Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

[Arun_S]

The deal should be supported but not the accession to CTBT.

I do think that the deal is CTBT by the back door anyway. A step in salami slicing.

Just wait and watch next 7 weeks as it is rolled out for you and India, by land of the brave.

[Haria]

MMS and MKN can sign the CTBT as its their prerogative for being the elected govt.

Ramana,

Maybe all the brouhaha that KS' comment has raised was intentional, so the MMS and MKN can't just go and sign on the dotted line with a clear conscience?

Conscience ?? Woh kis birdie ka naam hai bhai.

For some of our netas pat on back by ombaba is worth more than the Imaandari, Satya etc...

"CTBT is coming and not from back door for sure and our Super Meek PMji would sign on dotted line in the comming visit" So says the tea leaves and paan wallah agrees.

[Arun_S]

And oh yes werent we getting 10000000000000000 MW of Bijli in next two days after the Nuke deal signature?

No one cares for Bijli anymore?

What do you mean!!!
The poster wimmin, Leelawati and Kalawati and their children do care.

[pankajs]

Pankaj,

Maybe you need to read a bit more on India's position on climate change and trade talks.

India - more specifically Kamal Nath - has bee credited with single handedly breaking an emerging consensus at the WTO Gatt round talks at Geneva in June last year. Even now, in two days time, trade ministers from G20 and other countries are coming to New Delhi to ostensibly hammer a last minute compromise which would allow WTO to keep the year-end deadline on completing the Doha Round. India holds the key, it's Yes or a No would go a long way to showing the way forward. Where do you see India being bullied in trade talks?

Regarding climate control, despite Hillary Cliton's "highly successful" visit a couple of months ago, she got a earful from Anand Sharma regarding climate control and carbon emissions. Her charm didn't cut any dice.

So please give a long and hard look at India's nuanced positions on various issues before claiming that India is rolling over and allowing people to run rough shod.

Think of it another way. The leaders are just as much Indian as you are. Do you allow folks to bully you to submission? Or do you take inducements to change your stance? I'm sure you don't do either because you're a proud Indian. Now what gives you the impression that Indian leaders are any less proud Indians than you, me or the uber jingos on BRF?

Saar, I remember our stand at WTO and on the climate change during the recent visit of Hillary clinton and I think the GOI has been wise on those issues till date. My concern are strategic issues and the GOI's position on the same. Also the PM, has made by his own admission, economics as the core plank of his foreign policy. I wonder how this squares off with the strategic content of Foreign policy. If things come to a head, will the economics of a situation win over the strategic considerations? This is my only question.

[Sanku]

First spin of Holier than thou mortals here

Santy said it because GoI was giving a message -- when clear it was not, after Shri Singh did his bleating on the topic

Santy is not a physicist -- when that was repudiated

Santy was not in the know he did not design the bum only those who design the bum can talk of it -- when that fell through

It was because of Khetolai U C

And oh yes --

Do we really need 200 KT weapons? One Agni with one 20 KT bum is not enough? After all Nuclear == nuclear ?

Why make a bum will we really ever use it anyway?
---------------------------------

Very much like the support for the New clear deal -- and this is a jingo forum.

Meanwhile where is the deterrence against China? In the Huwaii deal U C.

[amit]

Pankaj,

For your benefit, I'm requoting your previous post:

To all jingos, who are asking for re-test, MT H-bomb, nu-clear rocket motor, etc,etc, I must caution you.

Our foreign policy is based on being the good boys of the international system in the hopes of receiving a few candies in the end. This is the vision of our PM, sorry our establishment.

If New Delhi, he added, wished to fulfil its aspiration of a place on the international high table it needed to be seen as being more constructive rather than obstructive on issues of global concern like climate change and trade talks.

I wonder how our PM would classify our 1996 stand on CTBT.

And here is your last post:

Saar, I remember our stand at WTO and on the climate change during the recent visit of Hillary clinton and I think the GOI has been wise on those issues till date. My concern are strategic issues and the GOI's position on the same. Also the PM, has made by his own admission, economics as the core plank of his foreign policy. I wonder how this squares off with the strategic content of Foreign policy. If things come to a head, will the economics of a situation win over the strategic considerations? This is my only question.

I hope you note the contradictions.

But that's not really important. What is that you think trade and climate control are not strategic issues? Or for the matter economic growth isn't a strategic issue just as military might is?

My dear friend both go hand in hand but economics is the right hand and military might is the left. Remember the case of the Soviet Union, its 10,000 plus bombs and missiles didn't prevent it from disintegrating.

Look at China also, it's making noises only now after achieving a fair share of economic success. Didn't the question as to why Arunachal Pradesh wasn't a major issue in India-China relations in the 1980-90s or even early 2000? Why now?

Remember strategic view of India, some fancy consultants like to call this helicopter vision, encompasses both economic and military strength.

[amit]

Maybe someone who is less holier than thou can explain the following:

1) Why SK chose to stay quiet for 11 years and only talk now.

2) Why SK gave an unqualified support for the Nuke deal going to the extent of saying that it did not impinge on India's security? Surely he knew about the fizzle then?

[arnab]

First spin of Holier than thou mortals here


Santy was not in the know he did not design the bum only those who design the bum can talk of it -- when that fell through

It was because of Khetolai U C

And oh yes --

Do we really need 200 KT weapons? One Agni with one 20 KT bum is not enough? After all Nuclear == nuclear ?

Why make a bum will we really ever use it anyway?
---------------------------------
.

Sorry, but has the challenge of repudiating the BARC publications post POK-II been taken up by Santy or anyone else? Otherwise this seems to be a case of an infinite loop. India tests, someone trashes, we test again .....

Re nuke deal - the only known facts are: we have been receiving uranium, countries are lining up to do nuke bizness (including Sweden!!) and the 'cash for votes' in parliament on the nuke deal seems to have been a scam perpetrated by Loh Purush (as per Jaswant).

p.s Don't let this stop the jingos though. I missed out investing in RIBs the last time around. Perhaps I can do it with RIB-2. I think N^3, Gerard and Amit are doing a singular disservice to my financial wellbeing

[vera_k]

Maybe someone who is less holier than thou can explain the following:

1) Why SK chose to stay quiet for 11 years and only talk now.

2) Why SK gave an unqualified support for the Nuke deal going to the extent of saying that it did not impinge on India's security? Surely he knew about the fizzle then?

In the interview Gerard posted, Dr. KS was in favor of the IUCNA only if the deal preserved an option to test. So he sees the CTBT coming and hence has come out.

[amit]

I think N^3, Gerard and Amit are doing a singular disservice to my financial wellbeing

I missed out last time too and so am now invested in infrastructure. But didn't you know economics and growth aren't strategic issues at all. And so our singularly un-strategic (sorry for the ugly coinage) PM is barking up the wrong un-strategic tree.

BTW the best I've read so far is that India should have tested right after the NoKo test while the Security Council was meeting to pass a resolution. Now that's geopolitical strategy to make the hearts of jingos warm and fuzzy!

[amit]

In the interview Gerard posted, Dr. KS was in favor of the IUCNA only if the deal preserved an option to test. So he sees the CTBT coming and hence has come out.

Bingo Vera.

I'm glad that you see that it's more about CTBT rather than whether the TN was a fizzle or not.

Please re-read Raja Ram ji excellent post on this.

IMHO the two questions are:

1) Was KS coming out against CTBT on GoI behest; or
2) His comment was on behalf of a section of the establishment which wants to remind the political establishment of what the "red lines" should be.

The rest is just polemics, I'm afraid.

[vera_k]

I'm glad that you see that it's more about CTBT rather than whether the TN was a fizzle or not.

Yes. But whether the TN was a fizzle or not is a question that stands on its own technical merits. That case is not strengthened nor weakened by the fact that the timing of the revelation is about the CTBT.

IMHO the two questions are:

1) Was KS coming out against CTBT on GoI behest; or
2) His comment was on behalf of a section of the establishment which wants to remind the political establishment of what the "red lines" should be.

We can rule out option 1 since the GoI has not taken this opportunity to rule out any signature on the CTBT. BTW, there is a 3rd option -

3) This is a prelude to provide an excuse for a test series. This would be a good time to conduct one now that the IUCNA is secured and the contracts have not yet been signed.

[Haria]

First spin of Holier than thou mortals here

Santy said it because GoI was giving a message -- when clear it was not, after Shri Singh did his bleating on the topic

Santy is not a physicist -- when that was repudiated

Santy was not in the know he did not design the bum only those who design the bum can talk of it -- when that fell through

It was because of Khetolai U C

And oh yes --

Do we really need 200 KT weapons? One Agni with one 20 KT bum is not enough? After all Nuclear == nuclear ?

Why make a bum will we really ever use it anyway?
---------------------------------

Very much like the support for the New clear deal -- and this is a jingo forum.

Meanwhile where is the deterrence against China? In the Huwaii deal U C.

Wah wah nice post. The attempts by spin masters here is a perfect case study.

1. Spread rumours.
2. Question the creditibility/ knowledge of Santy.
3. We do not need the bum assumption...
Added later
4. Finally why are we discussing not so important Nook-l-ear deal? Rather lets discuss E-CON-oh-my.

Thanks Sanku for bringing the Fog clearing post. I wonder has the cat got tongue of some log...

[Sanku]

In the interview Gerard posted, Dr. KS was in favor of the IUCNA only if the deal preserved an option to test. So he sees the CTBT coming and hence has come out.

Bingo Vera.

I'm glad that you see that it's more about CTBT rather than whether the TN was a fizzle or not.

But Amit, you dont understand, it way always about test bans (including implict ones) other wise tests fail in the first round, whats the big deal about that, as far as we can see the test fizzled because there is no proof it worked (only excuses that it really worked but no one saw it)

No one really questioned that -- the question is different.

The P5 have unquestioned working 200+ KT yeild TNs. Do we ?

The rest is polemics.

Our TN test is like "jungle mein mor nacha" (The peacock danced in the forest)

[pankajs]

I hope you note the contradictions.

In both of the above I end with the focus on strategic question w.r.t the GOI.

But that's not really important. What is that you think trade and climate control are not strategic issues? Or for the matter economic growth isn't a strategic issue just as military might is?

My dear friend both go hand in hand but economics is the right hand and military might is the left. Remember the case of the Soviet Union, its 10,000 plus bombs and missiles didn't prevent it from disintegrating.

Look at China also, it's making noises only now after achieving a fair share of economic success. Didn't the question as to why Arunachal Pradesh wasn't a major issue in India-China relations in the 1980-90s or even early 2000? Why now?

Remember strategic view of India, some fancy consultants like to call this helicopter vision, encompasses both economic and military strength.

I agree that economics and military development go hand in hand. If USSR is one side of the extreme, Japan is the other extreme. It is fashionable to say that Japan is technologically very advanced and could build h-bomb, airplanes, etc whenever it wants. May be in 5 to 10 years from when it decides, but today it depends on the US for security. If it has to go to war today and Japan has a complete breakdown of understanding with the US where will it be left. So it is japan that has to nurture the relationship with US not the other way, that is called dependency. Of course, the reality is never so clear cut but that makes Japan venerable. Interestingly it is not in the P5 inspite of all economic advancement. It still needs US to block a resolution against it in the security council, just as India needs Russia or France, or forever be the good boys of the system.

So again I would agree with you that economics and military development go hand in hand. Both of them need to be cultivated with the same attention.

[Sanku]

Sorry, but has the challenge of repudiating the BARC publications post POK-II been taken up by Santy or anyone else? Otherwise this seems to be a case of an infinite loop. India tests, someone trashes, we test again .....

Will Santy take up that challenge? Obviously not, OSA etc and more over as the test chief his statement is more worth than 1000 papers.

As per the US folks, they have always maintained that according to their info it was a dud and BARC did not provide enough info.

So far we trusted GoI (till 2006-7 as Ramana pointed out) and then there was info coming out which suggested that GoI was not necessarily exact in its statements.

p.s Don't let this stop the jingos though. I missed out investing in RIBs the last time around. Perhaps I can do it with RIB-2. I think N^3, Gerard and Amit are doing a singular disservice to my financial wellbeing

I personally would be ashamed to make a joke like that, but different strokes for different folks I think.

[Arun_S]

The rest is polemics.

Our TN test is like "jungle mein mor nacha" (The peacock danced in the forest)

Or "My Great-Grandfather had a ladder that touched the clouds".

[arnab]

Will Santy take up that challenge? Obviously not, OSA etc and more over as the test chief his statement is more worth than 1000 papers.

As per the US folks, they have always maintained that according to their info it was a dud and BARC did not provide enough info.

So far we trusted GoI (till 2006-7 as Ramana pointed out) and then there was info coming out which suggested that GoI was not necessarily exact in its statements.

p.s Don't let this stop the jingos though. I missed out investing in RIBs the last time around. Perhaps I can do it with RIB-2. I think N^3, Gerard and Amit are doing a singular disservice to my financial wellbeing

I personally would be ashamed to make a joke like that, but different strokes for different folks I think.

Why not? If OSA did not prevent him from making his initial comments, he should be able to back up his statements with data. We should worship facts not individuals. Just because he was in charge of the test site (not the tester incidentally) doesn't mean anything. I did read that US chaps have been claiming the TN fizzled - but the BARC paper seemed to render that claim as inconclusive. So let him build his case on facts.

Re joke - come on, I thought that was funny. If people are asking for giga booms with the sole purpose of enhancing their manhood - why deny me my avarice?

[Sanku]

Why not? If OSA did not prevent him from making his initial comments, he should be able to back up his statements with data. We should worship facts not individuals. Just because he was in charge of the test site (not the tester incidentally) doesn't mean anything. I did read that US chaps have been claiming the TN fizzled - but the BARC paper seemed to render that claim as inconclusive. So let him build his case on facts.

Oh boy there you go with that OSA canard again -- OSA can only be put on him if he uses any classified data correct?

So obviously he has to tip toe around it -- thats why he quotes western journals and proofs. But the fact the guy who was test incharge instead of supporting his side supports the other is obvious to those who can see and dont shut their eyes. (you have just done a full circle on the spin cycle btw)

Meanwhile since you love data so much (as I do) dont use it as double standards -- seismographs have recorded a 20 KT yield -- when the seismograph detects a 200 KT yield. Lets talk again.

And no this third rate excuse of -- my seismographs were in the right location but all other seismographs were not does not cut it.

You want Santy to show data? He is saying there is NO data to conclusively show success -- he is quoting the absence of data as the proof. Whats so complicated in understanding that.

Show seismograph data with 200KT yield. Period.

[vina]

Show seismograph data with 200KT yield. Period.

But what if they had REALLY wanted only 45Kt and got the yield they wanted. How will they prove that ?.And what is so sacrosanct about 200KT anyways , unless someone came out and said that they expected yield was 200KT. I have not heard anyone anywhere say that it was a 200KT yield test!

[amit]

So obviously he has to tip toe around it -- thats why he quotes western journals and proofs.
>
>
>
Show seismograph data with 200KT yield. Period.

So Western Journals and proofs are the last word and the word of BARC, RC, AK, Sikka, Abdul Kalam et al amount to zilch?

Now I wonder. Why have been poor folks like Wallace, Milohen and other NPAs been lampooned all these years on BRF?

I think the entire BRF owes them an apology. They are the ones who have been consistently holding the mirror in front of our eyes. NPAs Zindabad!

Maybe the poster can set the ball rolling with an apology and we can all follow at a respectable distance?

PS: Indeed things have reached a full circle. Folks like Praful Bidwal have become highly respected sources to be repeatedly quoted (EUMA thread) and now NPA literature on Pokhan II tests are the last word on yeild and fizzle. This is indeed a megaton kaaaboom for India!

[Sanku]

Show seismograph data with 200KT yield. Period.

But what if they had REALLY wanted only 45Kt and got the yield they wanted. How will they prove that ?.And what is so sacrosanct about 200KT anyways , unless someone came out and said that they expected yield was 200KT. I have not heard anyone anywhere say that it was a 200KT yield test!

Please don't take things out of context. The question is that in the debate for data if taken in crude form can cut both ways.

[Sanku]

So obviously he has to tip toe around it -- thats why he quotes western journals and proofs.
>
>
>
Show seismograph data with 200KT yield. Period.

So Western Journals and proofs are the last word and the word of BARC, RC, AK, Sikka, Abdul Kalam et al amount to zilch?

Try and avoid taking the statement out of context -- CNN IBN like JS praised Jinaah.

This is intellectual dishonesty -- period.

To remind you the response was in to a question 1 of spin cycle -- "why did no one object"

[amit]

The question is that in the debate for data if taken in crude form can cut both ways.

But then both ways really means both ways. So how do we know 400 per cent that the TN was 60 per cent TFTA and 40 per cent fizzle?

[amit]

Try and avoid taking the statement out of context -- CNN IBN like JS praised Jinaah.

This is intellectual dishonesty -- period.

To remind you the response was in to a question 1 of spin cycle -- "why did no one object"

Do you deny that you wrote this:

So obviously he has to tip toe around it -- thats why he quotes western journals and proofs.

Can you show one non-NPA source which showed that the TN was a fizzle and which was quoted by KS?

I wouldn't call your statement intellectual dishonesty, rather it's a crude attempt to play gymnastics with the facts.

[Sanku]

The question is that in the debate for data if taken in crude form can cut both ways.

But then both ways really means both ways. So how do we know 400 per cent that the TN was 60 per cent TFTA and 40 per cent fizzle?

We don't, and there fore we are going on trust. to an extent.

So we trusted GoI when it said it worked -- now a component of GoI it self hints that it was not so the trust is broken.

If we did have clear cut big dhamaka, there would be no questions. Like in case of other P5 -- the whole problem is that we are reduced to trust. And now even that breaks.

Meanwhile many other circumstantial evidences also point to the fact that it was a fizzle. Actually purely scientifically we should have never believed the PoK II success. We only believed because we trusted -- and now thats also gone.

Further -- there are 10 years since Pok II, by now the question should have been settled.

[geeth]

>>>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.

AFAIK, It was the other way round..i.e., BARC questioned his design

[Sanku]

Do you deny that you wrote this:

So obviously he has to tip toe around it -- thats why he quotes western journals and proofs.

Can you show one non-NPA source which showed that the TN was a fizzle and which was quoted by KS?

I wouldn't call your statement intellectual dishonesty, rather it's a crude attempt to play gymnastics with the facts.

Can you point me to one non BARC Non NPA (as defined by you) study to show it passes?

The onus of the proof is on the guys making the claim -- the rest can claim absence of proof.

What is so hard to understand?

[amit]

We don't, and there fore we are going on trust. to an extent.
>
>
>

Meanwhile many other circumstantial evidences also point to the fact that it was a fizzle. Actually purely scientifically we should have never believed the PoK II success. We only believed because we trusted -- and now thats also gone.

Further -- there are 10 years since Pok II, by now the question should have been settled.

Pray can you tell us what exactly are the circumstantial evidence you are talking about apart from PKI's early contentions - btw he just said BARC should have crossed checked with the UK observatory on whether the test was successful - despite the fact that he was not part of the team. And now KS, who clearly says based on expert opinion and the results from seismological observatories around the world (I wonder whether he was imply the same UK observatory).

And while at it please also clarify why scientifically we should never have believed POKII was a success?

[PratikDas]

...
If we did have clear cut big dhamaka, there would be no questions.
...

Absolutely

Further -- there are 10 years since Pok II, by now the question should have been settled.

And even if there are no issues to settle, the test is required for simply demonstrating reliability. This is required so we can dimension, for our own interests, how many devices we need in each division of the triad.

[amit]

Can you point me to one non BARC Non NPA (as defined by you) study to show it passes?

The onus of the proof is on the guys making the claim -- the rest can claim absence of proof.

What is so hard to understand?

I don't need to produce a different source other than BARC. It is Indian, I'm an Indian and I fully trust the institution and the scientists who run the institution. And why shouldn't I, the two successive PMs from different political parties have. Do you think the Americans need Soviet certification for work done at Los Amos Laboratories? Did the Chinese go the US to proof their bombs?

And you are right the onus of the proof is on the guy making the claim. Since you are making the fizzle claim its you who has to prove it.

[amit]

And even if there are no issues to settle, the test is required for simply demonstrating reliability. This is required so we can dimension, for our own interests, how many devices we need in each division of the triad.

I can agree with this point. And no one has yet signed away our right to test have they?

Which brings the whole discussion back to the original premise KS made the statement not because of the so-called fizzle but to remind everyone that we are not yet ready to sign CTBT.

I think KS is a patriot for doing that while putting his reputation on the line. It was never about fizzle, if it was he wouldn't have supported the Nuclear deal, IMHO.

[Sanku]

Can you point me to one non BARC Non NPA (as defined by you) study to show it passes?

The onus of the proof is on the guys making the claim -- the rest can claim absence of proof.

What is so hard to understand?

I don't need to produce a different source other than BARC. It is Indian, I'm an Indian and I fully trust the institution and the scientists who run the institution. And why shouldn't I, the two successive PMs from different political parties have. Do you think the Americans need Soviet certification for work done at Los Amos Laboratories? Did the Chinese go the US to proof their bombs?

And you are right the onus of the proof is on the guy making the claim. Since you are making the fizzle claim its you who has to prove it.

Good downhill skiing -- bravo -- good that you trust the GoI -- but since its the Chinese who are the adversary I care a whit on whether you trust GoI and thats why it works

But good that you were honest enough to admit that you are going on trust.

[Sanku]

I think KS is a patriot for doing that while putting his reputation on the line. It was never about fizzle, if it was he wouldn't have supported the Nuclear deal, IMHO.

A lot of people were sold a lemon during that period. Some realized sooner some later, some realized and hinted in private but came into open later.

Some will never believe in it.

[amit]

A lot of people were sold a lemon during that period. Some realized sooner some later, some realized and hinted in private but came into open later.

Some will never believe in it.

Ah yest I was waiting for this mysterious and cryptic remarks about being sold a lemon and getting special private briefings on subjects which come with the classified tag.

But going by your scientific temper and testing and peer review methodology you haven't yet quoted a non NPA source which proves the fizzle.

[amit]

Good downhill skiing -- bravo -- good that you trust the GoI -- but since its the Chinese who are the adversary I care a whit on whether you trust GoI and thats why it works

But good that you were honest enough to admit that you are going on trust.

Yes Sanku,

As an Indian I trust India and Indian institutions. And since this trust about the bomb cuts across party lines with both BJP and Congress saying PoK II was a success I trust it.

But I do note that you don't trust GoI (and in this case GoI would mean from 1998-2009). But then perhaps you are one of those folks who hates everything Indian and hence your reference to downhill skiing and all that it connotes on BRF?

[Sanku]

Good downhill skiing -- bravo -- good that you trust the GoI -- but since its the Chinese who are the adversary I care a whit on whether you trust GoI and thats why it works

But good that you were honest enough to admit that you are going on trust.

As an Indian I trust India and Indian institutions. And since this trust about the bomb cuts across party lines with both BJP and Congress saying PoK II was a success I trust it.

But I do note that you don't trust GoI (and GoI would mean from 1998-2009). But then perhaps you are one of those folks who hates everything Indian and hence your reference to downhill skiing and all that it connotes on BRF?

Questioning my patriotism because I question PM and GoI eh. Very typical -- since you have no other alternative. Yes I do NOT trust GoI 400%. Thank you! This is I believe step 5 of the spin cycle.

Meanwhile please go back and refer to the exact statement by NDA Govt on the tests.

[Philip]

KS has stirred the nuclear pot just as Jaswant has done to the Indo-Pak political pot.By casting doubts on our TN capability,he has halted (for the moment) the undercover attempt by the UPA to sign on the CTBT and NPT dotted line as the US wants India to so do.The secret deal or understandings that MMS signed on for the N-deal,that have been kept secret from the country so far,is unravelling.It appears that further progress on executing the N-deal with the US cannot be achieved unless we agree to the humiliating US terms.BY casting his "stone of doubt" upon our TN weaponry,KS has done the country a great favour in eminding everyone that we must never give up our sovereign right to perfect our strategic deterrence as long as the P-5 possess them.

[amit]

This is I believe step 5 of the spin cycle.

Your right, this was step 5 in your spin cycle as anyone who would follow your series of posts will note. Unfortunately for you this time the blades came off and your cyclical arguments went crashing.

You still haven't shown one non NPA source which claims that PoKII TN was a fizzle. But anyway didn't expect you to be able to either, because there are none.

In effect you are parroting the likes of Wallace and Milohen. But in mitigation I suspect you don't even realise that.

Have a good day!

[Sanku]

Nuclear Spin cycle Mark II-- Sanku, BRF 2009 (patented, all rights reserved)

First spin
Santy said it because GoI was giving a message -- when clear it was not, after Shri Singh did his bleating on the topic

Second spin
Santy is not a physicist -- when that was repudiated

Third spin
Santy was not in the know he did not design the bum only those who design the bum can talk of it -- when that fell through

Fourth Spin
It was because of Khetolai U C

Fifth Spin
You are not a patriot you don't trust GoI 400%

And oh yes contra rotating spins for best drying results --

Contra Spin 1
Do we really need 200 KT weapons? One Agni with one 20 KT bum is not enough? After all Nuclear == nuclear ?

Contra Spin 2
Why make a bum will we really ever use it anyway?
---------------------------------

Very much like the support for the New clear deal -- and this is a jingo forum.

Meanwhile where is the deterrence against China? In the Huwaii deal U C.