Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby abhiti » 30 Aug 2009 10:06

ShauryaT wrote:Sanctions! Which ties in with what Shiv is saying about weaknesses, real or perceived. As Prem said, economics have a lot to do with it. There are others, namely structural, institutional and geo-political. There is at least one more that I suspect Shiv has in mind that is our psyche and societal - I have not understood that.


Sanctions were there even the with five tests...what additional sanctions do you get with 20 tests i.e. 3-4 test of each weapon? It is simply about failure of imagination.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Aug 2009 10:09

If KS was not satisfied by S1, why did they not test S6 - if it indeed was another TN device. Since the element of surprise was no longer as essential, they could have gone full yield?

Let us assume for a minute that S1 was indeed designed for about 45KT.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 30 Aug 2009 10:11

comparisons are odious



Droping fat man, little boy is entirely different game as at that time no else had anything remotely capabale what they could do, heck people even did not know what Nuclear bomb could do whenit falling on them.
If they failed then at minimum they would bring down couple of building due to just KE and retallaition would have bennanother gravity bomb dropped by Japan (if they could on US forces in vicinity), but now its entirely different game.

Instead publishing BS in papers and fitting the curves to show 400% result isTSP way.
The best option would have been just say they performed instead of specific figures like 45Kt bs etc.

I used to lambalst Wallace and co at the slightest opportunity, now I feel after all they are correct and I am 100% sure it was a fizzle,. It has to be H bum or H2S bum no in between "called Partial success" like operation success but patient died.

Uncle pushed the deal, do you remember the number of VVIPS landing in Nai delli and canvasing for the deal.
Its b ecause they knew the fizzle and wanted us to stay just where we are, and PRC was co opted by sharing uncles intelligence, hencve the vote in Vienna went with out any veto or drama, the last minute buying in of chota mota scandinavian countries was also by telling them lokk this is the b est way to freeze.
BS clause of Supreme national,.... blah blah will never be exercised by our leadership which crawl when asked to kneal...

Economically we are at the strongest in our 60 odd years of Independence, wbhat is this unbearable pressure that is new to us.?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Aug 2009 10:12

abhiti wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:Sanctions! Which ties in with what Shiv is saying about weaknesses, real or perceived. As Prem said, economics have a lot to do with it. There are others, namely structural, institutional and geo-political. There is at least one more that I suspect Shiv has in mind that is our psyche and societal - I have not understood that.


Sanctions were there even the with five tests...what additional sanctions do you get with 20 tests i.e. 3-4 test of each weapon? It is simply about failure of imagination.
abhiti: The leadership wanted to hear that all tests were successful and no more tests were needed, ASAP. No testing needed was the culture at BARC. It suited everyone for the moment.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Austin » 30 Aug 2009 10:12

ShauryaT wrote:If KS was not satisfied by S1, why did they not test S6 - if it indeed was another TN device.


Coz they knew they were wrong with S1 , and there is no point testing S6 if they knew S1 went wrong ( S6 would be a expensive waste ) , without first understanding what went wrong and patching it.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
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 » 30 Aug 2009 10:13

^ You mean S-6 was same as S-1 ? sources ?

Anant
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 02 May 1999 11:31
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Anant » 30 Aug 2009 10:14

My guess is that the 6th test was put off because they knew they had an inherent design flaw which was found wanting in the first test of the TN bomb. Arun S has commented on this. The design was supposedly expensive and cutting edge so it made no sense to proof a failure with another failure. The crux on the matter is this. Does India have a workable TN bomb or not? Only a few know about this. But those that know are either living with the greatest sense of guilt ever because they have bold faced lied to 1 billion people plus the entire scientific community of the world or are so brilliant that they pulled it off with one master stroke in one test and everyone else including KS and the rest of the world are deluded and there is nothing to worry about. My hedge is that its the former and not the latter and that makes me puke in my mouth.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6959
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Anujan » 30 Aug 2009 10:16

shiv wrote:Is there any publicly known evidence that "masking" of yields by suitable seismic decoupling was done or not done by India or anyone else for their underground tests?

Shiv-ji

Deterrence is all about a transparent and unambiguous statement of capability. In this sense, any "masking" of yields does not make any sense.

For conventional detonation, CTBT monitoring stations claim a sensitivity of > 0.1KT (anymore than 100 tonnes can be detected). Lets for argument sake assume that they can detect >~1KT. So the Shakthi series cannot be hidden anyway. (assuming even 95% damping, the first blast of ~15KT would be detected). Why "mask" at all, if we are demonstrating our mastery ?

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6959
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Anujan » 30 Aug 2009 10:17

Anant wrote:My guess is that the 6th test was put off because they knew they had an inherent design flaw which was found wanting in the first test of the TN bomb.


Could be. Or it could be a ~200KT FBF. If the FBF had worked as advertised, then "we kept the yield for TN low onlee for not disturbing the village onlee" argument would not have held any water. What set off a ~45KT TN device to protect a villiage, only to flatten it the next day with a ~200 KT FBF weapon ?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
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 » 30 Aug 2009 10:18

Anant wrote:2) As a scientist, I understand the power of repetition in reliability of data and confidence in the analysis of variables involved. Even if an experiment works as designed, no one in my lab would call it a day after one success. The fact that it has to be repeated and moreover, validated by peer review is the key to any scientific experiment. Of course, classified topics have greater constraints in the free flow of information but trust me, there are many in any given field, classified or not, that can make heads and tails of data that is gleaned, either through released papers or humint or whatever other source. And until and unless those people (you can guess who) believe you, they'll call your bluff in one way or another. If you want to keep your success a trade secret, fine, but you have approximately a billion people who are dependent on your veracity. If you lie, they die (literally). That is a guilt trip that I would think would make anyone cringe. Perhaps, you need a whistleblower to come to light who can't take it anymore.

Anant ji BARC did publish its findings in an open fora for the global scientific community to analyze and critic former's findings ; there haven't been any logical rebuttals from the nuclear fraternity contradicting or questioning the BARC's findings.

One such paper is on FAS site

Update on the yield of May 11-13, 1998 Nuclear Detonations at Pokhran
---by S.K. Sikka, Falguni Roy, G.J. Nair, V.G. Kolvankar and Anil Kakodkar

The concluding para
It is well established that the yield of a nuclear explosion can be determined with more certainity by close-in ground motion measurements, radiochemical methods and hydrodynamic shock measurements. Without the availability of such data and surroundings of the device, it will be not just highly subjective but erroneous , as explained above, to draw firm conclusions on yields. Such data is unlikely to be available to investigators other than those involved in the test . In the context of the May 13 explosions, Barker et al have given a detection threshold of mb(Lg) of 2.5 at Nilore (NIL) in Pakistan at a distance of 740 km from the Pokhran site. Based on the yield ratio derived from equation (1) and using the yield of May 11 tests as 9-16 kt, they give the yield of May 13 explosions between 30 to 300 tons. With the actual yield of ~ 60 kt for May 11 tests, this detection limit will be ~0.1 to 1 kt very close to our announced values. Thus, while the CTBT monitoring mechanism does appear to detect high yield tests, the claims on its capability to correctly estimate the yield, to detect multiple tests and to detect low yield tests appear doubtful. To infer about the type of device itself is stretching the perception of the system capability too far, particularly if one remembers that PNE thermonuclear devices have been tested down to a yield of at least 2.3 kt (Cabriolot test, referred to in the paper by Siddons(15)).
Last edited by negi on 30 Aug 2009 10:21, edited 1 time 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 » 30 Aug 2009 10:19

In fact I am sure everyone wants to see India testing bombs that are easily display a megaton yield.

Why is India not doing that?

1) Geopolitical forces (International blackmail)
2) Technical inability

But geopolitical forces have been there even before 1998, so why did India not test a megaton device in 1998?

The forum discussion is veering towards the reason for that as India's technical inability. The clamor for more testing is "to prove" that India has, or can develop, in due course, the technical ability to wield multi megaton bombs. We are all arguing about the idea that India does not have the technical ability to successfully build thermonuclear bombs of significant yields. The arguments used are based on disparate statements by various players and by questioning the integrity of some of the players - giving some people's words more weight than others depending on one's viewpoint.

In other words non technical arguments are being used to settle a technical issue that cannot be settled by discussion. It can only be settled by further testing.

But that further testing is being prevented by Geopolitical forces (international blackmail). These forces are designed exactly to prevent the development of technical ability.

The first thing to do is to defeat the geopolitical forces that are stopping the development of technical ability. There are various ways of doing that. One way is to let off a "Loose cannon" like Santhanam. If Santhanam is a loose cannon but doing a patriotic job why is the GoI not agreeing with his patriotic call. Why are people (Kalam, RC and others) not agreeing with him?

The possibilities are (among many - I can think of only a few)

The GoI could be sending a back door signal about CTBT, but by publicly supporting Santhanam they will be scoring two self goals
a) They will be officially diluting the credibility of India's deterrence
b) they will face an angry public who will ask them to conduct tests right away.

So whet the GoI does is to officially deny Santhanam, but leave the door open to say that "Many experts are unhappy about yields and that India cannot agree to do further tests".

In this connection it does not matter whether GoI "planned" this deliberately, or whether Allah gave Santhanam the inspiration and he did it by himself. The game has started. It is now open that India cannot allow any India leader to sign off the ability to test.

Of course I have yet another viewpoint - and that is to be openly adharmic and sign the CTBT and then do a test - killing that damn unequal treaty forever. But there may be too many dharmic Indians who believe in the Lakshman rekha of a signature on a piece of paper so it is too risky to do that.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 30 Aug 2009 10:20

abhiti wrote:
shiv wrote:Well a silly and repeated error such as this by a seemingly well informed person is an indicator of his fallibility. Fallibility is not a crime, but it remains a weakness. And everyone is of course free to hold their own views about the depth of weakness of anyone on this forum or off the forum.


I wouldn't give rats a** if C would spell all names wrong. But I care a great deal when someone deliberately misleads military commanders about availability of a weapon critical to India's defence.


Exactly who is misleading whom and about what?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Aug 2009 10:26

Austin wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:If KS was not satisfied by S1, why did they not test S6 - if it indeed was another TN device.


Coz they knew they were wrong with S1 , and there is no point testing S6 if they knew S1 went wrong ( S6 would be a expensive waste ) , without first understanding what went wrong and patching it.
But BARC claimed success immediately. Presuming that KS raised doubts right after S1, it would be logical to prove it through S6, if BARC was confident. The matter would have been resolved. I do not buy the expensive story in the relative scheme of things (I am sure it was much energy and resources into the physical device). If S1 indeed failed and was recognized as such, then how did they square off the success story?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 30 Aug 2009 10:27

Masking is to CYA just in case.

No one is saying that India can not do, all that is being said "that was not the way to do and that was not the way to BS about the result". If you wanted ambiguity then conceal the figure why come up with 36kt-24kt-36kt when it was obvious that it was a fatman

It is important that the whole world knows we have done it and done it right, we have not voilated any treaty, we have done the tests to ward black mail and nukelar arm twisting. So why BS and why did the leadership not think of plan B rather than lie about the results? Deterent is not just for Indians to beleive, its for the opponents to beleive that we can pay in kind.

Oh by the way in bewteeen we had this Deal going when a group started picthing the thought that the days of Mega bums are over this isnthe age of chotus, of the Block Buster not city busters etc etc, is it because those people pitching for chotus were in the know that big Dada was a flop and had to go back Hanuman Vyamshala to build muscle or use some human Growth harmone? (BF)
Last edited by John Snow on 30 Aug 2009 10:33, 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 » 30 Aug 2009 10:28

negi wrote:^ You mean S-6 was same as S-1 ? sources ?
Arun_S has mentioned it here. I was careful to state that let us assume that.

Anant
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 02 May 1999 11:31
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Anant » 30 Aug 2009 10:28

Negi Sir,

I am not a nuclear scientist nor a weapons designer but India's claims about the yields has been questioned. I point you to this link:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaRealYields.html
and this particular concluding para:

The consensus among outside seismic experts is that the yields of most Indian tests are overstated (particularly Pokhran-I or "Smiling Buddha" and Shakti-I), and that the very existence of Shakti IV-V is in question.

Now the question is this. Did anyone in the Indian political establishment have the stones to say to the international community to say, ok you doubting thomases, you think we are failures? you think you can sanction us? well here's 200 kt or 1 megaton up your musharraf? No. Instead what did we do? Obfuscate. Confuse. Shift the issues. If indeed the tests worked as advertised, I'd be proud of the yield and exclaim it as such. Look, the fact is intelligence like anything else is porous. People who know know. The CIA knows, the KGB and its successors know, and anyone else who wants to know knows. The formula for Coke is supposedly secret. Well if that's true why are there generic colas that taste like Coke, not to mention, Pepsi is pretty close. All I am saying is something smells like a rotten rat. I've had this feeling for years and only now has someone in the know said, yes indeed it is a rotten rat. The answer is simple. Retest. Will it happen? Not likely with the geriatric aloof leaders that India has chosen lately.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sanjaykumar » 30 Aug 2009 10:30

Fatman's implosion type plutonium mechanism was tested by Trinity.


Yes London would certainly give unbiased results to Indian nuclear engineers.

Of course I am sure they came with calibration data that showed what Anglo-Americans set off was what had been measured; oddly enough there is essentially no open source information on calibration of seismogrphs for estimating nuclear yields. Why is that?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 30 Aug 2009 10:33

Anujan wrote:
shiv wrote:Is there any publicly known evidence that "masking" of yields by suitable seismic decoupling was done or not done by India or anyone else for their underground tests?

Shiv-ji

Deterrence is all about a transparent and unambiguous statement of capability. In this sense, any "masking" of yields does not make any sense.

For conventional detonation, CTBT monitoring stations claim a sensitivity of > 0.1KT (anymore than 100 tonnes can be detected). Lets for argument sake assume that they can detect >~1KT. So the Shakthi series cannot be hidden anyway. (assuming even 95% damping, the first blast of ~15KT would be detected). Why "mask" at all, if we are demonstrating our mastery ?


Not disputing what you are saying, but do we really know that it was preplanned to send the exact kind of message that you feel needed to be sent?

There is the opposite side. Underground tests over 150 kT were banned by the US and USSR in 1976 an even China stuck to that limit. India need not stick to any limit but I have argued that India has
1) Been forced to be a good boy
2) Has stuck to rules set by others (eg we could have done an airburst over an Indian ocean Island if we thought we are so free)

If you look at Seismological papers it appears that tests can be over estimated or under estimated by a factor of 2. So a 100 kT test can be reported as 50 - 200 kT.

It is possible that India aimed for 100 kT but got 30 to 45

We just don't know enough design details. we also don't know if any geological decoupling was planned but in the light of some new info I have I am using uncle Google and will be back here to make a post - whatever I find.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sanjaykumar » 30 Aug 2009 10:33

My guess is that the 6th test was put off because they knew they had an inherent design flaw which was found wanting in the first test of the TN bomb. Arun S has commented on this. The design was supposedly expensive and cutting edge so it made no sense to proof a failure with another failure.


Or perhaps they could have concluded that someone forgot to use the right torque force for the nuts and set of S 6 to test their hypothesis.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1165
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby dinesha » 30 Aug 2009 10:35

Dr. Shivji. I think everyone here (including you) is speculating, logic or no-logic. Everyone is using verbalism of others to further their POV.

Everybody in the Govt. and outside has made out Dr. Kalam as the ultimate one (who knows everything and speaks truth and only truth) to prove the yield as 45 KT. This group is hell bent to undermine KS’s credentials. MR. NSA says, First and foremost, DRDO has nothing to do with [this aspect of the] tests, frankly, whatever plumage they may like to give themselves. The measurements are not done by DRDO” .Wasn’t Dr. Kalam basically A DRDO man. Whatever test report about the yield he was privy to as SA to PM, it must have come from DAE.
So why does GOI use Dr. Kalam name and not state that, “ According to DAE analysis out TN device worked perfectly”.

Tomorrow if DAE or GOI change their position about the actual yield achieved (for whatever reason, including for further test) the blame can squarely shifted to Dr. Kalam and he will be given new adjectives..

I subscribe to KS, PKI, BK and Arun_S view that more test is required to dispel doubts (I guess, no debate about that). Once a doubt is raised, the ideal condition would be to conduct a full yield test, analyse, find out the actual yield achieved and state the same as design yield. No room for debate then..
Last edited by dinesha on 30 Aug 2009 13:02, edited 1 time in total.

Anant
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 02 May 1999 11:31
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Anant » 30 Aug 2009 10:35

Another coincidence that strikes me as odd is (and I think someone else also mentioned this), within a year and change, we were embroiled in Kargil. Now if this so called test was successful, I would think the terrorists to the NW would have held off realizing they'd be decapitated once in for all. Also, what about the Puki nuclear buff claiming a 1:1 equality viz a vie India. My guess is the Chinese always knew that this S1 was a part time failure and have told the Pukis this in uncertain terms. Only due to this have the Pakis been emboldened to try useless bullshit with India. They know that India's capabilities might only be marginally better than theirs (but larger in number) and they can lob some 1960's grade chinese bombs that they either were gifted or made because India doesn't pack the true punch it claims. I think one good sideeffect of the Arihant is this. Suddenly many people have been depantsed. People in the defence forces suddenly realize they have a car without an engine so to speak. A pretty vessel with no cargo. So to say these events have been distressing is a vast understatement. No amount of lipstick on a pig is going to change this. Retests are needed or some people need to be privately polygraphed and appropriate action has to be utilized.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sanjaykumar » 30 Aug 2009 10:37

USSR had gross asymmetry wrt China but that did not prevent China from engaging in the Ussuri River clashes.

Anant
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 02 May 1999 11:31
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Anant » 30 Aug 2009 10:40

Image

All Smiles including K. Santhanam. How things have changed.

sourab_c
BRFite
Posts: 187
Joined: 14 Feb 2009 18:07
Location: around

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sourab_c » 30 Aug 2009 10:51

Shouldn't our armed forces be forcing the government for a retest at this point? or have our chiefs turned into politicians from soldiers?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Aug 2009 10:51

sanjaykumar wrote:USSR had gross asymmetry wrt China but that did not prevent China from engaging in the Ussuri River clashes.
It also had a mad man in power!

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 30 Aug 2009 10:52

dinesha wrote:Dr. Shivji. I think everyone here (including you) is speculating, logic or no-logic. Everyone is using verbalism of others to further their POV.


Correct


dinesha wrote:Once a doubt is raised, the ideal condition would be to conduct a full yield test, analyse, find out the actual yield achieved and state the same as design yield. No room for debate then..


So guess why that test is not being done? Any inputs on that?

It has been said that the people who declared the POK II tests as "sufficient" are traitors. I dispute that and have stated other reasons.

Again why should my reasons be wrong and anyone else's correct?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 30 Aug 2009 10:57

Anant wrote:All Smiles including K. Santhanam. How things have changed.


Unless of course, things have not changed.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3100
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vera_k » 30 Aug 2009 10:57

negi wrote:BARC did publish its findings in an open fora for the global scientific community to analyze and critic former's findings ; there haven't been any logical rebuttals from the nuclear fraternity contradicting or questioning the BARC's findings.

One such paper is on FAS site

Update on the yield of May 11-13, 1998 Nuclear Detonations at Pokhran
---by S.K. Sikka, Falguni Roy, G.J. Nair, V.G. Kolvankar and Anil Kakodkar


Per the comment I found on the ACW blog, this was after their comment submitted to Science was rejected. The comment in question would have been submitted on this article from Sep 1998.

I got into a huge pissing match with the Indians on this issue as I was the principal author of Barker et. al. 1998 which had the yield estimates far below the Indian press releases. A number of Indian scientists tried to submit a comment to Science rebutting our analysis. We asked them to provide the in-country seismic data on which they based their analysis, but they refused. Luckily, in the end, their comment was rejected and never published.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 30 Aug 2009 10:58

sourab_c wrote:Shouldn't our armed forces be forcing the government for a retest at this point? or have our chiefs turned into politicians from soldiers?


Can you speculate on what the reasons might be?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 30 Aug 2009 11:00

Santhanam is not a nuclear man.

Kalam is not a nuclear man.

Sikka is a nuclear man.

So, what gives?

why all this heart burn. get some pepsid(sp?).
Last edited by NRao on 30 Aug 2009 11:00, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 30 Aug 2009 11:00

shiv wrote:
Arun_S wrote:You are wrong if you think I deliberately misspelling Chidambaram's name. I am not from South and the special nuanced pronunciation of Chidambaram does not come as naturally to me, .


Arun - your work for BR indicates that you have a degree of knowledge and intelligence that people respect.

Please do not make this pathetic excuse because this excuse can be used to question your ability and judgement. If you can use the fact that you are not South Indian to misspell a name perhaps you are making many other mistakes and will have similar lame excuses to pass them off? "I am not a nuclear scientist - therefore I can be excused for misjudging the truth" is one such example.

So please..

Sincere truth surely looks like pathetic excuse to some. Clearly there is no point giving you a reply, as you have made up your mind, I have no complain please be happy with that. I have my own handicaps, and I am happy with that. I can't change you and you can't change me. Agree to disagree.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14147
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 30 Aug 2009 11:01

Sorry OT, but what public opinion can lead to
---------------------------------------
Pakistan: What was Sharm-el-Sheikh all about?
What was the agreement at Sharm-el-Sheikh all about, Pakistan was left asking on Saturday, after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reported statement that the present relations between the two neighbours were not conducive for talks “at any level.”


Of course, the other side of it too
US, UK in sly bid to break impasse
Islamabad: The US and UK are engaged in intense 'behind-the-scene efforts' to break the 'deadlock' in the Indo-Pak peace process and pave the way for a crucial foreign secretaries' meeting on American soil that could be a starter to formal talks between Islamabad and Delhi.


The final resolution of this issue in short as well as long term should give us a pointer to how the current GOI copes with the Internal pressure vs Foreign pressure on issues of importance to the nation.
Last edited by pankajs on 30 Aug 2009 11:10, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54519
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 30 Aug 2009 11:10

Its all unclear.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
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 » 30 Aug 2009 11:11

Good lord ...now we have likes of Simkin,Meades et al being quoted on BRF as against Dr. Sikka and Dr. Chidambaram.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 30 Aug 2009 11:12

Sorry if this has been posted earlier, did not see it:

'Santhanam was worried about India signing the CTBT'

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 30 Aug 2009 11:14

Why K Santhanam said Pokharan II was not a success

It was a major embarrassment for the country when a senior scientist of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, K Santhanam, made the revelation that Pokhran II, India's nuclear tests in 1998, was not entirely successful.

His statement that comes almost a decade after the test has landed the scientist in hot water. However, Santhanam says he stands by what he has said and has no intention of changing his stance.

In a telephonic interview with Vicky Nanjappa, Santhanam explains why there was a necessity to make this revelation 11 years later. He also disagrees with former President A P J Abdul Kalam who has said that Pokhran II was a complete success.

Why did you state that Pokharan II was not entirely a success?

As I have said earlier, based on the seismic measurements and also the opinions from experts, there was a much lower yield in the thermonuclear device test. It was lesser than what had been claimed at that time.

Your statement has created a furore in the nation.

I have just stated that facts. I did what I thought was necessary and I don't see why there needs to be an embarrassment due to this.

But you could have said this at that time itself, immediately after the tests were conducted.

I don't agree with you. I thought that the timing was right and hence decided on making this statement now.

There has been a hue and cry since your statement. Is there any chance you want to change your stand?

No. Why should I change my stand? I will always stand by what I have said and there is no question of changing my stand or my statement.

Even the expert opinion from across the world makes it clear that the yield in the thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was claimed.

I have maintained and will always maintain that the test was not more than 60 per cent successful in terms of the yield it generated. I have made this assessment based on the report of the instrumentation data that is available and also the programme coordinator.

Former President A P J Abdul Kalam, who was also involved with the tests, has said that Pokhran II was entirely successful.

I would like to react to that. First of all, Dr Kalam is not a nuclear scientist. He is a missile scientist and he was not present there at that time. He is blissfully ignorant of the facts. Do I need to say more?

All I want to say is that I stand my ground on this issue.

Home Minister P Chidambaram too has shared Kalam's view.

Chidambaram, being part of the establishment, is just repeating what the others are saying, like a parrot.

You have been accused of making this statement after over a decade at the insistence of people against the Bharatiya Janata Party

Let people say what they want. As I maintained I thought that the timing was right and hence this statement was made. I was not provoked or coaxed by anyone to issue such a statement and let me assure you that there is no malice involved in this.

You speak so much about the timing of making your statement. What is this timing exactly?

There is a change in the administration in the United States of America. They are bound to further pressurise India to sign the CTBT. In such an event it was necessary to make such a statement or speak the truth on the issue so that India does not rush into signing the CTBT.

Therefore, I say the timing of my statement was perfectly right.
Posted by ASIAN DEFENCE at 11:17 AM
Last edited by NRao on 30 Aug 2009 11:15, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54519
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 30 Aug 2009 11:14

The earlier NPA claim on POKII was to say that it was a no-test hence NPT still holds. So quoting those guys is not useful.

To bolster or refute KS argument the sources have to be Indian and Indian data. So scour all published data from Indian sources and try to fins support or otherwise for the S-I yield.

sourab_c
BRFite
Posts: 187
Joined: 14 Feb 2009 18:07
Location: around

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sourab_c » 30 Aug 2009 11:19

shiv wrote:
sourab_c wrote:Shouldn't our armed forces be forcing the government for a retest at this point? or have our chiefs turned into politicians from soldiers?


Can you speculate on what the reasons might be?


Even if there is a slight possibility of this issue having nothing to do with the CTBT or any other theories that are being put forward, isn't that a threat to national security? Shouldn't that raise alarm bells in the defence establishment?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 30 Aug 2009 11:21

Has anyone heard of this
http://www.ntip.navy.mil/nuclear_testing_treaties.shtml
Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT)
Formal Title: The Treaty Between the United States and the USSR on the Limitation of Underground Nuclear Weapons Tests (and Protocol)
Signed: 3 July 1974
Ratified: 11 December 1990
Entry into Force: 11 December 1990
The TTBT establishes a "threshold" of 150 kilotons (equivalent to 150,000 tons of TNT) on all underground nuclear tests. This threshold is militarily significant in that it removed the possibility of testing new or existing nuclear weapons beyond the fractional megaton range, thus reducing the explosive force of new nuclear warheads and bombs that otherwise could be tested for weapon systems. Included was a Protocol detailing procedures for the exchange of technical data and limiting weapons testing to specified test sites to assist in verification. Data exchanges include geographical boundaries and geological information of the test areas, as well as geographic coordinates of test locations to assist in yield determination. Between 1987 and 1990, additional verification provisions were negotiated providing on-site inspections for all tests, the use of hydrodynamic yield measurements for all tests exceeding planned yields of 50 kilotons and seismic monitoring for all tests exceeding planned yields of 35 kilotons. The TTBT continues to remain in force between the United States and Russia. The other nuclear capable States organized under the USSR (Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine) were denuclearized between 1995 and 1997 and all their nuclear warheads were transferred to Russia and their associated delivery systems transferred to Russia, destroyed, or dismantled. If either the United States or Russia were to resume nuclear explosive testing, this Treaty would authorize resumption of the on-site monitoring and inspection of such tests by the other side.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 30 Aug 2009 11:25

The Treaty Between the United States and the USSR


how is relavant to our fizzle? Is it to suggest we deliberately fizzled so that we adhere to their bilateral agreement?
Last edited by John Snow on 30 Aug 2009 11:27, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests