Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2448
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Prem Kumar » 28 Aug 2009 05:27

Ramana: I find it difficult to believe that this is a GOI sponsored leak. If the GOI wanted Santhanam to be the attack dog, then Kalam & RC wouldnt be allowed to hit back. The govt can say something like "we are taking this seriously and are looking into the matter". Plus they can let Santhanam clearly state that the fission-weapons are in great shape (to maintain deterrence).

I dont think the govt needs to protect a TN-deterrence posture, given that its feeble anyway - with serious doubts about the existence of weaponized TNs.

Going by the reaction of RC, it definitely looks like this was an unexpected revelation which hit home.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 28 Aug 2009 05:35

Sanjay wrote:Arun don't you think 350kg is a bit light for a reliable Indian FBF weapon ?

I am not a designer. It is what it is.

Do you see who is responsible for undermining Indian nuclear weapon credibility? What do you think precipitated Kargil when the formidable nuclear weapon prowess was gallantly projected by R.Chidambrum? Unkill knew and shared it w/ TSP and cajoled it to go for one last attempt.

ABV canceled the second round of test ~2002-3 when NSSP was dangled as a lollipop to him. That was his own independent decision taken without advise from his national security advisers. :evil:

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6948
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Anujan » 28 Aug 2009 05:37

ramana wrote:Now we know the troubles that Jaswant Singh went through with Strobe Talbott. Hats of to him for what he achieved despite the under-performance.

Under performance was known by those in the know.

Not wanting (testing) the big one and keeping what we have, was quid pro quo in exchange for N-deal and strategic alliance to balance lizard. This was JS brilliance which ST appreciated for finding common ground.

In this context, anti testing clauses in 123 were kosher as long as this script was followed. This culminated in the mumbling of "helping SDREs become a global power" over a meal of Basmati.

One recession and Unkil forgot his promises. Went to embrace noodle wallahs. Left the "dont test", forgot to move on high tech part, forgot the strategic alliance part.

The equation has changed. We will keep what we have, and we will want more.

Never trust your unkil.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby RoyG » 28 Aug 2009 05:39

US nuclear gurus see signs of more Indian nuclear tests

Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN 28 August 2009

WASHINGTON: US nuclear pundits feel the Indian establishment -- political, scientific, or both in concert – may be lining up to conduct more
nuclear tests to validate and improve the country’s arsenal before the Obama administration shuts the door on nuclear explosions.

''You bet he wants to test again,'' said Henry Sokolski, Executive Director of the Washington DC-based Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, when asked about the remarks from a key Indian nuclear scientist suggesting India’s thermonuclear test was not up to mark. ''Imagine you are a nuclear weapons designer who has corrected the mistakes and ironed out the wrinkles. You would be crazy not to want to test again.''

''You have to look at the DNA of a weapons designer. They always want to make the weapons smaller, lighter, more powerful,'' Sokolski added. ''If you blindfold them, tie their hands and leave them in the middle of a forest, they will still make their way to a test site.''


While Sokolski addressed the Indian motivations largely from the technology validation standpoint, Washington has long believed that geo-political objectives rather than scientific or technical metrics drives New Delhi’s nuclear weapons quest. The argument has gotten another boost following the remarks by a key Indian scientist, K.Santhanam, questioning the potency of India’s thermonuclear bomb.

While ''We told you so,'' was pretty much the reaction in the US scientific and strategic community on the renewed controversy over the yield of the thermo-nuclear device in Shakti series of nuclear test arising from remarks by Santhanam, there is lingering suspicion here that the disclosure in politically driven. It’s rare for Indian scientists to break ranks on a sensitive national security issue.

Why would Santhanam go public, with such deliberation, on something that was commonly discussed and widely acknowledged in scientific circles, a decade after the questions first surfaced?

The answer, according to some nuclear pundits mulling on the issue on blogs: To ward off growing American pressure on India to sign various nuclear containment treaties and perhaps enable India to conduct one last series of tests to validate and improve its nuclear arsenal.

In scores of research papers and studies in the immediate weeks and months of the 1998 nuclear tests in Pokhran, US scientists repeatedly questioned the reported yield of the thermo-nuclear device, saying it was well below India’s claim of 43-45 kilotons. In fact, some scientists, notably Terry Wallace, then with the University of Arizona and now attached to the Los Alamos National Laboratory, put the combined yield of the three May 11 tests at as low as 10 to 15 kilotons.

Two other tests on May 13 involved sub-kiloton devices for tactical weapons, which US scientists doubted even took place. Even the six nuclear tests claimed by Pakistan were treated with derision, with US scientists saying only two of them involved nuclear devices.

''This is quite clearly a case where governments tested for a political reason rather than scientific reasons, so we have to be suspicious of what they say,'' Wallace, the country’s top nuclear seismology expert, had said about the reported yields.

On Thursday, suspicion lingered in strategic circles that even Santhanam’s ''admission'' was cloaked in politics, aimed primarily at warding off US pressure on New Delhi to sign CTBT, the long-sought treaty to ban nuclear tests, and making ground for a further series of tests. There is renewed energy in Washington under the Democratic dispensation to push forward with such nuclear containment treaties after the previous Bush administration put them on the backburner.

Some US nuclear gurus also believe any break-out test at this point will be detrimental to India, even if it is aimed at validating its thermo-nuclear device, or the so-called Hydrogen Bomb.

"An Indian test would be very toxic to cooperation it has just gained under the nuclear deal. It’s hard to see what India would gain," said Gary Milholin Director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

Ensuring a reliable thermonuclear bomb? Milholin scoffed at the idea. "There are people who say American nuclear bombs won’t work because we have not tested for so long," he laughed. "I don’t think anyone would want to test that assumption."

Similarly, he said, it would be risky for any country to count on India’s thermonuclear weapon to have a low yield.

"There are now ways other than testing to increase confidence," Milholin added. "And I think India has enough computing power to do that."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 943249.cms

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 28 Aug 2009 05:51

Raja Ram wrote:shiv,
did not receive any mail from you. if you can state your email here, I can forward the mail.


please send mail to bennedose@hotmail.com

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 28 Aug 2009 05:51

Similarly, he said, it would be risky for any country to count on India’s thermonuclear weapon to have a low yield.

"There are now ways other than testing to increase confidence," Milholin added. "And I think India has enough computing power to do that."


Interesting. Ayatollah Milholin has suddenly developed confidence in the ability of Indian scientists.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4473
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sanjaykumar » 28 Aug 2009 05:52

"An Indian test would be very toxic to cooperation it has just gained under the nuclear deal. It’s hard to see what India would gain," said Gary Milholin Director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.


It was hard to see what India would gain in 1998 also. Somehow here we are, American laws and policies changed and the American military eager for 'joint exercises' with India.

Funnily enough none of the professional non-proliferationists was able to identify this. Does not inspire confidence in the rest of their work.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby RoyG » 28 Aug 2009 06:10

hmm...is it possible that the US may try to validate one of its own thermonuke designs under the cloak of a string of indian tests?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 28 Aug 2009 06:13

Arun_S wrote:You must be kidding. In forked tongue speak, I and fellow BRFites were told by worthies that S1 was a FBF and not a TN device. India did not even test a TN device in Shakti series!!! :rotfl:



well here is what I wrote about the 1998 tests on page 4 or 5 of this thread

shiv wrote:Every statement could be a preplanned lie - the only "truth" being the squiggles seen on worldwide seismographs and craters that appeared overnight. That's all..

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 28 Aug 2009 06:14

KS isn't a physicist?

http://www.drdo.org/pub/nl/aug2000/personnel.htm
Dr K Santhanam has taken charge as Director, Defence Food Research Laboratory, Mysore, wef 1 May 2000.

Dr Santhanam obtained his PhD in Biochemistry from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. After a stint in the US as a Post- Doctoral Fellow and at VP Chest Institute, University of Delhi as Reader, he joined DFRL in 1976. In 1986, he was awarded a Visiting Fellowship in the US for two years to investigate the biochemical mechanism of induction/prevention of a food contaminant-induced liver cancer. He served as Director, Defence Research Laboratory, Tezpur, from April 1994 to August 1996. Later, he served at DFRL as Additional/ Associate Director.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 28 Aug 2009 06:19

Prem Kumar wrote:Ramana: I find it difficult to believe that this is a GOI sponsored leak. If the GOI wanted Santhanam to be the attack dog, then Kalam & RC wouldnt be allowed to hit back.


Hmm - not necessarily.

It is typical to stir the crap and make the issue muddy by allowing claims and counter-claims. It is only because a lot of people do not want to attribute cleverness to Indians that one may refuse to believe that. But the latter thought is actually a real advantage for anyone who wants to create fog.

Nobody really knows IMO.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4473
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sanjaykumar » 28 Aug 2009 06:23

It is in fact going to script. Because of the case of the dog that did not bark.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sudeepj » 28 Aug 2009 06:30

Some time back I had posted a foreign policy article from Slate magazine, examining the 'special relationship' between Israel and the US. That article put forward the point that the US-Israel relationship was not what made Israel the regional military superpower that it is. Instead it was Israel (for all practical purposes, a European nation transplanted into the middle east) that became the regional military superpower, which in turn made an understanding/special relationship between the US and Israel imperative, because the US is a status-quo power. It enjoys its pinnacle of the pyramid position in the world and doesnt really want anyone below to spread its wings or even squirm.

NPAs will whine a lot and profess to know what is better for Indian strategic interest, fact of the matter is, it is for Indians to determine. Empirically speaking, the US does not mind nations acquiring large military capabilities as long as they dont directly threaten them. Indeed, once these capabilities are established, they become eager to find common ground and win-win solutions.

As for the deterrence relationship with China, this is a country that fought two border wars with established nuclear powers. They will not be deterred by a MT weapon or a KT weapon, if they are intent on fighting a teach a lesson border war, they will. This is not to say that we should only try to match them in that specific theater and conventional weapons, but is an argument that we need to match them across the entire spectrum of national power. If we match them in the conventional space and fail to close the MegaTonne gap, the initiative remains with them, they can choose to escalate or de-escalate any situation at will.

This being our relationship with the G2, it follows very cleanly that we must establish MT level deterrence soon. Its a question of when, not if.

What Santhanam has claimed publicly, is a step in realizing this reality.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sudeepj » 28 Aug 2009 06:36

Gerard wrote:KS isn't a physicist?

http://www.drdo.org/pub/nl/aug2000/personnel.htm
Dr K Santhanam has taken charge as Director, Defence Food Research Laboratory, Mysore, wef 1 May 2000.



Whether or not he is a physicist is irrelevant to his claims. As director of site preparation, he knows exactly what the site was readied for (whether the shafts were dug for 200KT or 45KT) and exactly what the results of the experiment were. Recall there was a dispute between DRDO and BARC scientists, with the DRDO gents in charge of instrumentation, which indicated fizzle. This dispute was 'resolved' by the DRDO group agreeing that their instrumentation was faulty.
Last edited by sudeepj on 28 Aug 2009 06:41, edited 1 time in total.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 28 Aug 2009 06:39

Arun_S wrote:ABV canceled the second round of test ~2002-3 when NSSP was dangled as a lollipop to him. That was his own independent decision taken without advise from his national security advisers. :evil:
How independent?

- from Defense establishment (Military, DRDO, DAE)
- from NSA
- from CCS

Please shed some more light.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Katare » 28 Aug 2009 06:48

Gerard wrote:KS isn't a physicist?

http://www.drdo.org/pub/nl/aug2000/personnel.htm
Dr K Santhanam has taken charge as Director, Defence Food Research Laboratory, Mysore, wef 1 May 2000.

Dr Santhanam obtained his PhD in Biochemistry from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. After a stint in the US as a Post- Doctoral Fellow and at VP Chest Institute, University of Delhi as Reader, he joined DFRL in 1976. In 1986, he was awarded a Visiting Fellowship in the US for two years to investigate the biochemical mechanism of induction/prevention of a food contaminant-induced liver cancer. He served as Director, Defence Research Laboratory, Tezpur, from April 1994 to August 1996. Later, he served at DFRL as Additional/ Associate Director.


ArunS said he was Kalam's boss and leader of these tests?

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Katare » 28 Aug 2009 06:55

If they want to test, right now is the time to do it. Once economies recover and people get into good times no one would be willing to upset the cart. Once US and rest of the world starts ratifying CTBT it'll be pretty hard and taxing to swim against the current

This time they better test a Megaton $hit and they better declare design yields in advance to eliminate these contraversies. :evil:

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanjay M » 28 Aug 2009 07:10

Right now, US troops are stuck in Afghanistan, and India's cooperation is badly needed by the US to ensure the success of the mission.

If they put sanctions on us, then we can make their lives very difficult in Afghanistan. We would pull out our international aid forces, and we could even put our own troops back on the Pak border, diverting Pak troops away from their northern areas.

I really don't think it would be in the USA's interest to engage in escalatory confrontation with us, otherwise the failure of their Afghan mission is assured.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54384
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 28 Aug 2009 07:12

K.Santhanam was the test director. And Test Directors have the final say at the test site. He also has many other stints which are not publicised.

Rajaram please post you entire ideas without edits. Its very good analysis and should be seen.

sudeepj, Aaap bade ho gaye!

ramana
-------------
Also the Hindu/Indian way is to debate all points of view and at the end the prevailing silence will declare the correct point of view.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby PratikDas » 28 Aug 2009 07:18

ramana wrote:Rajaram please post you entire ideas without edits. Its very good analysis and should be seen.

Thank you Ramanaji. With a build up like that, I can't wait to read your analysis, Raja ram ji.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 28 Aug 2009 07:19

ramana wrote:I guess next week this will get politicised and the INC and BJP will slang it out as to how and why the morotarium was announced. And then LKAg will have to tell why he provoked the Pakis with half a bum :mrgreen:



I did not think of this angle. That might explain the "Why now?" from Santhanam. Kaangress may be delivering another blow to add to the self inflicted blows of the BJP - to indicate that "You guys were no good at either anti-terrorist activity or at managing deterrence"

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby amit » 28 Aug 2009 07:23

RoyG wrote:US nuclear gurus see signs of more Indian nuclear tests

Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN 28 August 2009

WASHINGTON: US nuclear pundits feel the Indian establishment -- political, scientific, or both in concert – may be lining up to conduct more
nuclear tests to validate and improve the country’s arsenal before the Obama administration shuts the door on nuclear explosions.

''You bet he wants to test again,'' said Henry Sokolski, Executive Director of the Washington DC-based Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, when asked about the remarks from a key Indian nuclear scientist suggesting India’s thermonuclear test was not up to mark. [u]''Imagine you are a nuclear weapons designer who has corrected the mistakes and ironed out the wrinkles. You would be crazy not to want to test again.''
>
>
>


Some US nuclear gurus also believe any break-out test at this point will be detrimental to India, even if it is aimed at validating its thermo-nuclear device, or the so-called Hydrogen Bomb.

"An Indian test would be very toxic to cooperation it has just gained under the nuclear deal. It’s hard to see what India would gain," said Gary Milholin Director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

Ensuring a reliable thermonuclear bomb? Milholin scoffed at the idea. "There are people who say American nuclear bombs won’t work because we have not tested for so long," he laughed. "I don’t think anyone would want to test that assumption."

Similarly, he said, it would be risky for any country to count on India’s thermonuclear weapon to have a low yield.

"There are now ways other than testing to increase confidence," Milholin added. "And I think India has enough computing power to do that."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 943249.cms


I think Chidanand's article pretty much nails the game. And that is shadwo boxing over CTBT. Note how suddenly capabilities of Indian scientists and computing power is soooo impressive to folks like Milholin! :)

Santhanam's carefully worded statement to the effect that "western measurements" showed the fizzle makes sense. You use their data to show the fizzle and then say sorry we need to test again before CTBT.

And all these statements and counter statements are a nice show so enjoy. Does anyone think that if Santhanam spoke out of line the first time, he would have been allowed to make further statements defending his position by GoI?

And also, if I'm not mistaken, he made his comments at a classified seminar. Does anyone think that it would have leaked if that was not the intention? We have an Official Secrets Act and all govt babus both retired and non-retired are bound by it.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby amit » 28 Aug 2009 07:25

shiv wrote:
I guess next week this will get politicised and the INC and BJP will slang it out as to how and why the morotarium was announced. And then LKAg will have to tell why he provoked the Pakis with half a bum :mrgreen:



I did not think of this angle. That might explain the "Why now?" from Santhanam. Kaangress may be delivering another blow to add to the self inflicted blows of the BJP - to indicate that "You guys were no good at either anti-terrorist activity or at managing deterrence"


Shiv,

Surely you're making this comment in jest. Do you think any govt in power in India (be it Kangress or Bhajpa) would use something as sensitive as the credibility of our deterrence to settle political scores? :-?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 28 Aug 2009 07:27

sudeepj wrote:Whether or not he is a physicist is irrelevant to his claims. As director of site preparation, he knows exactly what the site was readied for (whether the shafts were dug for 200KT or 45KT) and exactly what the results of the experiment were. Recall there was a dispute between DRDO and BARC scientists, with the DRDO gents in charge of instrumentation, which indicated fizzle. This dispute was 'resolved' by the DRDO group agreeing that their instrumentation was faulty.

Saar: IIRC K.Santhanam was the leader (boss) of the campaign. Everybody involved in Shakti worked for and under him (irrespective if those people were elder in age or had different rank in their organization).

As an aside; IMVHO It is an internal revolt initiated by a person who:
    1. knows more than most
    2. has nothing to lose
    3. possesses a very potent (and lethal) life insurance policy.

Anil Kakodkar's continued silence is also the give-away. He has found it fit to talk about FDI in the nuclear energy sector just a day ago, but has still shied away from any comment on this critical issue which directly concerns him. Why would the chairman of the commission, a leading member of the Shakti team, and an author of the articles of the post-event data stay quiet for so long? OTOH, the CNS, the home minister, and perhaps even teh gardener in S. Block have jumped in to dispel the doubts on the tests and cast doubts on Santhanam.

Apart from Anil Kakodkar's silence, the silence of A. K. Anthony is equally puzzling lends additional credence to some internal action against some impending act of perfidy. While the MoD has issued a patently bland denial:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/it-is-toal-sell-out-of-indias-defence-shame/507863/

Anthony himself has said nothing. This issue comes directly under Anthony's purview and not that of P.Chidambrum (cousin of the venerable R.Chidambrum of Fizzle vintage). Yet, P.Chidambrum found it fit to pass a comment, while Anthony has kept silent. Anthony as most people know has a history of directness. He left Delhi rather than get involved with the treaties, etc when H Clinton visited. Is he signaling something here through his silence?

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 28 Aug 2009 07:28

IIRC, Natwar Singh went around as FM declaring in Japan and SoKo that the 1998 tests were a terrible idea etc. So there is plenty of precedent.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby amit » 28 Aug 2009 07:33

Katare wrote:If they want to test, right now is the time to do it. Once economies recover and people get into good times no one would be willing to upset the cart. Once US and rest of the world starts ratifying CTBT it'll be pretty hard and taxing to swim against the current

This time they better test a Megaton $hit and they better declare design yields in advance to eliminate these contraversies. :evil:


Katare,

While CTBT could be one of the reasons for this sudden flurry, I personally think the NoKo test and the US' lame reaction to it could also have provoked the Indian establishment.

Everyone knows that NoKo is just testing ground for, as Ramana says, a DIY rouge Thermo Nuke for Chini clients like Pakistan.

India, probably waited for some time to see what the US would do. However, with all that G2 bhai chariya between the creditor and debtor was perhaps the proverbial last straw on the camels back.

The govt was waiting for the launch of the Arihant. Now that has been done and its on its way to becoming operational, the timing was considered right.

Another point to add to the mix: It could be the current economic crisis and again the G2 bhai chariya has embolden the Chinni to show their bellicosity now. It's no knowing what the better looking Clinton promised the Mandarins in the Forbidden City.

Geo-politically, IMO, matters are coming to a head and hence India is moving its pieces.

JMT

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sudeepj » 28 Aug 2009 07:38

Arun_S wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Whether or not he is a physicist is irrelevant to his claims. As director of site preparation, he knows exactly what the site was readied for (whether the shafts were dug for 200KT or 45KT) and exactly what the results of the experiment were. Recall there was a dispute between DRDO and BARC scientists, with the DRDO gents in charge of instrumentation, which indicated fizzle. This dispute was 'resolved' by the DRDO group agreeing that their instrumentation was faulty.

Saar: IIRC K.Santhanam was the leader (boss) of the campaign. Everybody involved in Shakti worked for and under him (irrespective if those people were elder in age or had different rank in their organization).

As an aside; IMVHO It is an internal revolt initiated by a person who:
    1. knows more than most
    2. has nothing to lose
    3. possesses a very potent (and lethal) life insurance policy.


http://www.indianexpress.com/news/it-is-toal-sell-out-of-indias-defence-shame/507863/



Arun

I am agreeing with you in that Santhanams claims cant be dismissed the way PK Iyengars claims were - that he wasnt involved in the campaign and he isnt a weapons designer.

Santhanam was very much in the loop as the director for site preparation, everything else is minutiae..

As an aside, look at the Indian Express URL [url]http://www.indianexpress.com/news/it-is-toal-sell-out-of-indias-defence-shame/507863/[/url]

:D

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 28 Aug 2009 07:40

amit wrote:
Surely you're making this comment in jest. Do you think any govt in power in India (be it Kangress or Bhajpa) would use something as sensitive as the credibility of our deterrence to settle political scores? :-?


No - I'm serious. While neither party will allow deterrence to fail, they will do what they can to milk the issue while saying "I am more patriotic than you" . In fact this could be a prelude to something else or a sideways signal to someone.

It could be Obama.

India seems to be going out of its way to tell the US

1) We are not a threat to you and do not plan to threaten you
2) Kindly do not go too far in messing with our agreements because if choices get really hard we will have to do certain things that will rock your own boat


More in my next post

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1598
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby andy B » 28 Aug 2009 07:41

shiv wrote:
ramana wrote:I guess next week this will get politicised and the INC and BJP will slang it out as to how and why the morotarium was announced. And then LKAg will have to tell why he provoked the Pakis with half a bum :mrgreen:



I did not think of this angle. That might explain the "Why now?" from Santhanam. Kaangress may be delivering another blow to add to the self inflicted blows of the BJP - to indicate that "You guys were no good at either anti-terrorist activity or at managing deterrence"


Dakter Saheb if the above is true and it proves that the BJP/NDA indeed mismanaged the deterrence it will in turn put pressure on Kaangress to put forth another round of tests to remedy the problem. Which will mean another round of tests.

Also going back to the start given the seniority of position of Mr. Santhanam my SDRE mind finds it very hard that a persion of this statue would go ahead to make a statement as big as this in public. :-?

The statement not only questions the testing program as a whole but also puts the credibility of Mr. S into question given that he was the Test Director surely there is more than meets the eye (we already know that I guess) >> not signing the CTBT.

Also if there are indeed implications on the nook sub program as mentioned by the Vishwakarma then it adds a whole another dimension of insufficiency on the whole as a detterence.

On the question of the US we also need to take the economic angle into bearing back in 98 India was just entering the eco development cycle the state of the indian economy is a lot stronger on the whole IMHO now than what it was back in 98 while the same cannot be said about unkil which gives us leverage also in the current environment dragon is breathing down unkil's breath through their reserves and trade imbalance and the need for a suitable contender to question the dragons supremacy in asia and finally as sudeepj mentioned about dragon having already fought with two nookolar armed nations which means if indeed there is a gap tests need to be done pronto!

JMT

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby amit » 28 Aug 2009 07:44

Arun_S wrote:Anil Kakodkar's continued silence is also the give-away. He has found it fit to talk about FDI in the nuclear energy sector just a day ago, but has still shied away from any comment on this critical issue which directly concerns him. Why would the chairman of the commission, a leading member of the Shakti team, and an author of the articles of the post-event data stay quiet for so long? OTOH, the CNS, the home minister, and perhaps even teh gardener in S. Block have jumped in to dispel the doubts on the tests and cast doubts on Santhanam.

Apart from Anil Kakodkar's silence, the silence of A. K. Anthony is equally puzzling lends additional credence to some internal action against some impending act of perfidy.


Arun_S,

Not disputing you POV. However, AK and Anotony's silence could also be read as a signal which will be understood by the correct people that everything is being well-orchestrated and is not a break-out by an individual from the inner-circle.

Every country uses semi-official channels to send signals to other countries when they don't want to show their official hand. For example the US President regularly uses Senators, even from the opposition parties regularly. Note how John Kerry regularly chipped in during the Nuclear deal lead up.

In India the favoured route is retired civil servants who are internationally well known.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 28 Aug 2009 07:45

RoyG wrote:US nuclear gurus see signs of more Indian nuclear tests


:idea:

Aha - a thought just occurred to me..


Check this news that came a few days ago:

http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/aug/ ... -india.htm
The US may have no nuclear trade with India
August 21, 2009 13:05 IST

But the latest indication from Washington is that the US may not be interested in supplying nuclear material and reactors to India under the new dispensation. This is emerging as a matter of policy as well as a practical measure. President Obama does not want to stand in the way of the implementation of the 123 Agreement, but he is sensitive to the criticism that he is willing to dilute his commitment to non-proliferation for the sake of commercial advantages.
He has, therefore, embarked on a path to do the minimum necessary to let the deal run its course without the US itself contributing to the growth of the nuclear strength of India. He wishes to remain committed to the universalisation of the NPT, while pursuing the vision of a nuclear weapon free world in the long term.
The Washington move in G-8 on enrichment and reprocessing should be seen in this context. While the discussions on reprocessing, as provided for in the 123 agreement, will proceed, supply of equipment and technology in the sensitive areas will be ruled out. The US will also work for a gradual revision of the NSG consensus to put sensitive technology beyond the reach of India and others.


"If the US delivers less than promised on the nuke deal. India can deliver more than promised on the testing front" is the signal that is going out IMO

Now watch for the US to put the squeeze on India by some other route and watch how that in tuen affects the balance of choice in the MRCA deal :D

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 28 Aug 2009 07:47

sudeepj wrote: the way PK Iyengars claims were - that he wasnt involved in the campaign and he isnt a weapons designer.

What was his Padma Bhushan in 1975 was for then? Ohhh....it was the PNE!

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 557
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Avarachan » 28 Aug 2009 07:50

Arun_S wrote:

Apart from Anil Kakodkar's silence, the silence of A. K. Anthony is equally puzzling lends additional credence to some internal action against some impending act of perfidy. While the MoD has issued a patently bland denial:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/it-is-toal-sell-out-of-indias-defence-shame/507863/

Anthony himself has said nothing. This issue comes directly under Anthony's purview and not that of P.Chidambrum (cousin of the venerable R.Chidambrum of Fizzle vintage). Yet, P.Chidambrum found it fit to pass a comment, while Anthony has kept silent. Anthony as most people know has a history of directness. He left Delhi rather than get involved with the treaties, etc when H Clinton visited. Is he signaling something here through his silence?


It's worth looking at this article which was posted in the BR topic, "End User Agreement": http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/jul/ ... ngress.htm

______________

Is there trouble brewing in Sonia Gandhi's paradise? And is there a clash of personalities between the two top leaders in the government, an echo of which is being heard in the corridors of the United Progressive Alliance?

An indication of this came on Monday afternoon when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hosted a small and exclusive lunch for the visiting United States Secretary of State Hilary Clinton at his 7 Race Course Road residence.

And significantly absent at the lunch was the Union Finance Minister and the Number 2 in the government, Pranab Mukherjee, whom sources say was not invited for the lunch.


The PM appears to have set his own agenda as far as Hilary Clinton is concerned, and this was quite evident from his guest list ....

While the menu at the lunch was pure Avadhi, which is what Hilary Clinton likes, Pranab Mukherjee was in his Parliament House office where he had lunch with Ahmed Patel, the powerful political secretary to the Congress President Sonia Gandhi, who is known to enjoy a close working relationship with Pranab Mukherjee. Later the two were joined by the Union Defence Minister A K Antony.

It is no secret that after the UPA victory, the Prime Minister wanted Montek Singh Ahluwalia as the Finance Minister, but the move was scuttled by Sonia Gandhi who preferred an experienced, middle-of-the-road approach politician like Pranab Mukherjee to handle the country's finances.

The Prime Minister also wanted total control over external affairs ministry and in this he had his way as the party see-sawed with a number of names before they zeroed-in on S M Krishna.

Those close to 7 Race Course Road disclose that the decision to bring in three comparatively new and inexperienced ministers, Krishna, Shashi Tharoor and Parneet Kaur was deliberate and well thought out by the PM, as it gave Dr Singh along with the NSA, to run the foreign policy.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby amit » 28 Aug 2009 07:56

andy B wrote:Also going back to the start given the seniority of position of Mr. Santhanam my SDRE mind finds it very hard that a persion of this statue would go ahead to make a statement as big as this in public. :-?

The statement not only questions the testing program as a whole but also puts the credibility of Mr. S into question given that he was the Test Director surely there is more than meets the eye (we already know that I guess) >> not signing the CTBT.


Andy,

This is very good point and one which I think needs to be give more consideration.

Unlike PK, Santhanam was a part of the inner circle. Now it could well be what he's saying is a fact - the TN was a fizzle.

However, then the question arises, why did he keep quiet for all these 10 long years? Even though he's a PhD in Biochemistry and not a Nuclear physicist, sure it did not take him so long to realise this "fizzle"?

He's on record saying that the Nuclear deal is good for India.

Yet now he says this. What does that do to his credibility? Before one calls hims a hero, perhaps one needs to consider this facet.

However, do note all the above does not come to the picture if his move is part of wider play to send a signal to the right people.

Now as someone else said on this thread. Is he playing the game on the behest of the GoI or a group within the GoI.

My bet from what looks to be well-choreographed series of moves statements that he's playing for GoI.

However, I could be wrong.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 28 Aug 2009 07:56

I suspect this thread would really have been better off in the Strat forum. The technical aspects of fizzle have been discussed ad nauseam on and off for a decade.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 28 Aug 2009 07:57

So India now stands violating PTBT and getting ready for shitty bitty?.

SDRE's are never short of convoluted logic :roll:

why is that only SDREs claim unbearable pressure from unkil from defending in the wake terror to trying some small pyhsics experiments in our small desert land or pool of bay?
N Korea flouts
Iran flexes
Israel smashes
Pakistan cheats
PRC voilates
India wimps?
Last edited by John Snow on 28 Aug 2009 08:06, edited 1 time in total.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby PratikDas » 28 Aug 2009 08:04

John Snow wrote:So India now stands violating PTBT and getting ready for shitty bitty?


What bothers me is that we have now used up this trump card of dubious past performance justifying the need for a new test. We better capitalise on it.

The next opportunity might only come when a neighbour decides to test their own device and by then it might be too late - due to pressure on GOI to sign NPT, CTBT, FMCT, CRE, etc.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 28 Aug 2009 08:06

One of the more sad and ironically ludicrous aspects of this saga is how the "world community" is powerless to do anything about NoKo or prevent China from testing in NoKo.

Since the NPA have chosen to ignore the China-Pakistan-NoKo axis - the country that stands to suffer most from shitty-bitty is India. And with the Obama admin looking like reneging on MMS's Jewel in Crown - the Nuke deal - there is no further reason to hold back on nuke testing. being law abiding means nothing in the international arena.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 28 Aug 2009 08:11

tell me about it. Everytime we come to the cross roads of action as SDRE's we are never short of convoluted logic :roll:
I repeat

why is that only SDREs claim unbearable pressure from unkil from defending in the wake terror or trying some small pyhsics experiments in our small desert land or pool of bay?
N Korea flouts
Iran flexes
Israel smashes
Pakistan cheats
PRC voilates
India wimps?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13109
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby negi » 28 Aug 2009 08:13

I don't think there is any GOI chanankianness involved for our tried and tested policy of complete and verifiable disarmament is a pillar strong enough to support our case for not signing the CTBT and other forms of toilet paper ,if this ideal of ours was strong enough to ward of NPAs and the GOTUS for past 2 or even 3 decades then what is that has changed in last couple of months that GOI requires a respected scientist to question the achievements of his own team ? Such an idea is preposterous and too hard to digest.

However if GOI itself has different plans or has had a change of heart then I don't know.

Mr. Sanathanam's remarks need to be carefully read he has not confronted the BARC's findings directly which is something he would have done if his aim was only to prove the fizzle theory ; which he did not.

He infact is trying to highlight that CTBT should not be signed at any cost
.

--removed inappropriate utterances; trying to control my energizer bunny tendencies-- :mrgreen:
Last edited by negi on 28 Aug 2009 08:45, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest