India Nuclear News & Discussion - 9 Sept 2007

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 09 Sep 2007 21:32

Wrapping up some tail posts that were stranded in old thread while I split the thread:

alokgupt wrote:
Arun_S wrote: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.


If Bharat Karnad is saying is true then PM MMS has been wrong all along. While the judgement on MMS will take many more years (we need to be fair) but with this information I am firmly in the camp of folks who oppose this deal.

The equation:

Is Karnad right?
Yes:
1. MMS cannot be trusted to make right decisions when it comes to India's security.
2. All the US hulallah counts for nothing. US and Rice are not pro-India just trying to hodwink India into signing a test ban. They are doing themselves a favor and presenting it as a favor to India.

No:
1. Karnad is responsible with playing pure politics with Indian security.


pradeepe wrote:
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.


heh heh, and my head has done roughly 1620-degrees onlee.

emsin

Postby emsin » 09 Sep 2007 21:44

If Bharat Karnad is saying is true then PM MMS has been wrong all along. While the judgement on MMS will take many more years (we need to be fair) but with this information I am firmly in the camp of folks who oppose this deal.


MMS has been wrong all along. The way this deal was pushed was typically wrong. That too with a partner as destructive as the left. Some of the debates and dirty linen washing in public going on now should have been raging 2 years back. Then the scifi community was not taken into account, certainly the left did'nt have a clue.

With or without this deal, i don't think there's any punk left in this Govt or next to test. That will jeopardize our growth. Right now our economy is 6 years behind China, if we do it will become 12 years behind by 2010. We have to understand our priorities. These are not determined by a few tests. If our priorities are today still to be determined by a few nuke tests then we really don't have much to prioritize. Please understand that irony.

That leads us to the deal. IF after the deal China takes Arunachal, India to avoid a full war situation starts testing..do you think Uncle will invoke clauses in the Hyde act? IF he pretends to do so..we start opening up hostilities all 4000 km on the Chinese front. India in 2007 is militarily not the same as 1962.

Which takes us to the fact that will this deal as it is today, help our economy? Will it help us gain the trust and confidence of investors so we may grow at 12% and start narrowing the gap between panda and us?

Our BIGGEST strategic programme today should be simply to reduce the economic gap between China and India from 6 years to -5. And keep it that way.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 09 Sep 2007 21:49

Sometime we get informed/educated from BK, and sometimes he gets informed by us.


I wonder why he has reverted to his megaton demands instead of just calling for full yield proof tests of the 200kt warhead.

French President Mitterand ordered proof tests of the current French SLBM warhead before it was inducted.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Sep 2007 21:52

Arun_S wrote:Sometime we get informed/educated from BK, and sometimes he gets informed by us.
And BK, is the better for it. As he no longer talks about MT weapons...

Added: Gerard: I remember distinctly reading an article by him a few weeks ago, where he does not talk about MT anymore but, instead focuses on Quality of TN weapons and quantity caps, due to FMCT.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 09 Sep 2007 21:56, edited 2 times in total.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 09 Sep 2007 21:52

A jekyll act is sorely needed. It should contain the following points (among others)

1. The Parliament of India determines that any obligations put upon the government of India as a consequence of the Indo-US 123 deal shall remain in force only for as long as the Indo-US deal remains in force. No obligations to safeguards in perpetuity shall be entertained if the original deal framework breaks down.

2. The Government of India shall not enter into any treaty that seeks to explicitly forbid India from testing Nuclear weapons in any form on any grounds. The Government shall however seek to uphold the unilateral moratorium on Nuclear testing for as long as feasible.

3. The government shall do no business with any foreign nuclear entity that does not guarantee fuel supplies in times of crisis or distress. The Government of India shall build an explicit strategic nuclear fuel reserve to tide over temporary disruptions in supply.

4. The Government shall seek a simple majority ratification from parliament for all treaties in the nuclear domain entered into with foreign entities.

5. Any other ideas?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Sep 2007 22:02

Arun_S wrote:
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.

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.
As far as weapon mix is concerned, 2 should replace 1 - no? Otherwise, it seems to be a waste?

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 09 Sep 2007 22:41

ShauryaT wrote:
Arun_S wrote:
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.

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.
As far as weapon mix is concerned, 2 should replace 1 - no? Otherwise, it seems to be a waste?


Eventually yes. Waste is generated because doubts are not dispelled. The 2003 TN test would have taken care of the wast possibility. Now on Indian cost and peril the #2 has to be fielded along with #1 including the missiles and the whole inchelada. If anyone has doubt about #2, the #1 has to stay in inventory.

#2 and #3 will be tested at least in the run up to its actual use, to leave enemy in no doubt. But the #2 is a essentially tested once (S1 shot) and carries credibility with all but the most hardened dictators. #3 credibility is with BARC weaponeers only, unless India makes 2 BARC who cross validated other's design, and the credibility with enemy is established after success shot across its bow.

Bottomline of all this is additional cost to build Indian deterrence force with lot of duplication/redundancies

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 09 Sep 2007 22:43

1. How can anyone detect explosions that are "greater than 1lb of TNT"? The Eyrakis set off a few dozen of those every day. The testing of a 500lb bomb is greater than this. So this sounds like an absurd criterion. Did the COTUSwallahs mean 1 Million pounds of TNT? (500 tons, or 0.5 Kiloton)?

So this is absurd. India should start testing a few conventional bums at 15 ton level, just to say :P to this.

2. To me, "subcritical" meant, "no runaway chain reaction" which means "mass of fissile material too small".

So a subcritical test would be one which achieved same level of neutron bombardment and energy addition in short time, as a nuclear blast, to see the effect on small quantities of matter. Like using pulsed lasers for heating, and maybe some kind of drop tower or shaped charge to achieve really high pressure.

Can't see how anyone can detect or complain about such tests inside a lab.

Raju

Postby Raju » 09 Sep 2007 22:52

enqyoob wrote:1. How can anyone detect explosions that are "greater than 1lb of TNT"? The Eyrakis set off a few dozen of those every day. The testing of a 500lb bomb is greater than this. So this sounds like an absurd criterion. ...

So this is absurd. India should start testing a few conventional bums at 15 ton level, just to say :P to this.

.


Now this is one question even I want to know, how in hell is anyone going to detect explosions that are "greater than 1lb of TNT" or know if more than 1lb..sic explosion set-off is from conventional or fissile material ?

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 09 Sep 2007 23:06

Things are getting clearer by the hour .Atl east as of now we can sefely assume what US game plan is with respect to nuke deal/123 agreement how very silly of our govt to paly along without a comprehensive understanding of the subject

"I am ashamed to be an indian if in 2007 we have to go to US for advanced nuclear technology"-Ex AEC chairman

US is almost successful in pushing thru the back door of 123 agreement several objectionable agreements like fissile material cut off traety,test ban treaty,NPT ofcourse

I donot know why our politicians are so naive to fall in US trap and doing the selling of the nations security at their behest

Who told them we need not test any more -no one has manged to perfect a weapon design(TN)based on one test computers and simulations be damned

And how they have managed to lie to the nation saying the nuclear deal will assure energy security to the nation and power to common people-when the facts clearly state the exact opposite

Why they maintain we need advanced reactor technology when in reality our reactor technology is comparable to any in the world 500 MM is a reality and 1000 MW is just a matter of time

we are one of the few countries having operational fast breeder reactor and in 10 yrs or so there will be 2000 MW from fast breeders all from our very own home grown technology that includes the highly critical liquid sodium purification and handling technology available to just two other countries in the world.

Why they are hyping the requirement of uranium shortage with respect to overall energy shortage when in reality we need to ensure the fossil fuel import more urgently

Why was the reactor programe starved of funds and now the center of attention

Why they have so quickly agreed to convert an unilateral moratorium on testing to a bi lateral agreement

Agree to de facto fissile material cut off to military program without nations approval and a national debate being a minority govt

Why they are agreeing to intrusive inspection for most of our nuclear infrastructure

Why they have mortgaged our real energy security on US say so

Why they want the nation to be so overtly Dependant on US policies

what is the rush (is it the election in ne half year or so)

Why they are misquoting thru media and directly that nuclear establishment is solidly behind the deal when in reality it is not .Why is the media putting meaning to leading scientists mouth and its interpretation
which they never meant or said in the first place

In short why the selling the nation short and fooling the common people

What they have to gain ?

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Postby ramdas » 09 Sep 2007 23:12

I read in Carey Sublette's site that though it is unlikely that Israel has standard boosted fission / 2 stage thermonuclear warheads - it is likely to possess sloika style weapons.

Given that a standard 200 kt warhead is what India was aiming at, the main advantage of a 2 stage thermonuclear weapon over a boosted fission device is in its economical use of weapons grade Pu. Regarding Yield/weight ratio, we can always build missiles with heavier payloads - and are already moving in that direction.

Given that, and given India's testing constraints, would'nt a sloika style weapon have been a better direction ? After all it seems to be restricted to the yield/weight ratio of a boosted fission device, but will certainly require less weapon grade Pu. For instance, Joe-4 produced 400kt with a U-238 thick blanket, and a 40kt fissile core. So, a 20kt fissile core with 3-4 kg wgPu might enable a 200kt sloika compared to 24 kg fissile material for a fission device with the same yield. Moreover, given Carey sublette's comments about israel and sloikas, it seems that the sloika may require less testing. So, was a mistake made in not going after such a design in the 100 -200kt range that could then be produced in fairly large numbers with a lot of confidence and minimal testing ?

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 09 Sep 2007 23:29

I think the standard indian warhead size /yield is 300kt plus dictaed by small number of delivery systems available today and credible read enough destructive capacity during second strike option if exercised

Testing of any weapon system is a mandatory pre requiste ,it is not an option to be foreclosed by inept political negotiation

Though the modern trend by US/Russia is to go for 350 kt warheads with variable yield for a country like us with a limited weapon inventory a few very large sized warheads is desirable (1-2 MT) if not for anything then just introduce a fear factor in the possible second strike dimension.All the existing nuclear weapon states have some of these so called city busters which they will surely use if the territorial integrity is threatened.

There is no technical or military reason why we should have that option foreclosed by people who obviously have very little knowledge in these areas.

We always shy out from testing both in weapons and in delivery systems .This is a weak kneed wrong approach. As the worlds one of the largest economy ,second largest population and may be largest engineering man power pool ,it is time we stand up and do what is best for us rather than look westward for pat on the shoulder.This slave mentality must go if some day we really aspire to be super power and have global power projection capability.

Our problem is our leaders and our large mass of uneducated poor people whu have been and are being manipulated by smooth talking self serving politicians to barter awy the strength of the nation

Sparsh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 30 Jan 2007 12:57

Postby Sparsh » 09 Sep 2007 23:38

Shankar,

From your reply to my post a couple of threads ago:

Before you make such sweeping comments may be you should go into some more depth about our nuclear weapons program me and from where the fissile material for the bombs and missile warheads come

Most of our weapons are based on plutonium or more correctly weapons grade plutonium having more than 95% plutonium this is not some thing you go and buy from reliance fresh youhave to extract is painstakingly from the spent fuel of uranium fed reactors . Since the percentage of fissile u-235 in natural uranium is very very small and an even smaller part of it gets converted to Pu 239/241 during the burn up process and then purified and then cast into ingots and then machined to exact shape whole load of spent fuel is required for even a single fission warhead .That is why we need all the spent fuel that is available today.


Before you sanctimoniously go around advising people to go into some more depth and do research, presumably like yourself, maybe you should take your own advise and do the same. That way you will not come across as an unmitigated idiot like you do in this post. I am very well aware of the technical issues involved. Probably more so than you going by your asinine post. Take your patronizing attitude and shove it.

The moment the safeguard kicks in and we start using imported uranium 705 of the spent of fuels become out of bound for plutonium extraction at least for the weapon use and that was 2/3 rd of of fissile material production capability is cut off .As it is we have a few reactors if you take out 705 of that from the plutonium recovery cycle for military use you effectively put a cap on nuclear weapon production too


What you are advocating is a nuclear weapons program that would necessitate using every single unsafeguarded PHWR that we have right now for WGPu production. I suggest that you stop masturbating and put down whatever is it that you are smoking before you overdose on it.

A while ago, I asked people to run some numbers starting from what sort of nuclear force posture they advocated for India and then working down on what we would need on the military side. I challange you do the same. Show me exactly how the 8 PHWRs on the military side plus our existing unsafeguarded spent fuel stockpile that is going to be grandfathered into the military side are insufficient for our military needs and protected civilian research.

Show me some hard numbers. Otherwise shut up.

And while getting WGPu at Reliance Fresh might be hard, getting your head out of your musharaff and getting a clue is even harder. Here is a free one: Some one on this forum has already calculated some numbers for you to get started off on.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 09 Sep 2007 23:47

Before you sanctimoniously go around advising people to go into some more depth and do research, presumably like yourself, maybe you should take your own advise and do the same. That way you will not come across as an unmitigated idiot like you do in this post. I am very well aware of the technical issues involved. Probably more so than you going by your asinine post. Take your patronizing attitude and shove it.


- you have not made any point nor have you justified what you have said

What you are advocating is a nuclear weapons program that would necessitate using every single unsafeguarded PHWR that we have right now for WGPu production. I suggest that you stop masturbating and put down whatever is it that you are smoking before you overdose on it.


- maybe you should stop using this kind of language in this forum ,it may invite very hard reaction .By the way your reaction only shows you have lost the argument

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 10 Sep 2007 00:54

video of an alleged sub-critical test by the US.

http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/films/other.aspx?ID=152


The following paper defines subcritical test as any pure fission test that has yield equivalent of 0.1 micrograms of TNT.

Also states that CTBT allows P-5 to conduct explosions with a yield of less than 4 pounds of TNT --- 123 is even more restrictive than the CTBT given that a nuclear explosion is defined as one with yield of 1 pound of TNT.

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eglobsec/pub ... 3jones.pdf

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 10 Sep 2007 01:03

HypE=mc2
By Brahma Chellaney

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 10 Sep 2007 01:09

US is almost successful in pushing thru the back door of 123 agreement several objectionable agreements like fissile material cut off traety,test ban treaty,NPT ofcourse


There is absolutely no secret about the US trying to bring about:

1. FMCT
2. Test ban treaty
3. NPT (in some form)

India is not, and never has been, against (1) or (2), except that India insists on those being meaningful, as in leading to full global WMD disarmament.

As for NPT, India is against that, because it is blatantly discriminatory.

As far as I can see it, far from "pushing through the back door of 123" any of these things, the US-India 123 agreement clearly avoids all of those, and recognizes India's role as a nation that is free to maintain and develop a strategic nuclear program.

As for TESTING nukes, that is recognized by all to be an unacceptable escalation at a time when the world is desperately trying to go the other route, towards eliminating nukes.

Following May 1998, it was India's govt. that explicitly declared a unilateral moratorium, declared that the five tests had been successful enough that India did not need more tests, and EXPRESSED WILLINGNESS TO SIGN THE CTBT AS A NUCLEAR WEAPON STATE.

Once the CTBT is signed, the deal is that the signatories will not test EXCEPT UNDER COMPELLING NATIONAL SECURITY IMPERATIVES.

The CTBT, unfortunately, is dead. But the 123 offers India exactly what India wanted: recognition that India has a nuclear weapons program, freedom to continue to develop that with indigenous fuel... BUT... hoping that India continues to abide basically by the same constraints as CTBT-for-an-NWS: no testing except under compelling national security imperatives. No continued series of tests just for the heck of it.

No one has said anything about banning labs, simulations, supercomputers etc.

So WHAT's THE HANGUP? (Yeah, I know, it's like yelling the same question into a vacuum.)

You guys are arguing as if
1. India's unilateral moratorium was bogus
2. India's tests of 5/98 were flops
3. Given any nuclear fuel, India will immediately divert it to make bombs
4. India intends to conduct big megaton tests at any time.

IOW, the EBs' argument is exactly the same as that of the racist Non-Proliferation Ayatollahs' argument. Same as that of the worst of the COTUS types who want to destroy India.

Indians have spent 40 years convincing the world that India is nothing like the yahoo idiot state painted by the EBs. And that is why we got to the point where the US is willing to tell the world that India is a responsible Nuclear Weapon State.

Brings back the old saying:
WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY. THEY ARE EBs ONLEE YAAR!


And most disgustingly, the EBs are doing this out of some petty political bigotry, not out of any conviction.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 10 Sep 2007 01:14

enqyoob wrote:
As for TESTING nukes, that is recognized by all to be an unacceptable escalation at a time when the world is desperately trying to go the other route, towards eliminating nukes.


What is the basis for the claim that the P-5 are working towards eliminating nukes? AFAICT, USA is creating the nextgen nuclear weapons and has not yet ratified the CTBT. Any links/pointers that this is now official US/P-5 policy would be helpful.
Last edited by Rye on 10 Sep 2007 02:10, edited 1 time in total.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 10 Sep 2007 01:44

enqyoob wrote:Can't see how anyone can detect or complain about such tests inside a lab.
Sub critical tests are not done in a "lab" with white robes around you. It is under ground in shafts and the activity reqired for it is as intense as done for a real weapon test, if not higher. The instruments to measure all of the data, has to be in the shaft too.

At least, that is what I read.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 10 Sep 2007 02:04

But without the seismic signature, all such activity could be masked as construction activity...

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 10 Sep 2007 02:06

Gerard wrote:But without the seismic signature, all such activity could be masked as construction activity...
Most certainly. All I am trying to say is detection is possible, using space based and other assets and it is not just a lab test.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 10 Sep 2007 02:10

Gerard wrote:But without the seismic signature, all such activity could be masked as construction activity...
Gerard: Do you have a view on the sub-critical test limits of 4 lbs, as per CTBT on NWS and 1 LB as per Hyde (Why did India ask it to be changed to only 1 pound?). Is there any qualitative aspect here?

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 10 Sep 2007 02:24

This is the only reference I could find with Ex-US officials calling for a "world free of nuclear weapons"...not sure if this translates to a change in US policy though.


Kissinger_Shultz_Perry__Nunn_call_for_A_World_Free_of_Nuclear_Weapons


? Getting control of the uranium enrichment process, combined with the guarantee that uranium for nuclear power reactors could be obtained at a reasonable price, first from the Nuclear Suppliers Group and then from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or other controlled international reserves. It will also be necessary to deal with proliferation issues presented by spent fuel from reactors producing electricity.

? Halting the production of fissile material for weapons globally; phasing out the use of highly enriched uranium in civil commerce and removing weapons-usable uranium from research facilities around the world and rendering the materials safe.

? Redoubling our efforts to resolve regional confrontations and conflicts that give rise to new nuclear powers.


Maybe it is just me...but it looks like goals like the above indicate complete control of the fuel cycle of countries like India.

India's energy independence is on the agenda under the guise of "nuclear flashpoint" + "non proliferation".

This flies in the face of the "global nuclear renaissance" claims being made by the US, unless I am missing something.
Last edited by Rye on 10 Sep 2007 02:50, edited 2 times in total.

Mohan Raju
BRFite
Posts: 217
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Mohan Raju » 10 Sep 2007 02:27

enqyoob wrote:Following May 1998, it was India's govt. that explicitly declared a unilateral moratorium, declared that the five tests had been successful enough that India did not need more tests, and EXPRESSED WILLINGNESS TO SIGN THE CTBT AS A NUCLEAR WEAPON STATE.


and

You guys are arguing as if
1. India's unilateral moratorium was bogus
2. India's tests of 5/98 were flops
3. Given any nuclear fuel, India will immediately divert it to make bombs
4. India intends to conduct big megaton tests at any time.


Yes, and all this has happened in the last 24 to 48 hrs, hence my bewilderment. I mean, what the hell happened here? Arun_S says that dots were connected. Be that as it may, there is no escaping the conclusions 1 and 2 (at minumum) that you have listed. More than that, note that your 1 and 2 occurred under a BJP govt, and people are now bashing Congress for being traitors??!! What gives here?

Look, if MMS is a traitor/sellout/whatever for trying to sign this 123, what was ABV for lying about the moratorium and the 1998 test results? Moreover, how does any of this "need to test" jive with what Arun_S said about, speaking about the boosted-fission test of 1998 (and I quote here):

Arun_S wrote:This is the weapon that is a baseline Indian weapon whose reliability or potency is beyond doubt internally or externally.


How is the potency beyond doubt if the announced test result were bogus? And why did Kakodkar sign off on the 123 if the 1998 tests were bogus?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 10 Sep 2007 02:32

sub-critical test limits of 4 lbs, as per CTBT on NWS


The CTBT places no limits on subcritical tests. It only requires that conventional explosions of more than 300 tons of TNT be notified.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 10 Sep 2007 02:35

The 4 pounds of TNT yield is for "hydro nuclear tests" in according to this paper ( page 292, second paragraph).


http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eglobsec/pub ... 3jones.pdf

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 10 Sep 2007 03:02

UK continues to improve its nuke arsenal.

link

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 10 Sep 2007 03:50

Mohan Raju wrote:
enqyoob wrote:Following May 1998, it was India's govt. that explicitly declared a unilateral moratorium, declared that the five tests had been successful enough that India did not need more tests, and EXPRESSED WILLINGNESS TO SIGN THE CTBT AS A NUCLEAR WEAPON STATE.


and

You guys are arguing as if
1. India's unilateral moratorium was bogus
2. India's tests of 5/98 were flops
3. Given any nuclear fuel, India will immediately divert it to make bombs
4. India intends to conduct big megaton tests at any time.



Get hold of yourself folks! Do not mistake the tactics with strategy. India's voluntary moratorium was just that. It gave us a flexibility to revoke that anytime of our choice without breaking any international commitments. Its like you saying to yourself that you will stop posting till the govt falls. But you may break that self oath as you wish. There is nothing bogus about it except your claim that it was a commitment.


Yes, and all this has happened in the last 24 to 48 hrs, hence my bewilderment. I mean, what the hell happened here? Arun_S says that dots were connected. Be that as it may, there is no escaping the conclusions 1 and 2 (at minumum) that you have listed. More than that, note that your 1 and 2 occurred under a BJP govt, and people are now bashing Congress for being traitors??!! What gives here?

Look, if MMS is a traitor/sellout/whatever for trying to sign this 123, what was ABV for lying about the moratorium and the 1998 test results? Moreover, how does any of this "need to test" jive with what Arun_S said about, speaking about the boosted-fission test of 1998 (and I quote here):


MMS is traitor because he got us in the $hithole we are in today. No one said ABV is not; he is for different reasons. Some of us have also said that if BJP were in power, we would have sold off more quickly and in more miserable situation (that is speculation). Issue at hand now is MMS and his willingness to destroy India's future and hence the focus.

What you guys are doing or saying is that because ABV did something, it is OK for MMS to do this. I don’t think anyone in the opposing camp justified anything that ABV did.

Bat for India folks and not for petty politicians.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 10 Sep 2007 03:58

If present and past PMs are considered traitors and sellouts, what's the effing point with all this jawing here. AFAICT, they have spent their entire lives working and batting for India.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 10 Sep 2007 04:11

Rye wrote:If present and past PMs are considered traitors and sellouts, what's the effing point with all this jawing here. AFAICT, they have spent their entire lives working and batting for India.


You think? Then why are we finding it difficult to find rationale for their actions/decisions.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 10 Sep 2007 04:19

Satya_anveshi wrote:
You think? Then why are we finding it difficult to find rationale for their actions/decisions.


Because most of us mango men do not see the complete picture unlike those in charge of the country, where there is a laundry list of problems that need to be solved.

Prioritizing fixing the economic problems before the strategic ones could explain the compromise made by past and present PMs -- seems pretty reasonable given the kind of serious constraints and imperfections in the system -- defunct and corrupt bureaucracy, worthless law and order, etc.

It would all be easy if India's only problem was a working weapon, but that is not the case.

This does not mean that they are making the right decisions, but to assume that their disagreeable decisions are because of malice (traitor/sellout) is not right.
Last edited by Rye on 10 Sep 2007 04:38, edited 2 times in total.

Sparsh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 30 Jan 2007 12:57

Postby Sparsh » 10 Sep 2007 04:27

Shankar,

More vacuous rhetoric and nonsense from you.

It is you who has not made any points or justified your claims. Keep doing this and it is you who will have lost the argument irrespective of whatever language I choose use about your idiotic claims.

You have claimed on more than one occasion that the separation plan as it currently exists is going to adversely impact our ability to produce WGPu for the weapons program.

I challenge you to back up that claim with some hard numbers. How much WGPu can we theoretically produce from the reactors that are to remain on the non-civilian side and how is that insufficient for our weapons purposes? And that is over and above whatever WGPu we have produced until now.

Show me the numbers. Until then your claims are just a big pile of outright nonsense.

Show me the bloody numbers.

Until then you have no argument.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 10 Sep 2007 04:43

How much WGPu can we theoretically produce from the reactors that are to remain on the non-civilian side and how is that insufficient for our weapons purposes?

Isn't that dependent on when FMCT kicks in? When do you think FMCT will kick in?

csharma
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Postby csharma » 10 Sep 2007 04:50

Obviously, common folks like us who do not have access all the information are not able to decide whether this deal is good for us or not.

At the same time, would the Indian establishment (apart from the politicians) sell out at this stage where they are in a strong position? That's what I wonder and hope that things turn out OK.

csharma
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Postby csharma » 10 Sep 2007 04:50

Obviously, common folks like us who do not have access all the information are not able to decide whether this deal is good for us or not.

At the same time, would the Indian establishment (apart from the politicians) sell out at this stage where they are in a strong position? That's what I wonder and hope that things turn out OK.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 10 Sep 2007 05:17

sraj wrote:
Isn't that dependent on when FMCT kicks in? When do you think FMCT will kick in?


FWIW.

http://geneva.usmission.gov/Press2006/0 ... tFMCT.html

The same scam as the CTBT...it will enter into force when the P5 ratify it.


Article VI

1. This Treaty shall enter into force on the date on which an instrument of ratification has been deposited by all of the following States: the People's Republic of China, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America.

2. For a State that deposits an instrument of ratification or accession after the conditions set out in paragraph 1 above for entry into force have been fulfilled, the Treaty shall enter into force on the date of the deposit by that State of its instrument of ratification or accession.



1. Each Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all persons and entities anywhere on its territory or in any other place under its jurisdiction or control do not produce fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and do not use fissile material produced after entry into force of this Treaty for that Party in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

2. For the purposes of this Treaty, no Party shall be precluded trom using information obtained by national means and methods in a manner consistent with generally recognized principles of intemational law, including that of respect for the sovereignty of States.


http://www.idsa.in/publications/stratco ... 150606.htm

As of now, there is no agreement among the member states of the CD on the scope of FMCT negotiations. In that sense, India still has time to manoeuvre and finesse its position on the issue. But its bottom line should be that any future FMCT should prescribe the same obligations and mechanism for all states in an appropriately verifiable manner. And it has to be mindful of any India-centric measure that may be introduced during the course of the negotiations among the P-5.

While tabling the draft, the US representative at the CD stated that "the production of fissile material for non-explosive purposes, such as naval propulsion, would not be prohibited [and] existing stocks of fissile material also would be unaffected." He also suggested that pending the conclusion of a treaty, "all states should declare publicly and observe a moratorium on the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons."

The United States, Russia, France and Britain, after conducting hundreds of explosive device tests and stockpiling tonnes of weapon grade fissile material, have announced that they have stopped further production of the same. Though reports of China having similarly stopped production of fissile material cannot be confirmed, its representative at the CD clearly stated on May 17 that his country is of the view that "future FMCT negotiations should not involve the issue of stockpile." At the same time, it is likely that China may not be averse to a moratorium in an attempt to bring India on board and thus end the latter's ability to accumulate more fissile material.


If the momentum towards such a moratorium were to gain widespread support, India would find itself in a tricky situation, given that its stockpile is currently estimated to be only about one-tenth of China's. It is therefore imperative that New Delhi takes adequate measures to ensure that its requirements for credible minimum deterrence are not compromised.
Last edited by Rye on 10 Sep 2007 05:22, edited 1 time in total.

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7039
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Postby Muppalla » 10 Sep 2007 05:19

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstor ... sid=255444

Too much to ask, maybe comrades can visit Helsinki

Rakesh Sinha

Helsinki, September 09: In Parliament, the Prime Minister has a problem. Key allies, including the Left, are not buying his explanation that expansion of the country’s civilian nuclear programme will reduce dependence and help build energy security. The more vocal are even threatening to dump his government. Just when it seems the Government may lose the number game, the main Opposition party springs a surprise — half its MPs, including its leader, break ranks and decide to back the Prime Minister’s plan.

India 2007? No, Finland 2002

In May, 2002 when Paavo Lipponen, the then Prime Minister, cautioned the Finnish parliament against over-dependence on Russian energy sources, it was the Opposition Centre Party, now in the ruling coalition, that helped the Government secure a narrow 107-92 vote of approval for construction of Finland’s fifth civilian nuclear power reactor. Two earlier attempts to get the go-ahead had failed — the one in 1986 because of the Chernobyl disaster and the second in 1993 after the MPs said a firm no (under Finnish law, they decide).

But it was not just a large section of the main Opposition party that came to the Prime Minister’s rescue. Though the Left alliance and the Greens were dead opposed to Lipponen’s plan for a new reactor, the trade unions, led by the blue-collar SAK, backed the idea, maintaining it was “good for both industry and employmentâ€

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 10 Sep 2007 05:29

Sub critical tests are not done in a "lab" with white robes around you. It is under ground in shafts and the activity reqired for it is as intense as done for a real weapon test, if not higher. The instruments to measure all of the data, has to be in the shaft too.

At least, that is what I read.


No argument that there are such tests, but I am not sure that is what is needed to systematically improve weapon designs. For instance, let's say that a given weapon concept works by having an ignition of a substance A which generates an exothermic reaction, which generates gas, which generates a very very strong shock wave...

Now the pressure wave is focused in some manner to amplify a thousand times, and slams two surfaces together hard enough to start a nuclear chain reaction... which generates gamma rays, or X-rays... which expand out over 4*pii steradians...

(Just a very crude conceptual description..)

To "test" the contraption, you would build one, dig a hole, cover it, duck behind a rock and hit the switch. And measure a few things using Fedayeen sensors, and seismographs.

To really characterize what goes on, and improve your simulation fidelity, you would develop clean experiments for each segment of that. Along one narrow path, instead of all around the sphere. White coats would be optional, but so would holes in the ground.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5217
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 10 Sep 2007 05:36

You never fail to make someone smile/laugh with your posts, it is a gift. Keep it up. (I mean it in a good way).

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 10 Sep 2007 05:52

emsin wrote:
If Bharat Karnad is saying is true then PM MMS has been wrong all along. While the judgement on MMS will take many more years (we need to be fair) but with this information I am firmly in the camp of folks who oppose this deal.

The way this deal was pushed was typically wrong. That too with a partner as destructive as the left. Some of the debates and dirty linen washing in public going on now should have been raging 2 years back. Then the scifi community was not taken into account, certainly the left did'nt have a clue.



This is the correct assessment.
This should tell why the negotiation looks a scam.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests