Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54542
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 30 Aug 2009 11:26

Yes it was signed in late 1970s between US and SU to limit UGT to 150Kt and less. The idea was that it would cap the bigger yield weapons. In the 80s there were many mutual accusations of violations but all were dismissed upon further investigation.

India signed the Partial Test Ban treaty which prevents testing in water and in space in 1963. It has not signed the TTBT. So it doesn't apply to it.

PRC has tested yields higher than this.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sanjaykumar » 30 Aug 2009 11:30

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.


One presumes Santy's team provided these data to London. Because without geologic data it would be like assessing Sonali Bendre's beauty with a white cane.

Also

limiting weapons testing to specified test sites to assist in verification

So you need to know where the test is going off to describe it.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3012
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 30 Aug 2009 11:34

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.

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. 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?

:rotfl:

A small pooch onlee: If S1 is considered a failure and S6 is a replica of S1 and it is so expensive to test, first of all why they planned to test both S1 and S6, ? :rotfl:

Why would one try to test the replica first of all ? just to confirm both are giving the same yield ? :rotfl: Pls spare us all these tamashas and check how the other countires carried out the N-tests.

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.
Sir, before you making out yourself as too emotional, pls ask the question why KS has opened the mouth only now ? Why now ? Is he not deliberately misled the whole nation by not telling the truth from the beginning. So pls think about this ..and say who is misleading whom..
Last edited by Kanson on 30 Aug 2009 11:37, edited 1 time in total.

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 11:35

Either the "West" has better monitoring means or if they do not have really dependable then they cannot say a ct bt about the Indian test.

IMHO, even KS not being a "nuclear guy" really has not insight into the math of these tests. The ONLY way he could make that statement so boldly is if someone within the math team told him so right after the calculations were made. even then what was told to him (KS) is still up for discussion and pure speculation.

My feel is that India needs to test once more - a newer design, etc.

sugriva
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 20:16
Location: Exposing the uber communist luddites masquerading as capitalists

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sugriva » 30 Aug 2009 11:35

MK Narayanan wrote: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”. [Ooops..]

Citing the “authorised and proven measurements” of yields done by Anil Kakodkar and S.K. Sikka from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, he said nobody had really questioned their conclusions. “If those who were involved come forward and say, ‘I have looked at the measurement and these are the mistakes’ that would be different. If Santy says, ‘I have an independent set of measurements about the tests’, let him come forward


Read between the lines and what it means is that MKN is baiting KS to use data, that is under the purview of the OSA, to make his case. He complains about deviousness but is being the devious one in this case.
It is becoming quite clear that this isn't any super chanakiyan stratergery on GOI's parts. KS has broken ranks and the establishment is out to get him.

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 11:39

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... rtid=17991

Cavity decoupling in salt is the most plausible means by which a nation could conduct clandestine testing of militarily significant nuclear weapons. The conditions under which solution-mined salt can be used for this purpose are quite restrictive. The salt must be thick and reasonably pure. Containment of explosions sets a shallow limit on depth, and cavity stability sets a deep limit. These constraints are met in considerably <1% of the total land area of India and Pakistan. Most of that area is too dry for cavity construction by solution mining; disposal of brine in rivers can be detected easily. Salt domes, the most favorable structures for constructing large cavities, are not present in India and Pakistan. Confidence that they are adhering to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is enhanced by their geological conditions, which are quite favorable to verification, not evasion. Thus, their participation in the CTBT is constrained overwhelmingly by political, not scientific, issues. Confidence in the verification of the CTBT could be enhanced if India and Pakistan permitted stations of the various monitoring technologies that are now widely deployed elsewhere to be operated on their territories.



India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, at a test site in western Rajasthan near Pokharan. Five nuclear explosions, reportedly of yields ranging from subkiloton to 43 kilotons (kt), were conducted at that site in May 1998. They were followed by a series of Pakistani tests that confirmed the long-suspected nuclear status of that nation. India and Pakistan are now nuclear powers, but the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) would place strict limits on the development of highly compact and easily delivered multistage thermonuclear weapons and other advanced nuclear weaponry. High-yield thermonuclear weapons cannot be triggered by primaries of just a few kilotons (1), so a verifiable limit of ≈5 kt would place serious constraints on stockpile modernization and maintenance. Therefore, confidence in the monitoring of the test ban would be of considerable value in the Asian subcontinent. Geology and geophysics would play an important role in any attempt to hide a secret testing program and would be central to any monitoring effort directed toward preventing surreptitious testing.

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 11:40

pls ask the question why KS has opened the mouth only now ? Why now ? Is he not deliberately misled the whole nation by not telling the truth from the beginning.


IF Kalam is a "missile man", KS is a "RAW man". Why are we putting so much emphasis on a RAW man?

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 11:40

Kanson Sir,

I honestly don't know the motivation now, either politically or otherwise. Moreover, I know very little about bomb design and my guess is most in this forum fall somewhere in this category. What I am saying however is this. When you try to master high technology and that too, that which is critical to the state of the nation, repetition in collection of data and confirming parameters and variables is key. When someone in the know says something has gone wrong, that too for such a critical venture, then I am at unease. Do I want to think it worked well the first time and all is hunky dory. You bet. Do I think it did? I have no clue but as a science person and there are many others on this board, I doubt it. Whatever his motive is, the key remains that if his statement has an infinitesimal kernel of truth, India needs to do something quickly to rectify this situation. That is all.

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 11:40

John Snow wrote:
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?


Maybe the other way round. We tried to adhere by keeping yield low, and the low yield fizzled?

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14184
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 30 Aug 2009 11:42

NRao wrote:My feel is that India needs to test once more - a newer design, etc.

Test when ever it is appropriate but in the interim do not give up the option for some economic laddus.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sanjaykumar » 30 Aug 2009 11:44

MKN is baiting KS to use data, that is under the purview of the OSA, to make his case.

You don't have to go that far. All one has to do is demonstrate the faith in the seismographers sitting in London. They could not measure some Chinese tests to within 100KT (yes) error but enormous faith is reposed in them for Pokharan (the Raj made them more familiar with Indian testing conditions).

All one asks is
-what is the calibration data set for the Indian site?
-what is the confidence interval of estimates from the global network of stations?
-what is the standard deviation for estimates of all those redundant tests done in Nevada?

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 11:45

Shiv ji the shaft depth for S-1 is the most convincing constraint for capping of the yield; the danger to the nearby village ofcourse is another logical reason (as until 1998 Pokharan site was not extensively calibrated even by the BARC).

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3012
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 30 Aug 2009 11:49

Anant wrote:Kanson Sir,

I honestly don't know the motivation now, either politically or otherwise. Moreover, I know very little about bomb design and my guess is most in this forum fall somewhere in this category. What I am saying however is this. When you try to master high technology and that too, that which is critical to the state of the nation, repetition in collection of data and confirming parameters and variables is key. When someone in the know says something has gone wrong, that too for such a critical venture, then I am at unease. Do I want to think it worked well the first time and all is hunky dory. You bet. Do I think it did? I have no clue but as a science person and there are many others on this board, I doubt it. Whatever his motive is, the key remains that if his statement has an infinitesimal kernel of truth, India needs to do something quickly to rectify this situation. That is all.


Upto the bold-faced sentence what you said it is right. Why giving favourable or unfavourable treatment to one point of view...It could be right or wrong. How can be so assuredly you say that some one should be right, when he didnt made this truth exposed for so long.

So i can only advise, wait for more clarity before commiting to such emotional thoughts.

Regarding the reptitions and collection of data, i like to ask only one question. How many times GSLV was tested(dry run) before it carried the satellite perched at top.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 30 Aug 2009 11:59

All this play of words, you show then I show, you meter is not caliberated, our sand is different, one test is enough for computer simulations will not cut with end users that is IA, IAF and IN. PKI his self is daying the bum design is not usable as it is.

I wonder why BARC tested the reactor for so many days instead just test for day and say all if fine load the boat....

The Pee Hds of mava gang who have assembled bums with their bare hands vouch that it is very complex thing to be understood by ordinary mortals. Now if indeed it so complex and dependent on so many factors, would they not be smart enough to say that 1 test is not enough to get computer simulation going.....

GSLV is comparing oranges and apples, sub sytems can be unit tested caliberated, integration tests are carried out, and that rocket science is better understood than Nuklear Physics according Pee Hds who have worked on them like childs play.

**
For sure we dug ourselves a hole and uncle& co are going to shaft us if we sign CTBT

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3012
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 30 Aug 2009 12:06

John Snow wrote:All this play of words, you show then I show, you meter is not caliberated, our sand is different, one test is enough for computer simulations will not cut with end users that is IA, IAF and IN. PKI his self is daying the bum design is not usable as it is.

How about IN chief Suresh Mehta's statement. PKI even rejected the POK-I as non-weaponisable. Is that so ? Why PKI is so trustable and others are not ? You show that bias is PKI is your relative? your guide? or what ? Why singling out one guy...becoz he supports your pov ?

I wonder why BARC tested the reactor for so many days instead just test for day and say all if fine load the boat....

The Pee Hds of mava gang who have assembled bums with their bare hands vouch that it is very complex thing to be understood by ordinary mortals. Now if indeed it so complex and dependent on so many factors, would they not be smart enough to say that 1 test is not enough to get computer simulation going.....

GSLV is comparing oranges and apples, sub sytems can be unit tested caliberated, integration tests are carried out, and that rocket science is better understood than Nuklear Physics according Pee Hds who have worked on them like childs play.


How you come to know that what you said about sub system testing cannot be carried out in N-bum...Pls elaborate...
Last edited by Kanson on 30 Aug 2009 12:10, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sanjaykumar » 30 Aug 2009 12:07

Means what?

The bomb is 1940s technology-even before UNIAC, CNCs, jet engines, and electronic fuel injectors.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2480
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Prem Kumar » 30 Aug 2009 12:07

KS has set the stage by his statements. We can argue/debate about the timing, whether this is a GOI-sponsored leak and the actual Shakti test yields.

All this aside, isnt it obvious (& hasnt it always been obvious) that if India was serious about TN weapons, then the Shakti tests were clearly inadequate? Even assuming the tests were 100% successful and gave the desired yields, who builds a TN weapon with a 45 KT yield, for Goodness sakes?

If India's deterrence involves say 150KT TN weapons, then that's what should (and should have been tested). Testing anything else (especially a lower yield) and claiming simulation-nirvana is laughable - and you dont need to be a nuclear scientist to know that such a claim is unscientific. And making such a claim makes RC lose credibility, whatever be his other accomplishments.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby geeth » 30 Aug 2009 12:09

>>>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.

This is the only thing that irks me. Every country in the world does things according to their national interest. But we, India does things according to the wishes of Goras, Chinis or even Pakis..

What is the need for India to listen to anybody, as far as Nuclear or missile issues are concerned?

NPT, CTBT, FMCT, MTCR etc are all designed to stop India. What irks me most is the over enthusiasm of our leaders to prove to their "western political Masters" that everything is fine and we are sticking to the rules in letter and spirit (though not required), which are designed only to the detriment of Indian Interests.

India having the capability to nuke the hell out of ANY adversary is beyond doubt (may not be at present, if you look at the deployed forces). But the attitude of our leaders and scientists and advisors to please all is what is creating problems. Basically, we don't have to do things in secret. Do it in the open. But, no - why? because our political masters (including Vajpayee oor Advani) and their chamchas don't have the ballls to stand up and say that we will do whatever is necessary. They don't have the necessary strength to resist external pressure.

What they do is trade national interests for petty gains and sometimes personal glory.

It is possible that there was some glich in the design, or that the design was perfect. Nobody on earth including the PM can verify this because, that is how the scientific community inside BARC / AEC works. It is highly compartmentalised and this kind of top secret data will be known to only a chosen few. If they decide to tell a lie to PM, then that is it. But we hope and believe that so far the arrangement has worked and the country believes that the scientists concerned are patriotic enough not to put the country's security at risk. But if someone doubts their integrity, there is no system to dispel the doubt. This is what I know from the peripheral interaction with people who worked there.

Coming to the assertions of Arun_S, he has amply made it clear that most of it is his conjectures based on his own analysis of information publicly available. Now we can also assume that he might have been privy to the 'private talks' Santanam and/or others had in the IDSE or other forums. He might have passed on the information much earlier than Santanam made it to the public.

So now, where do we stand? Ejjactly where we were before.. Not a single step forward or backward.

Do we need to test? yes ofcourse! - irrespective of whether S1 was success or failure or a fizzle.

What did Santanam's disclosure achieve? It has made MMS's life a little more difficult - He won't be able to hoodwink the public and his cabinet once more and shake hands and say "thank you' to Obama as well, for giving him an opportunity to sign the CTBT(after Bush obliged him with the no-clear deal). In that respect, we all must thank Santanam - whether it was his own choice or was prompted to do it.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sanjaykumar » 30 Aug 2009 12:09

Even assuming the tests were 100% successful and gave the desired yields, who builds a TN weapon with a 45 KT yield, for Goodness sakes?

And these desi fools overlooked that. :rotfl:

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2480
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Prem Kumar » 30 Aug 2009 12:12

sanjaykumar wrote:
And these desi fools overlooked that. :rotfl:


Huh? Care to explain what you mean?

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby geeth » 30 Aug 2009 12:20

>>>Shiv ji the shaft depth for S-1 is the most convincing constraint for capping of the yield;

And the constrint could be because, it was dug for different purpose/yield and they arrived at a yield to match the shaft depth, innstead of digging a new shaft and expose.

There would have been political instructions as well to do things in utmost secret, because Vajpayee's Govt had more than two dozen coalition partners - It would have been very easy to pull down the Govt, and Congress (Both Desi & Videshi) would have played an active role in it, if they came to know about the test beforehand.

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 12:44

negi wrote:Shiv ji the shaft depth for S-1 is the most convincing constraint for capping of the yield; the danger to the nearby village ofcourse is another logical reason (as until 1998 Pokharan site was not extensively calibrated even by the BARC).



Fair enough - but Santhanam says that the yield was 60%.

So once again:

if the measured yield (@60%) was 43 kT - then the design was for 72 kT
If the measured yield was 30 kT the design was for 50 kT
If the measured yield was 20 kT then the design was for 33kT

None of these are megaton yields - or even tenths of that.

When the design was never to "match" anyone else deterrent - such as exists today is warheads of tens of kilotons of fission weapons. The "capability" to build TN may exist - but whether any warhads exist of not is anybody's guess.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2480
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Prem Kumar » 30 Aug 2009 12:51

Agreed fully Shiv. To elaborate on my earlier post:

a) If TN test was 100% successful, then the yield is still so low that it does not make for a credible deterrent (in TN terms). So, there is a need to test a more powerful TN

b) If the TN test was not successful (say target was 150KT) but yield was only 45KT, then again more tests are needed

So either way we look at it, TN re-testing is needed. Which was why the "voluntary moratorium" was such an ill-thought-through idea.

Added later: to add to Raja Ram's post. There are 3 topics here:

a) Sizzle or Fizzle?

b) Why did TS reveal things now & whether it was orchestrated?

c) Is more testing needed?

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 13:03

Prem Kumar wrote:b) If the TN test was not successful (say target was 150KT) but yield was only 45KT, then again more tests are needed


The point I wanted to make is that if Santhanam is right in saying that only 60% of the yield was schieved - it only means that there was never any intention to test to 150kT. The maximum designed yield was 72 kT onlee

Prem Kumar wrote:Added later: to add to Raja Ram's post. There are 3 topics here:

a) Sizzle or Fizzle?

b) Why did TS reveal things now & whether it was orchestrated?

c) Is more testing needed?


Some answers have come up..

On paper I linked in an earlier page of this thread said that a fizzle can be said to occur only when a measurable percentage of the design yield is not achieved. The example quoted her ws that the NoKo bum was 0.5 kT. If the design of the bomb was for 4 kT - (as the Chinese stated) then 0.5 kT is not a fizzle and indicates capability. But if the same bum was designed for 20 kT - then a 0.5 kT yield is a fizzle.

Is more testing needed? IMO there is no debate here. It is needed.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Raj Malhotra » 30 Aug 2009 13:05

I find it very difficult to believe BARC started working on TN only in 1996. I think it would make better sense to assume that BARC has been working on TN since 1980 when Indira Gandhi came to power. The reference to 200kt FBF may have been used to give a ballpark figure to DRDO missile scientists to design missiles and Services to plan for doomsday.

If BARC had ever worked on 50kt or 200kt FBF then the said bombs would also have been tested. The test of only one TN and no FBF shows that India has no FBF except 17kt FBF which is part of TN.

It is astonishing that BARC-DRDO only had one design and one device for TN. Assuming there was one design then various types of fissile material and yield range should have been tested. One would have imagined 5-6 tests of 50-200kt devices for fallback situation.

A single half baked test of TN is difficult to understand. Atleast they should have tested FBF part of TN seperately to get independant data on performance of FBF part of TN.

The whole test business seems odd, was the half baked tests ordered to legitimise the yellow pee reign against Advani by Brijesh Mishra and then sale of Indian interests to Uncle Sam by voluntary morartorium which path is being taken to conclusion by MMS.

If KS outburst had been orchesterated by GoI they would also have done some innocous movement at Pokharan to give heart attacks to Obama Admin

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby RajeshA » 30 Aug 2009 13:20

Those who worry about sanctions against India, should rethink international politics.

'The international community' is interested in solving problems from their perspective of their national interests. You will see, that in the 6-Party talks for NoKo, UN Mission to Myanmar grovelling in front of the junta for an appointment, the Brit-US-Saudi search with a magnifying glass for that illusive good Taliban, the thousand year talks with Iran on their nuclear program, ...

What happens if India tests citing a valid reason? NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

If it is a Multi-Megaton level Test, you will see people first doing the needful for their public posture and expressing disappointment with India and after a couple of months scrambling to FIND A SOLUTION, and a solution with India's help.

Do Indians think, the world is only going to act hurt and punish India as if we were in Kindergarten?

Why do Indians live with the constant fear of a worst case scenario, a worst-case reaction from an 'international community' which acts according to fixed set of rules and behavior, a behavior we can 'damppen', we can game, we can manipulate. Genuflexing may come naturally to us Indians, but it weakens our hand.

Why is there so much fear of a storm that may never come? We can ride the storm. We should know that on the other side of the tantrums of the 'international community' there is even more sunshine and deals to be made.

There will be a lot of 'rebuking' and 'heart-burn' in the 'international community' but we will again be making deals within 6 months of the testing.

What we need to do is to realistically game the post-testing scenario for India, sans the fears!

I an sure, we will discover that there is nothing to fear irrespective of all the fearful scenarios some want convince us of, and irrespective of the threats!

We should stop acting as Yuddhishtra, as the 'good boy'!

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby svinayak » 30 Aug 2009 13:37

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

'Santhanam was worried about India signing the CTBT'


He was also worried that the PMO office is under some external control and can sign it without any murmur . To remove any decision by stealth he has put a large wedge in the deciscion making

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 13:45

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

'Santhanam was worried about India signing the CTBT'


He was also worried that the PMO office is under some external control and can sign it without any murmur . To remove any decision by stealth he has put a large wedge in the deciscion making


I don't disagree with this - but India can renege on the agreements it has signed just like Pakistan boldly does and Ombaba looks like he is doing to India.

Haria
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 16 Aug 2009 10:54

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Haria » 30 Aug 2009 14:17

RajeshA wrote:We should stop acting as Yuddhishtra, as the 'good boy'!


Excellent point Rajesh. Infact what could the international community do in 1998 except shouting itself hoarse.

Umrikhan understood the lack of stick for beating India and precisely for this reason they fabricated Nook-l-ear deal. The idea was to get India to invest billions of $$ in nuke power plants. Then it would be possible to blackmail India by withholding fuel. However Indian team bargained hard and after NSG exemption went ahead to sign deals with Russia and France.

Ombaba realised that not only the imaginary "nuclear fuel stick" doesnot exist but supply of Russian reactor and fuel is now beyond NSG (US) control. Hence all of the heart burn and the reneging act.

To reinvent stick ombaba has gone ahead with pressure on MMS et al for CTBT. But then comes KS statement and MMS is under pressure not to sign on dotted line.

IMHO looking at the past performance (tendency for becoming bhestern media poster boy coupled with foot-in-mouth disease) MMS/Tharoor WILL sign on CTBT.

Brace your self for another S-e-S....

Haria
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 16 Aug 2009 10:54

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Haria » 30 Aug 2009 14:19

shiv wrote: but India can renege on the agreements it has signed just like Pakistan boldly does and Ombaba looks like he is doing to India.


Agreed treaty is nothing but TOI-let paper. India should not try to be Harishchandra in Kalyug.

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Drevin » 30 Aug 2009 14:31

Under the 1-2-3 agreement India would get fuel for power generation. This would in turn allow the economy to grow faster. Hence resulting in more growth, better economy, more earnings etc.....

In return India would allow inspections/international safe guards on 14 of the 22 reactors. A great bargain for the US.

Considering the equation above I doubt anything as big as us signing the CTBT will happen "silently" as mentioned. Sure to be a big bang.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 30 Aug 2009 15:16

shiv wrote:If we start looking at India this way - it gets easier to explain Indian behavior. Those who disagree with this need to work to change viewpoints.

Both the Ramayana and Mahabharat speak of peace only after victory. For India Independence was taken as victory in itself which is a flawed and blinkered view.


Excellent but as you point out the Indians who have this let me get my tot and everything will be fine are the ones who need their mindsets changed.

Not us who have nightmares everything night of what the future holds.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby RajeshA » 30 Aug 2009 15:39

K. Santhanam is one who knows how to throw spanners in the works of others. In fact one should learn a few methods from him.

What is Obama's biggest political weakness? Exactly the one, which John McCain and Hillary Clinton pointed to in the campaign - that he is an appeasist. He will go and snuggle with the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Russians, the Chinese. His stance of 'smart diplomacy' stands in contrast to 'with us or against us diplomacy'.

For the liberals, his smart diplomacy sounds like the manna from heaven, but for a wider public it is susceptible to allegations of a sell-out. The image of his policy is vulnerable.

It is here that one can bring on real pressure on Mr. Obama. During the run up to the Iraq War, the French, the Germans attacked American politics for its hyper-superpower arrogance. It became an issue not only in the Western Camp, in NATO, but in American politics itself.

India should probably test after a provocation by the Lizard-NoKo-Pak Nuclear Continuum, either through a border incursion by Lizard or by a nuclear test by NoKo or by a terrorist attack by the Pakis. Whenever India does undertake renewed testing and there is a brouhaha in the West, India should attack Obama where it hurts him most. India can claim that India needed to test because Obama has committed to a retreat of America from its leadership of the Free World, through its eagerness to molly-coddle the dictators in Beijing. In such a situation, India had no option but make preparations for its own defense, as it deems fit.

That would be a spear in the heart of Obama's Presidency, as all Republicans will come out from under the rocks where they have been hiding scared of Obama and do the needful.

Of course, it is an argument an American Ally would be making, and India is not an American Ally, but in the realm of grandstanding India's credentials as a democracy are in fact well-established.

Western retreat in front of the Lizard is in the meantime a well-known secret. There is need to put salt into this wound, and paralyze opinion in Western countries from reacting negatively to India's nuclear testing. It is important that besides making 'pleas' to the West to show understanding for India's security needs, we start talking in a language they understand and respect. Even if it only for a short duration, India should present itself as a country that is part of the Free World, and in fact a leader in the Free World. India should talk the Western countries down in their own language.

One should also not belittle the need in the West to have someone willing to stand up to China and Islamism. Such were some of the considerations in the the US Congress at the time of IUCNA. These considerations have not disappeared. They are still there, but have gone underground due to change in attention and focus. Many in the West would see it as positive that India has gone ahead and tested.

There is also a constituency in USA which wants to test US nuclear weapons too. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has often pleaded for RRW testing.

Secondly India should know, that we have three strong bargaining chips.
1) An Indian build-up on our Western border, would mean that America's military strategy of using the Pakistan Army to control the Taliban and Al Qaeda falls flat on its face, as the Pakistanis move their troops to their eastern border.

2) Indian economy is still booming, and Western countries would want Indian Economy to help in pulling the world out of recession. Many influential companies in the West are intent on doing business with India, and they will help to avoid any sanctions on India. Would Areva want that all nuclear business goes to the Russians?

3) India always has the potential to escalate the nuclear one-upmanship. There is always the next series of nuclear testing, that India can refrain from if the 'international community' refrains from imposing sanctions.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 30 Aug 2009 16:31

Since v r going round and round, could someone pls post the reasoning as to

Why should a TN have at least 100KT?


The larger a weapon's yield, the more constraints on its launch because of the collateral damage which leads to a "strategic" (i.e., Back to Stone Age) exchange. So what is the mantra in going to a MINIMUM yield of 6 to 7 times that of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bums, both of which were air bursts at ~ 5000 feet and achieved the purpose of being Strategic weapons? If the TN is to be used to stop an advance by an armored column through, say, a valley south of Mt. Gopalankutty or through the desert towards Longewala, a 15KT blast seems quite good enough to wipe out that force. If the objective is to hit an airbase with buried installations, a missile that penetrates to a few feet seems enough to generate shock waves to end all the facilities, with a 10 -15KT burst. Can't imagine many aircraft fuel tanks that won't explode in sympathy with that.

If it is to destroy a ship, even an aircraft carrier group, a 15kT burst near the surface should be more than enough. So where does the 100kT number come from? I know Arun_S is confident of this, please explain to the non-nyooklear-pissikists pls.

Seems to me the R&D (I mean research and development, not the Rh&Dh as done here) is better spent on improving the response speed, reliability, survivability and accuracy of the delivery system. As India is doing.

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 17:30

narayanan wrote:. If the objective is to hit an airbase with buried installations, a missile that penetrates to a few feet seems enough to generate shock waves to end all the facilities, with a 10 -15KT burst. Can't imagine many aircraft fuel tanks that won't explode in sympathy with that.

If it is to destroy a ship, even an aircraft carrier group, a 15kT burst near the surface should be more than enough. So where does the 100kT number come from?


Well I always thought that if you really really want to cause trouble in a city - you need to pepper it with three or four 15-20 KT warheads so that people fleeing from one area only meet others doing the same thing from their area. Cruel - but nuclear war is designed to do that.

Having said that I have begun to wonder about how people who make bums decide on yield. I emans you have these clever engineers and physicists with stuff like Uranium, Plutonium. Tritium. Lithium whateva. And they sit and calculate the temps and pressures and numbers of neutrons and energy and say "Hey OK - this bomb gonna yield 1 megaton"

Then they go and explode the damn thing and what does it do - it does something else. So they check out fission products, fusion products etc and go back to their calculators and say "OK - this worked, That worked partially. This didn't work.

It would seem to me that getting some explosion is relatively easy for people in that line of work. What seems to be difficult is getting consistent and repeatable results of maximum efficiency (these are my guesses, mind you). Ths require testing and retesting of designs.

I am certain the US and USSR went through this rigmarole. But China. If you look at Chinese tests - you will find that the maximum number of "practice shots" they have had is for bombs in the region of 20-80 kT. I suspect that most Chinese bums are of this size because they are the most reliable and tested.

Obviously the question of what India has comes up. Only one type of fission bomb has been tested twice. A non weaponised one tested once in 1974 and probably a weapon itself of the same design in 1998. (I need to go back and check if these statements of mine are accurate.). It would be reasonable to assume that Indian warheads are ones for which there is greatest confidence regarding working and ones that have been repeatedly tested with everything except the fissile material.

This may not be the most efficient use of fissile material. Getting more bang for buck by boosted fission and TN is obviously a good way of making available fissile material go a longer way.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 30 Aug 2009 17:49

most reliable and tested.
The reliability probably came from Los Alamos design and testing.

I agree that "boosted fission" is a nice way of doing with souped-up hydrogen (tritium) what would otherwise take hajjar kilograms of Pu or enriched U. So technologically, it is mucho machho to say that we have 200KT mijjiles than mere SDRE 25kT or 42.5KT mijjiles. But my question is - what does a 200KT or 100KT get you other than a sure and immediate escalation to Sudden Urban Parking Area Renovation & Improvement (SUPARI)? If OTOH ur design is based on SDRE 20KTs, u can use them to stop an invasion, and the enemy will be able to rationalize it away saying:
Brig. Gen. Liu was anyway a Levisionist Lunning Dog of Impeliarist Walmongels! Good liddance! Folget his unautholized attempt to defect to the enemy! And those tanks he store wele arr contaminated with srittist tissues flom TianMen and Rhasa and Wulumqui opelashuns.


But I am sure Arun has a very carefully developed answer as to why 100KT or 200KT is the threshold of Credible Deterrence and SeeTeeBeeTee Signability. I am just requesting that he indulge the aam jingo here by repeating it.

rgosain
BRFite
Posts: 441
Joined: 10 Jan 2003 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby rgosain » 30 Aug 2009 17:57

If you look at the French tests, the yields for their TN were all over the shop. Some even speculate that the French never had a reliable consistent warhead until the 70's.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Shankar » 30 Aug 2009 18:01

The idea of 300 KT OR SAY 200 kt thermo nuclear weapon is based on creating almost 95% plus causality and damage to those in protected shelters usaly the top political leadership and strategic wepon system of adversaries. While for the civilians caught in the open in a city the size of Kolkata a 30kt will inflict almost 20% immediate death and another 20% within a year the effect inside protected shelters of fort william will be much less allowing us to re group and counter strike quickly

Compared to this a300kt thermo nuke will kill almost 70% immediately ,incapacitate the rest and most of the so called nuclear bunkers will be vaporized and destroyed too -ther by denying us the option of an effective second strike

That is why most modern thermo nukes are in the range 150-300KT and has a variable yield option depending on the size and nature of the high value target.If it is asmall city with a large standard military cantonment 150 kt will be enough for a capital city 300 kt is the choosen option

Irrespective of what public perception military planners dont plan killing on large civilian population -it is just an un avoidable collateral damage
The damage potential of thermo nuke is more effective becasue simply much higher temperature attained during fusion reaction so a smaller and lighter bomb can have the same destructive potential of a much heavier fission or boosted fission device

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby abhiti » 30 Aug 2009 18:02

shiv wrote: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?


There are three points being discusssed: 1) What's real yield of POK II test? 2) If it were weapon test and not scientific or weapon design test shouldn't it be tested to the yield it will be used. 3) No matter the yield, shouldn't you test your critical weapons more than once?

You seem to be focussed on point 1 only.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1865
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby wig » 30 Aug 2009 18:09

regarding destroying cities, in the 21 century even in India a small nuclear device should be quite adequate. the elctromagnetic pulse will render mostl modern telecommunication networks inoperable. TV, cable, radio transmission will cease and will require quite some time before restoration. Banking sector because most banks are based on networks will also have information flow disruptions leading to breakdowns. even insurance companies are now using networks to transmit data to their HO so it is doubtful if they will be in any position to even honour claims post explosion especially if the data centers/ mines are targetted.
blasts on or near dams will results in ruptures and massive disruption due to flooding of adjacent areas. Radioactive waste will to my mind result in food stores and farmland being unconsumable.

regarding the low yield of the Thermonuclear (TN) device as an aside it occurs to me that a neutron bomb the kind theorised to stop armoured (cavalry) breakthroughs is also a TN device minus the fission blow that ignites the TN. I would rather like it if the indians are masters of the neutron bomb tech. of course this is my very humble opinion and i am no expert in the technicalities of bums nuclear or non nuclear. benis sharnam gatchami!


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest