Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Locked
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Gagan »

Even if we consider that the TN experiment on the 11th of May 1998 fizzled, the intervening period is more than enough to rectify any flaws there may have been. TN tech is certainly not beyond BARC's / Indian science's capability. The ancient science that existed in the 50's and the 60's also was producing megaton thermonuclear blasts and deployed weapons.
BARC is much more sophisticated today.

Gen Malik's statement is clear, the weapon needs field testing or some form of certification that the yield will be what BARC claims it to be. No amount of scientific gobbledygook that a scientist dishes out (I am not an engineer and the earthquake and other calculations on BRF seems like scientific gobbledygook to me - I guess a fauji would feel the same) will ever equate a field test.

So logic forces me to believe that India has a weaponized TN weapon, it is not deployed because it is not field tested. Once field tested, it can undergo serial manufacture.

Some guru needs to enlighten the junta on how a "normal" TN weapon is different from the TN weapon required for a SLBM. I can understand that for a SLBM, safety features have to be paramount to prevent accidental detonation, since the weapon will be field deployed at all times. What other requirements are there to ensure that it emits very low radiation? All this apart from special shielding of the launch tube itself.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by shiv »

From 2003

http://www.indiadefence.com/nuc_status.htm
K Santhanam a former Intelligence officer in RAW, India’s CIA, studied nuclear physics and served long as Adviser to India’s Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), which has co-steered India’s nuclear programme from the mid 80s with Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC). He is now head of IDSA –– the Government’s ‘think tank ‘and was present for India’s1998 nuclear tests with Dr APJ Kalam (now President), the Department of Atomic Energy head, Dr. R Chidambaram (now Scientific Adviser to the Government) and the BARC Director, Anil Kakodkar (presently Chairman AEC). Santanam happened to be in the audience for the lecture and defended the scientists’ role to be the guardians of India’s nuclear arsenal. During the question and answer session Santanam stoutly outlined India’s nuclear military “modus operandi” and touched on the current nuclear operational status. The bombs, he said, were ready to be handed over by the scientists for deployment when ordered. To put all doubts at rest he also confirmed that trials for delivery had been successfully proved
vishwakarmaa
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 19 Jun 2008 08:47

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by vishwakarmaa »

pankajs wrote:Goodwill, soft power, Bollywood, curry,etc are not going to take you anywhere in this world of hard power play.
I don't agree with this.

In fact, the reverse is true. USA is today superpower purely because large share of it is "soft-power", hollywood and western culture which they fund and spread in peace-time and use it as propaganda tool during wartime.

India is downplaying the psy-op power of Indian culture. Indian youth today are totally blind of our historic links and the relations we enjoy with many corners in the world. As a small example, there are lot of Shiva devotees in Romania, Peru as well in every corner of the world.

By blindly following west and aping them, Indians are simply ignoring the power they hold, hidden in their historic global links and cultural commonality with every part of non-western world.

West is doing a smart thing by pressuring the GoI to open bollywood for western financial investments. The Western Cinema studios are using Bollywood to reach the "unexplored" markets where bollywood rules over western junk culture.

"Movies" are a potent tool in future global warfare. Its a delivery mechanism of thoughts and it induces thoughts in masses in a subtle manner. So, its in Western interest to take over Bollywood's chain of finance and make it work for the West.

By the way, GoI has opened a school in Sri-lanka jointly with Sri-lanka govt. for teaching kids "english".
Last edited by vishwakarmaa on 06 Sep 2009 20:02, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by shiv »

Gagan wrote: Some guru needs to enlighten the junta on how a "normal" TN weapon is different from the TN weapon required for a SLBM.
I am not a guru - but then again I am not even answering your question. My general reading and timepass have suggested some truly haraam things but some of those haraam statements come from an impeccable source about nuclear bombs - Wikipedia.

First of all some people call "boosted fission" as Thermonuclear. On the other hand as far as Shakti is concerned this cannot be the case because both RC and PKI agree that the device was a two stage one with fusion secondary. PKI has even guessed how much LiD was used up although he says the total yield must have been 20+20 (40kt) while NPA and others say 12 to 25 kt.

Secondly, the worlds foremost nuclear weapon expert Wikipedia says
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
The initial impetus behind the two-stage weapon was President Truman's 1950 promise to build a 10-megaton hydrogen superbomb as the U.S. response to the 1949 test of the first Soviet fission bomb. But the resulting invention turned out to be the cheapest and most compact way to build small nuclear bombs as well as large ones, erasing any meaningful distinction between A-bombs and H-bombs, and between boosters and supers. All the best techniques for fission and fusion explosions are incorporated into one all-encompassing, fully-scalable design principle. Even six-inch (152 mm) diameter nuclear artillery shells can be two-stage thermonuclears.
In the ensuing fifty years, nobody has come up with a better way to build a nuclear bomb. It is the design of choice for the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China, and France, the five thermonuclear powers. The other nuclear-armed nations, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea, probably have single-stage weapons, possibly boosted.[19]
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by pankajs »

vishwakarmaa wrote:
pankajs wrote:Goodwill, soft power, Bollywood, curry,etc are not going to take you anywhere in this world of hard power play.
I don't agree with this.

In fact, the reverse is true. USA is today superpower purely because large share of it is "soft-power", hollywood and western culture which they fund and spread in peace-time and use it as propaganda tool during wartime.
Saar, my sentence ends with "world of hard power play". The US was able to Ramrod the kind of agreement that it wanted on the Indo-US nuclear deal at the NSG not because of its soft power (aka hollywood, western culture) but because of its hard power. Even China's last moment play was steamrolled!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by shiv »

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/cardozo.pdf
In January of 1951, all design problems were solved by the single
unexpected innovation of radiation implosion. Rarely in the history of
technology has such a seemingly daunting problem turned out to have
such a nifty solution. Stanislav Ulam’s idea of imploding the entire
secondary, plus Teller’s idea to do the job with radiation, changed
everything. Fusion didn’t need to propagate; it could be forced. To use
x-rays from an exploding nuclear bomb to envelop and highly compress
another more powerful nuclear bomb was immensely clever, and for
nearly three decades completely unknown to the general public. It was
not, however unknown to bomb designers in Russia, Britain, France,
and China, who built H-bombs during this period.

The notion that x-rays could move solid objects with the force of
thousands of tons of dynamite was beyond the grasp of the science
fiction writers of the time. It was quite satisfying to the privileged few
who knew about it, especially to “cleared” politicians who were
members of this new nuclear priesthood. Radiation implosion became
the cornerstone of the Cold War temple of secrecy, and the secret
password to its inner sanctum.

In engineering terms, this weird and wonderful secret allowed for
the exploitation of several known features of nuclear bomb materials
which heretofore had eluded practical application.

For example, the best way to store deuterium in a reasonably dense
state is to chemically bond it with lithium, as lithium deuteride. But the
lithium-6 isotope is also the raw material for tritium production, and an
exploding bomb is a nuclear reactor. Radiation implosion will hold
everything together long enough to permit the complete conversion of
lithium-6 into tritium, while the bomb explodes. So the bonding agent
for deuterium permits use of the more efficient D-T fusion reaction
without any pre-manufactured tritium being stored in the secondary.
The tritium production constraint disappears.

Another example: radiation implosion operates on temperature
difference. For the secondary to be imploded by the hot, radiation-
induced plasma surrounding it, it must remain cool for the first
microsecond, i.e., it must be encased in a massive radiation (heat)
shield. The shield’s massiveness allows it to double as a tamper, adding
momentum and duration to the implosion. No material is better suited
for both of these jobs than ordinary, cheap uranium-238, which
happens, also, to undergo fission when struck by the neutrons produced
by D-T fusion. This casing, called the pusher, thus has three jobs: to
keep the secondary cool, to hold it, inertially, in a highly compressed
state, and, finally, to serve as the chief energy source for the entire
bomb. The consumable pusher makes the bomb more a uranium fission
bomb than a hydrogen fusion bomb. It is noteworthy that insiders never
used the term hydrogen bomb.

Finally, the heat for fusion ignition comes not from the primary but
from a second fission bomb called the spark plug, imbedded in the heart
of the secondary. The implosion of the secondary implodes this spark
plug, detonating it and igniting fusion in the material around it, but the
spark plug then continues to fission in the neutron-rich environment
until it is fully consumed, adding significantly to the yield.

The two-stage, radiation-implosion, Teller-Ulam superbomb is like
an ecosystem in which nothing is wasted. The pieces fit like a jigsaw
puzzle. Every component contributes to overall yield, often in more
than one way. Oppenheimer declared it “technically so sweet” and
embraced it, but too late to prevent his public defrocking as the chief
nuclear priest in 1954.

It was not, strictly speaking, the hydrogen bomb Truman had
ordered, but it could make a multi-megaton explosion. Everything else
about it was secret, including the fallout problem. It was a radioactively
dirty fission bomb, not a relatively clean fusion bomb.
csharma
BRFite
Posts: 694
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by csharma »

VP Malik's statement sort of indicates that the armed forces have TN warhead in their arsenal. Also, Santhanam's statements have planted doubts in the minds of people.
Last edited by csharma on 06 Sep 2009 20:22, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by shiv »

http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/jul/27bomb1.htm
Before dawn on May 11, a seismograph in a research institute outside Washington DC recorded a disturbance deep in the earth on the other side of the world. Over the next few minutes, dozens of other seismographs all over the planet recorded the same event and transmitted their data automatically to the institute, the Prototype International Data Centre.
A computer analysed the signals and gave its interpretation: an ''event'' of magnitude 5.0 on the Richter Scale under Rajasthan in India. Later that morning, seismologists at the PIDC studied the signals and recognised the event as a nuclear test.
The job of the institute is to test the technology for detecting nuclear bomb tests around the world. From next year its successor, the Real International Data Centre in Vienna, will be charged with policing the CTBT, which outlaws all nuclear explosions.
Whether the RIDC can actually police the CTBT has become the subject of a fierce debate. For it emerged that the seismic monitoring network under trial by the PIDC failed to ''diagnose'' India's tests accurately.
In particular, PIDC failed to detect the second explosion, which India claims yielded between 0.2 and 0.6 kilotons.
The reliability of the monitoring system is vital to the success of the CTBT. The treaty is opposed by some in the US who say that testing is necessary to maintain a nuclear deterrent.
They claim the flaws in the monitoring system prove that CTBT cannot work. Such accusations are ''already damaging prospects for US ratification of the CTBT,'' New Scientist quoted Christopher Paine of the Natural Resources Defence Council, and the American Pressure Group that supports the treaty, as having said.
The CTBT has been signed by 149 countries since it was agreed upon in 1996, but to come into force it must be ratified by all 44 nations in the UN Conference on Disarmament that have nuclear reactors.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Gerard »

"They need to be reassured about the weapon system they use and about the planning of what kind of the yield they have when they hit the target," Malik, the Chief of the Armed Forces during the Pokhran-II nuclear tests, told a private news channel.
Doesn't this imply that TN warheads are in the arsenal?
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by enqyoob »

Just as a point of comparison:
In 1974, the "sanctiongiri" hit very hard. The CIRRUS, CANDU etc. were starved for fuel, if I understand correctly.
PIGs doing studies related to "nu.." anything were summarily kicked out of academic programs by "universities" supposedly above all such petty considerations (I know - a cousin came back from nuclear studies grad school in the United Queendom, pretty much with only the shirt on his back...)

All doors were slammed in the faces of desis. Trade suffered, technology suffered. The economy was hit big-time. India was isolated. Foreign exchange reserves plunged, rupee value started sliding and the slide became a rout by the 1980s. Total stagnation.

In 1998, Strom Thurmond declared:
The Indian government has shot itself in the foot. In fact it may have shot itself in the head
as his COTUS committee proceeded to re-enact 1974 big-time. The LCA team in the US was kicked out, and EVEN THEIR INDIAN EQUIPMENT WAS SEIZED, which was probably a flagrant violation of international law. I don't think India retaliated as NoKo etc. would surely have done.

The US administration and COTUS stepped on their little Cheneys. To his eternal credit, Rep. Newt Gingrich, the powerful (and suitably obnoxious) Republican COTUS leader who until then was known mainly for :P at desi organizations who tried to kiss up to him, stood up un-prompted and declared, no-nonsense, that India absolutely HAD to have a nuclear deterrent, given the nature of the Chinese Commies, and Pakistan. In fact Gingrich showed more decisiveness in that speech in articulating India's security concerns and national interests, than the entire spaghetti-spined Indian Embassy and Diplomatic Corpses.

The desi diaspora got mad, with approval ratings for the tests running way above 95%. I have not seen such unity except during the Kargil war. The SBI floated a $4B bond issue, a desperate measure to shore up foreign exchange as all the Sanctions cut in. It was oversubscribed before it even came out. The sanctions back-fired, BIG-TIME.

India has never looked back. And if you look at US policy since then, you see partially the reason for the soft-pedalling approach to NoKo.

So there may be SOME lessons learned there, that may be useful, and so a POTUS "finding" of commonsense is not entirely impossible. It will take a lot tougher line than the Jaswant mattar-paneer cooking lessons this time around.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by enqyoob »

Stanislav Ulam’s idea of imploding the entire secondary, plus Teller’s idea to do the job with radiation, changed everything. Fusion didn’t need to propagate; it could be forced. To use x-rays from an exploding nuclear bomb to envelop and highly compress another more powerful nuclear bomb was immensely clever, and for nearly three decades completely unknown to the general public.
Not to admit to knowing anything on these subjects in my kindergarten, but my impression is that it was Andrei Sakharov, while still a very young and junior scientist, who really figured out that "radiation pressure" could do this to solid/gas phase matter in the intensity needed for this. Read some of his history and you'll see where his inspiration came from - certainly not from Los Alamos/Sandia unlike the PeeArrSee program. So it was not just "not unknown" to the Soviets, they probably figured it out well before it was leaked out.

Just goes to show that relatively unknown people, including people who have no access to gazillion-dollar facilities and "air-conditioned homes" can sometimes be the ones who come up with world-changing ideas and really detailed analytical computational simulations.

Smart people do think through, and devise really simple ways of validating analytical models in small steps, not requiring "proof tests" of the all-up system. For instance, the FIRST spacecraft shot to the outer solar system actually managed to send back detailed photos of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, and several of their moons, in the "gravity-assist maneuver" that is about as complicated to compute as a nuclear fusion process. Stop to think for a moment about the sheer optimism needed to do that with the needed accuracy - it worked, first attempt. Until then, gravity assist had never been demonstrated, AFAIK, and people imagined that you would just crash into the planet that you tried to use for assist, or shoot off in random directions into deep space.

(My office used to be right next to one of prime movers of that calculation...- after his calculations had been proven right - not that any of the smartness rubbed off on me :( )

IOW, so can/could BARC scientists and DRDO engineers in the 1970s-90s - especially after 5 other nations had demonstrated what COULD be done - despite it being unfashionable on BRF in 2009 to believe that SDRE Indians could be smart too.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by shiv »

India's arsenal??

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaArsenal.html
Current Arsenal
There are no official figures for weapon stockpiles at any stage of development of India's arsenal. The only figures that can be offered are either explicit estimates made from considerations of India's probable ability to produce critical raw materials and considerations of likely production plans; or are unofficial statements of uncertain provenance and authenticity. To show the problems with figures of the latter sort we have only to look at the statement by K. Subrahmanyam, a leading strategic theorist, that by 1990 India had stockpiled at least two dozen unassembled weapons, versus the May 1998 estimate by G. Balachandran, an Indian nuclear researcher, that India had fewer than 10 weapons ready to be assembled and mounted on warplanes or missiles.

The types of weapons India is believed to have available for its arsenal include:
a pure fission plutonium bomb with a yield of 12 kt;
a fusion boosted fission bomb with a yield of 15-20 kt, made with weapon-grade ploutonium;
a fusion boosted fission bomb design, made with reactor-grade plutonium;
low yield pure fission plutonium bomb designs with yields from 0.1 kt to 1 kt;
a thermonuclear bomb design with a yield of 200-300 kt.

All of these types should be available based on the tests conducted during Operation Shakti (Pokhran-II). It may be possible to extrapolate significantly from these device classes however without further testing. There is reasonable doubt about whether the thermonuclear device actually performed as designed. Even if this so, it does not rule out the possiblity that sufficent test data was collected to field a successful design with reasonable confidence of good performance. Interest has been expressed in the development of a neutron bomb (a very low yield tactical thermonuclear device), but this would probably require additional testing to perfect.

The most widely accepted estimates of India's plutonium production have been made by David Albright ([Albright et al 1997], [Albright 2000]). His most recent estimate (October 2000) was that by the end of 1999 India had available between 240 and 395 kg of weapon grade plutonium for weapons production, with a median value of 310 kg. He suggests that this is sufficient for 45 - 95 weapons (median estimate 65). The production of weapon grade plutonium has actually been greater, but about 130 kg of plutonium has been consumed - principally in fueling two plutonium reactors, but also in weapons tests. His estimate for India's holdings of less-than-weapons-grade plutonium (reactor or fuel grade plutonium) are 4200 kg of unsafeguarded plutonium (800 kg of this already separated) and 4100 kg of IAEA safeguarded plutonium (25 kg of this separated). This unsafeguarded quantity could be used to manufacture roughly 1000 nuclear weapons, if India so chose (which would give it the third largest arsenal in the world, behind only the U.S. and Russia).
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by enqyoob »

I guess I have no argument with the General's position that the ppl who have to use the weapons need to know something about what the weapons can be expected to achieve.

But
1. In India, it is not the Armed Forces that decide WHETHER nuke weapons should be used
2. It is not the Armed Forces that decide what LEVEL of nuke weapons should be used, and where.
3. The ppl who are asked to get the weapons ready for launch, and launch them, need not know precisely what the weapons can achieve, except to learn how to handle the weapons safely. If I were one of those ppl, I would VERY MUCH appreciate not knowing precisely what it is going to do.

Also, there is a very large difference between
The Armed Forces need to be given confidence
and
The Armed Forces and everyone's uncle and cousin standing on the street corner scratching his musharraf needs to be given confidence
that I am sure the General knows (he didn't say "whole duniya needs to be given confidence")

So what has the General said that in any way implies that Indian weapon tests were not successful?
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Kersi D »

pankajs wrote:
Ajatshatru wrote:2. And, my friend, you are also, perhaps, grossly underestimating the goodwill India enjoys in a lot of countries around the world.
Goodwill, soft power, Bollywood, curry,etc are not going to take you anywhere in this world of hard power play. It will not solve our boundary problem with China, nor persuade Pakistan to give up its anti-India activities. In spite of the so called Goodwill, why is our relation with most of our neighbor not good, be it Bangladesh, Nepal or Sri Lanka.
JMT
SPEAK SOFTLY BUT CARRY A BIG STICK.

Mr Churchill said this in 1940s but it is every relevant today.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Austin »

narayanan wrote:I guess I have no argument with the General's position that the ppl who have to use the weapons need to know something about what the weapons can be expected to achieve.

But
1. In India, it is not the Armed Forces that decide WHETHER nuke weapons should be used
2. It is not the Armed Forces that decide what LEVEL of nuke weapons should be used, and where.
3. The ppl who are asked to get the weapons ready for launch, and launch them, need not know precisely what the weapons can achieve, except to learn how to handle the weapons safely. If I were one of those ppl, I would VERY MUCH appreciate not knowing precisely what it is going to do.
In that case we have a serious problem , if the end user does not decide what level of Nuke should be used , they( Strategic Forces ) are in the best position to judge on the target and yeald needed for 2nd strike , you need to know your weapon in order to train and then fight the way you train.

The Netas should just give the go or no go button and PAL , the rest should be left SF.
So what has the General said that in any way implies that Indian weapon tests were not successful?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 978251.cms
Malik also dubbed as "unconvincing" former President A P J Abdul Kalam's remarks virtually rubbishing Santhanm's claims on the yield of the thermonuclear device tested in 1998.

"Let us not forget that Dr Santhanam was part of his (Kalam's) team. And it came as quite a shock with Dr Santhanam himself mentioning that it was a fizzle. Of course, again he was referring to the thermonuclear weapon. So, Dr Kalam's statement was not quite convincing," he said.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by John Snow »

Kersi D wrote:SPEAK SOFTLY BUT CARRY A BIG STICK.


Mr Churchill said this in 1940s but it is every relevant today.
Roosevelt first used the phrase in a speech at the Minnesota State Fair on September 2, 1901, twelve days before the assassination of President William McKinley, which subsequently thrust him into the Presidency.
Image
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Gerard »

Kersi D wrote:SPEAK SOFTLY BUT CARRY A BIG STICK.
Mr Churchill said this in 1940s but it is every relevant today.
Actually it was US President Theodore Roosevelt, in 1901
'I have always been fond of the West African proverb: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." ' "
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by John Snow »

We have a huge problem indeed when N guru resorts Vi Tarkam not Tarkam.

In India even to go to war with conventional arms is decided by Nai Delli log,

For that matter yesterday COAS was saying TSP has to stop shelling or else... he cant do anything till Delli wakes up to it. :mrgreen:
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by enqyoob »

Actually that is attributed to Theodore Roosevelt (long b4 Churchill).

But hasn't the Indian Govt doing exactly that? If one considers that they also follow that dictum, their actions make perfect sense. The POK-1 test was done with not too much effort to conceal it (pretty shallow burial of the device, and further away from Khetolai than the POK-2 tests, the fracture zone, crater etc, very visible from above). So that had a lot of "demonstration" associate with it.

POK-2 shows very very different planning. It was all about being as quiet as possible, but still getting the necessary data with the minimum hoopla and minimum number of tests. The attitude was not "yippee! We get to test! Light the fuses, more the merrier!" but "why waste a working weapon? We'll withdraw S-6". If I understand correctly, S1 and S2 were different parts of the technologies that go into the same or different weapons, so they were very specific devices that yielded results applicable to many different weapons, instead of "Look here's our Mark IV Beijing-hant. Here's our Mark-V Gujranwala-Glassifier!" etc.
Then a few small ones, some even below the detection threshold.

For those who might consider attacking India, the message must have been chilling. A tunable thermonuke tested 4 kms from a village, that causes only some cracks to the houses. Two simultaneous explosions, whose separate yields were kept totally secret. 3 small explosions, saying, hey, if we don't want to announce it, we can test anytime we want, and no one need know.."

This is precisely what "Speak softly or not at all, carry a big stick, but keep it gift-wrapped" would have been. So why all the ro-dho? Shouldn't we be glad GOI is not like Gohar Ayub Khan?
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by enqyoob »

Thermonuke go/No-go button, I hope, is firmly controlled by civilians.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Prem »

narayanan wrote:In 1998, Strom Thurmond declared:

The desi diaspora got mad, with approval ratings for the tests running way above 95%. I have not seen such unity except during the Kargil war. The SBI floated a $4B bond issue, a desperate measure to shore up foreign exchange as all the Sanctions cut in. It was oversubscribed before it even came out. The sanctions back-fired, BIG-TIME.

India has never looked back. And if you look at US policy since then, you see partially the reason for the soft-pedalling approach to NoKo.

So there may be SOME lessons learned there, that may be useful, and so a POTUS "finding" of commonsense is not entirely impossible. It will take a lot tougher line than the Jaswant mattar-paneer cooking lessons this time around.
Mind, Desi diaspora has lot more money now and their ire can be detrimental for few businesses. Ther send 60 Bill to home last years. This is why it is urget to bring the Trillion$ plus back home from Switzerland to buy titanium balls for politicians and Plutonium balls for Scientists . Then there was theory on BR that enough maal to flatten Chinese major cities will deter every one as dying China will initiate worldwide strike thus starting a chain reaction to do Dah-sanskarm at worldscale. In greater Nuclear conflict , China has more to loose than us and Uncle more than China , same for Russia and Europe. In this Mahabhoomi yudh ,Abhimanyu wont and should not die alone , many sires will burn with fire without distinction.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by ShauryaT »

Gerard wrote:
"They need to be reassured about the weapon system they use and about the planning of what kind of the yield they have when they hit the target," Malik, the Chief of the Armed Forces during the Pokhran-II nuclear tests, told a private news channel.
Doesn't this imply that TN warheads are in the arsenal?
No way. India's nuclear arsenal are demated. Custody of weapons is with the DAE. Integration happens on order of the NCA by the DRDO and then the strategic forces are used for delivery. IOW: The military does not have ANY nuclear weapons deployed and ready to use state. Traditionally the military have not been part of the planning and strategy process on nuclear issues. However, the NCA will have to be modified as this recessed demated scenario is not possible in the case of the envisioned SSBN.

A person like general Malik does not open his mouth and that too in public, if all is hunky dory. He has enough access and is plugged in.
Bheem
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 10:27
Location: Vyom

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Bheem »

My guess is that 6th PoK-2 device was FBF device. If this had worked properly, in effect its yield would have announced to the world that TN was a fizzle. So the 6th device an FBF was pulled out to save H&D of the failed TN. Hence we neither have TN nor even a FBF weapon that has been shown to work. Could it be that FBF was designed during PKI era and non-testing that weapon raised his ire?
Last edited by Bheem on 06 Sep 2009 23:44, edited 2 times in total.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Arun_S »

shiv wrote:
Ajatshatru wrote: Bhailog

Just a wild thought....

What if India starts a parallel body to UN and in this new body, there are Permanent five (P5) members with veto powers i.e. India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and South Africa. The head quarters of such a body could be in New Delhi.

How many countries from the world would come forward to become a member of such a body? And what would be the repercussions of such a move?
This is not a wild thought at all IMO. The "non aligned movement" was exactly this. Despite all the years India has still not joined either camp although everyone feels that India is now set to join the US camp.

Ultimately only banana republics in which the biggest banana planter is head of state can sell out a nation to another. Indian policy has continuously shown that India will join the world order only so long as "respect" is shown to India. Mostly - nobody gives a damn about India and give no respect although some nations fear India and a few admire India. India's admirers are not generally nations with clout.

Nations ally with others or admire other nations based on a common perception of interests and threats. India's unique attitudes are reflected in the list of countries who are opposed to India and the few who do not. I believe that India cannot have many allies in this world until it forces a change in the current world order. The new world with the new world order will have to be completely different - for example with African nations having real clout - along with India.

India's behavior with regard to nuclear weapons and the CTBT again has been a view in which India is ploughing a lonely path. Sadly for India - the same options that India exercised have been useful for China and the US to proliferate to Pakistan and allow Pakistan to hide behind the India excuse.

My worry is that India will be tempted to sign the CTBT with the lame excuse that Pakistan will be isolated. This sounds tempting until you realize that Pakistan was given nuclear arms (China/US nexus under Nixon/Reagan) specifically to address its anti-India fears. I fear that if India signs it will be business as usual with Pakistan - with F-16s today and something else tomorrow.

I guess we have to see how much pressure is put on India regarding CTBT. If the pressure gets too high we will have to ditch the nuclear deal and test. Note that we may not even figure out the ways in which pressure can be applied. For example - could there be some US pressure related reason why LSP 3 has not flown yet?


JMT
Perfectly stated.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by enqyoob »

Does this process enable a timely response? Just curious. I guess the SSBN is part of the answer, but it seems that the pieces have to be in close proximity, and the people who control them located nearby, to enable survival and response. How many minutes does one have between "our cities have been hit" and "hit the launch buttons"?
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Rahul M »

narayanan wrote:Thermonuke go/No-go button, I hope, is firmly controlled by civilians.
the military would have to decide on target lists and matching delivery systems/warheads.
for that they would need some info on yield etc.

the civilians contribution would be to answer
a) yes or no to the Q of "go nuclear ?"
b) if yes what targets and what warheads.

(b) will need to be decided in consultation with senior military commanders and finally the firing orders will be passed on to the field commanders. so at least the senior commanders and planners need the yield info and I'm sure they have that.

but I don't buy that the people who press the button need to have confidence and/or knowledge about its working.
in fact this confidence business does not cut ice at all IMO.

say the army is not confident of the TN working perfectly ==> they don't know if it will work perfectly ==> that means they also don't know for certain it won't work.

are we assuming that PRC will conveniently assume for certain that those don't work ?
Deterrence Philosophy 101 : sorry, I don't see them being that paki.
at the very least the primary will work, that may be less than designed but still considerable.

as I have said earlier, India's problem with deterrence vis-a-vis PRC does not lie with her nuclear weapons, it lies with her (lack of) delivery systems.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by enqyoob »

So the General's statement, put together with all the others, seems to be a very well-informed effort to convey the deep feeling in the Indian establishment that there will no FMCT, CTBT etc unless and until the realities have changed totally.

This syncs with the Indian position of "CTBT only if there is written, time-bound process towards total disarmament".

That would be a safe position to adopt during Republican administrations, but BO may actually take up that offer. "Time-bound process" is not enough. Must say instead "Sayonara, will talk to you about CTBT when your number of warheads has come to same level as ours".

But I guess in reality, BO is not going to be able to reduce US inventory. There are plenty of Generals and Experts in Amirkhana as well.
Bheem
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 10:27
Location: Vyom

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Bheem »

It is high time we anal-yse what sanctions can be imposed and how will they hurt India if at all? I am for full comprehensive series of tests like:-

1. Testing unboosted primary of plutonium, thorium, uranium and reactor grade plutonium of various designs and various yields, say 4x3x3=36 low yield tests. Taking care to mix and match the purity and age of fissile components.


2. Testing boosted primary or FBF of plutonium, thorium, uranium and reactor grade plutonium of various designs and various (dial a) yields, say 4x3x3=36 tests. Taking care to mix and match the purity and age of fissile components.


3. Testing neutron bombs made out of plutonium, thorium, uranium and reactor grade plutonium of various designs, say 4x3=12 tests. To get a better handle on fusion technology.

4. Testing various TN made out of plutonium, thorium, uranium and reactor grade plutonium of various designs (2 stage and single stage-sloika, oval primary, round primary etc) and various yields (without tamper & spark plug, with spark plug and full up), say 4x3x3=36 tests. Taking care to mix and match the purity and age of fissile components.


While the timing of tests can be decided on various criteria but we should dig deep shafts, store equipment-instrumentation & devices nearby and keep everything ready. We should go for dress rehearsal every month to keep everybody guessing. Test sites should be set up in Orissa, MP, Gujarat, AP etc to give more work for satellites. Multiple bomb design teams should be set up to allow for more/different ideas to flourish. Israel & Vietnam should be given limited access to our data. Labs should be set up to absorb data and set up simulation capacities.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Gagan »

S1, S2 and S3 shafts were in existence for many years.
The army was asked in a hurry to make some shafts at navtala. So the army engineers quickly deepened 3 of the 9 wells at Navtala to test the weapons. The quick digging must not have resulted in very deep shafts, and probably not enough for a 100+ KT warhead. India tested the two chotus in the two navtala shafts NT-1 and NT-2

S6 was supposed to be in the NT-3 shaft. Going by this reasoning, S6 was probably another chotu or at most a fission ~ 20 KT weapon.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Gagan »

^^^
And test one for Israel too please if you have to test at all.
vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by vasu_ray »

narayanan wrote:"Sayonara, will talk to you about CTBT when your number of warheads has come to same level as ours".
Our position has been total disarmament, that's the status quo, US & China are pushing us by allowing TSP build its arsenal way beyond its deterrence

As you also know, China said disarmament talk can only be possible with a NWS

so we can only increase our arsenal to the level of Chinese + TSP at the least before we can budge the P-5 to scale down in any reasonable time-frame, meanwhile they are trying CRE on us before we reach that critical mass

so, MCD should also be revisited for total disarmament to happen
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by pankajs »

Need reassurance on nuclear deterrence: ex-Army chief

Essential read for all - too long to post in full
-------------------------------------------
Karan Thapar: Now, the armed forces will have question marks assessing the yield because there is a dispute about it?

General V P Malik: Particularly about the mega-tonne weapons, I'm talking about the fusion weapons, the thermo nuclear ones.
Karan Thapar: And if you, as the former army chief, expressed these concerns last year, on the tenth anniversary of Pokhran they I assume that these concerns have worried several of your successors as army chiefs and in fact have worried the armed forces as a whole?

General V P Malik: Look, I can't say about my successors but I will say one thing that this is a very important issue. And therefore, to build your credibility in the minds of the adversaries, as well as for your proper planning and execution, you do need to be reassured on things like this.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Arun_S »

Bheem wrote:My guess is that 6th PoK-2 device was FBF device. If this had worked properly, in effect its yield would have announced to the world that TN was a fizzle. So the 6th device an FBF was pulled out to save H&D of the failed TN. Hence we neither have TN nor even a FBF weapon that has been shown to work. Could it be that FBF was designed during PKI era and non-testing that weapon raised his ire?
I cant understand your argument, why put FBF in S6 in the first place then?

Once in a lifetime opportunity when GoI asks them to test and prepare for it discreetly. No one can tell S1 was TN or FBF, only BARC can tell. Others can at best only measure its yield. BARC was so super-confident of the TN that forgot teh basics and did not plan for a high yield FBF backup to ensure the test series will demonstaret deterrence to teh world, and technically get engineering data for weaponeering purposes.

A second TN on the S6 will be eminently useful to prove reliability of the design. RC and AK did take the right decision to pull out S6 and the disaster awaiting India when TN fizzle is repeated; no roar of big bum, nor a crater.

There will be none of this rona-dhona if S6 did have a high yield FBF. That would have ensured credible deterrence. And post shot BARC had to say nothing about details of the actual test. The yield would have done the speaking and put to rest any chance for doubters to exist anywhere.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Neshant »

No matter how many pages of analysis are written here, all claims are hollow until a proper 200 KT test is conducted.

That's all the convincing anyone needs. Denials from the president and feeble prime minister that the h-bomb was a success is fooling nobody.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Arun_S »

Gagan wrote:S1, S2 and S3 shafts were in existence for many years.
The army was asked in a hurry to make some shafts at navtala. So the army engineers quickly deepened 3 of the 9 wells at Navtala to test the weapons. The quick digging must not have resulted in very deep shafts, and probably not enough for a 100+ KT warhead. India tested the two chotus in the two navtala shafts NT-1 and NT-2

S6 was supposed to be in the NT-3 shaft. Going by this reasoning, S6 was probably another chotu or at most a fission ~ 20 KT weapon.
Please show me picture of sub-Kt test that look anything like a Rajesthani well.

Further the wells in Rajesthan are generally very deep, 50 meter for a dry well is normal. so no digging for chotus (required 50 m). but if they did dug dry well it will stand to reason that it would be deeper than 50 m.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Arun_S »

Gagan wrote:^^^
And test one for Israel too please if you have to test at all.
Strange. Why would a well endowed beauty ask the SRDE for bust boosting procedure ? No need for what it already has. Also whay India? Specially when fine medical institutions exist with proven, experienced surgical procedure in white countries it has lot of influence.
Bheem
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 10:27
Location: Vyom

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Bheem »

If the 6th device was the boosted primary, it would have yielded something like 20kt. Allowed the sesmic data to be extropolated more easily to bring to fore that TN at 30kt was a fizzle. Unless off course BARC was going to claim the 20kt FBF to be TN also.
csharma
BRFite
Posts: 694
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by csharma »

Gen Malik's interview was concerning. No first use against Pakistan will have to be revisited. That's what Gen Malik and even Gen Kapoor have said.

It will be hard for the govt to sign CTBT given Gen Malik's interview. Not just from the thermonuke questions but also the requirement to raise the level of deterrence.

Maybe DAE should invite PKI and Santhanam to look at the data and how they have arrived at the conclusion. That is assuming that this has not been done earlier.

Are the timing of reports related to Pakistan's nuclear weapons related to the launch of Arihant by any chance? Seems like they are meant to restore the "balance".
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Gagan »

Arun_S
Am I correct that the three NT shafts were not existing prior to 1998? If they were ordered in the immediate period prior to the tests, how deep a shaft do you think would have been made for testing a TN as you put it?

A 200m+ shaft in a hurry with satellites hovering overhead seems unlikely to me. I don't know what the S6 was, so this is just a conjecture.

The NT-1&2 were just the wells which were deepened, the devices placed within and sand was put in place with bulldozers and a mound was created.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Gagan »

csharma wrote:Maybe DAE should invite PKI and Santhanam to look at the data and how they have arrived at the conclusion. That is assuming that this has not been done earlier.
Unless proven otherwise, I take it that Santhanam and PKI speak what they speak because they already have access to the data at BARC, have spoken to the current generation of scientists at BARC.
It is only that they are not in government service that they can come out. Any one else will be risking his job and his pension not to mention being tried under the OSA.
Locked