Casting doubt on Indian nuclear weapon designs and yields

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

Post by Arun_S »

geeth wrote:I have one question for Arun-S:

if you believe S1 failed why do you accept AGNI configuration with MIRVs of 150 Kg weight?
"Haathi kay daant khanay kay aur, Dikhanay kay aur".

Besides Agni confign shows 2 different things. MIRV of 150Kg are medium yield fission weapons, not S1 based TN.

And the TN confign shown are S1 based (thus a foot print similar to S1). As has been talked, this design is untested because it is very likely a dign fixed for the flaws, with degree of confidence that may or may not be deterring to people who matter. Apart fron overt testing having a LIF with qualified 2 separate teams will make this TN weapon close to a proven weapon.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

I know the US had two separate design labs and the Russians are themselves notorious for this technique.
But what about the UK, and more importantly France and China - did they have two design teams?
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

The Tribune

Thursday, September 3, 1998



Seismic feedback on N-tests
High rating for Indian technology
by O. P. Sabherwal

GLOBAL seismic systems which monitor nuclear explosions have been assiduously at work to meet the challenge of assessing the Indian nuclear tests at Pokhran, particularly the three simultaneous explosions of May 11 — interpreting and updating data which initially showed wide divergencies. “It was the most intensive bout of nuclear testing since 1991, when the USA and France conducted seven and six tests respectively,â€
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4513
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Post by Tanaji »

Whats with the attribution to Microsoft Internet Explorer in the Sabharwal article?
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Internet Explorer is the name of the Binary/product, like firefox, opera or safari. Besides, it is not yet common practise to write "According to web links pulled up by Google....".

If the author had said Microsoft Encarta at least it would make sense.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

A reference to MSN perhaps?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

rocky wrote: Shiv, your lengthy post on why the time to test is over - comes across to me as the behaviour of a person pretending to be fast asleep - it's impossible to wake such a person up.

We can even test before the 123 act is formally signed - test and declare weapons refinement as an excuse like France did.

Let's get perform an exercise. If we test, say tomorrow, what will the world do. Please don't get off into tangents and post wailing posts. Be very specific, post a thorough analysis backed with logic.
rocky - by goading me like my teachers used to do when I really was asleep in class - you will not get anything that you will like better out of me. That post was the limit of my analytical ability and I am not reserving some gem to produce after a sarcastic prod to make you feel happier.

If you can come up with a better analysis please do so. But it will remain hot air until India actually tests. That is the day on which everyone can come back and tell me how stupid I am. And I will gladly swallow that, knowing that I was wrong. As long as India doesn't test any and every word i have written in that post may remain true - sad as it may be for those who claim that a test can be done "any time". Of course it can be done "any time" I did write that didn't I? But it won't.

I look around me with my sleepy eyes in India and I can see absolutely no urgency to test any nuclear devices and i am not about to wake up and start goading people to ask them why they don't feel like testing. You should be doing that if you think I am wrong or pretending to be asleep.

I think you can understand that. Maybe we don't need to discuss this matter with each other - to save you the need to schoolmarm me and to save me the need to think up clever repartees. We will just disagree and be done with it.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

I was clearly not born with all the knowledge, and as I have learned and analyzed subject matter my assessment has changed. My current assessment is result of data that I have correlated and sanitized from various public, on-record and off-record sources over the years. A reasonably thorough understanding of science and engineering and serious research effort allows me to validate, correlate, connect dots and extrapolate at reasonably good confidence. One can get a sense of my precision & comprehension from my missile articles. That some times preempt official press releases.

Last year I promised Capt Bharat Verma/IDR an article on Indian Nuclear weapons to enlighten people on the Indian Capability. That was a serious personal research campaign. As I got deeper in my research, I had to call-off writing that paper, and apologized to IDR in ability to provide that paper. One is free to take an assessment of my position at face value of a newbie or Greenspan, totally depending on one’s understanding of the subject matter / the content / my credibility. "Samajdaar ko Ishara Kaafee".

Now consider the following:
  • 1. Assume 45 kT was true.
  • 2. Why the yield was set to 45kT given that DAE knew it will have only one shot at the nuclear test series? One can get 45kT using a one stage weapon, you don’t need 2, 3 stage design for that.
  • 3. Does 45kt by itself has any value, Political, Strategic, Military or Economic?
  • 4. Why do countries go for a test that is few times above 45kT? Because they want to prove their capability beyond shadow of doubt. Once a country goes beyond 200kT there is no other possibility but a demonstrated TN weapons capability. (Recall that Pok-II test objective was geopolitical).
  • 5. Scale up of 45 kT to 4.5 times higher value (200 kT) TN yield, on a highly non-linear curve.
    • a) How can DAE/RC claim S1 will scale to 200kT unless it has traversed the entire non-linear curve when S1 is at the bottom of the curve? (Unless the design came from somewhere else, a possibility that we can discount for this argument).
    • b) How do you traverse the complete non-linear path to reach the upper point? How do you achieve that mastery?
    • c) 45kt yield on its own is useless, and without travelling the entire curve/chain it is impossible to know how to scale up or scale down.
I will be obliged and enlightened.

As for structural changes required in DEA to be useful in being able to deliver credible nuclear options, that is a very logical way to pursue once you understand the weakness that delivered the prior fiasco, and contrast that with how other countries have organized themselves.
and more surprising suggestion that the DAE does not have any form of stewardship for its weapons.
Very simple. Nuclear stewardship program requires LIF, and LIF requires facility & energy banks that are huge in size. That is impossible to hide. A country building credible deterrence will in fact actively show that capability overtly.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Guys: Listen to what Arun is saying, he is not the only one.
The ‘Shakti’ series of tests in 1998 proved only that the miniaturized 20 kiloton (KT) fission bomb design, first tested in 1974, is militarily serviceable. All the other weapon designs – the boosted fission and, especially, the thermonuclear – due to their ‘simultaneous triggering’ in Pokhran, produced confused multi-test explosion data sufficient to conclude that the fusion design, for instance, did not work because of partial thermonuclear burn – authoritatively established by crater morphology and excessive traces of lithium in the rock and soil samples extracted from the L-shaped tunnel deep underneath the Thar desert where the devices exploded. Moreover, data from just one, and that too failed, test involving the decisive thermonuclear device is simply insufficient to write a software package simulating fusion reaction, leave alone help in developing new and more innovative designs for thermonuclear warheads/weapons of different power-to-yield ratios to fit varying missile nose-cone geometries.
Blighted strategic future - BHARAT KARNAD

Arun_S: I can probably guess, why you have decided to go the nuclear option on DAE leaders. However, I still hold the naive belief that you might be wrong, on the misled part.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

January 2000
Former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman P.K. Iyengar has separate meetings with India's National Security Advisor, Brajesh Mishra, Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, and Chief of Army Staff, Ved Malik. Iyengar advises them against signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and makes a case for the resumption of nuclear testing. Iyengar makes the case that additional tests are necessary to validate the devices tested in 1998. Further, India's thermonuclear test was most likely a dud; without tests, Indian scientists will be unable to rectify the design flaws, or modify or refine it. Neither would Indian scientists be able to improve the thermonuclear device's 'power-to-yield' characteristics, or upscale the design to generate larger yields. Iyengar also argues that in the absence of further testing, India will also be unable to design newer types of nuclear warheads; now would it have sufficient data for benchmarking computer simulations.
Early January 2000
The Director General, Defense Planning Staff, in the Ministry of Defense, produces a paper for the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee, which casts doubts on the government's proposed move to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The paper questions whether India has the capability to produce a fission device of more than 50kt yield; and if this were indeed the case, then it would have negative repercussions on the credibility of India's proposed nuclear deterrent. The paper outlines the military's requirement for a 200-250kt thermonuclear device; which should be tested to as proof of an "effective" credible minimum deterrent. The military also doubts whether nuclear weapons can be deployed in the absence of further testing. The military's misgivings are conveyed by to the defense ministry.
In an interview to the Times of India (Mumbai), former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman M.R. Srinivasan says that India should conduct more nuclear tests, if needed, so that its nuclear scientists could "design more compact nuclear weapons with improved yields." He argues that India should not foreclose its nuclear options because it carried out only one thermonuclear test. Yet Srinivasan admits that the scientists accumulated sufficient data from the six nuclear tests
Addressing scientists in Mumbai, former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairman P.K. Iyengar says that further testing is required if India is to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. Iyengar further notes that India must test a neutron bomb prior to considering signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
—"India Should Test Neutron Bomb, Says AEC Ex-Chief," Times of India (Mumbai), 1 May 2000, in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 11 March 2001, <http://web.lexis-nexis.com>; "India Must Test N-Bomb Before Signing CTBT," Hindu (Chennai), 2 May 2000, <http://hinduonline.com>.
Former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman P.K. Iyengar says that if the Indian government wants to develop a credible minimum deterrent, it cannot sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) now. He says that "many more tests will be needed to try out different designs like boosted fission device, the two-stage fusion device and the neutron bomb which India is yet to test." Iyengar remarks that India's fusion device burned only partially during the test and he doubts whether "complete burn wave was established." Therefore he is skeptical of claims that the scientists have collected sufficient data from only one test of a fusion device. Iyengar adds that the government must address the issue of "safe and reliable command and control" system before it proceeds with signing the CTBT.
Delivering a lecture on the subject of "Role of Physics in National Security" in Mumbai, former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairman P.K. Iyengar underscores the importance of a white paper that would compare India's nuclear capabilities with its adversaries. Further he says that a "peer review" of Pokhran tests is necessary for the development of a credible minimum deterrent. Iyengar adds that a research and development review mechanism should be in place in India. He remarks that "the entire system of nuclear deterrence should be put at the disposal of the armed forces to ensure near-instant retaliation in case of an attack." Talking to reporters after lecture, Iyengar says that the peer review should be "entrusted only to scientists." The AEC Chairman R. Chidambaram says that India has "the capability to design and fabricate a range of nuclear weapons from sub-kiloton yield to 100 kilotons." He reiterates that India's nuclear tests were "carefully planned and all scientific objectives were fully achieved." Chidambaram remarks that nuclear physics can contribute to national defense in other areas such as cyber-warfare and bio-terrorism.
August 2000
In a meeting arranged to clear the Indian military's doubts about the credibility of the nuclear warhead designs tested in May 1998, nuclear scientists Kakodkar and Chidambaram assure senior military officers that the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) is capable of designing high-yield, even megaton fusion weapons, and 'enhanced radiation' or neutron weapons without further testing. However, the Indian military remains unconvinced.
22 August 2000
Former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Director P.K. Iyengar makes the case that the thermonuclear device tested in May 1998 most likely attained partial burn; less than "10 percent" of the fusion core was burnt, which led to a lot of tritium being produced. The presence of tritium in the collapsed test shaft is one of the surest indicators of partial thermonuclear burn. Iyengar further argues, "The crucial question is not what the total yield of the device was, but what was the ratio of fission to fusion energy...for a given total yield, the greater the fraction of the fusion energy, the more efficient is your thermonuclear device." In India's case however, the estimated ratio was "around 1:1, and no one has so far, to my knowledge either publicly or privately disputed that number."
Nuclear Chronology: 2000
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Nuclear Nuances : Credible Deterrent Through Testing : By P K IYENGAR, August 2000
The crucial question is not what the total yield of the device was, but what was the ratio of fission energy to fusion energy? Clearly, for a given total yield, the greater the fraction of the fusion energy, the more efficient is your thermonuclear device. In my opinion, that ratio musts have been around 1:1, and no one has so far, to my knowledge either publicly or privately, disputed that number. Therefore, by my estimate, the fusion yield could not have been more than 20 kt. Further, it seems likely that a fission `spark-plug' was used at the centre of the fusion core, in which case the actual fusion yield would have been even less.

Sticking to the larger number of a 20 kt fusion yield, one can easily calculate that the amount of LiD fusion material needed would be only around 400 grams or around 500 cc. This is a very small size for the fusion core, and the actual core used must certainly have been much larger. This suggests that the fusion core burnt only partially, perhaps less than 10 per cent. This can easily be checked; if the burn was only partial, there should have been a lot of tritium produced, which should have been detected after the explosions.

In such a complex system as a two-stage thermonuclear device, getting any burn at all is a credit to the abilities of the scientists and engineers of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). However, a thermonuclear device that only burns partially is certainly inefficient. Logically and scientifically, the next step would be to improve the design of the device to achieve greater efficiency. This is particularly important from the point of view of a weaponisation programme.

The government has declared a policy of maintaining a minimum nuclear deterrent. Nuclear deterrence means that we have a demonstrable nuclear capability that deters a potential adversary from attacking us. For us to have a nuclear deterrent we must weaponise. For this, we must have fusion weapons, because these are smaller, lighter, and more efficient than fission weapons. But for that deterrent to be viable, we must master all aspects of thermonuclear weapons, and demonstrate that expertise not just in one, but many thermonuclear designs, particularly those of greater efficiency.

Whether that should include a neutron bomb or not, is not of the essence. In a neutron bomb, one establishes a thermonuclear burn by igniting only a part of the core, and making the burn propagate. This is the crux of the matter in designing an efficient thermonuclear device. One may not have a neutron bomb in one's arsenal, but it would strengthen our abilities if we successfully tested one.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

ShauryaT wrote:Guys: Listen to what Arun is saying, he is not the only one.
The ‘Shakti’ series of tests in 1998 proved only that the miniaturized 20 kiloton (KT) fission bomb design, first tested in 1974, is militarily serviceable. All the other weapon designs – the boosted fission and, especially, the thermonuclear – due to their ‘simultaneous triggering’ in Pokhran, produced confused multi-test explosion data sufficient to conclude that the fusion design, for instance, did not work because of partial thermonuclear burn – authoritatively established by crater morphology and excessive traces of lithium in the rock and soil samples extracted from the L-shaped tunnel deep underneath the Thar desert where the devices exploded. Moreover, data from just one, and that too failed, test involving the decisive thermonuclear device is simply insufficient to write a software package simulating fusion reaction, leave alone help in developing new and more innovative designs for thermonuclear warheads/weapons of different power-to-yield ratios to fit varying missile nose-cone geometries.
Blighted strategic future - BHARAT KARNAD

Arun_S: I can probably guess, why you have decided to go the nuclear option on DAE leaders. However, I still hold the naive belief that you might be wrong, on the misled part.
Sorry ShauryaT, i'm not getting it. You want to naively believe something else but you are asking everyone of this forum to believe the opposite at the starting of the post ? Contradictions ?
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

ShauryaT, you are quoting articles from PKI which talked abt his doubts on Thermonuclear weapon. I have a question for a very long time which I want to share here with all my naivete.

Question is:When he was in the post of Team leader of POK-I and part of POK-I design team, he wrongly calculated the yeild of POK-I and this was established in the previous threads and now being out of the DAE how good his assesments on the TN yeild and its design ?

Just seeing by the way he is speaking in those articles you quoted, he was not given access to the design of TN device. JMT
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Post by merlin »

but simplistic statements like 'we can grow without external investment' just does not cut it.
So are you saying we can't without it? Or that we can't at a high rate without it?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Oh boss this thread does move fast ---

@Disha -- well it might be just me; but translating a ASAT attack on our (sorry for the prior confusion) sats to be a nuclear attack threshold (based on the fact that Sats are useful for missiles) is a really hairy scenario.

IMVHO this is like saying; a conventional attack on rail yards where our Missiles are stored are also grounds for nuclear attack.

Really really hairy; no escalation chain what so ever.....
Last edited by Sanku on 26 May 2008 14:31, edited 2 times in total.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

A note for fellow BRFites.

A month or so ago in the nuclear discussion, some debating partners had expressed apprehension of openly debating with me for fear/risk of getting banned just because I also carried the Webmaster title and Admin privilege. It is another matter that I had NEVER banned anyone just because he/she had opposing view and crossed debating sword with me. NEVER. When I donn Admin powers on BRF it is invariably clearly marked as an Admin action with "Admin Hat On" signature. And of course BR Forum's strength as a debating platform is that it is administered by a group of principled Admins and Webmasters who would balk at improper use of Admin privilege by anyone.

So when this thread started, I wanted to give "Abhay-Daan" (Fearlessness) to people who would like to debate with me as an equal, but rightly or wrongly feared the Admin power I wielded.

Also Admins/webmasters have personal opinions that are not related to their administrative role on BR.

So as an exception I created an ordinary BR Froum user "Chandi Prasaad" to post my perspective. I am sure some of you would have guessed that from the message and style.

So please be aware that I carry both "Arun_S" and "Chandi Prasaad" user handle. BRF does not allow users to post under more than one id's. An exception is herewith made for Admins/Moderators/Webmasters, who may also carry an ordinary user ids/moniker.

Thank You.
-Arun_S {Admin Hat On}
Chandi Prasaad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 11:50
Location: Triveni

Post by Chandi Prasaad »

ShauryaT: Thanks for digging and posting those excerpts. :wink:

The reason for going after the DAE leadership lead by R Chidambrum is that DAE and nuclear weapons have very serious impact in India nation and people, and since Team-X has failed to perform and deliver (in fact that weapons team has shown itself to be way below minimum required competence) , that Team and its methods has to go, else India at risk of more failures that it cant afford anymore.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Post by Singha »

gee and some of us wondering who this clued in gent was...
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Post by abhischekcc »

Arun,

From KhyberDurra to Triveni is a long trek.

How do you do it so fast? :)
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

I captured some Islamic Jinns out here as gift for my Buddhist Tantrik. They give me free ride to straddle time space.

Much more complex than RC's highly non-linear fusion yield scaling curve to get from 45 to 200kT.
p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Post by p_saggu »

I suspected as much and even wrote asking arun to revert back to his old handle. But shiv's post came in between and I deleted the line...
:P
p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Post by p_saggu »

Now on to serious stuff:
Very interesting that this was written...
Arun_S wrote:(Unless the design came from somewhere else, a possibility that we can discount for this argument).
It would be considered unpatriotic to discuss the above, however if india is not testing and correcting its rather minimum and as yet uncredible deterrant, why not.

Another thing here is that, all our leaders (Prime Ministers: Since they directly head the DAE) have passed the buck on to DAE scientists to develop the deterrance and carry on research. But when it came down to funding, there was NEVER enough money given. On the issue of testing they were even worse, citing some international event or the other. Surprisingly the Americans displayed amazing knowledge of India's intentions at critical junctures, and engaged Indian leaders whenever they leaned towards a test, pre-empting any such move.
The current 123 is only one of such moves. It is another matter that the current leadership crisis India finds itself in (And please don't blame Manmohan Singh for this, blame the patriotism of Congress I MPs) does not leave room for bold moves and the tightrope walk that will be required to manage the aftermath of any resumption of testing.

I don't know what will happen after this general elections, Maybe LK Advani will be prime minister, maybe Rahul Gandhi. Who ever comes into office, I hope will place India's interest above all else. And I hope will have the acumen to bite the bullet AND manage its aftermath.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

It would be considered unpatriotic to discuss the above, however if india is not testing and correcting its rather minimum and as yet uncredible deterrant, why not.
Admiral David Jeremiah...

Jeremiah News Conference - CIA
The identification of the Indian nuclear test preparations posed a difficult collection problem and a difficult analytical problem. Their program was an indigenous program. It was not derived from the US, Chinese, Russian or French programs. It was totally within India. And therefore, there were some characteristics difficult to observe.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Post by amit »

p_saggu wrote:I don't know what will happen after this general elections, Maybe LK Advani will be prime minister, maybe Rahul Gandhi. Who ever comes into office, I hope will place India's interest above all else. And I hope will have the acumen to bite the bullet AND manage its aftermath.
P_Saggu,

The point here is what exactly is India's interest as viewed by the vast majority of Indians?

I know every jingo here, including myself, thinks India's interest is best served by testing again, preferably as Arun_S’ avatar said, before the ATV launch which means within the next three years.

However, we'll be kidding ourselves if we think every Indian thinks the same way. (They probably would if they had the perspective that we on BRF have got thanks to the gaan the guru's here have imparted. But that's not the case, unfortunately.)

As the good Doc pointed out there are other issues on the minds of most Indians who think a bum is a bum and missile is a missile and as long as you have them then you're at par with Massa and Uncle Jiang.

We kid ourselves if we think our leaders will rock the boat and invite all manner of pain - Suraj has encapsulated these points, so no need to repeat them - and go for a big bang, unless some unusual events occur in the international landscape.

IMO, as I pointed out in one of the nuclear threads, testing in the immediate medium term - say the next 10, 15 years - will occur only if there's a test by the P5 or there's a some major, major terror related event, like a dirty bomb going off somewhere, which entirely changes the geopolitical stalemate that we have today.

While I would welcome a BJP govt to come to power - if only for cutting down the Karats of this world to their true size - I don't think it will rock the applecart with a new test. (I would love to be proved wrong).

15 years down the line when we become a multi trillion-dollar economy and have a bear hug on Massa and everybody else through trade and other linkages, we can show the middle finger to everybody and test and no one’s going to say a word.

I personally think if China tests tomorrow, all there will be is platitudes and a great sucking sound from the US. China’s economy will chug along at a merry 10 per cent growth. India needs to reach that position before it can break the nuclear stalemate.

JMT and other disclaimers.
Prasenjit Medhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Bangalore

Post by Prasenjit Medhi »

A few words on weapons testing and nukes in general, in between dozing off during my networks course, and paying attention ..

We are all very intelligent people here, but I think there is a tendency to view nuclear weapons as some sort of weapon to end all weapons. Let us be clear that it is another tool of warfare. In ways it may be compared to the tools used to achieve the horrific acts of medieval conquerors, except that now death may dealt from thousands of kilometers away, and within minutes.

I think there will be more tests by nuclear powers, as and when they deem that the weapons in their arsenal, in this case their nuclear weapons, need to be finetuned, their efficacy is in doubt, after a new production run after several decades, or to test new technology such as direct fusion weapons, in the future. Oh, they may get better at hiding their tests, of course.

In the case of India, I dont doubt that the BJP has the will to test should a genuine national security need arise, and that the Congress will not do so either, though with some dithering probably on their part. As for India nuclearizing, as a nation state, we need weapons of war as part of toolset backing up our foreign policy. Nuclear weapons with long range ballistic missiles are an effective tool for power projection, and are one of the milestones that a nation must acquire in today's day and age to presume that it is a great power. Think of nuclear weapons in some ways as a modern equivalent of a fleet of early 20th century battleships, as a tool for the nation's polity.

Always, Bharat Mata ki Jai!
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Kanson wrote:Sorry ShauryaT, i'm not getting it. You want to naively believe something else but you are asking everyone of this forum to believe the opposite at the starting of the post ? Contradictions ?
No, Kanson there is no contradiction. I want to naively believe that RC et al were ordered to lie by the political leadership and that they did convey the accurate performance of S1 to the policital leadership.

I am just being selfish, for, it is too much for my yindoo mind to bear the weight of, what an entire institution may have done?
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4102
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Post by Neela »

Chandi Prasaad wrote:

"Gayee Bhains Paani Main". This chapter is not closed.

The correct assessment is:
"With the current ManMohan Singh government in power for the next 12 months India does not seem to have the political will to test?

After next year's Lok Sabha election all bets are off. This chapter is not closed yet. The fire on the tail of USA gets hotter and hotter as the MMS Govt counts its last few months in power.
"
Sir, that is quite a bold statement to make. Several ifs in between now and this statement. Asssuming all those ifs are acting in your favour, may I humbly ask what concrete manifesto have you seen to make this statement
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Kanson wrote:ShauryaT, you are quoting articles from PKI which talked abt his doubts on Thermonuclear weapon. I have a question for a very long time which I want to share here with all my naivete.

Question is:When he was in the post of Team leader of POK-I and part of POK-I design team, he wrongly calculated the yeild of POK-I and this was established in the previous threads and now being out of the DAE how good his assesments on the TN yeild and its design ?

Just seeing by the way he is speaking in those articles you quoted, he was not given access to the design of TN device. JMT
Would you also doubt RC because, he initially claimed that the fission trigger in the TN was set for a about 12 KT but later said that the fission part was about half of the estimated yield of about 45 KT?

Quite frankly, I do not care what PKI or RC said. My personal view is India needs to test, even if S1 worked perfectly. The only thing, is to time it right (or manufacture the timing - just like the NDA did with the excuse of the Pakistan missile test) and take some precautions, just like the NDA did with RIB program and raised $4 billion at the time to offset the economic impact.

My view is a large nuclear aresenal is a necessary ingredient and is a currency of power. This view is shared by MOST thinking Indian warriors. You can check their records, if you like.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Excuse me folks. I am no one to be questioning people like PK Iyengar. but I was Googling for information and I came up with several interesting findings in links. The facts are too voluminous to post, so I will summarize what I have gathered so far:

Basically the question of producing "Hydrogen bombs" was not solved until a couple of chaps called Teller and Ulam came up with some ideas.

The following is simply the best paper I have on the issue:
http://fas.org/sgp//eprint/cardozo.pdf

To cut a long story short the so called Hydrogen bomb was not referred to as a Hudrogen bomb by "insiders" primarily because most of its yield came from fission. In fact apparently 75% of the 10.4 megaton yield of the US's "Ivy Mike" test came from efficient fission and the rest from fusion.(see http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht17bang.htm )

There are apparently more than one fusion bomb designs but one efficient one ends up squeezing more efficient fission although part of its energy comes from fusion. The idea of using radiation implosion means using a fission outer core compressing a tamper of U238 which acts as a protective covering over core of Lithium Deuteride which does the fusion. But even this Li Deuteride core can have one more fissionable core inside it and this secondary fissionable core also goes off to encourage fusion, but because of the environment it sis in, the innermost fissionable material gets consumed entirely. This way you can have high yields - but most of it comes from fission.

Let me post two quotes from the Cardozo pdf above:

[quote] The two-stage, radiation-implosion, Teller-Ulam superbomb is like
an ecosystem in which nothing is wasted. The pieces fit like a jigsaw
puzzle. Every component contributes to overall yield, often in more
than one way. Oppenheimer declared it “technically so sweetâ€
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

ShauryaT wrote:
Kanson wrote:ShauryaT, you are quoting articles from PKI which talked abt his doubts on Thermonuclear weapon. I have a question for a very long time which I want to share here with all my naivete.

Question is:When he was in the post of Team leader of POK-I and part of POK-I design team, he wrongly calculated the yeild of POK-I and this was established in the previous threads and now being out of the DAE how good his assesments on the TN yeild and its design ?

Just seeing by the way he is speaking in those articles you quoted, he was not given access to the design of TN device. JMT
Would you also doubt RC because, he initially claimed that the fission trigger in the TN was set for a about 12 KT but later said that the fission part was about half of the estimated yield of about 45 KT?

Quite frankly, I do not care what PKI or RC said. My personal view is India needs to test, even if S1 worked perfectly. The only thing, is to time it right (or manufacture the timing - just like the NDA did with the excuse of the Pakistan missile test) and take some precautions, just like the NDA did with RIB program and raised $4 billion at the time to offset the economic impact.

My view is a large nuclear aresenal is a necessary ingredient and is a currency of power. This view is shared by MOST thinking Indian warriors. You can check their records, if you like.
Quite frankly, I do not care what PKI or RC said.
I think the stand you have taken now is more appropriate as per the rules stated in the beginning of this thread. When you started quoting only PKI it seems one sided. I mean you are trying to indicate either one of them (PKI or RC) is a liar.
Now that the NBC report has come out, everyone is talking about it [Pakistan's superiority]. But earlier it was evident to a few of us. In the nuclear scientific community, many of them know this. But outside that group, I think I am the only one who kept saying [that we are no match for Pakistan]. I then persuaded P K Iyengar for almost a year to go public, which he did recently. He was very reluctant and required a lot of coaxing. But I needed him to back what I had been saying because no one was believing me. I knew I was right, but needed an independent corroboration, which Iyengar provided.
Further considering this statement from BK it is not hard to guess what is happening here. Maybe you will understand why i'm saying it is one sided. Samething what BK done to PKI is happening to some people here. When one doesnt have their own mind but prodded to talk they may probably beocme mouthpeice of another one.

Would you also doubt RC because, he initially claimed that the fission trigger in the TN was set for a about 12 KT but later said that the fission part was about half of the estimated yield of about 45 KT?
It will be interesting if you can substantiate that with the transcript.
Last edited by Kanson on 26 May 2008 23:32, edited 1 time in total.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

ShauryaT wrote:The only thing, is to time it right ..
Chinese sub theory didn't help, but was chosen for a3 and unnecessary from my strategic thoughts. UPAvasis #1 failure on strategic front.

They didn't revert (surprizingly even the BJP where silent) when Unkil #1 bush just last week said time is right to talk. When wasn't India talking, and ABV trip et al must be accounted..

Mftring a time isn't going to happen.. when the enemy is already rolling under intl spongie pressure. The tibetian cause is let loose, and again we lost a precious time.

Even Mother Earth didn't like the in-orgnaic adharma by UPAvasis, and dealt a blow to chinese.. perhaps was the right time to test.. to appear like an aftermath of a bigger shake to come to Eartheans.

Chankian strategies must be supported by the realities.. Do we have it ready to test.. then we can mftr the time.. If we dont have it ready, meaning its all BRite talks, then we can QED that, either RC is correct or we don't need the those strategic bums at all.

Also, UPAvasis are not enforcing the infrastructure for testing facilities, and thus ensuring a smooth CRE by bushmen., while mushmen laugh out their hearts.

We need a dedicated thought process happening behind the scene, and make sure we elect a govt that represents those thoughts. We are not united in getting this strategic thing in motion and keeping it in the center of core plan.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

Ah! if someone is extending the invitation by enticing openly with statement like "becoz of you i changed the id"' how can one reject the offer. But, upon disappearing from the discussion when enquired abt the sources i guess nothing new was added. I learnt it is not just me, but so many people asked to substantiate and latest one is from none other than Shiv.

Showing the "abhaya hastha" is that an indication that the time has come for an settlement or it is for an Al-Hudaiba agreement to accept statements like becoz i'm the established mijjile power believe me i'm also the nuclear power ? Dont know what kind of logic is this..Becoz both are doctors, do anyone wish to take prescription from the veterinary doctor for his medical problems ? Or, for a gynaecological problem, will anyone approach ENT specialist as both of them are experts in dealing with "holes" in the body ?

I'm bewildered the way this whole scene is conducted. All i can do is raise my arms and strech myself before the altar praying to have some mercy. If people mistaken that this prayer is for me, no, it for all those readers of this thread/forum.
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Post by Tilak »

But, upon disappearing from the discussion when enquired abt the sources i guess nothing new was added.
Kanson Profile :

Last Posted message : April 26th 2008 ..
:rotfl: . I "guess" monthly posting has its own benefits..

Tilak wrote: 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.
URL

You have a clear agenda. Now here is a thread titled "Casting doubt on ...", but your aim is somewhere else.. And you conveniently pop-up when, you see some information in this case, a post by ShauryaT, within ~minutes. And back to your usual baiting, Hamster wheel routines, and the RTI fatwas :lol:.
Last edited by Tilak on 27 May 2008 02:16, edited 2 times in total.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

Let test how "abhaya hastha" works...
Chandi Prasaad wrote:
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.
:wink:
I was just saying how some people are becoming puppet on the BK's chain. Guess what ? all this could be for this deal. Those who supported the deal, irrespective of their position, their contribution they are attacked. And in that latest series, even Kalam is not spared as he is openly supporting this nuclear deal. Now Chandi Prasaad aka Arun_S specifically used this Subbarao article which talked abt both Kalam and Chidambaram. i.e hiding behind someone's shoulder in carrying out this attack. What a new high the forum has seen, marvelous !
The global network of seismometers that monitors the earth for shock waves from earthquakes and atomic blasts had picked up signals which showed that the yield on May 11 from the triple nuclear explosion was between 10 and 25 kilotons. Therefore, it appeared to experts that the first purported Indian hydrogen bomb test was a test not of a true hydrogen bomb but at best of a boosted fission device. Gregory E. Van der Vink, director of planning at the Incorporated Research Institution for Seismology, who advises the U.S. Congress and the Clinton administration, has been reported as saying: "From Monday's test (May 11, 1998) we have a seismic signal of about 5.4. We think this corresponds roughly to an explosive yield of about 10 to 25 kilotons." More or less the same yield was estimated by Japanese and British scientists. But surprisingly, Indian seismologists announced that the yield from the first Indian hydrogen bomb test was about 50 kilotons. This added to the mystery.
Actually subbarao attempted an psyops by highlighting what non-indian seismologist observed. By the same length he may say sub-kt test never happened as this was not at all detected. Not supprised, when some people down further south affectionately call BUDDHI KOTA SUBBA RAO as BUDDHI ket-ta SUBBA RAO, apologizes.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

Tilak wrote: You have a clear agenda. Now here is a thread titled "Casting doubt on ...", but your aim is somewhere else.. And you conveniently pop-up when, you see some information in this case, a post by ShauryaT, within ~minutes. And back to your usual baiting, Hamster wheel routines, and the RTI fatwas :lol:.
Gentleman, dont you think you are doing the samething what you accuse others of doing. Or, do you want me to pop-up at your convenience ?
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Post by Tilak »

Kanson wrote:I was just saying how some people are becoming puppet on the BK's chain. Guess what ? all this could be for this deal.
Those who supported the deal, irrespective of their position, their contribution they are attacked.
People have the ability to choose sides and be "puppet's" to whoever they choose.Same logic can be applied to you as well. So its the "Deal" eh?, sometimes it does come out unwittingly.. with a little prodding..
And in that latest series, even Kalam is not spared as he is openly supporting this nuclear deal. Now Chandi Prasaad aka Arun_S specifically used this Subbarao article which talked abt both Kalam and Chidambaram. i.e hiding behind someone's shoulder in carrying out this attack. What a new high the forum has seen, marvelous !
>>>This one's to the Galleries ........... Hands on the F5 key boys !!
Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Post by Tilak »

Kanson wrote:
Tilak wrote: You have a clear agenda. Now here is a thread titled "Casting doubt on ...", but your aim is somewhere else.. And you conveniently pop-up when, you see some information in this case, a post by ShauryaT, within ~minutes. And back to your usual baiting, Hamster wheel routines, and the RTI fatwas :lol:.
Gentleman, dont you think you are doing the samething what you accuse others of doing. Or, do you want me to pop-up at your convenience ?
Precisely saar.. But at least, I'm not the proverbial atlas , who has taken upon his shoulders, the sacrifice of rescuing the "forum". Ain't that marvelous ! 8)

:My Last on this topic.. Since Nukkad's always open :
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

Tilak wrote: Precisely saar.. But at least, I'm not the proverbial atlas , who has taken upon his shoulders, the sacrifice of rescuing the "forum". Ain't that marvelous ! 8)

:My Last on this topic:
Indeed, you are marvelous if you are not a puppet. You are mistaken, lighthouse doesnt rescue sailors, it only throws light :wink:
achy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 26 Jan 2008 00:36

Post by achy »

Kanson wrote:If people mistaken that this prayer is for me, no, it for all those readers of this thread/forum.
If you are praying for me , then thanks, but, I dont need it. I am not trying to pick a fight here but you dont have to draw conclusions for others.

Whatever be the purpose of this thread, but almost everyone agrees on strategic and techincal need for more tests. Question is, does the BSP issues trump the strategic and technical need.

Added later:
Although my guess is that for 7-10 years we may postpone the testing giving precedence to BSP issues but after that period BSP issues itself will become the pressing reason for tests. Once, the real 3-way fight for global resources will ensue, we will have no more reason for not to test.
Last edited by achy on 27 May 2008 00:54, edited 1 time in total.
Locked