Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 16 Apr 2008

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

Postby svinayak » 23 Apr 2008 03:39

The nuke deal between US and India faces Indian election next year – people of India will finally choose yes or no
Balaji Reddy

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/19374.asp
Apr. 18, 2008

The civilian nuke deal between India and US is stalled. Indian Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar call it "more of a problem of politics". In reality it was an example of a problem of arrogance of Indian and US politicians to sign a pact without asking their own people if they support the same.

There is resentment against the deal in US and there is strong popular opposition in India. Neither Bush cared to take into account the US resentment nor Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi gave a damn about what Indian common people want.

The deal now faces Indian election next year. BJP and the communists will make a case of selling mother India out to the foreigners. Congress will make the case for continued Indian prosperity for the few privileged in Bangalore, Hyderabad and Mumbai. In the mean time Indian countryside suffering from hyperinflation and neglect by the Congress party will decide the fate of the deal by selecting a new Government.

America is pressing India to expedite the procedures for implementing the agreement while New Delhi has sought some more time to achieve a political consensus in the country. Kakodkar says, "the fact is the domestic program was 10,000 mw. The question is what rate I will be able to produce it and how fast. If we get inputs from outside we can do that much faster." However this man fails to understand facilitation of the process does not guarantee Indian sovereignty.

American Administration wants the deal badly because the American corporations like GE, Westinghouse and others who will gain $100 billion by selling reactors and components to India control it.


vsunder
BRFite
Posts: 691
Joined: 06 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Ulan Bator, Mongolia

Postby vsunder » 23 Apr 2008 03:47

Here we go. Schooner a PNE was emplaced at the SAME depth as POK-1,
and was 35kt. Sedan a PNE was emplaced at 194m and was 100kt.
Off course as Arun_S points out coupling is a factor and one can only compare apples to apples etc etc... Since POK-1 was a declared PNE
a comparison can be made with Schooner that was emplaced at 108m.
I am using the tables that accompany my article in the Monitor and which in turn are taken from Toman's paper presented to the IAEA, in fact the table is a scan of the relevant pages from Toman's note. So indeed POK-1 had a very high design yield, that is now very amply clear. The work of Toman, the Chinese tests and many other factors.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2268
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 23 Apr 2008 03:50

read a report that some one posted here that they used abandoned dry wells of near by villages for these testing since they couldn't start work on unsealing the shafts that were designed and fabricated in early 90s for the testing purposes. It also mentioned that since these well were dug in the deserts they were very deep and perfectly suitable for testing.

Could this be true or someone's getting too creative?

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

Postby ramdas » 23 Apr 2008 03:57

What about the fission device in POK-II ? That seems to have been about 12-15kt only. Was its design yield deliberately reduced from POK-I ? Seems so. With POK-I, precision manufacturing could have been a serious deficiency.

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

Postby Gerard » 23 Apr 2008 04:00

a comparison can be made with Schooner that was emplaced at 108m.


But didn't both Schooner and Sedan excavate earth? The blasts were not contained underground.

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

Postby Gerard » 23 Apr 2008 05:41


putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4390
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 23 Apr 2008 05:48


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

Postby Gerard » 23 Apr 2008 06:59


vsunder
BRFite
Posts: 691
Joined: 06 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Ulan Bator, Mongolia

Postby vsunder » 23 Apr 2008 07:02

Katare: Sub-kt tests used the old dry wells called Nautala. Read Weapons of Peace.

Gerard: Several points.

(a) Surely you agree PNE's should be compared with PNE's. Indians were well aware of PNE tests in the USA having witnessed them in Nevada first hand. One time googling came up with names long ago. So much for Venn diagrams. POK-1 was a declared PNE is it not?
So why should one not compare it with another PNE shot like Schooner.
Are you suggesting Schooner vented, they why would Toman use it on his curve? I mean if it was not contained what then would you assign as a value for a crater radius? So I am completely lost with what you wrote. But Toman/ Nordyke has assigned a value and it has a spot on the curve clearly marked.

(b) However, here is the caution. Schooner was emplaced in hard rock, see its position in the Toman curve that accompanies my article. So in dry hard rock the curves predict a smaller crater for the same depth and same yield. So now what is the story in POK. Well read what I write about what RC said in IISc, the situation he said is close to NTS, from what he said I took it to be 75 y^1/3.4 etc etc. Thus maybe one may have to put
something less than 35kt, but surely putting 10kt is wasting resources, digging a 109 m shaft and maintaining it for water logging etc. Water logging was a problem as is clear from reading WOP. Also RC did say for S-2 there was no good crater because of granite strata so the situation is close to hard rock and less alluvium. So one can say with confidence that the POK-1 shaft could take 25kt for sure in a PNE type shot and even more for a non-PNE shot. So yes if you arrange for less coupling and less PNE effects then surely you can emplace bigger yield devices. Unless I am missing a point I dont understand your comment. Yes Sedan and Schooner moved earth but if you arrange for the shot to move less earth then can you not increase the yield? POK-1 was put into a L shaped shaft and maybe a larger chamber.

(c) As far as S-2 I dont know honestly. Could it be a smaller shaft ?
Not having two huge tests; a massive S-1 and another massive S-2 could damage the sub-kt shafts for the next day, damage Khetolai who knows.
Could it be conservatism, here is what has been weaponized, that has the right size and weight to put on a Prithvi the basic missile(not Agni yet remember) and prove it to the army it all works. No fancy gimmicks etc.
What if something new was tried and it fizzled then the army has a real problem. No such issue was there in POK-1 it was not weaponized and the idea was to get a bang and use the PNE figleaf. They should have gone for broke. Look I dont know.

I stop here I am in a dangerous zone, my post count is going up Admins can I remain a TRAINEE forever. Seems I havent much to say. My aim is to be <100 posts in 10 years!!

Ramana: I did not understand your comment about Math. and large events. Maybe you should give examples. To be honest I dont know.
Last edited by vsunder on 23 Apr 2008 08:27, edited 3 times in total.

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

Postby svinayak » 23 Apr 2008 07:10


[b]
The Left has said that there was no meeting point on the deal as long as the Hyde Act, which “stood in the wayâ€

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4620
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Neshant » 23 Apr 2008 09:28

lets hope so

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

Postby ShauryaT » 23 Apr 2008 09:33

Acharya wrote:

[b]
The Left has said that there was no meeting point on the deal as long as the Hyde Act, which “stood in the wayâ€

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

Postby ramdas » 23 Apr 2008 10:20

I think the left have no option of doing a U-turn after such an explicit anti deal stand.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 23 Apr 2008 10:44

Arun_S wrote:Kanson states:
For your claim of 20-25kt you quoted GOI reports, where is that

1. Where in my retort have I quoted GoI reports?

Sir, this is your previous statement...
1. PKI has claimed a test yield of 8 KT against a design yield of 10 KT. He has the gone on to label POK-1 as an unqualified success (see http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaSmiling.html and www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/jul102001/72.pdf). I have stated that the test yield was around 12 KT. The 20-25 KT was the design yield which differs from the test yield. This is based on GoI press release and AIR news broadcast in and around 74 to 75 where 20 to 20+kT was bandied around.

This argument was started when we were discussing POK-I yield based on facts available as open source. During that you slipped in an unsupported data 20-25KT as design yield of POK-I. What is annoying is the fact that, you maintained that the figure 20-25KT is based on some reports until probed further as well as the introduction of unsupported data as fact. All you are trying to say finally is that the figure 20-25KT is based on your assumptions/theories/conjectures.
In my last post, i mentioned your arguments is based on assumptions and theories and no point discussing based on assumptions. Anyone knows the difference between arguments based on facts and theories. Since you are continuing the dicussion in this fashion, i will try one more time to tell the data you are using as design yield is an assumption.

Arun_S wrote: 1. The Nagasaki design was almost entirely in literature available to the BARC well before 1974. Further it is not unreasonable to assume that India had even more access through Operation Ploughshare. As I have stated in point 2 of my previous retort, Barnaby has stated the almost certain fact that the Nagasaki design was the basis for the POK-1 design, in his book which is cited in my previous retort. This is supported/augmented/boosted by the very reasonable argument that since this was the first Indian test, it would be a rational/common sense decision to mimic the design of the Nagasaki device to gain some experience!

2. In a nutshell, I have stated that if the Nagasaki device used 6.2 Kgs. WGPu to obtain a design yield of 20-23 KT in 1945, then after 30 years,
improvements in components and a substantially better understanding of the concerned physics, ~ 6 Kgs of WGPu (see Barnaby's book and the Wikipedia article for open literature sources) should have corresponded to a design yield ~ 20-25 KT! I further add here in this retort, especially given the "wizards" involved with the design of POK-1, that even a test yield of ~ 12 KT is quite a bit low!

If BARC has entire literature of Nagasaki design available as you stated, then first of all, why Bhabha made a number of unsuccessfull attempts to obtain a ploughshare device design from US during late 1964 - early 1965. Otherise why he has to make a comment(?) like, With US help it would be 6 months if we go by indigenous route it will be 18 months to complete the device. Your are taking a imaginary line by using the rational/common sense dialogue. I quote..
"The United States provided India neither assistance in designing of producing a nuclear explosive device nor the promise of American nuclear weapons "on account." Although American officials, particularly in India, recognized the need for strengthening Shastri's position in order to reduce demand for the bomb, Washington would not offer decisive support. In sum, the United States rebuffed India's dual efforts -- for guarantees or technical assistance -- to seek international help in countering China's gains in prestige and political and military power. Instead, the United States launched a drive to draft and negotiate a non proliferation treaty. India would be a primary target of this campaign, but it remained unclear how the effort to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons would solve the problem that China's nuclear weapons posed for India, militarly and politically. India would be left to its own devices." -- Page 99 from the book "India's Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation" by George Perkovich.

Arun_S wrote:Finally, there are two points that need to be noted in this regard:

a.) on pg. 56 of his book "The Armageddon Factor", Dr.Sanjay Badri Maharaj has this to say about the WGPu in POK-1
"It is not known exactly how much plutonium was was used for the test, but, some informed Indian guesstimates indicated that it was about 10kg - about one year's output from Cirus reactor (ref 34: Albright & Hibbs 'India's Silent Bomb' BoAS Sept 92. p29)). This figure includes some Plutonium lost during the machining of the core of the bomb. This leaves about 6-8 kg in the device itself."
b.) R. Chengappa on pg. 111 in his book "Weapons of Peace" makes an oblique reference to a Nagasaki type device in his statement
" Most researchers on the subject overlook this fundamental requirements while trying to understand why India had to weight till 1974 to do a test. For by 1967, though the plutonium reprocessing plant had been supposedly functioning for 2 years, its output was only a trickle. The promised eight to ten Kilogram annual production of weapon grade plutonium -- enough for a Nagasaki type of bomb --- was proving to be a mirage with the plant functioning only in fits and starts."

As quoted in your source, here the only fact is "It is not known exactly how much plutonium was was used for the test". No one knows exactly how much Pu used. No offical statements on that. Again quoting from the source that you have used, "some informed Indian guesstimates indicated that it was about 10kg...This leaves about 6-8 kg in the device itself". All were making some calculated guesses. You can give a exact figure of 6.2 kg for the Nagasaki device. But in this case we are talking in ranges 6 - 8 kg, 8 - 10 kg, Why ?. Becoz, no one knows the exact figure. Why there is some oblique reference of Nagasaki ? Becoz, it is generally believed that to make small bomb or to start with as a base reference, one needs ~ 8 kg of Pu, Is everyone believing that it is the case ? See this.
The "Fat Man" atomic bomb that destroyed Nagasaki in 1945 used 6.2 kilograms of plutonium and produced an explosive yield of 21-23 kilotons [a 1987 reassessment of the Japanese bombings placed the yield at 21 Kt]. Until January 1994, the Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that 8 kilograms would typically be needed to make a small nuclear weapon. Subsequently, however, DOE reduced the estimate of the amount of plutonium needed to 4 kilograms. Some US scientists believe that 1 kilogram of plutonium will suffice.

Here my point is not arguing which should be taken as correct. I'm just saying there exists other possibilities. Nowhere it is written that by using 6 kg the design yield has to 20 - 25 KT. It depends upon what design one employed. From the source you quoted or from the figure 6/8 kg, is it possible to confirmly say that it is a nagasaki design ? The answer is No. Here you are making assumption on assumptions. First, when the source you quoted Pu used is in the range 6 - 8 Kg as well as 8 - 10 kg. You assumed it to be ~ 6 kg. Second assumption: BARC has complete access to Nagasaki literature. There is difference between literature and device blue prints. Third one is that from all these, the design of the device is exactly that of Nagasaki device and so the expected yield has to be 20-25KT.


Arun_S wrote:Kanson states:
I like to bring it your attention the Venn diagram shown by RC on the sharing of tech among N powers, where India stood separate. How that explains your assumption that POK-I is based on Nagasaki design.

1. I know of RC's "famous" Venn diagram!

2. Throughout his talk at the IISc, he showed no hard evidence that would stand up to rigorous review. It had stuff that was cooked up by him and his team highlighting India's sophistication in NW(Nuclear Weapon) design, with regards to the Shakti tests, and the S-1 "TN device (sic!)".

If you think that RC has to show every evidence in public discussion then that is not his mistake.

Arun_S wrote: 3. RC's Venn diagram shows the historical sharing of NW knowledge indicating the self-reliance of the Indian NW development program. There's no mention whatsoever of any specific Indian NW test, let alone device! In fact, it (the Venn diagram) isn't even his own, but borrowed from the article:

Christopher E. Paine and Matthew G. McKinzie, Does the U.S. Science - Based Stockpile Stewardship Program Pose a Proliferation Threat ?, Science and Global Security, Vol. 7, pp. 151 - 193 (1998).

RC's publication citing the source of the "famous" Venn diagram may be obtained at:

http://www.saag.org/papers5/paper451.html

RC by using the Venn diagram in his article he is acknowledging the info said abt India N program in the diagram. For example, you are quoting, Barnaby, Sanjay and Raj Chengappa data of Pu used for POK-I as a support for your argument. By quoting them are you not agreeing and acknowledging the data said by them? Or it is just like that you quoted them...

I think you need to take a re-look. He has given the no. of test and as well as there is RC's explanation on that. Why he has to make a case for each test. He has taken that position from the cumulative test conducted. Even if one tested device is a borrowed design or from the help of other power he would have intersected the circle. It will be much clear if you look at the circle indicating Israel. While he intersected all circles to form a olympic ring, he left India out. Dont you think he wouldnt have considered all the Nagasaki literature stories in drawing the cricle depicting Indian test?

Arun_S wrote:4. India used the CIRUS reactor to obtain the Pu for POK-1, and scaled the model up for the Dhruva, the Purex solvent extraction method in its Pu reprocessing plants, Uhde technology to build heavy water plants, virtually duplicated the CANDU reactors, etc.......... All these were used by India in developing NW's, and QUITE RIGHTLY SO! Technology has always spread, and then contributed to different uses and ends. I'm not stating that what India did was wrong. In fact, I wish it had gotten its hands on MORE stuff.

But the notion that India developed everything by itself is a bit hokey! But it does not put India in the same class as Pakistan, because there were always some modifications, and the technology was obtained LEGALLY and kept under tight watch by the Indians. Drawing analogies to the above cases, using details of the Nagasaki device that were available to India well before 1974, it was quite logical to base POK-1 on a design derived from the Nagasaki device!

It is similar to saying Indian Agni-3 program is based on US scout rocket design. Mixing reactor and bomb ? Becoz Pu is from CIRUS reactor the design for bomb has to be Nagasaki ?...what kind of logic is this ?

Arun_S wrote:5. In summary, the Venn diagram was meant for reporters, journalists, and kids, and, means *nothing* in terms of hard technical data or physically acceptable/credible logic, and sound hypothesis/conjecture/argument/theory! The famous Venn diagram might, however, fly over the heads of most Indian politicians, and in all probability persons possessing "outstanding caliber", crowing at some unmentionable blog for wayward vagrants!


Its your opinion.

Arun_S wrote:6. Even assuming RC's Venn diagram represents an encapsulation of all the detailed technical knowledge of NW's extant and a Gift from God, it does not treat the POK-1 test or any specific Indian NW test for that matter!

See the comment above.

Arun_S wrote:Kanson states:
"2. PKI who broke ranks and claimed the yield as 8 KT, didnt claimed 20-25kt as design yield. As per the source you quoted, it is 10KT. I think he was Team leader at that time."

1. PKI started off by claiming a test yield of 8 KT for a design yield of 10 KT (see http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaSmiling.html , "..............Iyengar has variously stated that the yield was actually 8-10 kt, that the device was designed to yield 10 kt, and that the yield was 8 kt 'exactly as predicted' "., and, www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/jul102001/72.pdf). Note that here it is explicitly stated that PKI implied a 10 KT design yield and a 8 KT test yield!

There's a difference between the two - test yields and design yields! Test yields are always significantly lower than design yields. The level of degradation depends upon the quality of the designers.
The very close proximity of the test yield and the design yield in itself is suspicious. Then, he (PKI) upgraded the test yield to 10 KT, which was the figure earlier attributed to the design yield. This is a feat for which PKI should have been awarded the Nobel Prize, or more, if such an honor exists! Nuclear Weapons possessing test yields coinciding with design yields exit the realm of physics and enter into the exciting realm of magic!

:rotfl: Regarding Tsar bombyield..
Nikita Khrushchev in his memoirs claims that the device yield was estimated before the test as 50 mt, and that the actual yield proved greater at 57 mt
...
Thus the issue regarding the test yield is plausibly explained by the test exceeding its predicted yield by 15% (still close to design yield, given U.S. test experience) at an actual yield of 57-58 mt
Though there are controversies, no one reject the statement as non-sense or not as per Physics. There are other instances as well.
For that matter, PKI is quoted as saying the test yield approaching 10KT whereas the design yield as 10KT. If LCA team manages to achieve design empty weight or Kaveri engine achieves design thrust, are you going to reject them as magic ?

Arun_S wrote:Two facts need to be stated herein:

a.) Apart from domestic political compulsions, POK-1 was driven by the nuclearization of China. It is reasonable to believe that India would try to equal or beat the Chinese in its first Nuclear Weapon test (Reference: K. Subramanyam "Indian Nuclear Policy -1964-98 (A personal recollection) Page 39-44, in the book "Nuclear India" by Air Commodore Jasjit Singh (Ed.), (1998)).
The result was abysmal ( a maximum test yield of 12 KT).

b.) To assume that PKI, RC, Sikka, AK consciously designed the test for the abysmal maximum reported 12 KT test yield, despite all the knowledge and resources that they had at their disposal, makes attributing the adjectives of pathetic and incompetent to them, seem like a generous tribute. These worthies have time and again shown themselves to be "petty dwarfs" when compared with "giants" like Bhabha and Sarabhai.

He is stating his opinion there. Nothing wrong in believing or having a hope. Important thing to note here is while China took the Russian help, India did it on its own. If you take the result as abysmal thats your opinion. And, if you are going to say from this extract you quoted, the device is based on Nagasaki design, i'm sorry, i think i have better job to do than talking here.

Arun_S wrote:My concern is about Indian interests, not the thriving and multiplication of number of dubious vested interests, or, a government that is divorced from Indian Interests.

Good to hear that, seriously. If i may add, taking pessimistic view on everthing doesnt serve Indian interest.

Arun_S wrote:Kanson, you appear to have either a reading problem, or a thinking problem, or personal integrity problem, or, a combination there of! This has been obvious from the beginning.

Ah! Personal attacks... second time i guess.

Arun_S wrote:I am tired of humoring you, and wasting my time.

you see... if an aunty comes as free add-on to a bounty it is naughty to further call her as a hotty. :rotfl:

Arun_S wrote: If you have any further useless questions/objections, take a strong purgative and clear your head!
By this time it is obvious who needs purgative!

I conclude your usage of data 20-25KT as a design yield of POK-I to show POK-I as absymal failure is nothing but your assumption.
Last edited by Kanson on 23 Apr 2008 12:56, edited 2 times in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 23 Apr 2008 10:59

Acharya wrote:
Kanson wrote:

Alright, few posts back, Ramana claimed S1 is not scalable. RC said upto 200KT and Arun is saying 200-300KT. Which one you recommend me to take ? on what basis ?

BR is not a place for fishing information. You take out what info is avialable and let it go
I addressed my question to Raj M. Wht happened to you..you made this post directly from the dreams. ? :lol:

Ok. the name Acharya demands respect.

If you feel the information is sensitive, you should either informed the info provider or the moderator. See..now the whole world know, there is some sensitive information that Acharya, in turn Ramana, is privy to it. Hope you are not a double agent..

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 23 Apr 2008 11:42

Kanson

What is it that I can take back from your "rebuttal" ?. As I am not able to get a grip of even your statement of purpose, after so many posts. I would be great if you don't bring in LCA's, and Arjun's into the discussion, and keep it concise.. if you are to give one..

TIA.

----

Arunji,

Hitting the "profile button" would do wonders. Especially since RaviCV's name has popped out of nowhere. 8) The spring weather seems so fine.. why "bums" topic now.. no ?

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 396
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Postby Prabu » 23 Apr 2008 18:48

Time to rethink policy on strategic deterrence

This article make sense ! Our strategic planners need to come to reality that, now India is P6 ! and think like a super power and our posture and strategy shouldl be in line to that position.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 23 Apr 2008 19:48

Arun guruvu garu

Some need to be debated, some entertained, some ignored and yet some need to be banished ( said in Bengali, where in they use b and v interchangeably, in this case its fine either ways)

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 23 Apr 2008 19:53

Prabu wrote:Time to rethink policy on strategic deterrence

This article make sense ! Our strategic planners need to come to reality that, now India is P6 ! and think like a super power and our posture and strategy shouldl be in line to that position.


"In a nucklear high way, once entered you need to keep up the speed (posted) once in while just looking into the rear mirror" Spinster 1998

there are no half measures in this highway 101, India needs to openly prepare shafts for future testing as we are declared Nucklear power, it is immaterial if others think otherwise.

Test when ready and peer reviewed designs this time please and no " "Aswathama atha kunjaraha" this time.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 23 Apr 2008 20:00

I think we also have to consider the possibility that 8kg Pu was used for Fission bombs in both tests.

PoK-1 the core can be anything from 3kg to 8kg for TN. Why can Indian design be not something like US Juniper test :-

Test: Juniper
Time: 04:20 22 July 1958 (GMT)
16:20 22 July 1958 (local)
Location: Bikini
Test Height and Type: Barge, 12 feet
Yield: 65 kt


This shot, the last Bikini atmospheric test, was an exploratory shot by UCRL attempting to dramatically reduce the size and weight of a nominally 1 megaton warhead. Alumni of the UCRL weapons program from this period have described this test as the "most radical UCRL shot" and an "entirely new concept". This led eventually to the development of the W-47 Polaris missile warhead which considerably reduced the size of megaton class warheads. The degree of novelty can be judged by the range of predicted yields 0.2 kt to 60 kt, i.e. the possibility of complete failure of the boosted primary and the secondary stage was considered possible (0.2 kt is approximately the yield of a boosted primary that fails to boost). The test was a complete success.

The test device had a diameter of 14.4 inches, and a length of 15.3 inches. It weighed 167.5 lb.

Link

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

Postby Arun_S » 23 Apr 2008 22:58

John Snow wrote:
Prabu wrote:Time to rethink policy on strategic deterrence

This article make sense ! Our strategic planners need to come to reality that, now India is P6 ! and think like a super power and our posture and strategy shouldl be in line to that position.


"In a nucklear high way, once entered you need to keep up the speed (posted) once in while just looking into the rear mirror" Spinster 1998

there are no half measures in this highway 101, India needs to openly prepare shafts for future testing as we are declared Nucklear power, it is immaterial if others think otherwise.

Test when ready and peer reviewed designs this time please and no " "Aswathama atha kunjaraha" this time.

Absolutley that is the key"Test when ready and peer reviewed designs this time please ".

Openly prepare shaft: yes, openly declared sub-critical test: yes.

After spending much time to make rebuttal to few of Kensons posts, I had made up my mind to not waste anymore time on his useless posts.

There are however couple of points in Kenson's last otherwise largely useless post that require rebuttal. With time being a serious crunch in my personal setting (gotta seriously work to put food on the table) it is time consuming to prepare researched rebuttal to lay questions, specially when it is sleuth work and not not run of the mill topic. For now I have to be away for few hrs but will deal with couple of Kenson's residual but important points that cant be let to fester.

And then work on promised rebuttal to Katare.

"Drive by posting" is so much more fun compared to serving Matra Bhoomi by replying to pest'y but poisonous posts. :wink:

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

Postby ramdas » 23 Apr 2008 23:11

What about internal opposition to an announced test ? This is why it is better
to test without prior announcement but test a full yield 200-300kt TN device 4-5 times.

But will it happen given thekind of politicians we have ? This is the big question. Not if MMS is around. What about other non BJP entities ?

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

Postby ramdas » 23 Apr 2008 23:14

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/module ... 234&page=2

Interesting link about how BARC is capable of extracting 400 ptonnes pa of uranium from 5 chemical fertilizer plants alone...

So, the nuclear deal is clearly unnecessary. Just a device by elements servile to foreign interests to CRE us. Any supporter of this deal is by extension, interested in CREing India and is thus against national interests. Wonder why KS is in such a group. Senility ?

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 23 Apr 2008 23:22

Irrespective of intentions, simple curiosity or otherwise, the can was opened when RC and in effect our whole deterrence was put on very dangerous ground.

This public and imho very dangerous questioning of the declared results of PoK 1/2 is scary to say the least. I do hope a very very serious threat/scenario has been detected validating such a posture.

Again imho, a public forum should not be discussing such things, specially when some of the learned folks have significant inside knowledge, even if their posts only use openly published material.

IMHO only...

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

Postby ramdas » 23 Apr 2008 23:29

Also read that about 130000 tpa of P2O5 gives about 45 tpa of uranium. India's current phosphoric acid production is 2.5 million tpa. That alone should yield ~900 tpa uranium. More, if more phosphoric acid is produced.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 23 Apr 2008 23:49

there are no half measures in this highway 101, India needs to openly prepare shafts for future testing as we are declared Nucklear power, it is immaterial if others think otherwise.


Why would India be concerned about such matters? After all this is a civilian nuclear deal.

Dig more holes. Looking for water.

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

Postby Gerard » 23 Apr 2008 23:53

Who says all tests must be at Pokhran?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50415
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 24 Apr 2008 00:18

ramdas wrote:What about internal opposition to an announced test ? This is why it is better
to test without prior announcement but test a full yield 200-300kt TN device 4-5 times.

But will it happen given thekind of politicians we have ? This is the big question. Not if MMS is around. What about other non BJP entities ?


Dont forget the ITVTy lobby led by Infosys types. There are more business types now than in 1998. Its not just politicial types.

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

Postby ramdas » 24 Apr 2008 00:31

Dont forget the ITVTy lobby led by Infosys types. There are more business types now than in 1998. Its not just politicial types.


They should be overruled summarily. They are another reason why tests should not be announced. It is also clear that rather than contributing to the nation, they are a liability preventing national resurgence via strategic strength.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50415
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 24 Apr 2008 00:41

Acharya wrote:

[b]
The Left has said that there was no meeting point on the deal as long as the Hyde Act, which “stood in the wayâ€

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

Postby ramdas » 24 Apr 2008 00:46

Looks like its now all political as AK said. Apparently the UPA will take the House into confidence after the May 6th meet. Most likely they will provide a fait acompli. Still touch and go.


Hope the left does not get fooled by this. If it does, and the deal goes through, there is NO HOPE of Bharat having a strong deterrent. It will always live under the hegemony of foreign interests. It will be permanent slavery. The humiliation is unbearable. Every supporter of this deal is responsible for this treason.

This deal is a civilizational defeat for the nation that was coming out of slavery. Without a powerful deterrent, the nation will be condemned to meekly obeying the will of the US, China and maybe even TSP and Iran if they go ahead and build thermonukes. Maybe slavery till Kalki avatar is what the nation is doomed to.

Of course, we can continue to become a superpower in IT, BPO ,bollywood gyrations and other such nonsense. The great KS can clap his hands in applause at the clever strategy of MINIMUM deterrence like any of those napumsaks that guarded mughal harems. After all, this deal condemns the nation to that hallowed status of "member of everybody's harem" to twist a quote of Subramanian Swamy. All the while , this MIMIMAL deterrence bandied about by KS is analogous to wearing a transparent Kaupinam/Langoti and pretending to be clothed dignifiedly.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4390
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Postby putnanja » 24 Apr 2008 01:36


Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6644
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Postby Anujan » 24 Apr 2008 01:43

ramdas wrote:http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=234&page=2

Interesting link about how BARC is capable of extracting 400 ptonnes pa of uranium from 5 chemical fertilizer plants alone...

So, the nuclear deal is clearly unnecessary. Just a device by elements servile to foreign interests to CRE us. Any supporter of this deal is by extension, interested in CREing India and is thus against national interests. Wonder why KS is in such a group. Senility ?

Ramdas, I am a strong supporter of "testing" and "no deal", but the deal is not just about the uranium alone. It is about removing general restrictions on high tech transfers (even old and rusty chips need to be smuggled in now a days) and has implications to our manufacturing sector, if we ever dream of catching up to the Chinese.
ramdas wrote:This deal is a civilizational defeat for the nation that was coming out of slavery. Without a powerful deterrent, the nation will be condemned to meekly obeying the will of the US, China and maybe even TSP and Iran if they go ahead and build thermonukes. Maybe slavery till Kalki avatar is what the nation is doomed to.

I am all for signing the deal, waiting 2 years and then exploding as many bums as we please. Everyone would be forced to reveal their cards. Signing the deal is not the end of the world. Our mentality and interpretation of the deal is.

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

Postby ramdas » 24 Apr 2008 01:51

Ramdas, I am a strong supporter of "testing" and "no deal", but the deal is not just about the uranium alone. It is about removing general restrictions on high tech transfers (even old and rusty chips need to be smuggled in now a days) and has implications to our manufacturing sector, if we ever dream of catching up to the Chinese.


Catching up with the Chinese possession of a thermonuclear deterrent is more important than catching up economically. After all, once the nation possesses the ultimate weapon in enough numbers, it can retain its sovereignity even if it needs to have old and rusty computer chips smuggled in. Thermonuclear weapons even of "1960's vintage" prevent nations from stepping on our toes . The latest chips or the latest fancy cars and other such "sophistcated" pieces of engineering or having a great high tech sector do not do so. If it is a "question of giving up TN 's forever" VS "giving up ecomonic parity with China forever" we should stick to possessing TN's even if it means giving up ecomomic parity with China forever. Also, self reliant state led economic growth alone counts towards national economic power.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35890
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 24 Apr 2008 02:12

Gerard wrote:Who says all tests must be at Pokhran?


Where the test labs are now?
Last edited by SaiK on 24 Apr 2008 02:45, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Gerard » 24 Apr 2008 02:38


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35890
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 24 Apr 2008 02:50


wow! the sense happens too late!. how much does bjp has a say in this now? left sure gonna block it.. the very news itself puts all threads on this discussion now into a separate thread.

the political nuke nukkad thread.

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

Postby Gerard » 24 Apr 2008 02:54


Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6644
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Postby Anujan » 24 Apr 2008 03:20

ramdas wrote:Catching up with the Chinese possession of a thermonuclear deterrent is more important than catching up economically..... If it is a "question of giving up TN 's forever" VS "giving up ecomonic parity with China forever" we should stick to possessing TN's even if it means giving up ecomomic parity with China forever. Also, self reliant state led economic growth alone counts towards national economic power.

Ramdas-saar, I agree with the broad contours of your argument, I probably misstated my position by somehow appearing to seek parity with the Chinese in the manufacturing sector. A little OT but consider (A) The economic aspect

1. Economy is all about productivity. Our agriculture sector is hugely unproductive with manual labor and small holdings per farmer. This is simply economically unsustainable ! Farmer suicides are a matter of serious concern, but there is no permanent solution, unless the bulk of the farming population is moved to the manufacturing sector. If they keep farming, with small holdings, they will incur losses and debts. There is no two ways about it.

2. For a huge surge in the manufacturing sector, we need energy, investment and high technology. The former is scarce to come by and the latter is denied under sanctions. Even pre-Shakti, I remember attending a trade show where the Xilinx representative told me that selling FPGAs to Indian companies in bulk was prohibited. You can imagine tech restrictions post Shakti on industrial high technology products, which are vital to our industrialization. Consumption of consumer manufactured goods, in turn, are from manufacturing powerhouses like China, SoKo, Japan, RoC etc. Double whammy !

3. There is no denying that a bit of cozying up to Unkil is needed for massive international investment to boost our economy and prop our manufacturing sector. (See china).

Can we expand our economy ourselves and find our own way of doing it in say 50 years time ? well I am sure we can. But what about the intervening 2 generations ? What about their prosperity and poverty ? Coming to (B) The military aspect, It will take us 5 years at least to build up credible survivable delivery systems to deter lizard and Unkil. A-III needs to be tested and deployed in numbers and ATV needs to be commissioned. I am not talking about bums here, only about delivery systems.

Under such a scenario, given immediate energy and economy concerns, I am of the opinion that some taqiyya is in order for the next half decade to a decade. If everybody else has done it in modern times (Brits during partition, Unkil countless times in mideast, west and russi against poland at Potsdam, Chini against India in '62, pakis against India at Shimla) why not us ?

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 24 Apr 2008 04:42

CPM denies seeing IAEA text on Indo-US N-deal
Wednesday, April 23 2008 15:45(IST)

New Delhi Apr 23: The CPI(M) today denied that the Left parties had read the International Atomic Energy Agency's draft text on the Indo-US nuclear deal, asserting that their opposition to the pact continued and the UPA-Left Panel on the deal would meet here on May six. "We have not read the text...We will discuss the government's response to the same at the forthcoming meeting of the UPA-Left Panel," CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury told a news conference here. Mr Yechury said the text could not really be shown to them. A section of the media had reported that the government had shown the text, which is believed to be "generous" to India, to the Left parties.

He said the CPI(M) wanted more clarifications from the government at the forthcoming meeting even as the Left parties are understood to have already apprised the government of their reservations on the subject through a note. The CPI(M) leader emphasised that the government had made a solemn commitment to take into consideration the findings of the Panel. "Let us see what happens on May six," he added.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests