Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 586
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Raja Ram » 29 Aug 2009 16:33

narayanan,
thanks for the clarfication. Makes sense now.

In my view the KS statement has a purpose and that is too keep Indian strategic options open. So "Fizzle" ya "Sizzle" is essentially a sideshow. KS has used the language of the west (NPA and other naysayers) to make his case.

Whether he did of his own accord or at the behest of GOI is still a debatable point. In my posts on this thread, I have given arguments for both sides and laid out certain markers. How events pan out will give a clue if Santhanam's call was one of desperation to avoid surrendering of soverign options in exchange for substantial allurements and benefits or it was part of GOI's master plan to neutralise initiatives directed to freeze into a second rung nuclear power and also make the ground for further tests.

Further testing is required for a variety of reasons, and I have indicated some of them in my second long post in this thread.

Obviously I am no expert on nuclear weapons design nor do I have access to people who make strategic decisions, so it is all only just my ramble. Like other forms of entertainment here. To read, enjoy and forget onlee.

thanks again for the detailed clarification. You write a lot better when you turn off sarcasm sir :mrgreen: Just my thoughts!

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12421
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 29 Aug 2009 16:35

dinesha wrote:His statement reflects, either absence of scientific evaluation (worst case) or our PM has not seen the report..(best case)

or, is being politically correct and if things go wrong, the blame shifts on Kalam.

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 » 29 Aug 2009 16:43

Shri Dinesha ji,

You should take into account that in 1998 Abdul Kalam was the topmost (as in govt hierarchy) scientist. And so Dr Santhanam, who by the way is not a trained nuclear scientist (though I say that not to cast aspertions on his competence, just pointing out a fact) reported to Abdul Kalam.

So who's word do you think the PM should believe? If a PM can't take the word of the Science advisor to a previous PM then there's something really wrong either in perception or understanding.

Cheers

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5688
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Dileep » 29 Aug 2009 17:04

geeth wrote:Do not sign the CTBT or anything else. Remove the PM if he shows N-Clear deal like tendencies.

Where is Rahul Mehta when one wants him. I now repent chasing him off BRF

Let the commons pay Rs 3 to the Talati and Register Yes/No on signing CTBT. Problem Solved onlee!!

I believe, in the current interconnected world, where bad lending in USA is hitting the pocketbooks here, any nuclear device is sufficient deterrent against anyone. The MAD, glassivation, daring to take a hit, etc are as outdated as the Napoleonic tactics of advance, fire and charge in infantry.

Yes, I believe the 1998 test didn't work fully. Yes, I believe we should test as many times it takes as to prove the design. Yes, I believe we should sign the treaties as a full nuclear power only.

All those because that is what establishes the power of my country. Not because someone will fry me otherwise.

No one is going to fry anyone. Never.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: Pokhran II 100% successful: Scientist

Postby Sanjay » 29 Aug 2009 17:21

Shiv notice how they couldn't pin down the yields of many PRC tests despite the number carried out ? Worse case - S-1 as 50% successful - yielded at least 22kT - more than Wallace and his ilk gave it credit for.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 29 Aug 2009 17:30

Further testing is required for a variety of reasons, and I have indicated some of them in my second long post in this thread.


I don't disagree with that line of argument at all - the notion that the nation's survival hinges on weapons built after one set of desperately hurried, secretive tests conducted between passes of spy satellites, is alarming. I earn my rooh-afza by doing experimental stuff, and maybe I can think of 1 or 2 examples where something worked right on the first try - and then they failed on the second try.

OTOH, nothing would have been gained by going to another round of tests right away in 1998, so the decision to end the testing then was the only sane one. Hence there is no shame for the NDA if the 1998 tests were not "100% successes" and they still adopted a "voluntary moratorium" until things became different.

HOWEVER, I also believe firmly that other things take priority over conducting nuclear tests today, unless suitable opportunities arise where the tests can be clearly shown as driven by national security imperatives. Not long-term anything, but short-term imperatives. Until then, the nation has to depend on having a suitable number of weapons, each containing (or believed to contain) enough fissile/fusile material to threaten massive destruction on a scale that no nation can tolerate. As long as no data are unambiguously leaked on the actual weapon parameters, and someone can prove conclusively that the design will totally fail to go off, this constitutes enough of a deterrent.

This is not perfect deterrence, but it is a far better situation than having 100 "proven" megaton weapons or 1000 of 200KT TNs, but not being able to do a damn thing about a company of PLA engineers building a road right across Indian territory - because the conventional deterrence is absent and we can't make jet engines, artillery shells or snow boots, and there is no fuel to run the tanks and (imported) planes, and we don't have roads, our "National Highways" are goat-tracks, and even those get washed away every time it rains. Unfortunately, this is today's choice, driven by today's reality.

Today's GOI, continuing the "Insaniyat Over Insanity" theme famously declared by no less than Vajpayee, seems to believe that continuation of good relations and "good little nation" status is essential until technology and economic status enable consideration of a little more assertive stance. You, certainly, and I, probably, are not happy about this, but that's what the wisdom of the electorate approves - and as I point out, the NDA would do no better.

So it does not matter whether KS says the tests fizzled or were only 60% non-fizzle. The ground under Pokhran was definitely fried and the quakes caused were detected many miles away, as will happen to any Chinese or Pakistani base or city where such a thing might (Allah and Mao forbid!) go off in the event of genocidal aggression by China or Pakistan. Whether the radius of devastation is 500m or 1 km or 10 or 100km is debatable, but I really don't expect to be around to read the newspaper the day after this happens.

Meanwhile, "Insaniyat over Insanity" is the best policy to keep the enemy down until they are no longer enemies but are convinced to waste their time watching Bollywood movies and 20-20 krikit instead. So KS' statement was a blunt threat that if China doesn't stop meddling, and if the US doesn't back off with its stupid CTBT/NPT Snake Oil peddling, well... Indians are getting fed up with the duplicity and arrogance, and are about to go down the path of testing again.

That of course will end (a) US sales of nuclear and high-tech military anything to India - huge loss to US entities, (b) UK and Oiropean sales of high-tech and weapon systems, (c) boondoggle trips of Indian babucracy to US and Bhesht, resulting in a visible drop in high-end tourism to these places, (d) all efforts to salvage NPT-2 etc. Within weeks, Iran and NoKo will start/resume testing. Japan and Brazil may test. The whole NonProllotullah sand castles will come crashing down.

India will probably then go and solve the Pakistan problem, and the US will face total defeat in Afghanistan.

Does BO want to go down this path? Does he want CTBT so much, and does he want to appease the PRC so much? If not, it is time for BO to come to his senses, and do the right thing: Bomb Paahkisthaaan, as he so correctly says, and deal with Chinese duplicity and treachery as it should be dealt with, not by genuflexion.

Yes, KS said all that :mrgreen: if you just read and think carefully through his short statements.

Now back to the wailing and ranting...

arunsrinivasan
BRFite
Posts: 345
Joined: 16 May 2009 15:24

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby arunsrinivasan » 29 Aug 2009 17:41

N^3, well said. FWIW I agree with your post completely :D

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II 100% succesful: scientist

Postby NRao » 29 Aug 2009 17:57

shiv wrote:PS: Check out Chinese nuclear tests

http://www.nti.org/db/china/testlist.htm


Two items of general interest:

Fission (U235);
China's first nuclear explosion, named "Device 596," representing the year and month in which the Soviets refused to provide China with a prototype device (June 1959)


and, 42nd in 1995:

Prompted Japan to suspend the grant portion of its foreign aid program to China


and, 43rd in 1995:

Prompted the Japanese Diet (legislative body) to pass a resolution protesting China's testing; later that month, Japan froze government grants for the remainder of 1995


:).

And, then in 1996 China conducted its 44th and 45th tests!!!

During the 11 years since 1993, Japan had been China's biggest trade partner.


:D

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShibaPJ » 29 Aug 2009 17:59

Gentle (and not so gentle) Readers alike: The discussion here has been very intense. I better understand the nuances and the maaya around the topic by following this thread religiously. The Q has been whether POK-II was fully successful and whether we have a full deterrence to evil eyes and atript atmas, who are casting their malevolent eyes on matrubhumi.

From the very knowledgable posts and references here, I gather that with our existing capabilities, we have scallable FBFs
and partial TN devices, that can be MIRVed and delivered to distances around 5,000 KM (I assume this is with decoys to counter known ABM capabilities around). This capability should suffice to deter lizard from our land-based delivery systems alone. I know, the discussion has been on the triad, and having a survivable, 2nd-strike option from a N-sub, but is it really a life-and-death situation?

With mobile launch pads, I humbly submit that 200 or even 100+ missiles distributed across North and East India and capable of glassifying CCP HQs and military-industrial complexes on lizard Eastern shores is a formidable deterrence. To the Q that land-based systems are not survivable, one really needs a barrage of saturation strikes (hundreds of missiles together) to really degrade a well-dispersed, mobile land-based system. Once we detect such a massive barrage heading our way, all bets are off and all Indian missles will also take off simultaneously. I don't think lizard would relish such an idea, however insane they may talk 't absorbing couple of million deads and moving on. Nothing on Chinese history proves they are that suicidal either.

For 360 degree deterrence (for Unkil and his chamchas), we need longer-range ICBMs that India has to design & nuild. From the discources here, A3/ A3SL compare favorably to corresponding French/ Russian missiles (M51, or Topol/ Bulava etc). Assuming that we have been doing bleeding-edge research (Arun_s articles have been eye openers), our throw-weight and delivery capabilities should rival these missiles and I think we should be able to deter.

For getting a full, leading & bleeding edge TN/ Neutron/ Gamma weapon test and weaponization, I would humbly submit that we would get the chances sooner than later. For e.g. the PRC incursions, and border violations, two can play the game. India should fully exploit/ stage manage such a situation to make Buddha smile again and prove the cynics wrong once and for all. Heck, even NoKo test (and by extension lizard's continuous testing) gives us a perfectly logical rationale to show the middle finger to Shitty Bitty and go full blast for fully weaponization. In between, we should strive for better Indian economic development to continue on 8 to 10% targetted growth atleast for the next decade or so.

And N^3, excellent post. Very succintly captures the dilemma and present day reality and what the Indian planning priority should be. May I request you to keep arleast 60% of your posts sarcasm free and share your wisdom more often?
Last edited by ShibaPJ on 29 Aug 2009 18:05, edited 1 time in total.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12421
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 29 Aug 2009 18:04

50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons

Some of the facts make very interesting read
e.g.
8. Number of nuclear warheads requested by the Army in 1956 and 1957: 151,000
15. Number of thermometers which could be filled with mercury used to produce lithium-6 at the Oak Ridge Reservation: 11 billion
Last edited by pankajs on 29 Aug 2009 18:08, edited 2 times in total.

Masaru
BRFite
Posts: 242
Joined: 18 Aug 2009 05:46

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Masaru » 29 Aug 2009 18:05

The MMS view

"A wrong impression has been given by some scientists which is needless. Kalam has clarified that the tests were successful,"


The fervent hope that jingos have here that there is some chankian agenda or GoI sanction behind Santy's disclosure is IMHO misplaced. Just another instance of different organs working at cross purposes.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 29 Aug 2009 18:11

May I request you to keep arleast 60% of your posts sarcasm free and share your wisdom more often?

Ah! But that would mean 60% fizzle - only 40% ephektive supercritical weaponized yield onlee! :mrgreen:

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramdas » 29 Aug 2009 18:21

N^3,

Just read an interview in TOI by M. K. Narayanan saying that we do not need to test. That interview also says that we are "looking for a big centerpiece" defining MMS's US visit. MMS himself says that this yield controversy is unnecssary. How does all this fit into what you are proposing ? Wont MMS and MKN be silent if this is a mesage they are sending indicating opposition to the CTBT being forced down our throats ?

I feel that we should'nt sign the CTBT and test again whenever a good reason arises (like NK testing something of substantial yield).

Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 586
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Raja Ram » 29 Aug 2009 18:23

Testing is necessary. It should be done at the time and place of our choice. It should be based on an objective assessment of threat perception. That is what I have articulated too.

It is important to note that the previous round of expressing our Shakti was precisely based on an objective assessment of the neighbourhood and international shenanigans onlee. It was not based on some jingoistic image building as it is portrayed by the West and sometimes alluded to in India by certain quarters.

Amongst other things, the diabolical and precedent setting clause inserted by western powers and china of entry into force for the CTBT was a gauntlet thrown at the GOI and the then PM, who was proud to be an insaniyat minded Nehruji without roseji said - Let their be Shakti. Of course people here will remember the immortal body language of him showing the ungli during the short and terse announcement of the test photo. That was then.

As pointed out here by narayanan here, testing is necessary but when the GOI will do it will be based on a similiar assessment. As a redux, there is once again some neighbourhood shenanigans and there is some rumbling about CTBT and other four letter acronyms. If there is a pushing to the wall by the powers that be once again, India should react as it did then.

One hopes that it is the GOI response as articulated by Santhanam and interpreted well by narayanan here, that if there is again a similiar provocation, the moratorium can be revisited by GOI based on evolving threat perception estimates and to keep India's nuclear aresenal to the barest minimum by testing improved and reliable devices :twisted: . For India's sake, our current distinguished e-con-o-mist PM will also deliver like then.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 29 Aug 2009 18:28

P.S. I forgot to add the other negotiating stick that India has acquired. BO wants "CRE" and CTBT and NPT, or at least NPT-2 and FMCT. But ... he also wants Climate Control and GHG reduction. Unless India agrees to major cutbacks of carbon emissions, the Republicans will block US signature on Kyoto-2 which is coming up in 2013, and BO can forget about ratification.

So today India is saying that Clean Development projects in India (i.e., funded by "Type 1 List" countries who need to get credits for carbon reduction) can build massive solar capacity in India in the short term. This translates to big business for US firms (and others) in Renewable Energy - something BO's support base wants much more than more nuke plants. This was the win-win outcome of Hillary C's visit to India.

OK, one round of nuke tests, and all US plans in this regard will also go down the tubes, not just the US hopes for nuke plant deals and fighter plane / engine deals. BO's plans for the No-Bill Biss Prize for conquering Global Warming, go down the tubes, US plans to grab market share from Siemens etc, in the massive Renewable Energy marketplace get slammed, and India goes flat-out building coal plants to generate power since the US will sabotage all nuke plant plans by blocking at the IAEA, NSG etc.

Or... US can avoid a lot of trouble by agreeing that tests are a national security imperative - and come out in full support against Chinese aggression if persuasion of the lizard fails. This would probably make the Republicans happy, but biss off the Democrat semi-commies big-time. It would also biss off the PRC and put BO's dollar rescue plans at risk.

This stick did not exist in the Dubyan times - the Republicans don't want Green anything, so they don't care if India signs on to carbon reductions or not (this was just their iron-clad excuse for refusing to join Kyoto). So threatening to build coal plants would not have had any effect in the New Clear Deal negotiations. In fact they were yelling for India to build "Clean Coal" plants. Have you seen all the ads for "Clean Coal"? It shows a door opening to nowhere - the ad points out that there is no such thing as "Clean Coal".

Today the stick does exist. Very unexpected change of relative negotiating strength. in fact I would argue strongly that today it makes a LOT of sense for US to agree that India needs to test - and HELP India reach a proven weapon design and credible deterrent in the shortest possible time and number of tests - and then move to non-critical testing, and sign the CTBT and EnnPeeTee-2 as a full NWS. In fact, BO should just come out and flatly expose the NOKO and PRC tests, and the Iranian nuke program, as Lizard circumventing CTBT and violating NPT, and then tell them that they can arm NOKO, but the US will shoot down any NOKO missile, and they can arm Paaahkisthaaan but the US will simply seize those weapons, and they can arm Iran but US will facilitate Israeli overflights and refueling to take care of that. And that if they threaten Taiwan the US will ensure that Tibet and Xinjiang become independent. And if they threaten the dollar the US will seize all Chinese assets and investment in the US.

But can you see Ayatollah Milhollin agreeing to this?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby RajeshA » 29 Aug 2009 18:32

Where are the crowds on the streets shouting

CittyBitty Hai Hai! CittyBitty Hai Hai! CittyBitty Hai Hai!
CittyBitty ki Jabardasti! Nahin Chalegi! Nahin Chalegi!

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12421
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 29 Aug 2009 18:34

With regards to the above post, here is an old report from the hindu.
Tangible results will be announced during PM's visit: Roemer
NEW DELHI: India and the US are expected to firm up cooperation in some areas of their recently recast strategic dialogue when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visits Washington on a State visit in November this year, the new U.S. Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer said here on Wednesday. Mr. Roemer, an Obama Administration appointee, was talking to newspersons a day after presenting his credentials to President Pratibha Patil.

The US Ambassador outlined the salient aspects of the strategic dialogue announced at the end of US Secretary of State Hillary’s Clinton’s four day last month visit and emphasised Washington’s intention to advance the ``robust agenda.’’ Mr. Roemer identified strategic cooperation, energy and climate change, education and development, economics, trade and agriculture and science & technology.

``We intend to announce some of the most tangible results of our partnership this November, when Prime Minister Singh travels to Washington for an official visit. The Prime Minister has invited President Obama to visit India, too, and we are all looking forward to that visit,’’ he observed.

The US Ambassador disclosed that during his hour-long meeting with Mr. Obama before leaving for India, the President advised him to get out of Delhi as often as he could. Mr. Obama also spoke ``warmly and respectfully’’ about Dr. Singh. ``In fact, when we had this discussion at the White House, the President touched his heart and he said, `You make sure that you extend my heartfelt wishes to the Prime Minister and his health.’ He said that he views the U.S. – India relationship as one of the most important partnerships for America’s future, added Mr. Roemer.

The Ambassador termed the various components of the strategic dialogue as ``big, bold and a broad series of undertakings’’ which both sides had resolved to work on many of them simultaneously. ``We plan to move from the good work done and the goodwill earned between our countries over the past decade to build a truly global partnership addressing both our nations’ top concerns and promises of better health for our children’s futures.’’

In addition to working on the strategic dialogue, both sides would also continue to improve some of the important working relations including terrorism. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials are testifying this week in Mumbai in the 26/11 trial and ``we cannot forget that six Americans were killed along with dozens of Indians and so many others in that tragic and brutal attack.’’

The US would continue to seek justice for those killed and injured in Mumbai and will work closely with India to share the lessons learnt in the wake of the September 11, 2001. ``To that end, we have invited the Indian Home Minister Chidambaram to visit the United States for additional discussions on precisely how our two nations can cooperate,’’ he observed.

-------------
``big, bold and a broad series of undertakings’’ is the keyword. Who is going to make the big and the bold concession and on what? I am a skeptic and I will wait for November.
Last edited by pankajs on 29 Aug 2009 18:52, edited 1 time in total.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1122
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby dinesha » 29 Aug 2009 18:37

Sriman Amitji
You did not get my point. My point is (as posted in my first post) Dr. Kalam has been made “bali ka bakra” a sacrificial goal”, precisely because as Mr. Pankaj has posted “if things go wrong, the blame shifts on Kalam.”
Mr. PM as well as BM is using Dr. Kalam as a shield. Why are they not referring to DAE, DRDO or any other Govt. Agency but an individual with high credibility in India.... if and when goose comes out of the cupboard, who else but Dr. Kalam is royally scr****.
...what an idea sirji...
Last edited by dinesha on 29 Aug 2009 18:43, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 29 Aug 2009 19:59

dinesha wrote:Sriman Amitji
You did not get my point. My point is (as posted in my first post) Dr. Kalam has been made “bali ka bakra” a sacrificial goal”, precisely because as Mr. Pankaj has posted “if things go wrong, the blame shifts on Kalam.”
Mr. PM as well as BM is using Dr. Kalam as a shield. Why are they not referring to DAE, DRDO or any other Govt. Agency but an individual with high credibility in India.... if and when goose comes out of the cupboard, who else but Dr. Kalam is royally scr****.
...what an idea sirji...


I did not understand this.

Can you explain what you are trying to say and state whether you are speculating or whether you have some logical basis for reaching the conclusions you have appeared to reach.

How is Kalam a bali ka bakra?

What is he goose that you think will come out of the cupboard?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
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 » 29 Aug 2009 20:10

Garu JEM uvacha..
General comment:

What worries me more than anything else is the shivering and trembling of the SDREs in their dhotis and from their low, dark and narrow praying spaces - even when some mofo or the other mentions CTBT in Washington.

Grow some backbone.


I have observed that :(( on BRF is equated with covering and shivering acts synonymous with cowardliness; while every contentious decision which raises doubts about GOI's decision making is attributed to Chankianness.

Now logically both of the above are generic blanket statements , going by the chanakian logic now I realise why our GOI committed self goals during 47,62 or on many other occasions the fact is poor chaps were under the impression that they were being chanakian only until the reality hit em on the face.

And btw the largest group of so called rothudus :(( and cowering folks sits in GOTUS it is the paranoia and fears of the former that have sent both IRAQ and AF-Pak back to stone age .

Coming back to the topic...

Now Mr MK Narayanan says we don't need to test more.

Very well I would read it as we don't need to test anymore hence we can sign the CTBT .From chanakian pov it might be a signal to GOTUS that we might sign the CTBT but since we chanakians can actually read the tea leaves i.e.'antaryaamis' we know all this is for chai-biskoot only and we won't actually sign the treaty.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 29 Aug 2009 20:37

negi wrote:Garu JEM uvacha..
General comment:

What worries me more than anything else is the shivering and trembling of the SDREs in their dhotis and from their low, dark and narrow praying spaces - even when some mofo or the other mentions CTBT in Washington.

Grow some backbone.


I have observed that :(( on BRF is equated with covering and shivering acts synonymous with cowardliness; while every contentious decision which raises doubts about GOI's decision making is attributed to Chankianness..


Negiji I believe you have missed one step in your conclusion.

It usually goes like this IMO

An Event occurs (statement/news/launch/revelation)

Case 1: The event gives the impression of strength for India

In this situation there is great jubilation and Indias image and status in the minds eye of the average BRFite goes from Normal to Normal+. This is when people start thinking of India as a superpower, a peer of China and a nation that needs to show the pompous West its place


Case 2: The event gives a negative impression of India.

India's score moves to normal minus. This is where your statement holds true. Such an event leads to the following consequences
a) Widespread lamentation
b) fears of recolonization of India and subjugation
c) Fears that India and Indians lack what to takes to be "up there" with the best
d) A search for scapegoats and people to blame as traitors, and a comparison of the actions of the said traitors with known rascals from Shakuni (from the Mahabharata) to Aurangazeb (historic) to Musharraf

On balance a mass of people are looking for good news (understandably). Bad news that evokes negative emotions leads to an outpouring of lamentation.

What we are seeing are the extremes of human emotions. While most forum members are sophisticated enough to know that internet anonymity is a myth, it still appears that people react and reveal their innermost fears as well as things that cause them relief and happiness in a very transparent fashion.

Ultimately it boils down to the old philosophy - you have to take the good with the bad. Things are never all good but never all bad either. A dogmatic statement dismissing someone or something is usually countered by similar dogma of the opposite kind.

And that in fact brings me to the other phenomenon of BRF and being ahead of the curve. I will say something unkind here. This is like the old story of giving a monkey a typewriter and several billion years to keep typing and by random chance it is likely that the monkey will have produced - within a huge mass of typed gibberish - all the great literature of the world.

The forum expresses ALL opinions from left to right, negative to positive, good to bad, praise to condemnation. Somewhere in this mass of opinions there is always someone who has said the right thing. And when that right things seems to be seen - the forum takes "collective credit" for being ahead of the curve. Nothing wrong in that per se - it is an indicator of belonging and a heartfelt desire to join and continue contributing.

But ultimately the forum does represent mob behavior to an extent and when things seem to be going wrong we get a mob that is howling in agony. That makes it difficult for anyone to get any other opinion in edgewise. I guess this is how the forum evolves. Many years ago there were fewer people and there was less mob behavior. But when you have more people - the emotion builds up and you get less and less well thought out posts and more gut reactions revealing inner fears with no time to assuage those fears with rational thought. Bad news gets 20 or 30 posts of regret and lamentation with each lament building up on the previous one and any good news inserted after 50 laments gets lost.Even in real life it is difficult to stop crying and start smiling abruptly. Certain chemicals in the brain mediate the sadness and it takes a finite mount of time (like overnight) for the brain to wash out those chemicals. But "overnight" produces 4 pages of laments.

That's the way the forum cookie crumbles

Sorry. Mostly OT

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Avarachan » 29 Aug 2009 21:01

I was Googling to find out Kalam's position on the CTBT, and I found this interesting article from 1998. Posting in full:

http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/sep/24ctbt.htm

Exclusive clause in CTBT holding India back

Tara Shankar Sahay in New Delhi

Though the statements of Defence Minister George Fernandes and his scientific adviser A P J Abdul Kalam earlier this week on signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty appeared to be contradictory, external affairs ministry officials say the differences are more a matter of perception than any real conflict.

The officials pointed out that Kalam was speaking from the scientific community's point of view when he said India could now sign the CTBT. He said so because the nuclear tests on May 11 and 13 had yielded sufficient data for computer simulations, which are not prohibited under the treaty, thus precluding the need for any more real tests.

It is not as if the defence minister does not agree with this view. His objection to the treaty relates to the clause under which nuclear tests can be resumed in the event of a grave threat to national security.

At present, the clause is restricted to the Big 5 -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France. Though they are not named as exclusively enjoying the privilege, they are the only recognised nuclear powers under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And as the prime minister himself has admitted, any revision of the CTBT at this juncture to accommodate Indian interests is not possible as it has been signed by more than 140 countries. As a result, it is implied that only the Big 5 will have the privilege.

Fernandes feels New Delhi should not sign the treaty until it is clear if it can invoke the clause in the event of a grave threat to Indian security.
This is the point on which the talks between Vajpayee's special envoy Jaswant Singh and US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott have centred.

The officials hoped the next round of talks would narrow down the differences.

Significantly, one of the Big 5, France, has announced that it acknowledges India as a nuclear power. The original formulation against the Indian nuclear tests by the Big 5 and the G-8, both of which include France, was unanimous. The new French stance shows that some of these countries are willing to reconsider their stand.

The officials said the Russians and the British are also willing to acknowledge India's new status. Only the Chinese are opposed to India joining the exclusive nuclear club. The Americans are merely trying to drive a hard bargain before accepting the fait accompli.

ksmahesh
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 10 Jan 2007 17:55
Location: Mt Everest - its the coolest one

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ksmahesh » 29 Aug 2009 21:25

Dr. KS statement raises some questions in this SDRE's mind. Thankfully this forum helps in finding answers:

1. Bum worked or not?
Kakodkar's uttar is very enlightening onlee. "100% desired results".

2. Deterrence intact or not? This question is interlinked with another one - Can lizard afford to have their cities bombed with FBF bums (assuming the TN in POK-II was 400% failure)
The answer is NO. "Destruction of Three Gorges Dam" + railways in Tibet shall ground any invasion they might be planning. And bums on chini cities would be a double no.

3. Do we need to test? If yes then when?
We should test but when is important.
If we test now -
negatives: a. Economic loss. b. NooK-L-ear deal is goner.
Positives: Aam Adami knows that bum works (Which he already knew as he trusts Kalam et al)

As Snow Garu said we should have tested when Mumbai was attacked. Or some similar attack by pigs in future (Unfortunate)
Positives: a. Immense pressure on porkiland. b. comparatively less pressure on our aged e-CON-oh-mist.
Negatives: a. Moderate economic loss (A test of our Neta )

4. Sign CTBT or not?
Surely not for next 30 years (based on madrassa math onlee). In next 30 years it should be clear whether our economic progress really gives us a "paise ki lathi"

5. Why did KS spoke now?
To prevent another SeS.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 29 Aug 2009 21:29

Members can express their opinions without being subjected to interpretation by others. IN other words what they posted is what they said and what others say they did. Lets not drive opinion off the forum.

Thanks, ramana

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 29 Aug 2009 21:37

narayanan wrote:Yes, KS said all that :mrgreen: if you just read and think carefully through his short statements.

Now back to the wailing and ranting...


What happened, N made a sensible post - destroyed by the last line.

But N while you make your posts sensibly the problem with you is that you just cant see or dont want to see the other perspective.

Which since we have no info can be as credible. In fact you start fulminating against the other PoV.

Through out this debate one side has never fulminated against various possibilities, but claimed that one possibility is more probable.

The other side while considering their positions carefully -- just are completely unable to grasp the other side and immediately resort to mocking.


This I think is tell all.

Further Arun_S has always been proved right, first people were attacking him for doubting the yield, now the same people have skied down hill to claim oh 20 KT == 200 KT since 20 >> 0 and 200 >> 0 and thus 20 == 200 for deterrence.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vera_k » 29 Aug 2009 21:45

Masaru wrote:The MMS view
"A wrong impression has been given by some scientists which is needless. Kalam has clarified that the tests were successful,"



Kalam's statement that the project team was satisfied with the results is contradicted by information in the article, since Santhanman was part of the 1998 project team as stated elsewhere.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 29 Aug 2009 21:48

If MKN, MMS, BM, APJ, AK, RC - All are saying we do not need to test again and S1 was fine - then what is the problem accepting that. Is it KS, PKI, BK, BC, AN Prasad or even Arun_S (notwithstanding his protestations at being a pan chewing bhaiya!) - no. One has to read up all that India has done so far in areas of missiles and payloads, its postures, what it has built and deployed so far, what the defense planners say we need and have done compare that with what other nations have done and come to your own conclusions.

Now, one can argue that there is no 100% confirmed information to come to such definite conclusions. Fair. However, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, the chances are it is a ....

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7656
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 29 Aug 2009 21:50

We are at 18 pages and no closer to knowing the 'truth' or 'proving' anything.

We have one group of people saying something and another group saying something else.

Not one iota of extra information has been released. We have statements from the politicians, the bureaucracy and the military yet none reveal the numbers of warheads, their type, their yield, the number of delivery systems. Nothing additional about the 1998 tests either.

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vasu_ray » 29 Aug 2009 21:51

we are now questioning,

Avarachan wrote:The officials pointed out that Kalam was speaking from the scientific community's point of view when he said India could now sign the CTBT. He said so because the nuclear tests on May 11 and 13 had yielded sufficient data for computer simulations, which are not prohibited under the treaty, thus precluding the need for any more real tests.


Chidambaram says 1974 data is sufficient for simulations, Kalam says 1998 data is good enough

DRDO as the evaluator of the test 'concluded' instrumentation was faulty, so was data collected reliably? or the Chidambaram bhooth has to go away to establish this?

Establishing LIF takes few years at the least and CTBT time frame is 1-3 years.

NWS clause of grave threat can warrant testing was made part of the nuclear deal, now that deal looks shaky (Non-cooperation from Obama), Kalam might be saying India needs to be a NWS state

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vera_k » 29 Aug 2009 22:01

ShauryaT wrote:If MKN, MMS, BM, APJ, AK, RC - All are saying we do not need to test again and S1 was fine - then what is the problem accepting that. Is it KS, PKI, BK, BC, AN Prasad or even Arun_S (notwithstanding his protestations at being a pan chewing bhaiya!) - no.


RC - was the weapons designer, and therefore has a conflict of interest about any claim that the weapon underperformed

AK - same as comment above about RC.

APJ - Was not part of the project team.

MKN, MMS - politicians who will have no problem selling you up is down and left is right

ShauryaT wrote:if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, the chances are it is a ....


Add in the delayed induction of delivery systems and quality problems in other weapon systems the chances are ...

It's quite possible to come to a disappointing conclusion.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 29 Aug 2009 22:08

Any guesses who this "scientist" was?
The 8-10 year time span in which a CTBT is most unlikely is significant when set alongside of what the senior scientist at the aforementioned seminar stated about the testing imperative. The ’98 series of nuclear tests did not mean, he said, that no tests were needed any time in the future, but that no testing is required only in the ‘next five to ten years.’ (This scientist is among those central to the Shakti tests and has a vested interest in supporting what Doctors Chidambaram and Kalam have publicly maintained, that India did not need any more tests to install a deterrent. Even so he did not want to sully his professional reputation by hewing completely to this official line. As to why his learned seniors took this position in the first place may not bear scrutiny.)
The report is circa 2000.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanjay » 29 Aug 2009 22:10

Gerard you are correct - we know nothing more than we did a few days ago and frankly not much more than we knew in 1998.

I for one have accepted that S-1 did not perform as desired. End of story there. Wish it wasn't so but there it is.

However - this does not mean deterrence vs even the PRC fails.

The payloads of the Agnis are very large indeed. Nobody has yet doubted the boosted-fission prowess and scalability of that prowess and the fission prowess to date.

Gurmeet Kanwal wrote an article building a deterrent posture around 20 and 40KT weapons. OK it is not ideal - but in the absence of testing what do you do ?

You maximize the potential of what you have and are confident in and go from there. That is where our speculation needs to focus on.

I would also point out that everyone on the team - KS, APJK, RC etc did a very good job under the circumstances.

None of us here is a decision maker or has even sought to become one in India. We don't face the consequences of testing and while it is easy to brand everyone we disagree with as a liar and traitor, I think a little circumspection is in order occasionally.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 29 Aug 2009 22:25

One failed bum can create so much commotion and strategic heart burn, imagine what a successful bum can do.
:mrgreen:

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Tanaji » 29 Aug 2009 22:31

Narayanan:

IIRC, your logic is somewhat like this:

  • OSA exists and is enforced
  • Santhanam is aware of OSA
  • He has not been arrested, and he is a responsible individual (RAW etc)
  • So OSA is not enforced because
    • He is telling lies
    • He has official sanction

Dont you think purely having official sanction is enough for non enforcement of OSA? Such examples abound daily in India. So for whatever reason it may be, GoI may want him speaking out. Doesnt necessarily imply that he is lying about the fizzle.

Or he may be lying. My point is, both possibilities are equally likely, you cannot equivocally rule out one.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 29 Aug 2009 22:31

Gerard wrote:We are at 18 pages and no closer to knowing the 'truth' or 'proving' anything.

We have one group of people saying something and another group saying something else.

Not one iota of extra information has been released. We have statements from the politicians, the bureaucracy and the military yet none reveal the numbers of warheads, their type, their yield, the number of delivery systems. Nothing additional about the 1998 tests either.
If knowing means clear and precise public information then, we will never know the "truth" or "prove" anything based on that criteria in the short term. However, that does not mean a "truth" does not exist. Hence we have two options. Either to believe one group and defend that case or complain that since perfect information is unavailable everything is speculation. Many times, perfect information is not possible, as is the case here. So, one has to deduce based on what information is available and also important in this deduction is what is not said.

Sanjay: At one time Gurmeet Kanwal used to say different things about deterrence. I have his old papers from IDSA and his books. Another person, how has modified his views is Admiral Raja Menon. These two are some of the most credible people around on nuclear deterrence. They may have modified their views based on practical realities like you go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish for.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby arun » 29 Aug 2009 22:32

Dredging up history dating back to 1998.

Excerpt from an interview of Dr. S.K. Sikka by India Today's, Raj Chengappa.

Adapting what Dr. Sikka said back then about the detractors, albeit a different lot, let Dr. Santhanam refute the officially estimated yield scientifically. If IIRC Dr. R. Chidambaram was reported over the last few days by the Hindu in an article buried somewhere in this thread, saying as much:

What is your response to the charge by international scientists that the yields of the 1998 Pokhran tests are far less than what India claims?

They have just not done their analysis properly. They have underestimated the yield by as much as a factor of four. Part of the reason is that they have taken the average of seismograph readings across the world without compensating for interference that could have distorted the results. Especially because factors such as location of the shafts, geology of the region and the fact that the three tests were done simultaneously could seriously affect calculations on yield. Seismic waves are like sound waves. And everyone knows that when you blare two loudspeakers placed close to each other the sound is usually distorted. Our hydrogen bomb test was certainly not a fizzle. Our device worked successfully.

But western researchers say they took all these distortions into account?

They never reveal how they came to such conclusions saying it is classified. Our findings are on the basis of sound scientific analysis. So let them refute it scientifically. We are not afraid of peer review. We have data from monitors close to the tests site which are far more sensitive and accurate. There are also other methods to measure the results of our tests. All of them clearly indicate that our thermonuclear device was successful. …………………

Indiia Today

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby RajeshA » 29 Aug 2009 22:35

This what Wikipedia says:

In addition, Defense News reported in their November 1, 2004 edition, that "[an Indian] Defence Ministry source told Defense News in late 2004 that in the next five to seven years India will have 300–400 nuclear and thermonuclear weapons distributed to air, sea, and land forces."


Five to seven years are almost over. Question is do we have thermonuclear weapons?

Basically that is the question I would like to be posed and answered by the powers that be - Do we have thermonuclear weapons and are they deployed?

I, as an aam Indian, am less concerned with who said what and who is satisfied with what and by how much percent.

Do we have a credible thermonuclear deterrent?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Tanaji » 29 Aug 2009 22:36

Gerard wrote:
The H-bomb issue is crucial
By BUDDHI KOTA SUBBA RAO


All sorts of creatures crawling out from under rocks. He should be in a monastery somewhere giving thanks he isn't in jail.

John Gunther Dean's Oral History
Ambassador John Gunther Dean has donated his personal papers to the Jimmy Carter Library. Dean was U.S. Ambassador to Cambodia, Denmark, Lebanon, Thailand, and India during a Foreign Service career that began in 1956 and ended with his retirement in 1989. These interviews were conducted by the Foreign Affairs Oral History Program of the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training.




Gerard,
As small point:

Subbarao was cleared of any wrong doing by the highest court in the land. IIRC, strictures were passed against GoI in the matter due to the farcical lack of evidence against him. If any one who should be sorry, its GoI for putting him a year in jail and ruining his career.

Whether he is right or wrong on S1/2 is another matter. But his history should have no role in it.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 29 Aug 2009 22:37

John Snow wrote:One failed bum can create so much commotion and strategic heart burn, imagine what a successful bum can do.
:mrgreen:
As it should. The TN weapon is the most important weapon system an NWS needs to possess, as per conventional wisdom. It is one of the highest strategic priorities for a nation.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 29 Aug 2009 22:38

John Snow wrote:One failed bum can create so much commotion and strategic heart burn, imagine what a successful bum can do.
:mrgreen:



It would have changed the paradigm completely. Even if its was FBF in the second shaft. A clear indication that testing cannot be left to scientists for such tests have political ramifications. I mean in the Western sense and not Indian sense. It would have changed the NPT regime completely and not in this Trishanku way.

PS: Check your yahoo mail

RajeshA, The users want to certify those weapons. Such a certification would be foreclosed. Chalo will certify in use.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests