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 18:13

Shankar wrote: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


Right weapon is the one which minimizes weight & size (including that of RV) + amount of U/P used + cost for a given damage. This is critical otherwise you will either not have enough or it will cost too much (think number of ATVs required).

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Aug 2009 18:41

Shiv: A lot of these ideal yield for a warhead of 200-300 KT are due to the move away from single missiles to MIRV based payloads, and hence a lot of testing done by by other powers to maximize yield/weight, compact warheads, etc, before deployment. If you add up the total punch from a single missile, it still goes into the MT ranges.

The conventional wisdom among nuclear planners is large TN weapons provide more deterrence and stability than tactical small weapons.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2546
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby darshhan » 30 Aug 2009 18:47

wig wrote: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!


You are right.Any nuclear weapon can be used as an EMP weapon.But in order to get those effects one has to explode this nuke 300 kms up in the atmosphere.

Another point worth noting is that the so called enemies of India are
actually its neighbours.So the emp effects are sure to damage India as well.The radius of such an emp attack is more than 1000 miles.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1841
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby wig » 30 Aug 2009 19:13

darshann ji
i think that even a nuclear blast at low level will generate massive electromagnetic disturbances in the vicinity. they will be adequate to disrupt most electic or electronic equipment in the area. the low height will limit the radius of the effects of the electromagnetic pulse, The radiation of high energy particles should also do the same. My very humble opinion of course.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby geeth » 30 Aug 2009 19:21

From What I had understood reading open literature, the factor deciding the yield for the Thermo Nuke is the amount of tritium charge in it. They must have tested it for a particular yield and found it working..hence their confidence in increasing the yield by increasing the tritium charge, without any change in the physical size or design of the bum. If this is true, then the problem comes only when the yield is not as desired...in such case, you have to test it for the desired yield, and also test for the maximum yield.

In the case of the bum working according to plan, you are only assuming that the scaled up version would also work. But for confirmation you need to test and prove to remove any surprises, however much theoretical knowledge you have gained.

Though people involved have said that they are confident and need not test again, none of them have said we can go ahead and sign CTBT and forego the option to test.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 30 Aug 2009 19:25

Baitullah Mehsood was neutralized by a couple of Hellfire missiles, where the damage probably did not even spread beyond a couple of buildings. In older times, the "right weapon" would have been carpet-bombing the village, given the same intel and target info. And he may have survived because if the first bum did not hit he would have been rushed into the best pit or cave in the neighborhood. More to the point, they would not have sent the B-52 because it would have meant war with Pakistan.

I take it then that modern C^3 facilities are built to take direct hits from things below 200kT - though I cannot imagine this. The Kashmir earthquake a few years ago wiped out most of the TSPA in what must have been bunkers designed to take saturation IAF raids.

If India proves 300kT TNs, why can't PRC dig bunkers twice as deep so that their C^3 survives 600KT strikes? Going under a mountain seems a safe way to do this, and PRC has no shortage of those. Will a 600KT TN assure destruction of a C^3 facility deep under Mt. Gopalankutty, even if one could get 400% verified coordinates? For sure, use of a 600KT device will assure that Mumbai, Chennai, Dilli and Banglore, Kerala, get SUPARI, so its use will only be on DoomsDin.

So this appears to be a path with no end. It will take a 1,700,000,000 MT weapon to take out the Mt. Gopalankutty bunker with 100% assurance. I hope there is a better basis for this loud screaming for 200KT as Credible Deterrence.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 30 Aug 2009 19:36

geeth, from what I remember of the chai-biscoot discussions during the NewClear Deal/ EkDoTeen tamasha, the deal was that using tritium one could do "dial-a-yield" - from somewhere near the fission core yield, to about 200 or maybe 300KT max, without going to a full thermonuke and getting MT yields. Very versatile weapon.

Someone also mentioned the aspect of Pokhran village above, and I notice that the ranters let that one slip under, because that is the key PROOF.

The houses suffered very deep cracks. So if the yield had been twice whatever occurred, the village would have been 400% shaheed (were the people evacuated? I don't know). This means that
a) Whoever calculated the effect of S1 Design Yield X on Pokhran Village was an idiot, because if the full yield had been achieved, India would have a massive problem with the Hyooman Rites Energizer Bunnies in addition to all the rest.
b) If the concrete and brick walls at the surface cracked that much, and the earth fractured that much, it would have become a big surface crater with a nice big thermonuke mushroom cloud rising, violating all the atmospheric test ban treaties etc.
c) Whoever dug the hole was too chalta hai to go to the depth needed to mask a full-yield test.

If none of the above happened, and they did indeed deliberately test the device(s) at the depths that they did, in the substrata that they did, and they know how to calculate yield, then I must conclude, as I did then, that
The Yield was Just Over The Maximum That the Test Designers Anticipated

Note that I have no idea whether that was 45KT or 20KT or 2KT or it was just a soosai vest - but it was over the maximum for which they designed the test.
Any more and it would have been an utter disaster. As it was, it was a borderline disaster - came very very close to knocking the village down. I clearly remember the :(( :(( at how the Indian Guvrmand was so shockingly callous about its citizens, they caused such havoc to the poor villagers, etc. etc. In fact it occurred to me too that someone had dangerously underestimated the yield and used way too low a factor of safety.

No wonder they stopped the testing. Another set of shock waves and those buildings would have come down anyway, yield or no yield.

Now if India were Pakistan I would not argue this. At Chagai they would probably have been much happier if a few hundred Balochi villages were razed. So spectacular. As they used to say in the glory days of the Cold War:
Half the fun is watching the buildings fall


This IMO is a tough argument for me to counter, as much as I might try to agree with the EBs ranting about the Fizzled S1 Test. I want them to explain to me what would have happened if it had NOT fizzled - why anyone with half a brain would design a test like that in 1998. When the argument reached this stage during the New Clear 123 discussions, of course they did what they will probably do now: :(( :(( :(( that I am "mocking" them, "derailing the thread", "being a Pied Piper", etc.
:rotfl:

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 19:40

ShauryaT wrote: If you add up the total punch from a single missile, it still goes into the MT ranges.


The British Trident missiles carry three 100kt W76 warheads

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 20:02

Haria wrote:
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.


Just BTW, Yuddhishtra ji would do the right thing ......................... be a 'good boy' ............................... and test. And re-test. Until the design was perfected.

No two ways about that.

Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9252
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Hari Seldon » 30 Aug 2009 20:04

Azimuthally relevant (perhaps)

Headlines Today reporting 2 chinese MI choppers have violated desi airspace. Details awaited.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13865
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 30 Aug 2009 20:23

Sorry OT but couldn't help posting it here
----------------------------------------
No talks with Pak just yet: NSA
But as the PM prepares to become the first state visitor in the Obama White House, India is searching for that one Big Idea which would symbolise the new India-US relationship. Narayanan said it was the audacity of the nuclear deal which fired the India-US relationship back in 2005. In 2009, both countries are searching for another spark for a new administration in US.


1. Audacity of the nuclear deal...hmm...does it remind folks of any thing.
2. Spark = Gift. Wonder how expensive it is going to be this time.
Last edited by pankajs on 30 Aug 2009 20:36, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 20:26

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


Why does this surprise you? Do you not recall the filthy abuse against AK and the praise for Subbarao?
Someone on another thread (since warned) has just called ISRO scientists "mofos" and cursed their "failure" of a lunar probe.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShibaPJ » 30 Aug 2009 20:27

Arun_S wrote:
ShibaPJ wrote: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.

So what did the Government that represent "We" above, do when that chance came when North Korean did a nuclear test on 25 May 2009 a test device whose testing was outsourced to a proxy.

Pls say at least now that the Government that represent "We" was sleeping. :evil:...

When No Korea tested the low yield primary that was one chance for India to test its TN series. Thank you sardar MM Singh.

The next chance was in May 2009 when teh same device with gas boosting was tested, that was the second chance for India to test its TN series. Thank you sardar MM Singh...

Arun_S,
IMHO, the governments representing us have been sleeping since '98. There were many other opportunities to test the fixed TN design: Kargil, Parliament attack, Mumbai attacks, Hyderabad/ Mumbai/ Delhi blasts etc etc. Each of these was an attempt to weaken the country and impacted 'National interest' (GoI has a responsibility to protect it's citizens and punish the perpetrators, who plan this across the border). I don't want to cast aspersions on any one individual here, as that would be OT and ensure more acrimony here.

My concern is whether Indian deterrence exists or not to sufficient degree to deter lizard and any potential show of threat from Western forces (aka Unkil in '71). With a 45~50 KT bum that can be thrown to ~5,000 KM with single-digit CEP and survivability from ABM, we should have deterrence against lizard. From your articles only, I understood that this is possible with a MIRVed config. Now, PKI has claimed otherwise, but I did not understand why it is not possible.

I fully agree on the premise that India should test and validate a full-yield TN weapon to dispel any doubt. But then, I am also curious as to the scope of such testing. Currently, the practice is to proof the delivery mechanism (missiles) and the bum separately and assuming that the integrated product (MIRVed bum mated to the missile) would work, when launched from a mobile platform or from under water. Do we proof the entire system (as lizard did) or proof them separately and trust the designers, testers (and our maker) that it would all work on Armageddon day?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 20:34

Santosh wrote:I would think that the Indian TN weapon should be proven beyond any doubt from any quarter. Till then the best we have is the best we have proven.


Ideally we would have full yield proof tests. But this is not an ideal world and India is not yet at the point where it could test without consequences.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 30 Aug 2009 20:51

narayanan wrote: If India proves 300kT TNs, why can't PRC dig bunkers twice as deep so that their C^3 survives 600KT strikes? Going under a mountain seems a safe way to do this, and PRC has no shortage of those. Will a 600KT TN assure destruction of a C^3 facility deep under Mt. Gopalankutty, even if one could get 400% verified coordinates? For sure, use of a 600KT device will assure that Mumbai, Chennai, Dilli and Banglore, Kerala, get SUPARI, so its use will only be on DoomsDin.


Mountains can be safe to some extent from Air burst. But we cant tell it can be so safe from Bunker buster type. Pok-II gave around 5 on Ritcher scale.

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 20:54

Gerard wrote:
Santosh wrote:I would think that the Indian TN weapon should be proven beyond any doubt from any quarter. Till then the best we have is the best we have proven.


Ideally we would have full yield proof tests. But this is not an ideal world and India is not yet at the point where it could test without consequences.


Well of course its not the ideal world, and India will never be at the point where it can test without consequences. Even US cant.

We may as well keep the Arihant in the bay then.

The whole act of making the impossible possible is politics.

The same -- time is not right was used by some to defend no tests up to Shakti II -- Shri Singh was woe struck that we tested and we will then screw our economic potential. A lot of Rona Dhona by Shri Singh on how testing was foolish is there in the records of the parliament.

NDA was able to negotiate out. Nothing happened as feared by chicken littles of India then.
--------

In the end its all about leadership abilities.

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 20:58

Gerard you were claiming that Santy << RC based on their basic degrees.

Now that Arun_S has corrected you, do you accpet that Santy >> RC, and therefore we should go with what Santy says?

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 21:00

Wow so we are now reduced to claiming the effect of trouble making NGOs as a KEY factor in testing.

At this rate we will never test -- I think its not only MMS who is more than content with a less than working Nuclear system.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby geeth » 30 Aug 2009 21:04

>>>Now that Arun_S has corrected you, do you accpet that Santy >> RC, and therefore we should go with what Santy says?

How can it be? Chidambaram was in-charge of the BARC Team and hence he was the one who knew everything - may not be the case with all others including Kalam.

In the words of other team members, Santanam was the co-ordinator, who looked after the logistics - they nicknamed him as the blacksmith.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Aug 2009 21:14

Gerard wrote:
ShauryaT wrote: If you add up the total punch from a single missile, it still goes into the MT ranges.


The British Trident missiles carry three 100kt W76 warheads
Gerard: I have said this before, we need to add US capability for the GB and French, especially when it comes to nuclear dooms day issues. India needs its own answer, between the 100Kt of GB and 475Kt of the US.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 30 Aug 2009 21:16

Wow so we are now reduced to claiming the effect of trouble making NGOs as a KEY factor in testing.

Ah, yes, of course! Only NGOS care about the safety of Indian villages and villagers in the Rajasthan desert. After all, as one Chennai expat explained to an Australian who asked why Indian and Paki students were playing cricket together in 2002, and whether the Kashmir Problem didn't come between them:
That is all far off on the border onlee, we are not worried about such things..

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3010
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 30 Aug 2009 21:32

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.
If we look at it in elemental way, there are two things here a. repeatability b. effeciency.

a. repeatability: It can be achieved if we have strictly controlled manufacturing process which produces same defects and resulting products having same chemcial/physical/mechanical prop. Whatever might be the result, you get the same result if you reproduce the same in the sameway. So testing and re-testing cannot be for repeatability.

b. effeciency: I guess it means here, increasing the yield by design and choice of materials. For this you need knowledge on the subject. There two ways to have that 1. Empirical (short-cut) 2. Theoretical. Every study on the subject starts as empirical. Overtime it leads to theoritical knowledge. Problem with empirical is, it works for only one set of design/parameters. If you learn to make Pulavo/Briani with a set of masala, with particular chilli power, with particular rice variety, you cannot be sure how it will taste when you replace one of the ingredients say from Guntur chilli to kashmiri chilli. For every minor change, you need to conduct a test to ascertain how it will behave as you dont have a theoretical knowledge. This what Pakistani do for their bum. But let say, if you have a common scale like Scoville scale for measuring hotness for every ingredients then you can mix and match in any proposition as you need without actually testing that for every change. This is theoretical knowledge. If one follow the R.Chidambaram interview, he exactly states that. He says, knowledge of Physics on Pu is greatly improved from what is known from 50's i.e. from empirical to more theoretical one, i mean you can more confidently predict than what could we do in 50's. He called our weapon as 1998 vintage based on knowledge advancement and material advancement made as of 1998.
To answer it, our bum has the effeciency of 98. From the link quoted in previous pages, Sikka remarked, " All I can say is that these tests are worth about 50 in terms of experience and have enhanced our capability. " That answer more effectively says what our effeciency is. More than this, one need to know the aim of the test and knowledge of design tested to dicuss how effecient is our weapon.
Last edited by Kanson on 30 Aug 2009 21:56, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 21:36

Sanku wrote:Gerard you were claiming that Santy << RC based on their basic degrees.

Now that Arun_S has corrected you, do you accpet that Santy >> RC, and therefore we should go with what Santy says?


Not at all.

Who is the bomb designer? Who helped design the 1974 device?

Dr. Chidambaram completed his early education in Meerut and Chennai, completed his B.Sc.(Hons) in Physics scoring first rank in the University level at the University of Madras, Chennai in 1956 and then his M.Sc.(Physics:Analogue Computers) at the Same university in 1958. He completed his Ph.D., at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 1962.His Ph.D., research thesis on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance was awarded the Martin Forster Medal for the best Ph.D Thesis submitted to the IISc during 1961-62. He was also awarded the D.Sc., degree by eight Universities.[1]


Could you explain to me how KS >> RC as regards qualifications?

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 21:39

narayanan wrote:Ah, yes, of course! Only NGOS care about the safety of Indian villages and villagers in the Rajasthan desert.


Dear N, I will say this very slowly

NGO != safety on Indian villages.

Trouble from NGO != making sure Indian villages are same.

If we really want to test we can make sure Villagers are compensated and taken care of -- this will be so trivial to the GoI which does this to all manners of villagers for everything that I wont even get into it.

The fact that you are left to resort to such irrelevant and tangential issues is self sufficent proof of the lack of any signifiacnt debating position on your side.

Other than using sarcasm for thread derailment and other such transparently obvious mechanism to try and form a drum beat squad to drown out the debate, there has sadly been no practical solution coming from you.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3096
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vera_k » 30 Aug 2009 21:41

Gerard wrote:Could you explain to me how KS >> RC as regards qualifications?


Since Chidambaram is the designer, who or what team or group certifies that his design worked as expected? If KS was that person or is part of that group, then KS >> RC. His qualifications do not matter if this is so.
Last edited by vera_k on 30 Aug 2009 21:42, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 21:42

ShauryaT wrote: India needs its own answer, between the 100Kt of GB and 475Kt of the US.


The 200kt of Sikka, RC et al?

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 21:42

Gerard wrote:Who is the bomb designer? Who helped design the 1974 device?


So is your position now that we should believe the designer because he is the designer.

And tester be damned?

Could you explain to me how KS >> RC as regards Physics?


Well you used INCORRECT information on basic degrees to claim that. Please note I never agreed on the question of basic degree.

However according to you yourself, Santy was a biochemist and RC was a physics grad hence Santy << RC.

I am only using the exact same metric you used. So you say the metric you used before is not valid anymore?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 21:43

vera_k wrote:
Gerard wrote:Could you explain to me how KS >> RC as regards qualifications?


Since Chidambaram is the designer, who or what team or group certifies that his design worked as expected? If KS was that person or is part of that group, then KS >> RC.



Boss, "director of test site preparations" is not "certifier of weapon design"

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 21:48

Gerard wrote:
vera_k wrote:Since Chidambaram is the designer, who or what team or group certifies that his design worked as expected? If KS was that person or is part of that group, then KS >> RC.



Boss, "director of test site preparations" is not "certifier of weapon design"


Of course not, so the director of test site preparation, prepared the test site without knowing how to accurately test the device.


No wonder this is such a mess.

I see the problem now. The designers made it work, its just that the testers dont know how to test. Santy does not know testing hence any device would have failed.

No difference between pass and fail since the test was made poorly -- and we have some ones word that is passed.

Goody.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 21:52

Sanku wrote:I am only using the exact same metric you used. So you say the metric you used before is not valid anymore?


How is it not valid? I questioned how someone with a background in biochem could debate a weapons designer.
It is now clear that KS has a background in physics. That doesn't make him a weapons designer. That doesn't make him ">> RC". After all RC is also a physicist. One who helped design the very first device in 1974 and the TN in 1998.

Does three decades of experience in nuclear weapons design count for nothing?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 21:55

accurately test the device.


Who was in charge of the drilling? Who tested the rock samples?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 21:59

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuk ... 0-barc.htm

POST SHOT RADIOACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS ON SAMPLES EXTRACTED FROM THERMONUCLEAR TEST SITE
S.B.Manohar, B.S.Tomar, S.S.Rattan, V.K.Shukla, V.V.Kulkarni and Anil Kakodkar

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 22:01

Gerard wrote:
How is it not valid? I questioned how someone with a background in biochem could debate a weapons designer.
It is now clear that KS has a background in physics. That doesn't make him a weapons designer. That doesn't make him ">> RC". After all RC is also a physicist. One who helped design the very first device in 1974 and the TN in 1998.

Does three decades of experience in nuclear weapons design count for nothing?


No Gerard you did not say that a background in biochem, you said first degree. HUGELY different things.

Anyway you know what I design <> for a living, and am torn to shreds by testers who know nothing about design but know about test.

To test you don't need to know how to design. What is so difficult to get in that concept.

Yes if Santy said the design failed because we used the ABC ratios instead of XYZ, your point would be valid.

In Engineering, the tester is supreme in deciding FUNCTIONAL correctness.

This is not even a debate, this is sheer intransigence based on a belief system in infallibility of RC since he has weapon design experience.

Funny thing is not even the US designer with far more experience under their belt make the sort of claims that RC does.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby geeth » 30 Aug 2009 22:01

The Army dug the shaft. Does it make the Army Chief knowledgeable about the bum design or the result ? I don't think so.

I think same is the case with KS. He may have been told verbally what the result is...or may be he has seen some discrepancies in the instrument readings. That doesn't make us bellieve his word, or disbelieve someone else's.

RC may or may not have concealed facts. But there is no way the ppublic can verify that. Those who don't like him can call him a traitor, but cannot question others calling him a patriot or honest man.

Let us leave this who is/was >> or << debate. All were equal, only that some of them were more equal.

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 22:04

geeth wrote:
Let us leave this who is/was >> or << debate. All were equal, only that some of them were more equal.


This debate is only because those who want to disagree with Santy are using this as a reason to dismiss him, it would not be an issue otherwise.

To say that the Director of test site preparation would not know about the test results beats even the spin given on SeS is good for India frankly.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 22:05

Sanku wrote:In Engineering, the tester is supreme in deciding FUNCTIONAL correctness


What was the final word on the test? Wasn't it the post-shot radioactivity measurements?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby geeth » 30 Aug 2009 22:06

>>>This is not even a debate, this is sheer intransigence based on a belief system in infallibility of RC since he has weapon design experience.

But you are making your arguments based on vera_k's proposition that "IF" KS was the tester...how did you come to the conclusion that KS was the tester?

were there no better people than KS to verify the results?

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3096
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vera_k » 30 Aug 2009 22:10

Gerard wrote:Boss, "director of test site preparations" is not "certifier of weapon design"


So who is the certifier of weapon performance (not design)? If the answer is someone from the design team, as it looks like, then the question reduces to how much trust you have that the design team did not commit a mistake in design and in verification. To have this trust, you have to assume the team is not capable of committing a mistake. And following on, if you have such trust, then why perform the test in the first place?
Last edited by vera_k on 30 Aug 2009 22:10, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 30 Aug 2009 22:10

Who has most to gain and who has most to lose with this revelation.

Santanam garu by revealing this "failure" is the most to lose but he thought by doing his part India gains.

The other APJ, RC, MKN, MMS (GOI) LKg ABV are to lose with this revelation.

I would go with Santanam garus\'s assertion, because even the scientific data is also tending to his assertion. ( like in calc tends to zero but not zero, our bum tends to fizzle but no entirely fizzile :rotfl: )

Kanson jI>> Unlik some PeeHds in mavas world, I am not a person who played with bums at work or as childs play!
The nearest I went to a BUM was wearing a BUM shirt to reveal my true capabilities. I have no qualms about it. :mrgreen:

***
At this rate If the BUM doesnt explode on enemy, we need a fair warning inscribed on the bum, "If this device does not explode, please do not tamper with it, as it has built in tamper and may still not explode, please contact 1-800-BARC-NOT
Last edited by John Snow on 30 Aug 2009 22:14, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 30 Aug 2009 22:14

Geeth: See how right my Yield Prediction was: :rotfl:

Sanku :(( :(( s:

Dear N, I will say this very slowly


Sanku, I already read it slowly, but had to :rotfl: loud. You have very nicely jumped with both feet into it. YOU sneered at my logical point - that the test designers would have done their best to make sure the explosion was completely contained within a safe area and no damage would occur to civilian homes and villages. YOU sneered that only NGOs would have worried about that.

So despite the test designers' careful work, the yield worked so much BETTER than the designers expected that severe damage occurred to the village. That is a clearly demonstrated, well-reported, documented, photographed and thoroughly discussed fact. If you know of it and remember it from the last time you guys made fools of yourselves ranting, well, this time you were hoping that I would not remember - and you failed. Again.

So instead of trying to give an answer as to why there was so much damage to the village if the explosions "Fizzled" (the term used by the EB community, thank you), you tried sneering saying that I was bringing in NGOs' protests as a criterion on whether India should test.

This is so blatantly insensitive and very nicely proves what I said on the other thread about the identity in attitudes between the Islamists who could not exist in India in 1947, and the EBs who consider themselves superior to all other humans. Neither gives a damn about the safety of Indian villages etc, and both would sneer at the idea that Indian nuclear test designers would take good care to avoid causing damage to Indian vilages. After all the weapons are only meant to protect the Superior Classes sitting in Chennai, hain?

Thus having worked yourself very nicely into the Pu pit, now you try to bluster your way out with

If we really want to test we can make sure Villagers are compensated and taken care of -- this will be so trivial to the GoI which does this to all manners of villagers for everything that I wont even get into it.


But in 1998, there WAS damage to the villagers. So your claim is that the GOI operates by setting off bombs that cause huge damage to villages, then "compensating" them!!!! Wow! "Compensating them" for the loss of their houses is not the way any sane weapons test program would work. They would have far more easily moved the test away from the village deeper into the desert - or they would have taken over the village and relocated the villagers LONG before the test if they had predicted damage, and had to conduct the test in a very tight location. This again is so obvious that only someone as callous about the interests of Indians as you seem to be, would miss the basic sense of it - or hope that others would not see through the lie.

And then, of course exactly as I predicted to Geeth, you resort to what you do best: :(( :(( :((

The fact that you are left to resort to such irrelevant and tangential issues is self sufficent proof of the lack of any signifiacnt debating position on your side. Other than using sarcasm for thread derailment and other such transparently obvious mechanism to try and form a drum beat squad to drown out the debate, there has sadly been no practical solution coming from you.


Er... so let me, to use your sneering terms, ask again, r e a l s l o w l y.... so exactly how do you explain what would have happened, if the yield had been twice what it actually was? Do you discount the possibility that large-scale atmospheric venting would have occurred? That a radiation cloud would not have drifted either over Pakistan or China or over the Northern Indian heartland?

Instead of trying to answer that, you come out with the plainly dishonest bleating above. :rotfl:

Quit whining, Sanku. Go do it where ppl have tolerance for infantile tantrums. As anyone can see who followed this exchange, you are left "debriefed" with your dishonest mode of argument completely exposed. You KNOW that this is what happened to your :(( gang's rants during the nuclear deal debate - you have no grounds for claiming that the test yield was below predictions, because the glaring evidence is that the yield FAR EXCEEDED predictions to the point that alarming damage occurred outside the "safe" zone!

Far from "derailing" the thread, I intend to stay here, right on track, and enjoy watching you and your sorry gang expose yourselves to ridicule through your own fundamental (I mean "intellectual" - same thing in your case) dishonesty. Again.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests