India Nuclear News & Discussion - 9 Sept 2007

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Arun_S wrote: but that does no change truth. And this statement is not mine but a former NSAB member, that is also corroborated by a major stakeholder in Shakti team. And this is communicated in first person so there is no doubt to its varcity or room for mis-understanding.
Arun_S: I had posted three questions on this very issue a few pages back. Ramana's response was towards indication of a high probability consensus decision from the Sci Com to the PM.

You are indicating a split between, elements of the Sci Com and other stake holders (presume military and political?).

My question, was there unity of opinion in the Sci Com, based on RC's leadership, at that time or was even the Sci Com, opinion split?
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

Periodic check:

Has Sanku compared the J18 and 123 yet? :?:

(or gone into hiding following hiding received from RaviCV?) :eek:
sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Post by sraj »

Gerard wrote:
In the definitions section as passed, a nuclear detonation was defined in terms of the equivalent energy released by "one point of TNT." On India's insistence, this was corrected subsequently to "one pound."
So what is the bottom-line on sub-critical tests? Are they covered or not covered by the above 'one pound' definition?
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Yes you summarize it good and it is worth reading again.
The bottom line is Indian national security interest have been compromised in this change of government from elected PM to un-elected PM. RC/Sikka and AK must unquestionably demonstrate to retired SME (i.e. PK Iyangar and some others) the result of Pok-II and validity of corrective action already taken that guarantees credible (as seen by slimy Chinese PLA) lightweight strategic weapons (>100kt yield) that are required for economic number of missiles and submarines to deliver "Tandav", without testing.
p_saggu wrote:Here what it looks like uptil now,

The BJP government in 1998 takes the scientists into confidence about not bringing up the thermonuclear weapon issue (and continue with newer improved weapon designs) then, because the sanctions have to be managed, while announcing that all designs have been validated.

Manmohan singh, a political novice, well intentioned, and taking people on their word, goes in for an atlanticist crafted deal which is pulled out of the hat by Cowboy Bush. On the face of it on the 18th of July, it seems amazing, ultimate foreign policy coup - for the congress party, for Newly rising India. Slowly the details get murkier, Hyde act comes up - binds US to a NPT/CTBT/Defang India agenda. 123 does the same, uses clever language, is vague when india's interests are concerned, but is very explicit when US Nonproliferation concerns come up. Sonia Gandhi, again a political novice, with limited understanding of the realities of India, and dependent on a coitre of mostly never-won-an-election yes-men as advisers knows no better, trusts what MMS says on this issue.

The US attempts here to play India on its own game, where ABV and RC had said Pokharan 2 was completely successful, and moratorium is justified (On a purely scientific basis not a political one). Whereas if, as have been the murmurs before, the Thermonuclear weapon needs further testing/refinement, (We all know that an even an advanced nuclear weapons power like the US had to redesign it W80 warheads because they would not explode in the cold temperatures that they would be exposed to on board a missile because of hitherto unanticipated factors), the US Knows this and tries to convert unilateral moratorium into backdoor CTBT, by gaining 'leverage' and linking economic and political losses to retesting.

The left parties oppose the deal mostly for ideological antipathy to the United States, the BJP plays the opposition by opposing any thing the party in power does (Not going the full length to cirtisize the government, knowing fully well that it would have no answers if the government brings up the thermonuclear issue - there is mutual understanding between the BJP and the government on this - in national interest), to the congress MPs which blindly go along with the deal beacause Ms Gandhi is in favour of the deal. The regional parties know no better, are sitting by the sidelines only calculating what political price they can extract from this government opposition tiff.

Like everything sarkari, in India real issues are never openly debated, problem areas are brushed under the carpet, and non issues like india getting closer to US are brought up. The ATV project similarly lay grossly under financed for many many years, because our governments were busy with their '(Netaon ki) garibi hatao' schemes.

Now after PK Iyengar's latest statement, I feel there is a need to reassure the nation at large about the complete validity of india's entire range of minimal credible deterrance, at full power and at full yields so that this issue is laid to rest once and for all. We can then go into 123 with confidence, draft our own jekyll act if required and face the 21st century with a confidence and a smile on our faces.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Gerard wrote:
In the definitions section as passed, a nuclear detonation was defined in terms of the equivalent energy released by "one point of TNT." On India's insistence, this was corrected subsequently to "one pound."
Would that not require an ammendment? If true, then we should be safe as: one would expect the yield from a safely subcritical test to be less than a tenth of a microgram TNT equivalent, even if irradiated with a burst of neutrons.

I have heard of 4 pound equivalent TNT bursts for hydro nuclear tests, but all the computation of these tables in open source, is beyond me.

Seem if this one pound, if true and accepted, we may have room for sub critical test. Any sources, to confirm the correction to a pound?
[/quote]
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

The BJP government in 1998 takes the scientists into confidence about not bringing up the thermonuclear weapon issue.
Nice to see you people so sensitive about the nuclear testing issue.

One question to you all, did anyone of the past luminaries(Nuclear experts) raised testing issue as a reason not to sign the nuclear deal ?
Last edited by Kanson on 09 Sep 2007 19:02, edited 1 time in total.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingst ... rGOenr.pdf
One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and six
An Act To exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 a proposed nuclear agreement for cooperation with India.H.R.5682—2
(10) The terms ‘‘nuclear weapon’’ and ‘‘nuclear explosive
device’’ mean any device designed to produce an instantaneous
release of an amount of nuclear energy from special nuclear
material that is greater than the amount of energy that would
be released from the detonation of one pound of trinitrotoluene
(TNT).
Last edited by Gerard on 09 Sep 2007 18:41, edited 1 time in total.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

sraj wrote:
Gerard wrote:
So what is the bottom-line on sub-critical tests? Are they covered or not covered by the above 'one pound' definition?
How does anyone care if what I compressed is cold test or sub-critical with iron, Pb, U or Pu if the only heat that came from the boom was chemical? How is it any different from I firing a rifle?


BTW Sub-critical test implicitly means it is fission nuclear explosion (because it defines reaching criticality). Many countries are working hard on non-fission nuclear explosion using fusion-fuel to serve as the primary. testing these new nuclear primaries is OUTSIDE the definition of sub-critical test and not prohibited by CTBT even today.
Last edited by Arun_S on 09 Sep 2007 18:44, edited 1 time in total.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

BC and BK have been yelling about testing since the Hyde Act, but because of their maximalist positions, they were not taken seriously here. Now we get to know that India's deterrent needs to be validated beyond a doubt. Wonder what stopped this information from coming out of the right channels before now? what a bumpy ride under the UPA.
sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Post by sraj »

ShauryaT wrote:Would that not require an ammendment? If true, then we should be safe as: one would expect the yield from a safely subcritical test to be less than a tenth of a microgram TNT equivalent, even if irradiated with a burst of neutrons.

I have heard of 4 pound equivalent TNT bursts for hydro nuclear tests, but all the computation of these tables in open source, is beyond me.

Seem if this one pound, if true and accepted, we may have room for sub critical test. Any sources, to confirm the correction to a pound?
[/quote]
So Hyde act can be amended/has already been amended?

On the one pound limit being enough (from here):
But at LLNL in Livermore, Calif.on Mar. 26, 1963 A nuclear excursion and subsequent fire took place during a subcritical experiment in a shielded vault designed for critical assembly experiments. The excursion was estimated at 4 X 1017 fissions and was followed by oxidation of the enriched uranium metal in the assembly. (from Operational Accidents and Radiation Exposure Experience Within the United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1943-1970, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 1971.)The cause of the explosion is believed to have been directly attributable to mechanical failure. The total property loss was $94,881.

would 4x1017 fissions exceed one pound?
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Gerard wrote:
One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and six
An Act To exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 a proposed nuclear agreement for cooperation with India.H.R.5682—2
(10) The terms ‘‘nuclear weapon’’ and ‘‘nuclear explosive
device’’ mean any device designed to produce an instantaneous
release of an amount of nuclear energy from special nuclear
material that is greater than the amount of energy that would
be released from the detonation of one pound of trinitrotoluene
(TNT).
The information you have produced is more accurate than the copy of Hyde, sitting on my machine. There must be some process, to correct errors and change meanings 8)
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

options:-

1. accept the >100kt tandav without testing {lets assume it was built for 200kt}

2. accept a test now, and take it from there {are we ready to do this from both political and technical sphere}.

if 1 & 2 though acceptable to ALL of us, we are in a dilemma to accept it cause of the impending thought "oh.. we are the real out caste to do it?".. so,

3. accept 123, as is, cause we believe we can live with 1.

4. accept 123, with changes if possible, and live with more happiness that we can resume test without penalties.

of course with 1, & 2, we are not talking about indo-us deal anymore.. 123 is squashed. 3 is the current option more in the air. 4 is a plausible one that our GoI has exposed itself (surrender) that they have got what they can. if 4, then even next Govt, even if its UPA will have no 123 on the table by that time.

now its up to us. does the testing takes more precedence than nuke agreement in terms of politics, economy, strategy and defence etc.. then lets phone bush and say, trash it.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5682:

You can see the change here. The Enrolled bill is final.

Resolved (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c ... hqJ:e25842:
(8) The terms `nuclear weapon' and `nuclear explosive device' have the meaning given the term `nuclear explosive device' in section 830(4) of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6305(4)).
(Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c ... hqJ:e43226:
(10) The terms `nuclear weapon' and `nuclear explosive device' mean any device designed to produce an instantaneous release of an amount of nuclear energy from special nuclear material that is greater than the amount of energy that would be released from the detonation of one pound of trinitrotoluene (TNT).
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

SaiK wrote:
does the testing takes more precedence than nuke agreement in terms of politics, economy, strategy and defence etc.. then lets phone bush and say, trash it.
But where is the point in signing up the deal if the FBRs are in jeopardy because of the deal? No FBRs means no three-stage program, and centuries more of being a client state to larger powers. Indian strategists and politicians were willing to sign up for the 123 earlier by placing all FBRs in the civilian category, which would have definitely killed the program. And now we are hearing that they are also willing to compromise India's deterrence. What else has been swept under the carpet?

JM2P.
Last edited by Rye on 09 Sep 2007 19:18, edited 1 time in total.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

ShauryaT wrote:
Arun_S wrote: but that does no change truth. And this statement is not mine but a former NSAB member, that is also corroborated by a major stakeholder in Shakti team. And this is communicated in first person so there is no doubt to its varcity or room for mis-understanding.
Arun_S: I had posted three questions on this very issue a few pages back. Ramana's response was towards indication of a high probability consensus decision from the Sci Com to the PM.

You are indicating a split between, elements of the Sci Com and other stake holders (presume military and political?).
Remove political and add DRDO.
My question, was there unity of opinion in the Sci Com, based on RC's leadership, at that time or was even the Sci Com, opinion split?
There are very few people who knew all elements of weapons design info, and perhaps some more who have access to the data measured from various instruments. To have an opinion one needs to know both.

I dare say that the the very few people who knew all elements of weapons design info are even fewer because of retirement. So:
  • 1. Who is going to question who for dissent to arise, particularly if they are non-high flying (read recognized via books or newspaper report) people, and a repressive OSA preventing them to widen their dissent except via proper channel? God forbid if only AK is left in this group, in that case a group of 1 does not has dissent.
  • 2. Who is going to guard the chicken pan (national interest)?
enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Post by enqyoobOLD »

ramanaji:

I think I understand the gist of your concerns, and the historical anecdotes that support them.

My counter to that is the basic failing of India has not been in reading contract fine print - it has been the lack of coherent strategy and technology to counter the invaders and exploiters.

These are not countered by being isolated, but by building technological advancement without a lot of ego and historical and religious baggage hindering thinking.

The precise language in any agreement, however "water-tight", makes no difference if the trust is not there. Trust does not come through naivete or through micro-suspicion and paranoia, it comes from the confidence that says, if you cheat us, you will only damage your own interests.

Going by that, I would say that there is nothing to be lost, and everything to be gained, from signing the 123, negotiating tough with the NSG, and going ahead.

If we need to test in future, we must take the pov that our interests should be perfectly obvious to all, so other countries are, to quote Dubya,
Either With Us or Against Us


To summarize this in the words of my boss, who is a master of this:
It is far more effective to Beg Forgiveness than to Request Prior Permission
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

enqyoob wrote:
Trust does not come through naivete or through micro-suspicion and paranoia, it comes from the confidence that says, if you cheat us, you will only damage your own interests.

That sounds more like skepticism than trust, since that desribes a "knife at each other's throat" situation, which is defnitely not a trust-based relationship but the opposite. Besides what is the advantage of signing up 123 equivalents with all NSG members? The advertisement by MMS and Co. earlier was that India would be able to stitch up more favourable deals with the NSG countries, but that is now shown to be false, since the US has explicitly stated that it will "shepherd" India through the process (to make sure that no other bilateral agreement is less restrictive than the 123). Where is the up side if we are dealing with a bunch of cheats who say one thing and do another?

My counter to that is the basic failing of India has not been in reading contract fine print - it has been the lack of coherent strategy and technology to counter the invaders and exploiters.
Maybe it would be better to clean up the house and setting everything internally in order before signing up to agreements that do not serve India and where the fine print has been glossed over by those in charge because their eyes are focussed on what may be a mirage...so much so that they chose to accept vague language and commitments to India in return for concrete commitments.

There is no game plan to change Indian laws to counter US abuse of trust and reneging on its commitments in the 123. The answer to every single thing seems to be "kick the can...we'll figure it out in the future..."...defies belief that we wasting precious time will produce a better solution in the future than addressing them right now.

JM2P.
Last edited by Rye on 09 Sep 2007 19:46, edited 2 times in total.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

Arun_S wrote: I dare say that the the very few people who knew all elements of weapons design info are even fewer because of retirement. So:
  • 1. Who is going to question who for dissent to arise, particularly if they are non-high flying (read recognized via books or newspaper report) people, and a repressive OSA preventing them to widen their dissent except via proper channel? God forbid if only AK is left in this group, in that case a group of 1 does not has dissent.
  • 2. Who is going to guard the chicken pan (national interest)?
Thats a good question. But on what basis we(aam junta) going to conclude that it is not taken care ?

With naive i like to pose few questions .
  • 1. From the date of explosion, our weapon development is stand still or continous one?
    2. If simulations are done continously, lets say AK alone is present now or in office from that group which involved in explosion, whether AK himself will do all the jobs or he heads or monitor the team which does the job for him?
    3. Is our Nuclear community which has been credited to have so much innovations under their hats are so naive in not thinking about these issues and consequences ?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Thanks N^3.

Saik, My reading is that there is an understanding that if India follows through due to others in the neighborhood breaching the moratorium then Hyde is not invoked at the discretion of the POTUS.

Also dont you think the govt has to make a statement of what it is doing for credibility? Its not the Raj even now.

Also looks like India got a more severe one point definition than the CTBT folks. one pound of TNT versus four pounds of TNT. This might be moot point as India had many opportunities to do this sub critical but did not.
alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Post by alokgupt »

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 351382.cms

MUMBAI: Criticising the Indo-US nuke deal, former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairman P K Iyengar said that the President and the PM should not sign the deal because it contains too many details which they may not understand.

"Some PMs cannot even pronounce the word plutonium. The deal defines terms, some of which are wrong and incorrect. We are disappointed at the way the negotiations have progressed. How can the government say that they cannot change the agreement?" he asked.

According to Iyengar, part 2.1 of the 123 Agreement was highly objectionable.

It says: "The US should not seek to facilitate or encourage the continuation of nuclear exports to India by any other party if such exports are terminated under the US law." He said that if this clause was removed then the Hyde Act will not be applicable to the 123 Agreement.

Iyengar said that after 25 years India could have reprocessed the spent fuel from the first and second units of the 160 MW Tarapur atomic power station which were commissioned in October 1969. "But, the ministry of external affairs did not want this to happen because they did not want India to be on the wrong side of the US," he said.

He said that the Hyde Act was even more severe than the NPT. "We should not be pariahs. The deal should be discussed in Parliament. In European nations, there would have been a referendum on such an important issue. For two years we have been negotiating the deal which has been a complete waste of time," he said.

Defence analyst Bharat Karnad, who played a key role in framing India’s n-doctrine after the 1998 Pokhran tests, said that the deal envisages providing India only with reactor technology, but there is no assurance on fuel supply.

"It will make India energy-dependent on the US. The US will have the powers to turn on and off the reactors. India will invest huge amount of money to set up the reactors which can be deactivated by the US any time if it finds that India is not conforming to the deal," he said.

Karnad said that if India implements its three-stage nuclear programme, we will gain energy independence since we have abundance of thorium in this country.

Regarding security, he said the fulcrum of the Hyde Act was that India should not test. "Testing is very important. The Indian military cannot accept weapons which have been designed and tested on computers. They have to be physically tested," he said.

He said that during the May 1998 nuclear weapons tests at Pokhran, the thermo nuclear device otherwise known as the hydrogen bomb did not work properly.

"The fissile material cut-off treaty and the Hyde Act will cap our nuclear weaponisation programme and we will yield under pressure," he said.

"The US is attempting to contain us quality wise and limit us size wise. Chinese missiles which are aimed against India are tipped with an one megaton N-warhead. In contrast, the yield of the Indian n-warheads is a mere 20 kiloton," Karnad said.

In a Q&A session, he wondered why under these circumstances was India keen on proceeding with the deal. "This is a complete mystery to me despite all the negative aspects. What can I say except that an unelected PM will seriously jeopordise the security of the country," he said.

He regretted that 60 years after getting independence, India was still trying to please the big powers. "I think, there is no way the deal can be stopped unless the Left party brings down the government," he added.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

SaiK wrote:bottom line: 2 paisa.. we are not bound by hyde to develop weapons and that includes subcritical testing and other lab testing including computer based simulations.

if it does, and if any of us can prove that, then forget 123 forever.
The sub critical issue is laid to rest now but it is not just about lab testing because seen from space, activity at the test site associated with an underground sub critical test would be virtually indistinguishable from that for any other underground experiment, including a hydronuclear test.

IOW: A sub critical test activity can be detected through space and other means.
alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Post by alokgupt »

alokgupt wrote:
It says: "The US should not seek to facilitate or encourage the continuation of nuclear exports to India by any other party if such exports are terminated under the US law." He said that if this clause was removed then the Hyde Act will not be applicable to the 123 Agreement.

He said that the Hyde Act was even more severe than the NPT.
Basically the argument is that if america cannot provide India the leeway to test based on its domestic policy it should let other countries do that. One has to be clear that energy security is not a negotiation chip for nuclear testing. If US wants to keep that then deal is off.
Regarding security, he said the fulcrum of the Hyde Act was that India should not test. "Testing is very important. The Indian military cannot accept weapons which have been designed and tested on computers. They have to be physically tested," he said.

He said that during the May 1998 nuclear weapons tests at Pokhran, the thermo nuclear device otherwise known as the hydrogen bomb did not work properly.

"The fissile material cut-off treaty and the Hyde Act will cap our nuclear weaponisation programme and we will yield under pressure," he said.

"The US is attempting to contain us quality wise and limit us size wise. Chinese missiles which are aimed against India are tipped with an one megaton N-warhead. In contrast, the yield of the Indian n-warheads is a mere 20 kiloton," Karnad said.
The above to all who claim India does not need to test. Please educate yourselves.
emsin

Post by emsin »

With due respect to GWB who is'nt that trained to see things in fine print, one must'nt forget the US babudom thats been trained in this ideology..

U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948:

"Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity [U.S. military-economic supremacy].... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming.... We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

— George Kennan
Director of Policy Planning
U.S. State Department
1948


http://www.intellnet.org/resources/amer ... error.html
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

do we like to listen to chinese who said:-
India is reading the 123 different, and USA is reading it different
if we agree with the chinese, then lets bring out those differences and just not live it there.. lets tag it with some reference (jingo identifier), so that we can trail back to the origin of the difference point.

the point being, we came all the way discussing that we are not in any been circumsized.. and now, we are saying we are tossed down to see tail. didn't AK agree that we are not jeopardizing.. we should ask the 800 pounder onlee:-

-Can we continue lab testing as is done in P5 nations or more if he thinks?
- Any where in the 123 that says we are denied doing so, cause P5 doesn't build anymore weapons.. but India needs to. or is it that
-India has already assembled about 1000 x 200KT TNs and we are done with our min deterrance. and,
-We can safely accept 123, just to keep it under computer warps.

The secrecy of weapon status is actually killing the separated / separating folks. We don't need to secret parts of weapons quantity, quality, design etc.. but an answer that says, we can do the tandav whenever the political decision is made.
mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Post by mandrake »

ramana wrote:Joey, If you think about it Karnad could be right on both counts the 200kt and the 20kt. I think he refers to two different systems.

BTW, I have been talking to a fellow member and it seems strange that BARC would proof something that would become obsolete anyway. We refer to the S-2 weapon. A pure fission weapon is wasteful of the scarce materials and it is possible they might have turned off the boosting and tested it. That would qualify the primary side. They keep referring to the 200kt weapon which is not seen anywhere.


You might have thought out a important point that somehow seems to me was missed from the whole BR Indo-US nuclear discussion which I was thinking all night along.

You see even BR Agni page talks about subsequent developement of nukes from a pure fission weapon of 74 aka 20 KT to boosted fission 200 KT to post 1998 design based on medium yield.

I'll put up some excerpts from BR's Agni page written by Arun_S ,
"Interestingly in 1987 IGMDP/ASL first envisaged developing a re-entry vehicle "designed for 100-250 Kg payload at speed of 7-8 km/sec "[25], clearly corresponding to a just a light weight fission-weapon & ICBM range [26]. But strategic requirement clearly also required high yield weapons that imposes bigger space and weight envelop. After some serious thinking, reviews and debates, the RV was to be designed for bigger payloads to match BARC's high yield weapon. The RV envelop was driven by weapon size and weight parameters corresponding to 200 Kt yield. In the 1980's BARC came up with boosted fission weapon design for the purpose with 1000Kg mass resulting in the Agni RV-MK.1."
And look at this,
"Since the first Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) in 1974 (PoK-I), India adopted the recessed deterrence posture initially consisting of fission weapons (~15 KT yield) followed by boosted fission weapons of 200 KT yield, suitable for the Agni-TD/TTB. The PoK-II 1998 'Shakti' series of nuclear tests in Pokhran were reportedly done to validate multiple weapon designs, of 1995 vintage. Interestingly the 200 KT boosted fission design of 1980 was not tested in PoK-II, ostensibly having long given way to a lighter and more efficient S1 design. It is interesting to note that India has access to large quantities [135] of Tritium - produced at an extremely low cost - which lends flexibility to Indian weapon design options, an option that is not available or viable to prior nuclear weapon states. "


I personally think Arun jee might have overlooked and said the above bolded part "Interestingly the 200 KT boosted fission design of 1980 was not tested in PoK-II".

IMO The Indian arsenal since 1980's has 20 KT pure fission (a deterrent against Pakistan) and 200 KT pure boosted fission weapons (a deterrent against China) , so in the 1998 test; to show that Indian arsenal were already ready against China much before 1998, they would rather test a 200 KT boosted weapon (albeit with NO boosting gas) to prove its inventory of high yield boosted fission weapon. It also serves another role, that of the need to proof test the material used for a similar but new and smaller boosted primary of the new TN weapon.

Compare that with the testing of a pure fission 20KT weapon that will not be used anymore in the upcoming days because it consumes more fissile material thus much heavier and also it does not carry the reliability that gas boosting offers, plus it has oldest technology parts.

After 1998 tests with less than fully successful Fusion burn, India will IMHO keep in active use the following weapon types,

1. The old 200KT boosted weapon stockpile.

2. Some variant of S1 design albeit with 3rd stage added in (Arun_S has said that assuming 23kt fusion burn, this will scale to 150-200kT).

3. A corrected S1 design which only BARC pioneers have knowledge and confidence in, but that can be tested now or in the run up to escalation to war. (IMO This will thus be much higher yield than 200KT TN yield of point number 2 above).
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

I may politely point out that those who are clamouring for testing are not nuclear experts. Pls see yourself. Very importantly, Pls note, Mr. PK Iyengar, known for taking different stand abt nuclear explosion in 90s, didnt raised a word about testing from this same article.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 351382.cms

MUMBAI: Criticising the Indo-US nuke deal, former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairman P K Iyengar said that the President and the PM should not sign the deal because it contains too many details which they may not understand.

"Some PMs cannot even pronounce the word plutonium. The deal defines terms, some of which are wrong and incorrect. We are disappointed at the way the negotiations have progressed. How can the government say that they cannot change the agreement?" he asked.

According to Iyengar, part 2.1 of the 123 Agreement was highly objectionable.

It says: "The US should not seek to facilitate or encourage the continuation of nuclear exports to India by any other party if such exports are terminated under the US law." He said that if this clause was removed then the Hyde Act will not be applicable to the 123 Agreement.

Iyengar said that after 25 years India could have reprocessed the spent fuel from the first and second units of the 160 MW Tarapur atomic power station which were commissioned in October 1969. "But, the ministry of external affairs did not want this to happen because they did not want India to be on the wrong side of the US," he said.

He said that the Hyde Act was even more severe than the NPT. "We should not be pariahs. The deal should be discussed in Parliament. In European nations, there would have been a referendum on such an important issue. For two years we have been negotiating the deal which has been a complete waste of time," he said.

Defence analyst Bharat Karnad, who played a key role in framing India’s n-doctrine after the 1998 Pokhran tests, said that the deal envisages providing India only with reactor technology, but there is no assurance on fuel supply.

"It will make India energy-dependent on the US. The US will have the powers to turn on and off the reactors. India will invest huge amount of money to set up the reactors which can be deactivated by the US any time if it finds that India is not conforming to the deal," he said.

Karnad said that if India implements its three-stage nuclear programme, we will gain energy independence since we have abundance of thorium in this country.

Regarding security, he said the fulcrum of the Hyde Act was that India should not test. "Testing is very important. The Indian military cannot accept weapons which have been designed and tested on computers. They have to be physically tested," he said.

He said that during the May 1998 nuclear weapons tests at Pokhran, the thermo nuclear device otherwise known as the hydrogen bomb did not work properly.

"The fissile material cut-off treaty and the Hyde Act will cap our nuclear weaponisation programme and we will yield under pressure," he said.

"The US is attempting to contain us quality wise and limit us size wise. Chinese missiles which are aimed against India are tipped with an one megaton N-warhead. In contrast, the yield of the Indian n-warheads is a mere 20 kiloton," Karnad said.

In a Q&A session, he wondered why under these circumstances was India keen on proceeding with the deal. "This is a complete mystery to me despite all the negative aspects. What can I say except that an unelected PM will seriously jeopordise the security of the country," he said.

He regretted that 60 years after getting independence, India was still trying to please the big powers. "I think, there is no way the deal can be stopped unless the Left party brings down the government," he added.
[/quote]
Last edited by Kanson on 09 Sep 2007 20:02, edited 1 time in total.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

ShauryaT wrote: IOW: A sub critical test activity can be detected through space and other means.
may be other means.. if we say we test underground..

and, this is exactly what MMS is indirectly saying, if we do, we have to do it so that nobody knows. perhaps one sub-critical just went near critical a few minutes back somewhere in kemkharan.

so, if we are not ready to do it, or does not want to invest in such a fool proof facility, what is wrong in agreeing to 123, that you anyway not going to do it since we fear detection.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

India has no instituationalized mechanism to carry to torch forward from the previous line of scientists who conducted those tests (if we go by posts from credible sources on this thread). Even if one is willing to ignore people like Bharat Karnad who are not in the inner loop, one is forced to pay attention when claims are now coming from other more credible quarters here on BRF. Where were all these credible sources for the past two years, I wonder -- they may have done a service to the country by revealing all the dirt sooner rather than later. Better stop watching before my head explodes from all this confusion here on this thread.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

Rye wrote:India has no instituationalized mechanism to carry to torch forward from the previous line of scientists who conducted those tests (if we go by posts from credible sources on this thread). Even if one is willing to ignore people like Bharat Karnad who are not in the inner loop, one is forced to pay attention when claims are now coming from other more credible quarters here on BRF. Where were all these credible sources for the past two years, I wonder -- they may have done a service to the country by revealing all the dirt sooner rather than later. Better stop watching before my head explodes from all this confusion here on this thread.
Credible source, hmm ? :lol: I better take leave.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Kanson wrote:
Credible source, hmm ? :lol: I better take leave.
I am skeptical as well, but when some people talk, one is forced to listen given past history.

In matters like this, the common refrain on this thread "look at the message and not the messenger" is just plain wrong. THE MESSENGER IS EVERYTHING. Credibilty can only come from the messenger -- the message is already well known, but it takes on new meaning when it comes from certain quarters, and the claim is that the message is coming from such quarters.

If RC says we need testing, then we need testing. Period. No two ways about it. If BK or BC make the same claim, and there is no indication that they are in the loop in such matters, then the answer is not clear, since the source of their information is unknown. If Seema Mustafa makes similar claims, the appropriate response would be to chortle loudly and rudely.


This thread suddenly became as clear as mud when credibility was handed to RaviCV by Gurus here. There is no other reason why this thread suddenly took a 180 degree turn on the 123.
Last edited by Rye on 09 Sep 2007 20:23, edited 2 times in total.
alokgupt
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 04:42

Post by alokgupt »

[quote="Kanson"]I may politely point out that those who are clamouring for testing are not nuclear experts. Pls see yourself. Very importantly, Pls note, Mr. PK Iyengar, known for taking different stand abt nuclear explosion in 90s, didnt raised a word about testing from this same article.
[quote]

Bharat Karnad is also an insider to nuclear policy. While a single statement by Iyengar in this regard will basically cause heart attack in PM office but it will also cause celebration in Chinkland and Pukiland. It is important to keep the ambiguity. But this is first clear statement from someone directly involved in drafting nuclear policy for India. We got to trust him and not assume he is lying or misunderstood the results.


National Security
Research Professor in National Security Studies, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.

Formerly, he was

i) Member, (First) National Security Advisory Board, National Security Council, Government of India; specifically, member of the Nuclear Doctrine Drafting Group, and of the external security and the technology security groups for the Strategic Review;

ii) Adviser on Defence Expenditure to the (Tenth( Finance Commission, India

Also if one thinks about what will China get by allowing this deal to pass in NSG. There could be one and only one thing that US can sell to China, a nuclear test ban by India. Don't assume chinks to be naive and support India when it is not in their interest.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Rye wrote:India has no instituationalized mechanism to carry to torch forward from the previous line of scientists who conducted those tests (if we go by posts from credible sources on this thread). Even if one is willing to ignore people like Bharat Karnad who are not in the inner loop, one is forced to pay attention when claims are now coming from other more credible quarters here on BRF. Where were all these credible sources for the past two years, I wonder -- they may have done a service to the country by revealing all the dirt sooner rather than later. Better stop watching before my head explodes from all this confusion here on this thread.
Credible sources were always there and talking; there was no defense press correspondent who was interested, or understood the domain or his/her editor did not want to publish.

I would not doubt Shri Bharat Karnad's credibility. Till date I have zero case of his information/reasoning being wrong.
As for "credible sources on this thread" being more credible than Bharat Karnad ... ... :roll: pls try a cup of coffee.
Raju

Post by Raju »

Rye wrote:Where were all these credible sources for the past two years, I wonder -- they may have done a service to the country by revealing all the dirt sooner rather than later.
More people will summon guts to come out of woodwork if they believe that govt is shaky and unstable. A stable govt can shaft whistle-blowers.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Arun_S wrote:
would not doubt Shri Bharat Karnad's credibility. Till date I have zero case of his information being wrong.
As for "credible sources on this thread" being more credible than Bharat Karnad ... ... :roll: pls try a cup of coffee.
(I was actually referring to gurus here on BRF as more credible than official analysts like BC or BK...but that is just my ignorant opinion.)

I will shut up after this post. speaking for myself, I cannot reconcile the statements that only RC and a select few know the real truth about India's deterrent and claims that others in the NSAB and elsewhere also know the details....if many people other than RC know the truth about the state of India's deterrent, were all of them ignored during the 123 process?

JM2Paise. Pardon my idiocy if what I wrote sounds like I am questioning the honesty or patriotism of folks like Shri Bharat Karnad and Shri BC. I don't really know how tight they are right now with the core of the machine, even if they once used to be.
Last edited by Rye on 09 Sep 2007 20:38, edited 1 time in total.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Rye wrote:If RC says we need testing, then we need testing. Period. No two ways about it. If BK or BC make the same claim, and there is no indication that they are in the loop in such matters, then the answer is not clear, since the source of their information is unknown. If Seema Mustafa makes similar claims, the appropriate response would be to chortle loudly and rudely.
Ah .... ... .. . Pls read my post again.
Arun_S wrote:They (RC, Santhanam, Air/Army/Navy ... ) have spoken on record few months after Buddha. After test the stakeholders gave their assessment of test result to PM. Based on R Chidambram's recommendation alone that PM overrode demand for re-test from all other stakeholders.
Did you understand who the stakeholders are/were? All of them except RC wanted re-test. They were not, BK, BC or Seema Mustafa.
This thread suddenly became as clear as mud when credibility was handed to RaviCV by Gurus here. There is no other reason why this thread suddenly took a 180 degree turn on the 123.
.
The reason is some dots got connected. Again pls read my post.
Arun_S wrote:Just to make sure it is clear: as you can see from above this is based on current news reports and assessment, and nothing to do with claims/non-claims of RaviCV on this thread.
RaviCV is yet a wild card.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Rye wrote:(I was actually referring to gurus here on BRF as more credible than official analysts like BC or BK...but that is just my ignorant opinion.)
I think I understand your perspective.
I submit the power is from all fingers of the fist and the fingers are not all equal. Sometime we get informed/educated from BK, and sometimes he gets informed by us.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

I just expressed my opion which i felt right. I respect my fellow Indian, BK. I'm sure like us he too is working towards national cause. I only pointed out that he is not a nuclear expert part of the inner core team and no way debased his credibility or questioned his credibility. Sameway, everyone can have their opinion. One doesnt have to concur with everything expressed. - Jai Hind.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

A sub critical test activity can be detected through space and other means.
Shakti 4 and 5 were not detected and they were actual explosive tests...
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

joey wrote:
ramana wrote:Joey, If you think about it Karnad could be right on both counts the 200kt and the 20kt. I think he refers to two different systems.

BTW, I have been talking to a fellow member and it seems strange that BARC would proof something that would become obsolete anyway. We refer to the S-2 weapon. A pure fission weapon is wasteful of the scarce materials and it is possible they might have turned off the boosting and tested it. That would qualify the primary side. They keep referring to the 200kt weapon which is not seen anywhere.


You might have thought out a important point that somehow seems to me was missed from the whole BR Indo-US nuclear discussion which I was thinking all night along.

You see even BR Agni page talks about subsequent developement of nukes from a pure fission weapon of 74 aka 20 KT to boosted fission 200 KT to post 1998 design based on medium yield.

I'll put up some excerpts from BR's Agni page written by Arun_S ,
"Interestingly in 1987 IGMDP/ASL first envisaged developing a re-entry vehicle "designed for 100-250 Kg payload at speed of 7-8 km/sec "[25], clearly corresponding to a just a light weight fission-weapon & ICBM range [26]. But strategic requirement clearly also required high yield weapons that imposes bigger space and weight envelop. After some serious thinking, reviews and debates, the RV was to be designed for bigger payloads to match BARC's high yield weapon. The RV envelop was driven by weapon size and weight parameters corresponding to 200 Kt yield. In the 1980's BARC came up with boosted fission weapon design for the purpose with 1000Kg mass resulting in the Agni RV-MK.1."
And look at this,
"Since the first Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) in 1974 (PoK-I), India adopted the recessed deterrence posture initially consisting of fission weapons (~15 KT yield) followed by boosted fission weapons of 200 KT yield, suitable for the Agni-TD/TTB. The PoK-II 1998 'Shakti' series of nuclear tests in Pokhran were reportedly done to validate multiple weapon designs, of 1995 vintage. Interestingly the 200 KT boosted fission design of 1980 was not tested in PoK-II, ostensibly having long given way to a lighter and more efficient S1 design. It is interesting to note that India has access to large quantities [135] of Tritium - produced at an extremely low cost - which lends flexibility to Indian weapon design options, an option that is not available or viable to prior nuclear weapon states. "


I personally think Arun jee might have overlooked and said the above bolded part "Interestingly the 200 KT boosted fission design of 1980 was not tested in PoK-II".

IMO The Indian arsenal since 1980's has 20 KT pure fission (a deterrent against Pakistan) and 200 KT pure boosted fission weapons (a deterrent against China) , so in the 1998 test; to show that Indian arsenal were already ready against China much before 1998, they would rather test a 200 KT boosted weapon (albeit with NO boosting gas) to prove its inventory of high yield boosted fission weapon. It also serves another role, that of the need to proof test the material used for a similar but new and smaller boosted primary of the new TN weapon.

Compare that with the testing of a pure fission 20KT weapon that will not be used anymore in the upcoming days because it consumes more fissile material thus much heavier and also it does not carry the reliability that gas boosting offers, plus it has oldest technology parts.

After 1998 tests with less than fully successful Fusion burn, India will IMHO keep in active use the following weapon types,

1. The old 200KT boosted weapon stockpile.

2. Some variant of S1 design albeit with 3rd stage added in (Arun_S has said that assuming 23kt fusion burn, this will scale to 150-200kT).

3. A corrected S1 design which only BARC pioneers have knowledge and confidence in, but that can be tested now or in the run up to escalation to war. (IMO This will thus be much higher yield than 200KT TN yield of point number 2 above).
joey: Thanks that is a good discovery.
I have been thinking about it too. It was my oversight in that I overlooked it this more compelling reason all these years.

Image

So it does look more likely that the S-2 pure fission test was not a 12 kt fission bomb from inventory, but a china specific 200kt boosted fission weapon without boosting gas. This is the weapon that is a baseline Indian weapon whose reliability or potency is beyond doubt internally or externally. Having been designed & developed ~1985. And that is the reason GOI had always published ballistic missile range for 1000 kg payload.

It is interesting to note that if this weapon gave 12 kt yield without gas boost its explosive lense could be lighter than earlier estimates.
Roop
BRFite
Posts: 664
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Roop »

Rye:

You have summed up very well what I was thinking: this thread has taken a 180-degree turn in the last 24 to 48 hrs. I have no idea what caused it -- it has all been very sudden -- but Arun_S says that some dots were connected. So... I am now going back to lurk mode on this topic. It is too mysterious for me.

Let's see what happens in the Lok Sabha.
Locked