Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby negi » 28 Aug 2009 00:16

We cannot sign CTBT, need to conduct many more tests. But it has political implication and there also economic ramification. Becoz of these we cannot test so we should not sign CTBT.

Kanson that has always been the case and a widely accepted GOI pov. However when some one like Mr. Sanathanam and Pk Iyengar make statements that raise doubts about the GOI's verdict things become tricky.

For instance from india express Aug 10,2000

Just days ago, Iyengar created a stir by demanding a peer review of the Indian nuclear weapons programme. At the end of his lecture responding to a question by The Indian Express whether he was indicating that Pokharan-II tests were a failure, Iyengar said: "I never disagreed with the yields published by the DAE. I agree they are the best people to judge and they have done what they can. But in the intricacy that I showed, how much offusion energy came out of that, how much of fission energy came out of that, there is a complication. It has got three devices inside: a fission device, a booster device and a thermonuclear part. How you apportioned the yield between these three is something has not been done absolutely correctly or has not been publicly expressed. It's not that a fusion device cannot be partially burning. I can show you American references that it can be a partial burning; it need not be a full burning. Still it produces that energy. So under those circumstances, it is my conviction and the fact that it has to be weaponised requires further testing. So we should not say we don't need any more testing. This is what I challenge. That is not correct. If we have to weaponise, if we have to progress in R&D, then we need the option to test and therefore we should not sign the CTBT."


So it is not the total yield itself which is being questioned but the contribution of the fusion reaction to the final yield.

Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Anabhaya » 28 Aug 2009 00:16

According to WOP the scientists knew soon after they looked at crater for S-1. Go and read that. RC said some stuff about shaft was oversized etc.


It did occur to me.

bhart
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby bhart » 28 Aug 2009 00:19

Fizzle claim for thermonuclear test refuted

A former senior official of the erstwhile Vajpayee government confirmed to The  Hindu that there had been differences of opinion between BARC and DRDO scientists after the May 1998 tests, with the latter asserting that some of the weapons tests had not been successful. The internal debate was complicated by the fact that the DRDO experts, including Mr. Santhanam, were not privy to the actual weapon designs, which are highly classified. But the issue was resolved after a high-level meeting chaired by Brajesh Mishra, who was National Security Advisor at the time, in which the BARC experts established that DRDO had underestimated the true yields due to faulty seismic instrumentation. And the radioactivity analysis provided the clincher.


-------------------------------
Added later-
A few things:
1. There will be no tests in the near future, whether we like it or not.
2. India will not sign the CTBT - this will in fact, make it difficult for the govt to justify signing the CTBT.
3. NPT is up for review in 2010, we are likely to come under great pressure to sign it.
4. As pointed out by T P Srinivasan, the US is likely to try to chip away at some of the gains made by India wrt nuclear deal. I think Indian diplomats would by now be scrambling to find ways to hold off the phirangs.
5. Recent trends in relations with the US have shown some strain - Holbrooke finding it difficult to meet Indian leaders, ENR issue etc.
6. Even the current govt has shown adequate support to the strategic program- PC's statements supporting the ATV project.
Last edited by bhart on 28 Aug 2009 00:40, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Singha » 28 Aug 2009 00:29

other than alternately worshipping and masturbating at the alter of their god CTBT, the pov of the NPA will contribute nothing to the discussions...lets leave the wankers out.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3012
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 28 Aug 2009 00:34

negi wrote:We cannot sign CTBT, need to conduct many more tests. But it has political implication and there also economic ramification. Becoz of these we cannot test so we should not sign CTBT.

Kanson that has always been the case and a widely accepted GOI pov. However when some one like Mr. Sanathanam and Pk Iyengar make statements that raise doubts about the GOI's verdict things become tricky.


No sir, as far as i know, GOI pov is vol moratorium; non-signing of NPT/CTBT as they are discriminatory.

Kalam pov is Whatever be the economic limitation, national interest is important; if we have to test we will.

Seeing this Santhanam pov is quite different

For instance from india express Aug 10,2000
Just days ago, Iyengar created a stir by demanding a peer review of the Indian nuclear weapons programme. At the end of his lecture responding to a question by The Indian Express whether he was indicating that Pokharan-II tests were a failure, Iyengar said: "I never disagreed with the yields published by the DAE. I agree they are the best people to judge and they have done what they can. But in the intricacy that I showed, how much offusion energy came out of that, how much of fission energy came out of that, there is a complication. It has got three devices inside: a fission device, a booster device and a thermonuclear part. How you apportioned the yield between these three is something has not been done absolutely correctly or has not been publicly expressed. It's not that a fusion device cannot be partially burning. I can show you American references that it can be a partial burning; it need not be a full burning. Still it produces that energy. So under those circumstances, it is my conviction and the fact that it has to be weaponised requires further testing. So we should not say we don't need any more testing. This is what I challenge. That is not correct. If we have to weaponise, if we have to progress in R&D, then we need the option to test and therefore we should not sign the CTBT."


So it is not the total yield itself which is being questioned but the contribution of the fusion reaction to the final yield.

Problem is not the measurement but the assessment and interpretation of the data. Thats where differences surfaces. PKI assessed the POK-I differently from RR and RC. There are many reason being told for keeping the fusion yield low not just the proximity of the village. It will make sense, if those people involved should actually comment on that. Otherwise, what i could share become stories.
Last edited by Kanson on 28 Aug 2009 00:39, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 28 Aug 2009 00:34

Somebody mentioned punishment?

Santhanam recommends rewards I think...

Santhanam is a slight man in his early 70s. He laughs easily and a lot, and has a bulging bag of jokes about former US president Bill Clinton and his Oval Room distraction, Monica Lewinsky.

Now, he asks, is it true the government wants to underplay this milestone, 10 years of Pokhran II? “A nation can ill afford to ignore its heroes and their heroic deeds.” He looks fleetingly somber. And then the smile returns.


http://www.hindustantimes.com/News/newd ... 10058.aspx

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanjay » 28 Aug 2009 00:40

Rajaram, may I second Ramana's request ? In the alternative, may I be allowed into the circle ? My e-mail is sbmvv_2000@yahoo.com

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 28 Aug 2009 00:50

Can all those who got their e-mails delete the posts?

Thanks, ramana

V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 674
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby V_Raman » 28 Aug 2009 00:55

raja ram ji, can you send it to me too at vramanx@hotmail.com

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 28 Aug 2009 00:56

http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/28/stories ... 311000.htm
“If Mr. Santhanam has any scientific data to back up what he has claimed, I am sure BARC scientists would be more than happy to debate it,” said Dr. Chidambaram. “Without that, this kind of statement means nothing.”
“Let someone refute what we have written, then we can look at it,” said Dr. Chidamabaram, adding that he was yet to see a published critique of BARC’s scientific assessment by any laboratory-based scientist abroad.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 28 Aug 2009 01:02

edi yenna yellamay Ulam pesirde? inda designla Nan inji (allam) jasti pathachi
Everybody is saying Ulam? I feel lot of ginger(ly)
Last edited by John Snow on 28 Aug 2009 01:08, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Singha » 28 Aug 2009 01:04

HT - but then kalam sir cannot analyze the results himself and would mainly
depend on what RC and AK would say...

Seeking to end the controversy surrounding Pokhran-II, former President and top missile scientist APJ Abdul Kalam said on Thursday that the 1998 nuclear tests were successful.

This comes after former DRDO scientist K Santhanam claimed that the 1998 Hydrogen bomb test had failed to deliver the desired results.

Santhanam has made a strong case for India not signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) arguing that the yield in the thermonuclear device test (Hydrogen bomb), one of the five tests conducted in May 1998, was much lower than what was claimed.

He told HT, “India should not sign the CTBT in a hurry. We must take a relook at the data from the 1998 nuclear tests, particularly the thermonuclear device.”

Santhanam was the director for 1998 test site preparations. Kalam, however, has a different take.

Agency reports quoted Kalam as saying that detailed review of the test had proved that the thermo-nuclear test had yielded the desired results.

“There was a detailed review based on two experimental results — seismic measurement close to the site and radioactive measurement of the material… From this data, it has been established by the project team that the designed yield of the thermo-nuclear test has been obtained,” said Kalam, who spearheaded the 1998 nuclear tests as Director General of the Defence Research and Development Organisation.

Former National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra has also trashed former K Santhanam’s claim that the 1998 Pokhran Hydrogen bomb test had failed to deliver the desired result.

Dilbu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6385
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:53
Location: Deep in the badlands of BRFATA

Re: Thread for whines.

Postby Dilbu » 28 Aug 2009 01:06

Anujan saar atleast one more test is inevitable onlee. All this rona dhona in whine thread is like anti jinx mantra in nukkad to pre-empt any chankiannes from MMs led GoI ala SeS.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 28 Aug 2009 01:06

The Hindu has contacted RC and has his inputs in the article by Siddharth Vardarajan.


Fizzle Claim refuted



The government on Thursday strongly refuted claims that the 1998 test of a thermonuclear device had been a failure, with Principal Scientific Adviser R. Chidambaram telling The Hindu that those questioning the tests yield had an obligation to back up their charge with scientific evidence.

He was responding to the recent statement by a former defence scientist, K. Santhanam, that “the yield in the thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was claimed.” Mr. Santhanam, who cited only unspecified “seismic measurements and expert opinion from world over,” went on to say that this was the reason India should not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The stated success of the second generation nuclear device tested on May 11, 1998, was questioned at the time by a number of Western seismologists who said the seismic signatures detected by them were at variance with the claimed yield of 45 kilotons. Although the controversy subsided somewhat once scientists from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre — which designed the weapon — published their scientific evidence, it is likely to be reignited once again since Mr. Santhanam represented the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) team at the Pokhran-II tests and is the first member of that group to echo the arguments of those who say the thermonuclear device failed to work properly.

“If Mr. Santhanam has any scientific data to back up what he has claimed, I am sure BARC scientists would be more than happy to debate it,” said Dr. Chidambaram. “Without that, this kind of statement means nothing.”

In a 2000 article, The May 1998 Pokhran tests: Scientific aspects, republished in 2008 with some updated details, in a French journal, ‘Atoms for Peace,’ Dr. Chidambaram has argued that western seismologists who under-estimated the Pokhran yields did so because they did not take into account the geological structure at the Indian testing range. They also failed to appreciate that India’s weapons designers purposely went for lower yields because the shots had to be fired in existing shafts which could not be dug any deeper for fear of detection. Higher yields, then, would have caused damage to nearby villages and also led to the possible venting of radioactivity.

Dr. Chidambaram wrote that the thermonuclear device tested was “a two-stage device of advanced design, which had a fusion-boosted fission trigger as the first stage and a fusion secondary stage which was compressed by radiation implosion and ignited.” He said the argument that the secondary stage failed to perform is belied by post-shot radioactivity measurements on samples extracted from the test site which showed significant activity of sodium-22 and manganese-54, both by-products of a fusion reaction rather than pure fission. “From a study of this radioactivity and an estimate of the cavity radius, confirmed by drilling operations at positions away from ground zero, the total yield as well as the break-up of the fission and fusion yields could be calculated.” Based on this, he said, BARC scientists worked out a total yield of 50 +/- 10 kt for the thermonuclear device, which was consistent with both the design yield and seismic estimates.

As for the sub-kiloton tests of 0.3 and 0.2 kt of 13 May 1998, which the International Monitoring System for verifying CTBT compliance failed altogether to detect, he said “the threshold limit for seismic detection is much higher in, say a sand medium than in hard rock; the Pokhran geological medium comes somewhere in between” and so it was not surprising these two tests did not show up on the IMS.

“Let someone refute what we have written, then we can look at it,” said Dr. Chidamabaram, adding that he was yet to see a published critique of BARC’s scientific assessment by any laboratory-based scientist abroad.

A former senior official of the erstwhile Vajpayee government confirmed to The  Hindu that there had been differences of opinion between BARC and DRDO scientists after the May 1998 tests, with the latter asserting that some of the weapons tests had not been successful. The internal debate was complicated by the fact that the DRDO experts, including Mr. Santhanam, were not privy to the actual weapon designs, which are highly classified. But the issue was resolved after a high-level meeting chaired by Brajesh Mishra, who was National Security Advisor at the time, in which the BARC experts established that DRDO had underestimated the true yields due to faulty seismic instrumentation. And the radioactivity analysis provided the clincher.

Since 1998, whatever his private reservations might have been, Mr. Santhanam appears to have stuck closely to the official line in his public pronouncements.

On the fifth anniversary of Pokhran-II, for example, he said in an article in Outlook that “the asymmetry with respect to China stands largely removed” thanks to the 1998 tests. Since China was a proven thermonuclear power at the time and India was not, it is hard to reconcile this optimistic assertion with the scientist’s current claim that the thermonuclear device India tested was “a fizzle.”

Similarly, in June 2007, Mr. Santhanam declared on CNN-IBN on a programme about the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in which this correspondent was also a participant: “After May 1998, there was a clear declaration from India that we don’t have to conduct any more nuclear tests. India should not have any problem legalising this position. But this is subject to the condition that if the international security condition changes, then we should be allowed to test."



I think now there will be clamor to have the radio-chem analysis reviewed. And asking KS to produce data that BARC has is :P .IOW its turning into ego match. And its par for the course for RC. He did the same to PKI when Mehra saab made Mishraji arrange a face to face interview.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanjay » 28 Aug 2009 01:11

I guess I can say this openly now. Santhanam let his views slip a few months ago to an Express Group journalist. I now work on the assumption that the Indian arsenal is based around fission and boosted-fission weapons and might explain the very large payloads used on the Agni series (700-1500kg). To accomodate the military's need for reliability, it appears that India does not field an operational TN weapon as part of the deterrent.

The question everyone should focus on is why now ? Santhanam is no loose cannon. Don't be surprised if the GOI's hand is behind this.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3100
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vera_k » 28 Aug 2009 01:12

This is becoming too much of a fight between two scientific factions. I don't understand how one can dispute scientific evidence. Guess the only way to resolve this is to blow another big hole in ground.

James B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2249
Joined: 08 Nov 2008 21:23
Location: Samjhautha Express with an IED

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby James B » 28 Aug 2009 01:15

An article written by R Chidambaram (in 2000) for “Technology & Security: India’s Long Term Interests” , edited by Dr. Brahma Chellaney. (book unpublished as of yet)


THE MAY 1998 POKHRAN TESTS: Scientific Aspects

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ss_roy » 28 Aug 2009 01:20

I have often said that things will not improve unless Indians, and their elected government, act in their own best interests. However the country is currently led by 'white worshiping' geriatrics. People who do not respect themselves and their kind cannot expect others to respect them.

Maybe, events like this one will speed up the process. In any case, many nuke designs by other countries have fared far worser.

I have always wondered why indians are so defensive about spending on science and defense with whites. Who are they to tell you what is in your best interest? What can the west do to you? They need you more than you need them.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3012
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 28 Aug 2009 01:23

ramana wrote:I think now there will be clamor to have the radio-chem analysis reviewed. And asking KS to produce data that BARC has is :P .IOW its turning into ego match. And its par for the course for RC. He did the same to PKI when Mehta saab made Mishraji arrange a face to face interview.


“If Mr. Santhanam has any scientific data to back up what he has claimed, I am sure BARC scientists would be more than happy to debate it,” said Dr. Chidambaram. “Without that, this kind of statement means nothing.”
any scientific data ...any thing wrong in that ....

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 28 Aug 2009 01:26

vera_k wrote:This is becoming too much of a fight between two scientific factions. I don't understand how one can dispute scientific evidence. Guess the only way to resolve this is to blow another big hole in ground.


This is Big Bang theory (Georges Lemaitre) of big bum vs the steady state theory (Fred Hoyle's ) of universe, hence there is cope for divergent views,
Why go far read the LCA/Kaveri thread and follow the Samvadam of Vina garu and N guru, its almost like Sage Vasishta vs sage Viswamitra :mrgreen:

Added later

I think even Agni should be tested to its full range but no extrapolate by virtue isps and vertical parabolic flights better go along the azmuthal...
Last edited by John Snow on 28 Aug 2009 01:31, edited 1 time in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3012
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Kanson » 28 Aug 2009 01:28

Sanjay wrote: I guess I can say this openly now. Santhanam let his views slip a few months ago to an Express Group journalist. I now work on the assumption that the Indian arsenal is based around fission and boosted-fission weapons and might explain the very large payloads used on the Agni series (700-1500kg). To accomodate the military's need for reliability, it appears that India does not field an operational TN weapon as part of the deterrent.


May be it should be read as Agni-3 and other missiles where TN weapon is planned to be deployed are not operational yet with the Armed forces, these TN are not fielded yet.

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6844
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shyamd » 28 Aug 2009 01:32

Can someone also send me the email please if it is not too much trouble.

TIA

Shyamd
Last edited by shyamd on 28 Aug 2009 22:28, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 28 Aug 2009 01:33

Sanjay, What he has been saying is clear for sometime. Soon after the IUCNA details were emerging. The Hyde was very firm on closing the option to test for India. What was the need for US to enact Hyde's no test provisions if Indian tests were complete?
The hullbaloo in India about the right to test, backdoor CTBT etc caused the Bush Admi to make those sign in statements for they feared India might walk away. However a new President who has NPA agenda is not content to let sleepng dogs lie but is intent on kicking it. Hence the need for KS to comeout.

Yes Indian deterrent was always basd on mota lotas and not chotus. And Wings of Fire tells that Kalam's RX vehicle payload was respecified as 1 tonne as a condition of funding the program instead of the small one he proposed. S-I was an attempt by the science community to give India a better capability and long range reach for the RX shell. Read RN Agarwal's statement on original goal of the RX somewhere on the net. So deterrence vis a vis close and medium range totalitarian folks is still there. As for far of folks as they are democratic it is also there.

However having S-I helps in strategic balance for you need less numbers and helps with FMCO for you dont need so much. IOW, TN is stabilizing!

I have maintained KS is with the govt.

Brajesh Mishra is the odd one. What is he really saying? Someone wondered why I am fulminating. BM was the NSA, Principal Secy to PM ie he is the top most administrator for the PM. He should have got the team together and resolved all the sticking points. He didnt do that or want to do that. him invoking Kalam's name is shifting reposnibility. And knowing all these, what did he do to ensure Kargil perfidy wont happen? He was truly a beta squirrel masquerading as an alpha wolf.

The whole geo-politics after 1998 can be related to this mishap.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 28 Aug 2009 01:35

Now we know the troubles that Jaswant Singh went through with Strobe Talbott. Hats of to him for what he achieved despite the under-performance.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 28 Aug 2009 01:44

It has been a double whammy this week: First JS and his book and now KS and his 'fizzle' shell.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 28 Aug 2009 01:45

Pokhran II total success: Kalam
Dismissing Santhanam”s claims as absurd, Chidambaram said, “There is no controversy over the yield of Pokhran-II nuclear tests.” The former Atomic Energy Commission chief, who is now the principal scientific adviser to the Government, said, “If he has any new scientific data that has not been answered in the results of the test published by us, we will be happy to look into it.”

He said the results of the 1998 nuclear tests were published in great detail in international journals and it also took into account studies by several global experts. As regards Santhanam’s claim that the international seismological community had concluded that the yield from the device was below than claimed by India, Chidambaram said, “Who are the seismologists he is referring to? We will go and look back.”

Chidambaram said the scientists at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre had conducted measurements on site during the Pokhran-II experiments, analysed global seismic data and examined the radioactivity in the samples after the tests from near the emplacement points of the nuclear devices.

Six months after the tests, scientists had dug out rocks from the emplacement points where the nuclear device was exploded and found that they had signatures of neutron-induced radioactivity, Chidambaram said.

“They (rocks from emplacement points) have signatures of neutron-induced radioactivity, which can come only if the 14 MeV neutrons have been generated, which means that the thermo-nuclear explosive device had worked,” the scientist explained. “The total yield comes out as 50 (+/- 10) kt for the thermo-nuclear device, consistent with the design yield and with the seismic estimate of the total yield,” he said.

Chidambaram said an article in the New Scientist in 1998 stated that the combined yield of the nuclear tests was about 60 kt. Renowned seismologist Jack Evernden “prefers the use of surface wave magnitudes to body wave magnitudes and his analysis of the May 11, 1998, seismic data is consistent with ours,” the scientist said.

Chidambaram said a decision to test the thermo-nuclear device at a controlled yield of 45 kt was taken because of the proximity of Khetolai village, at about five km from the test site, to ensure that the houses suffer negligible damage.

“All the design specifications were validated by the test. Thermo-nuclear weapons of various yields up to around 200 kt can be confidently designed on the basis of this test,” Chidambaram added.

Sarma
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: College Station, TX, USA

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sarma » 28 Aug 2009 01:46

Now we know the troubles that Jaswant Singh went through with Strobe Talbott. Hats of to him for what he achieved despite the under-performance.


ramana garu: Sorry for the bother. While being generally aware of what you're saying, I don't quite get the complete import of your thought. Would be grateful if you could clarify.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 28 Aug 2009 02:01

With half a bum he went through five or seven rounds of talks all over the world and in the end convinced Strobe to agree to India keeping its stuff and not forced into NPT. Hats of for that.

If the bum worked it would have been half a talk and not the marathon he underwent.

munna
BRFite
Posts: 1392
Joined: 18 Nov 2007 05:03
Location: Pee Arr Eff's resident Constitution Compliance Strategist (Phd, with upper hand)

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby munna » 28 Aug 2009 02:05

ramana wrote:With half a bum he went through five or seven rounds of talks all over the world and in the end convinced Strobe to agree to India keeping its stuff and not forced into NPT. Hats of for that.
If the bum worked it would have been half a talk and not the marathon he underwent.

Awesome blind bluff bargaining by Jaswantji no doubt he was the Man Friday of Vajpayeeji. Miss that era :(.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Katare » 28 Aug 2009 02:08

raghunath wrote:An article written by R Chidambaram (in 2000) for “Technology & Security: India’s Long Term Interests” , edited by Dr. Brahma Chellaney. (book unpublished as of yet)


THE MAY 1998 POKHRAN TESTS: Scientific Aspects


Surprisingly, indicative of the need for careful analysis, the Prototype International Data Centre for verifying the compliance of CTBT first announced our May 11 nuclear explosion seismic event as “an earthquake at a depth of 56 km on the India-Pakistan border” ! :rotfl: But this was later corrected16 as “explosions - with a combined yield - - - consistent with the announced yield (by India)”. An article in New Scientist (U.K.) of 13 June, 1998 was more explicit. “Roger Clark, a seismologist at the University of Leeds, found that when data from 125 stations - closer to the number required by the treaty (CTBT monitoring network) - are taken into account, the estimate is nearer to 60 (kilotons).”

Prof. Jack Evernden, a world renowned U.S. seismologist, has always maintained17 that, for correct estimation of yields, one should “account properly for geological and seismological differences between test sites”; this was in the context of what he called the “incorrect (U.S.) claims of Soviet cheating on the (1976 Threshold Test Ban) treaty limit of 150 kilotons.” He had also warned about the use of indiscriminate “magnitude bias” while analysing mb (body wave magnitude) teleseismic data. The underestimation18 of our May 11 total yield by one group in the U.S. can be traced to the use of such an invalid “bias”. Jack Evernden prefers the use of surface wave magnitudes to body wave magnitudes and his analysis of the 11 May 1998 seismic data is consistent with ours19.


Are we (and Dr Sanatham) only talking about the group foreign/US scientists that claimed yields were low. I would like to see what percentage of scientists agreed with BARC and what percentage didn't. News papers/TV anchors will only talke about scandals and loose canons because that sells.

James B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2249
Joined: 08 Nov 2008 21:23
Location: Samjhautha Express with an IED

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby James B » 28 Aug 2009 02:18

raghunath wrote:An article written by R Chidambaram (in 2000) for “Technology & Security: India’s Long Term Interests” , edited by Dr. Brahma Chellaney. (book unpublished as of yet)


THE MAY 1998 POKHRAN TESTS: Scientific Aspects


Confirmatory Evidence

We have other confirmatory evidence from close-in measurements carried out on the day of the tests. For example, comparison of the acceleration data with the available global data from a similar geophysical environment gives a total yield value of 58 kt (see Figure 5 of reference 13).

The bore-hole gamma radiation logging and radiochemical measurements on the rock samples extracted from the sites give the yield for the fission device 21 as 13+3 kt and for the thermonuclear device 22 as 50 + 10 kt.


Conclusion

The May 1998 tests were fully successful in terms of achieving their scientific objectives:

* Certification of the fission nuclear weapon of 15 kt yield, evolved from the PNE device tested in 1974, with substantial changes that were needed to make it smaller in size and weight from the point of view of weaponisation. It was gratifying that it functioned perfectly in all aspects , certifying the quality and robustness of the design.

* Testing a two-stage thermonuclear device with a fusion-boosted fission trigger as the first stage and with the features needed for integration with delivery vehicles at the controlled yield of 45 kt with the purpose of developing nuclear weapon systems with yields upto around 200 kilotons.

* Testing sub-kiloton devices, with all the features needed for integration with delivery vehicles, from the point of view of developing low-yield weapons and of validating new weapon-related ideas and subsystems.

* Establishing the computer simulation capability to predict the yields of nuclear weapons--fission, boosted fission and two-stage thermonuclear - of designs related to the designs of the devices tested by us.

* Thus the carefully-planned series of tests carried out in May 1998 gave us the capability to design confidently and build nuclear weapons from low yields upto around 200 kilotons. A great deal of further scientific and technical development work has taken place since then.
Last edited by James B on 28 Aug 2009 02:21, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 28 Aug 2009 02:19

Boy! What a bunch of :(( wimmens!

Suppose Dr. Santhanam had said:
The yield of the POK-2 thermonuke bum test was actually 265kT, but the ground was carefully chosen to have fault discontinuities that masked the shock wave effectively and prevented the western experts from making useful calculations


would you have believed it? In fact, let me assure you, this was the case. :P

Actually you have all missed the REALLY scary part of Santhanam's statement: Read carefully:
“There is one clause in the Indo- US nuclear deal that if the security scenario around the country changes, then we can go for a test, and the country’s leadership should take a decision to go for a test taking confidence of all the factors involved,” Santhanam said. By Shreeraj Gudi(ANI)


You have to ask "why now? Why this?"

Looks like things in Arunachal are a lot worse than announced so far. So India is going for another round of tests to shake a few fists at the rizalds and warn of vely vely vely vely glave consequences. And that India is willing to take any aggression from the Rizald, all the way to thermo-nuclear war, which means chinese cities.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby NRao » 28 Aug 2009 02:19

What ever happened to seismological info due the earthquake that occurred in the region?

I was under the impression that earthquake supported the Indian scientist's claim that the geology of the region was no understood by the Western science community.

I am fairly confident that this has a LOT more to do than a "fizzle".

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1835
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby VikramS » 28 Aug 2009 02:20

RR jee,

request for your doc

vikrams.br (at) gmail

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 28 Aug 2009 02:24

The claim that S-1 was fizzle etc is unproductive. The more important thing is the supreme national interests clause which says India will test if it feels the need. Obama or not.
Its for the others to make sure there is no need.

What this means is India doesnt sign the CTBT now or ever as Arundhati Ghose had said!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby SaiK » 28 Aug 2009 02:33

the question is, is there a way not to shitty-bitty without going to the test premise. if so do it.. is my view. in the sense, we can always say we don't like the treaty as is., rather go back to nuking terms of testing route.

other super duper ways of thinking is test such that no one knows.. can a 200kt be contained to release a 1kt signature? if our sci-fi folks can do it, then go do it! ask money, a billion people would send a buck or so for it to say.

if we want to test, we would have done it!.. already by now. its too late to whine.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanjay M » 28 Aug 2009 02:35

Nah, India's political resolve is known to be so infamously weak, due to our ongoing daily record of waffling/hesitation/climbdowns, that it's not good to advertise our N-testing stance being purely based on political resolve.

If there was a fizzle, and a resulting gap because of it, then it's better that we're honest and open with the public. On such a vital issue, the public has a genuine right to know.

If it really was a fizzle, and nothing has been said uptil now, then that truly is a scandal, as it amounts to a false reassurance wrongfully being given to the public.

The question is - with all the political fallout going on in the BJP, is this latest revelation yet another political stunt against them, to assault their national security credentials? I just want to be sure that this isn't another dagger being unsheathed by the One-Party-State brigade.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby svinayak » 28 Aug 2009 02:39

shiv wrote:
OK here is my take:

India launched a nuclear submarine a month ago:

Since then a series of leaks and statements from "establishment" people or GoI sources have stated (with suitable mumbled denials from others)
  • The reactor is not working (yet)
  • Its missiles have a range of only 700 km
  • We need only 3 nuclear submarines
  • We will not make ICBMs
  • Our tests were a fizzle

Guess who might feel reassured by this?
Guess who else (apart from inconsequential BRFites) might feel less reassured?

In the same thought process we have China making statements on Tibet and border issues and Arunachal

Is this also a signal to PRC that India will test if the Tibet border is breached by PLA?

yogi wrote:Did the war with China just start?

India, China armies clash in Sikkim?

The Indian and Chinese armies have reportedly been locked in sporadic exchanges of fire in Sikkim, where the two countries share a high-altitude border, since Tuesday night.

A senior defence ministry official in Kolkata, where the Eastern Command is based, said the conflict had been on at Nathu-la pass — 54 km east of Sikkim’s capital Gangtok. In a statement issued on Thursday, the Ministry of Defence, however, denied any shooting on the border. The defence official, who refused to be identified, said, “The gunbattle intensified during the early hours of Wednesday. There are, however, no reports of any death or serious injuries.” He said although India had not deployed any additional forces in the area, all civilian traffic had been stopped. But the ministry statement said the roads had been closed in the area because of landslides. The official said, “The skirmish caused concern as at a special joint meeting on August 15 both sides reaffirmed their resolve to strengthen the existing friendship.”

Situated at 14,140 feet, Nathu-la reopened for trade in 2006 after the 1962 Sino-Indian War.
Last edited by svinayak on 28 Aug 2009 02:44, edited 1 time in total.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21161
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Prem » 28 Aug 2009 02:44

narayanan wrote:Boy! What a bunch of :(( wimmens!
Actually you have all missed the REALLY scary part of Santhanam's statement: Read carefully:
“There is one clause in the Indo- US nuclear deal that if the security scenario around the country changes, then we can go for a test, and the country’s leadership should take a decision to go for a test taking confidence of all the factors involved,” Santhanam said. By Shreeraj Gudi(ANI)


Did Arihant play role in exposing Chicom's real natchle so fast. The world reaction to NOKO was mute, this must have encouraged China to act like China.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 28 Aug 2009 02:48

ramana wrote:What this means is India doesnt sign the CTBT now or ever as Arundhati Ghose had said!


That retired ex-RAW man has ensured that no Indian Government can sign the CTBT. If the P5 want an Indian signature, they will have to accept a proof test series.
This is psywar of the highest order. He utters a few sentences and affects the actions of powerful governments. And the timing!


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest