Casting doubt on Indian nuclear weapon designs and yields

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 May 2008 21:10

sauravjha wrote:
there is no point in assuming that only soft civilian targets will be the focus during a nuclear war.

IMO you are attributing very dharmic thoughts to war planners - i.e that they are going to aim for and destroy nuclear hardened military/political targets. You may be right - but as I see it - in a nuclear war it is better to go all out and do as much deadly damage as possible, civilian or not. No attack from any of our sweet neighbors is going to spare civilians, and if they realize that any efforts at targeting Indian leaders in hidden and hardened targets may fail miserably, they will go wild and kill as much as they can.

So once the first nuke falls it is better to use up most of your nukes in an indiscriminate killer strike. If you kill enough of society - the hidden leaders will feel the pain. No need to worry about hardened targets. Just kill whatever you can.

This becomes even more important with a nation in which nobody has any confidence in anyone else - in which the common people, the leaders and the military largely believe that nukes won't work, missiles wont hit targets, leaders are traitors etc. If all those lousy things are going to happen there are two choices.

1) Do nothing
2) Do maximum possible damage

I believe the latter choice is better.IMO

sauravjha · Post by **sauravjha** » 22 May 2008 21:19

IMO you are attributing very dharmic thoughts to war planners - i.e that they are going to aim for and destroy nuclear hardened military/political targets.

.

of course I am not . I am saying both military and civilian targets will be the focus. which part of my post did you interpret as not targetting civilian targets? here is what I wrote on the last page.

sauravjha wrote
don't think the military planner has this luxury . when you become a nuke state , you have to take into account all kinds of targets including nuke hardened structures. Your line of thinking is also fallacious because it assumes that all six warheads will reach the target , a luxury we certainly won't have in the near future.

and

there is no point in assuming that only soft civilian targets will be the focus during a nuclear war.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 May 2008 21:22

Sauravjha - you added the other part after I started replying to your post I think - I saw your edited message after I posted my reply.

sauravjha · Post by **sauravjha** » 22 May 2008 21:26

So once the first nuke falls it is better to use up most of your nukes in an indiscriminate killer strike. If you kill enough of society - the hidden leaders will feel the pain. No need to worry about hardened targets. Just kill whatever you can.

Absolutely not . Do you expect an uprising in the middle of a push button nuclear war against leaders stowed away in an underground bunker ?
Not happening . In the aftermath if the shitty leaders can indeed be dethroned by a population reeling from nuclear war , great.

your points are again fallacious , because it is looking only at the damage that you will be doing to the enemy , not at what the enemy's forces will be doing to you. Your post also seems to suggest that that we will absorb a full strike from the enemy and then retaliate , when the enemy has nothing left. Sorry, that's not how it works.

Taking out the enemies warfighting potential and leadership is top of the list . to minimize damage to yourself.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 May 2008 21:35

Nuclear war IMO is unwinnable if two nations are able to nuke each other significantly.

In theory - let us imagine that Lesotho develops nuclear weapons and starts a war with the US. In that war Lesotho destroys Washington DC, New York, LA and Chicago.

The US wipes out Lesotho.

I just wonder if that means "victory" for the US. In relation to Lesotho - yes - one might want to say "The US won"

But I don;t think that is so clear as that. The US would have been grievously injured by Lesotho. The entire world will see the US feeling pain and see Lesotho destroyed.

That will send a signal to the entire world that every one of them stands a chance to get butt kicked by the US and that it is better to be ready with nukes to cause significant pain and impose a huge cost on the US for its "victory"

Now apply that paradigm to any two other nations - even India and China. Even China cannot destroy all of India. Both nations will inflict severe pain on each other and bring themselves down by several notches or move each other back in time by decades- thereby allowing other countries to come up instead.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 May 2008 21:36

As usual the discussion is veering off the intended course into coarse...

1) A claim is made

2) The claim is substantiated by observers who were not particpants in the experiment

or

3) the claim is refuted by observers who were not particpants in the experiment

If the Thermo was tested and then a claim is made that it was a sub kilo ton having failed ( May13 th maal) again

the non partcipants will go thru 2 and 3 process.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 May 2008 21:42

Back to topic.

Supposing Indian nukes did not work as expected. They worked, but underperformed. And we are not going to test anytime soon.

So what? Where's the big deal? The nukes are there (albeit faulty). The missiles are there (albeit somewhat faulty) Who is getting reassured by all this? What does this mean to say China, Pakistan or the US?

Or Lesotho for that matter?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 22 May 2008 21:46

Shiv,
Let's not go down that route before ascertain what capability does in fact exist - or at least such capability as we can ascertain.

sauravjha · Post by **sauravjha** » 22 May 2008 21:49

Nuclear war IMO is unwinnable if two nations are able to nuke each other significantly.

In theory - let us imagine that Lesotho develops nuclear weapons and starts a war with the US. In that war Lesotho destroys Washington DC, New York, LA and Chicago.

The US wipes out Lesotho.

I just wonder if that means "victory" for the US. In relation to Lesotho - yes - one might want to say "The US won"

But I don;t think that is so clear as that. The US would have been grievously injured by Lesotho. The entire world will see the US feeling pain and see Lesotho destroyed.

That will send a signal to the entire world that every one of them stands a chance to get butt kicked by the US and that it is better to be ready with nukes to cause significant pain and impose a huge cost on the US for its "victory"

Now apply that paradigm to any two other nations - even India and China. Even China cannot destroy all of India. Both nations will inflict severe pain on each other and bring themselves down by several notches or move each other back in time by decades- thereby allowing other countries to come up instead.

the world's military industry is based on cynicism and mutual deterrence. Not on some "we are all gonna lose" thought. There won't be a vote before nuclear weapons are used . At some level you have to accept that two State-level establishments are deterring each other and if either state is unable to threaten the other there is no real deterrence.

Also, you are still not looking at minimizing damage to yourself. only thinking about the damage to the enemy.

Both nations will inflict severe pain on each other and bring themselves down by several notches or move each other back in time by decades- thereby allowing other countries to come up instead.

Very quaint but fallacious. Imagine this scenario, '

the chinese will simply take out your C&C and land based nuclear deterrent with a first strike , using big thermonukes. your sea-based deterrent , (assuming it is in place) will then launch 25 kt warheads at civilian targets . not all of them will reach China and the ones that do, will be nothing compared to the next wave by the Chinese, on our population centres. this next wave could have been stopped if our sea based detterent had targetted the chinese leadership and C&C structure.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 May 2008 21:56

Sanjay wrote:Shiv,
Let's not go down that route before ascertain what capability does in fact exist - or at least such capability as we can ascertain.

No doubt about this. But the reason for going down that route is because it seems that the smoke and mirrors and ambiguity have, for 10 years caused so many people to cast doubt that it gets really interesting to see who else (apart from Indians and BRF) are getting convinced about poor yields and and inaccurate delivery systems.

Do the Chinese believe that the Indian arsenal is incapable? If they do, it's not surprising, given the info that is released. More worrying would be if they found out that it is true. But if the Chinese DO NOT believe it, what could be the reason for their not believing it despite great confidence among many Indians that the nukes won;t work without further testing and that missiles are inaccurate.

What is the Pakistani take on this?

Note that China does not react to India missile tests. Maybe they feel India has nothing to deliver. OTOH, Pakistan retaliates with tit for tat Do they believe Indian nukes work.

Ultimately "deterrence" is a philosophy that seeks to create a particular state of mind in an adversary. What state of mind has India created? And if we know that, what are the reasons for the adversary feeling that way?

sauravjha · Post by **sauravjha** » 22 May 2008 21:59

Ultimately "deterrence" is a philosophy that seeks to create a particular state of mind in an adversary. What state of mind has India created? And if we know that, what are the reasons for the adversary feeling that way?

it's not just about a state of mind , but numbers and yields . if the asymmetry becomes too great , then you are simply handing over the cards to your enemy . who can then choose to strike at a time and place of his own.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 May 2008 22:00

Is deterrence victory?

Under what circumstances does someone win a nuclear war?

satya · Post by **satya** » 22 May 2008 22:01

Supposing Indian nukes did not work as expected. They worked, but underperformed. And we are not going to test anytime soon.

So what? Where's the big deal? The nukes are there (albeit faulty). The missiles are there (albeit somewhat faulty) Who is getting reassured by all this? What does this mean to say China, Pakistan or the US?

Or Lesotho for that matter?

NoKo's nuke test was considered a failure yet US didnt try to take advantage of it ( apart from PRC's military support to NoKo as a factor ).

Thing with nukes is unless the opponent is 100% sure tht ur nukes are dud , he wont call ur bluff a bluff .So detterence still holds.

But it doesnt mean he will not try to test ur detterence by means of a conventional coflict where the threshold of use of nuclear weapons will be raised by the opponent just to see if u r sure about ur nukes or not ( backdoor communication will tell him if its there or not there during conflict ) .

In such a scenario , we can consider Kargil war as one such conflict to test the detterence ( it didnt happen but possibility was always there ).

JMTs

satya · Post by **satya** » 22 May 2008 22:05

Is deterrence victory?

yes & no.

yes for states like TSP

no for nation like India

Under what circumstances does someone win a nuclear war?

Annihilation of your opponent coupled with survival of your nation-state even on smaller scale but survival . Anything below cant be considered victory

Random thoughts only.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 22 May 2008 22:09

Shiv, in 1998 PRC said it would take approx 10 years for India to have - based on the POK-2 tests alone - a viable deterrent against them.

They don't react because they've been viewing us as a NWS before 1998 - hence their refusal to apply their NFU policy against NNWS to us.

The also don't react because they are a mature country.

But - so far nobody has scientifically done a think to refute the tests on at least not as far as this thread is concerned.

Unlike virtually any other nuclear establishment, India's scientists went nearly everywhere to debate, refute and engage. Just implying that they are dishonest does nothing to refute their arguments !

I'll admit that doubt may exist regarding the TN design, but again, have the yields actually been refuted ?

How much of this debate is that the 1998 tests were the first tests conducted in the internet age - and the first by a country now emerging into the scientific frontline ?

Nobody questions the inconsistencies by the naysayers (note how the esteemed Terry Wallace, beloved of Ashley Tellis and co, flip flopped on the yield of POK-1 on the basis of what fitted his analysis).

As I say, the strongest critique I heard on the S-1 yield was based almost entirely on shaft depth. The mathematics do not seem to bear this out at first glance.

One thing forum members should note, S-1 had a boosted-fission primary that worked. Do not exclude boosted-fission weapons from calculations. Boosted-fission designs can reach very substantial yields and I have yet to see a cogent argument refuting the scalability of India's fission and boosted-fission designs.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 May 2008 22:10

wise people choose their yields based on CEP of the weapon. in 50s and 60s
when CEP was like 1-2km big warheads of size 1-2MT were fairly common.
PRC also allegedly equipped its silo based assets with big 2-5 MT unitary
warheads to compensate for more CEP compared to the two superpowers.

for 100m CEP, people are using 250-350KT yields. since our guidance
systems will be lagging that of superpowers , I think 250+ KT is a must
to cause some considerable damage.

a 25kt might be ok for a military site but is certainly not a countercity
weapon.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 22 May 2008 22:15

Singha, just trust me when I say that 25KT will level the better part of most cities and 50KT would have done even more.

IIRC Poseidon was deployed with 14 50KT warheads - each deemed capable of taking out Leningrad.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 May 2008 22:18

does anyone know what kind of warheads the more sdre types like UK
and France use on their SLBMs ? I assume UK uses its own bomb designs
and not just buying W88 ?

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 22 May 2008 22:20

Rather than "casting doubt on Indian nuke yields..." this thread should be titled something less negative like "nuke yields ad deterrence: the indian context". The more we run down our own deterrent the more self goals we score, since nuclear weapons are primarily political weapons.

That said, maintaining deterrence requires a systematic and constant verification of and upgrading of our capabilities. While another round of TN tests to dispel any lingering doubts would be optimal, if that is not possible , a serious LIF program has to be initiated.

Regarding POK-II, I frankly feel that not damaging Khetolai would have been an issue. As it is , there was some damage with the yield as it was... something like 200kt would have probably devastated the village. And India is not China or North Korea for that sort of thing to "not matter". By all open source info, things seem to have worked. Of course, a good LIF program is a minimum to enable a systematic scientific verification of our deterrent in the abscence of testing. It will also convince any outside observers that we take nuclear deterrence seriously.

Sanjay: Regarding 25kt devastating the better part of a city., that is untrue. After all Nagasaki was ~22kt and the radius of destruction was 1-2km. About 300kt would be required to devastate the better part of a city. Indeed boosted fission weapons can reach substantial yields, but they waste fissile material and their yield/weight ratios wont be anything like "150kt/300kg'. So, a TN is optimal.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 22 May 2008 22:30

The UK uses a TN design based on a US supplied design. The first UK TN test and some subsequent failed. The UK then based its phase 1 deterrent on very large fission weapons before the US supplied a TN design.

In 2005 there was a documentatry on this in the UK -ITV or Channel 4.

Ramdas, while you are correct regarding 1-2km in Nagasaki remember also that the effects of it were somewhat limited by mountains in the area.

Look at what happened in Hiroshima. 1-2km was radius for complete destruction. There was significant damage elsewhere.

I believe that my choice of language was inappropriate in that what I should have said was that a 25KT weapon would destroy a substantial part of any city and have what I would term devastating effects throughout the bulk of it. I am being subjective in my choice of words.

Take a look at this site: http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/ ... ombing.htm

Not scientific but a very nice synopsis.

Another great site:

http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/5

A superb analysis

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 22 May 2008 22:42

Folks,
Here's a link to BARC's paper on radiochemical analysis of samples after POK2. This can be found on FAS sites also but I have not found anybody refuting it. Even though most of it is gobbeldygook for folks like me, the paper is clear that the yield was 50+10kt. The paper also describes the method they have used to arrive at the results. Can the gurus enlighten why they feel this paper should not be believed from a scientific point of view (after ignoring assumptions such as data was fudged etc)!
TIA.
Saumitra

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 May 2008 22:47

Deterence is 1o times more potent than a victory..

TSP is able to deter us from crossing the LOC for any number of times for any number reasons.

The higher the opportunity cost for not waging a war, the higher the deterence even with failed nukes.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 May 2008 22:57

Sanjay wrote:One thing forum members should note, S-1 had a boosted-fission primary that worked. Do not exclude boosted-fission weapons from calculations. Boosted-fission designs can reach very substantial yields and I have yet to see a cogent argument refuting the scalability of India's fission and boosted-fission designs.

Thats the whole question IMVHO; if S1 worked we say boosted fission device works; but if S1 does not work do we know why? What if primary did not give the expected yield?

Its a all or nothing bluff (just like nuke war I guess).

Meanwhile Shiv has guided the thread away from whether the devices failed or worked to -- forget whether they worked or not; is it enough for deterrence?

Why the change in focus Shiv?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 22 May 2008 23:13

Sanku, that's the one part - primary of S-1 working - that we are as sure as we can be about. More sure than anything else about S-1.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 May 2008 23:15

Sanjay wrote:Sanku, that's the one part - primary of S-1 working - that we are as sure as we can be about. More sure than anything else about S-1.

How? Thats a serious question.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 22 May 2008 23:29

I won't go into more details than this save and except to refer you to the 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2002 discussions BR had on this and the analysis done therein. Almost every conceivable scientific analysis on the tests was taken analysed and dissected.

Basic answer - taking the lowest viable yield estimate for S-1 - then factor in the fact that the primary was between 12KT and 25KT. For any part of that secondary to work, more than likely (I am being cautious in my words) primary had to work more or less to design.

Taking all reports and analysis together, the lowest possible viable yield for achieved for S-1 is about 22KT (naysayer argument accepted in full in other words). Anything lower starts getting into the realms of physical absurdity and ludicrous inconsistency of the naysayer (like wallace with 9-16KT for whole test but based on arbitrary figures with no basis in analysis).

Sanku, I am sorry not to be able to give you a 100% guarantee that the primary worked but the truth is nobody on this forum can and none of us are any more than interested amateurs in our analysis of bomb designs.

My analysis back in 1998, and published in 2000, based on all the then available reports, sources and discussions with some folks with scientific knowledge was that S-1 had a successful primary reaction followed by a partially successful (or partially failed) secondary reaction.

disha · Post by **disha** » 22 May 2008 23:43

Sanku wrote:
Thats the whole question IMVHO; if S1 worked we say boosted fission device works; but if S1 does not work do we know why? What if primary did not give the expected yield?

Sanku, fission devices and boosted fission devices are actually very easy. The complexity is in the triggers! I will go into the details of the mechanism later [when I have time]. In fact, fatman which was dropped on Nagasaki was an implosion type detonation and was tested only previously once! It was also 10% of mass of the littleboy dropped on hiroshima. When the implosion type was tested only once, the yield was actually 2-4 times than the expected yield - so the design was successful and the test was *not* for the design but for the triggers!!!!

So raising doubts on the primary IMVHO is pure and simple wrong.

Note I have said in previous avatars of Nuclear related thread that the challenge is *not* in big bombs. The real challenge is in making *small* bombs. The one lesser than 0.2 KT. Those are harder problems to solve and if you solve for that, you can scale it up.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 22 May 2008 23:45

Why are the engineering standards of acceptance for India's nukes not at the same level as that for other similar Defence products? Isn't reliability in engineered products a function of the level of confidence that comes from physical verification that passes certain statistical expectations of success/failure? We read about the LCA having to pass through various field trials before the armed forces are willing to accept them. Are nukes a "special case", where such processes can take place in the background but the information has to be kept from the public?

If so, then wouldn't the technical competence of the adversary be an important part of how that adversary views Indian deterrence? Countries that have not engineered products (even if in the civilian arena) probably will not give much importance to the nuances of how well engineered the product is. Just the existence of the weapon should suffice.

However, if other competent adversaries see that the Indian weapons do not have the rigourous Quality Assurance that they have given their armies, then does that automatically mean that they are no longer deterred by Indian nukes? Would they take the chance to "test India" if they have a lot to lose and it is peacetime? (answer seems like "no") How about in a war situation? (answer seems like "yes").

In fact, if we take China, the Indian missiles that can reach china are certainly very credible, and it seems unlikely that china will risk getting itself nuked given the high probablity of Indian missiles reaching Chinese soil. However, countries that are geographically distant from India will not be nervous about Indian capabilities unless India overtly proclaims that it has the reach to cause damage.

Overall, the piskology of countries today does not seem to be a studied one of "Has this country engineered its weapons well?" but instead "Do they have a nuclear weapon at all?"

Given the economic interconnectedness today, even taking out a major trading partner of a world power can cause immense pain, so even global reach seems unnecessary.

JMTs

sauravjha · Post by **sauravjha** » 22 May 2008 23:54

Is deterrence victory?

Under what circumstances does someone win a nuclear war?

you win a nuclear war when you deter it on your terms.

And targetting population centres only is a bhikhmanga terrorist strategy , okay for some half-assed Pukistan, not for us. if you wanna play in the big league understand the big boy's game. Arms control treaties are not a mere PR exercise, numbers and yields do count , especially when you are talking about an age where Missile defense is becoming a reality.

places like NORAD can withstand a direct hit by a one megaton weapon . so this notion that 25 kt is okay for command centres, given "great accuracy" is simply wrong. Not to mention that your satellite assets may be taken out along with a first strike , thereby chucking all this CEP business out of the window.

As far as all this talk of "the world won't stand for it" ,
i am sorry but you can't base the defense of the motherland on "globalisation" and "international fraternity". you must plan for the worst on your own and use your existing resources to meet it to whatever level is feasible. And as far as India is concerned, big thermonukes are very much in our reach and in our arsenal.

Chandi Prasaad · Post by **Chandi Prasaad** » 23 May 2008 00:16

shiv wrote:The information I am getting from Uncle Google is confusing - which makes it intriguing:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1512/15120260.htm

Interesting:

The H-bomb issue is crucial

Questions have arisen about the authenticity of the Indian nuclear establishment's claim that a true hydrogen bomb was exploded as part of the Pokhran-II series of tests on May 11.

BUDDHI KOTA SUBBA RAO

.... Chidambaram's explanation was unscientific in another respect. At the press conference, he revealed that the two shafts, one of which contained the fission device and the other the thermonuclear device, were only 1 km apart. In such a close configuration, given the simultaneous detonation of the two nuclear devices, the epicentre from which the shock waves travel will be more like from one location, and the possibility of interference of shock waves is practically nil.

If two stones thrown into a pond of still water fall simultaneously into the water an inch apart from each other, the ripples will be as if only one stone was thrown into the pond. The simultaneous detonation of two nuclear devices at a distance of 1 km, likewise, would show that there was no scope for any shock wave interference of practical value. Thus it is clear that Chidambaram, in his attempts to dispel the doubts on India's first hydrogen bomb test, used scientific jargon and came out with unscientific statements.

ABDUL KALAM, who spoke at the press conference on May 17, claimed that the nuclear tests conferred on the country "a capability to vacate nuclear threats". His remark only ended up vacating the boundary between a political statement and a scientific statement. A political statement can mean many things, but a scientific statement has only one meaning. That is the characteristic of science. Both Chidambaram and Kalam appear to have ignored this.

When a launch by the Department of Space fails, the failure is not hidden from the public. But the Department of Atomic Energy, under the veil of secrecy, is privileged to hide its failures and also to paint failures as grand successes. Such a privilege, it appears, is fully exercised in respect of India's first hydrogen bomb test. It looks like a major S&T scam.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 23 May 2008 00:33

Chandi, Frontline and the author of that article were rabid opponents of the tests. If the gentleman in who I think it is, then there's also a personality clash, disgruntlement and career issues involved.

Subsequent to that article, numerous articles appeared in scientific journals and BARC's inhouse journal thrashing out the points in some depth. If there are issues raised, it is to those we need to look those articles and pick holes in them

But I ask this again - has anyone really successfully rebutted those articles ?

I know that there was a debate with articles going back and forth in 1998-99 but it all died down.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 May 2008 01:41

What can be said now about the S-1 shaft is that it was dug for a 200kt class weapon no matter what its design is. This much is clear.

There are no doubts about the rest of the tests.
The test results by any which way you look confirm that the yields were as stated.

The only issue is was S-1 a 45 kt device or a full up yield weapon?

It matters with regard to inventory and reach of the CMD.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 23 May 2008 01:41

The important issue is not whether H bum worked or not, even after 10 yrs into testing overtly, the conduct of the state has been still a soft state.
Other than making uncle wake up and start screwing us with CRE mission and technology denial regimes, we have not completely realised the Fusion into a postion of strength.

TSP taunts
Bdesh wants
PRC takes
indian territories and assets

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 23 May 2008 01:48

Ramana, I also have concerns about the S-1 shaft, but I am no longer so sure that it was for a 200KT yield. Look at the mathematical equation on p.1 of this thread.

It still means that we are looking at a small primary with a 12-25KT yield and a secondary (with or without the mantle). The primary worked - unless there's something to say otherwise (and as far as I know there isn't).

From what you're suggesting now - and I tend to agree - 45KT was probably achieved and BARC was indeed telling the truth relative to the yield.

This 200KT issue has thrown in a fresh wrangle.

As I say, I am no longer so sure about the S-1 shaft issue, maybe we need to look at mathematical first principles again ?

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 23 May 2008 01:52

Well Said. John Snow.

There was some talk of S. Arabia seeking a nuclear umbrella in response to Iran. In that topic TSP came up, but since every one knows TSP is nuke nude/impotent without the Panda, the next choice was India! India needs to be in a position to provide that cover but if everyone has questions, who will listen to her.

India needs to retest, and the time is now, when the attention of the world is on China (and the threat she represents). The nuclear deal is dead; might as well test the nukes to make threads like this good archival material.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 23 May 2008 01:56

Ramanaji: Once we are convinced that the test results were indeed as stated then we cannot express any doubts on S-1 going purely by open source info.

While it is true that the shaft was dug very deep (for a 200kt weapon), one has to also take into account damage to surrounding villages. The deep shaft was dug around 1982... that was a time when not much would have leaked out even if Khetolai was demolished by the tremors caused by the test - even if it did, we had a govt then that could handle any misuse of Khetolai's plight for propaganda purposes and still press on with weaponization . 1998 was a very different time, with much greater information spread. In such a situation, such sensityvity mattered - the noise that could be made about "displaced people in khetolai" by you know who would have been a big nuisance. As it is, the village suffered damaged structures. A 200kt test would have everbody there temporarily homeless. This is something they had to be sensitive about. Also, what about the shafts for the remaining tests ? All in all, the explanation that they limited the yield of S-1 to 45kt seems credible to me.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 May 2008 02:01

Ramdas, yes and no. What was stated is true but what was stated could be adjusted to what was achieved.

Thats why there was a call for peer review by former DAE head. If PKI et al accepts then its case closed.

Your arguements would make sense if Indian opinion makers were conscientous to observe municipal laws. I find it kind of difficult to believe that they were so solictious of avoiding damage to residential structures of people whom they could compensate anyway.

Chandi Prasaad · Post by **Chandi Prasaad** » 23 May 2008 02:09

Sanjay wrote:Chandi, Frontline and the author of that article were rabid opponents of the tests. If the gentleman in who I think it is, then there's also a personality clash, disgruntlement and career issues involved.

Does his arguments carry weight or his pedigree carry weight?

But that is settled by Shiv's:

For convenience let us assume that everyone - all scientists, all politicians, everyone in the armed forces, all analysts, all members of BRF and indeed all Indians are equally b**nchods who are liars, traitors who would sell India out in exchange for a half-smoked beedi.

So dont argue his pedigree, but instead his reasoning. On reason and science the author is dead pen serious + accurate.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 23 May 2008 02:34

Chandi, in that particular case the pedigree is very important. Apparently, again if it's the same guy I'm thinking about, there was a very ugly row - exceedingly ugly - between him, PKI and RC. Things were said and done that should not have been. There was more than enough blame to go around but I while researching things prior to the 1998 tests, all parties concerned acted irrationally.

Subsequently he used the initial western doubts to say "gotcha!".

Now, you are correct regarding the fact we need to look at the veracity of his concerns and the answer really is to look at the subsequent scientific articles and would suggest doing so before saying his comments are accurate.

His concerns were debated - though of course not specifically naming him - and his arguments rebutted.

But again, read the articles - infact a phenomenal one cowritten by our very own Ramana is on the BRM.

As a point of trivia, PKI never believed that a TN weapon would even be tested ! Remember his India Today comments shortly after the tests ?

To throw the cat among the pigeons, General Sundarji believed that any Indian nuclear deterrent would be based around fission and boosted-fission weapons with yields from 20KT to 150KT. Check out his Blind Men of Hindoostan.

Sundarji, for all his flaws, was fully in tune with the nuclear program and its strengths and weaknesses on a scale few havve achieved since.

Ramana you are 100% right. The TN issue is germaine not so much as to whether we can destroy Beijing with a 150KT boosted-fission warhead - we can. The question is how many warheads can we really generate if we have to use more weapons-grade material for boosted-fission and larger fission weapons.

The potential arsenal then falls from 100-150 weapons to 40-60 weapons.

The other issue we seem to have forgotten is that of the reactor-grade plutonium tests. If those were successful and pre-detonation problems eliminated then things are different. IIRC boosted-fission weapons are able to use reactor-grade plutonium with a low-risk of a pre-detonation problem.

That is another aspect of the tests we have not considered.

Chandi Prasaad · Post by **Chandi Prasaad** » 23 May 2008 02:51

Sanjay wrote:Chandi, Frontline and the author of that article were rabid opponents of the tests. If the gentleman in who I think it is, then there's also a personality clash, disgruntlement and career issues involved.

Subsequent to that article, numerous articles appeared in scientific journals and BARC's inhouse journal thrashing out the points in some depth. If there are issues raised, it is to those we need to look those articles and pick holes in them

But I ask this again - has anyone really successfully rebutted those articles ?

With a bar set that high, pray tell us who has till date really successfully rebutted any article(s) on Indian nuclear test/weapons?

To successfully rebutt one needs data. And all data available is from selected secretive dropping by top scientists. The rest of the world can skrimage and score broweni points with those select dropping and still come to no successfull rebuttal to any article. The drama akin to Dog chasing its tail.