Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

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

Postby shiv » 09 Jun 2008 07:52

ShauryaT wrote:
enqyoob wrote:satyarthi: That would b "NR2TA" in James Bond fashion. "No Rush to Test Again". 8)

There was a good reason why the world came around to India's viewpoint in 1998. Pakistani stupidity. Remember the wild celebrations of relief when TSP tested? We would have been far worse off than North Korea today if it weren't for the idiots in Islamagood. What dummies will we find this time? Myanmar junta? Bangladesh?
If so, then it was indeed a failure of Indian foreign policy, in not being able to convince the world of the dangers that India faced with a non proven weaponized arsenal against proven arsenals from multiple neighbors, proliferated with the help of and/or benign neglect of the super powers themselves.

India would have been STUPID to use TSP demonstrations as an excuse to reduce sanctions on us.


The words "non proven" and "proven" are bigger proof of your own state of mind than the real state of the arsenal and how it may be used.
If one's state of mind was different, one could make a different statement.

Everything depends on what you choose to believe or disbelieve.

What you choose to believe or disbelieve can now be interfered and messed with by a whole lot of people including Indian media, foreign media, forum discussions etc - including the sudden appearance and disappearance of "knowledgeable" people on the forum who plant "facts" and do not reappear.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Postby ramdas » 09 Jun 2008 07:55

Shiv,

Indeed there may be a consensus among the P-5 to declare any test that occurs a "fizzle" no matter what the reality is. That seems to have started with the efforts to say that our tests yielded less than DAE claimed. This was rebutted. Now, they have said that North Korea's first test is a fizzle. So, intense psy-ops may indeed be happening.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 09 Jun 2008 07:59

Sorry, ramdas, but the argument about the size of the device still seems to hold. Much more and the damage would have gone far outside the region available for conducting the test. Doesn't that prove that at least the designers knew the maximum size of the yield, and in fact came close?

In 1998, you are right, sanctions came on both India and TSP, so the net effect on Indian security was minimized. But if TSP had been smart, the situation would have been used to arm TSP to the teeth with Chinese (and maybe American) nuclear weapons, and they would have been given total protection from the international community when the invasion of Kashmir happened. Instead, TSP's tests showed that (a) the Indian threat perception was right, (b) the reality of the Islamic Bomb hit hard outside the US and thus shattered the US-propagated view of the TSP being nice guys, and (c) Chinese violation of the NPT was exposed for all to see, again validating India's threat perception.

Otherwise Sen. Helms' (PBUH) comment would have come true:
The Indian government has definitely shot themselves in the foot. Most probably, they have also shot themselves in the head


It has taken all of us, tens of thousands of posts, letters to Editors, and other arguments, and likewise number of hours spent, to fight back against the notion that India is the villain of the nuclear community. And you don't think a set of new tests, when India has been offered acceptance as a weapon-carrying nuclear state, won't do any serious damage?

I would feel demoralized enough to retire altogether from trying to argue that India is governed by sensible people. Or that the new generation of Indians has any collective sense of responsible behavior. I won't say: "Energizer Bunnies"... :roll:

BTW, I am NO Expert on Nuclear anything. Consequence of what a horror I was as an undergrad when "Nixon" (u can c how respectful v were of our teachers) tried to teach us about New Clear Pissiks. Karma.

But I can smell BS... 8)
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 09 Jun 2008 08:06, edited 1 time in total.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5364
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 09 Jun 2008 08:01

I have a question about the alleged partial burn.

From all the gyaan imparted by the gurus, I gathered that the second goose will be cooked, compressed within the case, and the masala coming from the 'stuffing' inside. The meat of the goose will be cooked as long as the skin can hold it together. A partial burn means the containment broke apart before it is fully cooked.

The containment mechanism there is way too simple than that of an explosive implosion. It is inconceivable that a team which can bring about the former couldn't do the latter properly. I think the notion of partial burn is therefore a strawman.

Another thing is about the derivation of the EOS.

Think about the explosion process step by step. WHICH of the processes need high energy data that needs actual explosions, and which doesn't? Which is complex, and which isn't?

I will leave the primary alone, because that is KNOWN and VERIFIED to work.

About the secondary, we take it for granted that the x-rays do the implosion BEFORE the shockwave reaches it. That mechanism is simple to understand, and experimentally verify. X-rays travel at a well known speed. The ablative response of them on various materials can easily verified in the lab. The compression of the tamper can be accurately modelled and verified as well.

What can't be is the behaviour AFTER the maal ignites. The interactions become soo complicated thereafter, and we shouldn't even begin to think about analyze it here.

But why that is necessary? You need to estimate how long the tamper can hold it all together sustaining burn. That is all. Why THAT is necessary? To OPTIMIZE the design. To shape the tamper, reduce the thickness, weight, maximize burn etc.

It is exceedingly similar to the petrol engine. Anyone with the basic knowledge can design an engine that runs with a reasonable power output. Its physics and mechanics are well known. All the research and sophistication goes into reducing the weight and extracting the barest millijule of energy from the hydrocarbon. Lakshmi tools at coimbatore makes diesel engines that run fine. So does Fiat its multijets.

The question is, would a LMT engine work for you? Maybe it will, as Sipani motors decided in early 80s.

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

Postby shiv » 09 Jun 2008 08:02

ramdas wrote:N^3,

S-1 was a two stage thermonuclear device with a boosted fission primary. Not a boosted fission device.

Why do you feel we would have been worse off than North Korea had TSP not tested in 1998 ? The sanctions on both were the same. We saw that it had very little effect on us in the end.


Sanctions came off India AND Pakistan after 911.

LCA did suffer. Our nuclear program is still hampered - ever since 1974.

Oh yes our economy will do well, but sanctions will hit our defence industry and continue to hamper our growth in terms of use of nuclear power for military and civilian purposes.

When we become accustomed to sanctions, it is easy to say that sanctions are "having no effect" It only means "No new effect"

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

Postby rocky » 09 Jun 2008 08:10

shiv wrote:Sanctions came off India AND Pakistan after 911.
Those sanctions are still on for India.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Postby negi » 09 Jun 2008 08:16

Gurujano from whatever I could understand from the arguments put forth by gents here is it safe to assume that the actual crux of the matter is " When to TEST" not whether to TEST or NOT.

Above in my opinion is governed by the following:

1.Nuclear research fraternity which actually is working on the weapons pro gramme : it is they who can actually justify to the GOI whether they have perfected/ come up with new weapons to be validated via field tests.

2. The GOI needs to prioritize its policy making taking into consideration implications of testing vs the justification put forth by scientific community.

Enqyoob's arguments more or less cover the point (2) above, as for the point (1) is concerned I dont know how much of that can/will be discussed on BRF.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 09 Jun 2008 08:17

Sanctions were also diluted because the desi commyoonity was 99% supportive of INDIA DECLARING ITSELF A NUKE WEAPON STATE. The real breakthrough was the SBI Bond Issue which raised $4B in record time. Never looked back after that.

I can tell you that the support outside India won't be 99% if there is a new round of tests. In fact it may be 5%. Or a yawn, as in "what's the IPL score, yaar?" Some may feel that the Indian economy is so huge and independent now that this won't matter. I think they are quite wrong. Right now, every time the American stock market far*s, the Indian stock market gasps for breath. Like an article on Lehman Bros troubles last week caused a 140-point drop in India. And these are when there is NO intent in America to harm the Indian economy, in fact all the leading investment firms and all the snake-oil peddlers are boosting the Indian Economy as the Investment of the Future.

So what happens when there is real anger directed at a militaristic India? A "whoosh sucking sound" as FDI is withdrawn, the big investment firms pull out, and outsourcing contracts get pulled.

If 3 of the top 6 software houses collapse and FDI evacuates like an airplane in decompression, the Indian economy will go back in a hurry to what it was in 1996. Or 1992, Houristan forbid. This was what we feared in 1998, but the people's reaction (GREATLY helped by TSP idiots) saved the day. It won't again.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 09 Jun 2008 08:25

Dileep:
The question is, would a LMT engine work for you? Maybe it will, as Sipani motors decided in early 80s.


Well... question is also whether a Ferrari body and a Honda Indy car engine will make the ride from Trissur to Ernakulam any more pleasant in the weeks after the monsoon. In our nbd, Ambassador works just as well (maybe lot better). So is it more important to build the Ferrari or fix the blessed roads?

Of course the Ferrari will amaze the urchins mightily, but it can't move any faster than 20 mph either. Do the urchins REALLY think any better of u if u sit in a Ferrari on this road? Or will they say: "Figures. What moorkhans!"

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

Postby svinayak » 09 Jun 2008 08:27

negi wrote:Gurujano from whatever I could understand from the arguments put forth by gents here is it safe to assume that the actual crux of the matter is " When to TEST" not whether to TEST or NOT.


On the spot

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

Postby satyarthi » 09 Jun 2008 08:45

enqyoob:

The west and China could have armed and pampered Pakistan against India, if it had not tested, I remember thinking the same thoughts in 1998. But the west did know about Paki nuclear program. So, I don't think the specter of "Islamic Bomb" dawned on them only post 1998 tests. I think they would have definitely tried to use Pakistan against India, but I doubt whether Pakistan would have been given access to nuclear or missile tech just to counter India. Wouldn't an US or Chinese nuclear bomb in Pakistani hands still be the "Islamic Bomb"? Kargil kind of Paki adventure could have been supported by US and China. But would they have really risked a nuclear war over it? There are a lot of hypotheticals here and I don't think it is possible to traverse this minefield safely.

The argument that TN yield was deliberately kept low to not to damage a village is troublesome. Since 1974 till 1998, the main remaining thing to demo was the TN. And a >200kt yield would have satisfied all the parties. Considering how much money must have been spent on TN project, and how much of deterrence (perception is part of the deterrence reality) depends on it, couldn't GOI have relocated the whole village? As is being argued now, if the TN test was to be a one time affair, relocating the village lock stock and barrel would have served India's interests much better and at a reasonable cost. And as mentioned, even with 45kt the village had lot of damage, then why couldn't they have just bitten the bullet and gone whole hog.

shiv:

Regarding the worrisome possibility of becoming unwitting tools in others psy-ops against India, I have no satisfactory reply to that. Since we don't know one way or the other it is hard to make a judgement. If you think this topic is toxic, then may be this should not be discussed in an open forum.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 09 Jun 2008 08:54

I don' think India needs to test NOW but yes, I think within next 10-20 years another series will be important

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Postby negi » 09 Jun 2008 09:08

satyarthi wrote:The argument that TN yield was deliberately kept low to not to damage a village is troublesome. Since 1974 till 1998, the main remaining thing to demo was the TN.

Plausible explanations:

1. Where else the tests could be conducted apart from Pokharan while still being able to escape detection by US spy sats (other geographic considerations for a test notwithstanding) .

2. For a TN weapon what is the probability 'Pf' of fusion not taking place despite the fission trigger going off in a planned manner and generating enough temperature to trigger the fusion ( it is safe to assume that these can be experimentally verified after the test )? Now measure this probability 'Pf' and one can weigh it against the possible damage caused to the nearby villages in case a fully scaled device be tested.


I have no knowledge of nukes however if one places himself in the programme director's shoes , isn't it safe to assume he might have accounted for the above two , and would have drawn a line accordingly ?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Jun 2008 09:33

enqyoob wrote: The 123 is the only way there can be an international agreement with the US, AFAIK. As we have discussed b4, all it takes is for India to pass laws stating India's constraints, and India's signature is governed by those.
No such counter laws are in sight and for good reason. This deal will die, if counter laws come into the picture.

Other than that, you say: "If FMCT comes into force". But then India is still a nuclear weapons state, with the strategic program NOT subject to international inspection, so I still don't see the big deal there. Indian mined uranium, and spent/reprocessed fuel from India's strategic-sector reactors, are India's business.
Are you of the view that India has enough fissile material and/or will have by the time FMCT kicks in? Also, I will again ask you to look at the modus operandi of the separation agreement to figure out, what will happen to India’s mined uranium under an FMCT.

The N2TN ppl are basically saying what their equivalents in America say: IOW, :P to all international agreements.

I don't disagree with that sentiment, but the stategic arguments seen so far do not show why testing will achieve anything that is worth the cost to the civilian economy, and to prospects for technological advancement in all areas.
Multiple PM’s of India faced the same question from the 70’s to 98. Everyone, except one, sided with your argument. Even KS was of the view that there was no need to test, but did support the tests, once it was done. Any PM of India will factor all these and make a decision. History will tell us, if their decision was right. For me, the other PM’s of India compromised on India’s security needs and buckled to fear, uncertainty and doubt.

And you can't escape by saying that it's my "superior argumentative skills" or "Pingreji" that's hindering you - in fact I regard these as unfair and scary tactics, given all the "Rona-Dhona" about "civility" etc. I am not abusive to anyone. :rotfl: yes, :P , yes, but personal abuse, no.
Wah, Wah. Ulta Chor Kotwal ko daate. See, know what I mean by superior argumentative skills. :)

The fact is that the N2TN and I2T crowd were committing atrocities for weeks b4 I decided to check why I was getting such interesting emails like

"XXXXX, Go F*** Urself!" (one example)

It was pretty clear that not enough discussion was going into the motivations behind the I2T (because the "patriotism" and "jingoness" of the crowd was so much above question). So ppl were arguing about the veins in the leaves, and missing the forest.

The fact is that when we dig deep enough and cut out all the false reasoning, there is nothing left to justify N2TN, and some very uncomfortable realizations come about the motivations behind I2T.
What is I2T now? I will not tell you, what to do, but obviously there are other ways t orespond. In choosing to use labels, there is a tendency to bracket and pigeon hole “allâ€

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Jun 2008 09:39

shiv wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:
enqyoob wrote:satyarthi: That would b "NR2TA" in James Bond fashion. "No Rush to Test Again". 8)

There was a good reason why the world came around to India's viewpoint in 1998. Pakistani stupidity. Remember the wild celebrations of relief when TSP tested? We would have been far worse off than North Korea today if it weren't for the idiots in Islamagood. What dummies will we find this time? Myanmar junta? Bangladesh?
If so, then it was indeed a failure of Indian foreign policy, in not being able to convince the world of the dangers that India faced with a non proven weaponized arsenal against proven arsenals from multiple neighbors, proliferated with the help of and/or benign neglect of the super powers themselves.

India would have been STUPID to use TSP demonstrations as an excuse to reduce sanctions on us.


The words "non proven" and "proven" are bigger proof of your own state of mind than the real state of the arsenal and how it may be used.
If one's state of mind was different, one could make a different statement.

Everything depends on what you choose to believe or disbelieve.

What you choose to believe or disbelieve can now be interfered and messed with by a whole lot of people including Indian media, foreign media, forum discussions etc - including the sudden appearance and disappearance of "knowledgeable" people on the forum who plant "facts" and do not reappear.
Shiv: I was referring to the S2 test, which seeked to prove the weaponized version of POK I.

I was referring to the proven designs in the hands of TSP, supplied by the Chinese.

I have been very direct on "the state of my mind". I do not know, what you are trying to say but if you do not want me to express myself, in what I believe to be true, due to reasons that I may not understand, please let me know and I will desist. TIA.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Jun 2008 09:47

enqyoob wrote:If 3 of the top 6 software houses collapse and FDI evacuates like an airplane in decompression, the Indian economy will go back in a hurry to what it was in 1996. Or 1992, Houristan forbid. This was what we feared in 1998, but the people's reaction (GREATLY helped by TSP idiots) saved the day. It won't again.
Future gazing has always been a complex art. The scenario you paint can be true and did deter many of our PM's from testing. Although, it is only one among a dozen scenarios. There are many things that can be done to ensure that the above scenario does not come true.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20888
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 09 Jun 2008 09:50

What is the guarantee that new tests will be successful to "everyone's" satisfaction?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Jun 2008 09:57

Prem wrote:What is the guarantee that new tests will be successful to "everyone's" satisfaction?
Please refer to the users views of their needs, till the 2030 time frame. If the tests convince them that their requirements can be fulfilled, then that would be considered a success.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20888
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 09 Jun 2008 09:59

ShauryaT wrote:
enqyoob wrote:If 3 of the top 6 software houses collapse and FDI evacuates like an airplane in decompression, the Indian economy will go back in a hurry to what it was in 1996. Or 1992, Houristan forbid. This was what we feared in 1998, but the people's reaction (GREATLY helped by TSP idiots) saved the day. It won't again.
Future gazing has always been a complex art. The scenario you paint can be true and did deter many of our PM's from testing. Although, it is only one among a dozen scenarios. There are many things that can be done to ensure that the above scenario does not come true.


With energy prices going through the roof , priority should be economic well being.OTOH , Indians all over the world have ammassed some serious money and they wont hesitate to support GOI if India is sanctioned provided they get the nationalistic government in Delhi with firebrand, genuine, honest and inspiring leader like Modi.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Jun 2008 10:08

Prem wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:
enqyoob wrote:If 3 of the top 6 software houses collapse and FDI evacuates like an airplane in decompression, the Indian economy will go back in a hurry to what it was in 1996. Or 1992, Houristan forbid. This was what we feared in 1998, but the people's reaction (GREATLY helped by TSP idiots) saved the day. It won't again.
Future gazing has always been a complex art. The scenario you paint can be true and did deter many of our PM's from testing. Although, it is only one among a dozen scenarios. There are many things that can be done to ensure that the above scenario does not come true.


With energy prices going through the roof , priority should be economic well being.OTOH , Indians all over the world have ammassed some serious money and they wont hesitate to support GOI if India is sanctioned provided they get the nationalistic government in Delhi with firebrand, genuine, honest and inspiring leader like Modi.
I will be more thrilled when a Rahul Gandhi makes the same case. :) Also, Indians do not support for the sake of supporting. Patriotism is a finnicky thing. RIB was at some cost to the nation. It was at 9% interest. Quite high for a bond issued by a sovereign government. There will be a cost, one way or the other.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6536
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 09 Jun 2008 10:13

Raj Malhotra wrote:I don' think India needs to test NOW but yes, I think within next 10-20 years another series will be important


Why?

If people read all the posts and all the great information information posted, it is apparent that one does *not* have to have a full fledged test anytime now or in near future or even in far future [at least 2 decades from now!] After that predicting anything is useless.

Note that when we test the "bum" we are saying that the "physics" package has gone run away critical [super critical]. What can one test without going critical and remaining sub-critical?

1. Triggers and high explosives!
2. State of equations when just the tritium is squeezed. Explosively or via laser?
3. Create the right and test hohlraums. Please read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohlraum, specifically -

[url]The radiation source (e.g., laser) is pointed at the interior of the hohlraum, rather than on the capsule itself (a process known as "direct drive"), which absorbs and reradiates the energy as X-rays. The advantage to this approach is that the energy is reradiated in a much more symmetric fashion than would be possible in the direct drive approach, resulting in a more uniform implosion.
[/url]

Check the size of the hohlraum out in the wikipedia image.

There is more to gain by not testing and *not* getting locked out of next generation of fusion research. We should be either creating ICF testing inhouse or get onto that bandwagon with other international consortiums [and not getting locked out]

More than testing 1MT bums to satisfy that we have the long ones we should be investing in next generation of tailoring technologies rather than looking down our own pants and ensure that the bums are there.

Here is more on the next generation of technologies that we should get onto:

1. Inertial confinement fusion.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_confinement_fusion
[/url] - note from the link above:

Inertial confinement fusion (ICF) is a process where nuclear fusion reactions are initiated by heating and compressing a fuel target, typically in the form of a pellet that most often contains a mixture of deuterium and tritium.

The aim of ICF is to produce a condition known as "ignition", where this heating process causes a chain reaction that burns a significant portion of the fuel. Typical fuel pellets are about the size of a pinhead and contain around 10 milligrams of fuel: in practice, only a small proportion of this fuel will undergo fusion, but if all this fuel was consumed it would release the energy equivalent to burning a barrel of oil.

2. And of course not getting kicked out of ITER! That is the next generation of research .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

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

Postby satyarthi » 09 Jun 2008 10:13

Has anyone made the argument that the Khetolai village needed to stay functioning normally till the tests to maintain secrecy.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Jun 2008 10:27

satyarthi wrote:Has anyone made the argument that the Khetolai village needed to stay functioning normally till the tests to maintain secrecy.
Yes, I have seen that argument being made. Do not remember now, by who? Also, tried the find the merit of that argument but did not make much headway. Any insights?

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

Postby shiv » 09 Jun 2008 10:41

negi wrote:is it safe to assume that the actual crux of the matter is " When to TEST" not whether to TEST or NOT..


EXACTLY!

Those who have suddenly become anxious (due to various factors/statements/news/psy-ops) and have begun to perceive that India is not deterring anyone are calling for testing immediately

Those who perceive that things are not as bad as they are being made out to be by a restricted group of people believe that immediate testing is not necessary. Testing can be held off until we are in greater control of the destinies of various nations and events in the world.

Everything (like maya) is perception.

We cannot perceive how others are viewing our deterrent because they hold it secret since it will reveal their state of mind and their fears.

However if we perceive our own deterrent as being weak and imagine that others are not scared or deterred, we are revealing our fears and our desperate need to reassure ourselves or be reassured by a bigger bang. This perception of our own weakness can be converted into a real weakness by testing out of turn. Others will understand how to respond to our tests to make us weaker.

I personally do not perceive that Indian deterrent is not credible. Apart from random forum people who appeared and disappeared in a trice there is little evidence to suggest that S1 or the tests were an utter failure or that a credible deterrent cannot be built from what we have. We have detractors like BK but that is a healthy sign and so more power to detractors and people who hold a different opinion. But that does not mean that we must irrationally do a test right away in response to a carefully conjured up and manufactured anxiety about our deterrent.

We test again when it is right for us to test and warn anyone who thinks we can't fry their testimonials that they are welcome to try and find out by real war rather than getting us to jump and dance in response to psy ops. Unfortunately the forum has fallen for psy ops. Luckily the nation has not.

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

Postby shiv » 09 Jun 2008 10:47

satyarthi wrote:Regarding the worrisome possibility of becoming unwitting tools in others psy-ops against India, I have no satisfactory reply to that. Since we don't know one way or the other it is hard to make a judgement. If you think this topic is toxic, then may be this should not be discussed in an open forum.


No in fact if the subject is toxic it is important to try and achieve a catharsis and say what was not said in the process of psy ops - so people can can expose themselves to all sorts of different thought processes rather than the one anxiety creating thought process that the test results were a bluff and all is lost unless we test now.

Psy ops is a game that many can play. Suppression is the worst response.

prashanth
BRFite
Posts: 511
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 16:50
Location: Barad- dyr

Postby prashanth » 09 Jun 2008 11:17

shiv wrote:
negi wrote:is it safe to assume that the actual crux of the matter is " When to TEST" not whether to TEST or NOT..


EXACTLY!.......
.


prashanth wrote:( in reply to ramana's post)

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.


Im glad that atleast two people share my opinion.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2155
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Postby merlin » 09 Jun 2008 11:52

Unfortunately the forum has fallen for psy ops. Luckily the nation has not.


When you take yourself too seriously, that's what happens. Witness the desperate need to rebut the "fizzle theory" elsewhere, to the point where a poster is personally attacked and his motives questioned (NPA anyone?).

The amount of energy expended to rebut the "fizzle theory" both here and elsewhere is truly enormous. Why? Because people feel that the "fizzle theory" had undermined deterrence in the eyes of the adversaries?

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

Postby Chandi Prasaad » 09 Jun 2008 11:57

enqyoob wrote:No (that was no to satyarthi, not shauryaT), the times have changed. Tsar-Bomba may have impressed the world in 1970, but since it can't be done atmospheric, it won't be very impressive anyway. It will just cause anger and contempt.

Same money spent on a space shot is better bang for the buck, far more visible, and will demonstrate accuracy/precision to scare the right people. That's the other reason why I say, sent one to the Sun. Sooryayaan. Equipped with lots of POK sensors, sending data straight to DAE.

ShauryaT:

The 123 is the only way there can be an international agreement with the US, AFAIK. As we have discussed b4, all it takes is for India to pass laws stating India's constraints, and India's signature is governed by those.

Other than that, you say: "If FMCT comes into force". But then India is still a nuclear weapons state, with the strategic program NOT subject to international inspection, so I still don't see the big deal there. Indian mined uranium, and spent/reprocessed fuel from India's strategic-sector reactors, are India's business. The N2TN ppl are basically saying what their equivalents in America say: IOW, :P to all international agreements.

I don't disagree with that sentiment, but the stategic arguments seen so far do not show why testing will achieve anything that is worth the cost to the civilian economy, and to prospects for technological advancement in all areas.

And you can't escape by saying that it's my "superior argumentative skills" or "Pingreji" that's hindering you - in fact I regard these as unfair and scary tactics, given all the "Rona-Dhona" about "civility" etc. I am not abusive to anyone. :rotfl: yes, :P , yes, but personal abuse, no.

The fact is that the N2TN and I2T crowd were committing atrocities for weeks b4 I decided to check why I was getting such interesting emails like

"XXXXX, Go F*** Urself!" (one example)

It was pretty clear that not enough discussion was going into the motivations behind the I2T (because the "patriotism" and "jingoness" of the crowd was so much above question). So ppl were arguing about the veins in the leaves, and missing the forest.

The fact is that when we dig deep enough and cut out all the false reasoning, there is nothing left to justify N2TN, and some very uncomfortable realizations come about the motivations behind I2T.

We have also seen the detailed arguments put forward by the inside experts like P.Iyengar and the fringe expert commentators like Karnad. Each makes sense in his narrow frame of argument, but open them all out and shake them out into a heap, and you see that they don't point to testing as the best course (or even a sensible course of any sort) for the national interest.

Let's list the arguments listed:
1. Weapon reliability must be demonstrated again and again for statistical confidence. The successful tests may have been a fluke (actually no one has advanced this, but I will). This one actually makes sense, but I hold that deterrence is effective whether or not the deterrent will actually explode if dropped on the targets, as long as there is no testing to show the precise statistics.

2. 1MT class weapons are needed for deterrence. I disagree, and this is clearly explained by shiv as well. 1 MT class weapons are doomsday weapons, but doomsday can just as well be celebrated with 10KT weapons and those are far more survivable since they can be sent in large numbers, with small delivery vehicles.

3. Also, in our particular context, 15KT to 20KT weapons (or even 1KT) may be far more relevant to stopping genocidal invasions. These are far more scary to the enemy, since these can be used without invoking the final Doomsday option or causing very large collateral damage.

4. S1 did not get past 45KT, and this suggests that the tritium gas was not fully "burned". But it is also seen that the yield was carefully limited to contain the damage, given the proximity of the Rajasthani village. As it stands, the village suffered pretty serious damage (DDM whined about that). This means to me that the yields (and/or their effects) were greater than the designers actually anticipated. So what S1 showed was the ability to control yield in such a boosted-fission weapon, even though burn was very partial. It is also seen that S1 class weapons cannot be scaled to 1MT anyway, (but see (2) and (3) for why this is irrelevant.

5. "1MT is needed for ICBMs". I argue (and no one seems to pick up on that) that an offence based on ICBMs is not credible any more, that it can be completely defeated. OTOH, a strategic offence based on independent, cruise missile delivery systems, is not defeatable by anything I can see in development.

So from all the above, it seems clearly demonstrated that the POK-2 tests achieved the maximum that the planners really intended, and in fact they cut it very fine indeed. This is the perfect place to leave the deterrent and go on to build enough warheads.

The emphasis should shift to developing delivery systems, full speed, because there will be efforts to put "limits" on testing missiles, in the very near future, and cruise missile development will be banned, as being far too "destabilizing". So the window is very limited there, and we don't want to be caught being the bad guys in the MNPT (missile non-proliferation treaty) or the CMTBT. Right now, UQ and France are behind in hypersonics, but that won't last for very long (they have well-advanced projects). When they get there, CMTBT will be rushed through. India has to stay ahead.

The rest of the arguments, like "Show us that the economic damage from testing will be too much" are just not serious things to debate. Not to ppl who grew up in the 1960s and 70s and 80s.

There u go. In plan old Angreji, not superior Pingerji. 8)

Enqyoob sheds his wisdom on this thread in a complex language and logic more convoluted then mixed DNA of pinglish and Lahori logic and we have missing leaves for forest. Wah wah, good jumble that is pure white noise. Your logic and reasoning on this thread is beyond me, and I will excuse myself your posts, and suggest others to do the same.

Bye.
Last edited by Chandi Prasaad on 09 Jun 2008 12:09, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby svinayak » 09 Jun 2008 12:07

merlin wrote:The amount of energy expended to rebut the "fizzle theory" both here and elsewhere is truly enormous. Why? Because people feel that the "fizzle theory" had undermined deterrence in the eyes of the adversaries?

Could be the lobby which wants to pass the deal behind this effort.

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

Postby shiv » 09 Jun 2008 14:31

merlin wrote:
Unfortunately the forum has fallen for psy ops. Luckily the nation has not.


When you take yourself too seriously, that's what happens. Witness the desperate need to rebut the "fizzle theory" elsewhere, to the point where a poster is personally attacked and his motives questioned (NPA anyone?).

The amount of energy expended to rebut the "fizzle theory" both here and elsewhere is truly enormous. Why? Because people feel that the "fizzle theory" had undermined deterrence in the eyes of the adversaries?


Merlin the comment about taking oneself too seriously was unnecessary if it was directed at me.The comment seeks to find something to grab on to me personally in order to make a connection between a personal attribute of mine and the debate.

In fact, whether I take myself seriously or not, the facts, as they are known from public source information will not change.

But you may have forgotten or chosen to ignore that I was very serious to start with when I started these threads that no derogatory personal attributes or motivations should be attached to anyone when we discuss this subject on here.

The reason is simple and I will state it again in case you have not read it or it has slipped your mind. This debate has a wide variety of opinions being expressed. When you call one person a liar or a traitor, you are automatically downgrading the value of his opinion and equally upgrading the value of opposing opinions.

There appears to be an irresistible human urge to make an argument stronger by pulling down the person who makes an argument. The downside of this attractive trick is that if the same thing is applied to everyone - the whole debate gets bogged down in accusations that one person or the other is a liar or a traitor or, if you like "taking himself too seriously" (and should take himself less seriously).

If we remove these personal bells and whistles that are used to make arguments stronger or weaker, we are left with people's statements that can be taken at face value.

The so called "fizzle" argument has been known for a decade.

The argument had some value. That value was increased a great deal by the allegation that people who were opposed to the fizzle argument may have been liars or traitors. Every statement made by one person was dissed and torn apart to push through a viewpoint that was diametrically opposite to what that person stated. Once the specific accusation against that one person was removed, the fizzle argument lost value and returned to its original value.

Now you have yourself stated that so much energy was not needed to rebut the fizzle argument. I humbly submit to your view and accept that you are completely and wholly correct. Nothing was needed to rebut the fizzle argument other than removing the accusation that people opposed to the fizzle argument were liars or traitors.Once that was done, the fizzle argument disappeared in a cloud of 14 MeV neutrons.

No liars. No fizzles. I presume we can drop that business now?

Added later: What is this "elsewhere" business in your post? Would you be so kind as to explain that more clearly?

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

Postby shiv » 09 Jun 2008 14:47

Acharya wrote:
merlin wrote:The amount of energy expended to rebut the "fizzle theory" both here and elsewhere is truly enormous. Why? Because people feel that the "fizzle theory" had undermined deterrence in the eyes of the adversaries?

Could be the lobby which wants to pass the deal behind this effort.


Yes in fact it could well be the lobby that wants to pass the nuclear deal.

It could also be the lobby that seeks to clarify whether the fizzle argument had any substance beyond calling all opponents of that argument as liars or traitors.

What you choose to believe is entirely your prerogative.

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

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 10 Jun 2008 05:54

Your logic and reasoning on this thread is beyond me, and I will excuse myself your posts, and suggest others to do the same.
Bye.
Last edited by Chandi Prasaad on 09 Jun 2008 06:39 am, edited 1 time in total.


Thank you, sorry:(( you ran out of counter-arguments . I am sure others can decide for themselves. :mrgreen:
(I love the improved collection of smileys and the font color pallette). But where is the :love: smiley?

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

Re:

Postby satyarthi » 10 Jun 2008 06:31

ShauryaT wrote:
satyarthi wrote:Has anyone made the argument that the Khetolai village needed to stay functioning normally till the tests to maintain secrecy.
Yes, I have seen that argument being made. Do not remember now, by who? Also, tried the find the merit of that argument but did not make much headway. Any insights?

There are a couple of arguments for choosing a modest 45kt yield for the TN device.

1. This one is from "the blog". The argument is this: To correctly assess whether both primary and secondary worked as expected with verifiable results, their yields should not be too disparate, otherwise say a 200kt from secondary can swamp the primary's 20kt.

But this argument starts to swim across the logic-lake with great gusto and happily drowns in the middle. As Ramana posted earlier, multiple tests could have been conducted, such as just the primary, and primary+spark-plug+fusion fuel, primary+spark-plug+fusion fuel+fissionable tamper, etc. etc. So assuming that wildly disparate yields in the two stages can create some difficulty in assessing the tests, multiple tests could have been conducted, say one at a modest 45kt and another a full-blown one, say 200kt.

2. The other argument is the need to protect Khetolai village argument. One aspect of success of 1998 tests was the secrecy aspect. If the village had been suddenly evacuated or relocated right before a test, then secrecy could have been compromised. So the argument is that the village should have appeared to function normally until the first test were conducted.

This is perhaps the strongest argument for a 45kt upper limit by design for the TN device. But this also has holes. From 1974 till 1998, there were 24 long years during which the village could have been relocated giving any number of reasons and claiming that no tests are scheduled in near future. But one can perhaps blame the bureaucracy and politics for not relocating the village in time.

P.S. Does anyone know whether there are any strong reasons why the Khetolai village must stay where it is.

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

Re: Re:

Postby shiv » 10 Jun 2008 06:52

satyarthi wrote:
P.S. Does anyone know whether there are any strong reasons why the Khetolai village must stay where it is.


Maybe this should go in the good governance thread.

Property in Khetolai has probably been inherited and passed on for generations before nuclear testing. If people wanted to move me out of my property for anything - be it nuclear testing or dam building - I would protest and protest violently. Only government goodagiri can justify this and we do accept government goondagiri for assorted dams and highway projects.

It is another matter that laws in India do not allow you to own your property wholly and completely without giving the government rights to throw you out.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Re:

Postby ShauryaT » 10 Jun 2008 06:56

shiv wrote:
satyarthi wrote:
P.S. Does anyone know whether there are any strong reasons why the Khetolai village must stay where it is.


Maybe this should go in the good governance thread.

Property in Khetolai has probably been inherited and passed on for generations before nuclear testing. If people wanted to move me out of my property for anything - be it nuclear testing or dam building - I would protest and protest violently. Only government goodagiri can justify this and we do accept government goondagiri for assorted dams and highway projects.

It is another matter that laws in India do not allow you to own your property wholly and completely without giving the government rights to throw you out.
Shiv: Those type of laws are pretty standard in most nations. However, the genius in India was, there used to huge fights in the courts and many laws were changed to reflect the "right" compensation, in the government's eyes. Recounting from Indira days.

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

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby John Snow » 10 Jun 2008 07:08

Its called Eminent Domain

Eminent domain (United States), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (South Africa and Canada) in common law legal systems is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or rights in property, without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to "public use or civic" or in some cases, economic development.


PS: Great Job Jagan Garu, the forum looks great

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Re:

Postby ShauryaT » 10 Jun 2008 07:13

satyarthi wrote:P.S. Does anyone know whether there are any strong reasons why the Khetolai village must stay where it is.
No, need for permanent relocation. Compensation for damage to structures should be enough.

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

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 10 Jun 2008 07:17

Gee! Imagine Khelotai village ("forcibly") evacuated, remember "Slaughter of Democracy"?
And entire NBA, CPI(M), Angana / 3-Rivers Foundation and WhatsHerNaam the Tiger-Frightener all sitting on the ground holding "Allah Will Destroy Terrist India" signs.... And the yield reaches 120kt....
:mrgreen:

YESSSSSS!!!!! WE NEED MORE TESTS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! 8) :twisted:
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 10 Jun 2008 07:27, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby shiv » 10 Jun 2008 07:26

One of the things I did was to Google for information on what kind of building damage could occur from underground tests and whether it could be a bluff to give a Khetolai excuse for a 45 kt yield.

Unfortunately information is scarce and most of it is not freely available and requires subscription or payment. But some work has been published in regard to this - esp in relation to damage to buildings in Nevada and Las Vegas.

Here is one such
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/pro ... id=4013577

But as far as I can tell - there is no clear information to say whether 100 kt at 5 km is bad or not bad.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36027
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby SaiK » 10 Jun 2008 07:29

In the name of mining, we could build large testing centers 1000ft beneath surface.. that way, no villages should feel the destructions. Besides, these tests especially the larger ones that sure enough gonna cause some disturbances, should be done during some festival time, or arrange a free booze cum saadee/salwar distribution mela or something where all villages gather in open space.

All we need is investment, motto, and the drive to do it!


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest