Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

BijuShet
BRFite
Posts: 1575
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 23:14
Location: under my tin foil hat

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby BijuShet » 28 Aug 2009 08:16

John Snow wrote:tell me about it. Everytime we come to the cross roads of action as SDRE's we are never short of convoluted logic :roll:
I repeat

why is that only SDREs claim unbearable pressure from unkil from defending in the wake terror or trying some small pyhsics experiments in our small desert land or pool of bay?
N Korea flouts
Iran flexes
Israel smashes
Pakistan cheats
PRC voilates
India wimps?

In the movie The Good, the bad and the Ugly there is this dialogue "When you have to shoot, shoot! Don't talk.". Babus and mantris in all countries on your list above other than India seem to have imbibed this message.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54513
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 28 Aug 2009 08:20

AndyB, A test director is in charge of the tests. The test article is still the repsosibility of the designer.

Johns Snow, The reason is when the chips fall down India is all alone. That was the main reason for POKI.

BTW folks I dont want personnel dissed. It doesn't do any good. What was done is done. Now what is to be done is to ken.

Anyone recall BB's article right after the may 1998 tests saying india should be attacked with nukes by US? I remember it was on TOI.

John Snow have you change the phone number?

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4473
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sanjaykumar » 28 Aug 2009 08:30

"When you have to shoot, shoot! Don't talk.". Babus and mantris in all countries on your list above other than India seem to have imbibed this message.



As in 1974 and 1998?

I am begining to think this is not about testing per se. With Sikkim hotting up, it would be irresponsible to publically question ones own gunpowder.

This may well have to do with stirring up Ombaba's ardour.
Last edited by sanjaykumar on 28 Aug 2009 08:48, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54513
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 28 Aug 2009 08:35

Can some oe find this and post here.

An Article for Los Angeles Times on INDIA'S NUCLEAR TEST
May 15, 1998


milindc
BRFite
Posts: 720
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby milindc » 28 Aug 2009 08:51

sanjaykumar wrote:I am begining to think this is not about testing per se. With Sikkim hotting up, it would be irresponsible to publically question ones own gunpowder.

Even though it is obvious, these set of news items along with KS's timing make it interesting

Army denies reports of Chinese intrusions at Nathu-La Aug 27

Indian Army sees no threat from Chinese build-up along border Aug 26
To specific questions about China's emerging strength and its activities across the 646 LAC in Kashmir, Bhardwaj said that these were not causing any undue concern as "our troops are also maintaining maximum vigil all over".

Biggest India-US war game follows China's largest army exercise Aug 26
China has deployed close to 50,000 troops in its biggest cross-country tactical mobilisation exercise that has sent alarm bells ringing in India as it is being seen as Beijing's efforts to improve its ability to deploy troops in Tibet whenever reinforcements are required.

PLA kicks off largest long-range tactical military exercise Aug 11
The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) on Tuesday launched its largest-ever tactical military exercise, involving the deployment of about 50,000 heavily-armored troops over thousands of miles to test the PLA's long-distance mobility.
According to the PLA General Staff Headquarters, in charge of organizing the exercise "Stride-2009," one army division from each of the military commands of Shenyang, Lanzhou, Jinan and Guangzhou, will participate in a series of live-fire drills lasting for two months.

China Sends 4 Divisions on Long-Range Exercise Aug 21
Stride-2009 is at least the third large PLA exercise this summer. In July, four brigades from the Second Artillery Division had a field exercise, and in June, about 100 aircraft from the Guangzhou Military Region Air Force were involved in another large exercise, Blasko said.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14122
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 28 Aug 2009 09:24

Mushroom cloud over nuke deal
Doubts about India's nuclear capability could make it difficult for the government to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ( CTBT). They could trigger pressures for another set of tests, which would put paid to the Indo- US nuclear deal as well.

But they are not reckoning with the changed environment in the US. The last time around in 1999, the treaty was ambushed by the Republican party and voted down in the US Senate. Later, the Bush administration refused to move the treaty for ratification. This time, the Obama administration, which has a super- majority in the Senate, is determined to push it through. Once that happens, India will be confronted with the same dilemma it faced prior to the Pokhran- II tests of 1998.

The consequences of an Indian test will also torpedo the Indo- US nuclear deal. The key to the deal is the waiver to the US Atomic Energy Act, which barred nuclear trade between the US and countries that are not signatories to the nuclear non- proliferation treaty ( NPT). But this waiver only covers Indian nuclear tests until May 13, 1998. Any new test means the ban on nuclear trade will resume.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14122
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 28 Aug 2009 09:35

Thermonuclear pretensions
Bharat Karnad

This raises the question whether Kalam, a rocket engineer, knows more about nuclear weapon systems than nuclear scientists such as Santhanam or even a host of nuclear stalwarts, including P. K. Iyengar, former chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, et al, who went public immediately after the tests with their doubts about the efficacy of a design yielding meagre fusion energy ( no more than 20 kilotons, according to Santhanam) and who adduced convincing scientific reasons why the test was a fizzle.

But why are Messrs Iyengar and Santhanam convinced that resumption of nuclear testing and the rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that Washington has begun pressuring the Manmohan Singh regime to sign, are essential? Firstly, because data and that too from a single, flawed, thermonuclear test is grossly inadequate for the purposes of writing simulation software, compared to 1,800 tests conducted by the US, 800 tests by Russia, and 75- odd tests by China. And because the most advanced Indian computers, according to Anil Kakodkar, chairman, DAE, are capable of only two trillion operations per second when, for realistically simulating a thermonuclear explosion, the computing speeds required are in the range of 1,000 trillion operations per second.

Secondly, testing is not necessary if sophisticated and inordinately expensive technological infrastructure is available.

Thus, for example, an inertial confinement fusion facility to produce miniature thermonuclear explosions to help design new types of hydrogen weapons, and the dual axis radiographic hydro test facility to improve the boosted fission trigger for thermonuclear weapons, is why countries such as the US need never test again.

But for an India without such paraphernalia, further testing is an imperative.

Repeated testing begets reliable, proven and safe nuclear and thermonuclear armaments and enhances the credibility of a country's deterrent posture.

Richard Garwin, a renowned American thermonuclear weaponeer, has indicated the scale of complexity involved in configuring a workable hydrogen bomb.

Some 2,000 design features and processes have to work just right, he has stated, for the thermonuclear weapon design to be deemed a success. HOW IS one to square this observation with the Indian government's view that, notwithstanding the deficiencies in test data and limitations in computing speeds, the Indian weapons designers have to cope with, its weapons are credible? Moreover, without serial testing how is the Indian military end- user to know whether the presumed design kinks have actually been ironed out and the weapons rendered capable of performance as advertised? Besides, the questionable provenance of India's " thermonuclear" weapons is too well known for them to hold any terrors for an adversary willing to take a chance on calling India's bluff in a strategic crisis. China may do that in the context of its own wide array of weapons and warheads, each extensively tested mated to their vectors - a range of land and sea- based ballistic and cruise missiles.

India, in contrast, has tested an operationally ready 20 KT fission warhead and that too only once in 1998, as part of the Shakti series. The government has sedulously propagated a myth that all nuclear weapons are equal in their impact, that an Indian 20 KT " firecracker" is the equal of a 3.3 megaton standard issue warhead atop the Chinese Dongfeng- 21 intermediate range ballistic missiles targeted at India, which is patent nonsense.
Last edited by pankajs on 28 Aug 2009 09:46, 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

Postby shiv » 28 Aug 2009 09:35

Suddenly it occurs to me that a news headline I saw but failed to read in detail a few days ago maye have some significance.

Some guy - a minister or someone said India had enough Uranium for 3 years reactor fuel.

If that is the case, India needs to get more within 3 years. If we do not get that Uranium - our reactors will start blinking. If that happens we are in doodoo - sanctions or no sanctions. Testing after that should make no difference to us.

Let me predict that India will test sometime in the next 3-4 years if we fail to get Uranium supplies for our civilian program

India's military program has been kept on hold on the understanding that India will get help in the civilian field. If the latter does not happen, it will have to be business as usual.

Oh yes - and let's keep burning the coal and fuel oil

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14122
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 28 Aug 2009 09:39

India needs fresh tests to build N-deterrent
Former Atomic Energy Commission chairman Dr P. K. Iyengar has backed the claim of K. Santhanam that the hydrogen bomb tested in 1998 was a failure.

On Thursday, Iyengar advocated fresh tests to ensure a credible deterrence in a worsening regional security context, but criticised the government for forfeiting India's " sovereignty to test" by signing the civilian nuclear treaty with the US. Iyengar said there has been no certification of the thermonuclear device blasted in 1998. " I have always said that the test was not successful. The signature of the nuclear blasts recorded worldwide did not suggest a thermonuclear explosion.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14122
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 28 Aug 2009 09:42


sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4473
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sanjaykumar » 28 Aug 2009 09:47

The government has sedulously propagated a myth that all nuclear weapons are equal in their impact, that an Indian 20 KT " firecracker" is the equal of a 3.3 megaton standard issue warhead atop the Chinese Dongfeng- 21 intermediate range ballistic missiles targeted at India, which is patent nonsense.


A crude liquid-propellant CSS-2 is capable of delivering a 3 MT nuclear warhead over a distance of some 2,800 km.

What is unfortunately left unstated is the CEP of the delivery system. Yes you need a 3 MT warhead if your missile has an equal chance of landing in Palam as at the Agra airbase.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby PratikDas » 28 Aug 2009 09:48

There you go. GOI's claims now lay bare with Dr. P.K. Iyengar (BARC) backing up Dr. K Santhanam (DRDO) with a "I told you so" to boot.

Oh, and Bharat Karnad agrees too! (former member of National Security Advisory Board)

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 28 Aug 2009 10:01

amit wrote:Unlike PK, Santhanam was a part of the inner circle. Now it could well be what he's saying is a fact - the TN was a fizzle.

However, then the question arises, why did he keep quiet for all these 10 long years? Even though he's a PhD in Biochemistry and not a Nuclear physicist, sure it did not take him so long to realise this "fizzle"?.

FYI, upon visiting the S-1 site Santhanam and others knew immediately the test did not deliver what it was supposed to do, and then questioning/interacting w/ RC and his team and then .. . .. . spin-miester

caesar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 14:57
Location: gurgaon

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby caesar » 28 Aug 2009 10:19

John Snow wrote:tell me about it. Everytime we come to the cross roads of action as SDRE's we are never short of convoluted logic :roll:
I repeat

why is that only SDREs claim unbearable pressure from unkil from defending in the wake terror or trying some small pyhsics experiments in our small desert land or pool of bay?
N Korea flouts
Iran flexes
Israel smashes
Pakistan cheats
PRC voilates
India wimps?


Well said man.India wimps

Dasari
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 04 Mar 2009 09:20

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Dasari » 28 Aug 2009 10:32

Few days ago there were some News about a North Korean ship quarantined by India's coast guard and brought to one of the smaller ports at Kakinada, AP, for extensive search. Apparently it was typical North Korean naval ship camouflaged as commercial ship that carries nuclear and missile material between Pakistan, China and North Korea. If they found something incriminating in the inspection, it gives credence to the fact that GOI may be behind Santhanam's revelation to pave India to conduct more tests and ramp up its nuclear arsenal further.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54513
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 28 Aug 2009 11:07

pankajs wrote:India needs fresh tests to build N-deterrent
Former Atomic Energy Commission chairman Dr P. K. Iyengar has backed the claim of K. Santhanam that the hydrogen bomb tested in 1998 was a failure.

On Thursday, Iyengar advocated fresh tests to ensure a credible deterrence in a worsening regional security context, but criticised the government for forfeiting India's " sovereignty to test" by signing the civilian nuclear treaty with the US. Iyengar said there has been no certification of the thermonuclear device blasted in 1998. " I have always said that the test was not successful. The signature of the nuclear blasts recorded worldwide did not suggest a thermonuclear explosion.



unfortunately a lot of gas is being passed about why KS did this or that.

From a participant this is what happened:

Day before yesterday (Aug 26) at an IDSA Nuclear Policy Workshop on "Revisiting CTBT" at the India International Centre that was being conducted under Chathan House rules, there were four designated speakers -- Santy, Satish Chandra, fmr Dy to the NSA, Arundhati Ghose and Karnad. Santy in his initial presentation said, among other things, only that "We need more testing". When it came to Karnad-- and he spoke last -- he started out by saying that Santy for the first time had come out publicly to slam the hydrogen device test as a "dud" and a "fizzle" -- which are not the words Santy used, and that this was important as it supported the campaign he has been part of demanding more testing and, by extension, against compromizing on this by signing the N-deal with the US and the CTBT. In the Q&A session that followed, G Balachandran, a Fellow at IDSA, asked Santhanam pointedly if he agreed with (Karnad's) take on what he had said, that the fusion device tested had proved to be a "dud" and had "fizzled out". Santhanam said he did.

A reporter from the Hindi daily - 'Dainik Bhaskar', perhaps unmindful of the Chathan House strictures, went ahead and published the story the next day (Aug 27) when, proverbially, the sh*t hit the fan.



Really wonderful are the ways of vidhata that he chose a reporter of Bhaskar or surya to spread the news of the TN fizzle and left great guns with blanks. So it wasn't any Chankian outburst or calculated move but a clear outing of information in national interests.

My wonderment is what was the premisee of this seminar on "Revisiting CTBT?" Why would IDSA a GOI funded institute explore this with the set of speakers? Where was the MEA think tank in this?

You know the movie Bombay Dreams, looks like this is a Surya dreams. A lot of reputations are in the mud now. More like the sack of Delhi by Timur.

Its funny if it weren't true.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby svinayak » 28 Aug 2009 11:16


http://indiatoday.intoday.in/index.php? ... 62&secid=0
While the three tests conducted on May 11,1998 may not have yielded the design output ,but a number of other tests on our nation have been no less than big bang.The first one was the recession and inflation,the role of cheer leaders to please and fool the public and rople of girls in wooing the selectors, delinking the talks from terror with our neighbor,our friend on North trying to break us apart in 30 parts and Jaswant Singh taking the lid off the good image of his party chief and declaring his views on Jinnah.

As if these were not enough now comes the explosion that the yield of Hydrogen Bomb exploded 11 years back was dud.For the common man who does not understand clearly as to what these scientists talk and how does it matter if a bomb exploded in the desert of Rajasthan had a much lesser yield than was claimed by the entire establishment .The sad aspect is why this revelation now? If he is indeed a man of conscience then he should have come out openly long back and educated the nation.

But now his words would have the impact of Hydrogen Bomb on those who basked in the glory of 1998 tests and were given awards ,rewards and very strategic positions which they have been holding without break thus not allowing anyone else to come up and know the real truth.These are the persons who would be most embarrased.To them Santhanam has done a disservice . They were relishing the "Dry Fruits Payassam" which Santanam has converted to chilly sambhar.

Most of them would lose their sleep.They were the ones who convinced none less than PM that the tests results were as per design. While Santhanam may not get anything but his revelation should make Dr Singh think that giving unlimited extensions to any person howsoever brilliant can be dangerous for the nation.Nobody is indispensible in this country.In fact all the persons connected with tests have captured strategic positions for them and their colleahgues.

And all appears very fine. Now giving out this revelation that India will have to conduct more tests will not just pour cold water it would put the Deal in deep freezer. The fusion created by the initiative of Prez Bush and reluctantly roped in Dr Singh for better ties between two great nations has not yet yielded the results when this "further tests required " is threatening to fission the deal between the two countries. US conducted their last test in 1992.

And after that they have chosen another way to test their bombs without actually exploding them .This they call as Stockpile Stewardship. This ensures that without actually conducting the underground explosions they are able by doing simulations on supercomputers and be confident that the nuclear warheads would deliver the right amount of explosive power. For a thing which is good for nation there has to be one voice of all Indians but it does not happen.

Because the scientists are not able to explain the secrets of nuclear power to the common man.The common man still treats any thing nuclear with the awe and fear of nuclear bomb like a brahmchari who treats every lady as "a door to hell ".Both the assumptions are totally wrong . That is why Albert Einstein the greatest ever scientist born on this Earth had said that the true test of a scientist is in being able to explain the complex scientific phenomenon in simple and easy to understand languagre. He himself was able to do so with ease as he explained the science fundamentals to his half a century of girl friends.

There is need for more openness in the establishment and willingness to own up the error if committed.Afterall we are all human beings prone to mistakes.God alone is perfect .He only makes devices which deliver 100%design capacity.

Nevertheless since the issue has been raised when the friendship would have resulted in Seal the Deal scenario But now the fissures having appeared it would divide the nation on the very issue of seeking power through tiny atom when coal available in plenty in our nation ,the water of rivers inviting us to be utilised as hydropower and the plenty of solar energy going waste are open "Deals of the Nature" which we are reluctant to ink.

Again because nuclear has the awe and secrecy associated with it . And those in position enjoy and relish while the rest of nation watches with jaws dropped.
Last edited by svinayak on 28 Aug 2009 12:12, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54513
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 28 Aug 2009 11:21

Can we have link please?

George J
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby George J » 28 Aug 2009 11:24

Santhanam's claim over N-tests absurd: R Chidambaram wrote:....................Emplacement point is the exact spot where the nuclear device is placed in the shaft underground and is covered by rocks to prevent radioactivity from escaping into the atmosphere. Six months after the nuclear tests, scientists had dug out the rocks from the emplacement points 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 thermonuclear explosive device (hydrogen bomb in common parlance) had worked," the scientist explained. "The total yield comes out as 50 (+/- 10) kilotons for the thermonuclear device, consistent with the design yield and with the seismic estimate of the total yield," he said.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby RajeshA » 28 Aug 2009 11:30

Perhaps a different angle needs to be explored.

Which parties in the world want to stop nuclear testing ban treaties (CTBT) in its tracks?

It is not just India. The Pentagon is just as interested in seeing CTBT being buried for the time being. The problem is Robert Gates has an uphill task with the likes of Obama and Biden calling the shots, and a Democratic super-majority in the Senate and a majority in the House of Representatives.

Please read about the politics of nuclear testing in USA
Inside Obama Administration, a Tug of War Over Nuclear Warheads (Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2009) by Elaine M. Grossman: Global Security Newswire
Defense Secretary Robert Gates raised the idea of reinstating the controversial Reliable Replacement Warhead effort during a secret "Principals' Committee" meeting convened by the National Security Council, Global Security Newswire has learned.

In pursuing the initiative, Gates appears to have won the backing of some pivotal Cabinet secretaries, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. One administration-watcher -- a critic of the replacement-warhead idea -- alleges that several key appointees at the Defense and State departments are now "scheming and maneuvering" to bring the program back to life.

However, Biden has strongly opposed the move, based on the view that pursuing a new U.S. warhead program could undermine Washington's efforts to discourage nuclear weapons proliferation around the globe.


There are constituencies in USA which does not want to see CTBT come to light. India is not the only party which fears CTBT. Both USA and India need a credible nuclear deterrent.

My Conspiracy Theory Compass is telling me, the Dr. K Santhanam revelation is a well-coordinated Pentagon-MoD operation to stop both Obama and PRC in their tracks.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54513
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 28 Aug 2009 11:31

George, he is relying on radio-chem data which only BARC has. The paper that BARC had published talks about all those isotopes of Sodium etc produced by 14Mev electrons. And from that they say yield is 50 +/- 10 kt. They also give a radius of cavity in that paper. And from standard textbooks on nuke explosion cavities, and assuming the mid level number for soil constant it comes ~ 37kt. I thought that was close enough. But if aam guy like me can back calculate how do we know the radius number was right at all?

Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 586
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Raja Ram » 28 Aug 2009 11:52

Blast from the Past – Things said and unsaid…..

Gentle readers,
Thanks to all of you who have shown interest in what this rambler has to say. I thought it best to collect my thoughts more cogently once again and the result is this post. It is but an alternate view point and expands on some of the ideas that I had expressed in the email. So please take it as such. I claim no expertise on technical aspects of neither thermo nuclear devices nor access to strategic thinkers. This is just my take on it by reading the straws in the wind.

Santhanam’s coming out in the open is very significant. Those who know the gentleman and his contributions to India’s nuclear capabilities will no doubt take his view very seriously. What he has laid out is more a case for why there is a need for more testing. It is not an indictment of the thermo-nuclear device that was exploded – not of its design, not of the capability to produce one. Why then the need for additional tests? Read his carefully nuanced position again, gentle readers, for it reveals certain clear nuances.

First, he has made his case based on international doubts on the thermo-nuclear capability of India. He has not commented on the correctness or otherwise of it.

Second, he has made this statement to make a point that India should not be signing up to any disarmament initiative such as CTBT without further tests. The logic he has placed is based on the case made by western naysayers of Indian capability. He has used their words and stance to make a case on why India should not sign up and indeed carry out more tests.

Third, more importantly, why has he said what he has said now? He was party to the assertion by the GOI that India had a thermo-nuclear device and that there were no further tests required. He was the test director. It was done under his watch. Even if the tests indicated that the design was flawed and the yield was not as expected, it was his responsibility to declare whether the results succeeded or not as much as the senior team members involved. It cannot be that he has acquiesced to some governmental pressure then. He is not made that way. He could have come out earlier, when the nuclear deal was being negotiated, but he did not. He could have come out with papers and seminars when he was at IDSA as a Director, he did not do so. Until now.

There is a reason as to why he has said it now. Gentle readers, I urge you to think through on these lines and review what has been happening in the recent past. Both in the region and in international fora.

With regard to the question whether the test was a “fizzle” or a success, there are of course two views. As evidenced here in BR and elsewhere. But let us take at face value what every one is concluded as to what Santhanam is claiming - that the thermo-nuke test was a failure. It is another matter, that most media personnel are tarring the entire exercise as failure. Let us ignore that for a while. They are being their usual incompetent selves.

Let me now try and present an alternate view which is slightly different then the popular belief that is now gaining ground as a result of Santhanam’s remarks. The popular views is that are gaining ground as a result of Santhanam’s remarks are:

1. India does not have thermo nuclear capability as the test was a failure, without further tests it is impossible to claim that we have the capability.
2. India needs to do a series of tests and this is now not realistically possible as this would jeopardize the US India nuclear deal and its economic goals
3. India is therefore consigned to the levels of a second rate nuclear power like North Korea and Pakistan and is not in the league of P5.
4. India as a result cannot attain the second strike capability thus rendering its stated nuclear doctrine ineffective

What then is the unstated objective of India’s detractors – both declared and undeclared ones? That India should therefore give up its pursuit of great power status as a military power of reckoning and agree to be part of a coalition of democracies under the umbrella of other powers. This really is the essence of it. There are other things but let us keep it simple here.

From what I can understand of how India’s nuclear policies and capabilities are managed after reading some of the notable publications on the subject, it is clear that multiple dimensions are managed at different levels and the overall picture and control is maintained by a small group attached to the PMO.

What could be this structure? Here is my take on it.

Policy Group – A small group headed by the PM, responsible for taking all decisions in terms of policy, what capability should be achieved, what should be the time frame and who should know what. Provides funding and other support and does the overall oversight. This is the highest level and probably privy to all aspects of India’s nuclear capabilities and programmes. Even here, there could be only a few in this group who may know everything.

Technical Group – An inter institutional group probably headed by the Scientific Advisor to the PM. Responsible for briefing the policy group on what capabilities can be achieved, what is the trend in the field, building the capability, testing and offering professional technical advice. Takes inputs from National Security Advisor in terms of what challenges have to be met and by when. Two key institutions in this are DRDO and BARC.

One key feature to be noted - there could be sub-groups set up that are authorized to carry out specific tasks. They will be provided necessary inputs to carry out the task but will not have complete knowledge of the whole programme, but only the part they are concerned with.

Second key feature is that for every project team, there is a cross institutional peer review team that gives its independent advice to the Policy Group on claims and results.

Operational Group – Essentially the user groups of armed forces coordinated by Strategic Command. This will provide the operational requirements and professional advice on threat perceptions to the Policy Group and Technical Group. It is most likely responsible for maintenance of capability, training, stockpile stewardship support. In addition, it is likely to be responsible for assisting the technical group in conducting tests and user trails. Once again, there is every likelihood of sub-groups who are tasked specific responsibilities and the extent of exposure to information is limited to the same. A strict need to know basis rule is in place as to who knows what and to what extent.

Security Group: A dedicated multi institution team that is tasked with the responsibility of maintaining secrecy and opaqueness. It is also likely that this team is tasked with misinformation and disinformation responsibilities as well.

The above is purely my take, and I may be totally wrong or totally right or somewhere in between. The point is something like this structure controls the entire gamut of Indian Nuclear capability.

It is in this context, the 1998 tests should be looked at. If indeed there was a problem with the thermo nuclear device, it is simply very difficult for a group of people to subvert the system and mislead the government into a false sense of achievement. Having said that, there could be a situation that a test result is misrepresented and decisions are made based on that. Let us assume now for arguments sake, given that Santhanam has spoken out, that this happened with regard to the thermo nuclear device.

Available evidence suggests, that there was a dispute raised internally by members of the DRDO team based on their instruments and readings. This was put up to a committee comprising both BARC and DRDO and the said committee has accepted the BARC counter. The said committee would have had all the details to take its view. None outside it would have it. PK Iyengar was not part of it. So while he had his doubts and expressed it openly, he was not in a position to prove that the test was a fizzle conclusively. He came up with his doubts and they were valid ones. Was Santhanam part of the committee? Did he know every detail? Most likely, Yes. That is why his comments are to be taken seriously. If he did not, at least his public utterances does not give that impression. Hence, his nuanced position on the topic. If he was indeed part of that committee, then he was party to the technical advice given.

The advice was that India had the capability of building a thermonuclear device. There was a small technical snag that can be corrected without resorting to full scale tests immediately. Also, the deviation between design yield and observed yield was explained by this snag. It is likely that the technical group gave this professional advice to the Policy Group. What it did not expect was that there would be no further chances to test if it was needed.

Now the Policy Group had the enormous task of dealing with the aftermath of this decision. There were several key people assigned with specific responsibilities and they all delivered. Advani was tasked with provoking Pakistan to test so that the nuclear capability of Pakistan and its origin was opened up. He delivered on that. Yashwant was tasked with mitigating the effect of sanctions on growth and capital flow. He delivered on that. George was tasked with bringing into open the Chinese threat as a principal reason for Indian decision and he delivered on that. Jaswant was tasked with handling the real politik impact of the decision and he delivered on that.

It was the decision of the Policy Group to declare the voluntary moratorium to blunt the US attack and pressure on CTBT. Jaswant was even asked to discuss this with Talbott later. This was something that was not needed. This was a self lock that came in handy for the GOI but also provided some leverage to USG when it came to the nuclear deal negotiations. But it probably made sense at that time, given the all out effort made to Cap Rollback and Eliminate and prop up China by the USG. The GOI was careful enough to have a key to the lock by stating that the moratorium will stay indefinitely but will be periodically subject to scrutiny based on security and threat assessments.

This must have come as a surprise to the technical group. They were not expecting such a public declaration of moratorium but rather expecting a non published as the post 1974 hold back of GOI.

Coming to the present situation, the Indo US Nuclear deal gave access to India to enter the international arena and participate as an “equal. ” The present administration was faced with a dilemma; the Uranium availability had reached a critical stage. It was vital that Indian nuclear industry developed to meet the growing energy demands and India had access to this in unconstrained manner. They got a deal with the US. The present GOI in my opinion was willing to limit its military programme and freeze it with a view to seize the opportunity that Bush administration was presenting. But what was offered first and what was concluded in the end was somewhat different.

It was still the right thing to do. As long as one was confident that in the case of supreme National interest, the GOI will not hesitate to test no matter what the cost to it post the deal. Moreover, the cost was limited to what was exposed to the US and its laws. But the USG had other ideas and they did attempt to CRE yet again. Case in point, their attempt to ensure FBR was brought under scrutiny and only in the civilian sector, their subsequent reneging on ENR technology etc.

The willingness of the PM and his team to clinch this deal at the cost of surrendering sovereign options was shocking to quite a few. Inside the establishment, Anil Kakodkar took the step of speaking out to ensure that it did not happen and forced the issue.

The present act of Santhanam could be a result of something similar. Is the GOI headed by the current economist PM ready to surrender India’s sovereign options (not soverignity) in terms of its nuclear policy and capability to secure more support for its accelerated economic growth?
In support of such an assertion, the data points are there. MMS has always been at best a lukewarm supporter of nuclear weapons. His stint as FM saw him prevent PVN twice from testing. He has withheld funds from AEC to build domestic Uranium capability as well as the three stage programme when he was Director there representing FM. His world vision for India seems decidedly based on being an economic power and acting in concert with other democracies and multi literalism. This is demonstrated time and again by his speeches at international fora. His willingness to overlook Indian interests and sensibilities and agreeing to try and save Pakistan in order to serve US interests there are all data points.

In contrast, the same PM has also been responsible for ensuring support to vital programmes like missile defence and ATV. Has also gone on record that he would support these delivery mechanisms to ensure the Draft Nuclear Doctrine envisaged triad is available to the armed forces. His government has also sanctioned the highest number of border projects in recent times in reaction to the Chinese threats. He has also kicked off ambitious and qualitative overhaul of capabilities in conventional forces as well.

So what is the real agenda of MMS? It seems to me that he is interested in freezing whatever capability there is and try hard for a genuine disarmament effort. In his vision, he sees nuclear capability is a distraction from the main mission of economic growth. He does not want India as a global power in all its dimensions. I have called it the Japan Model in the past. He is therefore more likely to sign up to multilateral agreements as long as India is allowed to keep its capabilities at the current levels and he wants in exchange complete and unhindered access to technology and capital so that India emerges as one of the leading economic power first. Maybe he believes, that once that is achieved, India will be in a position to assert itself and catch up on the military and power projection fronts. India then will have the strength to disregard agreements and unequal pieces of paper signed now.

With the current main opposition in disarray and somewhat on the defensive, it is unlikely that it will be in a position to effectively oppose any move by the GOI to go ahead and sign up agreements like CTBT or FMCT.

Santhanam is a nationalist. Those who have had the opportunity of interacting with him would know what he feels about India’s position in the world and the nuclear apartheid. He is not alone. There are others in the establishments who have a clear idea what India should aim for. Shyam Saran’s speech is another example of that line of thinking.

In my view, Santhanam does not want India to surrender its nuclear options and hence his coming out in the open and using the arguments of the west to make a case for it. It is a much nuanced stance he is taking here. It could also be a desperate bid to prevent it by sparking a debate. Anil Kakodkar was successful to some extent in protecting Indian interests earlier during the Indo-US negotiations. This time Santhanam has taken it upon himself to do so.

The contra view to the above is that MMS and the GOI are facing acute pressure to sign up to the CTBT or FMCT. GOI does not want to sign up and hence is using the arguments of the NPA community by turning it on its head and sparking a debate in India for creating a favourable environment for not signing any such options curtailing deal and also testing the thermonuclear device. Why now? Because the delivery systems are all ready and there has been further refinement of the weapon design in the intervening period. Santhanam is ideally placed to place the doubt in public domain, create a debate and then let the GOI be seen as responding to it as a mature government and testing.

Why is there need for test? My view is that the test is necessary to establish firmly and unambiguously the deterrence value and not so much as proving technical capability. As I said, those who will have doubts about it will have it. And those who don’t will not have it. But there is no place for doubts when it comes to establishing deterrence value that is more critical to India given the NFU posture it has adopted.

If the contra view is the right one, then the GOI in the next few days will come out with clear statements that it will not sign up to CTBT or FMCT in hurry and the moratorium will be reviewed periodically. If there is a need as per the security and threat perception or a need for improving the safety and reliability of Indian Nuclear arsenal, then GOI will seek to suspend the moratorium. Of course, there will be the mandatory statement of India is committed to nuclear weapons free world and everyone is family sentiments expressed. That will be a clear indication that Santhanam was doing his appointed role by GOI.

If on the other hand, they try to come down heavily on his comments and brush his call for not signing CTBT and carrying more tests then the former is the reality. What GOI does in the coming weeks will clear up what is going on.

That is why I feel that the debate is not about whether the thermonuclear device “fizzled” or performed. That will always continue and no one will know for sure. What Santhanam is doing is using that debate and the doubts and aspersions cast by the NPA lobby and the west to keep Indian sovereign options open. To that extent, gentle readers, what he has said is important and what he has left unsaid is equally important too.

It is a rather long post, so those who have patiently read through it, please note that this is just a ramble and one person’s reading of tea leaves.

derkonig
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 08 Nov 2007 00:51
Location: Jeering sekular forces bhile Furiously malishing my mijjile @ Led Lips Mijjile Malish Palish Parloul

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby derkonig » 28 Aug 2009 11:55

BijuShet wrote:
John Snow wrote:tell me about it. Everytime we come to the cross roads of action as SDRE's we are never short of convoluted logic :roll:
I repeat

why is that only SDREs claim unbearable pressure from unkil from defending in the wake terror or trying some small pyhsics experiments in our small desert land or pool of bay?
N Korea flouts
Iran flexes
Israel smashes
Pakistan cheats
PRC voilates
India wimps?

In the movie The Good, the bad and the Ugly there is this dialogue "When you have to shoot, shoot! Don't talk.". Babus and mantris in all countries on your list above other than India seem to have imbibed this message.


It isn't the babu who is to blame, the real culprits are the dhimmi traitors ruling India today, who will leave no stone unturned to harm Indian interests. MMS has pursued CRE right from day 1 in 2005 & surely he sees no reason to not eliminate India's nuke capacity.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 518
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pralay » 28 Aug 2009 12:24

This looks like nice series of psyops being played to make room for upcoming nuke tests. I have not seen any top level scientists talking like this on key issue related to national security.
Please don't call him traitor.
Things look like a teamwork on a ongoing plan.
We should wait and watch. We may have good fireworks to celebrate Diwali or year-end. :wink:

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14122
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 28 Aug 2009 12:29

Apologies if this has been posted before
---------------------------------------
Make nuclear programme accountable
Brahma Chellaney
Against this background, the latest claim that the 1998 thermonuclear test performed well under par can only further damage the credibility of India’s nuclear posture. The controversy over the thermonuclear test, however, is nothing new. No sooner had the test been conducted than a former head of the Indian nuclear programme, P K Iyengar, questioned official claims of success.

In such a setting — with critics within and outside the country questioning the success of the test — India must be ready to convincingly re-demonstrate its thermonuclear capability, should a propitious international opportunity arise from a nuclear test conducted by another power.

Nuclear deterrence, after all, is like beauty: It lies in the eyes of the beholder. It is not what India’s nuclear establishment claims but what outsiders, especially regional adversaries, believe that constitutes deterrence (or the lack of it).

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby PratikDas » 28 Aug 2009 12:34

Raja Ram ji, thank you for your time and effort in sharing your views with us. I read it from start to finish. Forgive me for not doing justice to your work with an equally nuanced review. Unfortunately the mind is preoccupied with the events around us.

Dr. K Santhanam, Dr. P.K. Iyenger, Bharat Karnad and some others, in my view, are our the last stand. I respect Arun_S for holding up that beacon of truth all along. I have (had?) a lot of respect for Manmohan Singh for all his personal accomplishments in the past but if he succumbs to signing the CTBT, NPT, or FMCT then he'd be one arrogant s.o.b who sold the nation and our future for the Nobel Prize.

For A.P.J. Abdul Kalam to acquiesce to this lie after promoting the motto "strength respects strength" reveals his own weakness.

The stellar work done by Arundhati Ghose and others in defending India's position on the CTBT is being frittered away under the guise of "Revisiting CTBT"

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vina » 28 Aug 2009 12:37

Raja Ram wrote:, he has made this statement to make a point that India should not be signing up to any disarmament initiative such as CTBT without further tests. The logic he has placed is based on the case made by western naysayers of Indian capability. He has used their words and stance to make a case on why India should not sign up and indeed carry out more tests.


Yes. He would make any Jiu Jitsu /Judo master proud. Basically used the opponent's own strength and momentum against them by being nimble and using leverage. And this is exactly why I believe that it is a GOI sponsored initiative aimed at the NPA/CTBT lobby. A very loud and clear message, that push CTBT and NPT by all means, but India will TEST and then sign as a DE JURE power . No two questions about it. So push CTBT and NPT at India by all means but know the consequences. Also remember what happened when they signed that without India's signature, but still require India, Isreal etc to sign up before entry in force. The blasts rang out loud at Pokhran.

The advice was that India had the capability of building a thermonuclear device. There was a small technical snag that can be corrected without resorting to full scale tests immediately.

That part is pure speculation. However for deterrence you dont need to fully test. If the Pakistani experience is an indicator, until they tested after Shakti II, they really did not have a "proven" weapon. But the possibility that they had a working weapon deterred India and allowed Pakistan to launch the 1989 insurgency in Kashmir and sponsor terrorism against India without threat of retaliation.

Exact same dynamic will work. All you need (if you want guaranteed 2nd strike) is to put two equal numbers of alternate designs refined from the Shakti II experiement on MIRVS. You will be guaranteed a second strike and enough deterrence. Ok, instead of 3 nuke boats, you will need 6. So what is the big deal in that ?. Trade that off against greater integration with the world, economic growth and access to capital and technology, I think it is well worth it.

Oh, by the way. Hold the threat out to Unkil you will test and say that we should have all the trade rights in Nukes as a De Jure power and ask access to the codes that they shared with the brits and chinese by all means.


So what is the real agenda of MMS? It seems to me that he is interested in freezing whatever capability there is and try hard for a genuine disarmament effort. In his vision, he sees nuclear capability is a distraction from the main mission of economic growth. He does not want India as a global power in all its dimensions. I have called it the Japan Model in the past. He is therefore more likely to sign up to multilateral agreements as long as India is allowed to keep its capabilities at the current levels and he wants in exchange complete and unhindered access to technology and capital so that India emerges as one of the leading economic power first.


That I think is the sane way forward and a vision I fully buy into. You will need just enough deterrence to make sure that no external power thinks of attacking you (especially in the neighborhood). We need to concentrate absolutely fully into making sure that economically India becomes a middle income country soon and well on it's way to become a first world power in technology , industry and social indicators (the climb to 1st world level wealth will come about only over a sustained 50 year period).

However for India to progress, we NEED TO INTEGRATE WITH THE WORLD . That is exactly the learning from the 40 years of "socialistic development" , "non alignment" etc until 1991 and the experience of SE Asia, S.Korea and other NICs and Taiwan. Why even China, started becoming what it is today , ONLY after it started integrating. China TOO has had to act in concert with others and put limits on stuff it does.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14122
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 28 Aug 2009 12:43

Pratik Saar, all leaders at the end of the day have but one failing, each one of them desires to leave a rich legacy behind. Case in point, "The hand of Friendship" for Atalji, "The new-clear deal" for MMS, and so on.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby PratikDas » 28 Aug 2009 12:46

vina wrote:
Raja Ram wrote:The advice was that India had the capability of building a thermonuclear device. There was a small technical snag that can be corrected without resorting to full scale tests immediately.

That part is pure speculation. However for deterrence you dont need to fully test. If the Pakistani experience is an indicator, until they tested after Shakti II, they really did not have a "proven" weapon. But the possibility that they had a working weapon deterred India and allowed Pakistan to launch the 1989 insurgency in Kashmir and sponsor terrorism against India without threat of retaliation.

Exact same dynamic will work. All you need (if you want guaranteed 2nd strike) is to put two equal numbers of alternate designs refined from the Shakti II experiement on MIRVS. You will be guaranteed a second strike and enough deterrence. Ok, instead of 3 nuke boats, you will need 6. So what is the big deal in that ?. Trade that off against greater integration with the world, economic growth and access to capital and technology, I think it is well worth it.

No, the exact same dynamic won't work with China. If you look at the growth in the Chinese armed forces then it is clear that whatever we think "just enough deterrent" might be, we don't have it yet.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14122
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 28 Aug 2009 12:57

vina wrote:Yes. He would make any Jiu Jitsu /Judo master proud. Basically used the opponent's own strength and momentum against them by being nimble and using leverage. And this is exactly why I believe that it is a GOI sponsored initiative aimed at the NPA/CTBT lobby. A very loud and clear message, that push CTBT and NPT by all means, but India will TEST and then sign as a DE JURE power . No two questions about it. So push CTBT and NPT at India by all means but know the consequences. Also remember what happened when they signed that without India's signature, but still require India, Isreal etc to sign up before entry in force. The blasts rang out loud at Pokhran.

Saar, if India were to test what will happen to the the new-clear deal? MMS had almost sacrificed his government for the deal. IMVHO this revelation can not have the sanction of the PMO.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby PratikDas » 28 Aug 2009 13:01

pankajs wrote:Pratik Saar, all leaders at the end of the day have but one failing, each one of them desires to leave a rich legacy behind. Case in point, "The hand of Friendship" for Atalji, "The new-clear deal" for MMS, and so on.

Granted.

But MMS succumbing to CTBT / NPT / FMCT would only leave a legacy that would be rich in the stink. We would not be "integrating with the world" the way some say we would be. We would joining the ranks of second class citizens with a badge of pride.

pankajs wrote:Saar, if India were to test what will happen to the the new-clear deal? MMS had almost sacrificed his government for the deal. IMVHO this revelation can not have the sanction of the PMO.

Wait a minute, didn't MMS say out loud and clear in the Parliament in response to the opposition's query that India had not bartered the right to test as part of the nuclear deal? If he lied then he is in no position to be making such decisions for the country. If he didn't lie then the nuclear deal will go through without the need for signing CTBT / NPT

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14122
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 28 Aug 2009 13:13

PratikDas wrote:Wait a minute, didn't MMS say out loud and clear in the Parliament in response to the opposition's query that India had not bartered the right to test as part of the nuclear deal? If he lied then he is in no position to be making such decisions for the country. If he didn't lie then the nuclear deal will go through without the need for signing CTBT / NPT

Mushroom cloud over nuke deal
The consequences of an Indian test will also torpedo the Indo- US nuclear deal. The key to the deal is the waiver to the US Atomic Energy Act, which barred nuclear trade between the US and countries that are not signatories to the nuclear non- proliferation treaty ( NPT). But this waiver only covers Indian nuclear tests until May 13, 1998. Any new test means the ban on nuclear trade will resume.

It is true that article 14 of the Indo- US 123 Agreement is nuanced. According to section 2 of the article, the parties would consult each other before termination and would " take into account" whether the reasons for seeking termination were related to " a party's serious concern about a changed security environment or as a response to a similar action by other states, which could impact national security". In other words, a Chinese, Pakistani or even US nuclear test preceding an Indian one would not necessarily lead to the termination of the agreement.

But this is one clause of the agreement that New Delhi would rather not put to test.

With Obama in office, and his stated view on CTBT, etc, the end result of a test will be termination of the nuclear deal and MMS legacy that he was willing to sacrifice his government for.
Last edited by pankajs on 28 Aug 2009 13:20, edited 1 time in total.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby PratikDas » 28 Aug 2009 13:16

pankajs wrote:With Obama in office, and his stated view on CTBT, etc, the end result of a test will be termination of the nuclear deal and MMS legacy that he was willing to sacrifice his government for.

But, assuming MMS is pro-"integration with the world" he is not going to test a nuclear device anyway after the nuclear deal is signed. So, assuming his legacy is all he cares about, he would have achieved his goal by the time he hands over the reigns to the next govt.

When MMS is no longer the PM and a future govt chooses to test a device then THAT government would be responsible for "isolating" India from the world - once again not MMS' problem.

All MMS has to do is not screw India over by signing the CTBT or the NPT. We're not expecting that much of him. He can sign all the nuclear deals he likes as long as they can be legally undone later.
Last edited by PratikDas on 28 Aug 2009 13:37, edited 2 times in total.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby RajeshA » 28 Aug 2009 13:26

One thing has often amused me - Why there are hardly any NPAs or Pentagon, speaking out the truth with regard to North Korea, that North Korea is basically a front for the testing of Chinese weapons. Every time NoKo tests, China tests.

The reason seems to be that the PG 12 rated NPT system, that the NPAs have built up and delivers their bread and butter would come crashing down, if the dirty little non-secret is revealed, so they shut up.

What I wonder is whether France and Russia have been sufficiently chained to the Civilian Nuclear Program of India and when India tests, whether they would ensure that there are no UN or NSG sanctions on India. In the EU, Germany would have a purely Right of Center Government, with both Greens and SPD having to sit in the opposition benches. It is France and Germany which will be setting the tone for EU.

Would US support sanctions, even as MRCA deal would be dangling in front of them? Hillary Clinton, the State Dept has come out in favor of Reliable Replacement Warhead effort (RRW) and thereby in favor of renewed testing by USA itself. As the State Dept would be dealing with the aftermath of India's tests, her views would be critical. Pentagon would in fact be hoping for India's 'transgressions'.

Opposition to India's new tests would probably come from VP Joseph Biden, Richard Lugar, John Kerry, Howard Berman and the NPAs. All except Joseph Biden can be brought over to not support full-fledged sanctions etc against India. Joe Biden would probably want sanctions because of the internal struggle within US Government.

I don't consider the international environment to be that much against Nuclear Testing, especially with the major economies having to deal with the financial crisis. White House and Japan would be the biggest critics.

It may not be a bad idea to get a few Senators and a few Congressmen to come over to India to discuss AfPAk or something else. India would also have to reactivate the India-US Political Action Committee.

Important is for India to go on the offensive that India considers all NoKo nuclear testing to be Chinese nuclear testing. Also the Chinese Threat to India needs to be highlighted. With such articles as those which recently appeared in China about breaking up India, etc. China is giving India the necessary leeway to convincingly claim that there is a real threat emerging from China, and India needs to test.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby csharma » 28 Aug 2009 13:27

Could this be a simple signal to US about the perceived unreliability of US as a strategic partner.

Subhas Kapila in his recent article of India_Russia_Iran triangle spoke about Indian strategic community's disenchantment with US.

derkonig
BRFite
Posts: 952
Joined: 08 Nov 2007 00:51
Location: Jeering sekular forces bhile Furiously malishing my mijjile @ Led Lips Mijjile Malish Palish Parloul

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby derkonig » 28 Aug 2009 13:31

sameer_shelavale wrote:This looks like nice series of psyops being played to make room for upcoming nuke tests. I have not seen any top level scientists talking like this on key issue related to national security.
Please don't call him traitor.
Things look like a teamwork on a ongoing plan.
We should wait and watch. We may have good fireworks to celebrate Diwali or year-end. :wink:


I will bet my top dollar that no tests will happen. CTBT is definitely possible OTOH. Once again just like the S-e-S sellout, we start combing for chankianness when there is none. Let us not delude ourselves to search for some grand scheme being planned out somewhere in South Block. There is no such thing, zilch, move on. All that MMS has ever done is sell out India. To the lowest bidder.

And if anybody needs proof, GoI has categorically stated y'day that '98 tests were a success, refuting the fizzle allegations. So basically, GoI will not test, even if our scientists come out in the open about '98.
As for MMS, when has he ever cared for the nation's opinion. Take into account the nuke deal in which the parliament was kept in the dark. Besides, MMS has time & again shamelessly lied to the nation about the implications of the nuke deal on future nuke tests. The nuke deal documentation effectively cut out future tests India.
Be assured, MMS will sign the CTBT.
Last edited by derkonig on 28 Aug 2009 13:40, edited 1 time in total.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14122
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 28 Aug 2009 13:39

PratikDas wrote:All MMS has to do is not screw India over by signing the CTBT or the NPT. We're not expecting that much of him. He can sign all the nuclear deals he likes as long as then can be legally undone later.

That is my point. All this sudden noise may be to ensure that his US visit in Nov does NOT become another red letter day in our history. It is said that he will be the 1st foreign head of state invited by this admin to the White House - a rare honor. You know how we Indians are susceptible to a little flattery.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby PratikDas » 28 Aug 2009 13:51

csharma wrote:Could this be a simple signal to US about the perceived unreliability of US as a strategic partner.

Subhas Kapila in his recent article of India_Russia_Iran triangle spoke about Indian strategic community's disenchantment with US.

Sure, it could be some horribly (horribly) bad idea with the good intention of getting a sweet nuclear + MRCA + F-414 engine + C-17 transport + maritime surveillance + GPS satellite tech + whatnot deal.

As long as the CTBT / NPT is not signed, any drama, posturing, or rhetoric is just entertainment.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14122
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 28 Aug 2009 13:54

I say the GOI should use this opportunity to push the strategic programs further and faster.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest