Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 07 Sep 2009 08:25

Gagan,

That is my understanding too.

I did not claim, or for that matter I do not think the BARC team has claimed, that they modeled the explosion itself.

However, whatever they have modeled HAS value.

Next, the physicists that are claiming that the Baneberry simulation was "aftermath" are making the simulation work too cheap. It cannot be THAT cheap.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2009 08:25

Gagan wrote:AK/RC don't want to talk about the design or why it failed or what changes they want to make. They only want to somehow prove why the west recorded 25 KT while they say 60KT using the baneberry.



Gagan garu - this information is wrong and I believe that there is a bias in your own perception that is adding to the confusion

If you look at the claims made by various people (which I have cross posted with references through out this thread) you find that
  • 1) New scientist (link posted earlier - "Making Waves", New Scientist, June 13 1998 pp 18-19) quoting Roger Clark - seismologist said 60 kilotons
  • 2) RC and Sikka claimed 43 kilotons in their final claims
  • 3) Jack Evernden calculated 46 kilotons
  • 4) P K Iyengar calculated LiD burn ratio an claimed 40 kilotons (20 fission + 20 fusion)
  • 5) NPA via CTBT monitoring stations are saying 5-25 kilotons

ALL these links have been posted by me in this thread. I have all the original refs

Now please tell me how you say:

Gagan wrote:AK/RC don't want to talk about the design or why it failed or what changes they want to make. They only want to somehow prove why the west recorded 25 KT while they say 60KT using the baneberry.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 07 Sep 2009 08:26

csharma wrote:As I said earlier, BARC should let Santhanam look at the data. This should not be an ego clash.

Once Santhanam is convinced it will send a huge signal to the armed forces and the public about the yield of the TN devices.


That assumes he will understand it.

Which is why I say, in their own ways they are ALL right.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10961
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 08:27

csharma wrote:As I said earlier, BARC should let Santhanam look at the data. This should not be an ego clash.

Once Santhanam is convinced it will send a huge signal to the armed forces and the public about the yield of the TN devices.

csharma-ji,
the yield is a function of the weapon design. Here the issue is not convincing that a certain yield was generated. The issue is was there a design defect that caused a lower than expected yield? And if that design defect has been rectified, shall we not proof test it?

Talking only about yields is obfuscation.

kenop
BRFite
Posts: 1333
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 07:28

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby kenop » 07 Sep 2009 08:28

NRao wrote:
Read my above post and let me know if you have any issues with it.

Thx.

Agree

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2009 08:29

Gagan wrote:Talking only about yields is obfuscation.


Correct. And are PKI and Santhanam any less guilty of that? Why should any one set of people take the blame for obfuscation in yields.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby csharma » 07 Sep 2009 08:31

NRao wrote:
csharma wrote:As I said earlier, BARC should let Santhanam look at the data. This should not be an ego clash.

Once Santhanam is convinced it will send a huge signal to the armed forces and the public about the yield of the TN devices.


That assumes he will understand it.

Which is why I say, in their own ways they are ALL right.


That's a valid point. How about PKI? We know that Santhanam has not seen the data. Has PKI seen the data?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 07 Sep 2009 08:32

AFAIK, Dr. Santanam has not said that anything done by the Indian team failed. He said that according to calculations published in the west (by NPAs etc) the yield of the Indian test was less than what the Indian team claimed, therefore, there is no way India can consider signing the CTBT until a satisfactory validation through test is accomplished. This was merely a slap at the NPAs.

Beyond that, people have said that "he is not a nuclear physicist" etc. etc. which is all just government-sponsored entertainment.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5200
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 07 Sep 2009 08:32

shiv wrote:What was Santhanam talking about in 2002 when he said this?

http://www.indiadefence.com/nuc_status.htm
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


What has changed since 2002
The debate seems to be in context of the a critique by Adm. Menon to have kept the military out of the planning or testing process. KS seems to be defending the process as defined by the NCA and that trials have been conducted to test the NCA processes.

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.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 07 Sep 2009 08:36

gagan,

True. Very true. It is foolhardy for anyone, in fact, to just accept it, the Army being the biggest risk taker in this respect.

And, now, we have an escalating situation. Baneberry came into picture now. Who knows what each side has in back pocket - dial-a-revelation. This entire topic is getting to worse than a Bollywood movie. All we now need is a song and Madam running around a tree with Munna in tow.

This escalation needs to stop first and foremost.

Then a solution needs to be found. It will be difficult - for KS seems to have opened his mouth at the wrong time. Or, perhaps, the words he used has had the wrong result. For, surely even he did not want this type of a debate - it at best has hurt everyone in the process.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Satya_anveshi » 07 Sep 2009 08:36

Hey ShauryaTji,

I just wanted to ack seeing your response to my inquiry. Thank you. Will respond later (if any).

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby csharma » 07 Sep 2009 08:37

narayanan wrote:AFAIK, Dr. Santanam has not said that anything done by the Indian team failed. He said that according to calculations published in the west (by NPAs etc) the yield of the Indian test was less than what the Indian team claimed, therefore, there is no way India can consider signing the CTBT until a satisfactory validation through test is accomplished. This was merely a slap at the NPAs.

Beyond that, people have said that "he is not a nuclear physicist" etc. etc. which is all just government-sponsored entertainment.


That all might be true but it has an impact on the confidence of the people on the deterrent. In fact most people do not even know the difference between fission and fusion. The other more important thing is the impact on the confidence of the armed forces. Like today VP Malik said that privately the scientists can convince the stakeholders that all is right with the TN bomb.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2009 08:41

csharma wrote:That all might be true but it has an impact on the confidence of the people on the deterrent. In fact most people do not even know the difference between fission and fusion. The other more important thing is the impact on the confidence of the armed forces. Like today VP Malik said that privately the scientists can convince the stakeholders that all is right with the TN bomb.



Sharmaji - if you leave out the relative newcomers to BRF it is clear that most people on BRF fail to read all the information that is posted. More than 90% has been posted in earlier threads about the issue.

So the same things come up again and again and again.

Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Raja Ram » 07 Sep 2009 08:44

Shaurya T,

Good observation there.

But let that light be as it is. Those who can will be see the light.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Satya_anveshi » 07 Sep 2009 08:45

narayanan wrote:AFAIK, Dr. Santanam has not said that anything done by the Indian team failed. He said that according to calculations published in the west (by NPAs etc) the yield of the Indian test was less than what the Indian team claimed, therefore, there is no way India can consider signing the CTBT until a satisfactory validation through test is accomplished. This was merely a slap at the NPAs.

Beyond that, people have said that "he is not a nuclear physicist" etc. etc. which is all just government-sponsored entertainment.

I so wish you are true. I often used to imagine a scenario where all our nuclear scientists, analysts et al are laughing their a$$es out at the kind of debate their are seeing which they have "set it off."

I also hope that we tie-off with Chinese and Russians in our upcoming forum/meeting in Bangalore and develop an understanding with them. The stronger we are individually and stronger will be our collective strength in the run up to making and maintaning a multi-polar world.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10961
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 08:51

Ultimately I see the futility of discussing this adnauseum.
MMS has been through this before and weathered it.
He weathered 26/11, S-E-S, and now will likely weather this. The dissenters will debate this to death and then run out of steam.

MMS, He will not test.

I only hope and pray, what I fear does not come true.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5200
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 07 Sep 2009 08:56

Gagan wrote:MMS, He will not test.

I only hope and pray, what I fear does not come true.
There is only one power on earth that can stop MMS and it is the Indian military. The Indian military, which has been treated almost like an "audience" watching this show so far will step in, if there is enough dissent.

Also, in question is the entire modus operandi of the NCA.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10961
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 09:02

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.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ldev » 07 Sep 2009 09:02

dipak wrote:
ldev wrote:Gen VP Malik seems to be implying that:

1. There are TN MT (mega ton) fusion weapons in the arsenal.

2. However that there are doubts about the yields of the mega ton weapons.

Anil Kakodkar and RC's position is that extensive simulation gives them the confidence that the design yields will be realized.


Saar, kudos to AK for that claim. Its no mean feat to achieve the sufficient data in just ONE test.

His extra-ordinary abilities can be utilized for the nation in projects like Kaveri, Arjun ...
We want more likes of him, RC onlee.

Claiming that the yield was below expectation, the physicists said on the basis of a single test, it is highly unlikely that any simulation will suffice as every physicist knows.


Link as posted by NRao above


The article posted above says:

Some nuclear physists. Who are these physists?

The article also says that Sanathanam did not have access to POK11 data? So on what basis is credibility being attached to his statements? The only data that Sanathanam is quoting is from NPA ayatollahs.

Furthermore where is PK Iyengar getting his information from? Afaik, PKI retired from the nuclear establishment before POK2 happened. He was very much part of POK 1. (Correct me if I am wrong here). I dont think retired AEC Chairman are given data on current developments by DAE.

Nobody among the rhona dhona types here is paying any attention to what General Malik has said i.e. megaton class TNs are part of the arsenal. I am sure that the General knows the difference between yields of hundreds of kilo tons and mega tons. Maybe because the General's disclosures do not fit in with the prevailing rhona dhona theories so best to ignore it!!.
Last edited by ldev on 07 Sep 2009 09:07, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2009 09:07

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..


Gagan - can you post exact quotes from PKI or Santhanam in which they are saying, or seeming to say that "Weapon design is defective". This is clearly false as far as my reading goes but I am willing to be corrected.

I have not bothered reading the rest of your post because it is important the clear this up and test for accuracy or falsehood.

Are you attempting to read minds,
or
are you breaking OSA unofficially on behalf of un named people who are off the forum
or
are you just speculating?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10961
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 09:08

The megatonne yield has been mentioned by Sandeep Unnithan when he was talking about the ATV also. He said and I quote, the "Nuclear sub will carry a megaton punch."

So now there are two open source references to 'megaton'

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10961
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 09:10

shiv wrote:Are you attempting to read minds,
or
are you breaking OSA unofficially,
or
are you just speculating?


I am speculating, hoping to read minds. :(
Last edited by Gagan on 07 Sep 2009 09:11, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2009 09:11

Gagan wrote:
shiv wrote:Are you attempting to read minds,
or
are you breaking OSA unofficially,
or
are you just speculating?

I am speculating, hoping to read minds.


Thanks. Your openness in this regard is appreciated.
Last edited by shiv on 07 Sep 2009 09:11, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: .

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10267
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 07 Sep 2009 09:13

5 x 200 KT can provide the same punch. So while RC says the yield can be scaled to 200 KT, the forces can have much more punch on top a missile by using multiple such warhead. IMHO both positions are valid.
Last edited by pankajs on 07 Sep 2009 09:16, edited 1 time in total.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10961
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 09:15

Thanks shiv-ji... for the del

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10961
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 09:21

pankajs wrote:5 x 200 KT can provide the same punch. So while RC says the yield can be scaled to 200 KT, the forces can have much more punch on top a missile by using multiple such warhead.

Saar,
The issue is not 200 KT only.
It is weather the 200KT is TN warhead or FBF warhead.
It is of vital importance.

1. 200KT TN is ~250Kg in weight, 200 KT FBF is ~1000Kg in weight.
You will agree that a heavier warhead will reduce the range of the missile or aircraft that has to deliver it.

2. FBF is much less efficient than a TN. FBF uses a lot more quantity of fissile material, TN is most economical. You can imagine for a country like india which doesn't have unlimited Uranium reserves, how important it is to make do with the little fissile material that it has. Imagine, a huge reactor has to run for a whole year to generate a few Kgs of weapon grade fissile material.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10961
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gagan » 07 Sep 2009 09:23

Between a 1 MT TN and 5 x 200KT TN MIRVs I guess the latter is the most desired, specially if the MIRVs can be targeted individually at different cities or different parts of a city.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10267
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 07 Sep 2009 09:25

RC made this claim wrt the TN. So to rephrase, we have tested a TN that can be scaled up to 200 KT (This is the present capacity as per RC). Our forces can deliver upwards of 600 KT (Minimum 3 petals) on a single missile when the MIRVed version of Agni is deployed.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 07 Sep 2009 10:22

I know this has been posted many a times here, but humor me for a moment.

Need reassurance on nuclear deterrence: ex-Army chief

My humble request to all Rakshak's is to not only read, but watch the interview. There are some things which clearly a simple text does not convey.

Gen Malik is very very serious, and the interview is frightening, this does not seem like Chankyan stuff any more, but a section of GoI making its views felt through member now outside service.

I think as far as the Armed forces are concerned, they are clearly unsure about the needed yield of the weapon (yes TN appears to be in inventory) Gen Malik clearly talks of the Armed forces having to calculate and overcompensate for the yeild and the difficulty thereof.

I know that a lot of us who have said the same thing have been mocked and derided, but here is no less a persona than Gen Malik saying the same thing.

In my view the tendency of shooting the messenger must stop (on BRF at least) and we start discussing what now rather than if.

So far we have dismissed Santy, PKI, A prasad, BC, BK and now Gen Malik (and by ext armed forces) as their views being irrelevant.

Thats a pretty solid line up of irrelevant people -- how is the nuclear deterrence going to work, only on the trust of a section of GoI?

Please note that each of these people is a heavy weight, and the GoI works against its political masters when they have to by taking a position through their old colleagues who are relatively speaking out of the dragnet of GoI.

It would be presumptuous to dismiss the view taken by each of these gentlemen as their personal view and not consider them to be the views of a section of GoI.
Last edited by Sanku on 07 Sep 2009 12:23, edited 1 time in total.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby geeth » 07 Sep 2009 10:38

>>>IMO it does not simulate the explosion process. It starts at the end of the explosion process and finds out the effect of the explosion on the surrounding mass.

>>>The BARC claim is: we can simulate the process of an exploding bomb (starting with the trigger) and calculate the yield. The available data is enough to test the design of weapons of different configurations.

My understanding is somewhat different..

The Banberry test was used to have a 3D simulation of the behaviour of the earth at Pokharan (adjusting it to the local parameters) to enable them to arrive at the correct estimation of the yield.

Simulation of the exploding bomb is separate and they do claim to have simulation capability to predict the yield of different bombs using in-house developed software. These two are two sepatate issues - one is the study of the behaviour of the earth and the other is the study of the behaviour of the material that contributes to the total yield.
Last edited by geeth on 07 Sep 2009 10:43, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shiv » 07 Sep 2009 10:40

Sanku wrote:In my view the tendency of shooting the messenger must stop (on BRF at least) and we start discussing what now rather than if.



Thank you for bringing up this point. I agree wholly and let me be the first to remind everyone that the first messenger who was shot on BRF was R Chidambaram.

If R Chidambaram is wrong, or has lied, data must be presented to show that this is the case. Such data has not been presented and as such there is no case unless people are willing to look at a different scenario.

If one assumes that RC, KS, PKI and others are on the same side it is possible to build up an equally plausible or implausible case that there is deliberate and deniable muckraking being sponsored to leave a door open for India to test and not sign the CTBT.

Many of us, including I, have dismissed India's international clout. As usual it is easy to calculate what everyone else is doing provided India is assigned a value of zero. But India does represent a nation of 1 billion people who by and large choose to behave themselves and elect new leaders every 5 years because they feel they have some control on their destiny. This cannot be taken for granted and in that sense Indians are the bearers of a bruised self image that constantly seek to equate India with "the great powers". It would be dangerous to fck with this self image by arbitrarily signing away symbols of Indian power.

It is entirely possible that this group of squabbling and disagreeing scientists are firing the first shot. This conclusion is one of the conclusions we could reach if we can stop trying to say that it's all R Chidambaram's fault, and the fault of those who agree with him - which if I may say with respect, has become the pillar on which BRF's attitudes seem to rest. So let the "Let's not shoot the messenger" sentiment be rolled back by several years and reboot.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 07 Sep 2009 10:51

Rahul M wrote: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.


Gen Malik in the interview talks about the fact that if they can not trust the yield then it will impact their planning by forcing them to overcompensate and the attendant difficulties.

I think we need to discuss those views before we reach a conclusion on this.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 07 Sep 2009 11:18

shiv wrote:
Sanku wrote:In my view the tendency of shooting the messenger must stop (on BRF at least) and we start discussing what now rather than if.


Thank you for bringing up this point. I agree wholly and let me be the first to remind everyone that the first messenger who was shot on BRF was R Chidambaram.


I will humbly disagree, no one shot RC on BRF. The fact that we are discussing whether the test worked fully or not is a testimony to the fact that RC is not shot.

It would otherwise be, oh lets leave RC aside what does he know (which IMVHO is the attitude being taken for a large number of nay sayers)

In fact I would be the first to say that RC is perhaps not even speaking his own mind but being a spokesmen for the GoI.

If R Chidambaram is wrong, or has lied, data must be presented to show that this is the case. Such data has not been presented and as such there is no case unless people are willing to look at a different scenario.


No Shiv, you have yourself argued, rightly, that data is not going to come by the form that is needed to unambiguously conclude on way or the other since it is held by GoI which is not likely to open it up.

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.

This then gets to trust--
Further I would also (personally) dismiss the claim that RC+GoI are somehow higher or more correct than others -- In my view the views expressed by RC+GoI and PKI+KS+Gen Malik+BC etc are essentially at the same level.

So does it become a matter of just whom to trust?

No not quite I think for
1) 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.

2) We have other ancillary understanding of the nuclear world at large we can use -- for example the number of tests, LIF needs, seismic signatures for a 200 KT yeild etc etc. While no doubt India is unique it would be less than believable if it was very different.

3) A possible conflict of interest between GoIs position on testing and its stand on other geo-pol matters like the Nuke test.

So while it may not be all white and black, without shooting RC
Last edited by Sanku on 07 Sep 2009 12:21, edited 1 time in total.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vera_k » 07 Sep 2009 11:19

pankajs wrote:5 x 200 KT can provide the same punch. So while RC says the yield can be scaled to 200 KT, the forces can have much more punch on top a missile by using multiple such warhead. IMHO both positions are valid.


This has been explained before, but damage by nuclear weapons does not scale linearly. 5x200KT weapons will destroy about 3 times as much area as a 1MT weapon will. And if these calculations are correct, a A-5 with 12 200KT warheads will be equivalent to about a 200MT unitary warhead.

http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/8976/nuke.htm
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby geeth » 07 Sep 2009 11:36

>>>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.

The problem with this argument is this:

Tomorrow, if I (or for that matter Santanam) turns around and says, we have only a couple of Agni mijjiles fielded and this is woefully inadequate as a deterrent against China, then, according to you, the onus is on GOI to prove me or Santanam wrong. How will they do it, to satisfy me, or Santanam or you? By taking anyone one of us (all three together would be better) and physically count the number of missiles and prove us wrong.

If they are not willing to do that, we can very well conclude that it is indeed true that India has fielded only a couple of Agni mijjiles and propagate this theory.

Data wise, we can say both are at same level, though we know for ourselves that there is no proof about our numbers..and the GOI is not taking the bait to disprove our numbers.

Bheem
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 10:27
Location: Vyom

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Bheem » 07 Sep 2009 11:44

If the design of TN was started in late eighties or early nineties then PKI will be well aware of the design. I find it very difficutl to believe that PC pulled out a de-novo TN within 2 couple of years out of his hat.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50094
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 07 Sep 2009 11:51

Bheem wrote:If the design of TN was started in late eighties or early nineties then PKI will be well aware of the design. I find it very difficutl to believe that PC pulled out a de-novo TN within 2 couple of years out of his hat.



Maybe this is where the disconnect is. Everyone is expecting something and got some other thing. The common thing is KS says it was 60% of that stated to be tested and this figure is with the data made known.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 07 Sep 2009 11:52

geeth 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.

The problem with this argument is this:

Tomorrow, if I (or for that matter Santanam) turns around and says, we have only a couple of Agni mijjiles fielded and this is woefully inadequate as a deterrent against China, then, according to you, the onus is on GOI to prove me or Santanam wrong. How will they do it, to satisfy me, or Santanam or you? By taking anyone one of us (all three together would be better) and physically count the number of missiles and prove us wrong.



That is not a problem that is a question of checks and balances in a democracy (where its constituents can question GoI), if 4 retired Army Chiefs (compared to AEC heads, Sethna et al) suddenly start questioning the system -- we know something is cooking, we can not brush that aside and say, "hey these guys don't know anything." 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.

After all GoI is not a nameless faceless god. GoI is these people, Sethna, PKI, etc etc. That is why this is a very contentious issue.

We can not say one set of GoI is better because they are aligned with the views of the establishment currently in power and one which is not. And note these people do not have to be gotten on board publicly either, privately will do as well
Last edited by Sanku on 07 Sep 2009 12:17, edited 2 times in total.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10267
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 07 Sep 2009 11:53

Bheem wrote:If the design of TN was started in late eighties or early nineties then PKI will be well aware of the design. I find it very difficutl to believe that PC pulled out a de-novo TN within 2 couple of years out of his hat.

Saar, design may have started right after 1974 but till everything falls into place, it is still incomplete. RC did not put it together in 2 years but the final puzzle related to the workable TN design was solved about 1996. Building a workable device is different from knowing all the theory and having solved the problem in theory. Case in point our GTRE experience.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50094
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 07 Sep 2009 11:59

"ShauryaT"
shiv wrote:What was Santhanam talking about in 2002 when he said this?

http://www.indiadefence.com/nuc_status.htm
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


What has changed since 2002
The debate seems to be in context of the a critique by Adm. Menon to have kept the military out of the planning or testing process. KS seems to be defending the process as defined by the NCA and that trials have been conducted to test the NCA processes.

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.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest