Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Sep 2009 03:00

On the confusion:

- Do not think KS is saying S1 fizzled completely - he already said it worked to maybe 60% of designed yield
- Either the 25 meters is for the cavity of S1 or 25 meters of mud being thrown around, loosely referred to as the crater size of S1 or the 25 meters is for the crater of S2

What seems to be the case is KS was expecting a deep subsidence crater and maybe even a chimney and that did not happen.

Either ways, if you read that para the way ramana/NRao are then all consistency with reported yields and other seismic public data is lost. KS cannot be saying two different things in a matter of days, he will loose all credibility.

My conclusion is the article is poorly written/edited.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 19 Sep 2009 03:39

sam & n3,
i was just making a simple obvious point that you dont have to test the entire range only because of your assumed confidence in the response characteristics of the sensor. if you dont know or dont have confidence in the later, you have to test full range and hopefully have enough degrees of freedom to be able to calibrate. i said "scientific point" bcoz the focus here is on implications of all this (CMD or not?) and just wanted to clarify that what i wrote was just a technical note. I am sure concerned people would know how to deal with such specific issues theoretically and practically.

having said this, i have a naive question, for something as consequential as this, how come most of the equations and understanding is phenomenological? See NRao garu's post above.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 19 Sep 2009 03:57

Let's look at these realations:

Ds = D/(Y^1/3.4)
This is empirical. ok.
D is usually known to people putting bomb. Let's say that's 200m.
Y has somehow been inferred independently, let's say that was 45KT
This implies Ds = 65.
What medium produces a zilch radius or little retarc for this Ds?
Looks like Sulky!

Added: if the yield was larger and the depth stayed constant, Ds falls and it is unlikely, using the provided chart, that we would see no depression.

OK, but if the yield was smaller say 20KT and depth was 200m then we get Ds = 83 at no crater. What material does that correspond to? Looks pretty good like between a hard place and alluvium to me. And if it really was hard rock cafe, like Sulky, would a 20KT produce a crater at 200m if a 45KT would not? There's no data point there!

The observations are: no crater, D ~ 200m (may be more). The unknowns are: yield and medium. If hard rock is the lower bound on ds, then would not any yield less than 45KT satisfy the no crater observation at 200m?

What's the mistake here?
S

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 19 Sep 2009 04:07

Shaardula,
to answer your question, I will say that direct simulation the governing equations with any fidelity to reality requires several things
a) resolution.
b) proper BCs
c) Proper ICs
d) Proper parameters of the transport/dynamics part.
e) Proper parameterization (not same as parameters) of the physics part.
f) numerics.

All of this either requires observations to use or some estimates derived from observations and other "coarser" simulations. The problem often ends up being that to simulate something that could be phenomenologically explained, one ends up with a model -- if it is physically based or numerically based -- with too damn many degrees of freedom that requires way too many observations to calibrate and then it ends up being overfitting to a particular scenario!

Much of these problems are bypassed by constructing phenomeonlogical relationships under the assumption that
a) minor variations about the empirical model are linear sensitivities.
b) There is some kind of stationarity.
c) Such models are of very low dimensionality and easy to calculate.
d) They are usually good starting points; scale analysis, dimensional analysis etc are all similar examples.
For example, because we have such few records of past climate (say from cores), it is not sufficient to actually constrain a full blown numerical climate model with it, but it is easier to use the observations themselves to produce models -- markov models and others are typically used, and AR models were used in the past. But these have limitations too; they are tied to space and time which become problems when climate changes along these dimensions. I suspect similar problems may exist here.

I, in particular, find these Ds = D/y^n relationships problematic. I can write more later about why I think that.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Sep 2009 04:10

ShauryaT wrote: What seems to be the case is KS was expecting a deep subsidence crater and maybe even a chimney and that did not happen.

One of the elements that is missing is the depth - the best estimate is 'more than 200 meters'.

I have been toying with the equation provided in the Sunder BR article. That equation appears in other articles too - so I assume it to be an acceptable source for estimation.

Based on that a 27 Kt @ about 200 meters down will NOT create a crater. It will create a small retarc. Even a 45 Kt @ 200 meter will not generate a crater. For 45 Kt for a crater to be formed it will have to be at a depth of LESS than about 182 meters - even then the crater will be rather small - some meter or two across.

IF the assumed 'greater than 200 meters' is acceptable, then even a 45 Kt yield is possible. In short, PERHAPS, cratering is not a data point to be considered?

Radio-whatever IMHO should be the more reliable data point to arrive at a decent, reliable conclusion.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 19 Sep 2009 04:14

We can easily calculate the sensitivity of the relationship to depth and assume it works in a certain linearized regime about a certain point. Clearly, if Yield is zero and depth is 100m, Ds is not infinity!

S

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Sep 2009 04:25

The equation I have found is:

D = C(Y)**1/n,

where:
D = depth,
C = Constant (represents the soil - 60 for dry, hard rock to 122 for alluvial soil)
Y = Yield
n = some constant (found it to vary from 3 to 3.4) (I have not really figured out what this represents)

But, what is interesting is the crater vs. retarc.

Trevia:

retarc is crater spelled backwards.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 19 Sep 2009 04:32

Arun_S writes:

As for the former, perhaps you have too many of those forum settings to ignore many forum posters.

With apologies to ramana, that calls for a

Not nearly enough, Arun, not by a few dozen. When I check BRF and the whole POK-2

thread is invisible or on page 3, I can finish my work 10 times as fast and hence get a few more hours of sleep.

BUT.. b4 I go, the answer to all you folks struggling with the equations is that the answer is not there. Which is why I stay away from all that and focus on the undeniable. The damage at Khetolai, and the statements made by the residents and the "scientists" immediately after the event before they had all their agendas and instructions etc.

All the rest is Maya. BTW, my take on the recent "revelations" is that ALL who have opened their mouths are TELLING THE TRUTH. Not the WHOLE Truth (because they are under Secrecy or political or self-interest or ego constraints), and maybe not without intent to confuse, and probably they are quite satisfied to see people running in all different directions with what they say, but NO ONE is actually lying. This is usually what happens, except when the US Nonprollotullahs stood up before COTUS and swore that Pakistan had no nuclear weapon acquisition program, and China was not violating NPT. Now THOSE scum were lying, no two ways about it, and all the free democracies and all of human civilization has been put at risk because of those liars.

So the profitable course of thought is, instead of messing with equations that are of very little use, try to figure out what fits ALL the known facts.

BTW, Arun, ramana, it would be a great service if you folks could prepare a Table concisely pointing out with references, what the ANNOUNCED yields of S1 - S5 were, what those devices were supposed to be, and what the present CLAIMED yields of each are, from the various sources. I for one am completely lost. Was S1 a Pure Fusion explosion triggered by (what?) triggered by (how much?) high explosive? Was S2 a Pure Fission ... triggered by how much high explosive, or was it Fusion Boosted Fission, and if so how much Fission yield and how much Fusion yield?
Was S1 10kT and S2 25? Or S2 43 and S1 0.1? Or S1 60 and... sorry, I am lost.

A concise table would be of great help. Let's post it on the SRR Blog too, pls.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Sep 2009 05:27

India needs to carry out more N-tests to get it right

India will need to “carry out two to three tests” to ensure its hydrogen bomb is working and “not rush to sign” the comprehensive test ban treaty, he says. The panel should include retired “stalwarts in the field”, he suggests. The full report will have to be classified but “a sanitised version of one or two pages” could be made public.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 19 Sep 2009 05:50

i am not convinced sam. that is stuff we learn in class. i am surprised knowing how reductionist this all is, you are saying that. some amount of simplification i can understand, but descriptions that donot have constants for medium of propogation is high school stuff, IMHO. in anycase, even i can imagine how important it is to be able to precisely quantify and verify results. lack of data is our problem. i cant imagine somebody in ameerkhan and roos hasn't put their minds on this or some babu or ayatollah isn't interested in precise numbers. even real ayatollahs precisely know the yield in virgin units, to the exact integer for their experiments with fazool material. i think these are all for general consumption.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Sep 2009 06:14

Gerard wrote:India needs to carry out more N-tests to get it right
India will need to “carry out two to three tests” to ensure its hydrogen bomb is working and “not rush to sign” the comprehensive test ban treaty, he says. The panel should include retired “stalwarts in the field”, he suggests. The full report will have to be classified but “a sanitised version of one or two pages” could be made public.

This is going the wrong way:

Brajesh Mishra, national security adviser during the tests, contests Santhanam’s claim that the issue of the yield was decided by a “voice vote” in a 1998 meeting. “There was no voice vote.” S K Sikka of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre did most of the explaining and he doubted, as Santhanam has claimed, there were any military officers present.

Need to get this back to technical issues.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 19 Sep 2009 06:18

shaardula wrote: i think these are all for general consumption.

Even the released unclassified results and conclusions following a future peer review of the '98 tests, will be incomplete and could lead to similar discussions and confusion. That is the nature of the problem. It will never be a Phy. Rev. type of external review and revealing all relevant information. GoI is not going to do that even following future multiple tests, if any.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 19 Sep 2009 06:19

The way to deal with Santhanam's points is to do the review and not debate who was there in a meeting 11 years ago.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Sep 2009 06:41

samuel wrote:I wonder if 25KT is our default credible minimum deterrent?

No. Overnight it has become 15 kt. Please allow me half a day to create a new table to say how many football fields can be destroyed per Agni phyrred.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-nee ... 55523.aspx

The Department of Atomic Energy, which claims the test was a success, used radiochemical analysis. “My arguments are still solid, ” says Santhanam.
There is no reason to be embarrassed about hydrogen bomb test failure, he says. “No country in the world succeeded in the first try.”
But he believes that India’s nuclear deterrent is not credible with warheads limited to 15 kilotonnes — the yield of a successful fusion bomb test.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Sep 2009 07:18

I am beginning to suspect that Santhanam may have achieved his desired yield. But let me speculate on what that the yield was supposed to be in order to work backwards and arrive at a design.

The "don't sign CTBT" is the most common design that is attributed to Santhanam's bomb

But there are alternative designs - and I wonder if Santhanam is demanding that the deterrence be thermonuclear based by insisting that it is fission based? Interesting to note that Santhanam has been sensible enough to not attempt to increase his own credibility by stepwise escalation into a hierarchical blame game which is sure to backfire against him as others will do a tit for tat.

ss_roy · Post by **ss_roy** » 19 Sep 2009 07:29

About time!

India needs to carry out more N-tests to get it right

It does not matter if we go for a BF or a TN deterrent. What matters is:

1] Do we have enough (good yield + numerous warheads).

2] Are we prepared to use them, if that day came. (political will and command system)

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 19 Sep 2009 07:50

One interesting thing shaardula hints at is that, look these are serious problems that a lot of serious minds must've gone into and all this is just smoke screen for some public consumption. Bade says yeah, we'll never see any of this published, not even in physica(Z) if that existed.

I don't agree.

The fundamental problems here are fundamental because the things that are unknown are about pinning down the environment and system. Every tom dick and hariharan can write down navier stokes equations ok, but ask them to use it to predict nature, not just produce cute visualizations and it falls apart. Gee, why?

The first bomb was over sixty years ago. Guess what kind of numerical modeling and simulation tsar bomba had access to?

where do the brightest go these days? do you think they end up in a govt funded research lab?

I could write more but I think it generally is useful to break it down into simple things and see where the problems may arise. The rest is dressing.

What are the basic issues here? If you look at this ds-rs chart we keep refering to, the first thing that comes to mind is, damn we need more data! Why would we put ourselves in aposition to make it more difficult to get it? Imagine that we want to have both tactical and larger nukes. Oh, let's be modest and say from 0.1 KT to 1MT. Scaling laws seem to indicate that up to 5 times we can go up from a test. For 250, we need 50KT test, for 1MT 200KT test. you have one failed 50kt sample, or otherwise 1 sample. wtf kind of engineering or science is that to base a country's bottom line security on? is this a joke? I,m sorry may be these guys are geniuses, but takes not a genius to see something is messed up, I think.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 19 Sep 2009 07:55

Dr. Santanam garu has not indulged in balme game, its our pisko analysis tendencies that see that way. He has stated facts that he is aware of, nothing more nothing less. Its upto people to beleive those facts as truth or not.

Babu Bihari · Post by **Babu Bihari** » 19 Sep 2009 07:56

shiv wrote:.....But he believes that India’s nuclear deterrent is not credible with warheads limited to 15 kilotonnes — the yield of a successful fusion bomb test.

Shiv,that appears to be a mistake by the reporter. It should have been,"......successful fission bomb test."

ss_roy · Post by **ss_roy** » 19 Sep 2009 08:10

Another of PraFOOL Bidwai's gems.. We used to call traitors - jaichand, much like the greeks called their - ephialtes.

Maybe we should call our minor traitors- prafools.

How many bombs does India need?
September 18, 2009 14:58 IST

India already has more than 100 fission weapons, each enough to kill up to two million people. This is deterrence enough, says Praful Bidwai. What's with our security and space-science establishment? Why does it miss targets, exceed budgets, produce shoddy results, and still claim success after stellar success?

Why do we keep showering upon its managers (wrongly called 'scientists' because most stopped doing science decades ago) more awards and honours than in any other field?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Sep 2009 08:15

he does have a point about the 2nd line. false gods need not be lionized and worshipped. imo good scientists
do not necessarily make great program managers and god knows we need a few. ITvity PMBOK certifications just dont hack it in the real world. perhaps people from large infra and projects cos are best at it.

ss_roy · Post by **ss_roy** » 19 Sep 2009 08:23

Singha,

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

My main problem with his thesis on deterrence is that - he is either lying or delusional. Unless India can hit the top 100 chinese cities with 5x the number of nukes needed to level or depopulate them, we do not have an effective deterrence. I do not care if the nuke is TN or BF (200kt from either "feels" the same, anyway

).

prao · Post by **prao** » 19 Sep 2009 08:46

I hope this was not posted here before. I couldn't find it in the past few pages. Info about Santhanam by B. Raman in his inimitable point by point style with some interesting if uncomfortable questions for Santhanam. I've reproduced the full item here because it's all of great direct relevance to the discussion here and the only source of Santhanams background that I've seen.

B. Ramans blog

K.Santhanam was one of the Kaoboys of the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW). R.N.Kao, the founding father of the R&AW, had very high regard for his professional qualities. He was a delightful person to get along with---a Tamil to his finger tips with a very keen sense of humour, sometimes bordering on unsettling sarcasm.

2.Kao took him into the R&AW shortly after it was formed on deputation from the Atomic Energy Commission. He was one of the small group of scientists and technical personnel in the newly-created Science & Technology ( S&T) division of the R&AW and he ultimately rose to be its head. When Kao joined Mrs.Indira Gandhi as her Senior Adviser after she returned to power in 1980, he persuaded the R&AW to place the
services of Santhanam at his disposal as his S&T adviser. After the assassination of Indira Gandhi on October 31,1984, Kao resigned from the post of Senior Adviser and his small set-up was wound up. Santhanam gravitated to the Ministry of Defence to assist Dr.V.Arunachalam and spent the rest of his career in the set-up of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

3. Even though he never returned to the intelligence profession, he maintained close contacts with his former colleagues in the R&AW and retained his close personal friendship with many of them.

4.In its 50 years of history,one of the success stories of the R&AW was its ability to closely monitor the work of the Pakistani Atomic Energy Commission.Santhanam was the first to discover the plans of Pakistan to set up a plutonium reprocessing plant in the 1970s with the help of the French and the Kahuta uranium enrichment plant with stolen and smuggled equipment and technologies from different parts of the world. If one day a book is written on the success of the R&AW's S & T Division , Santhanam would be an important hero of the narrative from the first to the last page. There were other heroes too.

5. Santhanam had a phenomenal memory for facts and figures, a remarkable capability for analysis and the knack of arriving at conclusions, which often proved to be correct.Some of the Tamil officers in the R&AW used to call him "vazha-vazha kozha-kozha" Santhanam meaning "slippery" Santhanam because of his way of talking which could be sometimes incomprehensible and unnecessarily mysterious. The more charitable friends of his attributed his way of talking to his highly-developed security consciousness. There was never a leak from his Division so long as he was the chief.

6. If there is one criticism which could be levelled against him it is that he never built up the institutional memory of his Division. Everything was stored in his memory. He hardly maintained any detailed notes of what he did and how he did it. Th result was that his successors had difficulty in stepping into his shoes when he moved out of the organisation.

7.Santhanam has never been a loose-mouthed or attention-grabbing individual. His recent statement that the nuclear fusion test of 1998 was a fizzle has,therefore, caused considerable confusion and consternation

8.There are some puzzling aspects of his recent statements and the article which he had contributed to "The Hindu" of September 17,2009, on this subject. It is evident that he felt that the test was a fizzle right from 1998. It was not a conclusion reached by him recently after studying some new data, which were not available in 1998.

9. That being so, why did he keep quiet for so long? He has been quoted in some sections of the media as saying that he decided to go public now after 11 years because he apprehended a US attempt to force India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. His hint is that India needed to carry out more tests to master the fusion weapon. He should be knowing that after India signed the civil nuclear
co-operation agreement with the US and subsequently agreed to the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency of Vienna, the question of its carrying out any more tests just does not arise in view of the commitments, which it has already made not to carry out any more tests.

10. One would have appreciated his action if he had made this disclosure before India signed the agreement with the US. He did not do so. He refrained from joining the other critics of the Indian agreement with the US and the subsequent developments. He thereby gave the impression that he had nothing against the agreemrent with the US.

11. There is another aspect, which is even more puzzling. The first National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) set up by the Atal Behari Vajpayee Government in 1999 a few months after the nuclear tests was given the task of proposing a draft nuclear doctrine. It was headed by K.Subramanian, the strategic analyst. Santhanam evidently did not caution this NSAB that the fusion test was a fizzle. As a result, it reportedly prepared the draft doctrine under the belief that it was a success.

12. One can understand his not doing so because at that time he was still serving in the DRDO under Dr.Abdul Kalam and it might have been embarrassing for him to go over the head of Kalam and sound a warning bell before the NSAB. Santhanam retired in 2001 and was appointed the Director of the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi, in place of Air Commodore Jasjit Singh. In that capacity, he
replaced Jasjit Singh as a member of the third NSAB in 2002. According to sections of the media, it reportedly suggested some amendments to the recommendations made by the first Board. Despite being a member of this NSAB, Santhanam does not appear to have shared with it his conclusion that the test was a fizzle. As a result, whatever recommendation was made by the third NSAB, of which Santhanam was a
member, was also reportedly based on the belief that the test was a success.

13. To say now that the test was a fizzle and that he knew it all along has caused a lot of concern in the minds of our public. This could unwittingly encourage adventurism by India's adversaries. ( 17-9-09)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Sep 2009 08:53

Babu Bihari wrote:
shiv wrote:.....But he believes that India’s nuclear deterrent is not credible with warheads limited to 15 kilotonnes — the yield of a successful fusion bomb test.

Shiv,that appears to be a mistake by the reporter. It should have been,"......successful fission bomb test."

BB - There is a point I want to make about what we might want to label as "mistake by reporter". Ultimately what we all judge as "mistakes" by reporters or anyone else are based on the way we see things. All statements by everyone we are talking about in these threads come to us second or third hand via some "reporter" or other. Don't we all choose to ignore some reports and highlight others depending on how we want to view things?

Now try looking at it this way.

Santhanam is a patriot (as per reports)
Santhanam is telling the truth ( based on what he has said)
Santhanam is reported to have said India's deterrence is based on 15 kt bombs
Let us ignore the fusion or fission part to argue about it later

So please tell me what is the latest avatar of the truth? Does truth today make yesterdays speaker a liar. Then Santhanam could become a liar because he said 27 + 2 yesterday. Today it is 15.

But Santhanam is telling the truth - therefore we must blame the reporter in this case. We "feel" that yesterdays report is more true than today and todays report will make Santhanam a liar which we feel is wrong. Therefore the second report is a lie, and the reporter is the liar.

This is our level of satyamenva jayate.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 19 Sep 2009 08:55

ss_roy wrote:I do not care if the nuke is TN or BF (200kt from either "feels" the same, anyway ).

Oh saar,
It matters hugely. A TN with 200 KT yield will weigh ~250-300Kg. A FBF with similar yeild will weigh ~800-1000Kg. Think of the Sagarika missile which has to deliver one of these into one of the adversaries cities.
That higher yield will reduce the range of the missile by several hundred kilometers; The platform with its crew, say the arihant, will have to be in the south china sea and in extremely dangerous waters to be able to do so. Compare that with a situation where it could fire one off the bay of bengal from safe waters.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Sep 2009 08:57

John Snow wrote: He has stated facts that he is aware of, nothing more nothing less. Its upto people to beleive those facts as truth or not.

Speaking of pisko - he has said what you state are facts. it is up to others to decide whether they believe that his statements are facts or not. See post above.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 19 Sep 2009 09:16

The part about his general style being slippery, leaves a large uncertainty estimate that can be subjectively given to statements from just one such individual, however higher up the ladder he might be.

Some of the Tamil officers in the R&AW used to call him "vazha-vazha kozha-kozha" Santhanam meaning "slippery" Santhanam because of his way of talking which could be sometimes incomprehensible and unnecessarily mysterious.

He may be taking people for a ride for all we know, more so here at BR. Or he could be just a patriot, using his persona for a higher purpose. All a coordinated and controlled leak. In that case, all of us getting excited are part of this propaganda for a positive end result.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Sep 2009 09:29

shiv wrote: So please tell me what is the latest avatar of the truth? Does truth today make yesterdays speaker a liar. Then Santhanam could become a liar because he said 27 + 2 yesterday. Today it is 15.

But Santhanam is telling the truth - therefore we must blame the reporter in this case. We "feel" that yesterdays report is more true than today and todays report will make Santhanam a liar which we feel is wrong. Therefore the second report is a lie, and the reporter is the liar.

This is our level of satyamenva jayate.

Shiv: Easiest job in the world it is to question a person's integrity, when arguments fail. When that happens, let us ask, what are the motives of each party to say, what they are saying? How strong are these motives? Do the motives justify the risk? Are there personal careers at stake? Is loyalty to the unit/organization part of the driver? Does the messenger have something to loose?

Ask these questions, and see what answers do we get.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Sep 2009 09:40

x-post...

Gerard wrote:India's N-programme needs to be transparent: Chinese scholar

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Sep 2009 09:47

Dr. Santanam garu has not indulged in balme game,

Nah, he has indulged in commenting about Kalam and to an extent on Mishra.

Interesting to note that Santhanam has been sensible enough to not attempt to increase his own credibility by stepwise escalation into a hierarchical blame game which is sure to backfire against him as others will do a tit for tat.

He is the one who started it saying what Kalam knows on the subject.

Seeing the language used by disciples of Santhanam, I doubt, all that emanated from Santhanam. Fair no ?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Sep 2009 09:52

shiv wrote:So please tell me what is the latest avatar of the truth? Does truth today make yesterdays speaker a liar. Then Santhanam could become a liar because he said 27 + 2 yesterday. Today it is 15.

But Santhanam is telling the truth - therefore we must blame the reporter in this case. We "feel" that yesterdays report is more true than today and todays report will make Santhanam a liar which we feel is wrong. Therefore the second report is a lie, and the reporter is the liar.

This is our level of satyamenva jayate.

To tell precisely, it is 25 kt bomb, which he feels too low for Agni with 3500 km. ( I am telling only what he stated)

Now it is 15 kt .

My sources are telling me ( hey, i'm following the tradition in this forum, dont blame me) tomorrow due to the abrupt burst of radio-chem leaks from POK-I even that 15 kt may be a fizzle.

Keep watching....evey day there is hot news.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 19 Sep 2009 09:55

Kanson wrote:
Dr. Santanam garu has not indulged in balme game,
Nah, he has indulged in commenting about Kalam and to an extent on Mishra.

Interesting to note that Santhanam has been sensible enough to not attempt to increase his own credibility by stepwise escalation into a hierarchical blame game which is sure to backfire against him as others will do a tit for tat.
He is the one who started it saying what Kalam knows on the subject.

Seeing the language used by disciples of Santhanam, I doubt, all that emanated from Santhanam. Fair no ?

Was Homi Sethna a disciple of Santhanam too? I don't think so.

Pokhran II: Sethna slams Kalam

"What did he (Kalam) know about extracting, making explosive grade? He didn't know a thing. By being a president he appeared to wear the stature. He relied on atomic energy to gain additional stature," said Sethna about Kalam while talking to a TV channel.

"I don't like politicians to interfere specially lay politicians to interfere any more. I firmly believe that they should stay out.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Sep 2009 10:00

ShauryaT wrote: Shiv: Easiest job in the world it is to question a person's integrity, when arguments fail. When that happens, let us ask, what are the motives of each party to say, what they are saying? How strong are these motives? Do the motives justify the risk? Are there personal careers at stake? Is loyalty to the unit/organization part of the driver? Does the messenger have something to loose?

Ask these questions, and see what answers do we get.

It is very true that we should not discuss like this way about the motives and all those things IF (thats a big IF) he could have discussed this after the retirement. He would have gained lot more credibility if this was made earlier and not now.. Not only i have this view, there are many who echo this sentiment. What kind of answer we have for all the points B.Raman raised.

9. That being so, why did he keep quiet for so long? He has been quoted in some sections of the media as saying that he decided to go public now after 11 years because he apprehended a US attempt to force India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. His hint is that India needed to carry out more tests to master the fusion weapon. He should be knowing that after India signed the civil nuclear
co-operation agreement with the US and subsequently agreed to the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency of Vienna, the question of its carrying out any more tests just does not arise in view of the commitments, which it has already made not to carry out any more tests.

10. One would have appreciated his action if he had made this disclosure before India signed the agreement with the US. He did not do so. He refrained from joining the other critics of the Indian agreement with the US and the subsequent developments. He thereby gave the impression that he had nothing against the agreemrent with the US.

11. There is another aspect, which is even more puzzling. The first National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) set up by the Atal Behari Vajpayee Government in 1999 a few months after the nuclear tests was given the task of proposing a draft nuclear doctrine. It was headed by K.Subramanian, the strategic analyst. Santhanam evidently did not caution this NSAB that the fusion test was a fizzle. As a result, it reportedly prepared the draft doctrine under the belief that it was a success. There is US connection.

12. One can understand his not doing so because at that time he was still serving in the DRDO under Dr.Abdul Kalam and it might have been embarrassing for him to go over the head of Kalam and sound a warning bell before the NSAB. Santhanam retired in 2001 and was appointed the Director of the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi, in place of Air Commodore Jasjit Singh. In that capacity, he
replaced Jasjit Singh as a member of the third NSAB in 2002. According to sections of the media, it reportedly suggested some amendments to the recommendations made by the first Board. Despite being a member of this NSAB, Santhanam does not appear to have shared with it his conclusion that the test was a fizzle. As a result, whatever recommendation was made by the third NSAB, of which Santhanam was a
member, was also reportedly based on the belief that the test was a success.

13. To say now that the test was a fizzle and that he knew it all along has caused a lot of concern in the minds of our public. This could unwittingly encourage adventurism by India's adversaries.

Added Later:
Let me complete on what i'm trying to say. Its all about timming. If Santhanam made this revelation before it would be viewed differently. Now after this N deal, he is saying that he leaked this becoz of CTBT. Further he is talking about 2-3 tests. By testing who is the loser, Ok it is India. who else ? it is also the other stakeholders and companies involved and going to get benefited from N-deal. Dont there is a chance of Santhanam of putting a gun towards these entitites to curry a favour. (Dont blame me for entertaining such wild imagination. We are only brain storming.)

Now, in the N-deal, after all the efforts made by US, who is enjoying the fruit ? It is from Fr, Ru, to Mongolia. What abt the US ? From what one can see from various reports, US is not interested in continuing N-deal or in the present form. Obama's moves in various international fora give credence to this theory. If you see the timming, it also matches. He is an ex-RAW man who worked along with US entitites to spy on N program of our neighbouring countries. There is a US connection. Why not he is creating this mischief on part of someone else. Who is the beneficiary of this ? It could be US NPAs. And Santhanam is quoting only details and concerns raised by NPA so far. All the yield, diameter are infact the samething made by NPA.

At the talk of India conducting another test, who will entertain N-business and who is the loser ?

WE all know that CTBT might be coming the moment Obama came on the horizon. And we all know Bush wont be holding office indefinitely. Citing CTBT as a reason may looks comfortable and may not be the sole reason, IMHO.

This is just another theory, in addition to CTBT theory.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Sep 2009 10:02

PratikDas wrote: Was Homi Sethna a disciple of Santhanam too? I don't think so.

Pokhran II: Sethna slams Kalam
"What did he (Kalam) know about extracting, making explosive grade? He didn't know a thing. By being a president he appeared to wear the stature. He relied on atomic energy to gain additional stature," said Sethna about Kalam while talking to a TV channel.

"I don't like politicians to interfere specially lay politicians to interfere any more. I firmly believe that they should stay out.

Disciple is the one who follow the teaching of a Guru/teacher/whoever..

Santhanam in this episode was the first to throw that line, followed by every gentleman, including the forum members here.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Sep 2009 10:06

Bade wrote: He may be taking people for a ride for all we know, more so here at BR. Or he could be just a patriot, using his persona for a higher purpose. All a coordinated and controlled leak. In that case, all of us getting excited are part of this propaganda for a positive end result.

All the day long, we are carried away by every kind of progaganda. So not a big issue but the question is Positive for whom ?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 19 Sep 2009 10:07

Kanson wrote: ...
Disciple is the one who follow the teaching of a Guru/teacher/whoever..

Santhanam in this episode was the first to throw that line, followed by every gentleman, including the forum members here.

Yeah whatever. You just chose to ignore what Homi Sethna, architect of the 1974 test, said of Kalam. Perhaps Kalam should keep quiet when he doesn't know what he's talking about?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Sep 2009 10:21

Sethna is supposed to have said this:

"What did he (Kalam) know about extracting, making explosive grade? He didn't know a thing. By being a president he appeared to wear the stature. He relied on atomic energy to gain additional stature," said Sethna about Kalam while talking to a TV channel.

If true I would respectfully disagree with Sethna. Kalam's stature as a sincere team builder existed before he became President and it was his personal charm and humiiity that made him popular. Nobody claimed that Kalam's atomic prowess made him popular or great - so that is a straw man. Perhaps Sethna was hurt by the fact that some of the Atomic Energy Commission's glory rubbed off on Kalam. But then it rubbed off on Vajpayee too.

It is that very glory and shine that he AEC tried to gain in 1998 that Sethna is questioning.

Is this turf war where the older guys supported by KS are saying 'You guys did nothing new!"

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 19 Sep 2009 10:40

shiv wrote:Sethna is supposed to have said this:

"What did he (Kalam) know about extracting, making explosive grade? He didn't know a thing. By being a president he appeared to wear the stature. He relied on atomic energy to gain additional stature," said Sethna about Kalam while talking to a TV channel.
If true I would respectfully disagree with Sethna. Kalam's stature as a sincere team builder existed before he became President and it was his personal charm and humiiity that made him popular. Few people claimd that Kalam's atomic prowess nade him great - so that is a straw man. Perhaps Sethna was hurt by the fact that some of the Atomic Energy Commission's glory rubbed off on Kalam. But then it rubbed off on Vajpayee too.

It is that very glory and shine that he AEC tried to gain in 1998 that Sethna is questioning.

Is this turf war where the older guys supported by KS are saying 'You guys did nothing new!"

You are drawing a subjective tangent where perhaps none exists. If you asked me whose word I would trust over the validity of a nuclear test, I would choose Sethna's word over Kalam's any day. Now when it comes to missiles, it would be exactly the opposite. I am not questioning Kalam's ability in his area of expertise or even as a leader. But everyone cannot be an expert when it comes to nuclear weapons. I certainly think Sethna is one.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Sep 2009 10:44

PratikDas wrote:
Kanson wrote: ...
Disciple is the one who follow the teaching of a Guru/teacher/whoever..

Santhanam in this episode was the first to throw that line, followed by every gentleman, including the forum members here.
Yeah whatever. You just chose to ignore what Homi Sethna, architect of the 1974 test, said of Kalam. Perhaps Kalam should keep quiet when he doesn't know what he's talking about?

Pls tell what Kalam infact said anything on this...AFAIK, he didnt made any claims. He didnt projected him as N scientiest or talk in loft terms about N physics. In the current episode, he only said, based on detailed project review we analysed all the results and agreed with the yield. I dont know what wrong in saying this.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 19 Sep 2009 10:53

Kanson wrote: ...
Pls tell what Kalam infact said anything on this...AFAIK, he didnt made any claims. He didnt projected him as N scientiest or talk in loft terms about N physics. In the current episode, he only said, based on detailed project review we analysed all the results and agreed with the yield. I dont know what wrong in saying this.

The "agreed yield" which Kalam is referring to is the same yield Chidambaram quotes
Pokhran-II tests were successful: Kalam

“After the test, there was a detailed review, based on the two experimental results: seismic measurement close to the site and around, and radioactive measurement of the material after post shot drill in the test site,” Mr. Kalam told PTI here.

“From these data, it has been established by the project team that the design yield of the thermo-nuclear test has been obtained,” said Mr. Kalam, who as Director-General of the Defence Research and Development Organisation spearheaded the nuclear tests in 1998.

I understand the definition of a fizzle to be that less than the designed yield is achieved. Kalam's recollection of what happened soon after Santhanam's statement could only serve to invalidate Santhanam's claim. There was no need for Kalam's 'all is well' statement when he cannot be sure.