Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 22:31

vera_k wrote:So who is the certifier of weapon performance (not design)? If the answer is someone from the design team, as it looks like


Kenneth Bainbridge, director of the Trinity test, also oversaw the development of the implosion lens assemblies. The test team included people from all th development teams at Los Alamos.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 22:38

geeth wrote:how did you come to the conclusion that KS was the tester?


Indeed.
Was it part of KS's job to report to the PM whether the test was successful or not?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby geeth » 30 Aug 2009 22:41

>>>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.

Yes, that's a point of concern, which unfortunately we have to live with..Now, even if you put an "independent" team to verify the result, how independent they would be is again debatable...

This is something I have experienced with "Quality Assurance Cell" of the Navy. They will quote rules and regulations and why this should be so, and that should not be so blah blah.

When you are desperate, you just complain to your boss that QAC is putting hurdles to your sailing plan. Boss rings up his boss. He in turn tells the GM tech " I want that ship out in the evening". The QAC delivers the maal at your gangway with the certificate.

So, Quality is a perception - Snow garu may say half the maal did not burn. RC can come back and say "we designed it for burning half the maal onlee"

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 23:12

geeth wrote: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?


I do not know how do you define a tester. If he was the director of test site preparation, as Gerard has also accepted, that is good enough for me to be the tester.

Whether he was the guy who was looking at the screen or the guy who measured the geiger counter is not relevant to me.

That is semantics and an attempt to twist it away IMVHO

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


:rotfl:

This is the sort of stuff that's is so nice. So RC is sacrosanct and yet when KS does the whistle blower the question is "were there no better people than KS to verify the results? Why do we not say, do we have no better than RC to design the weapon?

Surprisingly as the photo posted by Arun_S shows, we have AK, Kalam, RC and KS as on the table as the Pokhran team.

So the answer is obvious. There were NO better people than KS at that time. Sorry but thats how it is.

If some one who is 1/4 of the top team raises this doubt, it is a valid doubt. It sticks.

Thats how it works, if there are 4 pieces which need to all agree for a something to work, even if one fails it is a failure.

OTOH for it to be a success all 4 have to succeed.

Its tough to succeed easier to fail. Thats how the world is.

--------

Added later --> I am sorry if it came across as harsh that was not my intention (I dont mess with anyone but N actually :mrgreen:)

I just find it atrocious that people are attacked on the personal basis rather than other issues.
Last edited by Sanku on 30 Aug 2009 23:21, edited 1 time in total.

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 23:17

narayanan wrote: 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.


That is why I have to say it S L O W L Y "N".

I did not sneer at the fact that ONLY NGO would worry.

I sneered at the fact that in the scale of things. Of considering the safety of the entire Population of India, GoI would let that fact get in the way.

There are more than one solution to take care of the villagers well being N. Did it even occur to you that.

----------

As to what GoI does or does not do with Villagers when national interest is concerened -- I think you need to talk to Narmada folks.

This assertion was in the same ball park as saying that any one who ever remotely breaks OSA goes to 24 years of Kala Pani.

Just sad.
Last edited by Sanku on 30 Aug 2009 23:27, edited 1 time in total.

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 23:19

John Snow wrote: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.


John Snow is John Snow.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3105
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vera_k » 30 Aug 2009 23:32

narayanan wrote: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.


WRT Khetolai, the government says that the villagers were faking to get compensation after they learnt of the test.

Cloud of anxiety lingers near Indian test site

As for property damage--people in Khetolai claim that 196 of their 262 stone-built homes were damaged by the shock waves--Sharma said he believes that it may be an exaggeration to get government aid. "If I had a crack in my house," Sharma said, "I could blame it on the explosion too."


Then, Khetolai residents have claimed compensation after the 1974 test as well, which admittedly was of far lower intensity. Therefore, the assumption that Khetolai suffered the maximum damage that it could possibly sustain is not supported by fact.

Ten years after Pokhran-II

"Many of us went to Delhi to meet (then prime minister) Indira Gandhi after the 1974 test blast asking for better compensation. We got assurances of more money or rehabilitation. But nothing has happened so far," Hiya Ram told IANS.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3105
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vera_k » 30 Aug 2009 23:34

I found this article from Current Science, by another team that doubts the yield claimed in 1998.

Seismic magnitude and yield for the Indian nuclear test of 11 May 1998

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 30 Aug 2009 23:51

In my job I keep telling that Business users have to give requirements as acurately as possible, they never do to my benefit, then my product is finished, user acceptance testing begins, now they come with real requiremests, but I am equiped with version 1.0 of the RFP requirements, I say I met the requirements, they already paid my hrly rate, I collected my moolah, so they say the product met most of the requirements as they have to cover their Asses ( the requirements met were useless, like log in screen works great and exit button works great , but in between those screens there is some work to do. Say enhancements). Now they have to hire me again with new RFP, because I was the only one to know the code, and no in line documentation or user documentation is available...
I add to my resume completed most complex project in which even the user did not know the requirements....
Then I am hired in AIG as super duper consultant...

That is the story of BARC H bum team as told by suta maha muni to his sishayas in Naimisaranya, which was transmitted to sage Santhanam who then revealed to the Maha Maha Sri Manamohan Singha in the year of our lord, in the Kaliyuga epoch..


Om Shanti Shanti Shanti hi
Last edited by John Snow on 30 Aug 2009 23:53, 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 23:51

vera: there were enough photos of primary structural damage.
Posted during the NewClear 123 tamasha and analyzed thoroughly. BIG cracks, as happens only in earthquakes. No faking there. Besides, even newsmedia types can tell the difference between cracks that occur over time, and those that occurred yesterday. This sharma type sounds like typical Babu.

Also, in 1998, presumably, nuclear seismology was a bit more advanced than it must have been in 1974 - assuming the project was not run by the Kaveri Engine crew. In 1974, I don't think the first IBM370 had been installed in India. And they would have had very little clue about predicting yield then.

Makes me wonder about something else - allo experts! The 1974 blast must have left a nice large underground cavern with glittering glass sides, and super-compressed hard walls. Did the 1998 events occur (at least one) inside this cavern? If so, what would be the effect on the blast felt outside?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 31 Aug 2009 00:07

did they have Russian or Ger MAN drills and drill bit supplied by GE USA with diamond points to cut into that Glass cavern made by POK1? To make new shaft for the POK2

Could it be that one drill bit had a anti bose noise cancellation device directly transmitting to unkils satellite hovering after the test (say KH1 Indiana version) which some how Wallace got his hands on and therefore said the expolsion was less than 5 KT with out knowing that Dileep Raj saxena working at lost Almos was a double agent who contaminated the data with his bare hands....

please fill in the blanks...

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 31 Aug 2009 00:14

I think we are speculating with out knowing the truth, we only know facts. The whole gang in picture are now writing a new version of "MY EXPERIMENTS WITH TRUTH".

Only one person in this whole world knows the truth with certainity who is the alpha and omega to his teen party crowds, ananda, smason,duckworth, et al who have also toyed with Bums under this one and only one all knowing omni present, omni potent Mr. Mava.

Only his revelations count.......

And so far Mava is concerned its a complete.... ( please complete with your phrase that suits you... :rotfl: )

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 31 Aug 2009 00:20

narayanan wrote: Did the 1998 events occur (at least one) inside this cavern?


FWIW
Ayatollah Persbo has placemarked the 5 Pok-2 holes and the original place where Buddha smiled.

google earth kmz

http://verificationthoughts.googlepages ... yRange.kmz

pravula
BRFite
Posts: 234
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pravula » 31 Aug 2009 00:25

Deleted
Last edited by pravula on 31 Aug 2009 00:45, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 31 Aug 2009 00:36

Moderators/Admins I guess things have cooled down and thread has outlived its purpose Raja Ram ji has already summed up the episode some pages back; it might be good for all of us to have this thread locked as of now.As it is I don't want to waste a Sunday on this, weekdays are fine. :mrgreen:


Sarma
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: College Station, TX, USA

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sarma » 31 Aug 2009 01:00

It may be useful to read RC's 2002 article on the nuclear tests. The link for this article is

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper451.html

There are many important nuggests in this article. IMO, a complete reading of the article may be warranted. For convenience, I am posting a few important points below:

It needs re-emphasis that the testing of the thermonuclear weapon design at the controlled yield of 45 kt was necessitated by the proximity of Khetolai village . As mentioned earlier, we have not given the fusion-fission breakup and, since we have not given the composition of the materials used nor their quantitites, for reasons of proliferation sensitivity as mentioned earlier, no one outside the design team has data to calculate this fission-fusion yield breakup or any other significant parameter related to fusion burn.


The question in my mind is: Is K Santhanam part of the core weapons design team? It seems not. Then according to RC -- mind you he said this in 2002 and not yesterday -- nobody else is competent or knowledgeable to say anything on the test yields or core burn, etc.

Also, our nuclear weapon designers, like nuclear weapon designers all over the world, have not given the fusion component of the total yield for our thermonuclear test.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 31 Aug 2009 01:10

Sanku wrote:Surprisingly as the photo posted by Arun_S shows, we have AK, Kalam, RC and KS as on the table as the Pokhran team..

I dont see Kakodkar in this press briefing photo.
Image K. Santhanam, director of the Bhabha Atomic Reserch Center, R. Chidambaram, chairman of India's Department of Atomic Energy, and Abdul Kalam, the then scientific adviser to the Prime Minister and founder of India's nuclear program, greet the press in New Delhi Sunday May 17, 1998

IIRC in this press briefing had only K. Santhanam, R. Chidambaram (can't go wrong with cut and paste to prevent spelling mistake that riles some), and Abdul Kalam, and all three had access to measured data. I do not see in this press briefing the Army men who dig the tunnel, and the canteen walla who gave refreshment to the Shakti team.

Few observations:
1. The people on this photo carried heavy and almost equally important responsibilities and knew the overall system pretty well in terms of what to do , what to expect and what not to expect & access to measured data.

2. As Director of the campaign Santhanam is the systems integrator (and in that role he knew the overall system)

BTW 'Crystallography' is a very wide subject encompassing physics, chemistry, biology, material science, and other applied sciences. Chidambaram ( huhhh I need to watch-out else my english teacher will spank me for misspelling the holy name) worked on crystallography in high pressure regimes. Calling him a crystallographer and not a physicist is incorrect (I.e. he is a physicist).

So in this photo there are two physicists: Chidambaram the head of design and fabrication (thus certainly not the tester/validator); Santhanam the systems integrator (thus certainly not the designer with finer weapon design knowledge). One Aeronautical engineer: APJ Kalam

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 31 Aug 2009 01:21

In the photo above, what do the number of fingers raised signify?

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7043
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby JE Menon » 31 Aug 2009 01:22

Time for threadlock?
:mrgreen:

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Jagan » 31 Aug 2009 01:24

negi wrote:Moderators/Admins I guess things have cooled down and thread has outlived its purpose Raja Ram ji has already summed up the episode some pages back; it might be good for all of us to have this thread locked :


no locking wocking the most fun thread since 1-2-3 :mrgreen:

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 31 Aug 2009 01:30

People should think of how many Agni-1/2/3/ India has fielded till now and how many it will field as part of the deterrence.
As of now teh Agni's are hand crafted in one-zee, two zees, and nowhere near quantities that will deter anyone. ( One doesnt need to look far, just look at Kargil w.r.t TSP and now Chinese Armed Helicopter intrusion in Arunanchal).

Clearly teh biggest fleet of ATV and land based Agni that India will eventually have will be fraction of what is actually required.

There might be some semblence of deterrence if the Agni's carried > 100+ kT petals.

Using the 20kT petels will require India to have an armoury of 500-2,000 missiles, and 50 ATV delivery vehicles to compensate for the high yield light weight warheads.

You tell me if the GoI has done anything like the above to have any evidence of 20kT based vangaurd?
If facts don't support a theory, change the theory.

-------------------------------------------------------------

So let us focus on the way forward, on what need to be done to get out of deterrence mess that India is in today.

Define what are the redlines, and other important milestones to earn a rightful place in the comity of nations.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 31 Aug 2009 01:30

Jagan wrote:
negi wrote:Moderators/Admins I guess things have cooled down and thread has outlived its purpose Raja Ram ji has already summed up the episode some pages back; it might be good for all of us to have this thread locked :


no locking wocking the most fun thread since 1-2-3 :mrgreen:


I agree.

BTW why you misspell "wocking" ?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 31 Aug 2009 01:36

Gerard wrote:In the photo above, what do the number of fingers raised signify?

Chidambaram 'bolaa' all five worked 100%
Kalam says one (no clue which one)
Santhanam says two (again no public clue which two worked. But now publicly says which one of teh other three did not work).

Reason for this thread to exist :wink:

BajKhedawal
BRFite
Posts: 1182
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 10:08
Location: Is it ethical? No! Is it Pakistani? Yes!

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby BajKhedawal » 31 Aug 2009 01:40

Sanku wrote:I sneered at the fact that in the scale of things. Of considering the safety of the entire Population of India, GoI would let that fact get in the way.

There are more than one solution to take care of the villagers well being N. Did it even occur to you that.

----------

As to what GoI does or does not do with Villagers when national interest is concerened -- I think you need to talk to Narmada folks.

This assertion was in the same ball park as saying that any one who ever remotely breaks OSA goes to 24 years of Kala Pani.

Just sad.

Oh you mean Arundhati Suzanne Roy? Anything hugely successful in desh the EJ / EB brigade has to malign?

How I wish kala pani was alive today.

Just sad.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 31 Aug 2009 01:43

Comparison of the close-in seismic data pertaining to POK2 with the available global data from similar geophysical
environment gives an yield value close to 58 kt for these explosions (see Figure 10)3. Recent radiochemical
analysis of samples from post-shot logging of POK232 has confirmed the authenticity of the estimated seismic yields
of POK2 explosions. The radiochemical yield for the thermonuclear device has been obtained as 50 ± 10 kt. A preliminary estimate of the radiochemical yield of the fission device, is 13 ± 3 kt (ref. 33). These studies have
further substantiated that the fusion component was in accord with computer simulations. The yields of the subkiloton
devices which were derived from some close-in measurements have also been proven correct by radiochemical analysis5....

The arrivals seen in these spectrograms show that at this distance range (6° to 9°) the low frequency energy for Pakistan explosion is much smaller than that of POK2. The spectrogram at AJM shows that this feature of lower amount of low frequency energy in Pakistan explosion is not specific to the BHUJ data but also seen in the data of many other stations. Also, the comparison of energy in Rayleigh and Lg phases, between POK2 and PAK1 shows that the ratio of the source energies between these events is much larger than that obtained from the global mb reported by USGS.


Good enough 4 me. IOW, POK-2 was more powerful than designed. PAK-2 was ppppphhhhhhtttttttt! All low-intensity fission, sort-of like BeeJayPeee A-Chintan Baithak.

The raised fingers say, politely, :P Also that Prez. AK is asking Teacher if he can pls go "P".

And the constraint posed by the proximity of the village was very real, per the test designers. All fits very well, no room for argument.

There goes ANOTHER round of EB jollies.

Forward the E-B-rigade!
Was there a mind dismayed?
(In fact was there a single mind around?)
Facts to left of them - facts to right of them
:P and :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Stormed at with logic and fact
Boldly they rode and well
..round and round and round
While all the duniya :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
(sigh!)

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Anant » 31 Aug 2009 01:53

Dear Arun_S,

The photo you have put up is cropped. The real photo is as follows:

Image

The right side of the photo shows Dr. Anil Kakodkar.

Curiously in this photo, I can't make him out. Dr. Sikka is third from left, last row. Looks stoic.

Image

Anant

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vasu_ray » 31 Aug 2009 02:19

Arun_S wrote:Define what are the redlines, and other important milestones to earn a rightful place in the comity of nations.


any TSP ass uttering use of nuclear weapons in a future standoff based on a terrorist attack is a redline for us to test

NK testing is a redline if only we can 'prove' in intelligence terms the link between the trio or atleast duo, the seized NK ship helps in this, why is Iraq burning? just because Bush had a grudge

PRC border moves is also a redline, why do they cover up saying its a local matter only

we can do some civil works, like creating craters for open cast mining, just make sure there is no dirty radiation

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 31 Aug 2009 02:25

Sarma wrote:It may be useful to read RC's 2002 article on the nuclear tests. The link for this article is

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper451.html

There are many important nuggests in this article. IMO, a complete reading of the article may be warranted. For convenience, I am posting a few important points below:

It needs re-emphasis that the testing of the thermonuclear weapon design at the controlled yield of 45 kt was necessitated by the proximity of Khetolai village . As mentioned earlier, we have not given the fusion-fission breakup and, since we have not given the composition of the materials used nor their quantitites, for reasons of proliferation sensitivity as mentioned earlier, no one outside the design team has data to calculate this fission-fusion yield breakup or any other significant parameter related to fusion burn.


The question in my mind is: Is K Santhanam part of the core weapons design team? It seems not. Then according to RC -- mind you he said this in 2002 and not yesterday -- nobody else is competent or knowledgeable to say anything on the test yields or core burn, etc.

Also, our nuclear weapon designers, like nuclear weapon designers all over the world, have not given the fusion component of the total yield for our thermonuclear test.


THAT has been my argument all along.

Furthermore, KS makes teh argument that Kalam is a "missile man".

What the heck is he? And, why are WE wasting so much bandwidth on a non-nuclear design man?

Unless KS can ID the nuclear design person who informed him that it does not compute, this entire KS stuff is worthless.

And, even then, by now the damage to his credibility is so much that it does not matter.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 31 Aug 2009 02:29

Arun_S,

The correlation between missiles and our friend's penchant to intrude is not a worthy one. BOTH Pakistan and China have a genetic anomaly and will continue to do so. And, Indians have a genetic anomaly to accept that as status quo. ChiPak are like my neighbors dog that keeps barking no matter what. Just a bad habit that they cannot shake off.

Even if India had a proven 10GT TNs-grandfather that situation will not change.
Last edited by NRao on 31 Aug 2009 02:35, 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 » 31 Aug 2009 02:33

I think only Shiv ji can answer this question as he is the expert on Indian elite and Indian piskology.

Why did Santhanam garu reveal his mind?

Did he not think of the consequences of saying what he said, that his credibilty will be attacked, his integrity shredded

Why is he so admant to retract or expunge his remarks?

At this time and his age why would he risk so much?

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3105
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vera_k » 31 Aug 2009 02:39

Sarma wrote:Also, our nuclear weapon designers, like nuclear weapon designers all over the world, have not given the fusion component of the total yield for our thermonuclear test.


Does the fusion component even matter when the total yield itself is being questioned?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 31 Aug 2009 02:41

Why did Santhanam garu reveal his mind?


I cannot say.

What I can say is that his response, that he is scared India will sign CTBT, is totally unacceptable, for that even would have come at some point in time. And, that if he was REALLY SO concerned about it he would/should have opened his mouth loooooong back.

Another thing I can say is that he is NOT a nuclear design "man". And, I have no problem saying that Kalam is not in the know. But I have a huge problem bending the same rule for KS.
Last edited by JaiS on 31 Aug 2009 04:33, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: NRao, you have been here to know that there are better ways to get your point across, your language is unacceptable.

Sarma
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: College Station, TX, USA

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sarma » 31 Aug 2009 02:41

Vera_k: That is not my comment. It is a quote from the article by RC. Please read it. Yes, 1-stage and 2-stage split up of the total yield will matter. FYI, K Santhanam is only questioning the 2-stage yield.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 31 Aug 2009 02:47

Flip this ENTIRE story of a fizzle around.

May I suggest that IF the design team REALLY wanted to fudge, they could easily have looked the resulting "fizzles" output (say 20Kt) and said "yeah, we had a designed 20Kt devise". And, everyone around the world would have said - Shabhas. Good jab.

Now THAT would be a true cover up.

AND, the design team is eminently qualified to conduct such a cover up too. Who would figure it out? Kalam? No. KS? Certainly NOT. KS would be dancing and saying - sign that CTBT.

Santosh
BRFite
Posts: 709
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 01:55

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Santosh » 31 Aug 2009 02:51

NRao ji, it is never easy for whistle blowers. Some pay for it with their life. We already have an example of the Navy man who dared to question BARC designs for ATV reactor and spent a good deal behind the bars on false accusations. If there is a grain of truth in what KS has said, may the force be with him and may his actions lead to a more refined and more pucca TN.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vasu_ray » 31 Aug 2009 02:53

NRaoji, what is the point of calling the toss after the toss is thrown and the coin settles down?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 31 Aug 2009 02:59

Santosh wrote: We already have an example of the Navy man who dared to question BARC designs for ATV reactor and spent a good deal behind the bars on false accusations.


And why would US ambassador John Dean falsely accuse this Navy Man of being a traitor and a "double agent"? Why would a CIA case officer be hurried out of the country? Why would ambassador Dean have to placate the Indian PM?
Did Dean moonlight at BARC designing submarine reactors? And took offense?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 31 Aug 2009 03:03

This picture of the 1974 crater. FAS says device depth was 107m, the crater dia was 60m with severe fracturing out to 80 meters.

Apparently radiation was not an issue

Also, the "heart-shaped feature at 80 meters out"

Compare with the Shakti 1-2 crater of 1998

Image 4

Obviously the test designers learned to create a much smaller disturbance at the surface, and the subsistence crater is just the subsistence crater well above the havoc sphere, unlike the 1974 test.

The shaft depths must have been much greater, I assume.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 31 Aug 2009 03:05

Vasu,

Did not understand your post.

Santosh,

What makes him a whistle blower is my question.

I have no problem if it is fizzle. BUT, KS points to Kalam and says he is not an authority and a missile man. Fine. No problem with that argument. Then he points to someone else and says he is a govt man and .......... Fine, that argument is fine with me too.

What makes KS such a gentleman? How do WE know that he is not a fizzle too?

Certainly he is not a nuclear design man. Right?

So, IF AT ALL he "knows" it is a fizzle, then someone on the design team MUST have told him it is a "fizzle". OR he sat in a meeting where they agreed to "fizzle, but officially no-fizzle". Fine, I have no problem with ANY of these scenarios.

The problem I have is his half statement. It is a fizzle. When he should be giving more details - IF he has more details. THAT I would consider a valid whistle blower.

I have been more scared of MMS - from 123 days, so there is a LOT of empathy on my part for him WRT "MMS may sign CTBT".


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests