Casting doubt on Indian nuclear weapon designs and yields

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49648
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 23 May 2008 21:12

Wow a lot of arguements and counter arguements.
A few things first.

- POKII was verified by many methods to be what was stated. That is the absolute minimum capability that was demonstrated.
- The arguement is whether what was stated was the design goal?

- Only uncle and rus have real understanding of the physics of the TN. All others dont hence the many tests.
France ~ 100 tests PRC ~ 45. The French yields are all over the place. Shows that its a real learn by testing program.

HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby HariC » 23 May 2008 22:02

PWOC (Posted without comments) :wink:

**********
{URL link Deleted by Admin.
BRForum does not welcome links to extraneous forums. People are welcome to come to this board to participate in discussion and not ape it in shadow. No one is banned to post here as long as Forum rules are followed. -Arun_S, Admin hat on.}

achy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 26 Jan 2008 00:36

Postby achy » 23 May 2008 22:18

ramana wrote: The arguement is whether what was stated was the design goal?


Ramana, I fail to see why that shd be the complete argument. Let's say that 45 KT was not the design goal. Only way to prove that, using publicly available technical knowledge and data, will be to demonstrate that 45KT TN device is not possible. Nobody has been able to demonstarte that unambiguously. And for arguement's sake, if they are, then it will discredit the entire scientific community and political establishment. Will be the biggest self goal administered.

But, OTOH, if 45KT was indeed the design goal. Then, should we accept the scalability arguement and assume that we have 200 KT TN and only refine it further using computer simulation.

I think, in both case, key takeaway is same and i.e. if 200 KT TN is needed for strategic deterrence, Do we need further testing? In my opinion, we definitely need it. Question is when to test?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 23 May 2008 22:20

achy wrote: Question is when to test?

Now

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

Postby Gerard » 23 May 2008 22:36

testimony of Richard Garwin
The CTBT can be verified with sufficient confidence to prevent any proliferator from developing thermonuclear weapons whether he already possesses fission weapons or develops such weapons clandestinely.
Without nuclear tests of substantial yield, it is difficult to build compact and light fission weapons and essentially impossible to have any confidence in a large-yield two-stage thermonuclear weapon or hydrogen bomb, which can readily be made in the megaton class. Furthermore, even in the yield range accessible to fission weapons, thermonuclear weapons are attractive because of their economy of fissile material, their compact size, and their improved safety.
This limits greatly the destructive power that can be wielded by newly nuclear states such as India and Pakistan.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49648
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 23 May 2008 22:50

Achy, Its not like knowing how to cook rice in a two cup rice cooker and scaling it for the 20 cup cooker. Its much more complex as getting to the core of fundamental physics and understanding the nature of things.

Thanks, ramana

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6315
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 23 May 2008 22:55



Very very selective quotes - psyops or what?

Read it as follows:

That amount of fissile material would suffice for 10 thermonuclear weapons, each of which could be in the megaton class and weigh less than 1000 lbs. However, such H-bomb type weapons would require testing that would be readily detected and would therefore be prevented by the CTBT. This limits greatly the destructive power that can be wielded by newly nuclear states such as India and Pakistan.


What the author states is that sub-kiloton tests from the CTBT angle will be undetected but useless to "scale up" into TN design. And large tests will be definitely detected and hence prevented under CTBT.

I would still say that POK II was a master stroke at several levels. It boxed the other napaki country into a "technology denial" mode. Anyway that is not the purpose of this thread.

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Postby rocky » 24 May 2008 01:49

Well, if there is any time to test, now it is. The yahoos in the neighbourhood have gotten access to new enrichment technology and uranium, and this is so in-your-face proliferation of nuclear technology that India would be smart to conduct tests right now. http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSPEK35813420080523
May 23 (Reuters) - Russia is to build and supply a $1 billion uranium enrichment plant in China, Russia's nuclear chief said on Friday.

The deal will be signed during Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's state visit to Beijing which begins on Friday, said Sergei Kiriyenko, the chief of the Rosatom state nuclear corporation.

satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Postby satyarthi » 24 May 2008 01:57

Is boosted fission easily scalable?

I recall news reports right after the 1998 tests which quoted some scientist saying that they could have easily increased the yield had they put more Tritium.

achy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 26 Jan 2008 00:36

Postby achy » 24 May 2008 02:24

ramana wrote:Achy, Its not like knowing how to cook rice in a two cup rice cooker and scaling it for the 20 cup cooker. Its much more complex as getting to the core of fundamental physics and understanding the nature of things.
Thanks, ramana

Ramana,
Are you saying that we dont have requisite know-how to engineer a 200 KT TN ? or that it is not easily scalable. As you can see they are two very different things and I am confused about what you meant.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49648
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 24 May 2008 02:28

I honestly dont know about the first part. Its the latter I do know- its difficult to scale.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6315
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 24 May 2008 04:23

satyarthi wrote:Is boosted fission easily scalable?

I recall news reports right after the 1998 tests which quoted some scientist saying that they could have easily increased the yield had they put more Tritium.


Fusion boosted fission [FBF] is *not* scalable. The only scalable thing is the Teller-Ullam design which takes a fission based primary [could be a FBF] and uses it to set off a fusion reaction which generates neutron which amplifies fission in the Uranium tamper. So one can have with a staged fission-fusion-fission-fusion and so on to scale it up, though almost all of energy eventually is from fusion . Like the Tsar bomba was scaled all the way up to 100 MT but was actually tested only to 50 MT and *never* entered service.

The problem with say a 50 MT TN device [weapon or otherwise] is that much of the energy is actually radiated out into space!! Plus its size and weight make it useless. Hence 50 MT devices are useless other than for bragging rights.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6315
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 24 May 2008 04:39

ramana wrote:I honestly dont know about the first part. Its the latter I do know- its difficult to scale.


I do believe that we have the know how of going upto 300 Kt. The question I have is why do we need to go beyond 300 kt? Why 1 MT or 2 MT? Here are the reasons:

1. The ratio of accuracy to radiation damage to blast damage generally corresponds to 1:2:4. That is doubling the accuracy, increases the radiation damage four times and the blast damage by 8 times. In other words, a 1 MT war head at 1 KM CEP is as good as a 250 kt weapon at 250 metres CEP. So should the research resources spent behind blasting MT weapons [and associated costs] or increasing the accuracy of the missiles and its testing with almost negligible costs? Given limited resources, increasing accuracy has better pay off.

2. It is known in our neighbourhood, that we have the capability of MIRV *and* accuracy. [Look at the PSLV launch].

I will go later in the reasons why I believe we have the capability to scale upto 300 Kt.

Chandi Prasaad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 11:50
Location: Triveni

Postby Chandi Prasaad » 24 May 2008 05:45

ramana wrote:Achy, Its not like knowing how to cook rice in a two cup rice cooker and scaling it for the 20 cup cooker. Its much more complex as getting to the core of fundamental physics and understanding the nature of things.

Thanks, ramana

Very correct.

One should be very clear about the meaning of scalable in technical and particularly nuclear parlance, and not use the term loosely.

Boosted fission design has its own set of complexities that does not render it linearly scalable. Fusion weapons are even more difficult to scale; both to scale up and more so to scale down. (Pls disabuse yourself to think S1 was scaled down TN, it was plain and simple ------). It become even more complex when one has scales fusion weapon that has tertiary stage material of different enrichment. Thus S1 had fully loaded tertiary stage.

India has understood and mastered boosted fission sufficiently to scale up or down. But a new design with a capable team (much of it is incidentally disintegrated) with significantly different yield than 17kT necessarily require validation either a test shot or LIF.

To scale up a Fusion weapon design, one need to have mastery of Fusion. And as of now only US/Rus has it. India has till date produced embarrassingly small, low single digit kt pure fusion yield, and any claim to mastery of Fusion to be able to scale up, is a fantastic wet dream.

So there are no two ways about it India has to test soon. And it has to test before ATV dives into water. US knows that and that is precisely the reason US wants to eliminate Indian capability (mark my words "capability" which is very different from "Intent") now before ATV hits water. India has no reason or "intent" to fight with US, but US clearly understands that "capability" can change to "intent" when needed. And it will methodically eliminate any chance for any "Capability" to take birth, much before it transforms into "Intent".

People will recall the Gaatha of Raja "Kansh" killing all progeny of "Devaki" at birth to eliminate the possibility of any one of them becoming his "Death". Indian alas do not know the meaning of the Gaathas and how to apply them in daily understanding and be practical.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 24 May 2008 06:41

achy wrote:Shiv, if the intent of this thread is to arrive at conclusion of what is the precise capability of India based on Pok-2, then we are not going to go anywhere. Public data is just not sufficient enough to settle the matter either way.

I am completely in agreement with this as of today.

However, information generates itself out of nothing in an information-vacuum and who am I to stop that?

Apparently a fusion-boosted-fission bomb with a secondary fusion stage cannot be scaled by India, but can be scaled by other nations who have tested these things in the past.

I have been looking at a list of Chinese tests and find that China's last multimegaton test of a thermonuclear device was in 1976. That was their 7th thermonuclear test and all were atmospheric tests.. They did one last underground test of a "650kt - 1Mt" device in 1992.

Most tests after 1976 bar 2 or 3 have been listed as being less than 100 kt, and a large proportion of them are in the 20 to 80 kiloton range.

From this we can conclude that China has reliably achieved thermonuclear capability, reliability, scalability and miniaturization of thermonuclear warheads.

We can also conclude that India needs about 7 to 8 test to reach China's level.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 515
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Postby ramdas » 24 May 2008 07:31

17kt ?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 24 May 2008 07:35

Let me ask a hypothetical question based on thoughts provoked by an article by Gurmeet Kanwal in the India nuclear thread.

http://www.thedailystar.net/pf_story.php?nid=36851

The article pre-supposes all sorts of contingencies and calls for a minimum arsenal of 200 warheads to destroy 8 enemy cities. To my mind the idea here seems to be to assume that 90% of the warheads will fail to launch, reach, or do their work over the target for some reason or other.

My question is, what if India were able to stockpile 500 warheads, and not worry about testing in the near to medium term future. In what way would this affect deterrence or any other geopolitical goal? Why would yields or scalability matter at all? For a goal of 8 citiies - 500 warheads - even of 15 kilotons, with a 90% failure rate will ensure that 6 Hiroshima size bombs will hit each targeted city.

Where is the need to test any further if this goal is acheivable?

sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Postby sauravjha » 24 May 2008 08:57

2. It is known in our neighbourhood, that we have the capability of MIRV *and* accuracy. [Look at the PSLV launch].


my dear friend you surely know that inserting the MIRV bus into the correct orbit is hardly the whole picture. as I have written before this CEP stuff will be rendered useless given the fact that a first strike on us will certainly try to take out our satellite guidance assets. the reason why MIRVED missiles aren't carrying I MT warheads on a regular basis is because , MIRVing stuff like this ain't easy .. as you would well appreciate. of course there is a multitude of scenarios to deal with and a at leat 3-4 different yield weapons are required.

sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Postby sauravjha » 24 May 2008 09:15

My question is, what if India were able to stockpile 500 warheads, and not worry about testing in the near to medium term future. In what way would this affect deterrence or any other geopolitical goal? Why would yields or scalability matter at all? For a goal of 8 citiies - 500 warheads - even of 15 kilotons, with a 90% failure rate will ensure that 6 Hiroshima size bombs will hit each targeted city.

Where is the need to test any further if this goal is acheivable?


there are plenty of issues here
a) the *stockpile* itself will have to be sample tested , obviously.
b) this figure of 8 cities show that you are focussed on a single adversary or on 8 different cities in different parts of the world . that is hardly anything.
c) "6 reliable bombs" - who are we kidding? so we are going to face down enemies with megaton devices with six hiroshima type bombs , just because some people believe that noko has done so.?

these scenarios are typical of the modern day Indian psyche. it assumes that everybody is a scaredy cat , nay everybody is a scaredy cat like the U.S and does not have the balls to lose anything , because globalisation has brought prosperity everywhere. this whole question and scenario is nonsensical and frankly speaking if anybody seriously believes this, then they know nothing about how deterrence works. the question is again not about winning or losing . it's also about minimizing damage not on a scoreboard but in reality.

if a nuke war starts , for any reason , including an accidental launch , it is the duty of the war planner to ensure that damage is minimized to his own country and that necessarily means taking out the enemy's warfighting potential and 6 hiroshima type devices won't do anything.

a war planner holding unreliable nukes is left in the most unenviable position ever. On the priority list of targets , he just won't know what to go with and when . there are never enough weapons on readiness mode when a war starts. not all your SSBNs will be on patrol, not all your rail-mobile ICBMs, will be out of their yards etc.


A credible minimum deterrent requires even more testing and very decent yields for it to be credible . when you have decided to keep your nuclear forces at a credible minimum , they must only have a 10 per cent failure rate and should have yields far in excess of hiroshima type devices.
Last edited by sauravjha on 24 May 2008 10:22, edited 3 times in total.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6315
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 24 May 2008 09:21

sauravjha wrote:
2. It is known in our neighbourhood, that we have the capability of MIRV *and* accuracy. [Look at the PSLV launch].


... as I have written before this CEP stuff will be rendered useless given the fact that a first strike on us will certainly try to take out our satellite guidance assets.


Then test an ASAT weapon, announce that any Indian satellite downed will be considered as "first strike". On losing a single satellite asset, immediately launch several ASATs and take the enemy ASATs out, immediately launch remaining nukes [either use them or loose them] and they need not be accurate since they will be targeting cities. Also have a constellation of satellites at various orbits.

Of course we can always sit down and cry when one sat goes down.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2900
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Postby vera_k » 24 May 2008 09:22

shiv wrote:For a goal of 8 citiies - 500 warheads - even of 15 kilotons, with a 90% failure rate will ensure that 6 Hiroshima size bombs will hit each targeted city.

Where is the need to test any further if this goal is acheivable?


This assumes that an enemy will be deterred by the prospect of losing 8 cities. This is a good assumption when considering the Western powers.

But is this a good assumption seeing how the Chinese have been willing to sacrifice millions of their citizens for political control?

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6315
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 24 May 2008 09:25

vera_k wrote:
shiv wrote:For a goal of 8 citiies - 500 warheads - even of 15 kilotons, with a 90% failure rate will ensure that 6 Hiroshima size bombs will hit each targeted city.

Where is the need to test any further if this goal is acheivable?


This assumes that an enemy will be deterred by the prospect of losing 8 cities. This is a good assumption when considering the Western powers.

But is this a good assumption seeing how the Chinese have been willing to sacrifice millions of their citizens for political control?

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html


Proposing MAD? If they were so careless about their own citizens, why do not we have them in a nuke war with say US?

sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Postby sauravjha » 24 May 2008 09:27

Then test an ASAT weapon, announce that any Indian satellite downed will be considered as "first strike". On losing a single satellite asset, immediately launch several ASATs and take the enemy ASATs out, immediately launch remaining nukes [either use them or loose them] and they need not be accurate since they will be targeting cities. Also have a constellation of satellites at various orbits.

Of course we can always sit down and cry when one sat goes dow



so basically be on a hair trigger at the prospect of an ASAT launch. Nice , i like your way of thinking , but it breeds instability. and if the warheads are indeed inaccurate they need larger yields . your scenario once again leaves out the prospect of the enemy's counter-strike as well.
Last edited by sauravjha on 24 May 2008 10:17, edited 1 time in total.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2900
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Postby vera_k » 24 May 2008 09:30

disha wrote:Proposing MAD? If they were so careless about their own citizens, why do not we have them in a nuke war with say US?


China is deterred because the US can destroy them many times over. The US is deterred because it is unwilling to lose a single city to the Chinese.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1193
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Postby geeth » 24 May 2008 10:26

>>>For this thread the caliber of the person making the claim does not count; only arguments do.

>>>And RCs claims have been challenged; the onus to prove them exists purely on the basis of technical arguments.

This is the bullcrap going on here for sometime. First, the person who argues DECIDES that RC is wrong and is lying. Next he puts up some quotes from someone else or asks some vague questions without having any info / data to substantiate it. 'calibre' should be viewed in this context - i.e., an eminent scientist, the topmost one that is, declares that the device is a success. It is disputed by someone - who is this someone? He doesn't know what went on and asks questions which at best have value for the purpose of debate onlee.. look at this argument below - you will understand what I am talking about.

QUOTE

Scaleable to 200kt claim of RC is to give an example, similar to LCA/Kaveri engine. Let us say LCA/Kaveri is designed for Mach 1.4/18kN, but during the first test only the engine starter (primary stage of TN) fired up correctly generating 200kWatt but the much boasted Kaveri turbine engine only gave 2kN thrust (against 18kN) with the afterburner ON (let us assume for the moment Kaveri has an Afterburner) (the 3rd stage of TN) with the afterburner accounting for 1.5kN thrust out of 2kN.

Now if the chief designer of Kaveri engine press conference claims that we limited the engine test at 2kN, due to safety of fuel browser that was at the posterior of the engine, and that the engine is scalable to 18kN. That is of course true because that hulk of 1000 kg metal is in principal designed for 18kN thrust, and finally when all redesigns and foreign collaboration is done will generate a thrust close to the planned 18kN. But no DDM presswalla asked the Naked Emperor how will he in the first place get Kaveri turbine to generate the 12kN pure turbine thrust before that 18kN (with Afterburner) engine can be realized? There are many rounds of sweat and agony before the turbine perform to 12kN at all altitudes and with airframe integrated before that promised land of Moses is seen by the desert wandering tribe of Israel? But this Moses promises us the honey sweet water of Jorden will be at our doorstep when we wake up next morning!

UNQUOTE

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6315
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 24 May 2008 10:40

vera_k wrote:
disha wrote:Proposing MAD? If they were so careless about their own citizens, why do not we have them in a nuke war with say US?


China is deterred because the US can destroy them many times over. The US is deterred because it is unwilling to lose a single city to the Chinese.


Hmm, So by the same analogy, we can deter US but cannot deter Chinese. So how come Chinese did not start a war with India in the last 10 years? Or even 20 years - or even 30 years? Anyway OT for this thread.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6315
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 24 May 2008 10:51

sauravjha wrote:so basically be on a hair trigger at the prospect of an ASAT launch. Nice , i like your way of thinking , but it breeds instability. and if the warheads are indeed inaccurate they need larger yields . your scenario once again leaves out the prospect of the enemy's counter-strike as well.


Can you qualify what is first strike?

1. A single loss of satellite to ASAT?

Why would an adversary launch a *single* ASAT weapon and take *only one* satellite down? If I am that adversary, I will launch multiple ASAT and strive to take *all* your satellite down and as weill strive to take *all* our strike capability out. Ergo, that is in itself a first strike!

2. Several of your satellites at different orbits?

Isn't that a first strike that leads to Scenario 1?

3. Confidence in my ABM [which is not proven unlike yours since you have the ABM/PAD/EXO/ENDO test done, but not me] to take out your 90% of incoming strike! Assuming you launch 300 warheads in total and I get only 30 [and all for cities], do I want to loose 15 cities [2 per city]? What if I take out only 50% of yours? Only 10% of yours? None of yours? What if you have 600 and not 300?

4. What if my strike on you is taken out by your PAD/AAD by say 90%? What about your second strike capability?

5. Expecting your nukes to be duds? All of them? Even the simple FBF which can easily yield 25-50 KT in a package as small as 250 kgs? Unless all your primaries are duds!!!

So in all scenarios, any country with a decent stockpile of warheads of any vintage with a proven delivery capability incl. second strike and also a demonstrated ABM capability has achieved deterrence. That is we have achieved deterrence against unkil, chinkil, aunties and uncles. How do we use that currency is an altogether different matter though!

Anyway again OT of this thread.

The thread is regarding *alleged* yields and we can choose what to believe. So far we have proven the following:

1. No body doubts our fission and fusion-boosted-fission capability. With FBF, we have a weapon say upto 45 Kt.

2. The TN test at POKII achieved a partial burn. Can be possibly upgraded to 300 KT

3. China achieved full MT yield TN from 7-8 tests. We have done *only* 6 tests so far. But then our scientists are dumb or liars or both, so we cannot achieve MT test.

sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Postby sauravjha » 24 May 2008 11:58

1. A single loss of satellite to ASAT?

Why would an adversary launch a *single* ASAT weapon and take *only one* satellite down? If I am that adversary, I will launch multiple ASAT and strive to take *all* your satellite down and as weill strive to take *all* our strike capability out. Ergo, that is in itself a first strike!

2. Several of your satellites at different orbits?

Isn't that a first strike that leads to Scenario 1?

3. Confidence in my ABM [which is not proven unlike yours since you have the ABM/PAD/EXO/ENDO test done, but not me] to take out your 90% of incoming strike! Assuming you launch 300 warheads in total and I get only 30 [and all for cities], do I want to loose 15 cities [2 per city]? What if I take out only 50% of yours? Only 10% of yours? None of yours? What if you have 600 and not 300?

4. What if my strike on you is taken out by your PAD/AAD by say 90%? What about your second strike capability?

5. Expecting your nukes to be duds? All of them? Even the simple FBF which can easily yield 25-50 KT in a package as small as 250 kgs? Unless all your primaries are duds!!!

So in all scenarios, any country with a decent stockpile of warheads of any vintage with a proven delivery capability incl. second strike and also a demonstrated ABM capability has achieved deterrence. That is we have achieved deterrence against unkil, chinkil, aunties and uncles. How do we use that currency is an altogether different matter though!


that's precisely my scenario and in that scenario all that you will have left is your SSBNs . which must carry large nukes to take out the enemy's C&C capability (wherein 45 kt won't do)and also take into account the fact that CEPs aren't assured anymore. moreover you do not have too many warheads left , so to ensure that you inflict "unacceptable damage' , you need larger yields. In all of this it is of course Assumed that the enemy's ABM systems are in place.


Just as an aside, typically SSBNs on patrol are kept on a mode , wherein if they do not receive any *intimation* whatsoever, for a stipulated period of time, they move ahead on a pre-planned tasking scenario and start looking at targets.

sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Postby sauravjha » 24 May 2008 12:01

Secondly, i do not think that getting up to the "remaining 300" warhead figure will be easy . even then you will have to keep some warheads in reserve for other potential adversaries.

Chandi Prasaad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 11:50
Location: Triveni

Postby Chandi Prasaad » 24 May 2008 12:05

shiv wrote:Where is the need to test any further if this goal is acheivable?
Because after 30 years even the fission weapons India tested will become of questionable reliability. Due to irreversible change in stoichiometric ratio of various heavy isotopes in Indian Pu (as those small peripheral isotopes decay in 20-30 years that builds sufficient baseline change). The re-fabrication of core by simple chemical refinement will not restore the chemical/isotopic ratio (stoichiometric ratio) to be the same as that of metal that was used in design and validation test. {If you recall the basis for US Nuclear Stewardship Program}. Only expensive isotropic separation(refinement) of Pu could be of some value then. And again LIF is the standard tool to verify matrial property and a realiable means to adjust for it.

Unfortunately breaking into N club entails perennial expense and top quality scientific staff to keep the N power dry; it is NOT about make nukes and store in a vault to be opened only when needed. Every Nuclear weapon state requires its own Nuclear Stewardship program (with LIF as its integral part).

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Postby p_saggu » 24 May 2008 12:24

shiv wrote:Where is the need to test any further if this goal is acheivable?

How can we even think of progressing on to the next level of weapons - The pure fusion weapons without mastering the two stage fusion weapons. For purely scientific reasons India needs to develop / have all technology that humanity ever has developed. Every technology has spinoffs, uses that extend beyond their initial intended purpose.

Another thing here is that the major powers are pressuring GOI to not increase our missile ranges into true ICBM ranges, they are also hellbent on not letting india acheive high kiloton/megaton capability thermonuclear weapons. This is the right time to contain India when she has just one doubtful, very modest yield, thermonuclear test. For sure India DOES NOT have a deployed thermonuclear deterrence currently.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2900
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Postby vera_k » 24 May 2008 12:39

disha wrote:Hmm, So by the same analogy, we can deter US but cannot deter Chinese.


Yes, because not all nations value their goals similarly.

disha wrote:So how come Chinese did not start a war with India in the last 10 years? Or even 20 years - or even 30 years?


For any number of reasons. Maybe they were preoccupied with other things. What I can say is that their behavior does not inspire trust and their past record means its better to be safe than sorry.

sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Postby sauravjha » 24 May 2008 12:45

Unfortunately breaking into N club entails perennial expense and top quality scientific staff to keep the N power dry; it is NOT about make nukes and store in a vault to be opened only when needed. Every Nuclear weapon state requires its own Nuclear Stewardship program (with LIF as its integral part).

A fact that some people do not seem to understand.

How can we even think of progressing on to the next level of weapons - The pure fusion weapons without mastering the two stage fusion weapons. For purely scientific reasons India needs to develop / have all technology that humanity ever has developed. Every technology has spinoffs, uses that extend beyond their initial intended purpose.


we can't and we won't , precisely because many will consider these to be"non-essential" and will believe that they have achieved 'deterrence".
Last edited by sauravjha on 24 May 2008 12:47, edited 1 time in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 24 May 2008 14:41

geeth wrote:He doesn't know what went on and asks questions which at best have value for the purpose of debate onlee.. look at this argument below - you will understand what I am talking about.


Frankly all I can see from your arguments is RC is god and who are others who have cast doubts to do so.

It may indeed be the case; however looking at purely available evidence and logic I at least can not buy that.

As Shiv just posted; in his estimate it will take us around 7-8 tests to get to the Chinese level given what we know of Nuclear physics and experiences of other nations.

So while we will never know this in detail -- we can not have to believe something because people have said that -- the lack of transparency here (within the GoI) is orders of magnitude higher than any other Nat Sec issue in India.

Adding words like Bull crap does not add to the value of your argument either.

My last post to you on this.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 24 May 2008 14:51

1. A single loss of satellite to ASAT?
Why would an adversary launch a *single* ASAT weapon and take *only one* satellite down? If I am that adversary, I will launch multiple ASAT and strive to take *all* your satellite down and as weill strive to take *all* our strike capability out. Ergo, that is in itself a first strike!


This is precisily the problem with lack of capabilty -- it builds hair trigger responses.

What if the enemy launched ASAT satellites purely as a defensive measure and does not intend to launch nukes - you will effectively get to a situation where you are trading nukes on cities because of effectively a conventional war start.

As a aside---
The fact that we are discussing what if of deterrence based on lack of ability means that the casting doubt part is no longer discussed but proven.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1193
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Postby geeth » 24 May 2008 15:46

>>>So while we will never know this in detail -- we can not have to believe something because people have said that -- the lack of transparency here (within the GoI) is orders of magnitude higher than any other Nat Sec issue in India.

I am not saying everyone should blindly believe what RC says..At the same time, don't just reject what he says, unless there is sufficient proof. I for one will believe him unless someone can prove otherwise - lack of transparency cannot be taken as an excuse to blame or ridicule people. For that matter, I would like to know which all nations have put their test data in the public domain..

Another thing, even if what I say - ie., The device worked - is true, still we will need to test in future. There is no quarrel about it - it need not be because the previous test failed.

>>>Adding words like Bull crap does not add to the value of your argument either.

I know. Atleast it should stop people from going on a tangent - you see, when I say don't reject outright what RC says, you say you can't treat him like God. Did I say so?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 24 May 2008 17:32

Sanku wrote:
As Shiv just posted; in his estimate it will take us around 7-8 tests to get to the Chinese level given what we know of Nuclear physics and experiences of other nations.


There was, of course a hidden agenda in my post.

None of the "conclusions" that I have reached can seriously be reached by the data I have presented. The conclusions can be reached only if we feel like reaching those conclusions.

The Chinese have conduced only a single (possibly) megaton range test after 1976. Most appear to be kiloton tests that could well be fission bombs.

But never mind the data-conclusion dysfunctionality that I have used.

We have to "improve and develop" our weapons, which we cannot do without testing.

But hey nobody else is allowed to test either, So, given time everyone's nuclear arsenal will inevitably go down the toilet. So if nobody tests - nobody's arsenal develops and deterrence values do not change.

Why worry about testing when nobody else is testing and we have a comfortable arsenal of proven, working 15 kiloton fission bombs?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 24 May 2008 18:12

I was not entirely joking with my previous post about testing.
All the pre-1998 nuclear power are holding off from overt testing. Only France and China tested in 1992 - so their last chance to validate their arsenal and data was 15 years ago.

Everyone's arsenal is getting older and while the US clearly publishes efforts to keep their arsenal in working order, no such information is forthcoming with regard to Russia or China. But no doubt they are concerned too.

Why are they not testing? Could is be because the time for nuclear tests is really being brought to a close. I do not disagree with people who say that the existing nuke states are out to stop India from developing its weapons. But I would qualify that by saying that existing nuclear weapons states do not want any new state, includin India, Pakistan, Korea, Iran etc to develop weapons and they are, in effect telling India "Hey OK - you are big boy now. You are nuclear weapon state - so you stop testing, just like us"

India either has to pretend that it has had enough testing, or admit that its arsenal needs more testing and break out and test and face the consequences, while also serving as a "leader" who must be punished by the existing NWS if other new states are to be prevented from testing. Because no matter who tests now - everyone else is going to jump into the testing game - and the people who will not blink and not test any more are the people who have the most confidence in their capability.

So not testing becomes a piskological trick as much as testing is a technical necessity

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5164
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 24 May 2008 18:12

shiv wrote:The Chinese have conduced only a single (possibly) megaton range test after 1976. Most appear to be kiloton tests that could well be fission bombs.

The Chinese were trying to refine their basic fission bombs after decades of testing, just because they were not MT range - seems strange. More likely they were testing multiple versions of their deployable future warhead configurations, is the consensus. IOW: They are likely to be TN and other fission configurations, such as RGPu or neutron.

Why worry about testing when nobody else is testing and we have a comfortable arsenal of proven, working 15 kiloton fission bombs?
This is where the "assuredness of capability" and the theory of nuclear strategy as a currency of geo-political strategy and international power politicts comes in.

Will not say much about that, out here, since it is supposed to be technical discussions only.

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

Postby John Snow » 24 May 2008 19:31

We know how to make a bomb work,

but

Can we say for sure every bomb we make works?

(with no more than 6 tests on record)

If the answer is yes then no testing only fielding!


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest