Future Nuclear Testing: Pros and Cons-1

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

Postby sauravjha » 03 Jun 2008 14:06

We are already half crippled by the oil shock as you’ve posted in the Economy thread. Can you imagine what a sanctions regime on top of that would entail? And less discount the fact that this UPA government is bad, corrupt etc. As Doc Shiv has said, let’s take all that as a given



And exactly what kind of a sanctions regime will deny us oil? Mark my words, if America seeks to actually cripple our economy (not that it really can) irrespective of what I have posted , it would mean that certain interests in the U.S have marked us as their enemy and they are actually powerful enough to push their agenda.

If that indeed be the case , highly unlikely as it is , then India should under no event sway to the whims of the entity called the U.S.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 03 Jun 2008 14:07

Sanku wrote:
However, how do you convince the aam janta about the need to go through pain? That's the big dilemma IMO.


Its simple; you put it on your manifesto and do it when elected.


Assuming that party "B" puts this on their manifesto, and that I am a representative of party "C" I would do my darndest to convince aam junta that we would be put under sanctions and feel great pain and that the economy would slow down irretrievably and that this is what party "B" wants to do. I would also argue that India already has the capacity to kill 250,000 with one bomb, and that party "B"'s manifesto seeks to create a bomb that will kill 10 lakhs people with one bomb and make the country suffer crippling sanctions. I will also recall Babri Masjid and Gujarat as party "B"'s actions and their death filled manifesto "speaks for itself"

Note that this is pure rhetoric and playing with emotions as well as white lies - but that is EXACTLY what this entire business is all about. That is the problem that has to be faced by a seemingly well intentioned party who puts this issue on their manifesto.It has to be put in the manifesto in a manner that cannot be utilized by opposition parties.

In fact a lot of the arguments made on here about fizzled bombs could be fed to the armed forces to reduce their morale and confidence in the Indian deterrence. And the Indian population can then be told "Your beloved armed forces cannot protect us because our bombs are a fizzle unlike earlier claims. Therefore we need to test now. Hindustan khatrey mein hain"


So the first step for immediate testing is to convince India and our armed forces that our existing deterrent will never work and all that has been said and done since 1998 was bluff, smoke and mirrors. This would only leave the minor problem of party "B" having to explain what the hype and joy was all about when they claimed success in 1998. It's a smallish self goal - but maybe some excuse can be found by blaming the loss of deterrence on party "C"'s idiocy.

But I believe the first step towards testing soon is to damage India's nuclear credibility in the eyes of our own armed forces and to kill their morale and confidence.That would put us on a one-way path towards testing, no matter what. And everyone would be happy with sanctions, big or small.

The other point that I would like to make about "when to test" is something I alluded to earlier. Testing new designs today means that it will take us ten years before the new designs translate into warheads that are usable. That means that any testing today is not going to be useful for any nuclear war that occurs in the time frame 2008 to 2018. Testing today may produce a more powerful bomb design for a nuclear war that India foresees fighting AFTER 2018.

So we have to manage with low morale and the existing fizzles till 2018 no matter what. And we have to decide whether we are going to accept a "mariginal" lowering of economic growth as a result of sanctions. I personally suspect that those "margins" will involve military technology, but would be happy to read counter arguments.
Last edited by shiv on 03 Jun 2008 14:26, edited 1 time in total.

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 519
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Postby prashanth » 03 Jun 2008 14:15

Gerard wrote:
prashanth wrote:If India wants to test then must go in for full fledged testing, ie around 30 to 40 tests in one season. Testing just 3 or 4 weapons will make sure that we will be arguing about the yields for decades to come.


30-40?
Expend a significant portion of India's fissile stockpile on testing? For what?

This is not the 1950s when each little tweak had to be tested out. Computers, simulations and understanding of the physics(1) has increased immensely since those times. The number of tests required has dropped with each increase in computer power. Look it up.

The W88 primary was apparently tested 8 times.(2)
It was flight tested (nuclear package replaced with telemetry equipment) just 4 times.

Similarly, the [deleted] primary has been used in eight nuclear tests. One of these was a one-point safety test that demonstrated near subcriticality even in an explosive detonation.


Note:
Dr. Ray Kidder of LLNL estimated in December 1991 that production of a safer new warhead design incorporating IHE to replace the W88 warhead would require four nuclear explosive tests -- three development tests and a production verification test(3)


How Much Warhead Reliability Is Enough for a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty?[quote]During this period, the failure rate of the nondevice hardware suggests an expected weapon failure rate of 1–2% for the stockpile.â€

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Postby amit » 03 Jun 2008 14:20

sauravjha wrote:
1. the no.1 investor in India is actually Mauritius. In the world of offshore finance , no government can restrain a company that wants to invest somewhere from doing so. In the case of the U.S big business drives policy not the other way round.


Offshore investing via Mauritius is just to get past Indian tax laws. I’m afraid you are not applying your mind to how international finance works if you think if US imposes restrictions on its companies from investing in India they can still do so via Mauritius. Heck the US can even penalize, and have done so, companies from other countries that do business with Iran and Syria and before that Iraq.

2. India's export basket has been diversifying . the United States has lost considerable ground and remember it is the U.S which needs cheap imports to sustain its consumption basket not the other way round.post Iraq no western consensus will emerge on "sanctioning India" . Everybody's woken up to India's potential and even if a "western consensus" emerges on "sanctioning India" , we still have export markets in Asia , Latin America and surprise surprise Africa to fall back on.



Just for argument’s sake if we accept what you write here is etched in stone, especially everybody having woken up to India’s potential, can you tell me how suddenly it becomes all doom and gloom the moment the Nuclear deal is signed? (Please note this is not a backdoor plug of the deal?). If say we buy reactors from France and Russia and then we decide we need to test, then following this logic France and Russia will not suspend nuclear trade with India NO? Then where does the castration angle come in?

3. India has joined that select group of nations that allow America to simultaneously carry on with the world's largest fiscal and trade deficit. these countries do so by holding reserves that allow America to finance its imports. Forex reserves are generally invested in American T-bills that allow them to bridge over the current account deficit.


I’m afraid you need to have another look at the composition of the US$300 billion or so of foreign exchange India holds and compare that with the composition of the forex China holds for example – not for quantity but in quality. Most of India’s forex is in the form of institutional investment and less in foreign exchange earned from exports. Institutional investment in the stock market for example can vanish in a jiffy the moment there’s uncertainty. And yes India has one of the least exposures internationally to US T-bills.

4. As far as the emergence of Indian MNCs is concerned , it hasn't happened due to the support of the west but rather in its absence. Who do you think receives the maximum amount of FDI in the world? once you answer this question and see point no.3 carefully , you will understand why the West will continue to import capital.

5. Workers in the west , are more keen to be merged with an Indian conglomerate than a Chinese one. An added advantage.


No MNC, Indian or otherwise emerge due to handholding by a foreign government. However, the question is slightly different. Again taking the Corus example, do you think the Tatas could have won if the British Government actively tried to stall the takeover? Think it over, why aren’t the cash rich Chinese companies taking over as many companies as much smaller Indian companies are? Try Googling and you’ll find out. Have a look, at how Dubai Port Authorities failed in a high profile takeover in the US.

Actually all these points are simply nitpicking. What works in international economic environment is stability. Indian companies and the Indian economy will thrive in an atmosphere of stability. Once that goes then, for quite a number of years, there’s going to be trouble.

One point I would like to emphasis is it's impossible to take our experience in 1998 and make a linear extrapolation to find out what is likely to happen in say 2009 if we test. The nature of the beast – in this case the Indian economy – has changed totally.

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

Postby sauravjha » 03 Jun 2008 14:21

One of the most key military technologies is the new generation of nuclear weapons presently under development as these impinge on future deterrence structures like never before. And big daddy sam and our froggie friends are not going to part with it anyway.


Tech for Low intensity conflict can and should be developed in house. tech denial pain on the tactical side is more bearable than strategic impotency. Moreover if we do actually stop buying weapons and get serious about indigenous development, it would go a long way in boosting our economy.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Postby amit » 03 Jun 2008 14:24

sauravjha wrote: And exactly what kind of a sanctions regime will deny us oil? Mark my words, if America seeks to actually cripple our economy (not that it really can) irrespective of what I have posted , it would mean that certain interests in the U.S have marked us as their enemy and they are actually powerful enough to push their agenda.

If that indeed be the case , highly unlikely as it is , then India should under no event sway to the whims of the entity called the U.S.


Boss I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not saying anyone's going to deny us oil. What I'm saying is that sanctions could potentially be a body blow to an economy already reeling under the effects of a oil shock.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 03 Jun 2008 14:28

shiv wrote: a "mariginal" lowering of economic growth as a result of sanctions. I personally suspect that those "margins" will involve military technology, but would be happy to read counter arguments.


Exceptional post Shiv (as always) and I agree with the overall broad thrust of your post except some details I wish to quibble (or perhaps not quibble) about

First yes the sanctions would involve Mil tech. -- that will be the BIGGEST setback IMVHO and the one which is getting ZERO focus from the economist types (expectedly :wink: )

Secondly -- The need for future tests should never be put into manifesto in terms of "we need to test since the last was a fizzle" No Siree as you say this is a smoke and mirror game and it would be suicidal to go around wearing your heart on your sleeve for people to snipe at.

What would I put on the manifesto?

Strong India Capable India -- National security is supreme and all needed steps will be taken for it. The party C when in power has been selling India out (the treasonous ********) they have sold XYZ for ABC (look at Q) and look they dont even have Indian roots/branches. We will reverse this; we will go against even the mightiest if need be (clap clap from lefties); but we will give India the place in the world it deserves. Dr Homi Bhabha's dream must be made true; the tasks that were incomplete must be fulfilled. Time to walk again where we stopped to rest. Jai Jawan; Jai Kisan; Jai Vigyan blah blah....

