Pokhran-II Yield

jrjrao · Post by **jrjrao** » 23 Jul 2001 00:05

Considering the unanimity of non-Indian opinion, it could very well be that the second stage of the thermonuclear weapon fizzled out (this is the hardest part of the design of two-stage weapons - to ensure enough of the containment of the first stage so as to make the second stage happen. The first stage has to do a great job in order to be able to initiate fusion, but it must not do **so great a job** as to physically breakup the weapon whereby the fusion thingies get disturbed before they start singing their fusion music).On the other hand, I also suspect a sustained sinister non-proliferation effort here to throttle India. See, India says that it developed nukes simply to have a deterrent. Straightforward logic on the surface, considering the hostile radioactive monkeys on both the east and the west. So how to defeat India's logic, and thus stymie it? Just declare over and over again that its bombs fizzled out. The power of Indian deterrence lies only in the minds of others (adversaries or not). If Indian nukes are convincingly declared as wet-crackers, and if India is cost-prohibited from testing again - well poof, there goes India's deterrent. And thus India, and others like it will be forced to acccept that nuke testing these days (and going against non-proliferation treaties) will not pay in any way.How to break out of this trap without further testing? There is no way. [This message has been edited by jrjrao (edited 22-07-2001).]

Pathmarajah · Post by **Pathmarajah** » 23 Jul 2001 01:37

We have to wait for BARC's appropriate response. British nuclear scientists have no political reasons to dispute Indian yields. Iyengar agrees with their conclusions.Nevertherless, if the Indian nuclear 'deterrence' is to serve any military purpose we have to provide indisputable evidence. Otherwise its no deterrence at all. Therefore we have to test again.[This message has been edited by Pathmarajah (edited 22-07-2001).][This message has been edited by Pathmarajah (edited 22-07-2001).]

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 23 Jul 2001 01:51

The interesting thing about this article is that it has appeared in Current Science, an Indian journal. There will no doubt be scientific rebuttals to this article from the BARC scientists and this process is a necessary part of scientific progress.As for the credibility of our arsenal, there is no doubt being raised by anybody about the fission device and there is substantial evidence about the efficacy of a boosted-fission device as well. Thus there are no doubt that India is capable of inflicting unacceptable damage to any nuclear aggressor. The doubt is about the fusion bomb. For whatever reasons, political, non-proliferation etc., some renowned scientists have raised questions about the yield, giving scientific evidence. Given this, it is in the interest of BARC and GoI to allow the best scientists to question the yield and then to rebut these on purely scietific grounds. That would do more to clear any doubts than to either keep quiet about it or suppress information.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 23 Jul 2001 03:57

Hello,Just like to say that I suspect that PKI's claim of 8kt is deals with the secondary fusion stage's yield.Suggest re-examining the BR Monitor piece on the nuclear tests.FAS puts it nicely - nothing detracts from a basic Indian ability to field a reliable 200-300kT weapon of either a fusion design or boosted-fission design.Also, any attempt at using surface waves at yield estimates at long range is fraught with inaccuracy.Whatever it is, the issue is like chronic heartburn and won't go away. Without literally putting the entire weapon design up for review internationally, sniping at BARC will continue.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 23 Jul 2001 10:01

Looking at the many independant reports since 1999 onwards, I think we can conclusively say the fusion bomb either underperformed or more likely failed. Janes also reported that another test weapon failed to explode and had to be dug out later. BARC made up some nonsense story that they didn't detonate it because they 'did not want to waste it'. N-deterrence against China is useless if nobody including many Indians don't believe India has a workable h-bomb.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2001 10:14

I agree with Neshant. In fact I would go further and say that many independant(sic) sources have confirmed to me personally that in fact no nukes were tested at all. It's all a big bluff. Why worry? Why constantly excoriate this topic in the hope that time will rewind itself and someone will actually prove that the nukes worked. Let me just put down the last word on it - they didn't work. Period.I hope that puts to rest all further worries about the topic. Why not just close this thread and carry on with our lives. We have debated the failed Indian nuclear tests too many times. No need to remain in a state of nervous tension wondering if they worked or even half-worked.How many more times do we need to go through the process of saying "There are 2 groups. one who say that they worked, and another who say that they did not. You can believe what you want"I would say, on a personal level, believe what you want, but please spare me this continued hand wringing over the issue. [This message has been edited by shiv (edited 23-07-2001).]

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 23 Jul 2001 10:24

Agree with you shiv.Please people, kindly read the work of ramana, calvin and sunder in the last issue of BRM. After that believe whatever you want. What is the basis of the latest claim? How is it different from the previous ones? Are the press reporting the basis of these new claims? If this is all based on a new approach, then we can consider this as a valid critical analysis. Before ascertaining this, why should I believe anything contrary to what has been established in the previous BRM article?I am not going to get into this headwhacking and handwringing exercise any more. For those who want to believe that we have only Sivakasi patakas, there is nothing one can do to convince. Is it possible to wake up some one who is pretending to sleep?

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 23 Jul 2001 23:13

Sit tight boys.. this c*ap is going to keep coming. With `heroes' like prannoy and padgaonkar and others in the `hindu'.. there is little more that one can expect on this. Everybody is quoting a PTI report its not even like either newspaper has bothered to do its own analysis. There is nothing `new' in the aldermaston analysis.. same old same old.. "the indian don't know what they are doing... but all the same tell us what you did.. so that we can play on our people's insecurities and milk our taxpayers for money to Non. Pro. lobbies."

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jul 2001 00:09

Well you have to start at the begining. In this case it means go to the CS article. I had some e-mail going on this and might be useful for the Forum to read it.-------- Well xxxxx, They say from 40 -25 kt. And they look at seismic data available at long distances only. They ask for in-country data which was available to Sikka et al. As for other data -craters, radius of cavity etc., they do not have expertise in that field. The good news is: - they agree that Wallace was off base - some interference did occur but might not be significant for 1 hz waves which are detected from far away. This ignores the Gupta paper that shows most of the energy peaked in 2- 6 hz. Hence far away stations wont capture the signature. - their upper bound of 40 is close to fas - for first time one of the P-5 is publically coming close to Indian estimates. Will it ever die? Not until the MND is deployed. ramana -------------- The BRM paper is the last word on this as it considers all opensource info. The AWE is interested in reviving the CTBT somehow and if they have to question India so be it. Like drive by shooting. The important thins is not to loose focus and proceed. Has anyone read the G Balachandran article in IDSA's journal. The message from it is it takes three to four years after a test to weaponize the design and its about that time. Also read Chidamabaram's address to INS in Bangalore on Friday. Link is in Hindu. He says it was all weapons and not devices. He gives upper limit. Yes PKI is now stating that the S-1 was 8kt. This is new stuff. And am sure BARC will respond. Also has any physics major undersood the graph in the BARC radio-chem paper? Would like to hear fom such people.[This message has been edited by ramana (edited 23-07-2001).]

Kaushal · Post by **Kaushal** » 24 Jul 2001 00:34

I am a little tired of hearing this stuff and I agree with shiv and Raja Ram. Enough is enough. If one has technical arguments by all means present them. If you dont, opinions are as common as ******** , everyone has one. If you dont believe any explosions were conducted in POK II or that they were not completely successful, there is really nothing to talk about. Again those who are not Indian always have an axe to grind when they evaluate the success of POK II. If we believe their conclusions, they should not be concerned about India's deterrent or have gone to the lengths they did condemning India for conducting these tests. It is apparent China takes India's deterrent seriously as otherwise they would not go to the lengths of harping on it almost constantly since POK II and taking the lead in the UN to pass a resolution against India.Kaushal

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 24 Jul 2001 07:58

The argument is not based on the 8kT for P-I. Sublette addresses this quite nicely in the FAS article that was cited in the BRM article. The consensus is 10kT.The primary discrepancy is the assertion that the readings at the frequency of measurement are independent of intereference effects.The rebuttal to this must focus on the theory of interference of stationary waves and why there is a need to account for this interference at the measurement locations.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 24 Jul 2001 18:41

Hi, Just to re-iterate, when PKI speaks of the thermonuclear explosion generating 8kT of energy, he is referring to the fusion stage of S-1 - not the whole S-1 blast. He is not casting and has never cast any aspersion on the boosted-fission primary.PKI tends to cite a 20kT primary whereas Chidambaram indicates a primary of 12-15kT (Chidambaram has always maintained that the primary of S-1 was approx. same yield as S-2). PKI is claiming, therefore, that S-1 had a total yield of 28kT - namely a 20kT boosted-fission primary and 8kT generated in the fusion secondary.On the other hand, if Chidambaram is to be believed, with respect to the yield of the primary, the secondary fusion stage could have had a yield of 13-16kT, if PKI's total yield of 28kT is accepted.All of this, of course, pre-supposes that the yield of S-1 was much lower than claimed. As the BRM article has pointed out, this is not necessarily the case. One thing is clear though, this piece by the Brits is flawed in many ways and is, as of now, much ado about nothing.

vsunder · Post by **vsunder** » 24 Jul 2001 21:18

The scientific reporting in India is just stupid. A few days ago The Hindu ran an article about how a learned professor Thomas Vaddakan had successfully trisected an "impossible angle" of 60 degrees. Apparently this misguided soul was going to send his paper to the American Math. Society. The Hindu hailed this a great achievement. Any competent undergraduate in mathematics knows that by the work of Galois in 1860 and Abel you cannot trisect 60 degrees by compass and straight edge, while the Hindu reporter thinks he can and so does Vaddakkan.I have read the Current Science article carefully. There is no methodology, no data whatsoever and in an interesting way it supports the BRM article of myself and Ramana and Matt. It says in a sense "most stations" (though does not specify which stations) saw seismic signals in the 1hz range. Indeed our computations show as is trivially obvious form the .pdf file and chart that 1hz will undergo constructive interference inside a cone of aperture 80 degrees off the North-South axis through Pokharan, that is most stations will see more of the 1hz at large distances. However as the Gupta et al data showed its the 3.5-5 Hz range that carried the bulk of the energy from POK-2 and this underwent interference in the detector stations the British talk about. The article is sheer garbage and looks like a petition, 7 or more co-authors to write a 2 page paper, with no computations, no methodology and no data. Current Science and Balaram and the referee need to get their head screwed right.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Jul 2001 01:12

While I appreciate your idea of sharing info, I dont think we need any color to this discussion. It is quite a serious matter and levity would only detract from it.

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 25 Jul 2001 04:26

Tieing this thread with the other one on the Paki test, it seems that once in a while a paper will come out questioning the Indian tests' numbers. This questioning comes on very scant "evidence." Yet, the Paki test is questionable on many grounds not the least of which is proliferation but hardly any papers come out questioning the numbers from the Chagai tests.I get the distinct feeling that these papers come out against the Indian tests to keep the focus on India and not let it fall on TSP and their program. I think there are people that have an interest in not letting the Paki nuclear program come under the microscope because a lot of skeletons from a lot of closets will come out.[This message has been edited by Vick (edited 24-07-2001).]

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 25 Jul 2001 21:31

I finally read through the entire paper, it took a while to cross out all the repeated sentences and phrases(which accounted for about 30% of the text). I am appalled to see that such rubbish is published anywhere, let alone in current science. There is no new data/analysis presented in the paper. The paper claims to address/refute the assumptions made in the analysis of POK-II (S1 and S2) test data, but apart from admitting rather convolutedly that foreign analysts do not have the detailed site knowledge to carry out a full analysis it does little else. The paper summarily dismisses the effects due to interference. A really silly part however is that they admit that seismic measurement is prone to large errors depending on choice of station but then proceed to pick 12 stations to give an estimate they are comfortable with. The article is absolutely unclear in the way it analyses surface and body wave effects, there is no segregation of the discussions everything is jumbled up. The most ridiculous part however is the statement about the yeild of POK1 (NOT S1 as some seem to think out here) being 8 kT. This is attributed to Shri. Iyengar made at the Stimson Centre. This part in the article is indirectly sourced. The GoI official stand on POKI is that it was 13kT, PKI was actually standing right there in pokhran when this estimate was first drawn up, it is unlikely he disagrees with now. What has happened subsequently is that the reporter in PTI most likely called Dr. Iyengar up in bombay and asked him to confirm the statement and to then God alone knows what PKI said and what the reporter heard. Ultimately i got the impression that the paper had little to do with our claims. The analysis was too superficial to support a serious contradiction of anything we have said so far. This is some internal politics.. The paper was aimed at proving that the IMS was/is capable of detecting even low yeild explosions and that if funded fully it could serve as a deterrent against secret testing to nations in the south asian region. seeing how `effectively' the IMS proved to be a deterrent in 1998.. i think it should be funded some more..

[This message has been edited by sunil sainis (edited 25-07-2001).][This message has been edited by sunil sainis (edited 25-07-2001).]

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Jul 2001 21:48

Sunil good reading. However the PKI 8kt for POKI ref is indirect in Ref 10 dated 1996. (Gupta Fabian paper available at fas.org or just google it.) <A HREF="http://tejas.serc.iisc.ernet.in/~currsc ... 001/72.pdf" TARGET=_blank>http://tejas.serc.iisc.ernet.in/~currsc ... /72.pdf</A> However we know from the Sikka rebuttal of Wallace and Barker papers that it was higher. R Ramachandran wrting in A Matto's book in the chapter POK-II technical dimensions writes in the footnote that new analysis indicates POKI was closer to 13 kt based on all evidence- cavity radius, radiochem etc. PKI in 1996 did not have any info on that so he maybe not correct. The crucial thing is the PTI reporter quoting him as saying that it is in regard to S-1. By any measure that is incorrect. So all this is storm in proverbial teacup. You are right it is a plea to revive the CTBT monitoring system. Any thoughts in inviting the principal author(Alan Douglas) to this thread?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Jul 2001 22:53

Ajay you think that is possible for PKI to visit this forum? We cant offer fellowships and other stuff and they will get flamed anyway. It has happened in the past. Ill informed members start attacking without understanding the background of the posters and turn them away. Also you seem to think it is just a matter of ringing him up and asking him questions. Its not simple as that. So please suggest feasible options. I really think we wont get PKI to talk to any one here. By now seeing the controversy any right minded person would issue a clarification. Fact none has been provided means he has his own thing going on. From what little digging around I did for the BRM it was greater than what he suggests. And thats good enough for me to make that PTI report suspect. What I hate is the fact that PTI etc dont use reporter byline. So it could be a hit and run exercise. Over the weekend I met a youth from India who lectured me about why US security will be diminshed by NMD. And he is freely partaking of the scholarships provided here for higher studies! Must be the rot run deeps. IOW most of the 'intellectuals' from India are turned already.

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 25 Jul 2001 23:00

Ramana:How about an interview for the Monitor? If he is shown the previous editions of the magazine, he might just agree to a short interview. Perhaps a questionnaire sent to him in advance which he could respond to over the telephone or in person (if some member in Mumbai has the time). Given the sensitivity of his knowledge, he may not be willing to give an impromptu interview.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 25 Jul 2001 23:14

ramana,my apologies, i have corrected my previous post. [This message has been edited by sunil sainis (edited 25-07-2001).]

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Jul 2001 23:15

Sridahr good idea. Need to pursue with our Mumbai coordinator. Give me some time.

Amitabh · Post by **Amitabh** » 25 Jul 2001 23:29

Alternatively, is it at all possible to have a moderated thread? Questions could be emailed to the moderator who then chooses which ones PKI or whoever should respond to.The moderator could for instance be given the ability to lock and unlock a thread, and would be the only one posting.Sounds draconian, I know, but it could be one way to keep select luminaries on BR.

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 25 Jul 2001 23:42

Good idea Amitabh. I am sure many people appreciate that BRF consists of a number of patriotic, well-meaning people and may be willing to interact. For instance, Mr. B. Raman, who does visit once in a while.However, the open nature of these forums puts off these luminaries from posting here since anybody can say anything. Unmoderated threads are particularly vulnerable to our friends from across the border/LOC.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 26 Jul 2001 08:50

Ramana,Here's a point to ponder and something that everyone should bear in mind.When PKI was building up his case against signing the CTBT, he made some comments on S-1. He once said that the design yield of S-1 was 45 kT with a 20kT primary.However, he felt that the design was too ambitious with the boosted-fission primary and the secondary fusion stage - too much being attempted for a single test.PKI - read his words carefully and literally (don't try to be scientific or technical, just read them literally) - said that he thought that the secondary stage only achieved a 10% yield. I am almost certain that he was indicating 10% of the design yield of the secondary. On the sly I'd heard that he was claiming that S-1 had a total yield of 23kT and that with only a 10% of the design yield of the secondary being achieved, more testing was needed.This is why PKI, Manoj Joshi and Brahma Chellaney never use the term 'fizzle'. These three believe that S-1 worked, but only partially in its fusion stage. In other words they feel that more tests are needed to perfect thermonuclear weapons technology.Admiral Menon feels, on the other hand, that whatever the yield and current capabilities, India needs to consider its arsenal 15-20 yrs into the future, not just its immediate and short term needs.I'd say something else that isn't necessarily relevant but is worth considering. PKI has not been close to the nuclear weapons program for a long time.If you're of a mind Ramana, drop me an e-mail and we can talk about PKI. The more I read this stuff, the more I'm inclined to suggest sending the BRM piece to every newspaper in India and to Current Science - and to PKI.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 26 Jul 2001 18:30

The simplest way to put to rest is to test right on top of the head of doubting Thom_as(ses). PS: Just returned from a state visit to India more later.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 26 Jul 2001 21:31

Ajay,PKI said that he believed that the fusion stage achieved about 10% of intended yield -'efficiency' was the word used on 1 occassion.PKI says that S-1 is comprised of a 20kT primary and a fusion secondary designed for 25kT. 10% of 25 = 2.5. The 23kT S-1 figure is not a quote from him, but an extrapolation of his statements.That was PKI on one occassion.On another, PKI says that he had no problem with the yield of S-1 as given by BARC.One thing is clear, if PKI says that total S-1 yield was 8kT, there is no seismic or any other scientific evidence of this and questioning him will involve walking with all the seismic and mathematical evidence at our disposal for his interpretation of the stuff.I should also point out that PKI initially refused to believe that India had even tried to test a thermonuclear weapon during POK-2. He's on record in India Today saying as much.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Jul 2001 22:36

PKI also gave a lecture at USi where the audience comprised of the high and mighty of Indian establishment and he accepted the S-1 yield.( ref. Ranjit Rai site) His beef as I understood was with the partial burn business i.e. the secondary should have achieved more.And he was worried that India was going to accede to the CTBT formally. Since then the ABV-Clinton joint statement reaffairmed the moratarium on tests and psmith as dealt with the partial burn issue in the BRM. I think until we hear from him again can consider this closed. Meantime check BARC site periodically to see if they have to say anything. The BRM piece has to fix a couple of refs before its good enough for the high and mighty.

Kaushal · Post by **Kaushal** » 26 Jul 2001 23:44

It is not strictly a coincidence that the Indian H Bomb (a metaphor for the entire Indian nucledar weapons effort) is one of the few which was developed without any involvement of scientists ,input, or data from the rest of the world community.Russia had significant help from sympathetic English scientists as well as some captured Germans. remember the Klaus Fuchs case ( see for instance <A HREF="http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Russia/Fuchs.html)" TARGET=_blank>http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Russia/Fuchs.html)</A> see also <A HREF="http://tms.physics.lsa.umich.edu/214/ot ... r_spy.html" TARGET=_blank>http://tms.physics.lsa.umich.edu/214/ot ... py.html</A> British, French scientists were participating at LA, so they had a lot of access to data.The complete story of the 'independent' Chinese effort is yet to be told.My point is the effort at discrediting the Indian nuclear weapons program has a lot to do with this fact. India is a counterexample to the thesis that such massive programmatic efforts can only be mounted by Industrially advanced western civilizations. Clearly, nobody is disputing that the Indian effort is entirely homegrown (except for publicly available books, papers and data). So the effort to belittle it takes 2 forms;1. Making a fission bomb is a relatively simple matter - any schoolboy can make it - see the Hollywood movie version of this thesis.2. India is lying when she says she exploded a H-Bomb. This was necessary because in 1974 it was stated often and regularly that to be counted among the bigboys and 'real' powers you had to have a TN weapon in your arsenal (hiroshimans will of course tell you different).Sanjay is right. These pinpricks will continue and will never go away. I do agree that at some point in time India will have to test to attain greater credibility from the point of view of deterrence.Kaushal [This message has been edited by Kaushal (edited 26-07-2001).]

P Smith · Post by **P Smith** » 27 Jul 2001 00:27

Sanjay>> PKI says that S-1 is comprised of a 20kT primary and a fusion secondary designed for 25kT...The 23kT S-1 figure is..an extrapolation of his statements.Slish retread here. Sanjay, no such extrapolation is necessary. He is on record as having accepted the official yield figures (and expressed no reason to question them).1. "Nuclear Nuances" (originally appeared in ToI, Aug 2000) - <A HREF="http://www.saveindia.com/iyengar.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.saveindia.com/iyengar.htm</A> 2. "More Nuclear Tests" (originally appeared in IE, Aug 2000) - <A HREF="http://www.boloji.com/columns/la/06.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.boloji.com/columns/la/06.htm</A> [This message has been edited by psmith (edited 26-07-2001).]

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jul 2001 01:01

Thanks psmith! So from these two links PKI clearly accepts the yields that BARC has stated for S-1. His complaint is that it didnt burn more. If it had the yield would be more. Could the Whiskey shaft hold more? From Chengappa, Mrs IG authorized Ramanna to build the shaft for a device four times POK-I. PKI was in the know of all this. So does he think the shaft could hold more? RC and Kakodkar said elsewhere that the site could handle 60kt due to nearby villages. And we know S-2 was around 15 or so. So what is the reason for PKI to venture forth on this partial burn crusade?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 27 Jul 2001 02:57

Hi, Points well taken on PKI. However, I am still submitting that there is another intepretation of his comments along the lines I'm saying. It is likely that I'm wrong, but as far as the war of words wrt PKI is concerned, every conceivable interpretation is necessary. Whenever somebody comes out with comments on S-1, I keep mulling over every comment from PKI. Ramana, why not e-mail the BRM piece to a few Indian newspapers and to BARC ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jul 2001 07:16

Just a litlle nudge to all to consider what Sanjay has suggested

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jul 2001 07:31

Sanjay and shiv your points being taken up. Lets see where it leads.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 28 Jul 2001 07:53

GuysRakesh pointed the following out!Seems like Bulletin of Atomic Scientists picked up our Sumamru Article on the tets: <A HREF="http://www.bullatomsci.org/bulletinwire ... 10607.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bullatomsci.org/bulletinwire ... 07.html</A> Congrats to all who worked hard at it!!R

Bharat Rakshak

Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield

Re: Pokhran-II Yield