Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 08 Apr 2008

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

Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 08 Apr 2008

Post by Arun_S »

Ols Thread is HERE
-Arun_S

***************************************
Peace Loving, Snake oil seller, Chinese Nuke inventory estimate raised to onlee 1000 weapons, while softly peddling its stock of military Pu and Enriched Uranium that is not yet converted into bombs.

Chinese slave-miester (its foriegn office spokes person) asks the world its time for all cunt-ries to sign FMTC.

So per below : Hun CHinese nuke weapons in hand or for projected buildup are:
Chinese missile force:
. . IRBM: ?? (Undisclosed)
. . ICBM: 312 warheads (162 + 150 new type)
Sea based: 192 warheads
PLA-Air Force: ?? (Undisclosed)

Analysis: China's nuke warhead stockpile
by Andrei Chang
Hong Kong (UPI) Apr 04, 2008
China's stockpile of nuclear warheads has increased sharply, with more DF-31A and JL-2 long-range strategic ballistic missiles entering service, giving it preliminary capability to engage in three-dimensional nuclear strikes upon opponent targets.

The changes in the Chinese nuclear capability started in 1995, before which the People's Liberation Army Second Artillery Force was often teased as "a military service that needed an exit strategy." At that time, most of the soldiers serving in the PLASAF were doing little more than growing vegetables and raising pigs.

This miserable situation was the result of the aftershock of the large-scale nuclear disarmament by the United States and the Soviet Union. After 1995, however, with the increase in tensions across the Taiwan Strait, China began to refocus its attention on the development of nuclear capability so as to possess effective deterrence against possible U.S. military interference in the Taiwan Strait.

This marked the beginning of the transformation of the PLASAF from a force with balanced nuclear and conventional capability to one more focused on nuclear capability. In terms of technology, the PLASAF sped up the development of carrier vehicles for long-range strategic missiles, mainly the DF-31 and JL-2.

In addition, in order to make up the shortfall in its nuclear arsenal within a short period of time, China produced additional DF-5A intercontinental ballistic missiles and undertook to prolong the service life of its existing DF-3 intermediate-range ballistic missiles and DF-4 long-range strategic missiles.

With the deployment of more ICBMs, the number of Chinese long-range strategic missile brigades has also increased. Meanwhile, at least two 094 ballistic missile submarines and one 092-M SSBN have entered service.

There are signs that the DF-4 long-range ballistic missile positions at Delinghayuan in the western province of Qinghai have been expanded. Straight highway lanes stretch for several hundred kilometers in the region, and some highway sections have been revamped and new preliminary missile positions have been constructed. This indicates that China will very likely start deploying more DF-31A highway-mobile ICBMs to replace the DF-4s.

The strategic missile brigades most likely to receive the DF-5 and DF-5A ICBMs include the No. 801 and No. 804 brigades. The No. 813 brigade is stationed at Nanyang in Henan province, a unit generally believed to be armed with DF-31 ICBMs. In addition, the No. 809 and No. 812 brigades stationed in Qinghai are also armed with DF-4s, as well as the No. 803 and No. 805 brigades, stationed in Hunan.

Some of these DF-4 brigades may have started to receive DF-31A ICBMs. The positioning of DF-4s and DF-31As seem to be very close within the PLA Second Artillery Force, and both are called long-range strategic missiles, while the D-5 is called an ICBM. There is speculation that there is a No. 818 missile brigade armed with the DF-31, but this has not been confirmed by official sources. Because China currently does not have a sufficient quantity of ICBMs with a range above 10,000 kilometers (about 6,200 miles), efforts to upgrade and prolong the service life of its DF-5s are very likely to continue.

The increase of nuclear warheads within the PLA Second Artillery Force focuses on the strategic objective of deterring other major nuclear powers from attempting "nuclear blackmail" toward China. China has sufficient supplies of material for the production of nuclear warheads. It has very rich uranium resources, and its production of plutonium reserves has continued for a number of years. Western military observers generally believe China has enough nuclear material to produce 1,000 nuclear warheads.

Because the DF-31 ICBM and JL-2 SLBM use new types of carrier vehicles, China in recent years has been putting a lot of effort into the research and development of MIRVs -- multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles. As a result, the DF-31 and JL-2 will be armed with new warheads, and some DF-5As and DF-5s may also become the platforms for these newly developed warheads. Western intelligence analysts generally believe that China now commands the technology to separate three warheads.

As for the number of ICBMs under each missile brigade, it is reasonable to assume that the Chinese and Russian ICBM brigades may both be armed with nine missile units. If that is the case, calculating on the basis of three DF-5/DF-5A brigades and four to five DF-4 brigades or DF-31A brigades, China would have approximately 63 to 72 ICBMs and long-range strategic missiles.

Among these missile brigades, if each of the missiles deployed at the three DF-5/5A missile brigades and at least two DF-31A brigades are armed with three warheads, there are in total 135 nuclear warheads. If the two to three DF-4 long-range strategic missile brigades are included, and each missile is armed with a single warhead, there are a total of 18-27 DF-4 warheads. So far, the DF-5 has always been armed with one warhead.

This means the total number of China's long-range nuclear warheads would be between 153 and 162. This is taking into consideration the fact that China has been steadily upgrading its long-range strategic missiles.

China's development of sea-based strategic nuclear capability is obviously aimed at acquiring strengths equivalent to that of the Second Artillery Force, giving China two-dimensional and effective strategic nuclear strike competence. As a result, the buildup of sea-based nuclear weapons has been quite fast-paced.

At present, two Type 094 SSBNs are fitted with 24 JL-2 long-range strategic missiles, totaling more than 72 nuclear warheads. Adding the warheads fitted on the 12 JL-1A IRBMs on Type 092M SSBNs, China is now supposed to have a total of 84 sea-based nuclear warheads. Thus, at the current stage, the overall number of China's sea-based and land-based nuclear warheads should be between 237 and 246.

The PLA navy's Type 094 SSBN fleet is going to continue expanding in the next five years, and the number of SLBMs will increase dramatically as a result. Even with only five Type 094 SSBNs, the total number of warheads will very likely reach 180. Including the warheads of the 12 JL-1A IRBMs, China should have 192 sea-based nuclear warheads within the next five years.

Furthermore, the pace of expansion of the DF-31A is going to speed up. Some Western media have claimed that China will deploy at least 50 DF-31As, bringing the number of China's new nuclear warheads to 150. And the design of a new-generation Type 096 SSBN has already begun. China Central Television earlier revealed images of an SSBN carrying 24 SLBMs, indicating the navy's newer-generation SSBN will be fitted with more nuclear warheads.

As to the explosive yield of these nuclear warheads, the earlier variants of DF-5 ICBM warheads may include 1 million-ton class nuclear bombs and hydrogen bombs. Judging from China's series of nuclear tests in the past, the maximum explosive yield of a PLASAF nuclear warhead could reach 1 million to 3 million tons. The new-generation DF-31A missiles are armed with MIRVs, and each warhead has an explosive yield of approximately 100,000 tons. {For lay SRDE Yindus clamouring for Indian MegaTon weapons that is 100kT onlee for Chinese new MIRV payload. -Arun_S}China has so far developed a whole series of nuclear warheads with an explosive yield of 100,000 to 500,000 tons.

(Andrei Chang is editor in chief of Kanwa Defense Review Monthly, registered in Toronto.)
Last edited by Arun_S on 11 Apr 2008 09:49, edited 1 time in total.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

RaviBg wrote:Nuclear ground realities by M.R.Srinivasan
India is facing a severe uranium crunch — one in the short term and another in the long term. The short-term crunch affects the operation of the India-designed and built Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR). The PHWR capacity is now about 3500 MW and will go up to about 4500 MW by the end of 2008.

India began exploring for uranium about 50 years ago and mining [activities have been going on for some 40 years. In the early years of the programme, India’s uranium needs were modest; it was required to fuel the research reactor CIRUS and Rajasthan reactors 1 and 2. Uranium production was in excess of our needs and so a stockpile got built up. When new power reactors were built at Kalpakkam, Narora, Kakrapar, Kaiga and elsewhere, the stockpile of uranium was drawn down.

In the period 1985 to 1995, the India-built PHWRs were going through a learning curve process and so operated at low capacity factors. As a result of intensive efforts put in by the engineers and scientists of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and other units of the DAE, our PHWR units operated, during 1995-2005, at 85 to 90 per cent capacity factor. In fact, the two units at Kakrapar registered the best capacity factors globally, being around 95 per cent. This situation required availability of uranium annually, at a rate much higher than what was being mined in the country.

During the latter half of 1980s, the DAE had commenced work on new uranium mines beyond the first one at Jadugudda. However, some complacency seems to have set in, during the early 1990s, on the urgency of opening up new uranium mines. The leadership of DAE may have taken an accountant’s view of the uranium inventory that was continuing to be held.

In the post-1990 situation, when India faced a severe economic crisis and public investments in many areas were curtailed, work on the new uranium mines was actually stopped. The improvement in operations of our PHWRs and the resulting increase in demand for uranium appear to have been overlooked. It is also possible that the attention of the leaders of the atomic energy programme was directed to developing the nuclear deterrent, thus de-emphasising the immediate relevance of nuclear power. :roll:

It was only post-1997 that the importance of nuclear power in India’s energy mix was recognised once again. The activities on Tarapur 3 and 4, India’s large PHWRs (of 540 MW) and Kudankulam were revived. Serious attention to starting work on new uranium mines seems to have been restarted only after 2000. Earlier attempts may have received setbacks due to local opposition, objection to permitting mining activities in forest lands and other such factors common to opening of any new mine in the country. While execution of new mines are in progress in Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh and may be taken up soon in Meghalaya and Karnataka, if our PHWRs are to be fuelled with Indian uranium only, their capacity factors are likely to be only at 50 per cent for the next five years. The situation would improve thereafter when the new mines start production.

If India were to succeed in the present efforts to re-enter international civil nuclear commerce, let us say in 2008, we could import natural uranium from overseas and target for capacity factors of about 90 per cent from 2009 onwards.

Let us look at the longer term picture. India has about 100,000 tonnes of uranium in the ground. This will be adequate to support 10,000 MW of PHWR capacity over its lifetime. India wishes to use thorium as an energy source, as it has a large reserve of thorium. But the Fast Breeder Reactor capacity of the second stage that can be supported by 10,000 MW of PHWR will still be too small to permit a large-scale use of thorium even after two or three decades. We must have some 30,000 to 50,000 MW of the first stage programme (using natural and enriched uranium) to allow us to exploit the thorium resources in a significant manner.

If India manages to overcome the opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal and moves ahead, it can import natural uranium from Africa, central Asia, Canada, Brazil and maybe Australia too (if they change their policies). This would enable us to put up 10,000 MW of additional PHWRs (making a total of 20,000 MW). More importantly, India can import some 20,000 to 30,000 MW of Light Water Reactors (LWRs) from Russia, France, US (with Japan collaborating with the US). The plutonium produced in the Indian-built PHWRs and the imported LWRs can both be used as fuel in Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs).

Thorium can then be irradiated in the FBRs to produce Uranium-233 in large enough quantities to be used as fuel in U-233-Thorium reactors. BARC has designed a 300 MW reactor using this fuel cycle and heavy water as moderator. Work can commence soon and India will have pioneered this new concept.

India expects to produce between 275,000 to 300,000 MW of nuclear power by 2052. Of this, some 200,000 MW could come from FBRs and U-233-Thorium systems. The balance would have to come from uranium systems — natural or low-enriched. For this ambitious programme to be realised, India must ‘cross the rubicon’ of the Indo-US nuclear agreement. Ultra-patriotic sabre-rattling of an unrestricted nuclear arsenal or freedom to test, without invoking international response, are theoretical objections. Pragmatism demands that India take decisions based on the realities on the ground and not based on mental blocks. History has shown repeatedly that ideology seldom wins. In the end, it is hard-headed common sense that yields the best results.
Shri M.R.Srinivasan gives the figure of 30-50GWe from I'st stage Uranium fuelled reactors to sustain running of 200GWe generating FBR and Thorium reactors .

That is oxymorn to lay ultra-patriotic "Vishwakarma" like me. FBR once fueled generates more than it consumes, after its spent fuel is reprocessed. It is the AHWR that burns Thorium that is slightly Neutron deficient in its fuel-cycle that requires incremental nuclear fuel for continued operation; and together the FBR and AHWR is a closed loop fuel cycle running off Thorium alone. (Conservatively this is discounting possibility of overcoming engineering challenges to Accelerator Driven AHWR that will eliminate the need for FBR itself).

So perhaps Shri M.R.Srinivasan is mixed up and talking of requiring 50GWe from Uranium reactor to generate enough Plutonium to initially charge the FBR core to it to life.

He pulls this magical number that by 2052 (I.e. 44 years from now) generating 275-300 GWe from Nuclear Power plant (200GWe from FBR and Thorium fueled AHWR, and balance 50GWe from Uranium based reactors {I am at loss to explain the missing 25-50GWe in his calculations. But I am not surprised when things are not in realm of reality, and figures are calculated on napkin paper at the bar}). That means building about 440 reactors ( a mix of 1000 MWe and 500 MWe. reactors) in 44 years.

That means:
  • 1.) Capital investment of ~$900 Billion Dollars/Euros in reactor alone, PLUS about $300 Billion Dollar/Euro for fuel processing, reprocessing facilities etc that need be built. Reminds me of repeat of history, a modern looting of India by 'East India Company' and England & 'New-England'!!
  • 2.) And commissioning 10 large size nuclear reactor every year
  • 3.) Assuming a Nuclear reactor can be commissioned in 5 years period. {Super fast pace in this business to be charitable to the author}. That means even if they start building these reactors next year onwards, for next 44 years there will on average be 50 reactors (10 reactor /year x 5 yr/reactor) always under various stage of construction for 44 yr.
This assumes uniform building of capacity from next year. A practical but aggressive implementation plan will see building at 1/4th the average rate (I.e. 2 reactors per year) in the first 10 year, and then ramping up to average target rate of commissioning 10 reactors per year. And then in the last 20 years make up for the lost time and the required run rate to goes up commission 20 reactors/year. !!

Do you see any problem in this amorous grandiose garden path?
Heck yes, this grandiose plan has no foundation of reality. The King is NAKED.

Now coming to technical aspects of this 30-50GWe Uranium fuelled power generation presumably to ignite the FBR

For 50GWe nuclear power generation from First stage reactor
  • 1. Require 8,051 tonnes Natural Uranium / year (irrespective if it is burnt in HWR or LWR). But for feeding FBR one wants more Pu generation and only HWR is viable).
  • 2. Will annually generate 21 Tonnes of Pu every year. If fuel supply is plentiful then they can produce more Pu by operating in low irradiation mode (I.e. 10% burn level) generating 36 tonne Pu/Year.
  • 3. A 500MWe FBR require initial charge of about 3 tonne Pu.
  • 4. A 500MWe Thorium buring AHWR requires about 3 tonnes of Pu for initial charge.
So 50GWe Uranium reactor capacity can sustain FBR/AHWR build rate of about 5 GWe (10 reactors/year)/

But I ask Indian Nuclear Ayothullas, If US-India nuclear deal will give unfettered access to Uranium for civil nuclear power, then what is the need for 50GWe Uranium reactors to feed the startup fissile material of FBR/AHWR? Because FBR and AHWR can also be started with any other enriched fissile fuel. And the premise of US-India nuclear deal is unencumbered access to Natural or Enriched Uranium fuel.

Now you see 123-Agreement has IIRC 20% enrichment limit against India. A level that will preclude India to jump start the FBR and AHWR because these reactors requires almost 90% enrichment. That will ensure India will be forced to spend its money to pay for western junk (1'st stage Uranium fuelled Reactors that were designed few decades ago, at good mark up price), on which India can then build its Taj Mahal.

Perfect terms of sale by Gora from New England, isnt it?

--------------------
Added later:
All that I ask Shri M.R.Srinivasan and Indian Nuclear Company (INC) is to be realistic, in making claims.

I am not averse to going to US-India 123 deal after Indian parliament has pass the Un-Hyde Act 2008. That IMHO will be an acceptable Win-Win deal.
Last edited by Arun_S on 08 Apr 2008 10:07, edited 1 time in total.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

Enlightening Arun ji, hope this may be heard at the baboo-houses.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Post by Prem »

Why is Mr Srinivasan being miser with truth :D
Anyhow, nothing certain till NSG pass the waiver . Onlee then we will get the glimpse of New _ Clear reality .
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Perfect terms of sale by Gora from New England, isnt it?
= Not just US.

(M/MRCA deal at $10 Billion is peanuts!!!)
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

OT... still, I would say in few words! "High hopes" NRao for the a-Khans. But again, just waiting for the new elections. keeping my fingers crozzed!
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

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

Post by svinayak »

Sanatanan wrote:KS's article in TOI, quoting in full
LEADER ARTICLE: Why The Nuke Deal Is Crucial
7 Apr 2008, 0022 hrs IST,K Subrahmanyam
While as the leader of the party which established India as a nuclear weapon state Advani has his responsibility cut out to support the deal, the prime minister too has a responsibility to summon leaders across the political spectrum including NDA leaders and nuclear scientists and let the latter to explain to the former the consequences of not going ahead with the 123 agreement.

There will be people who would ask why this situation was not brought to the notice of the people and the Parliament earlier. The reason is quite obvious. While negotiating an agreement one does not want to disclose the weakness of one's hand. The question facing the NDA leadership is clear: Will it be the party that established India as a global nuclear weapon power or will it go down in history as the party which contributed to India's nuclear power programme winding down?

The writer is a strategic affairs analyst.
First time we have somebody being pointed out for the deal.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

Arun_s garu>> You are going to drive many people to taklu at a tender age of 25 with your correct analysis ! As aam janta willbe torn between KS & Company, MS & Sonia Inc Indian subsidaries and wholly owned by Uncle& Auntie Nuke Pretzel Inc which will breed faster and tie India in
(k)nots. Mean while Panda Red India Unlimited company owned by Lizard will go on wrecking tour of India.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Whew, for a moment I was scared. Until I read:
"The sunlight really heats it up and sends it up to the top of the stratosphere," said Michael Mills of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, who chose India and Pakistan as one of several possible examples.
I was under the impression that a Chinese nuke, for instance, was not capable of creating the same problem.

Wonder what he would have to say about seepage at the Hanford nuclear reservation in the State of Washington. Plenty of Indian scientists out there!!
Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1850
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Post by Kati »

CPM for House role in treaties- Ally proposes that Parliament should ratify pacts

JAYANTH JACOB, The Telegraph, Kolkata, April 8, 2008


New Delhi, April 7: The CPM has proposed that the Centre’s powers be redefined so that Parliament gets to ratify all international treaties and state governments have a representative in the Planning Commission.

The suggestions come in response to a questionnaire from a commission assigned to review Centre-state relations. The panel, headed by former Chief Justice of India M.M. Punchhi, is expected to hand in its report by next April.

CPM sources said the party was wiser from its experience in fighting the nuclear deal, and from Delhi’s decision to slash the ration foodgrain quota for Left-ruled Bengal and Kerala.

During the nuclear deal talks, the CPM has repeatedly said that the majority in Parliament is against such an agreement with the US. The government, however, has kept arguing that the Constitution does not require the deal to have parliamentary approval.

On the second suggestion, a CPM source said: “The Planning Commission takes various decisions and advises the Union government on many issues. All of these have an impact on state governments.

“The commission decides the poverty line and the modalities of the public distribution system. Then why shouldn’t states have a representative in the commission?â€
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

[quote]Prakash Karat’s party has often accused the Planning Commission of adopting “arbitrary and deceptive methodologyâ€
Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 487
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Post by Sanatanan »

vsudhir wrote:The KS article is a good one.
In the article, KS says:
. . . . In these circumstances to whom will the NDA's candidate for premiership, L K Advani, turn for sound advice?

He can consult Mishra. He can talk to Kakodkar, Srinivasan and P Chidambaram. . . .
P Chidambaram - Finance Minister? What does he know about this sellout apart from, may be, the total education money involved?
satya
BRFite
Posts: 718
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09

Post by satya »

P Chidambaram - Finance Minister? What does he know about this sellout apart from, may be, the total education money involved?
The other PC from Nuke field .

Hint : Pokhran-2 yield clarifications or confusion or controversy :wink:
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

The other PC is a RC actually. :)
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Arun< We need to reanalyze the Kanwa article for it has new info on the numbers that PRC will have. It is definitely more than previous info. A spreadsheet/table showing whats coming out and whats going in will be useful to assess the picture and total at the bottom. I think PRC is per this reprot bigger than France and UK combined. Previous Indian estimates were based on PRC being the less than France. KS's 130 comes from 1/3 of PRC + 30 for other contingencies.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

RC is quiet so PC will have to do... with his history of cutting funding to DAE, he must be a nukular expert too...
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

ramana wrote: Previous Indian estimates were based on PRC being the less than France. KS's 130 comes from 1/3 of PRC + 30 for other contingencies.
Various estimates here... a few years old though...
China's Fissile Material Production and Stockpile

20 tons U and 3.5 tons Pu seems to be reasonable...
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Post by putnanja »

AHWR critical facility commissioned at BARC

[quote] CHENNAI: The Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) critical facility, a stepping stone for building a 300-MWe AHWR, was commissioned on Monday at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Mumbai.

Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar said on Tuesday: “We have an AHWR project [which will be built in the 11th Plan period]. As part of proving the physics design of the AHWR, we have built this critical facility, which went critical last [Monday] night. This is a milestone towards building the AHWR. This facility will help in understanding the physics of the design of the AHWR.â€
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

[quote="RaviBg"]AHWR critical facility commissioned at BARC

[quote] CHENNAI: The Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) critical facility, a stepping stone for building a 300-MWe AHWR, was commissioned on Monday at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Mumbai.

Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar said on Tuesday: “We have an AHWR project [which will be built in the 11th Plan period]. As part of proving the physics design of the AHWR, we have built this critical facility, which went critical last [Monday] night. This is a milestone towards building the AHWR. This facility will help in understanding the physics of the design of the AHWR.â€
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Arun_S wrote:Peace Loving, Snake oil seller, Chinese Nuke inventory estimate raised to onlee 1000 weapons, while softly peddling its stock of military Pu and Enriched Uranium that is not yet converted into bombs.

Chinese slave-miester (its foriegn office spokes person) asks the world its time for all cunt-ries to sign FMTC.

So per below : Hun CHinese nuke weapons in hand or for projected buildup are:
Chinese missile force:
. . IRBM: ?? (Undisclosed)
. . ICBM: 312 warheads (162 + 150 new type)
Sea based: 192 warheads
PLA-Air Force: ?? (Undisclosed)

Analysis: China's nuke warhead stockpile
by Andrei Chang
Hong Kong (UPI) Apr 04, 2008
China's stockpile of nuclear warheads has increased sharply, with more DF-31A and JL-2 long-range strategic ballistic missiles entering service, giving it preliminary capability to engage in three-dimensional nuclear strikes upon opponent targets.

... . .. . . . As to the explosive yield of these nuclear warheads, the earlier variants of DF-5 ICBM warheads may include 1 million-ton class nuclear bombs and hydrogen bombs. Judging from China's series of nuclear tests in the past, the maximum explosive yield of a PLASAF nuclear warhead could reach 1 million to 3 million tons. The new-generation DF-31A missiles are armed with MIRVs, and each warhead has an explosive yield of approximately 100,000 tons. {For lay SRDE Yindus clamouring for Indian MegaTon weapons that is 100kT onlee for Chinese new MIRV payload. -Arun_S}China has so far developed a whole series of nuclear warheads with an explosive yield of 100,000 to 500,000 tons.

(Andrei Chang is editor in chief of Kanwa Defense Review Monthly, registered in Toronto.)
BTW the new Chinese warheads have 100-300 kT yield (more in the range of 150-300 kT), because of extensive ICF/LIF tests and simulations done at the classified laser site at Shanghai. There's another one for scientific research in laser-plasma interaction. These simulations have validated existing Chinese test data and data stolen from the US, providing new designs.

The ICF facility is integral to China's Second Artillery strategy, and actually has scientific personnel formally attached to the Second Artillery holding military ranks.

For India to claim it has working design that they were ready to test in 2003 is to belive in the claims of the same people and clique who duped the nation with lies in 1998. Unless Mr. MM Singh test nukes now, or builds Indian ICF/LIF capable of high energy corresponding to Fusion, there is poor prognosis of untested Indian nukes working when we are ready to test them.

If I take the most pessimistic scenario: that India will test on run-up to escalation. What we overlook is at that time all chips are down, if the weapon fizzles, scientist have no time or credibility to rig another working design in 3 days {when they fettered away 13 years of luxury to design, peer review, validate in LIF and build a working credible arsenal} to show and tell to deter the foe. LIF is a crying national defense need now.

Nations strategic defense is not run the way MMS is running it now. Might as well fold & packup to home Indian Military now and invoke them to action when there dark war clouds loom overhead.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

Why rush to bitter implications of unequal 123 agreement?
India can get better terms
By O.P. Gupta, IFS (Retd)
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Gerard wrote:Why rush to bitter implications of unequal 123 agreement?
India can get better terms
By O.P. Gupta, IFS (Retd)

This statement of Burn confirms that the 123 agreement has potential to be misused by a US administration as monopoly or stranglehold (by delaying, denying or withholding consensus in NSG) on such nuclear trade of India with other countries which may require any fresh approval from the NSG.

In simple words if the 123 agreement becomes operational, India’s nuclear trade with other countries, like Russia, France etc. can take place only to the extent USA or any member of the NSG including pigmy members does not deny consensus in the NSG on India-specific proposals.
Thus by involving the NSG in its nuclear trade with other countries, the Manmohan Singh government is giving a say to each of the 45 countries of NSG on the matters pertaining to the energy security of India. Thus the UPA government is making India’s energy security not more secure but hostage to international politics and non-proliferation Ayatollahs.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

Arun,

Who 'constructs' the LIF? Does there exist enough technical knowhow in the country to construct a sanction proof one? Did PRC steal its LIF design ? Just wondering is all.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Unrelated to any of the above posts, but just a random thought: If the US deliberately did not allow the LIF to be part of the separation plan in the 123, that pretty much says the worth of the 123 in terms of not affecting India's strategic program.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

vsudhir wrote:Arun,

Who 'constructs' the LIF? Does there exist enough technical knowhow in the country to construct a sanction proof one? Did PRC steal its LIF design ? Just wondering is all.
Yes India has LIF technolgy since ~1995. The problem is when LIF results contradicts R.Chidambram hokey design. The Same R.Chidambram was forced to take back his fizzle S1 results to a far less capable CAT Indore facility for real experimental validation, and that immediatly told him and everyone else the result of what will happen when an instance of that disn (I.e S-1) is tested. So what to say of a RC/AK cabal that doesnt not symbiotically use pre-existing experimental facilities (presumably for his sky high alter EGO of Indra) to deliver DAE's reason of existence to India.
Rye wrote:Unrelated to any of the above posts, but just a random thought: If the US deliberately did not allow the LIF to be part of the separation plan in the 123, that pretty much says the worth of the 123 in terms of not affecting India's strategic program.
Instead of not allowing the LIF at CAT Indore to be part of the separation plan, they simply relied on MM.Singh, R.Chidambram and Co. to strangulate it, and disperse the experimental and simulation team.

Jai jai guru Chidambram
Jai jai khaalis MM Singh
Jai jai mata Sonia Gandhi
Jai jai kumar Rahul Gandhi
Jai jai kumari Priyanka Vadera,

To save India "bali"(sic) them with the next N test, it may work.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

I has been short on time last few months so did not see this idiotic statement before, so here is the rebuttal.
bala wrote:Posted: 29 Mar 2008.
The debate on whether the TN was partial or full burn is rather pointless. Yes it is a good academic exercise and for those who want to learn further maybe. Fact of matter is it is a binary: either it works or not at all. Adding a good dollop of Tritrium should fix the yield curve quite neatly. TN did occur and there is proof, samples were retrieved and glass like formation was observed. Craters, shafts, seismic signatures are all approximate. For now I am quite comfortable with the idea that India has a suitable deterrent and TN is part of Nuclear Weapon Kitty. For those who believe otherwise, sorry, if one does explode in your neighborhood and everything turns into glass then don't be too surprised at whether it worked or not.
Perhaps Bala could enlighten us a bit more as to how adding "dollops of tritium" could shape the radiation driven shock wave from the primary, so as to render a successful secondary, could be fulfilled?

Further, please also shed some light on how a TN reaction is linked to silicate glass, which could also be formed by a pure fission test.

Finally, you could explain the large amounts of LiD and tritium salts that were found in the post-test debris, when the S1 secondary tore itself apart because of a hopelessly faulty design?

IIRC you held as fact that the 123 agreement is all that India is bound by and not the Hyde Act. Referred to the 123 agreement as a contract.

The very definition of a contract is that there is an impartial adjudicating body that resolves differences. Could you come up with a single nation on Earth that would deliver an impartial adjudication in a dispute between India and the US ??????????? The contract theory goes the same way as the S1 secondary, Phusss...........

If my Aunti had balls, she would be my Uncle.
If your two liners from office lounge were that potent, the DAE or AQKhan would have kidnapped your gray matter much sooner.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

The folks in charge of our desh still do not get the simple fact that *the P-5 WILL NOT DISARM* -- no way. Wonder when Indians will all get lucky and that simple factoid will sink into the minds of the great leaders of modern India, including the bheeshmas of strategic thinking.

India playing up this "global disarmament" angle could completely work against Indian interests and be a disaster if there is "global push for disarmament" down the pike shortly, and India's song and dance for global disarmament is used in conjunction with the USA's new found love for global disarmament to push unhelpful new 4-letter treaties in addition to the current ones.

http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=560977
Eliminate nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework: India

DHARAM SHOURIE UNITED NATIONS, APR 9 (PTI)

India has sought an "unequivocal commitment" from all nuclear-weapon states to prohibit development, production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons for their non-discriminatory and verifiable elimination within a specified framework.

Addressing the substantive session of the Disarmament Commission, Indian Ambassador to the United Nations, Nirupam Sen appealed to member states to use the UN forum for an intense dialogue and strengthen the international community to initiate concrete steps for a nuclear weapons-free world.

Sen also stressed the necessity for a global agreement on "no first use" of nuclear weapons and called for negotiation of a convention on complete prohibition of use or threat to use such arms.

He said former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's "Action Plan", which is rooted in peace and proposed 20 years ago for a holistic framework to seek negotiations for a time-bound commitment towards a nuclear weapons-free world, remains the "most comprehensive" initiative today.

He asked the Commission to send a "strong signal" of the international community's resolve to initiate concrete steps towards achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Taking into account the global reach and menace of nuclear weapons, he said nuclear-weapon states should reduce nuclear danger, including the risk of accidental nuclear war and de-alert nuclear weapons to prevent unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons.

Sen also stressed on the need for reduction in conventional weapons and told the delegates that India supports "practical" confidence building measures (CBMs) at unilateral, bilateral, regional and global levels to promote a stable environment of peace and security among different nations.

"Guided by these principles, India has initiated several CBMs with countries in our neighbourhood, including China and Pakistan," he told the conference.

Sen asserted that implementation of an "appropriate" confidence measure in specific regions should take into account the specific political, military and other conditions prevailing in the region.

"Such arrangements have to be freely agreed upon by the states of the region concerned while taking into account specific conditions and characteristics of the region," he said warning against "prescri
Last edited by Rye on 10 Apr 2008 02:16, edited 5 times in total.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

why not deploy Arundati Roy? :twisted:
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Arun_S: You are charged up, so even at the risk of earning your wrath, a question.

What is the evidence/material AGAINST compiled by Indian sources to doubt S1 design and results of the test. Especially the radio-chemical analysis paper in 1998 by AK et al. Were they all lying or is there a legitimate interpretation issue. I was not able to find rebuttals to the paper from Sethna, Iyengar or Karnad or anyone else. My search was only for a few days on the matter and that too only online. Please shed some light.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 09 Apr 2008 22:04, edited 1 time in total.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Image
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

ShauryaT wrote:Arun_S: You are charged up, so even at the risk of earning your wrath, a question.

What is the evidence/material AGAINST compiled by Indian sources to doubt S1 design and results of the test. Especially the radio-chemical analysis paper in 1998 by AK eat al. Were they all lying or is there a legitimate interpretation issue. I was not able to find rebuttals to the paper from Sethna, Iyengar on Karnad or anyone else. My search was only for a few days on the matter and that too only online. Please shed some light.
No they were not lying but the truth was not being told by others. The radio chem paper does show that it supports the stated yeild of May 11th. The question is was what was stated the design yield before May 11th?

Anyway instead of self flagelating like Shias at Moharuum, can we focus obnteh PRC estimates as they give a great clue of the PRC strategic thinkging? I know all of us are not technically savy in thei area nd we can leave that to Arun, but why was the report released now and how does it have an impact on India and its CMD and other things of a strategic nature? At a minimum it has bearing on the numbers issues.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

ShauryaT wrote:Arun_S: You are charged up, so even at the risk of earning your wrath, a question.

What is the evidence/material AGAINST compiled by Indian sources to doubt S1 design and results of the test. Especially the radio-chemical analysis paper in 1998 by AK eat al. Were they all lying or is there a legitimate interpretation issue. I was not able to find rebuttals to the paper from Sethna, Iyengar on Karnad or anyone else. My search was only for a few days on the matter and that too only online. Please shed some light.
No problem. Let me put it this way, even this pidly "Vishwakarma" studied and understood that radio chemical report. And my assessment of S1 is compatible with that. Unfortunately I can't tell you what I have found on this open forum (many data points that all give a damn good performance and design envelop of S1, that is confirmed by few capable people I trust).

Iyengar moderated his public views, but with-in walls of National Security Advisory Board he was not. Also recall the Indian adage: " Even a dead elephant is worth 1.25 Lakh".

The Irony is that dead elephant's worth is no use in a war with a foe with 1,000 elephant, except as psy-op in the run up to war.
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Post by ramdas »

Arun_ji;

You said that the facility at CAT was immediately able to point out the error in the S1 secondary design, and predicted precisely what happened when they analysed the S1 design. This must have happened around 1998-2000, right ?

Also, since then CAT has had more facilities like table top TW laser etc. Would this make CAT a credible facility has the teams not been disturbed, and it is not declared "civilian" ? Or would a credible LIF facility be nothing short of the Megajoule laser facility in france.

It seems even the CAT would have been able to point out how to correct S1. Is that correct ?

A for RC clique, they seemed to be keen on "separation" even as of 1998-2000. Recall this from a frontline report. So, this group was doing damage even then, it seems.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

ramdas wrote:Arun_ji;

You said that the facility at CAT was immediately able to point out the error in the S1 secondary design, and predicted precisely what happened when they analysed the S1 design. This must have happened around 1998-2000, right ?
No. It only showed what was built will result in what happened to S1 secondary. Point out where the error is a different ball game, that comes from numerical modeling/analysis and validating partitioned behavior model experimentally in various energy regime required for the model. CAT only had low energy regime capability, and that indicated that design was flawed for that small partition (of the whole). There are other modeal partitions that require much higher regime test bed that only LIF provides.

Just shows R.Chidambram & cabal's design was/is flawed at more than one partitions/units. What confidence will I have in competence of this cabal to give a system design that works? Only building an organization that keeps the organization honest will give any credibility of a transformed/rejuvenated cabal. Peer review and experimental validation is foundation of such an organization. Not a fiefdom of High Priest of Egyptian Temple.

Just my "2 Rupiya" thought
Also, since then CAT has had more facilities like table top TW laser etc. Would this make CAT a credible facility has the teams not been disturbed, and it is not declared "civilian" ? Or would a credible LIF facility be nothing short of the Megajoule laser facility in france.

CAT even as it existed (before it was literally dismantled) would be insufficient for all the partitioned models. Some of those partitioned models do require a much higher Hi-Energy Eqpt. LIF is required. No it does not have to be Mega-Joule facility, just high power (I.e. energy density) facility.
It seems even the CAT would have been able to point out how to correct S1. Is that correct ?
No. Pls refer to my first response.
A for RC clique, they seemed to be keen on "separation" even as of 1998-2000. Recall this from a frontline report. So, this group was doing damage even then, it seems.
No comment.
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Post by ramdas »

Arun_ji:

The megajoule laser gives 600Tw for 3ns approx. So, do you mean that a system of around 600TW power which has a much shorter pulse of the order of picoseconds or even femtoseconds would be adequate ?
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Another gem from Bala that demands rebuttal.
bala wrote:Posted: 11 Mar 2008
Alokgupt, do you have a training in legal terms. If not, please get a lawyer to read the clauses before you leap to conclusions.
Ask of other what you will ask yourself.
Are you a lawyer by training? or have engaged a high calibur lawyer to read the 123 and Hyde Act? If NOT, then shut up and stop to evangelize virtues of virginity.
Hype/Hyde is applicable, Condi Rice will not state otherwise, why should she.
Because she has US interest at heart. That does not make it necessarily Indian interest. On the contrary when she is opposite the table with Indian Negotiation team, she will and required to be fiercely protecting US interests, not Indian.

Indians have to clean their own arse, dont expect Condi Rice to do that for India.

Trust US Govt person more than your own judgment and research, at your own peril, not to the peril of Indian Nation.
The US President has an option when India tests. He/she could disrupt fuel supply. But the scope in contract is clear: only peaceful nuke uses for 123, nothing otherwise. Also read up the termination clause and Article 5 posted above and look at the implications in the event of disruption. Not easy to decide for a US President given the other clauses in writing. Hence the US President is technically given the option of invoking Hyde but at a cost. For India the disruption becomes meaningless if Russia/France/UK supply the necessary fuel.

Our babus and US officials have finessed the wording very cleverly, only a legal mind can discern the nuances.
What a gem!!!!
  • 1.) Pray tell us dhimmies, who was trained lawyer and trained lawyer in International Law on Indian Team?
    2.) Please also bother tell us dhimmies how many such lawyers were on US Team? I guess that must be the most enlightening answer to you.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

Arun_S

I know you have an opinion different than mine, but it does not behoove you to go on a rampage, oh wow. did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed today?

For instance on the Agni page on BR you claim the following:
India's nuclear warhead options are still relatively limited, though adequate. 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, evidently its core components and technologies were validated in newer designs, and giving 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.
In other words, you are claiming above that S1 was efficient and tritium provides flexibility to design options; but now are convinced S1 did not work. I have based my observations on what R. Chidambaram, et al said. OK, you have more information about detailed analysis and I don't. But the nuclear deterrent does not need to hinge on TN weapons alone, right?

On 123 let us agree to disagree that is it; no need to bring in anything extraneous. You have a different viewpoint so let it be.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Arun_S wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:Arun_S: You are charged up, so even at the risk of earning your wrath, a question.

What is the evidence/material AGAINST compiled by Indian sources to doubt S1 design and results of the test. Especially the radio-chemical analysis paper in 1998 by AK eat al. Were they all lying or is there a legitimate interpretation issue. I was not able to find rebuttals to the paper from Sethna, Iyengar on Karnad or anyone else. My search was only for a few days on the matter and that too only online. Please shed some light.
No problem. Let me put it this way, even this pidly "Vishwakarma" studied and understood that radio chemical report. And my assessment of S1 is compatible with that. Unfortunately I can't tell you what I have found on this open forum (many data points that all give a damn good performance and design envelop of S1, that is confirmed by few capable people I trust).

Iyengar moderated his public views, but with-in walls of National Security Advisory Board he was not. Also recall the Indian adage: " Even a dead elephant is worth 1.25 Lakh".
Let me also clarify OTOH that in private R.Chidambram got support from nobody - not Iyengar, nor Sethna, nor Kalam, and certainly not Santhanam. For RC and the cabal the law of physics, experimental observations, simulations, Iyengar, Santhanam, Kalam - are all liars. The only ones to believe are RC and the cabal.

To test or not to test is a political issue. However, one cannot fool a Nation and the troops when one has a weapon when one doesn't. That risks double jeopardy.

Efforts should have been made to, at least, make the re-design of the S1 secondary an official DAE mandate, instead of shooting the messengers. Since, most of the messengers know quite intimately of what Ramanna did to Subbarao, they have either left, or suffer their silence.
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Post by ramdas »

Arunji:

You also said that there was a corrected version ready for testing in 2003. Does that not mean there was a redesign of the secondary iaround that time ? However, it seems to have been by the same group that messed it up the first time round.
Locked