Sri R. Chidambaram & and hence know more than Sri R. Chidambaram. But the fact is that I do not know any of your contributions vs. the very very fact that Sri R. Chidambaram launched a complete field of modern material science. Hence your intellectual masturbation does not matter a whit.

BTW., modern material science is a very interesting field - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_science - do check it out.

PS: It is tiring when people shout "fizzle fizzle" without a basis or understanding of physics or chemistry and only on twist of words.

Next point - any poster who says "fizzle" needs to explain a term of nuclear physics in simple plain english with a simple plain example.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4932
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Deterrence

Postby RoyG » 09 Feb 2017 08:32

No, just simple logic. According to you, he plans for 3 and stops after 1 and calls it a day. And then all of a sudden his logic becomes, it worked so why waste the other two. If this is indeed fact, why at the start have subsequent tests in the pipeline?

Doesn't it seem more plausible that if one had only undergone partial burn, then hold off on the subsequent tests to debug the design? And if it worked, detonate the next two for consistency?

As far as expertise is concerned, my physics and chemistry background is nothing stellar. I'm not sure how this applies to this specific aspect of the discussion.

Wrt deterrence, for now we're fine w/ FBF. I've stated this in the past as well so where exactly are you deriving under confidence from? 50-500kt will do fine for any Chinese city especially when clustered together on a MIRV bus. No need for MT especially w/ the range and accuracy of the Agni IV and V systems.

One thing that may of be of interest to us is the Everden note supposedly in the 1998 Physics and Society journal. I'm curious how he reached 46 kt for the TN. Couldn't find it. If you or anyone else can, it could throw more weight behind the claim that it did indeed sizzle that day.

Anyway, done masturbating. Ta-Ta.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Falijee, Guddu, nandakumar, SRoy and 26 guests