Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 31 Aug 2009 21:56

Israel and Japan are different kettle of fish,

Israel has complete designs of Unkils bums. Actually Israel designs bum for unkil.

Japan has complete access to blue prints.

TSP NoKo are different too because they get finished tested products from you know whu.

Let us confine to our unique ingenuinty of testing 3 in 1 and then say we have data for simulation.


All the work of Gauss must have been undone by one test

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 31 Aug 2009 21:57

Deterrence rests on capability and will to use it.
The S-I got downgraded from TN weapon to TN weaponisable device on the same day. Refer ABV's we have big bomb to what ever he said later.

However Indian MND is not based on TN. Recall after MMS came in he said more important was CMD -Credible Minimum Deterrent. Which means it doesnt have any of the TN stuff.

In one way by assuring the TN remains questionable MMS is assuaging uncle not to worry about India as a challenger.

Call it the Ekalavya path..

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 31 Aug 2009 22:04

Kanson wrote:Ok, i will say it differently.There is student who always score above 90+ in all term exam.


Apt analogy Kanson, but thats exactly why we have board exams.

And the examiner in this case is not internal --> I wanted to add more but it has been already said since you last posted.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 31 Aug 2009 22:05

Gerard wrote:
juvva wrote:Sounds viable idea, SA and Israel are suspected to have tested on the sly:


Notice that, if true, this was a low yield device.

Israel's strategic nukes are untested. Do we assume they have no credible deterrent?


Excellent comparison, if Israel was trying to deter China (or any of the big 5) I would say no, Israel does not have a credible deterrence.

As it happens it only has to deter Mid eastern tin pot regimes.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14740
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 31 Aug 2009 22:07

While we are debating the fizzle ya sizzle question, there is another similar discussion going on half way around the world.

W-76, Nuclear Testing and the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program
Broad’s story builds on John Fleck’s excellent reporting for the Albuquerque Journal about a March 2004 meeting where “nuclear weapons experts” suggested the W-76 might be unreliable (See also ACW on 9 July 2004).

Morse claims that certain design choices, made to place a large number of W-76 warheads on US Tident II SLBMs (pictured right), compromise the design’s reliability—making the W-76 the perfect excuse for those who might want to resume nuclear testing or design new warheads.

The W-76 also appears to figure prominently in the rationale for the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 482
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanatanan » 31 Aug 2009 22:10

From Rediif (August 31, 2009)

Why Pokhran yield does not matter now

L V Krishnan, who retired after 39 years of service at the Atomic Energy Commission as director of the safety research programme at the Kalpakkam nuclear facility, discusses the current controversy over the 1998 nuclear tests.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3054
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 31 Aug 2009 22:14

Sanku wrote:
Kanson wrote:Ok, i will say it differently.There is student who always score above 90+ in all term exam.


Apt analogy Kanson, but thats exactly why we have board exams.

And the examiner in this case is not internal --> I wanted to add more but it has been already said since you last posted.


Its like a deemed university. so.. :P :rotfl:

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 31 Aug 2009 22:27

Kanson wrote:Its like a deemed university. so.. :P :rotfl:


Well I know how the deemed universities in India work so....
:P

ss_roy
BRFite
Posts: 286
Joined: 15 Nov 2008 21:48

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ss_roy » 31 Aug 2009 22:34

W76 warhead
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W76.html

Developmental problems were encountered, including an unexpectedly low test yield after a minor design change, and the discovery of nuclear effects vulnerability in the fuzing and firing system. One of the senior designers was Charles C. Cremer.

Morse, who directed advanced concepts for bomb design as well as a separate group devoted to laser fusion, initiated simulation studies of the W76 and found that the margins were so thin that tiny irregularities in manufacture could lead to turbulence that would disrupt the case causing the weapon to fail.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 31 Aug 2009 22:35

Sanku wrote:Excellent comparison, if Israel was trying to deter China (or any of the big 5) I would say no, Israel does not have a credible deterrence. As it happens it only has to deter Mid eastern tin pot regimes.


Israel from the time of Menachem Begin targeted cities in the Soviet Union. The spy Johnathan Pollard provided Israel with US nuclear targeting data on the Soviet Union.

Even the USSR with its 30000 nukes had reason to fear mushroom clouds above their southern cities.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 31 Aug 2009 22:44

Gerard wrote:Even the USSR with its 30000 nukes had reason to fear mushroom clouds above their southern cities.


Yes, USSR would certainly not have liked to get anti-semitism added to their list of honors by nuking Israel. I certainly dont remember a war between them.

I think China and India are slightly differently placed.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 31 Aug 2009 22:47

ramana:

I think you missed my questions.

- the fear of the seismic wave from S-I damaging S-2 shaft led to the simultaneous firing. Couldnt have been if it was smaller yield one.


But in that case the obvious course was to test S-2 first, so this does not prove that S1 was expected to be >> S2. I agree that 1 mile was too close, so they had to be simultaneous for both to survive. But why so close?

The problem with the 200KT shaft design argument is that if that had generated 200KT, the village would have been pulverized. So why didn't they go deep enough into the Thar and do some Oil Drilling cover to set off S1? They do seem to have been willing to spread out the other sites by good distances.

Based on these things, I maintain that the simultaneous explosions of S1 and S2 were simply to ensure that
a) outside entities monitoring seismic data could not figure out precise yields or designs
b) the craters would be asymmetric/misshapen so that crater pictures would not allow yield determination.

And again, the proximity of the test site to the village means that no higher yield was sought. These are the questions that I continue to pose.

P.S. I am glad to see that they still seem to require some level of thinking and literacy for 12th grade pass. :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 22:48

Gerard wrote:
Tanaji wrote:By this logic, all the judges of the Supreme Court that acquitted Subbarao are utter fools.

They uphold the law. If the prosecution does not present enough evidence what are they to do? Lynch the accused from the nearest tree?



If the prosecution did not present enough evidence, then it is safe to assume that there was not 'enough evidence' in the first place. If he was acquitted, then we should respect the verdict.

Reading the case at this link http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1546856/ my feeling is that it would never have stood on its merits in a US court of law and it didnt either in an Indian court.
Having ascertained
from the description in the record, from learned counsel and from the
Investigating Officer about the exact nature and contents of the documents, I am
constrained to record that they could never be rightly classified as secret.
They are so obsolete, their contents so common place that no third party, leave
alone a foreign agent, would either want them nor could they be of any use to
them. Curiously enough, one of the offensive documents is Dr. Rao's own Ph.D.
thesis submitted to the I.I.T., Bombay. It is appalling that the crusade against
a brilliant scientist has been carried to such distressing limits.


All this is for another thread ofcourse.

pravula
BRFite
Posts: 237
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pravula » 31 Aug 2009 22:52

Sanatanan wrote:From Rediif (August 31, 2009)

Why Pokhran yield does not matter now

L V Krishnan, who retired after 39 years of service at the Atomic Energy Commission as director of the safety research programme at the Kalpakkam nuclear facility, discusses the current controversy over the 1998 nuclear tests.


Note:
He had earlier been identified in one of the books published soon after the tests in 1998 as the person responsible for weaponising the nuclear devices. This role obviously would include assessment of the efficiency of the device.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 31 Aug 2009 22:56

BARC has a reputation for groupisim (like in mafia) you are protected if you dont cross the line else you end up.... in dumps.

Its all Good fellas you know.

I am worried about Santanam garu, he will be hounded and go down in dishonour period.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 31 Aug 2009 22:57

Sanku wrote:I think China and India are slightly differently placed.


The Chinese will certainly be deterred by the prospect of losing, say, their 5 most important cities.

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 23:01

Espionage cases are very difficult to prove specially when the charged individual is not caught red-handed. The reason why I say Capt. Subbarao is lucky is that if he were charged with similar charges in a different country he would not have been released off hook ;I hate to say this usually in such cases the Governments tend to dispose off the individual and all the related evidence.

From whatever I could find on the web; seems Subbarao ji was a fundu individual who had risen through ranks in the IN ; sigh...you cant take sides on such matters do you ?

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 23:02

Ramana: Pls call me @ KhyberDurra.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16887
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 31 Aug 2009 23:02


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 23:09

negi wrote: Capt. Subbarao is lucky is that if he were charged with similar charges in a different country he would not have been released off hook ;I hate to say this usually in such cases the Governments tend to dispose off the individual and all the related evidence.
?


and which country is that? China or Soviet Russia , former East European commie nations, maybe where you get sent to the gulag without a trial and maybe shot enroute.

but certainly not the US or any of the nations that count themselves part of the free world, including ours .

We fail to see that the OSA can be draconian, it can be used to settle scores against people you dont like just as that infamous dowry law is being used for reverse harrassment.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3259
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vera_k » 31 Aug 2009 23:10

Gerard wrote:The Chinese will certainly be deterred by the prospect of losing, say, their 5 most important cities.


I'd like to believe this. Do you have any links on what the Chinese leadership would consider as unacceptable losses? Or any studies on what deters China?

The one link I have says that Mao was responsible for something like 49 million deaths half a century ago. Using this number as a baseline and accounting for the growth in the Chinese population since then, one would have to hold 100 million or more Chinese at risk before the Chinese would be deterred.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7009
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Anujan » 31 Aug 2009 23:13

Based on these things, I maintain that the simultaneous explosions of S1 and S2 were simply to ensure that
a) outside entities monitoring seismic data could not figure out precise yields or designs
b) the craters would be asymmetric/misshapen so that crater pictures would not allow yield determination.


N^3


There are a few things that you said, that need to be discussed further.

1. S1 and S2 were deliberately tested together to mask the yields. This cannot be the case. This is because, if S6 were a copy of S1 and if it was scheduled to be set off with two munna sub KT explosions, the yield of S6 and hence S1 could not have been masked in any case.

2. S6 was a copy of S1 and S1 fizzled. In which case, if S6 had succeeded, it would have flattened the villiage (thats why they did not set S6 off to see "why S1 fizzled").

3. S6 was a copy of S1 and S1 Sizzled. In which case, why bury two identical devices in the first place ? If the apriori thought was "lets get a statistically confident result" then S6 should have been set off. If the apriori thought was "S1 is so unreliable, we need to set it off twice, to see whats wrong", then they should have set S6 off. (They did have time to evacuate the villiage -- 2days).

4. S6 was not a copy of S1, was a scaled up ~150KT version of S2. Most likely the case, because of two reasons. S2 succeeded splendidly. Meaning S6 is highly likely to succeeded. Meaning one or both of two things (a) Embarassing to have a bigger dhamaka in FBF weapon than TN weapon. Hard to give out excuses of "we kept the TN yield deliberately low, to protect villiage" (b) The damage to the villiage was more than anticipated with 45KT. So 100KT might have flattened it.

5. S6 was not a copy of S1 and was a sub KT device. Why go through the trouble of digging it out, when we get so little chance to test anything ? Money and material is not the constraint, testing opportunity is.

Conclusion --
S6 was not an identical copy of S1. Was a big bum, possibly FBF, bigger than 45KT.
Deliberate masking does not seem to be the objective, simultaneous close by detonation seems to be
They were close by, because digging a hole in Rajastan in many different places increases the chance of exposure
The craters were asymmetric not because of simultaneous detonation, but because of non-homogeneous rock/soil composition.
Last edited by Anujan on 31 Aug 2009 23:15, 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 » 31 Aug 2009 23:14

http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_17a.html
Taiwan could try to develop the capability to inflict unacceptable losses and damage on China through military strikes of its own. This would require the ability to destroy military, economic, or symbolic targets such as major population centers, Shanghai’s Pudong Tower, or even the Three Gorges Dam


How Many Nukes Does it Take?
Deterrence Theory and Chinese-U.S. Nuclear Relations
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2008/h ... es_it_take

http://www.newamerica.net/files/naf041808a.mp3
http://www.newamerica.net/files/Testing ... rrence.pdf

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3054
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 31 Aug 2009 23:15

Gerard wrote:
negi wrote:All in all the school of thought that advocates the need to re-test i.e. KS et al are pointing towards not signing the CTBT until the TN weapon is tested.And this imho is irrespective of whether S-1 was a sizzle or fizzle.


And all of us agree with this (I think)

No CTBT until full yield proof tests.


This stand may be good for reconcling different pov of this forum and good for this forum too.
But there is inherent logical deficiency in that assumption. :lol: So those who settled their difference, pls dont read further.

Except the fission none of the tested were weapons as per BARC. It includes S1, which means the primary FBF also not tested in weapon configuration. As TN as a weapon needs proof testing, FBF as weapon also needs proof testing, isn't it ?

Now someone, can say, no, no, FBF is a easy one compared to TN, considering the minimum yield quoted by renegade group, i.e, ~ 20 KT, FBF is actually a sizzle. I have to say this is only an assumption and there is fallacy in that assumption. How ? First of all, we dont know the exact design of the tested device. IF we believe that S1 is a fizzle, that fizzleness may also be contributed by FBF fizzle which in turn leads to secondary fizzle. As we dont know the design and its parameter, we cant ascertain which one fizzled first or which one didnt. So there is always a possiblity of FBF fizzling.

The conlusion is, if have one set of assumption for TN device, you cannot have different set of assumption for the other devices. That means, if TN weapon needs testing, so is the case for FBF too. Or, FBF weapon doesnt need testing, TN too doesnt need testing. :rotfl:

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3054
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 31 Aug 2009 23:18

Sanku wrote:
Kanson wrote:Its like a deemed university. so.. :P :rotfl:


Well I know how the deemed universities in India work so....
:P

I may go on entertaining you in this fashion, but it wont serve the purpose.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3054
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 31 Aug 2009 23:24

Anujan wrote:
Based on these things, I maintain that the simultaneous explosions of S1 and S2 were simply to ensure that
a) outside entities monitoring seismic data could not figure out precise yields or designs
b) the craters would be asymmetric/misshapen so that crater pictures would not allow yield determination.


N^3


There are a few things that you said, that need to be discussed further.

1. S1 and S2 were deliberately tested together to mask the yields. This cannot be the case. This is because, if S6 were a copy of S1 and if it was scheduled to be set off with two munna sub KT explosions, the yield of S6 and hence S1 could not have been masked in any case.

2. S6 was a copy of S1 and S1 fizzled. In which case, if S6 had succeeded, it would have flattened the villiage (thats why they did not set S6 off to see "why S1 fizzled").

3. S6 was a copy of S1 and S1 Sizzled. In which case, why bury two identical devices in the first place ? If the apriori thought was "lets get a statistically confident result" then S6 should have been set off. If the apriori thought was "S1 is so unreliable, we need to set it off twice, to see whats wrong", then they should have set S6 off. (They did have time to evacuate the villiage -- 2days).

4. S6 was not a copy of S1, was a scaled up ~150KT version of S2. Most likely the case, because of two reasons. S2 succeeded splendidly. Meaning S6 is highly likely to succeeded. Meaning one or both of two things (a) Embarassing to have a bigger dhamaka in FBF weapon than TN weapon. Hard to give out excuses of "we kept the TN yield deliberately low, to protect villiage" (b) The damage to the villiage was more than anticipated with 45KT. So 100KT might have flattened it.

5. S6 was not a copy of S1 and was a sub KT device. Why go through the trouble of digging it out, when we get so little chance to test anything ? Money and material is not the constraint, testing opportunity is.

Conclusion --
S6 was not an identical copy of S1. Was a big bum, possibly FBF, bigger than 45KT.
Deliberate masking does not seem to be the objective, simultaneous close by detonation seems to be
They were close by, because digging a hole in Rajastan in many different places increases the chance of exposure
The craters were asymmetric not because of simultaneous detonation, but because of non-homogeneous rock/soil composition.


hey..good one..[where is the thumbsup similies].

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 31 Aug 2009 23:30

S6 may have been backup for S1, perhaps with a lot more oomph as u say. If S1 failed but S2 succeeded, then they would have tested S6 to get some thermonukle data and make the point that thermonuke had been mastered. At that point, the interest would be in making sure everyone understood that a thermonuke had gone off, since the smart, precisely tunable design had not succeeded. It would be a brute force, Lop Nur type demonstration, shaking the duniya.

But if S1 performed to spec (or better) why give away the clean signature of S6?

Locating 2 pits 1 mile away from each other when one is a thermonuke, does not seem to be an optimal way to do anything - except to destroy all spying techniques which can only use far-field signatures or photos from above or nearby. Otherwise, 1 mile is way too close - you HAVE to assume that the shaft will collapse, stones will fall on to the casing, and maybe the electronics will get knocked out. So if they are close, they have to be set off simultaneously. Question is, why.

As for inhomogeneity, I believe that a thermonuclear explosion produces such a huge central-point-source heat and pressure wave, that its effect on the surface will look like a cone/ crater bowl, unless part is made of concrete and the rest of sand. Apparently a lot of heat came out at the surface too - there was a caption in The Hindu that the structures above ground were incinerated.

But if the molten,shattered, radially-propagating pattern encountered another pattern coming in, then the whole pattern becomes totally asymmetric and chaotic with lots of reflections etc. Whole place gets jumbled.

Only those who had instruments located in between, and captured the signals in the instant between the light flash and the shock wave, had any hope of capturing the precise signature from each event separately.

BTW, how do we know for sure that there WERE two distinct shafts for S1 and S2?

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3054
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 31 Aug 2009 23:38

Jagan wrote:
Gerard wrote:They uphold the law. If the prosecution does not present enough evidence what are they to do? Lynch the accused from the nearest tree?



If the prosecution did not present enough evidence, then it is safe to assume that there was not 'enough evidence' in the first place. If he was acquitted, then we should respect the verdict.
I dont know how far this can be related here, in case of Ranbir Singh, RAW didnt come fwd to provide the evidence, irrespective of repeated requests, AFAIK

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 23:39

Kanson wrote:The conlusion is, if have one set of assumption for TN device, you cannot have different set of assumption for the other devices. That means, if TN weapon needs testing, so is the case for FBF too. Or, FBF weapon doesnt need testing, TN too doesnt need testing. :rotfl:

Well if we are indulging into hair splitting semantics then no weapons were tested as bursting a carefully fabricated bomb in a shaft and exploding a warhead some 'x' thousand meters over a target after having subjected the latter to immense G-forces are completely different scenarios (unless the latter was already done in laboratory conditions :) ).

Reason why FBF weapon is excluded from the kind of scrutiny which S-1 is being subjected to is simply because of the controversy over the outcome of the S-1 test no one not even the NPAs have raised any doubts over the rest of the tests; had there been no such controversy we would not have been re-hashing yield numbers and speculating on TN weapon design issues.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7009
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Anujan » 31 Aug 2009 23:49

Related but OT: Santy's takleef may not be with CTBT or NPT.

India is not singing the NPT. Not kangress, not BJP, not anyone. NPT is very clear on who NWS are, who non-NWS are and categorically states that Non-NWS *will not* develop the bum. Period. There is no question of "separation of facilities", "testing" or anything like that. Desh signing NPT means one and only one thing. We give up the bum.

That brings us to CTBT. This is a bit of a grey line. It might be argued that "we have a successful deterrent, so we dont really need to test" and also "The treaty allows us to withdraw, so we can if geopolitics changes, new types of bums are developed or if we feel our arsenal is deteriorating". There is some truth to these arguments.

Now if desh is going towards the direction of dejure CTBT (by signing it) or defacto-CTBT (by agreeing to import gora n-tech and materials and basing a substantial part of our economy on that), then the N-deal is nearly not enough. The N-deal is not just about "we give you n-tech, you separate your facilities and promise not to test". There *has* to be more than that.

From the desh side, the thinking would be "we have enough to glass pakis thrice over. Our deterrence is not in place against the cheenis. So two things are needed, develop economically to match up to the cheenis, develop strategic relationship with the west, unkil included, to deter the cheenis in places like UN. Convince the west were their guy and counterbalance the cheenis with admittance into fora like Security council". Santy's takleef would be this: Unkil under ombaba has comprehensively departed from this line. Three things are clear (a) In the near future, Unkil is going to be more chummy-chummy with the cheenis (b) Unkil in the near future has firmly rejected desh as a counterbalance to the cheenis (c) Unkil is unreliable.

Now Unkil might be under a compulsion to not *overtly* help up (that might be the cheeni pound of flesh for bailing unkil out), but benignly ignore it if we do whatever we need to, to get parity. I am not ruling that out (especially due to lack of noise due to arihant)

All these point to one and only one thing. We should become self reliant first (cake) and then look for alliances (icing).

Test and test now.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Rahul M » 31 Aug 2009 23:52

Gerard wrote:Could not a mix of tested and untested warheads be deployed on various platforms?

would the forces be ready to take that risk ??

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3054
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 31 Aug 2009 23:53

Reason why FBF weapon is excluded from the kind of scrutiny which S-1 is being subjected to is simply because of the controversy over the outcome of the S-1 test no one not even the NPAs have raised any doubts over the rest of the tests; had there been no such controversy we would not have been re-hashing yield numbers and speculating on TN weapon design issues.
Thats why they are what they are - NPA(Ayothulla) - They need something to beat with and overlord. If they are so intelligent then Pervkovich wouldnt have used POK bomb testing site as front cover for his book discussing the Indian nculear tests.
Last edited by Kanson on 31 Aug 2009 23:55, 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 23:55

:lol: :mrgreen:

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 23:57

Btw what is this S-6 ? :oops: :eek:

For now it appears the safest assumption is S-6 != S-1 where S-6 can be zerrow.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Rahul M » 31 Aug 2009 23:58

vera_k wrote:
Gerard wrote:The Chinese will certainly be deterred by the prospect of losing, say, their 5 most important cities.


I'd like to believe this. Do you have any links on what the Chinese leadership would consider as unacceptable losses? Or any studies on what deters China?

The one link I have says that Mao was responsible for something like 49 million deaths half a century ago. Using this number as a baseline and accounting for the growth in the Chinese population since then, one would have to hold 100 million or more Chinese at risk before the Chinese would be deterred.

there's a difference between the china of mao and that of hu.

they had nothing to lose back then and excess population. they still have excess population, at least the rural one might be considered that by CPC but they have much to lose !

_____________________
my own thoughts on this.

viewtopic.php?p=709182#p709182

mind it, it might still be enough of a deterrent if the PRC is loathe to accept any loss as the cost of wiping out India in its current form. but making such an assumption on the lack of resolve of the enemy is a strictly self-serving argument of the paki gernail variety (Yindia will not attack us 'cuz of nooks ala kargil)

or even if we expect PRC to hold on to NFU as we will do. again, depending on your adversary's 'benevolent nature' to ensure peace might not be the brightest idea for national security.

also, what if they are ready to accept (say) the destruction of chengdu as a reasonable exchange(to them, not to us) for Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, Chandigarh, Kolkata, B'lore, Chennai, Hyderabad, T'puram, all refineries, auto plants, OFB factories(those that are still standing) all military heavy industries and major ports ? and they decide to keep AP for good measure ?

this scenario can be prevented only iff PRC believes that India has the ability to inflict major 'unacceptable' damage to it, IOW minimum credible deterrence (MCD).

-----------------------
So what constitutes MCD wrt PRC ?
I would humbly suggest that credible ability and intent to destroy at least 5-6 cities including shanghai, beijing, tianjin, shenyang, guangzhou, chengdu and xian or changchun in case of a nuclear attack on India would deter any PRC glorious leader.
these cities constitute the very heart of china's economic and industrial prowess as also most of the major institutes. they have a larger than proportional importance to the overall PRC sense of nation that would mean that a threat to these would serve as enough of a deterrent.

and for that ability to be credible you must have at least one SSBN in the oceans at all times armed with something like 10-12 long range SLBMs.

---------------
let me reiterate that I'm NOT advocating MAD, nor massive retaliation. I agree with n^3 that once you achieve MCD you should pour all your resources in developing conventional weapons.

In fact this was a very important thought in some deterrence literature, that once nuclear balance has been achieved (NOTE : balance and not parity) it will be the conventional arms that tip the balance.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 01 Sep 2009 00:03

Rahul M wrote:would the forces be ready to take that risk ??


Would not a TN secondary fizzle yield be greater than the full yield of a proof tested unboosted fission weapon?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 01 Sep 2009 00:04

ramana wrote:


Its not uvacha. Its more like the lament to a cheated jingo.
----------
hari, The arihant payload needs proofing unless BARC certifies that it does not require that as they have verified by analysis or similarity. One way around they can say its the FBF which does not require such verification. As the S-I primary is boosted fission, if the Arihant payload is also same then its qualified by similarity.

I still think they should deploy the S-I in special vehicles(A-III) for special situations now that they knwo what went on.

Very correct.

ramana wrote:BTW anyone recall how the news was conveyed to ABV?

My thinking is like this

S-I was a 200kt TN weapon. When they say the small crater RC figured that only the pry+secy must have woked. So he said dont worry its a 45 kt weaponisble device. S-6 which was to be a confidence test was pulled for it would show the same issues if S-I was not diagonised and corrective action taken. Hence the dialog" Lets not waste it!".
And this was the held view of the group when they when to press conference. It was important to say what was tested for India was claiming NWS status.

Slowly the picture started unravelling with siesmic records being anamalous. The Radio Chem is in their hands and there are error estimates which in retrospect dont look right.

Most likely RC has fixed the issues. The delayed Padma awards to SK Sikka mean something was done later. So long as the right to test is preserved it was not a problem for the scientists and the jingo chatterati. When the UPA govt was thinking "Yes we can" on CTBT recall the seminar title, all alarm bells went off.

Again I say MMS and MKN can sign any four letter treaty they want as the people elected their party and alliance to power. But do not say it is because of science evidence. For it is not.

That is the pinch. So near yet so far.

ramana wrote:Deterrence rests on capability and will to use it.
The S-I got downgraded from TN weapon to TN weaponisable device on the same day. Refer ABV's we have big bomb to what ever he said later.

However Indian MND is not based on TN. Recall after MMS came in he said more important was CMD -Credible Minimum Deterrent. Which means it doesnt have any of the TN stuff.

In one way by assuring the TN remains questionable MMS is assuaging uncle not to worry about India as a challenger.

Call it the Ekalavya path..

IIRC ABV's statement changed from "we have big bomb" to "we have capability to make a big bomb"

negi wrote:The lack of data and info on S-1 yields notwithstanding why is that we on board consider its maiden test affecting our deterrence capability ? Specially when it is known that S-1 was a TN device and not a WEAPON.

All in all the school of thought that advocates the need to re-test i.e. KS et al are pointing towards not signing the CTBT until the TN weapon is tested.And this imho is irrespective of whether S-1 was a sizzle or fizzle.

Gerard wrote:
ramana wrote:Kanson I agree. However to verify what they learned needs proofing and that will be closed with accession to CTBT.


After the shot across the bow by KS, accession seems unlikely.

IMVHO, like it or not we will see Indian accession in Oct-2009 (and if not actual signing, then concrete promises to sign as soon as it is ratified by the US.).

Gerard wrote:
negi wrote:All in all the school of thought that advocates the need to re-test i.e. KS et al are pointing towards not signing the CTBT until the TN weapon is tested.And this imho is irrespective of whether S-1 was a sizzle or fizzle.


And all of us agree with this (I think)

No CTBT until full yield proof tests.

Yes. That is my hard readline, and yet I see it breaching in Oct-2009. :(

China did its last round of proof testing (ignoring the hue and cry fo west/word) just before signign CTBT. India MUST do the same (a week before Oct-2009 conduct the tests and then sign).

Raja Ram wrote:It is still to early though to come to a firm conclusion that GOI headed by our distinguished economist PM is prepared to sign CTBT. At best, we can only say that GOI has not done anything to reiterate that it will not sign such things and there is a cautionary note too. The statement by the PM indicates that he intends to do something "constructive" and his NSA is looking for big ideas for the upcoming state visit.

A positive way to look at all this is, Santhanam has said the unpleasant things that GOI wants to say so that message is clear to the US and the regional super power wannabe, that dont push us, for if you do we will show the ungli again as ABV did then. (I miss that picture!). So this leaves the PM to claim, when his American hosts ask him to show statesmanship and global leadership by agreeing to sign CTBT and climate control, that we cannot sign any CTBT or other lemons. On the contrary, we may have to test a few new ones because our neighbourhood is acting up again.

Reading the signals in the wind will therefore have to continue. So surely more rambles will follow as events unfold.

As my NCO saab used to say, When rape is inevitable better enjoy it.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Rahul M » 01 Sep 2009 00:21

Gerard wrote:
Rahul M wrote:would the forces be ready to take that risk ??


Would not a TN secondary fizzle yield be greater than the full yield of a proof tested unboosted fission weapon?

wouldn't they choose a boosted fission device in that case, if possible ? (I've no idea of weights/dimensions)

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3054
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 01 Sep 2009 00:25

negi wrote:Btw what is this S-6 ? :oops: :eek:

For now it appears the safest assumption is S-6 != S-1 where S-6 can be zerrow.


It could be pure FBF. If we take that way, let see how it matches with the logic maze. If S1 fizzled, i.e, not giving the actual design yield, to ascertain, how much from fusion and how much from fission it would have taken them more than 6 months. So what could they have thought that is, if S1 fizzled, they could use the FBF ( in this case, S6). By this they could very well establish from both S1 and S6 where was the fault, and what is the remedy. So considering S1 is actually a sizzle, they dugged out the S6.

Now you may ask why not S6 be S1, if both are same, and both are giving the same problem, how would you find out how far you have succeeded. You see, you dont have lengthy time window. Only way you can check the fission/fusion ratio is through radio-chemical analysis. That takes time. In the case of failure, how can you ascertain, what failed, how much failed etc...see here fusion happens also in the primary.

I dont know, Am i made it clear....

Added later: OR, it could be another TN of another design modified from S1 in such a way to ascertain any anomalies in the design.. There is a possibility.
Last edited by Kanson on 01 Sep 2009 00:38, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 01 Sep 2009 00:26

Rahul M wrote:
Gerard wrote:Would not a TN secondary fizzle yield be greater than the full yield of a proof tested unboosted fission weapon?

wouldn't they choose a boosted fission device in that case, if possible ? (I've no idea of weights/dimensions)

Yup.
FYI 100kT FBF weighing ~350Kg.
But with standard disclaimer to not trust unsolicited Uttar from the pann-chewing bhayyia from Uttar Parr-desh. :roll: Otherwise N^3 may brand me with OSA irrespective it came from just ameture simulation or otherwise. (my blackberry computer has lot of computing capability to expand the frontier of nuke simulation and design. Surly BARC has TN simulation and test hardware capability by now. But physics and algorithm ?? :wink: )


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests