Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 05 Sep 2009 09:50

Some more data points for speculation:

In his talk in IISc for which I took notes Chidambaram said

.. if 1 Kg of Pu is fully used up in a nuke - the yield will be 16KT (less if less is used up, of course). If 1 Kg of Deuterium is used up fully - you get a yield of 80kT, and if 1 kg of Lithium Deuteride is fully used up in a fusion bomb the yield will be 50 kT.


Now on page 419 of "Weapons of Peace" Raj Chengappa says that 6 "perfect spheres" of Plutonium were sent to Pokhran, each weighing "around three to eight kilograms depending on the test they were meant for"

Using Chidambaram's own words and assuming that the largest Pu ball - of 8 kg was used in S1 - we should have got a fission explosion of (16 x 5) = 80 kt. If only 50% was used up it should have given 40 kt. If 20% was used up it would have given 16 kt.

However if a 3 kg ball was used in S1 we should have got 48 kt fission @ 100 %, 24 kT @ 50% and 10 kt @ 20 %.

PKIyengar spoke of 400 grams of LiD being used up. Using to the data given by R Chidambaram and the 400 gram figure by PKIyengar - the fusion yield alone should have been 20 kilotons

Now guess which ball was used? How much it weighed. What was the efficiency of fission? How much fusion?

Here is what PKI and Kalam said in 2000
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000802/nation.htm#12

No comment on N-test results: Kalam
From R. Suryamurthy
Tribune News Service
NEW DELHI, Aug 1 — The Principal Scientific Adviser, Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, today refused to comment on doubts expressed by a leading member of the scientific community on the country’s May 1998 nuclear tests.

"I will not comment. I do not have access to the data. So I will not comment," Dr Kalam said when asked to react to the doubts expressed by the former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr P.K. Iyengar.

Dr Iyengar had said scientific data indicated that the core of the hydrogen bomb had burnt only partially during the nuclear test. The bomb design included two components — a boosted fission device (a small atomic bomb) that triggered the secondary core of the hydrogen or fusion bomb.
The boosted fission device released about 20 kilotons (kt) of energy that triggered the fusion core that produced another 20 kt, giving a total yield of 40 kt. This indicated that only about 400 gm of the fusion device had burnt.


Dr Iyengar had also said that larger megaton devices could not be made with such devices. India needed to test more hydrogen and neutron bombs with complete burning of the core before signing the comprehensive test ban treaty.

He had said more tests would be needed to try out different designs like boosted fission devices, the stage II fusion device and the neutron bomb which India was yet to test.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 05 Sep 2009 09:53

I am guessing 8Kg Pu ball was used for sub kilton device

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 05 Sep 2009 09:57

John Snow wrote:I am guessing 8Kg Pu ball was used for sub kilton device


Quite likely - because kilogram is sub-kiloton and "Sub (sab) kiloton yields hain - megaton nahin" :D

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 05 Sep 2009 10:12

ok enough is enough {for me my head hurts}
Shankarovsky wins our bum was russian design here is the actual design I give up ( cant speculate any more

Its Matroshka design

Image

as austin power says
Get on the horn to British Intelligence and let them know about this.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7031
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby JE Menon » 05 Sep 2009 16:37

Ramana,

As far as I know, nobody in the scientific community or the government has said that a thermonuclear capability is not necessary for India. If there has been such a comment, it is extremely interesting. If it has been made to the press, do you have a link?

I'm referring to your statement in previous page of this thread (I think its yours - its in a nested quote so can't be sure) that some Indian scientists/govt officials don't want India to have a TN capacity.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 05 Sep 2009 16:46

JE Menon wrote:As far as I know, nobody in the scientific community or the government has said that a thermonuclear capability is not necessary for India. If there has been such a comment, it is extremely interesting. If it has been made to the press, do you have a link?



I understand this as a rhetorical comment that has the following meaning:
1) India's single thermonuclear test was a failure and therefore India does not have the capability to build proven thermonuclear warheads.
2) Despite that some people in government say that we have adequate deterrence and that further testing is not necessary
3) Therefore these people do not want India to have a thermonuclear capability.

Since there is no proof either way and nobody is talking, the above three propositions become impossible to disprove, and therefore the truth.

There is also a reference to some information that has been passed on unofficially, possibly in private and outside the forum by the use of the words "I later found out.." (or some such things).

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby arun » 05 Sep 2009 16:59

shiv wrote:In an early paper Chidambaram wrote

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper451.html
The thermonuclear device tested on May 11 was a two-stage device of advanced design, which had a fusion-boosted fission trigger as the first stage and a fusion secondary stage which was compressed by radiation implosion and ignited. For reasons of proliferation sensitivity, we have not given the details of the materials used in the device or their quantities. 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.


Whether the fusion component was 3 kilotons or less or more is not stated by anyone, But BRF has the fusion component stated by someone. This is either guesswork or revelation of a state secret.

The Indian official secrets act is applicable only to Indian citizens and those who come under the ambit of Indian law. If these two do not apply it is possible for a person to reveal official secrets via devious routes.

Could that have happened on BRF? Perhaps for the "well intentioned reason" of exposing liar scientists and ultimately improving Bharat Mata's security?


R. Prasannan of Malayala Manorama’s “The Week” has used the same point made by Dr. R. Chidambaram to debunk the claims of the "doubting Santhanams" :rotfl: :

Fizzle-blower

CONTROVERSY

Santhanam’s ‘revelations’ on Pokhran II echo doubts raised and scotched long ago

By R. Prasannan

……………….. what gave voice to the rise of doubting Santhanams was the fact that the thermonuclear device was a two-stage device which had a fusion-boosted fission trigger as the first stage and a fusion secondary stage. But then the same fact is being used to silence the critics, too. As Chidambaram argued in his paper in Atoms for Peace, “We have not given the fusion-fission break-up and, since we have not given the composition of the materials used nor their quantities for reasons of proliferation sensitivity, no one outside the design team has data to calculate this fission-fusion yield break-up or any other significant parameter related to fusion burn.” In other words, Santhanam has no data other than what the nuclear scientists have obtained. ....................

The Week

kittoo
BRFite
Posts: 945
Joined: 08 Mar 2009 02:08

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby kittoo » 05 Sep 2009 17:08

Looking at the media reports continuously discussing the issue, it looks like Santhanam sir did succeed in making enough hue abd cry about the success of the tests, effectively putting big hurdle for MMS to sign CTBT.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 05 Sep 2009 17:39

Outlook feature on the tests.

Fizzle, not sizzle conclusion has hit the streets! :D

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?261655

dipak
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby dipak » 05 Sep 2009 17:53

As R. Chidambaram says, if the fission-fusion breakup was never shared other than the design team, it raises few interesting points:

1. Forget about design validation, peer-review. All hot air.
All discussion about sizzle ya fizzle is fizzle since there is no data to back either sizzle or fizzle claim.

2. In absence of real data, like fission-fusion breakup, one has to trust the words of -
a. MMS -- well known for showing maraged steel spine, proven conclusively since 26/11, S-e-S
b. KS -- what negatives one can think of him, except that he is being patriotic?

TYP.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11199
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 05 Sep 2009 18:32

From Outlook:
Fiction Vs Fact
Tests Carried Out By Countries
USA 1,030
Russia 715
France 210
UK 45
China 45
India 4*
Pakistan 2

*Tests conducted within a km range are counted as one

dipak
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby dipak » 05 Sep 2009 18:37

Let it be accepted that N3 raised a valid point about the design vs actual yield and possible damage to Khetolai village from higher yields. Till now, its not been sufficiently countered, IMVHO.

OTOH, RC, giving his thoughts on nuclear test necessity for India on March 1998
Further, when asked whether the country could go ahead only with the help of simulations and by avoiding actual ground experiments he retorted, 'then what was the use of some countries going for 2000 explosions.' The PTI report adds: 'Speaking in favor of nuclear explosions to increase the database of the country, he said computer simulations alone could not stand and huge actual database was required for simulations.'

Out of the nuclear shadow

My question is how RC changed his opinion about necessity of tests within 3 months?

His position:

March 1998 - we need to test, otherwise why other countries conducted 2000 tests.
May 1998 - we need not to test further, test complete successful, we have sufficient data

Can RC be so much confident about success of 5 tests, out of which only 1 was TN, that he has all the 'huge' database to simulate on computer?

And more specifically, if we talk about TN because its technically more desirable in terms of efficiency and range - 1 test is sufficient to be confident to such a degree that we can sign shitty-bitty and castrate our self forever?

I am sure, whatever data he might have gathered from S-1, it can't be 'huge' which he was advocating 3 months back.

Something doesn't gel well.

JMT
Last edited by dipak on 05 Sep 2009 18:43, edited 1 time in total.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11199
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 05 Sep 2009 18:43

The H bomb issue aside, the fact that 3 chotus were tested itself shows that there is more development planned, and that 3 science experiments being done shows that Indian nuclear weapons science is not complete.

When was the last time any of the P5 conducted a chotu test? A chotu test only occurs early in the cycle of weapon development. The proofing of a weaponized design comes last, where everything from the scientific validity of the design to the soundness of the engineering that finally built the weapon is tested.

dipak
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby dipak » 05 Sep 2009 19:05

Gagan wrote:The H bomb issue aside, the fact that 3 chotus were tested itself shows that there is more development planned, and that 3 science experiments being done shows that Indian nuclear weapons science is not complete.

When was the last time any of the P5 conducted a chotu test? A chotu test only occurs early in the cycle of weapon development. The proofing of a weaponized design comes last, where everything from the scientific validity of the design to the soundness of the engineering that finally built the weapon is tested.


True. Would be interesting to know how many sub-kiloton tests were done by P5 and when was the last one.
Also, PKI expressing similar views about design validation for weaponization purpose.

Duangkomon
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 84
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:12

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Duangkomon » 05 Sep 2009 19:17

shiv wrote:
There is also a reference to some information that has been passed on unofficially, possibly in private and outside the forum by the use of the words "I later found out.." (or some such things).


The same person later reminded everyone else about OSA as if some how it is not applicable to him.... :rotfl:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 05 Sep 2009 19:46

Gagan wrote:The H bomb issue aside, the fact that 3 chotus were tested itself shows that there is more development planned, and that 3 science experiments being done shows that Indian nuclear weapons science is not complete.

When was the last time any of the P5 conducted a chotu test? A chotu test only occurs early in the cycle of weapon development. The proofing of a weaponized design comes last, where everything from the scientific validity of the design to the soundness of the engineering that finally built the weapon is tested.



Gagan this is an issue that has come up often on the forum and I have some thoughts on this.

Earlier in this thread I had stated that for CTBT purposes - the US was quite happy to have the "threshold" for monitoring set so low that people would be "caught for cheating" if they so much as set off anything more than the conventional explosives needed for a nuke (i.e even 50 tons of TNT - 0.05 kt). The reason for this was that the US is so confident about simulation that they only need a conventional test plus a little is OK to give them data to extrapolate.

Unfortunately this made both the French and the Chinese nervous because their simulation capability had not reached such levels. That is why they were allowed to do a series of tests just before the testing door was closed (maybe 1990). That was to allow them to refine their subkiloton validating ability. In addition the "threshold for CTBT detection" to say "You're cheating" was set at 0.5 kt (or something - maybe 0.2 kt)

This was before 1998. For the same reasons India did 3 out of 5 tests as subkiloton tests if the scientists are to be believed. One can also say that India tried 16 tests and all but one failed and that one was a fizzle. But that means another 50 pages before we get sanity. Certainly the seismic record of Indian tests is such that India has done only 2 tests. One fizzle in 1974, one in 1998. This is the "seismological truth"

But I digress.. :D

Chidambaram was sounding quite proud when he gave his talk at IISc in Bangalore in 2002. You must have read the text as transcribed by me (from notes) that is in the BR archives. Here is a quote. Truth or lies is for you to decide for yourself.

Dr Chidambaram repeated time and again that computer simulation and the level of development in physics had made it easier to simulate and predict a lot of stuff and leave less to chance. He said that in the last 10-20 years there has been a vast increase in the amount of knowledge regarding "equations of state" of elements. In the 50s and 60s these were not known, and computers were very slow. If it took 3 months to do a particular calculation, it was easier to conduct a test, check the results and then tweak the computer to fit the reults. He showed a very interesting graph of how the number of tests conducted by the US dropped with each jump in computer number crunching ability. RC said that a LOT of the work was done on computer and a lot of the computer simulations were verified against available data even before the tests. The overall impression I got was that fast computers have played a major role in the success of the tests.

RC dwelt at some length on what he called the "cho-toos" - the "little ones" among the tests. Why 0.2 kT? He went into some technical detail here (see footnote 4) and said that after the CTBT came into effect France and China were not confident of computer simulation of devices less than 0.2 kT, (unlike the US), so they called for a modification in the CTBT requirements so that tests upto 0.2 kT could be done, For that technical reason it was thought necessary to test a 0.2 kiloton device in Pokhran.


Whatever the truth I would like to point out that anyone can do computer simulations (provided they have enough data to start with and enough computing power). But has India had the guts to do at least sub-kiloton testing in sand dunes in the Thar - knowing that sand can mask yields? Surely that should have been possible in the last decade?

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5743
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Dileep » 05 Sep 2009 20:00

John Snow wrote:when you say zero specific heat, are you meaning adiabatic conditions such that no heat is transferred or conducted away, in the hollow cavity?
It will not be complete adiabatic or complete Isothermal there will be a gradient.
at nao second there will be a dip in temperature and heat energy to convert all the silca to glass or porcelain which then becomes adiabatic (nearly) and takes the compression during this nao second the temp will also drop and then build up,

This my conjecture

I could be totally wrong too

I just mentioned two extreme points, which never happens in actuality. I almost flunked thermodynamics, so I gave the best I could come up with.

It was done to highlight the notion that some energy gets transformed into the ground wave, and some to heat. The conversion factor to the ground wave is ^0.75 as an empirical formula. The rest is heat, of which a tiny portion is used up for endothermic chemical conversion (making glass), and the majority is dissipated in the ground.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Lalmohan » 05 Sep 2009 20:11

whatever the technical issues, the real issue here is political. i refer readers to strobe talbot's letter to the financial times where he talks of hillary's agenda in new delhi (ahead of her visit) as being 1. CTBT and 2. Carbon treaty... and thats it. on both counts unkil's pressure would have been intense. all else, including 26/11 and fak-ap were secondary to the Washington-Delhi dialogue. MMS countered the carbon issue by announcing the massive solar programme, CTBT remains more contentious. here, someone officially or unofficially is signalling that CTBT is not a good thing to do.

i conclude from the literature at the time of the tests and since that a boosted fission device and sufficient triggering for fusion was successfully tested. a full fusion device may not have been, but there was sufficient confidence that we could make one. worst case, a deliverble boosted fission device would be of sufficient deterrence value against China. any old fission device is sufficient for managing pakistan

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7031
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby JE Menon » 05 Sep 2009 20:22

Ramana,

I'm referring to this statement...

>>To put it simply KS thinks India needs TN for its deterrent. Others like KS the pitamaha and govt think otherwise

Did you mean that K Subrahmanyam and government officials think we don't need it? Or are you saying that KS thinks we need a TN test while others like Subrahmanyam and govt. officials dont... Pls clarify.

Because i've never seen a single statement about TN capability being unnecessary from anyone so far.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 05 Sep 2009 20:53

Former Dy NSA wants India to sign CTBT
India must sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and push other nations to sign and ratify it said former deputy national securtity advisor and chairman of the joint intelligence committee Satish Chandra, on Friday.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 05 Sep 2009 20:53

Sanatanan wrote:
From The Tribune, Chandigarh:

The Pokhran-2 controversy
India’s leadership and armed forces are satisfied with nuclear deterrent
by K Subrahmanyam

Top Indian nuclear scientists are fighting among themselves on the effectiveness of India’s nuclear tests in 1998. Dr K Santhanam, Dr P K Iyenger and Mr H N Sethna have claimed that the tests were not a full success. Reacting sharply, Dr A P J Abdul Kalam has rubbished the claims of the sceptics.
K Subrahmanyam, who has closely watched the growth of India’s nuclear programme from the beginning, has joined issue with the doubting scientists, pointing out that even a critical world has accepted India as a nuclear weapon power and the worth of its arsenal.
— Editor-in-Chief


.....
Nuclear physics is an arcane subject and in that weapon designing is even more esoteric. There are, therefore, limits to transparency on it. Moreover, this is India’s second fission test and first thermonuclear test. With the exception of two — Dr P. K. Iyengar and the late Dr Ramanna — all other weapon designing talent was involved in the Pokhran-2 test. Of the two outside, Dr Iyengar is a sceptic while Dr Ramanna, when he was alive, accepted the claimed yield.

.....

It has been widely propagated that many foreign scientists have questioned the yield of Pokhran-2. Usually when seismic stations monitored a nuclear test they used to announce the magnitude of the explosion in terms of ranges of yields as, for instance, a low- yield explosion of 5-15 kilotons or a medium-yield explosion of 15-60 kilotons. Very rarely was a precise yield reported. The ease with which many foreign assessments were made about precise yields made them suspect, especially when they were not familiar with geological structures and soil conditions at the test site.

........

Apparently, the weapon design team did not have any doubts on the result. But on the very first day the sceptics had doubts. There was a popular view that the thermonuclear test should be of 100 kilotons and above and, therefore, this could not be a thermonuclear explosion. In any case, the shaft could not have withstood any explosion higher than 60 kilotons.

........
........

India became a nuclear weapon power and in the next eight years its strategic arsenal has been accepted by the international community. India has also the NSG waiver. All that happened in spite of opposition from sections of our people who preferred a confrontationist strategy with the international community.

The government leadership is satisfied with the state of our deterrent posture and so also the armed forces. .... Fission weapons of 60-80 kilotons have been successfully fabricated and standard thermonuclear warheads of today are neither in megatons nor in hundreds of kilotons. Our fission weapon capabilities are not under question. So long as the adversary believes that the nuclear explosions in his cities will cause him unacceptable damage he will be deterred.

Whether it is the CTBT, the FMCT or conducting nuclear tests, it is counter-productive to look at these issues in a narcissistic manner. We should try to exploit the opportunities as they arise. This country is just learning to do it and we have a long way to go. The need of the moment is to avoid chauvinism and steadily improve the capacity of the country to grow and deliver without demagoguery.



I took that to mean what I wrote.
- most deterrent weapons of 60-80kt fabricated
- most TN are in this range
- no one doubts India's fission weapons
- Ergo no need for other types

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 05 Sep 2009 20:57

xpost
Disarmament concerns and Pakistan
This was a clear indication that India intends to seek exemptions in the FMT similar to those it has been granted under the US-India nuclear deal. It means that India would be free to keep its eight ‘civil’ nuclear reactors and the breeder programme outside safeguards. These reactors can produce a significant amount of plutonium. Any FMT with such exemptions will obviously be meaningless. But no one in the Geneva session sought to question India’s conditionalities.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 05 Sep 2009 20:58

Mr. S Chandra hopes that India signing CTBT will help bring it into force and stop further testing. Eg. Noko tests.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5240
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 05 Sep 2009 21:01

ramana wrote:
I took that to mean what I wrote.
- most deterrent weapons of 60-80kt fabricated
- most TN are in this range
- no one doubts India's fission weapons
- Ergo no need for other types
Also, consistent with all his previous positions on the issue. If one reads the press statement from the Defense department then it adds up. Also, read the statement of the critics like BK and BC it adds up. Also read Gurmeet Kanwal and Admiral menon on how they have nuanced their positions a little and it again adds up.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 05 Sep 2009 21:05, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 05 Sep 2009 21:02

Thanks ShauryaT.

A major problem with op-eds in India is they present a plethora of facts but never any conclusions. So readers are more informed for sure but also more confused. Our job is to distill the facts and see what conclusions are implied. Since its implied could be totally off base too.

csharma
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby csharma » 05 Sep 2009 21:04

Gerard wrote:Former Dy NSA wants India to sign CTBT
India must sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and push other nations to sign and ratify it said former deputy national securtity advisor and chairman of the joint intelligence committee Satish Chandra, on Friday.


Lt Gen V R Raghavan, advisor and research consultant to the international commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, dismissed the controversy surrounding Pokharan II and said India has a weapon and it is more than enough to safeguard our national interest.

“Tests alone don’t solve security problems. We have a weapon and a delivery mechanism. And it is more than enough to safeguard our interests,” said Raghavan.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 05 Sep 2009 21:05

ramana wrote:Mr. S Chandra hopes that India signing CTBT will help bring it into force and stop further testing. Eg. Noko tests.


If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Not even a Chapter 7 resolution by the UNSC with its sanctions have stopped NoKo testing.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5240
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 05 Sep 2009 21:20

It will be interesting to learn, where is this idea that small fission weapons are enough for deterrence for India coming from. It will be interesting to know, what do they actually mean by deterrence. A cold hard headed analysis of the doctrine of deterrence as it applies to India, needs to be understood.

The minimum in MCD is not just rhetorical. All indications are it is a word that guides our capacities. Especially in the context of China does the MCD work?

Also, for those who feel CTBT will not be signed by any government. I would like them to weigh in the weight of the world on India, in context of the our known commitments on a test ban against the NSG exemption, our ideas of a minimum deterrence along with our rhetoric of universal disarmament and see if India can seriously afford to ignore world opinion on this matter.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 05 Sep 2009 21:37

Some asked whats minimum?
I think Jaswant Singhji said " Minimum is that which deters the maximum" and it is not a fixity. In other words that which the others percieve will inflict unacceptable damage and this varies with the challengers and their stage of development.

To clarify. PRC in its current state of development needs megatonnage. However it becomes more modern it will require less. So currently one would assume most of the stuff is allocated for such intentions.

Again thanks to JEM for asking for clarification for there is a lot in that article by KS. The emphasis is on the number stated and it doesnt matter how that is achieved. The rest is left to the war fighters.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 05 Sep 2009 21:45

ShauryaT wrote:see if India can seriously afford to ignore world opinion on this matter.


Shaurya what do you think "world opinion" is, in this matter

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5240
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 05 Sep 2009 22:02

shiv wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:see if India can seriously afford to ignore world opinion on this matter.


Shaurya what do you think "world opinion" is, in this matter
They have already spoken by signing it. Only a US senate ratification stops the balance of the pressure falling on India.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby geeth » 05 Sep 2009 22:12

I agree. By the time they realised their foolhardiness, it is too late. Now putin is trying to help them by saying Russia won't allow technology denial to India.

When a guy like MKN is around, we don't need any more enemies..I wish he was allowed to spend his retired life in Annanagar Channai, instead of steering the country downhill like the paki soldier.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12878
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 05 Sep 2009 22:17

ramana wrote:The emphasis is on the number stated and it doesnt matter how that is achieved. The rest is left to the war fighters.

Saar, I believe you are talking about the yield of the Fission weapons that is supposed to be available with India. IMHO the number as well as the means of achieving the same matters. For the same yield, a TN device is better for weaponisation and deployment, because they are compact, light, use less sensitive material, and offer better safety features. They also impart a longer leg to existing missile delivery systems or allow for MIRVed warhead if range is not an issue.

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 557
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby V_Raman » 05 Sep 2009 22:29

i think india, all along, is ok with the deterrance give by the fission warhead. this was the only warhead tested in 1998. the tests were carried out under the assumption that CTBT would come into force soon after. i think india did not have any capability to make any other kind of warhead then. all other devices were experimental at least officially.

CTBT did not come into force then. indians now can make other kind of warheads. this is in essence a second lease of life for india and it is trying to take advantage of it. the preparations this time around is not that covert as we are now an accepted non-P5 NWS.

going by statements given by other analysts and members of this forum, india will either verify if CTBT is to be signed or we are not any worse off then before even if we accede to CTBT

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2988
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 05 Sep 2009 23:32

Minimum credible deterrence is a funny coining of words. Minimum and Credible guard against each other..so that neither it is minimum nor it goes to extreme case. This MCD is in agreement with our defence posture. And that posture doesnt appear to be megalomaniacal at the sametime our defence forces comes in the top 5 position globally whichever way one can count. Deliberating our SSBN to be based on the model of Britain and France, at the same time maintaining the triad, one can easily guess what type of forces structure and no. of warheads our MCD envisages.

OK, does this works in the context of China ?

With the unvieling of Arihant who took the intiative to establish hotline...and invited India to open embassy in Lhasa...Period.

The government leadership is satisfied with the state of our deterrent posture and so also the armed forces. .... Fission weapons of 60-80 kilotons have been successfully fabricated and standard thermonuclear warheads of today are neither in megatons nor in hundreds of kilotons. Our fission weapon capabilities are not under question. So long as the adversary believes that the nuclear explosions in his cities will cause him unacceptable damage he will be deterred.
It doesnt mean anyway he implying India not having TN or India only having Fission. His repsonse to be seen ONLY in the context of the controversy and as a reply to that. He just said, TN of current standards are neither megaton nor in hunderds of KT, isn't true ? Palam Raju reference of 100 to 250 kg for strategic weapon gives a different picture. And shows that those are in production. And I do remember Adm. Menon talking abt 12 MIRV for K-15. Prithvi PGM is precursor for that. That may not be feasible without the warhead being minaturised and of light weight. And one can go back and see what this gentleman has said about the No. of warheads needed for that MCD, when every other gents were talking in range of 50/60/80/100/120 including all the B's.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3004
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vera_k » 05 Sep 2009 23:38

Kanson wrote:Palam Raju reference of 100 to 250 kg for strategic weapon gives a different picture. And shows that those are in production.


This is hardly certain. If this was so, there would be no need for the the A-5 with improved range.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1702
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sudeepj » 05 Sep 2009 23:39

I remember reading an article by KSubramaniam in this thread about India having developed 60-80 KT weapons, the yields of which are not in question. Unfortunately I cant locate the article so cant quote it here..

The problem with a fission weapon of 60-80KT is:~
1) The weapon will use up more plutonium than a similar ThermoNuke weapon
2) The weapon will need a lot more conventional explosive to induce fission in a larger Pu sphere, and hence be a lot more bulky/heavy than a TN weapon.
3) The larger quantity of Pu makes it more susceptible to induced fission and more susceptible to accidental criticality. Even one of the lenses going off can produce a non-zero nuclear yield.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1702
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sudeepj » 05 Sep 2009 23:48

Kanson wrote:OK, does this works in the context of China ?

With the unvieling of Arihant who took the intiative to establish hotline...and invited India to open embassy in Lhasa...Period.

The government leadership is satisfied with the state of our deterrent posture and so also the armed forces. .... Fission weapons of 60-80 kilotons have been successfully fabricated and standard thermonuclear warheads of today are neither in megatons nor in hundreds of kilotons. Our fission weapon capabilities are not under question. So long as the adversary believes that the nuclear explosions in his cities will cause him unacceptable damage he will be deterred.
It doesnt mean anyway he implying India not having TN or India only having Fission. His repsonse to be seen ONLY in the context of the controversy and as a reply to that. He just said, TN of current standards are neither megaton nor in hunderds of KT, isn't true ?


DF31, the newest Chinese strategic missile has a 700Kg 1.1 MT warhead. What will be the destruction caused by such a warhead as opposed to a 60KT FBF weapon?
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/df-31.htm

How many missiles will you need to lob 60KT FBF weapons at the required distance? How much fissile material will you need? How much Tritium (it has a half life of ~12 years) on a continual basis? How many army men to man the systems?

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2988
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 06 Sep 2009 00:00

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/09/ ... y-its.html

Julang-2 SLBM (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile)

Platform : Jin class nuclear submarines (being developed)
NATO codename : CSS-NX-4
Range : 8000 km
Propellent : Solid
Warhead : Three 90 Kiloton, or one 250 Kiloton warhead
Accuracy : 500 metres


Dong Feng-41 ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile)
Platform : Land-based silos or mobile launchers
NATO codename : ?
Range : 12,000 km
Propellent : Solid
Warhead : 3-6 100 Kiloton, or one 350-400 Kiloton warhead

Accuracy : 700-800 metres

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2988
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 06 Sep 2009 00:01

vera_k wrote:
Kanson wrote:Palam Raju reference of 100 to 250 kg for strategic weapon gives a different picture. And shows that those are in production.


This is hardly certain. If this was so, there would be no need for the the A-5 with improved range.


Unless something of that is available, why would anyone whats to talk abt that ...


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest