Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Locked
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by pankajs »

RC on the importance of the sub-kt experiment
-------------------------------------------------
The question of nuclear yield
In January 1999, in an article titled "Nuclear Energy in India," Dr. Chidambaram stated that the sub-kilotonne devices, whose yield is less than one kilotonne (1,000 tonnes), were also fission devices. But designing a sub-kilotonne device was more diffic ult than designing a standard fission device. "In a sub-kilotonne device... where one goes marginally super-critical, one cannot afford to make a mistake. In the case of a mistake, one may have a fizzle. In the case of the May 1998 tests, all the three s ub-kilotonne tests gave a perfect match between the calculated and the measured yields, which is important. In case one signs the CTBT, one cannot carry out tests, which release any nuclear yield. If one can predict accurately the yield of a device whose yield is only a few hundred tonnes, one can also guarantee the design of an experiment where the fissile material in its optimum configuration will go close to criticality and still stay sub-critical. Thus, our sub-kilotonnes tests have also given us a capability to carry out sub-critical tests, if we consider them necessary. We have, however, no plans at the moment to carry out sub-critical tests..."
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 »

ramana wrote:But this is something that caught my attention. Can someone shed some light.
The three smaller fission tests were totally devoted to producing thermo nuclear warheads and these were scientific in nature and likelihood of getting another chance to repeat the tests, were remote.
Thats the pry without boosting. So they have three successful tests on that which gives high confidence.
Correct. Also highly instrumented to get other experimental data. Have reason to belive all of them were very different design etc etc. and that shows mastery of things required for low yield FBF that is fundamental for primary, as well as characterize materiel used in other stages of the TN. So yes it has bearing on many aspects of TN.

As always on these matters please take what I say with pinch of salt because paan chewing bhiyya is, where else but in company of paanwallas, where myth meets the metal and analysis paralysis takes over.
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by geeth »

>>>So yes if 4 IA chiefs complain, I would take that very seriously, I think we all should -- not doing that will be shooting the messenger IMVHO.

What if the current chief says what they say is not correct and we have enough Agni Mijjiles fielded now?
csharma
BRFite
Posts: 694
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by csharma »

http://www.indiadefence.com/nuc_status.htm
K Santanam defended the Government policy and explained lucidly that the specially cemented shafts at Pokhran happened to be 17 years old and there was no way they could have been increased beyond the 150 – 200 metres without India’s intentions to test being compromised. For this reason the maximum calculated yield of 45 kilo tonnes, though feasible could not be exceeded without de populating several villages as also fearing a nuclear fall out towards Pakistan.
This should lay to rest the idea that somehow 200KT bomb was being tested.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Austin »

geeth wrote:>>>So yes if 4 IA chiefs complain, I would take that very seriously, I think we all should -- not doing that will be shooting the messenger IMVHO.

What if the current chief says what they say is not correct and we have enough Agni Mijjiles fielded now?
The serving chief will always toe the GOI line , they wont fall out . Look at the previous IN Chief ,he said what the capability scientist gave us was good.

Now the ex IN chief Adm Prakash , did give a hint for a need to hot test nukes for SLBM.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Sanku »

Austin wrote:
geeth wrote:>>>So yes if 4 IA chiefs complain, I would take that very seriously, I think we all should -- not doing that will be shooting the messenger IMVHO.

What if the current chief says what they say is not correct and we have enough Agni Mijjiles fielded now?
Sanku >> That's the precise reason there is a debate, otherwise there would be none. However the current Chief saying so will also add a data point bu not automatically cancel the others presented statements.

The serving chief will always toe the GOI line , they wont fall out . Look at the previous IN Chief ,he said what the capability scientist gave us was good.

Now the ex IN chief Adm Prakash , did give a hint for a need to hot test nukes for SLBM.
Indeed, the whistle blowers have to be outside, the current chief can not complain that they dont have enough missiles because IT IS HIS problem to fix. So usually the Chiefs never complain publicly since it is expected if there is a problem they have the power to fix it internally.

Only when outside can he complain through public channel.

However I do note that these days the Chiefs have begun to speak in a voice different from that of Babu part of GoI -- Some old timers I was drinking rum with yesterday were shocked at Gen Kapoors statement on changing Indian policies w.r.t. Pakistan, such difference of opinion with GoI and expressed publically by a serving chief for them was clarion call that the GoI was badly neglecting the forces. Also note that this is something that Gen Malik also said in his interview

I have a feeling that forces needs have been badly compromised over last few years.
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by geeth »

>>>Indeed, the whistle blowers have to be outside, the current chief can not complain that they dont have enough missiles because IT IS HIS problem to fix. So usually the Chiefs never complain publicly since it is expected if there is a problem they have the power to fix it internally.

In short, anybody and everybody in the GOI are not trustworthy, and usually GOI is in the habit of telling lies. But once out of the Guvarment service, all these babus & soldiers and politicians will accept an additional neutron and become fijjile, A.K.A trustworthy!

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Sanku »

geeth wrote:>>>Indeed, the whistle blowers have to be outside, the current chief can not complain that they dont have enough missiles because IT IS HIS problem to fix. So usually the Chiefs never complain publicly since it is expected if there is a problem they have the power to fix it internally.

In short, anybody and everybody in the GOI are not trustworthy, and usually GOI is in the habit of telling lies. But once out of the Guvarment service, all these babus & soldiers and politicians will accept an additional neutron and become fijjile, A.K.A trustworthy!

Point noted.
I am sorry Geeth, that is not what I have said, what I said was there are two sides to the debate
One -- Official GoI establishment position, which includes all its currently serving members -- these views are expressed formally.
Two -- Unofficial GoI establishment position, which includes the view that a section of GoI holds but are not expressed formally (for obvious reasons) but are expressed through members at large.

All I am saying is that ab initio the two views need to be considered at the same level of trustworthiness. Neither of the views can be disparaged because it comes from a particular source.

I do admit that the other faction does have the "rebel" romanticism around them and their positions are usually such that they don't help with the loaves of the office so they do have a "selfless" air around them (often though that is not the case with them either)

So if you see I am saying something diametrically opposed to the position you think I have taken. I assure you that is not the case.

Overall I am not taking down the position of GoI, only pushing up the views of its previous members to be at the same level.

I hope it helped.
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by geeth »

>>>I am sorry Geeth, that is not what I have said, what I said was there are two sides to the debate
>>>One -- Official GoI establishment position, which includes all its currently serving members -- these views are expressed formally.

Do we trust it or not, is the question. I understand, the distrust is created by those who were in, but now out of the loop, leaving behind a nagging feel of doubt. Accepted.

That is why I said many pages before, until and unless we have information to the contrary, we should take the word of RC, assuming that he is NOT a traitor. But the tendency that I could see with some members is that assume RC to be traitor, which in turn tend to give credit to the view point of those who oppose.

You might come back and say it is the other way round - but you have ignored the fact that those who try to discredit Santanam are doing so by not calling him a traitor or untrustworthy - at the most they are trying to prove that he could not have had access to data with which he could have conclusively said it was a fizzle. Now more information is coming out, in which he had often told the same things RC and AK are telling now (and before)

>>>Two -- Unofficial GoI establishment position, which includes the view that a section of GoI holds but are not expressed formally (for obvious reasons) but are expressed through members at large.

The bolded parts are just conjectur - isn't it? I hope and wish it is true, because, India will stand to benefit if it turns out to be true.

>>>All I am saying is that ab initio the two views need to be considered at the same level of trustworthiness. Neither of the views can be disparaged because it comes from a particular source.

Sure it should. And if you want to say the other camp is all but a bunch of liars, please do it systematically by proving them wrong point by point - having no data may be an issue. But then, if you don't have data, at least try to prove that it is absurd to think otherwise. If both are not possible, then we should keep quiet and just listen.

>>>I do admit that the other faction does have the "rebel" romanticism around them and their positions are usually such that they don't help with the loaves of the office so they do have a "selfless" air around them (often though that is not the case with them either)

It is all fine, as long as it serves a purpose. Or else, it creates needless controvery onlee.

>>>So if you see I am saying something diametrically opposed to the position you think I have taken. I assure you that is not the case. Overall I am not taking down the position of GoI, only pushing up the views of its previous members to be at the same level.

You are entitled to hold on to your position. Rest assured, no one will push you downhill from there.

>>>I hope it helped.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Sanku »

geeth wrote:>>>I am sorry Geeth, that is not what I have said, what I said was there are two sides to the debate
>>>One -- Official GoI establishment position, which includes all its currently serving members -- these views are expressed formally.

Do we trust it or not, is the question. I understand, the distrust is created by those who were in, but now out of the loop, leaving behind a nagging feel of doubt. Accepted.

That is why I said many pages before, until and unless we have information to the contrary, we should take the word of RC, assuming that he is NOT a traitor. But the tendency that I could see with some members is that assume RC to be traitor, which in turn tend to give credit to the view point of those who oppose.
.
No, I do not see the reason to believe 100% of what RC says unless we question his patriotism. If you take that line, questioning any of GoIs action is same as questioning their patriotism.

This line of debate becomes a dead end immediately since no functioning GoI can be challenged since it would immdiately be an affront to their patriotism.

Gen Malik said that APJ Kalam's explanations were not convincing, now is he doubting APJ Kalam's patriotism?

Questioning one of the claims does not make them "a bunch of liars", this is not Satyug where a person is 100% true or 100% false. There are many shades of grey, RC may claim with justification that the test passed since it met the criteria specified for it (which was not any particular yield but only checking of some mechanism)

Santy can be right that the yield was not as expected.

Otherwise to take your very simile to question Santy is to say that "he is a liar" since he is making a claim without having full knowledge.

Once we say, lets trust RC and be done with it -- there is no debate, but clearly KS, Homi Sethna, PKI, A Prasad, BC, BK and now Gen Malik are clearly saying, we are not convinced by RCs claim, he could be wrong, or his approach can be flawed. Lets open this. So there is debate.

This does not make any of them traitors or their call is to the same -- and if we say now we have to trust RC over all these we are ascribing a higher plane to RC which I am not willing to agree to.

A persons work can be questioned without his patriotism being questioned.
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by PratikDas »

Sanku wrote: ...
A persons work can be questioned without his patriotism being questioned.
I sure hope so. Frankly, it is a bit disappointing that after so many pages of debate the legitimacy of questioning an official's patriotism is up for debate itself. This thread wouldn't even exist if we couldn't question the legitimacy of the various and numerous points of view from the men in power - present and past.

Also, the deterrent is not meant for the Indian audience. The deterent is meant for those who would happily see India disintegrate and they don't give a damn about the patriotism of anyone in the GoI. They only measure cold facts - which we only debate to death by quoting decade old data from 5 tests. Jai Ho indeed.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Sanku »

Geeth, et al..

I think we can agree to one thing, that the views of the serving GoI staff can not be independent of the overalls stand of GoI and of hence of their political masters.

However once not in the GoI, and individual can indeed take a stand which is independent of the formal GoI control and thus give voice to sections and opinions within GoI which have been officially silenced.

Note this is not a knock either on the GoI functioning (it can of course not have an establishment where each person feels free to chose his or her strategic path) or of the dissenters (since no one can claim that the only patriotic path is to follow the GoI in power and it is not valid to have different pov's for Indian well being)

In short we are not China.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote: There are many shades of grey, RC may claim with justification that the test passed since it met the criteria specified for it (which was not any particular yield but only checking of some mechanism)
This is interesting. Can you substantiate this point with some links. I think after so many pages and so many points: "RC may claim" kind of reasoning doesn't stand unless supported by evidence.
Santy can be right that the yield was not as expected.
There's no question of calling KS a liar but MKS has categorically said that he was not privy to all the data, despite a lot of comments here that he was the tester etc.

And it would be productive to remember, after so many pages that KS clearly said that according international data the test were 60 per cent of claimed amount. I don't recall him saying categorically that Indian test results also showed that it was fizzle.
Once we say, lets trust RC and be done with it -- there is no debate, but clearly KS, Homi Sethna, PKI, A Prasad, BC, BK and now Gen Malik are clearly saying, we are not convinced by RCs claim, he could be wrong, or his approach can be flawed. Lets open this. So there is debate.
I'm sorry but this sort of makes it look like RC did everything single handedly and there was no input from anyone else. Also do note that K Subramaniam did note in his article that Ramana, before his death did a "so-called" peer review of the POKII and expressed satisfaction with the results. Of course one is free to disbelieve K Subramaniam.

One more point:
Since you seem to touchy on this traitor issue, do you think those who think KS' revelation is part of a bigger plan to give GoI more wiggle room during tough CTBT negotiations that are to come, feel he's a traitor or have called him such?
Last edited by amit on 07 Sep 2009 16:24, edited 1 time in total.
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by geeth »

>>>I think we can agree to one thing, that the views of the serving GoI staff can not be independent of the overalls stand of GoI and of hence of their political masters.

I do not agree with at all. While it may be true in general, it cannot be generalised within the whole spectrum.

It is true that the Govt of the day try and install people whose views coincide or are pliable, I find it hard to believe that for a project of this nature, people will collaborate and put the country's interest subservient to their own. Even if it is not independent, what is the problem? Afterall "GOI" is made up of many such elements put together.

The cardinal mistake you are making is that GOI/political masters' stand is detrimental to the country's interest and the so called fizzle blowers only are bothered about the country's interest. What makes you think that Vajpaee / Manmohan and the BARC weapon designers have colluded to sell the country. And what is the guarantee that a divergent view within the Govt is good for the country?
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by geeth »

>>>They only measure cold facts - which we only debate to death by quoting decade old data from 5 tests. Jai Ho indeed.

Is there any change in data in between?
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by amit »

geeth wrote:The cardinal mistake you are making is that GOI/political masters' stand is detrimental to the country's interest and the so called fizzle blowers only are bothered about the country's interest. What makes you think that Vajpaee / Manmohan and the BARC weapon designers have colluded to sell the country. And what is the guarantee that a divergent view within the Govt is good for the country?
Very good point Geeth.

Irrespective of what one's political views are, it has to be noted that if indeed there's been an attempt to hide the so-called fizzle, then it has been done across the political spectrum, even though some folks here are more comfortable in pinning the entire blame on MMS.

Now if the whole of the political spectrum - at least the part that really matters - played such a "cruel joke" on India's security then that's a very serious allegation.

Curiously ex GoI officials who have spoken out seem to have more credibility than the political bosses of both BJP and Congress. And still folks are unwilling to consider that this could all be part of a well orchestrated move by the GoI itself to sow confusion in the minds of the NPAs, India enemies while at the same time maintain the deterrence posture. However, nobody, I suppose gives the GoI babus credit for such intelligence.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Sanku »

geeth wrote:>>>I think we can agree to one thing, that the views of the serving GoI staff can not be independent of the overalls stand of GoI and of hence of their political masters.


It is true that the Govt of the day try and install people whose views coincide or are pliable, I find it hard to believe that for a project of this nature, people will collaborate and put the country's interest subservient to their own. Even if it is not independent, what is the problem? Afterall "GOI" is made up of many such elements put together.

The cardinal mistake you are making is that GOI/political masters' stand is detrimental to the country's interest and the so called fizzle blowers only are bothered about the country's interest. What makes you think that Vajpaee / Manmohan and the BARC weapon designers have colluded to sell the country. And what is the guarantee that a divergent view within the Govt is good for the country?
No you are giving a completely political twist to what I think is a purely structural issue.

Using words like sell the country etc are that of your choice, not mine, neither do I say that only one group can be patriotic and the other one not.

I am making a simple point, the political establishment takes inputs from the Babus and the Fauj and then proceeds to lay direction. At this point of time no one talks about what the GoI wants other than the offical spokesperson. The others who may have a different perspective on how things can be done have an opinion but have to go with GoI.

The differing groups try and maneuver around the situation by using people outside the office to speak on that issue.

This provide the country with multiple view and directions each of which has the backing of some responsible section of establishment behind it.

This is a description of a general nature and does not ascribe values of correctness to either group. I believe I have made this clear many a times.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote:
geeth wrote:The cardinal mistake you are making is that GOI/political masters' stand is detrimental to the country's interest and the so called fizzle blowers only are bothered about the country's interest. What makes you think that Vajpaee / Manmohan and the BARC weapon designers have colluded to sell the country. And what is the guarantee that a divergent view within the Govt is good for the country?
Very good point Geeth.
.
Not a good point, as I have protested before, people are clubbing together political views with other views.

Thus if I think MMS is not a good prime minster that must be the only reason to doubt the yield?

Please do not unnecessarily ascribe motives to posters on the forum, for people who are in the top level we have to guess their motivations, here we can all speak for ourselves.
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by geeth »

>>>This is a description of a general nature and does not ascribe values of correctness to either group. I believe I have made this clear many a times.

Okay noted. I think even in a FREEEE country like Amrikha nobody will ridicule their scientists (both for and against) so much for so long. I think we Indians are the only people who indulge in so much talk and much less work. More of Chai-Biscoot sessions :((
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote: One more point: [/b]Since you seem to touchy on this traitor issue, do you think those who think KS' revelation is part of a bigger plan to give GoI more wiggle room during tough CTBT negotiations that are to come, feel he's a traitor or have called him such?
Amit you have taken my entire post out of context, what can I say on that?

I can only claim that you are misrepresenting me. My point is simple --
Questioning RC is not questioning his patriotism.
I can question GoI without my patriotism being questioned.
When a whole bunch of retired heavy weights question the GoI they can not be dismissed because they are not with GoI any longer, usually they are as well informed as current members of GoI in various official and semi offical capacities as well as being very clued in to what happening inside. They are often spokesperson for a different PoV inside the Govt.

The above are generic claims without any special interest on the nuclear deal.

The rest was only an explanation to support that.

Finally I have already said what I think of GoI vs (KS+PKI+Gen Malik+.....)

I do not think that it is a tactic to get room, I think two different PoVs inside the establishment are sparring.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:Please do not unnecessarily ascribe motives to posters on the forum, for people who are in the top level we have to guess their motivations, here we can all speak for ourselves.
Err Sanku,

Any particular reason why you though my post was directed at you?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:Please do not unnecessarily ascribe motives to posters on the forum, for people who are in the top level we have to guess their motivations, here we can all speak for ourselves.
Err Sanku,

Any particular reason why you though my post was directed at you?
Yes since it came in the midst of long series of dialogue between me and Geeth, I assumed that you were commenting on a part thereof.

If not I take back my objections and am sorry for the misunderstanding.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:Amit you have taken my entire post out of context, what can I say on that?
My sincerest apologies to you Sanku.

However, I do see you latched on the last paragraph of my post. I was more interested in a response from the first part of my post. Let me repeat it.

You wrote:
There are many shades of grey, RC may claim with justification that the test passed since it met the criteria specified for it (which was not any particular yield but only checking of some mechanism)
My response:
This is interesting. Can you substantiate this point with some links. I think after so many pages and so many points: "RC may claim" kind of reasoning doesn't stand unless supported by evidence.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by NRao »

Gagan wrote:There is a firewall called the OSA which is preventing clear discussions between the two teams of dissenters here.

PKI and Santhanam have access to the data, I think or know the bottom line at the very least. They also want to say that the weapon design was defective. But OSA prevents them from saying anything further.
Then the two differ.
PKI is a nuclear scientist. He wants a test to verify the design.
KS is a RAW man. He wants India to keep its option open and not rush into CTBT.

MMS is the force who weilds the OSA. Now there is a suspicion that he has made certain promises to the west and his delivering on them will neuter India.

ON the other side of the OSA firewall are the design team.
AK/RC/Sikka etc. They claim that they wanted 60KT and got 60KT and that the design is perfect, the science has been perfected, and the engineering has been perfected and is all scalable.
Please note that they are bound by the OSA that MMS weilds, and they will say what MMS wants within a certain spectrum. I can't fault them fully. They have probably rectified the design, probably agree with what KS and PKI say, but being on the other side of the firewall are helpless.

Maybe the lack of a convincing defense put up by them is a sign that they agree with the PKI/KS camp.
Quoting in full.

This is what I said: everyone is right in their own way. (I would like to add Kalam to this list too.)





One exception I would like to make here is MMS: IMVVVHO, he has painted himself into a corner or possibly was made to paint himself into a corner. It is not he will not test. He cannot test. However, I totally agree with ST, when he states that ONLY the Indian armed forces will be able to make him change his mind.

Comedy of very serious errors?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote:This is interesting. Can you substantiate this point with some links. I think after so many pages and so many points: "RC may claim" kind of reasoning doesn't stand unless supported by evidence.
I thought I clarified it actually, you have to see the statement in the context I did say that
The rest was only an explanation to support that.
I am only trying to outline that there can be differences between two statements and both of them can be some times right.

It is possible that the above may not be true in the specific case, i.e. the positions of RC and KS are completely different and exactly on each points (for example RC has said to the best of my knowledge that no further tests are necessary and others have said that the complete weapon must be proofed by tests)

Even then the two different points and the difference between them can be debated and our opinions expressed on each without casting doubts on patriotism etc.

I hope that was a suitable clarification.
Last edited by Sanku on 07 Sep 2009 17:04, edited 1 time in total.
Willy
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 18 Jan 2005 01:58

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Willy »

Let's not delude ourselves that Mr.S developed a concience after all these years and is speaking of his own accord. He probably has the full backing of the GOI who would site public pressure for not signing the CTBT which Obama will try and force down our throats.

This way we drag our feet on the CTBT , have the nuke deal and confuse everyone including our enemies in the bargin;) Do you think our neighbours would like to call a nuclear bluff to find out weather the Indian thermonuke is working or not? :)
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Sanku »

Willy wrote:Let's not delude ourselves that Mr.S developed a concience after all these years and is speaking of his own accord. He probably has the full backing of the GOI who would site public pressure for not signing the CTBT which Obama will try and force down our throats.
What if the GoI itself is divided on this? It will hardly be the first time that GoI was divided on a serious strategic issue. (handling of LTTE during Pawan comes to mind)
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 »

Sanku wrote:
I will humbly disagree, no one shot RC on BRF.
You are wrong. This is exactly what happened on BRF. I will not press the point further. The proof exists.
Sanku wrote: All the claims made by RC on the behalf of GoI also suffer from the same. You can not turn around and ask one party of the data and not the other, that is not done.

Hence data wise, both parties are at the same level.

<snip>

There are some basic rules of logic which say the burden of proof first and foremost lies on the person making the original claim i.e. GoI claiming we have the TN -- not to those who say there is insufficient proof. In some cases the people asking for proof can be brushed away, such as NPA, however when the questioner is some body like the ones we have talked about, brushing away is not an option.
The GoI and RC have given the original data.

That data is being questioned. It is being questioned by KA and PKI on the basis of data released by the NPA.

KS and PKI are using NPA data and if the NPA are being dismissed, PKI and KS are automatically dismissed for they have given no new data.

If you have access to any new data released by PKI and KS I would love to be pointed to it. What they have given is what you so eloquently described as "just talk". No proof. No new data.

KS says 60% yield on the basis of NPA data. Chidambaram says incomplete burn on the basis NPA data (check with London) but he contradicts NPA yield data himself by claiming a yield of 40 kt which is similar to what RC claimed.

I have typed out all this before. I am sorry if you have not bothered to read all of it. But I will do so again and again so long as you persist in posing exactly the same arguments using a new convoluted path every time, minus any new data. There is nothing new in what you have said. Only the words are different. I will continue to fill the thread with repeats of the same replies to the same questions.
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 »

Unless you suspect R Chidambaram to be a liar and a traitor there is no new data to show that he is wrong. The same points and counterpoints are being made by everyone.

If one chooses to say that R Chidambaram is a traitor, that statement needs to be backed up by some data or proof.

If not, we are back to square 1.

Note that in all this - there is no doubt that some people are dissatisfied with the apparently piffling yields. Nothing new in that. But Chidambaram does not have to be called a liar or a cheat to express doubt with the yield. The yield can be doubted by itself without tying oneself up into an irresolvable argument by being required to produce proof that Chidambaram is a liar. Chidambaram may or may not be a liar or a traitor. That aspect is independent of the worry that some people have about the yield.

Unfortunately nobody is able to produce any new data which is a closely guarded secret. So this question too cannot be resolved on the basis of existing data.

In such an impasse, it is tempting to question the integrity of some people to resolve the issue by other means. That is why I believe it is imperative that we avoid that and avoid "shooting the messenger" as Sanku passionately appealed.

Note that we never discuss with so much passion the reason why that damn HPT-32 engine keeps cutting out, killing people despite numerous efforts to correct it. But when it come to nukes - a symbol of power, we need reassurances that all is well and that we are strong. A feeling of insecurity needs to be calmed and reassuring answers must appear. But no such answers exist in the public space. Yet.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Sanku »

shiv wrote:You are wrong. This is exactly what happened on BRF. I will not press the point further. The proof exists.
I have been around here long enough too Shiv, I dont think RC was "shot" it may be that question his words were taken to be shooting him, but then this is a pointless debate in the sense that we can not change what was said.

What needs to be seen is how to approach it going forward.
Sanku wrote: The GoI and RC have given the original data.

That data is being questioned. It is being questioned by KA and PKI on the basis of data released by the NPA.
We have been over this ground before haven't we? Questioning the methodologies per se etc by KS (KA??) I have read it all before and yet make the same points on the very same basis you make the points. Meanwhile when I mean data, I mean data enough to stand up to a peer review by any set of scientists in the world who can come up and say, "yes it is correct"! Is that the case? I believe you have yourself said that not the case and will never be.

However there is a change, to start with it was one Arun_S on BRF and one PKI outside, then KS got added, then Sethna, then MKS now Gen Malik.

So while we cycle through, clearly the public line up of folks in dissent corner is going up, and at some point of time its going to be difficult to keep ignoring them or pretending they don't exist.
Last edited by Sanku on 07 Sep 2009 17:55, edited 2 times in total.
rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by rakall »

shiv wrote:Unless you suspect R Chidambaram to be a liar and a traitor there is no new data to show that he is wrong. The same points and counterpoints are being made by everyone.

If one chooses to say that R Chidambaram is a traitor, that statement needs to be backed up by some data or proof.

If not, we are back to square 1.

Note that in all this - there is no doubt that some people doubt the yields. Nothing new in that. But Chidambaram does not have to be called a liar or a cheat to express doubt with the yield. The yield can be doubted by itself without tying oneself up into an irresolvable argument by being required to produce proof that Chidambaram is a liar. Chidambaram may or may not be a liar or a traitor. That aspect is independent of the worry that some people have about the yield.

Unfortunately nobody is able to produce any new data which is a closely guarded secret. So this question too cannot be resolved on the basis of existing data.

In such an impasse, it is tempting to question the integrity of some people to resolve the issue by other means. That is why I believe it is imperative that we avoid that and avoid "shooting the messenger" as Sanku passionately appealed.

Note that we never discuss with so much passion the reason why that damn HPT-32 engine keeps cutting out, killing people despite numerous efforts to correct it. But when it come to nukes - a symbol of power, we need reassurances that all is well and that we are strong. A feeling of insecurity needs to be calmed and reassuring answers must appear. But no such answers exist in the public space. Yet.

After 60pages.. some sanity..

This single post summarizes the efforts of all 60pages.. hightlight it & archive it...
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Sanku »

shiv wrote:Note that we never discuss with so much passion the reason why that damn HPT-32 engine keeps cutting out, killing people despite numerous efforts to correct it. But when it come to nukes - a symbol of power, we need reassurances that all is well and that we are strong. A feeling of insecurity needs to be calmed and reassuring answers must appear. But no such answers exist in the public space. Yet..
This is a post whose tone and content I largely agree with.

I do however wish to point out that I see why HPT-32 issues (and many other similar serious issues) do not get such passion. I think this has nothing to do with the symbolism of nukes, it has to do with the actual reasons why Nukes exist

The basic bedrock of security.
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by geeth »

>>>Meanwhile when I mean data, I mean data enough to stand up to a peer review by any set of scientists in the world who can come up and say, yes it is correct? Is that the case? I believe you have yourself said that not the case and will never be.

To begin with, there is no data available. The 'data' being tossed around was the shaft depth and the 'data' provided by RC himself that the yeild was 45 KT for TN. To counter your argument about why RC is wrong ('cause some goras says so, and now KS quotes them), it was pointed out that KS himself talked about the same shaft depth, and how a 200 KT bum cannot fit into that shaft. Tell me how did you counter that ?

Now you say the data should stand up to peer review by any set of scientists in the world...are you mad? how many countries have done so? What is the need for that?

Ofcourse, we all would like to have a peer view..not because we cast aspersions on RC, but put ourselves in comfort zone. When a whole lot of people in the know says, no need, pls believe us, I am more comforted, though not fully. But I firmly believe that, increasing my comfort level should not be at the cost of compromising the weapon design secrecy.
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 »

Sanku wrote:
shiv wrote:You are wrong. This is exactly what happened on BRF. I will not press the point further. The proof exists.
I have been around here long enough too Shiv, I dont think RC was "shot" it may be that question his words were taken to be shooting him, but then this is a pointless debate in the sense that we can not change what was said.
He was not shot. He was called a liar. Please permit me to leave it at that. I do not want to rake up that shameful issue any further but you know damn well that I do not say such things without being able document what I say 100 percent.

After he was called a liar it became much more easy to believe people who were not liars or supporters of a liar. That changed the tone of debate on BRF.
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4102
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Neela »

shiv wrote:Unless you suspect R Chidambaram to be a liar and a traitor there is no new data to show that he is wrong. The same points and counterpoints are being made by everyone.

If one chooses to say that R Chidambaram is a traitor, that statement needs to be backed up by some data or proof.

If not, we are back to square 1.

Note that in all this - there is no doubt that some people doubt the yields. Nothing new in that. But Chidambaram does not have to be called a liar or a cheat to express doubt with the yield. The yield can be doubted by itself without tying oneself up into an irresolvable argument by being required to produce proof that Chidambaram is a liar. Chidambaram may or may not be a liar or a traitor. That aspect is independent of the worry that some people have about the yield.

Unfortunately nobody is able to produce any new data which is a closely guarded secret. So this question too cannot be resolved on the basis of existing data.

In such an impasse, it is tempting to question the integrity of some people to resolve the issue by other means. That is why I believe it is imperative that we avoid that and avoid "shooting the messenger" as Sanku passionately appealed.

Note that we never discuss with so much passion the reason why that damn HPT-32 engine keeps cutting out, killing people despite numerous efforts to correct it. But when it come to nukes - a symbol of power, we need reassurances that all is well and that we are strong. A feeling of insecurity needs to be calmed and reassuring answers must appear. But no such answers exist in the public space. Yet.

Important points missed in this summary.

It is evident from PKI, KS and Army bigwigs that there is a need to clearly TEST AGAIN.
Please note: PKI mentioned " 1 is a very small number " .
They might not have the data for the single test but compared to the 5 haves, we are basing are strategic options based on a SINGLE test ( and that too in non-weaponized form ).
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4102
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Neela »

I think its time we moved past this "liar"episode.
Let us understand that each poster is passionate about this even-more-passionate issue.
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by geeth »

>>>They might not have the data for the single test but compared to the 5 haves, we are basing are strategic options based on a SINGLE test ( and that too in non-weaponized form ).

Here again, the scientist who designed the weapon says these tests are worth 50. Should we beleive him or not? Ofcourse, given a choice, all of us (I don't know about MMS though) would like to test and prove again and again and again.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by enqyoob »

csharma wrote:http://www.indiadefence.com/nuc_status.htm
K Santanam defended the Government policy and explained lucidly that the specially cemented shafts at Pokhran happened to be 17 years old and there was no way they could have been increased beyond the 150 – 200 metres without India’s intentions to test being compromised. For this reason the maximum calculated yield of 45 kilo tonnes, though feasible could not be exceeded without de populating several villages as also fearing a nuclear fall out towards Pakistan.
This should lay to rest the idea that somehow 200KT bomb was being tested.
Hajaar Shukriya, Dhanyawaad, etc., csharmaji!

This is the point that the "200KT or bust!" crowd consistently insists on ignoring, because it "vents" the whole garam hawa. So no less a personage than Dr. Santanam himself "lucidly" explained this, presumaby with all the convincing body language etc.

Yet we find that the village of Khetolai did experience a borderline disastrous earth tremor.

And an interesting new point comes out: 17 years back from 1998, per my Binori math, is 1991!!!! Pls note for future use. It wasn't 1995.

Let me repeat the factual evidence that keeps getting buried under the mountains of ro-dho because the ro-dho'ers have no intention to fairly consider evidence:

1. Evidence easily found at first glance on GOOGLE (but certified invisible by some here) shows reports of schools and community halls collapsing, killing 27 students and a teacher in Italy, and some similar number of labor union members (hardly weakling children!) in Australia, due to earthquakes rated at Magnitude 5.4. Khetolai is a poor village in rural Rajasthan, their house construction is hardly going to meet the codes of nations like Italy and Australia. (yes, I know, neither did the school in Italy - the town's mayor was jailed for corruption leading to negligent homicide, though his own daughter was one of those crushed to death).

2. However, reading these reports, the designers asked the Army to get the schoolkids in Khetolai outdoors at test time - quietly, just in case. What does this show? That the designers EXPECTED the tremor in Khetolai to be insignificant, but did not want to risk any danger to kids. Which brings up the question:

Why was it safe to have children outdoors in a desert place, just 4 to 6 km from the site of a thermonuclear blast?

Wasn't there a huge danger of "venting" with a very radioactive, very glowing plume emitting harmful radiation, very likely to shoot 12,000 feet into the air? Would kids not turn to look at this? What if they were showered with black rain or radioactive sand?

Answer: The designers were totally confident that the blast would not vent. So much for the argument about "why no deep subsistence crater?" The earth did bulge up, and subside just a bit, but no deep crater, because the blast was designed to be well contained with no risk of radioactive venting. The US Bene.... disaster had been the textbook case studied up and down by the test team for many years, and they had argued about the results of that until they were sick of it.

3. Despite all this confidence, there WAS a singificant earth tremor at Khetolai - estimated at 5.0 to 5.4, mean rumor was 5.2. The designers were mostly right, but UNDERESTIMATED the yield, because most homes at Khetolai reported pretty significant damage. A brick separation crack like that shown in the picture posted here, looks minor, but is actually a foundation settling problem. The fix is extremely costly and takes hydraulic equipment, even if it can be done in Rajasthan.

As the residents complained, the govt. sent engineers to estimate the repair cost, the cost came out to several lakhs of rupees (Rs. 1.5 million was the figure they said, it was probably too low), and they said the govt, never came back.

This proves very conclusively that the POK S1 and S2 tests yielded as much or more (probably a lot more) than their designers intended. The yield simulations proved to be very conservative. No other data are needed, Classified or otherwise. The GOI has given PLENTY of data to those who are willing to use their brains rationally.
*************************

So is KS etc. "lying" today? Absolutely not. If one carefully reads again their statements with an open mind, uncluttered by the deadly determination to twist it around to one's conviction that the elected PM, all the top officials in charge of the Strategic Deterrent, and all those in charge of international negotiations are thieves, crooks, weak-kneed cowards and corrupt spies of foreign powers, then one finds that there is no fire beneath the smoke. Dr. KS merely tweaked the tails of the NPAs saying: "According to YOU, we don't have a proven deterrent, so we reserve the right to test". The General said: "The weapon designers need to reassure the weapon use planners clearly" (why? mostly because they read the newspapers and BRo-DhoF and get discouraged, I suppose).

Most people agree that it would be nice to have more tests. So do I. BUT.. I also believe that there is PLENTY of deterrent from what was demonstrated in 1998.


It would be even nicer to have electricity 24 hours a day, every day. And roads without potholes. And better water storage to reduce dependence on the timing of monsoon rains. And better protection in cyclones and against floods. And less pollution in the cities. And good potty-places in trains that don't fertilize the entire railtrack. And a better runway at Mumbai international airport.

In the defence arena, it would be much more than nice to have successful "yield" from jet engine tests, so that India can produce useful combat aircraft. And better defence production quality control on aircraft, guns, missiles, everything.

You think desi missiles don't have problems - even after hajaar tests? What good is a perfectly working "TN" if its delivery system follows the limerick that ends:
and instead of coming, he went!
??? :shock:
It would be nicer to have a plentiful supply and production rate of mountain artillery shells.
And winter shoes and socks for our soldiers.
And snowmobiles for our soldiers in Siachen.
It would be nicer to have more powerful combat helicopters that can function better around the Mt. Chellaswamy Massif in Northern Sikkim and the Parukutty Plateau in East Kashmir, and IndiraChechi Col in Siachen.

It would be VERY nice to have nuclear submarines that are not made of plastic.

The whole smoke is generated by people who will use anything or even a total absence of anything, to yell and scream that the Prime Minister is a traitor. And this post is going to get buried deeper that a 1MT nuke for an underground test.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Post by Sanku »

geeth wrote:To begin with, there is no data available. .
No I agree with you here actually, I am not asking for data should be made available, all I am saying is that we don't have access to conclusive data, which can be used to argue that it was a Sizzle (or a fizzle).

We do have some points of dissonance between some official statements and what has been observed usually, (some discussion on crater formation which are not quite clear), but that is no fool proof data in the public domain, or if there is, I don't have access to it.

That was my only point.

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

The other point is that the lack of data for a success is likely to be understood as data for lack of success, we may or may not agree or like it, but that is often the case.
Last edited by Sanku on 07 Sep 2009 18:20, 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 »

Neela wrote:I think its time we moved past this "liar"episode.
Let us understand that each poster is passionate about this even-more-passionate issue.

Indeed - and I think it will be possible to move forward if we can first sort out whether our "proof" for anything depends on available data or on calling someone a liar. I think that has been done now. Passion is not an excuse for defamation. And the internet is not an anonymous hideout.

I am certainly willing to move on.

I accept that one test is not enough. I accept that even 60kt yield is not high enough. But nobody needs to be called a liar to express that opinion.
Locked