See how it fixes ALL the objections that you raise? (In reality as we test we will also have to throw sweetners to the west to make them accept the medicine such as throwing open retail to FDI :wink:)

Its only in BRF we discuss things as they are

Secondly I am mighty confused by the assertion that from test to working weapons will be 10 years.

This time when we test -- we should be testing finished goods (what ever is in "final" shape) this is not (and should not be) a data gathering exercise for creating equation of states. If that is needed that stuff should be done in LIF (which would have to be made)

Overall I would put the standard blah on the manifesto -- pump money into Nuke sector to have it come up to scratch in 5 years with LIF etc an burst a bum just before Elec commission announces next Elec. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

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

Postby sauravjha » 03 Jun 2008 14:36

Offshore investing via Mauritius is just to get past Indian tax laws. I’m afraid you are not applying your mind to how international finance works if you think if US imposes restrictions on its companies from investing in India they can still do so via Mauritius. Heck the US can even penalize, and have done so, companies from other countries that do business with Iran and Syria and before that Iraq.


not at all. Mauritius is but an illustration . there are many more structures today that the U.S government doesn't even have a hope of stopping nor does it want to.

ust for argument’s sake if we accept what you write here is etched in stone, especially everybody having woken up to India’s potential, can you tell me how suddenly it becomes all doom and gloom the moment the Nuclear deal is signed? (Please note this is not a backdoor plug of the deal?). If say we buy reactors from France and Russia and then we decide we need to test, then following this logic France and Russia will not suspend nuclear trade with India NO? Then where does the castration angle come in?



He he. castration , doom and gloom following deal etc are not my points. I am focusing on the consequences of testing, not of signing the dotted line.. if the pros and cons of the Nooklear deal have to be discussed we can do so too, in a different thread of course.. however bringing up the consequences of the nooklear deal is not really moot. unless of course you also agree that we cannot test after signing the deal?



I’m afraid you need to have another look at the composition of the US$300 billion or so of foreign exchange India holds and compare that with the composition of the forex China holds for example – not for quantity but in quality. Most of India’s forex is in the form of institutional investment and less in foreign exchange earned from exports. Institutional investment in the stock market for example can vanish in a jiffy the moment there’s uncertainty. And yes India has one of the least exposures internationally to US T-bills.


the gloom about FII inflows is totally related to a belief in the real balance effect . that is when stock(asset) prices rise , so does consumption. no econometric validation has been found for this hypothesis.
By the way though India's forex is on account of a capital account surplus, it in no way diminishes the fact that they support the American dollar and thereby its financing capability. On the other hand because our portfolio management has been better than that of some other countries, it only helps India's case.


No MNC, Indian or otherwise emerge due to handholding by a foreign government. However, the question is slightly different. Again taking the Corus example, do you think the Tatas could have won if the British Government actively tried to stall the takeover? Think it over, why aren’t the cash rich Chinese companies taking over as many companies as much smaller Indian companies are? Try Googling and you’ll find out. Have a look, at how Dubai Port Authorities failed in a high profile takeover in the US.




Precisely my point. why aren't they? , because of domestic opposition. Indian companies step in right where the Chinese can't and nobody in the West will be foolish enough to foreclose an alternative.

Just study Tata's takeover of Tetley and compare it to japanese and Korean takeovers and you will understand why blue collar trade unions in the west are backing India.
Last edited by sauravjha on 03 Jun 2008 14:38, edited 1 time in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 03 Jun 2008 14:37

amit wrote:One point I would like to emphasis is it's impossible to take our experience in 1998 and make a linear extrapolation to find out what is likely to happen in say 2009 if we test. The nature of the beast – in this case the Indian economy – has changed totally.


Amit I see you have not even tried to answer my questions. OTOH hand you persist with such homilies like

Stability is good
Iraq was sanctioned (and Iran and Syria)
Things have changed

And many such motherhood and apple pie statements. No one is questioning you on those. Obviously things have changed.

What you are doing is making a "qualitative" assessment based on very nebulous general concepts without talking about a clear linkage.

So the Brit govt interferes with Corus; who gets to buy it? The Brazilians? Or the Chinese? Good luck to the Brits with interfering.

You have side stepped Saurav's questions too. Why would they do all this? Just because we tested? Situation is suddenly doom and gloom?

Was there sanctions last time of the sort you are talking of; if not then then WHY EXACTLY NOW?

Lets do away with hand waving please and discuss the real issues.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Postby amit » 03 Jun 2008 15:07

sauravjha wrote:He he. castration , doom and gloom following deal etc are not my points. I am focusing on the consequences of testing, not of signing the dotted line.. if the pros and cons of the Nooklear deal have to be discussed we can do so too, in a different thread of course.. however bringing up the consequences of the nooklear deal is not really moot. unless of course you also agree that we cannot test after signing the deal?


:D

Let's not open a can of worms!

But seriously I don't think both of us are that far apart in our reading of the situation in terms whether we need to test or not.

I just think that we need to wait for a few years before testing. And don't misunderstand me, I think we must test. Not just for validating technology (though that's an important point) but for showing the world we have the will to test and thumb our noses at our adversaries.

A few years breadthing space (well OK 10 years is not just a few) would put us in a position where we can do what we damn well please. And right now we are particularly vulnerable as our economy is in a transitory phase.

JMT and other disclaimers!

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

Postby sauravjha » 03 Jun 2008 15:47

I believe that the current environment is pretty darn okay for testing. Ten years down the line it will probably be even easier to test. however , what about the new weapons that people like me keep harping on? If they can be developed with a LIF or otherwise , great. But if they can't , then we need to test.


of course , we can all go home and say UD has been achieved. . everybody's sane and we have enough . But the point is , everybody currently seems sane because , we have some capability, they will seem even saner when we have more capability. And more than anything else the balls to show that we can assume a leadership position and permanently break out of America's self-serving fantasy called the NPT.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Postby amit » 03 Jun 2008 15:54

sauravjha wrote:I believe that the current environment is pretty darn okay for testing. Ten years down the line it will probably be even easier to test. however , what about the new weapons that people like me keep harping on? If they can be developed with a LIF or otherwise , great. But if they can't , then we need to test.


of course , we can all go home and say UD has been achieved. . everybody's sane and we have enough . But the point is , everybody currently seems sane because , we have some capability, they will seem even saner when we have more capability. And more than anything else the balls to show that we can assume a leadership position and permanently break out of America's self-serving fantasy called the NPT.


Bottomline is more visible (that is visible to the world over) investment is needed in weapons research. I'm no technical expert but I would think investment in things like an LIF would be the way to go. If that's sufficient without the physical need to test (again I really don't know) then that would be like eating the cake and having it too.

However, I don't agree that the current environment is darn OK to test. I guess let's agree to disagree on that point.

Rest I think we're on the same page.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3251
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Tanaji » 03 Jun 2008 16:40

Sanku:

You mention that 4-8 tests are required. I am curious to know the reasoning behind the same. Reliability validations requires a bit more tests (I dont know how many, I am ignorant), so am I correct in assuming that the aim of the test will be then to merely prove "full yield"?

Doesn't that still leave us with the same problem as before, which is our deterrent is still based on designs whose reliability is not reasonably / fully characterized? In that situation, is one test better than the situation that we have now, given that we will see a 10% (I am assuming of GDP) hit?
I believe that the current environment is pretty darn okay for testing.


Sauravjha:

You havent specified how many tests, yields or an answer to the cost benefit analysis. Given high inflation in rising food costs, massive oil price rises, why do you think an economic impact is easier? Could you quantify the "gain" that you see by making this adverse impact?

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

Postby sauravjha » 03 Jun 2008 17:02

Sauravjha:

You havent specified how many tests, yields or an answer to the cost benefit analysis. Given high inflation in rising food costs, massive oil price rises, why do you think an economic impact is easier? Could you quantify the "gain" that you see by making this adverse im
pact?


No, I am tired of answering the same old . for a change why don't you tell me

1. why is the food price rise happening ? are imports the answer to reducing food prices? what will be the effect of sanctions on food prices ?

2. How will sanctions and more pertinently what kind of sanctions will weaken our energy position and by how much?


Answer these questions before you ask me to "quantify " the gain.



The other questions
1. How many tests ?
As many as required. or does everything have to be "quantified"?

2. what yield?
Full yield for basic thermonuke design that can be MIRVED. subsequent tests for much improved yield to weight weapons.


3. Cost- Benefit analysis?
I am confused . Isn't that what we have been doing thus far?

A larger point to be made. All posts till now have assumed that the worst kind of sanctions will be imposed and that the Indian economy will be floored. I think it is time that the "other pole" clearly delineated the potential international response in the event of a test and clearly detailed the expected impact on the Indian economy.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3251
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Tanaji » 03 Jun 2008 17:23

1. why is the food price rise happening ? are imports the answer to reducing food prices? what will be the effect of sanctions on food prices ?

2. How will sanctions and more pertinently what kind of sanctions will weaken our energy position and by how much?


Why is this relevant? Both issues are true and the situation will be exacerbated by sanctions. Whether or not food imports is the answer is immaterial: fact is GoI WILL import food if basic food stuffs start increasing, and that requires forex, which IS affected by sanctions.


Answer these questions before you ask me to "quantify " the gain.


This is a bit strange. You are the one who is asking for more tests that has an impact. One would think you would want to have the answers ready before you make such a call, given the hardship your course of action is likely to impose.

As many as required. or does everything have to be "quantified"?


This is even more bizzaire. So you want us to test, but dont know how many?

Full yield for basic thermonuke design that can be MIRVED. subsequent tests for much improved yield to weight weapons.


Again, what specifically? 300 Kt? 1 MT? 5 MT? Dont you think these are relevant questions? IF its 1 MT and above, where do you think we should conduct these tests? Pokhran has the pesky Khetolai village around., which you may or not believe will be affected.

At least Sanku has a firm idea in his mind in defence of his position. I may have some issues with his position, but at least its quantifiable. You, OTOH, seem to want to "test" without a firm set of criteria and a set of desired outcomes.

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

Postby sauravjha » 03 Jun 2008 17:41

Why is this relevant? Both issues are true and the situation will be exacerbated by sanctions. Whether or not food imports is the answer is immaterial: fact is GoI WILL import food if basic food stuffs start increasing, and that requires forex, which IS affected by sanctions.



it is relevant because you brought it up . How exactly will they be exacerbated by sanctions? And by the way please till me , since you have brought it up , what quantum of food will we need to import and how much of that will be covered by our extant Forex reserves? we have 300 billion plus,you think that will run out ?

Point is quit making general statements . Delineate exactly what the impact will be . and pray tell me what kind of sanctions do you expect?




Quote:
Answer these questions before you ask me to "quantify " the gain.


This is a bit strange. You are the one who is asking for more tests that has an impact. One would think you would want to have the answers ready before you make such a call, given the hardship your course of action is likely to impose.





I can't "quantify" anything before you put some numbers where your mouth is. there is nothing strange about your response though. the anti-test lobby will continue to prevaricate and think only they have the prerogative to ask questions.


This is even more bizzaire. So you want us to test, but dont know how many?

Quote:
Full yield for basic thermonuke design that can be MIRVED. subsequent tests for much improved yield to weight weapons.


What is strange is that you guys are actually trying to ask people outside the testing establishment what the number of tests should be. The answer can only be as many as required.

Again, what specifically? 300 Kt? 1 MT? 5 MT? Dont you think these are relevant questions? IF its 1 MT and above, where do you think we should conduct these tests? Pokhran has the pesky Khetolai village around., which you may or not believe will be affected.

At least Sanku has a firm idea in his mind in defence of his position. I may have some issues with his position, but at least its quantifiable. You, OTOH, seem to want to "test" without a firm set of criteria and a set of desired outcomes.



the full yield of the basic thermonuke was 250Kt . eight of those MIRVs with a hit probability of even 60 per cent will threaten hardened targets.


By the way the only firm criteria that you are putting on display is the fact that people who only have a vague idea of the economic consequences of testing can continue to ask even more vague questions.
Last edited by sauravjha on 03 Jun 2008 17:57, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby sauravjha » 03 Jun 2008 17:49

Dont you think these are relevant questions? IF its 1 MT and above, where do you think we should conduct these tests? Pokhran has the pesky Khetolai village around., which you may or not believe will be affected.


this question combined with the constant "need" to know the exact number of tests is a red herring . either pure polemics or something sinister.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 03 Jun 2008 18:27

Cool! We are back to attributing motives such as "sinister". Reminds me of what someone keeps telling me:
Do not attribute to malice, that which is perfectly attributable to stupidity
8) (just a general comment, nothing about any particular view being stupid - except the demand to "test" for the heck of it)

To me, the deterrence issues are:
1) Does India possess nuclear weapons? i.e., things that CAN cause instant, massive destruction?
2) Does India have systems deployed to deliver these a) with rapid response, b) survivability to pre-emptive surprise attack c) reliably and d) accurately enough to hit within the CEP of the weapons?
3) Does India have the command and control structure to ensure swift and certain response that survives a decapitation strike on its political and military leadership?
4) Does India have the WILL to ensure swift and massive response?

If all 4 are "YES", then I ain't messing with India. Better to go invade or terrorize Antarctica or Nauru or some place like that instead. IED-Mubarak a couple of glacier overhangs - they make spectacular pictures in National Geographic along with the nekkid wimmen pictures.

Item 1) here is a "CAN" not a "WILL". Because I am NOT going to bet on the warhead not exploding, or of only burning me to a nice lump of carbon, instead of 99.97% gaseous state CO2 + H2O that glows in the upper atmosphere. That's as stupid as playing cricket with a hand grenade, and there's nothing to prevent India from over-compensating for a 50% fizzle probability by dumping 6 warhead on me.

So the argument for LIVE NUCLEAR TESTS beyond the ones in 1998 is completely bogus. Not sinister, just stupid. Item 1 is demonstrated. Period. Move on to the bigger things.

Items 2 through 4 can be refined very substantially, and the very fact that there is effort to refine these continually is very deterring. It shows that there is real thinking behind these issues, and that scares the heck out of me as a potential invader. So it is real deterrence.

Every refinement in Items 2 through 4 by India vastly increases the cost to the adversary to try to counter that, so the deterrence value is much greater. "More data on weapon yield" is by far the lowest priority.

Items 2 and 3 involve large improvements in the economy, distributed throughout the country. Robust power systems, transport systems, emergency response systems, food growth, manufacturing capability, options for massive resistance even if all the tanks and fighter bases are knocked out.

Item 4 is somewhat inversely related to economic development, but with good public threat awareness, which means good communication to counter the propagandoos, the public will maintain a sense of outrage that will ensure the will to go to all-out war against any enemy that inflicts massive damage. Massive damage is easier to empathize for the population if they see well-dressed aadmi-aurat lying dead and wounded, and nice makaans damaged or destroyed, than by images of poor Kashmiri or Northeastern citizens killed.

So beyond a basic level, economic development in the hinterlands of India INCREASES the empathy of the elite in the cities, and kindles some slight realization that the same could happen to them if they don't get off their musharrafs and hit back at the enemy.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3251
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Tanaji » 03 Jun 2008 18:40

t is relevant because you brought it up . How exactly will they be exacerbated by sanctions? And by the way please till me , since you have brought it up , what quantum of food will we need to import and how much of that will be covered by our extant Forex reserves? we have 300 billion plus,you think that will run out ?


This whole food issue was brought up by you, not me. See your post earlier where you asked me the question. Again, how is this relevant?

can't "quantify" anything before you put some numbers where your mouth is. there is nothing strange about your response though. the anti-test lobby will continue to prevaricate and think only they have the prerogative to ask questions.


Eh? What numbers? What "anti testing lobby"? Mine was a simple question: you want to test, I asked how many. How does that make me a part of a "anti testing lobby"? What am I "prevaricating" about? Can you specify what I have lied about in my earlier posts?

By the way the only firm criteria that you are putting on display is the fact that people who only have a vague idea of the economic consequences of testing can continue to ask even more vague questions.


Bhai, I am just trying to find your rationale for wanting tests. I thought this was a forum....

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 03 Jun 2008 18:45

Tanaji wrote:Sanku:

You mention that 4-8 tests are required. I am curious to know the reasoning behind the same. Reliability validations requires a bit more tests (I dont know how many, I am ignorant), so am I correct in assuming that the aim of the test will be then to merely prove "full yield"?

Doesn't that still leave us with the same problem as before, which is our deterrent is still based on designs whose reliability is not reasonably / fully characterized? In that situation, is one test better than the situation that we have now, given that we will see a 10% (I am assuming of GDP) hit?


I dont quite understand what you are saying -- perhaps I was less than clear -- if we will test; it will be to qualify the "fixed" designs from 98 era. So essentially what I am saying is
old test + computers + LIF + fixed design == assuredly working weapon.

Then tests at 45 90 125 170 205 KT explosions to demonstrate that we have a truly scalable design.

Now what is the above picture based on? Primarily the French example. The many tests by US in the past were because there was no computer modeling what so ever. A comparison could be with airflow modeling over a new wing shape for example; the new techniques cut down on real testing before the aircraft flies quite a bit. And the wind tunnels are like LIFs. Secondly in our various reactors we have had quite some experience with nuclear physics. US and mankind was still learning many such things then.

Secondly I think 10% of GDP Growth will be hit and not a real recession in terms of GDP coming down. At worst I expect no more than 30% drop in growth rate. (worst case)

Whats the above assertion based on? Looking at data from last tests (posted by Arnab)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 03 Jun 2008 20:41

When to test is a good question. Earlier I used to think that India needs to test only as a deterrent for escalation control ie if there is a crisis with major challengers India chooses to test.

However after allt he RT and RM instabilities and other knowledge imbibed from this forum I am convinced it has to be a series of tests of the pry(1), pry+secy+spark plug(1), pry+secy+spark plug+ tertiary(3).

This should proof the whole system and tell those who need to know there is adequate fissile stockpile.

However I would announce more than these and show restraint after the minimum is met. 8)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 03 Jun 2008 21:36

Let me post something from another viewpoint.

I have no basic disagreement with the thought that testing is a good idea by itself, if one possesses nuclear weapons. many people have pointed out the advantages of such testing both in terms of refinement of arsenal and sending all sorts of signals to all sorts of people.

However, we have also seen how the entire world has ganged up against the idea of testing. and we have seen also (in 1998) that, given the political will, "ganging up of the world against testing" need not necessarily work.

And many have pointed out that "sanctions" are not (or need not be) as big a deal as they have been made out to be.

If that is the case, what could be done to generate the political will to test?

Unfortunately I am myself unable to come up with any really good ideas and Sanku's post about a "positive" political manifesto is about the most attractive one (to me) so far.

My own "other idea" made in an earlier post is mentioned only to be condemned - I posted the "idea" of somehow destroying the confidence of the Indian armed forces in our nuclear capability and then forcing a fait accompli on the nation to force a test. I don;t like the idea even though I have stated it explicitly and my mind is paranoid enough to believe that someone would be willing to go to that extent if need be. After all - forcing this kind of thing will help everyone other than India.

The idea of trashing yields IMO does not automatically accomplish the creation of a political desire to test and we have spent weeks over that idea.

Anyone with any other bright ideas?
Last edited by shiv on 03 Jun 2008 21:53, edited 1 time in total.

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 519
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Postby prashanth » 03 Jun 2008 21:43

ramana wrote:When to test is a good question. Earlier I used to think that India needs to test only as a deterrent for escalation control ie if there is a crisis with major challengers India chooses to test.

However after allt he RT and RM instabilities and other knowledge imbibed from this forum I am convinced it has to be a series of tests of the pry(1), pry+secy+spark plug(1), pry+secy+spark plug+ tertiary(3).

This should proof the whole system and tell those who need to know there is adequate fissile stockpile.

However I would announce more than these and show restraint after the minimum is met. 8)



Sir,
With respect I beg to differ.
In any case India has to perfect one weapon design as soon as possible. By perfection , I mean that the weapon has to be live tested using agnis, air drop and other methods. Only this will give the nation the so called 'credible minimum deterrence'.
For that matter even a single(and simple) TN design of around 150kt yield, developed and live tested under all possible conditions is more than sufficient for India. But this requires around 30 tests(including live testing). Given the scarcity of weapon grade Pu and U in India, this is probably the best solution.
India need not develop the most advanced high yield and light weight w88 type TN weapon to prove its technological prowess before the world.

I still wonder how some people here are content with less than 10 tests.

As for the "When to test" question, India has to find a pretext or wait for it.
I repeat, doing just 4 or 5 tests will ensure that we will have endless iterations of these threads.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Postby negi » 03 Jun 2008 21:47

ramana wrote:However I would announce more than these and show restraint after the minimum is met. 8)

That to me sums up the whole discussion.

I mean what is that is defined or qualifies for a minimum credible deterrent ?

1. I mean are FBF and TN pre-requisites to achieving the above ?

2. Iow assuming that our vanilla U/PU based fision designs are pretty much matured and ruggedised for delivery via the triad do we need the TN/FBF designs to achieve the sense of security as governed by our doctrine ?

If answer to 1 and 2 is 'YES' and from whatever is known of the TN test in 98 , it is imperitive that we need to 'TEST'.

Point is what explosive power needs to be achieved per bum to satisfy a Jingo/Defence analyst in order for every one to agree upon the need for 'TEST' ?

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 519
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Postby prashanth » 03 Jun 2008 21:52

shiv wrote:Anyone with any other bright ideas?


Promote testing as a political achievement. More votes more testing. :wink:

OR

Make a law that mandates teating once in every x years regardless of the government in power. Put this in the 9th schedule. :D

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 03 Jun 2008 21:59

Anyone with any other bright ideas?


Blinding flash or merely glowing blue with gamma rays coming out all around? 8)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 03 Jun 2008 22:01

negi wrote:Point is what explosive power needs to be achieved per bum to satisfy a Jingo/Defence analyst in order for every one to agree upon the need for 'TEST' ?


That is a 64,000 dollar question. The jingo-anal-ists will never agree. The politicians are the ones who need convincing.Political will is the only thing that will cause testing in the absence of extraneous provocation like renewed testing by P5

I would love to conjure up a mock conversation between a jingo and a politician in which the jingo makes all these technical arguments and the politician butts in with non technical doubts and queries.

I might just do that when I have more time - not tonight. :D

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:

Postby abhischekcc » 03 Jun 2008 22:08

Politicians will do what they think will win them votes.

Testing bums does not win votes.

What can win votes is if this testing is part of an overall campaign of development and/or national expansion. IOW, people should see the benefits of testing in their own lives.

Let's say N.Modi comes up with a BJP manifesto that says we will take over West Punjab - their land and women. The land will solve our food problem, and their women will solve the problem of shortage of women in Indian Punjab. :)

That would really get the voters up, at least the male voters (pun intended).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 03 Jun 2008 22:36

Prashant, India is not a beginner. So there is a successful database to build on. Hence there is no need for that number of proofings. What I suggested was a step by step building block approach which gives confidence to all who are in the loop- scientists, military, political and adversaries that it all works.
If you see the French tests its the same approach- a few lower values (could be the prys) and a couple of full values (could be the full up ones).

Negi, th eminimum I was talking about is the number of tests and not MND.

For MND to become CMD the emphasis is on C=credible.

With all those RT/RM stuff a series of proofings of the advanced stuff is needed. Look even the French tests have a +/- 10 ~20% variance.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7685
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 03 Jun 2008 22:40

Testing bums does not win votes.


Yet in the absence of expected votes, or a public clamor for tests, three Prime Ministers ordered tests to be carried out. The majority of their cabinets were not even aware that they had made the decision. These PMs did not seek to build a consensus or seek public support. They simply made a strategic decision and presented everyone else with a fait acompli.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7685
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 03 Jun 2008 22:47

Final Chinese test series ran from 1994 to 1996 - eight tests in all.

50 kt, 50 kt, 50 kt, 95 kt, 80 kt, 80 kt (2 simultaneous) , 5 kt

Officially, China declared in 1994 that these tests were geared toward designing warheads with safety features, such as insensitive high explosives (IHE). Other Chinese sources indicate that these tests were also intended to modernize Chinese nuclear weapons in other areas as well, including the development of an MRV or MIRV capability and to develop new warheads for China's next-generation solid-fuel ICBMs.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Postby negi » 03 Jun 2008 22:53

prashanth wrote: I mean that the weapon has to be live tested using agnis, air drop and other methods. Only this will give the nation the so called 'credible minimum deterrence'.

Sir imo it is safe to assume that every country that posses nukes and delivery platforms , must be actually testing the modules/components of a nuke during missile tests/bombing runs.

I mean in layman's terms the whole bomb assembly minus the masala of course can be tested to a point where in one can be assured of fielding a working weapon without actually performing the real life test.

Now the point is if we have a working N-device i.e., one which has been subjected to rigorous tests in lab simulating physical conditions which it will experience during its re-entry phase this device can then be tested in some underground shaft and tests validated, similarly the telemetry and MIRV bus and launching adaptor and the bomb assembly itself can be tested during any of the scheduled missile tests with a dummy warhead without anyone knowing anything about it.

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

Postby svinayak » 03 Jun 2008 22:53

The level of discussion about the economy in this thread shows how simple charts will tell that long term affects of sanctions do not matter.

But the posts and discussion keep harping on the damage to the economy and some people even want to vote against the TEST. The terms ofthe debate is skewed so that real facts and information are not even discussed

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 03 Jun 2008 22:59

my theory is this.. Just Do It, but Don't even say you have done it [meaning, do it only when we have the technology and capability to hide the kilo/megatons shock wave]. :twisted:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 03 Jun 2008 23:06

Its not just to assure yourself that it works but to let others know you have it too. The whole idea of deterence is that to ensure no one thinks of nuking you without fear of retalation. So testing wtihout others know wont add credibility to the posture.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 03 Jun 2008 23:11

lakshmic,
The ratios work perfectly for the French tests and one can guess/swag what was the config of each on of those.

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

Postby svinayak » 04 Jun 2008 00:38

shiv wrote:
However, we have also seen how the entire world has ganged up against the idea of testing. and we have seen also (in 1998) that, given the political will, "ganging up of the world against testing" need not necessarily work.

This is mostly manufactured.

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 04 Jun 2008 00:48

ramana wrote:Its not just to assure yourself that it works but to let others know you have it too. The whole idea of deterence is that to ensure no one thinks of nuking you without fear of retalation. So testing wtihout others know wont add credibility to the posture.


So Israel has no credibile deterrance?

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

Postby svinayak » 04 Jun 2008 00:55

surinder wrote:
ramana wrote:Its not just to assure yourself that it works but to let others know you have it too. The whole idea of deterence is that to ensure no one thinks of nuking you without fear of retalation. So testing wtihout others know wont add credibility to the posture.


So Israel has no credible deterrance?

It uses other means to convey the concept of credibility. The entire episode of vonunu and keeping secrecy is part of the psy ops of showing high capability. They have the proven 'will' to use power when they want to intervene and pre-empt threat is itself high credibility among its adversaries.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6944
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Postby Anujan » 04 Jun 2008 01:28

Some serious towel from one of the topmost NPAs. Read the article in full, it has a few gems :D

Pokhran marked the end of the nonproliferation regime

Einhorn was the assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation affairs in the Clinton administration and part of the first George W Bush administration, before he was pushed out for impeding a strategic partnership Washington wanted with New Delhi, which included the transfer of high technology to India.

This 10-year period or so before the tests was really the high watermark in international multilateral nonproliferation efforts and it began to look as if the battle against nuclear proliferation could and would be won

But, he said, the 1998 nuclear tests by India and Pakistan "ushered in a lengthy period still continuing today of proliferation pessimism."

To the effects of the 1998 nuclear tests, Einhorn attributed everything he could: The revelations about the A Q Khan's nuclear blackmarket network, the inability to get the FMCT negotiations underway, the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the evidence that terrorist groups were seeking nuclear weapons, and the medium and intermediate range ballistic missile tests by a number of countries, including North Korea, India, Pakistan and Iran. {So AQK proliferated and xerox copied *after* '98 tests ? Whatever this guy is smoking should be good. He left out global warming, increase in oil and food prices, Myanmar cyclone, china earth quake,iraq war}

Einhorn said that the 'universality of the NPT was dead,' thanks to the May 1998 tests and argued that 'the tests reshaped expectations about further proliferation. {So will eventually any treaty be which says "It is god given right of the above listed 5 countries to do whatevert they want, the rest of them cant". Oh by the way how is universal nuclear disarmament as mandated by the NPT coming along ?}

He said the early repeal of the sanctions conveyed the message to the world that commercial and other bilateral interests would be given higher priority than nonproliferation, and that it was possible for a country to ignore or defy nonproliferation norms without the risk of penalties.

Einhorn said, "China's strategic calculations were also affected by the nuclearisation of the subcontinent. Now it could not ignore the prospect of India threatening them with an Agni-III intermediate range ballistic missile, which, Indian government officials have pointed out, can reach all major Chinese cities." {And this is bad because...?}

If India had declared itself a Nuclear Weapons State in 1974, "I think a substantial number of these countries would not have joined the NPT, and a number of them would be Nuclear Weapons States today,"{Were SDREs chanakyan in 74 ? or was it unintentional earth-e-shatter ?}


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest