Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 25 Apr 2008

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

Post by John Snow »

SaiK wrote:but then, those would be all for tactical weapons.

Once the clean killing weapon becomes possible, then its the same as the paradigm shift of 'From arrows to Gatling gun with no end of feed of bullets' and thefore it does not carry the moral stigma and can be easly used.
If you use them in mass n umbers its strategic, if it is used only for one zip code por Pin code then its tactical.

Welcome to the new Block Buster Bomb (shell) {BBBS}
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3982
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Post by vera_k »

Regardless of how it is achieved, point is that the focus elsewhere is on creating usable nukes. Whether such weapons meet the technical definition of being a nuke is not as important for the purposes of seeing the future. IMO, in the Indian context a change of mindset is needed to move away from thinking exclusively about a detterent to working on usability of nukes.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Katare »

Anyone testing any type of nuclear weapons would open the door for India to do a tit for tat testing without inviting much trouble.

The fellowship of CTBT will break sooner rather than later, hope we'll be ready this time without the excuses of 'we kept the yield low to minimize damages to near by villages'
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Post by CRamS »

Acharya wrote:
Rajeev Srinivasan

The deal that refuses to die

http://ia.rediff.com/news/2008/apr/23rajeev.htm

riod.[/b]
I have a key disagreement on one of the premises of Rajeev's arguments:
Non-proliferation and weaponiation. Non-proliferation of high interest to the US; weaponisation of high interest to India
Wrong. Non-proliferation is of high interest to US no doubt, but weaponization is NOT of high interest to India, at least the MMS-led UPA Govt. That they cannot boldy declare so in public is another story.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7806
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Post by Anujan »

Arun_S wrote:Is it real/ difficult / impossible!!
One only has to think of the first nuclear weapon, that seemed impossible to greatest physicist's and engineers only a few year before the first test.
Arun-saar,
Very very difficult, but not impossible. The difference between fission device of Manhattan project and pure fusion weapns is that, at that time, it was a scientific limitation. Fission was not well understood, Fermi had made his chichago-pile 1 (the first demonstration of large scale fission) only a few years before, there were questions about the implosion mechanism, the force needed, the shaping of explosive lenses and R-T instability between tamper and core etc.

The pure fusion device is an engineering limitation. We understand the temperature and pressures needed for ignition, but have not produced compact devices which achieve such power densities. (Not counting exploding a fission bomb next to the fusion fuel of course). Maybe if efficiencies of lasers go up from current day 1% to 50% or so, we have a chance. The problem is, we do not know of any non nuclear energy source, which achieves high power densities in short times needed to initiate fusion. This ofcourse, assumes cold fusion doesnt work.

Science has a bad habit of racing far ahead of engineering !
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

lakshmic wrote:
Arun_S wrote:Is it real/ difficult / impossible!!
One only has to think of the first nuclear weapon, that seemed impossible to greatest physicist's and engineers only a few year before the first test.
Arun-saar,
Very very difficult, but not impossible.
.........
The pure fusion device is an engineering limitation.
.......
........
Science has a bad habit of racing far ahead of engineering !
Engineering emerges when you Doctor Science.
Spinster Uvacha
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

You mean doctor Science.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9263
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Amber G. »

Since Prof. Alok_N is absent let me be like the well who comes to the thirsty.
This ofcourse, assumes cold fusion doesnt work. .
Of course! but we should not forget Jinn Thermodynamics too if we want to achieve pure fusion devices. Even a common, low level tech from KRL knows the sura - ""He created jinn from a fusion of smokeless fire." (55:14)" .Jinn's, of course are also know as Plasmabeasts are the ones who live in sun's plasma interior and photosphere which makes sun's thermonuclear fusion possible.

My sources in QAU ( Quaid-e-Azam University (Islamabad), say that in the past all scientists assumed that Jinns were made of chemical matter, like methane etc but recent breakthrough (That they are made of plasma/ions and/or floating electrons - and not out of hydrocarbons) made many breakthroughs possible.

A recent article by the world renowned (this is how he is described by his own website) Dr Ibrahim B. Syed is linked below.

Link
The Qur'an & Modem Science: JINN ...
...Scientists (G. Feinberg and R.Shapiro, LIFE BEYOND EARTH Published by William Morrow and Co., Inc., New York, 1980) predict that there is the highest probability of finding life in the Plasma of our Sun or any star. They call these creatures as Plasmabeasts. Plasmabeasts can be construed as nothing but the Jinns. Life on Earth is called Chemical life, whereas the life in the Plasma of the Sun is based on Physical life.

.....In the core the nuclear fusion reactions occur resulting in the fusion of hydrogen nuclei into Helium nuclei plus liberation of energy which we receive as the sunlight. The Hydrogen Bomb works based on nuclear fusion whereas the Atomic Bomb works based on nuclear fission (splitting of the atomic nucleus).
.....
Finally these processes result in a favored form. For this to take place supply of free energy is required which is obtained from the flow of radiation within the sun. Therefore the Jinn can be construed to use radiant energy in their vital processes.
....


There you have it!
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

OK. This is not the humor thread. Folks ge serious.

Thanks.
ramana
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7806
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Post by Anujan »

Does this come as a surprise to anyone ?
The non-proliferation regime was built to a large extent to contain India. NPT and NSG directly owe their birth and existence to the Buddha who smiled. Now that India is a defacto NWS, NPT has failed its purpose vis-a-vis India. There are no two questions about it. Unkil and others need a new framework to restore nuclear order. As of now any nuclear activity or proliferation by India is not against international treaties and India has shown a will (Shakti, Agni, ATV) to not be a good guy anymore and start flexing muscles. The public consciousness, politics and india's perception of her own power and willingness to use the nuclear dimension has changed. This is going to "worsen" (from Unkil's perspective) over time. As a case in point: recall the protests and discussions whether or not we should have done Shakti, but now, just imagine the hoopla that would be created if someone writes an article saying Agni III is canceled.

Taking five things into account
(A) NPT has failed vis a vis India
(B) Nuclear dimension is going to "worsen" (from Unkil's perspective. By "worsen", I mean weaponization, stockpiling, delivery systems) over time
(C) NPT is still a useful tool as an excuse to maintain balance of power in the mid east and elsewhere, and hence should be propped up by somehow bringing India into the mainstream.
(D) As long as Pakis and Chinis have the bum, CRE can be kissed goodbye.
(E) Russie are waking up. It doesnt take much poking around by Unkil or Jalebis from Russi for India to be aligned to the Russie camp (or atleast do a serious realpolitik with Russie as leverage). Unkil needs to feed us jalebis now.

All future US Presidents will offer India a deal. "If not now, never" is just a bargaining tactic by Unkil, the only question is "do we gain if we wait or should we take what we have now ?"

I hope the deal dies. Simply because there is too much smoke and mirrors, no public discussion of the pros and cons, MMS trying to force it down our throats without a parliament discussion or ratification, Commies on chini's paybook trying to sabotage it, half the scientists saying one thing and the other half another, US officials thinking India is a banana republic and saying one thing and then the other vis a vis Hyde act and 123, US lawmakers thinking India is a banana republic and saying things like missiles and Iran in Hyde (Imagine the uproar there if India passes a law tying testing to US assistance to Pakis), all these make me uncomfortable.

Next time around, proper and open discussion and a deal between equals.

On an unrelated note: Now (this May) seems the right time to test. Not too near the elections to be construed as an election stunt, not too far away from elections so Kangress still reaps some goodwill and cannot be accused of being soft on national security. US gubmint is on its way out and we can start afresh with the new gubmint in Nov. Recession fears are high in the US, if their economy falters, they will think twice before sanctions. Big ticket defense purchases are on their way, US arms lobby will lobby hard against sanctions. If pakis test too, sanctions + faltering economy will push them over the edge. Chini wont test because of olympics, wont complain much because of the $40b trade. Commies wont bring Kangress down, because it would look silly to oppose nuke deal on one hand and testing on the other. If they bring Kangress down, Kangress will win without commie support (Food prices are going to go up and worsen in an year anyway, chances that Kangress wins then is low). Question is, do we have the 2 spherical things in our nether regions.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

All the three presidential candidates in the fray had voiced "strong support" for the US-India relationship and had not skirted the issue of nuclear cooperation, Boucher said.
This statement has no meaning. While Obama has been more forthright on the issue, even he needs to more straightforward on global reduction on nuclear arsenals, a thought pioneered by India.
Richard Boucher, the US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, when confronted with the question at a briefing on Wednesday, said he did not foresee political roadblocks to the deal since it enjoyed strong bipartisan support as was evident from the overwhelming vote for the Hyde Act, the enabling US law.
Told you. It has gone from the deal is dead if not sent by..... to this statement. Bet India can get a LOT more. The US is no position to dictate terms to India.....specially IF India decides to test. (Just BTW, IBM made more money in India than anywhere else in 2007!!!!! And, TSC made 51% in the US!!! I think IBM went into a loss in the US ..... need to check that.)

That there is an urgency in Indian civilian field is a given. But, the current GoI seems to be acknowledging that they are willing to take the more sensible route - approach non-NSG countries! They had this option 5 years ago. They were also aware of the problems associated with not getting enough fuel in time and did nothing to rectify it...... as evidenced by the current situation.
Asked to comment on Congress party spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi's assertion that India was bound by only the bilateral 123 agreement and not the contentious Hyde Act, Boucher said he saw no inconsistency between the implementation of the 123 agreement and the Hyde Act, pointing out that the enabling US law gave the Bush administration the authority "to negotiate the 123 agreement - the deal that binds India and the US". Singhvi, who was here to tell the American government and the foreign policy establishment why the deal has been put on the backburner, reiterated that India was bound by only the 123 agreement and not the prescriptive provisions of the Hyde Act, including those relating to India's relations with Iran.
The fact that the two sides are STILL yelping about this topic is proof enough that they disagree on what really constitutes the deal - the Hyde Act or the 123. This is proof enough that there is really no deal!

Which is reason enough to trash both.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Arun_S wrote: From your initial post today, it appears that you have implicitly chosen, for whatever reasons, to provide rationales and explanations for this persons bogus statements! However, it is an inescapable fact, that you have subscribed to this peculiar train of "thought" / "logic" on this thread (13-April):
India never claimed to have a TN device. The official press releases from 1998 make references only to a boosted fission device.
You withdrew your statement after being presented with overwhelming facts to the contrary. While I attributed your withdrawal of your statements to you being a reasonable person, let us analyze what you actually stated in your retraction on 14-April:
As far as the Press Release is concerned, it was something that happened 10 years ago and I am not a walking/talking databank of GOI press releases dating back 10 years.
This is a very convenient but clumsy way of opting out of a tight situation! The assertion that GoI never claimed to have a TN device (i.e. GoI never stated that S-1 was a TN test) was the focus of your original statement on 13-April. The fictitious arguments about GoI announcements appear to have been employed in an attempt to further qualify/support your assertion! The reasons for your using these arguments are known only to you!
Can we get the focus where it should be. I am just an ordinary forum member. I read, I study , I understand and I change my viewpoint as more publicly available information becomes available to me. The focus should be on the unwarranted attacks being launched on Indian scientists using this forum as a vehicle. The information that is being used for these attacks is not being disclosed. Let us have a "peer review" of the information because of which long serving GOI scientists are being called traitors and a national disgrace. If you cannot put up the information, your allegations have no merit and you should stop using this forum as a vehicle to launch these attacks.

I am open to all options. As far as the S1,hydrogen bomb, thermonuclear bomb, boosted fission controversery is concerned, there are IMO various possible explanations:

a) What was detonated was only a boosted fission device and was referred to colloquially as a *hydrogen bomb* because of the boosting fuel. In one of the earlier posts, RC's interview on the yield question was posted and he answered only about the yield of the primary and the trigger.

b) What was detonated was indeed a two stage TN device and as per PKI's first interview, days after the tests, he claimed that the amount of fuel for the secondary was very, very limited and as such the secondary yield was very low but in line with the planned yields.

c) What was detonated was a two stage TN device and it underperformed as claimed by all NPA literature and supposedly this information was also given by RaviCv. Incidentally, I had the first run in with RaviCv when he appeared on the forum. Thereafter you took the conversation with him offline.

While I am open to these various options, because I do not believe that there is conclusive information for anyone to judge the actual facts. you on the other hand have made up your mind and with that have started these vicious attacks on India's Science Community without disclosing the rationale on which your attacks are based. I would suggest that you disclose this information given by RaviCV so that everyone can judge for themselves whether he is a hoax and whether you have been taken for a ride by him.
Let's get down to some straight talking and let me tell you that your retraction was far from convincing! Announcement of a Nuclear Weapon test by a Nation whose interest you purport to support will stick in your mind for a very long time. There is a substantial qualitative, strategic, and political distinction between a TN test and an FBF test.

A person like yourself, who purports himself as being knowledgeable about nuclear matters, amongst a myriad of other issues, doesn't need to be a databank of GoI press releases to recollect such an event and the nature of the test!


Similarly I will also do some straight talking and ask you if you are so knowledgeable, why is there a schrizophenic bent to your postings? The Missile Page gives glowing tributes to an Indian TN warhead with a yield of 250-300kt and weighing 250kg. And here on this thread you bitterly attack Indian scientists and claim that there is no Indian TN warhead. Make up your mind whether there is a TN warhead or not. And if there is no warhead, I would suggest that you change the Missile page information and apologize for posting wrong information all these years. And if there is a warhead and you do not want to change the Missile page, then stop these attacks on Indian scientists. By the way, who told you that the yield was 300kt and it weighed 250kg? I do not claim any special knowledge. I am an ordinary forum member. But if you have specifically stated yield and weight numbers, I am curious as to how you are so certain? Just to make sure that what is portrayed is not a fantasy of somebody's imagination.

"If you have a source who said otherwise, you should post it on this thread."
If I had sources this effect, I would be careful to even mention them, let alone post their identities on a public thread!


You should either put up their identities or stop these attacks because your and the forum's credibility is on the line. And before you reply, let me tell you, my credibility does not matter, I am not a forum webmaster nor an administrator, like you, that people will hang on to every word of what I have to say. You on the other hand have to be very careful of what you say because your statements reflect on the credibility of this website of which I have been a member since November 2002.

That the NDA regime was certainly led to this false conclusion, was no doubt influenced in no small part by the SciCom! I would say that each (the NDA and SciCom) fed off the frenzy of each other! Knowing the fact that Indian politicians are almost totally illiterate on issues of science, and there is no culture of competition in Indian science that would allow for an independent verification (like LANL vs LLNL, etc...), the moral and professional onus was on the SciCom to STRESS the truth, inform the GoI of the consequences of making false statements of this nature, and resign if their words of caution went unheeded!


Again, this is only an allegation being made by you. Nobody else in any other fora is claiming anything similar. RC was allowed to stay on by the NDA to the end of their term and continues to serve GOI today as also AK. I again ask you to substantiate your allegations.


2.) Is the NDA regime clean in this fiasco? The answer is NO!!! When reports of S-1 being a flop started filtering out, a re-test should have been ordered, regardless of the consequences!


When did these reports start filtering out? The Nucleonics story posted by me is dated November 26, 1998. Why did you keep quiet for all of these 10 years?

3.) This still doesn't absolve RC of his press statements and presentation and publication of unsubstantiable data, to defend the indefensible, or, for not putting in his papers, and perpetuating a blatant lie!


There could be many explanations for this including ensuring the integrity of detterence value in India's existing warhead stockpile. It has deterred adversaries in the last 10 years, has it not? You do not want to absolve RC. Maybe GOI both the NDA and UPA already have and that is why he is still there.

In summary, India signing onto the 123/NSG deal, which is governed by the Hyde Act, tacitly and legally binds India, and acknowledges India's acquiesce to the CRE objectives of the Hyde Act with regards to India's deterrent. If the UPA regime was so concerned about protecting India's strategic interests, it would have explicitly put down in the 123 text that domestic laws are not binding on the nuclear deal! The NDA was far from perfect, but at least it did not agree to such humiliating terms!


I again ask you. Point out one clause to me in the Hyde Act under which sanctions will be more severe compared to those under the NNPA of 1978 which is what the NDA negotiated to get out off in those Talbott-Jaswant parleys after the 1998 tests. If you cannot point out even one clause, it means that all these objections to the Hyde Act have no merit as it merely restates what is already applicable under prior US laws.

Far from it! You've just reinforced my doubts and concerns, and those of many other people (I am sure), about a lot of issues!


Since you have made up your mind on all of these issues, I dont think your mind can be changed.

If the language of this post appears blunt and verging on the sarcastic, let me say that its tone is no more blunt and sarcastic than your post.

And lastly, can we go easy on the bolding. If you have written something of interest, people will read it, whether it is bolded or not.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

This thread is creating lot of Con Fusion and with guru ldev ji resorting to throwing two paisa regularly, it is even hurting on landing!

In the long run this Con Fusion will defiitely create Fissions in the whole community, just like J123, J123, testing, testing testing and teasing.

Thanks for a very sustained burn rate ldev ji.
I am off.
Jai Hind but not Jai Hinder (nor Jai Hyde(r acts)
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

>>This thread is creating lot of Con Fusion and with guru ldev ji resorting to throwing two paisa regularly, it is even hurting on landing!

John Snow,

Anyone who is not in sync with:

1. an anti deal posture.

2. to a lesser extent objects to strong anti Indian nuclear scientists statements

does not last on this thread. You know the names of people who have stopped participating on this thread. I dont need to tell you that.

And you are talking about me throwing two paisa. Check how many posts I have made on this thread compared to other members. I have held back precisely because if I speak my viewpoint as I have in the last 2-3 posts, there will be a conflict with the orthodox viewpoint on this thread as espoused by the administrators who participate on this thread.

All that I am asking is that the discussion be held with civility without resorting to name calling, insults, insinuations. Is that too much to ask?
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Ldev: Just a brief reply:

1. Being a BRF member of long standing, and, posting nonsense like you have done on 13-April:
Quote: "India never claimed to have a TN device. The official press releases from 1998 make references only to a boosted fission device.",

and providing some bogus and clumsy coverup on 14-April when caught with your pants down, does in its own way seriously dilute the credibility of this forum (BRF).

2. I am in no way influenced by RaviCV, and make my own decisions. Further, your asking me to release hypothetical personal correspondences between me and RaviCV constitutes an intrusion upon my personal privacy, dont try that again, you will get a stinging rebuke. The very fact that you have had the temerity to make such a demand, constitutes a serious issue in itself! If you still wish to persistent, please direct your demand through the proper legal channels. I'll manage the rest.

RaviCV can (if he is still around) say what he feels like. It doesn't bind me in any way! as much as Sunil Sainis a.k.a Maverick (who you faithfully parrot in your post) influence or bind me in any way. Incidentally, despite the fact that it might certainly make even more interesting reading than whatever hypothetical personal correspondences I might have had with RaviCV, I haven't and will not ask you to provide transcripts of personal correspondences between you and your friends/accomplices like Maverick (Sunil Sainis ) & Company!

This is because I know the consequences and ramifications of making such demands (under law of the land)! Further, about the issue of personal insinuations and character assassination, do take a look in a mirror and you will see one of the worst offenders!

3. Perhaps you could provide me with some detailed guidelines as to what I should post in future, and, the stances I should adopt! Please be specific and don't waffle around with your words. Placing your worthy guidelines to me in point form with detailed rationales provided, would be most helpful in my "re-education". It will also provide further useful insights into your "wisdom", and your personal agenda!

I will post a more detailed response soon (as much as time permits given its a busy weekend for me). I will try to hasten my reply, though it will take some effort to wade through the drivel you have written, and, provide logical responses to all/most of your points, in the quickest possible time.

Meanwhile, try to be rational (if indeed you are capable of demonstrating such an attribute) and do temper your hysteria!
Last edited by Arun_S on 26 Apr 2008 20:48, edited 2 times in total.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Arun_S wrote: I will try to hasten my reply, though it will take some effort to wade through the drivel you have written, and, provide logical responses to all/most of your points, in the quickest possible time.

Meanwhile, try to be rational (if indeed you are capable of demonstrating such an attribute) and do temper your hysteria!
Arun: Just a view that nothing short of an official release on the failure of the TN test and a view that the current form of the deal is not the deal envisaged in the J18 will satisfy some. Mind you that government has to be only a Congress led one for no matter what anyone says there are political bents in peoples statements.

Perfect knowledge with demonstrable evidence is great and can be proven in a scientific lab, repeatedly but scientists falter many a times, when they have to step out in the real world and deal with peoples' emotions and experiences.

On another note, for the sake of our nation, I hope you are wrong on the view that RC, AK, Sikka et al, lied to the political leadership on the performance of S1. Is there any chance that your information on this issue (of lying/misleading the leadership) is not confirmed?

If I have to further ask you to put a percentage on the above issue, of the correctness of your view, how would you quantify it? I ask this becuase BK does not seem to go that far and hence, I leave the possiblity of a political directive to hide the truth on S1, open.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Arun_S,

Very simply:

1. What makes you say that DAE deceived the political leadership of the day? What proof do you have that the public position of the Indian establishment on the success/lack of success of S1 was not made by the political leadership?

2. Can you concede that the decision to announce the results of S1 such as they are, could have been a joint decision made by the politicians who were busy negotiating to try to stave of full fledged sanctions led by the G7 at the same time that DAE was trying to analyze the results of S1? All of this was happening within days. Today with the benefit of hindsight and the passage of 10 years, words like traitor flow around very easily.

3. Do you concede that any TN program needs a series of tests to validate itself, within fairly quick succession as DAE analyzes the result of the last series of tests? Why was there no further tests done in the 6month to 3 year period after S1? Are you stating that DAE misled the NDA government that they do not need any further testing? What proof do you have if that is the case? Do articles such as Mark Hibbs story have any validity that DAE was pressing GOI certainly within months to test again but was not allowed to for political reasons because of the Talbott-Jaswant talks?

4. How do you know that GOI had not already within a few months after May 1998 decided for then to accept BF warheads as the mainstay of the Indian deterrent and not do further TN testing?

4. Does the above warrant calling the DAE team traitors and a national disgrace?

Separately:

You are entitled to have your strong views on any subject. But when you are a webmaster/admin with the power to ban people and you are also engaging in heated debate with people at the same time, you become judge, jury and executioner at the same time. Plus when you use language such as:
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. I am tired of humoring you, and wasting my time. If you have any further useless questions/objections, take a strong purgative and clear your head
How are people expected to respond? If in turn you are asked to take a purgatory, or there are questions of your personal integrity, there will be immediate thoughts to ban the poster such as this post directed to you:
Arun guruvu garu

Some need to be debated, some entertained, some ignored and yet some need to be banished
This may have resulted in some posters staying away from thread who hold a contrary viewpoint to you out of fear that they may be banned if they run up against increasingly acrimonous exchanges either with you or with posters who support your viewpoint.

Frankly, if you ask me, any admin who decides to participate on this supercharged, superheated thread with a very strong/definite viewpoint should recuse himself from being an administrator for this thread. Participate like an ordinary forum member and be prepared to be banned by another admin just as ordinary members can be banned for personal attacks.

Look, you have done a lot for this forum and your Missile Page shows the amount of dedicated work and sweat you have put into it and continue to put into it. And I admire and respect that a lot. But I cannot keep quiet when for months on end, attacks are launched on DAE on this forum without giving any proof.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Arun_S wrote:
RaviCV can (if he is still around) say what he feels like. It doesn't bind me in any way! as much as Sunil Sainis a.k.a Maverick (who you faithfully parrot in your post) influence or bind me in any way. Incidentally, despite the fact that it might certainly make even more interesting reading than whatever hypothetical personal correspondences I might have had with RaviCV, I haven't and will not ask you to provide transcripts of personal correspondences between you and your friends/accomplices like Maverick (Sunil Sainis ) & Company!
Even though you do not want to divulge your private correspondence with whoever has been telling you that DAE are traitors, I have no hang ups about making public the only one offline exchange that I have had with Maverick on the nuclear issue in which I asked him about his opinion on testing. I am quoting below his entire response sent in an email yesterday, and no, I have not asked him his permission prior to posting simply because his view in his email is consistent with what is expressed in his blog. And if you think that this is somehow all lies, I can forward the relevant email to anyone to prove its bonafides and the date on which it was sent.
Hi LDev,

I am not opposed to people making a public case for more testing. I think that is an important part of the debate on nuclear issues which we *have* to have in India - please understand, the democracy cannot function without such a debate.

All I am asking is that debate be kept away from areas where the DAE cannot respond due to concerns about national security.

If people want to say that DAE should test a full MT yeild TN device they should say that and justify it based on public statements of the DAE alone not on some NPA inspired rubbish.

The DAE does not claim to have actually tested a bomb of the MT variety. That claim was made by BJP's "Sanjaya Baru" clones to people who did know technical details.

The DAE indicated that the S1 test was scalable to 200 kT and that is all we have so far.

If junta on BR wants to do a bigger test for whatever reasons - they should say they want one because the DAE has not tested such a device. That is a credible argument which an average Indian can make.

Acting like they are big important people - who know something "secret" - especially when it is obvious this is false is really stupid.

And insulting big people - in any country - is a bad idea.

I am really sorry it has come to this with BR of all place. I never thought this day would come. I am ashamed of these people.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

Many times i felt that Mr. Arun_S was giving misinformation or misleading(apologize for the strong word) the people who read this forum. I respect him very much so far becoz i was under the impression that all he did/does is for the Indian interest.

If i can quote a few...

1. He told me Agni-TD2 did dog wagging manoeuver to reduce to range from the standard range. There is no clip which showed that and no analyst or knowledgable person held that perception. But for my query, Mr. Arun_S told me that it is based on his personal view and there is nothing to talk further on that...

2. When he told me Kalam said Agni- 2 can go 4000 km, I asked a very specific question did kalam said, for X kg of payload the missile can go to 4000 Km or it is just a general statement. He gave me the reply, yes, he is very sure on that part; he said, with 1 ton payload capacity it can go to 4000km. When i asked for the proof, he ended the discussion..

and there are other instances... now in the current discussion....

3. On 200 - 300 KT yield data...when asked, he said its based on some hypothetical design. I dont know how can some hypothetical design can be showed as Indian TN yield...

4. Now, he made a very bizzare statement that POK-I design yield is 20-25KT and is based on some GoI reports...as there is no report so far he produced, i think he mislead me as well as this forum who followed the discussion...

What is there i'm going to gain by making this post ? All i'm expecting is that if this post could help him to see how people are viewing his some unwanted statements that he commiting again and again and also against the DAE team. I still respect him and I hope that he will understand...
Last edited by Kanson on 27 Apr 2008 00:20, edited 1 time in total.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

ldev wrote:Frankly, if you ask me, any admin who decides to participate on this supercharged, superheated thread with a very strong/definite viewpoint should recuse himself from being an administrator for this thread. Participate like an ordinary forum member and be prepared to be banned by another admin just as ordinary members can be banned for personal attacks.
FWIW, I have not seen in my life at BR (pretty much as long as it could have been) that Arun has banned anyone and very, very rarely, puts what he calls "Admin hat" in red fonts.
Secondly, I am sure you have taken note of Ramana explicitly calling that he would ban people irrespective of BR stature (words to that affect). So, your accusation that Arun is using any privilege other than being webmaster of some sections of BR is rather flimsy.
Having said that, personal attacks and some such notions should always be seen in the context. If the context is as critical as what we are talking about, and when the whole 'system' is playing against the nation itself for the reasons we all (I hope) know of, not everyone can maintain their composure. It can well be argued that an appearance of loss of composure is also beneficial to spread the message effectively.
I hope people are mature enough to understand all this and concentrate on national imperative.
To that end, I see Arun's stand is opening some options for India with a drawback of demoralizing a section of community (namely DAE and some of its past and current leadership, people who allegedly failed). But on the other hand, your stand and maverick's, is basically a feel good, everything is hunky dory, sign on the dotted lines. What is the benefit in that approach rather than castrating India to fit the worldview of certain sections of Indians/Foreigners?
Further, I didn't see where he said he would ban people for debating; just that he will give back in kind. This should not have lost onto you for the incisive logic that you display very often, and of which yours truly is a great admirer.
Last edited by Satya_anveshi on 26 Apr 2008 23:37, edited 1 time in total.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Post by ramdas »

I feel compelled to write here again. I feel there is one reason S-1 as tested was unlikely to have been a full yield optimized TN. At least China and France , probably others in the past seem to have done a "proof of concept" test for radiation implosion with a relatively small amount of fusion fuel before going on to a full scale TN (which was in the MT range in these cases). So, there is a strong possibility that S-1 had similar goals: Test an assembly comprising of a boosted fission primary and a small secondary to validate a boosted fission design and do a proof of concept for radiation implosion. Not damaging nearby villages would have been a valid concern. Also, if a cover up was intended and 8kg Pu was indeed used in S-1, they would have not talked about 8kg Pu being used in any device at all in WOP.

If what I said above is the situation, and this is a likely situation, to have an optimized TN in the arsenal we would require more tests. Just a proof of concept does not amount to having an optimized TN. More(testing) work has to be done.Preventing this is what the deal does by restricting testing and fissile production. So, we are limited to a small number of boosted fission weapons as deterrent. Even if we decide boosted weapons are enough, more fissile material would be required, and we cannot afford to sign the deal
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

Satya_anveshi wrote: Having said that, personal attacks and some such notions should always be seen in the context. If the context is as critical as what we are talking about, and when the whole 'system' is playing against the nation itself for the reasons we all (I hope) know of, not everyone can maintain their composure. It can well be argued that an appearance of loss of composure is also beneficial to spread the message effectively.
sorry for butting in...you say..loosing composure can be used as an excuse to mount personal attacks ? Is that right ? See...If i'm loosing my composure on reading your post..Can the personal attack if I made on you is valid ?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

I hope I am not duplicating anything:

Ashok Parthasarathi :: The 123 doesn’t add up

[quote]
The United States concludes bilateral inter-governmental agreements on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in terms of the provisions of Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, 1954. It has concluded such ‘123 Agreements’ with 24 countries up till now. However, it is only in the case of the 24th — the agreement with India — that both the US government and the Congress here felt the need for the Agreement to be preceded and governed by a special India-specific US Act, the Hyde Act. Unfortunately, it contains a number of restrictive, intrusive and extraneous clauses that have had to be reflected by the US negotiators and accepted by our joint negotiating team of senior officials and nuclear scientists from the Ministry of External Affairs and Department of Atomic Energy in arriving at our 123 Agreement.

The Hyde Act runs into 41 pages of tightly formulated techno-politico-legal text. A careful analysis reveals that 22 of the 41 pages contain at least one, and often more, restrictive clauses or clauses that are deeply intrusive of our sovereignty or security. Some major examples include the clause that the US Government must further restrict transfers to India of technology and equipment to produce enriched uranium, plutonium and heavy water, take every possible measure to get India to stop production of nuclear weapon-making material by a specific date; take all necessary action to ensure India works actively in accordance with US policy to the early conclusion of a multi-lateral treaty on the cessation of production of weapons grade nuclear material.

If we undertake a nuclear test, the entire ‘deal’ will be cancelled. This amounts to getting us ‘covered’ by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) that we have all along refused to sign as it will permanently cripple our vital nuclear weapons programme. The Act also ensures that IAEA safeguards on reactors imported from or fuelled by fuel from the US remain in force in perpetuity — even if the 123 is suspended or terminated.

The 123 Agreement does not pledge or commit the US to a fuel supply guarantee over the life time of even US-origin nuclear reactors purchased by India. Furthermore, that assurance is assigned not to Washington but to the international nuclear regulatory agency, the IAEA, which has no access to or control over sources of supply of fuel. So, in effect, the central issue at the core of India-US civilian nuclear cooperation deal is not committed to by the US government anywhere in the Agreement. Despite the Joint Statement of July 18, 2005, that the US would provide ‘full’ nuclear cooperation — i.e. covering both technology and facilities across all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle — technology transfer to India for enriched uranium fuel, plutonium extraction from spent fuel and heavy water production is denied in the Agreement. Quixotically, it is stated that these three crucially important technologies may be provided to us under the present Agreement, but only pursuant to an amendment to the Agreement made at an indeterminate future date. This, despite transfer of technology and related production facilities for all three critical technologies being contained in the original US 123 Agreement with Japan and South Korea. And those transfers have also been operationalised.

As regards the crucial aspect of plutonium extraction from spent fuel, our 123 Agreement contains a US consent to our extracting plutonium but requires that to do so, New Delhi must spend an estimated Rs 2,000 crore to set up a new national plutonium extraction facility under IAEA safeguards. However, even this is subject to our agreeing with the US on a whole range of “arrangements and proceduresâ€
Last edited by NRao on 27 Apr 2008 00:21, edited 1 time in total.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

>>Secondly, I am sure you have taken note of Ramana explicitly calling that he would ban people irrespective of BR stature (words to that affect). So, your accusation that Arun is using any privilege other than being webmaster of some sections of BR is rather flimsy.

Satya_Anveshi,

Ramana's first warning on this issue AFAIK preceded Arun_S post asking Kanson to "take a purgative" and questioning his personal integrity. Ramana did not respond to this. In this situation can Kanson take it as a green signal that he can respond in kind to Arun_S? Suppose he does and is banned? Can he be absolutely sure that Ramana will not step in and ban him?

That is why I said that the best thing would be for any admin participating heavily in a supercharged discussion to recuse himself from admin responsibilities for that thread.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Perhaps we should continue the nuke topic in another thread? It is interesting, but seems to be tangential to this thread at the granularity at which it is being discussed.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

[quote="Kanson"]sorry for butting in...you say..loosing composure can be used as an excuse to mount personal attacks ? Is that right ?

No. I said, losing composure - although not desirable (implied in not everyone can do it) - should not take the focus away from debating the core and extraordinarily important issues.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Neshant »

> Govt to act fast on sourcing uranium from non-NSG countries

have they been sleeping on the issue all this while?
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

These are the same people who closed Uranium mines because there was a temporary glut.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Neshant wrote:> Govt to act fast on sourcing uranium from non-NSG countries

have they been sleeping on the issue all this while?
Sleeping is too kind a word.

Reactors take years to be designed and more years to build. The amount of fuel and when it is required is well known far ahead of time. That this simple task was not completed and now is being used as an excuse to sign this deal ...................
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Post by Satya_anveshi »

ldev wrote: That is why I said that the best thing would be for any admin participating heavily in a supercharged discussion to recuse himself from admin responsibilities for that thread.
My last on this tantential debate. However, hasn't that been a modus operandi all along? Heck..even on the EJ threads Shiv and Calvin (where is he?) were participating and they had explicitly mentioned that because of their participation they won't be able to ban people. Only non participating admins were taking those decisions. Although I have had my angst with admins during the EJ debate but what is fair must be said.
Yes, people who have been around know that a participating admin will not ban the people for merely holding opposing views/or giving back in kind in a supercharged debate. It is wrong of new people to conclude Arun has admin previlege and not just a webmaster.
Last edited by Satya_anveshi on 27 Apr 2008 01:21, edited 2 times in total.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7101
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Post by shyamd »

Kanson wrote: 2. When he told me Kalam said Agni- 2 can go 4000 km, I asked a very specific question did kalam said, for X kg of payload the missile can go to 4000 Km or it is just a general statement. He gave me the reply, yes, he is very sure on that part; he said, with 1 ton payload capacity it can go to 4000km. When i asked for the proof, he ended the discussion..
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you can check using BR ROCKSIM, which is downloadable, in the Indian space section of BR.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

shyamd wrote:
Kanson wrote: 2. When he told me Kalam said Agni- 2 can go 4000 km, I asked a very specific question did kalam said, for X kg of payload the missile can go to 4000 Km or it is just a general statement. He gave me the reply, yes, he is very sure on that part; he said, with 1 ton payload capacity it can go to 4000km. When i asked for the proof, he ended the discussion..
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you can check using BR ROCKSIM, which is downloadable, in the Indian space section of BR.
Sir...the discussion we had was on "what kalam said on the range of Agni-2", not on rocksim or other things..
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

I had asked this question eons back.. but wasn't read in.

Let say, we successfully boast deceiving CIA on May 11th 1998, and till the news was announced by ABV, was there any information on the web or news report that either Indian govt or its offices or ddm received any question from any of the P5 countries or NPT participant, doubting that India test any nukes?

What I am wanting to find is, let say we announced on May 13th, we did 5 tests.. would the world would have known what happened during 11th? would the richter reading been on a question by P5 NPAs, and gone ballistic.

I am not asking, if we had not done, they would have blown this issue etc.. types.. What I was wanting GoI to have done, is just keeping waiting for a phone call, then answer back saying our PM is on national broadcast now, please tune in..

I just wanted to know, what would have been delay we could have gained those times, in doing more subkilos, in the meanwhile.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Can we compile a list of statements from various US depts on the 123 agreement in the last 6mths. Looks like they are following the internal debate and making statements as and when they want.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Acharya wrote:
Can we compile a list of statements from various US depts on the 123 agreement in the last 6mths. Looks like they are following the internal debate and making statements as and when they want.
It really does not matter.

The US has a game plan that is other than assistance for Indian civilian nuclear energy.

However, I feel that their threats and howls are hollow. The more time goes by the better for Indian strategic assets. The issue of Indian need for (civilian) energy will remain and will have to be solved irrespective of this deal. A real solution for India is the Thorium route, no two ways about that. 20% limit will have to be exceeded, no two ways about that. Etc, etc, etc.

Now coming to the strategic side of the equation .............................I think the US needs to start another thread. And, rename the Act to something more meaningful.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

Sigh I had to break my (promised) silence... Such is the power of BRF.

In simple terms (simpleto that I am, ulike Mavericks who have held PU balls and crafted the designs of bums and protect India with their pompus egos...) This debate boils down to this song

"Bina Badra ke Bijuriaya kaise chemke,
Kaise chemke
koyee puchere hamse" famous hit from movie Bandhan!

Ok before the admins come down on me

Badra here is the fission part
Bijuriaya is the fusion part Dark (sun) Kaise Chemke --> means how could the dark sun glow if there was insufficient fusion, is the question raised by everyone.

At minimum this is seriously lighter interlude into discussions going on war footing. (in Kadana Kuthulam raga) :)
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

NRao wrote:
Acharya wrote: Can we compile a list of statements from various US depts on the 123 agreement in the last 6mths. Looks like they are following the internal debate and making statements as and when they want.
It really does not matter.

The US has a game plan that is other than assistance for Indian civilian nuclear energy.

However, I feel that their threats and howls are hollow. The more time goes by the better for Indian strategic assets. The issue of Indian need for (civilian) energy will remain and will have to be solved irrespective of this deal. A real solution for India is the Thorium route, no two ways about that. 20% limit will have to be exceeded, no two ways about that. Etc, etc, etc.

Now coming to the strategic side of the equation .............................I think the US needs to start another thread. And, rename the Act to something more meaningful.

Boss log while the amrikhans are doing CRE, they are going ahead with this


Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

IF this deal goes thru', then the waste will be handled as follows:
As regards the crucial aspect of plutonium extraction from spent fuel, our 123 Agreement contains a US consent to our extracting plutonium but requires that to do so, New Delhi must spend an estimated Rs 2,000 crore to set up a new national plutonium extraction facility under IAEA safeguards
And, since the US is not going to take back any "waste" India will be the dumping ground for it.

Thorium, it is my understanding, has not such problems of waste.
Locked