Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby shiv » 19 Sep 2009 20:59

Babu Bihari wrote:
that sentence was not a verbatim quote by the reporter, otherwise it would have been in quotes. and had it been verbatim quote by the reporter, then why would santhanam call it a successful fusion test bomb, when he is already calling it a fizzle. thus it looks to me reporter meant - "....successful fission test bomb."


Sorry to belabor the point. Let me argue that it is Santhanam who has been inconsistent in what he says over the years - and this is yet another example. Why blame the reporter? He (Santhanam) has said 60% yield suggesting that 40% of the yield should have come from fusion. Then he says that 2 kt was fusion yield. If he is right then the fusion yield should have been 20 kilotons - (translating incidentally to 400 grams of Lithium Deuteride)

Next he is reported as saying that fusion was 15 kilotons. Why is it that you do not want to believe that and decide that it is a typo? That is an arbitrary decision that you are entitled to make - but similar arbitrary decisions can be made about all sorts of data that is available.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby shiv » 19 Sep 2009 21:01

Raj Malhotra wrote:I don't understand why are u getting antsy. If you feel, I am wrong, ok then. But obviously first line does not match the second line. Needless satire directed against each other does not serve any pourpose. Fissioin boms have been tested 6 times and if Arun_S says that spartk plug was boosted then it means that fission bombs were tested 7 times


Please don't accuse me of holding something against you personally - that is a needless strawman in a topic in which too many straw men are being created.

All I am pointing out is that your interpretation of the news item need not necessarily match mine thanks. I hope that does not make you are anyone "antsy" - whatever that means.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Sanjay » 19 Sep 2009 21:10

Shiv what I can't understand is why nobody reads Santhanam's op-ed piece and notes that BARC itself didn't weaponize the TN ?

As for Malik - he said:
"Particularly about the mega-tonne weapons, I'm talking about the fusion weapons, the thermo nuclear ones."

India has never even claimed a mega-tonne capability but this statement should be taken for intent rather than literality - you claim a TN capability - reassure us that it exists.

Babu Bihari
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 05 Sep 2009 00:33

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Babu Bihari » 19 Sep 2009 21:17

shiv wrote:Sorry to belabor the point. Let me argue that it is Santhanam who has been inconsistent in what he says over the years - and this is yet another example. Why blame the reporter? He (Santhanam) has said 60% yield suggesting that 40% of the yield should have come from fusion. Then he says that 2 kt was fusion yield. If he is right then the fusion yield should have been 20 kilotons - (translating incidentally to 400 grams of Lithium Deuteride)

Next he is reported as saying that fusion was 15 kilotons. Why is it that you do not want to believe that and decide that it is a typo? That is an arbitrary decision that you are entitled to make - but similar arbitrary decisions can be made about all sorts of data that is available.



I too have to belabor here. I don't understand why you are calling it "arbitrary". First, I said you may be correct in all what you are saying (that is, i agree that my interpretation may be wrong).

But I have already explained my logic. We may question all the yields, but why would he call it a...successful fusion bomb test, when he is claiming it to be a fizzle. That is beyond my understanding. If you think this is arbitrary, OK, lets move on.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53908
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby ramana » 19 Sep 2009 21:20

Sanjay,You are more versed in politico-military matters than most of us. Why do they want that assurance and now? Did Mumbai terrorist attack break some agreed lines?


And please think about that Karnal station and what it means and its significance?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby shiv » 19 Sep 2009 21:22

Babu Bihari wrote:I too have to belabor here. I don't understand why you are calling it "arbitrary". First, I said you may be correct in all what you are saying (that is, i agree that my interpretation may be wrong).


We have no dispute - you may be right yourself. But the obviously ambiguous wording is open to dispute, should someone want to dispute it and I intend to dispute it to the hilt.

Even if you ignore the word fusion as a typo, the yield has changed from 25 to 15 according to Santhanam.

How did that happen?

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2991
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Kanson » 19 Sep 2009 21:22

Sanjay wrote:Right now checking is in progress but I am not relying on a single source at
all.


Sanjay, you are earnestly trying to figure out, in current controversy bare minimum (Or should i say median) where India is at the moment.

I do know from where you are getting this 100 - 300 kg mark. Now if you like to give equal importance or no preference to anybody, what is your opinion on Adm. Menon quote from India today.

“One submarine carries at least 12 missiles with Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles, which could mean as many as 96 warheads. When such a submarine goes out to the sea, that many missiles are removed from our own territory. The enemy’s targeting of that many sites gets neutralised,” says Rear Admiral (retired) Raja Menon.


How do you reconcile ?

Second, i like to ask you, if some govt officials give press meet and say we have TN weapon and it is weaponised or say it is in production, how will this be taken ? Or, will it tilt the balance and cease this needless controversy.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby NRao » 19 Sep 2009 21:25

they are working ont he all waether road. It takes time ~ 10 -12 years.


Sure. Just that I would have expected them to start some 40 years ago and have 2-3-4 by now. Repeat in Arunachal?

Yes they do have credible deterrent based on tested weapons. And MMS operationalized it with proper changes to doctrine.


true. Apologies.

Agni is in production and missile groups are using the thing.


True. MIRV are yet to come was my point.

it is increasingly clear that nobody believed a TN weapon was credible for the last decade.


Outside of AK/RC, perhaps. Santhanam certainly knew and did not open his mouth till now. The fact that they have palced the "tested" TN on a missile (op), should indicate that even AK/RC were hedging at best. Best Guess?

Absolutely fantastic.


Absolutely fantasy?

Seriously, as ramana has pointed out, MMS's change to "minimum" should have set some bells ringing.

IF Santhanam was so concerned, the question remains why now.

No matter what, the fact seems to remain - as far as we know - there is "TN" on a missile top. Or is there? Even a dummy one?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby NRao » 19 Sep 2009 21:29

The Adm seems to be talking about the future.

IF India had, even a single TN on a missile, MMS could not have modified stance. Right?

Also, if it was there, why would the GoI/Armed forces not say - 'we have it (TN)'? No harm in stating the obvious at a very high level.

Babu Bihari
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 05 Sep 2009 00:33

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Babu Bihari » 19 Sep 2009 21:32

shiv wrote:Even if you ignore the word fusion as a typo, the yield has changed from 25 to 15 according to Santhanam.

How did that happen?


This I agree with. More consistency is desirable here. Could be that we have both 15kt and 25kt weapons. Perhaps he could clear all the doubts in well written 2nd op-ed piece, that should bring clarity.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2991
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Kanson » 19 Sep 2009 21:37

Also, if it was there, why would the GoI/Armed forces not say - 'we have it (TN)'? No harm in stating the obvious at a very high level.

You have to see Suresh Mehta's interview for this.

IF India had, even a single TN on a missile, MMS could not have modified stance. Right?

May i point out that, it is only an assumption. Anyone with imagination can come out with even more deadly possibilites.

The Adm seems to be talking about the future.

Whether it is present or future, if there is no such TN as Santhanam says, why would anyone harbour such thought. There is huge difference between K-15 having TN warheads and No. of warheads considering the payload of k-15.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Sanjay » 19 Sep 2009 21:39

Ramana, in my opinion the armed forces are not seeking reassurance. They may want a TN capability but even Sundarji never sought it - and his deterrent was predicated on no more testing.

Brig. Nair is the main TN exponent of the army and he called for weapons of up to 4 MT to be deployed after testing.

Malik, in my view, took the opportunity to get a shot in against the scientific establishment - as he did with his comments on DRDO - when awkward questions could have been asked about his royal screw-up in the early stages of Kargil.

That ARC maintains a seismic array is very interesting - why ? It is also a very interesting safeguard in the event other seismic stations don't pick things up properly. Could this also be a RAW-BARC spat ?

Also I would point out - while not disputing Santhanam - that Roger Clark's assessment of the seismic data suggested a total yield of nearer 60 KT !

I honestly don't think AK and RC are any more incompetent traitors than PKI and Sethna or KS. BARC's weapons team obviously didn't have faith in the TN test as they have not operationalised it. Public bluff and private honesty ? Not altogether a bad approach.

Admiral Mehta was talking about the here and now.

See:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 941925.cms

"Outgoing Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta, also the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, on Thursday said India had "a credible minimum nuclear deterrent'' in line with its no-first use (NFU) policy.

"We are a nation which maintains a credible deterrent...more than enough to deter anybody,'' said Admiral Mehta. And should someone do the unthinkable by launching a first-strike, then the "consequences will be more than what they can bear...As far as we are concerned, scientists have given us a certain capability which is enough to provide requisite deterrence...the deterrent is tried and tested.""

That is present tense - not future.

The esteemed gentleman was retiring so if he wanted to say something there was nothing that the GOI could really do!

Credible deterrence does not equal TN weapons.

It could mean large fission, multiple smaller fission and boosted-fission weapons.

Think of this - as to weapons we know we don't have - Santhanam confirms no weapons exist greater than 150kt.

He said nothing of weapons under that save and except that the 25kt weapon was on many platforms and he didn't think 15kt weapons were sufficient and that the TN test produced about 25-27KT which was about 60% of the design yield.

Let us not have any doubts - KS is a master of the game of talking for hours and giving away very little. Do not ever doubt his capacity for double-talk. This is not a criticism. It is reality. Read no more into what he says than what he says.

Ramana and anyone else with some tech knowledge still asking you this- what of the scalability of Indian fission designs without testing ?

I will re-iterate - Agni is not yet near MIRV status yet it is deployed and tested with 700-1000kg payloads in the case of A-1 and A-2 and 1500kg in the case of A-3. Those payloads are operational (not saying mated) at present.
Last edited by Sanjay on 19 Sep 2009 21:47, edited 3 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby NRao » 19 Sep 2009 21:40

Both fission and boosted-fission types that were tested worked.


What is the estimated weight of this puppy? BR has it around 500Kg (with a comment: Assured deterrence to those who doubt full yield 250 Kt TN weapon). Yield is estimated at 150-200 Kt!!!

Can ride an Agni too.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Sanjay » 19 Sep 2009 21:45

NRao - it would depend greatly on the max design yield and so many other factors.

It could be that a 50KT boosted weapon could be 500kg or so. I accept that anything from 150KT up is out until we hear otherwise.

It is possible to make really big boosted-fission weapons within 700kg - the 500KT MR-41 warhead for example. I don't think, however, we are yet in that league without additional testing.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby samuel » 19 Sep 2009 21:46

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news ... ef/513569/

Terming the recent comments of former DRDO scientist K Santhanam, questioning the yield of the thermonuclear device tested on May 11, 1998 as "shocking", he said doubts over the efficacy of the weapon affects the armed forces.

"Yes, it affects the armed forces. Particularly, because, when they plan the task given to them then they have to know what kind of yield that each nuclear weapon has," he said stressing that it was important to remove doubts. Malik also dubbed as "unconvincing" former President A P J Abdul Kalam's remarks virtually rubbishing Santhanm's claims on the yield of the thermonuclear device tested in 1998.


What's the Chief saying?
- They have TN weapons and need to know its yield?
- They are going about weaponizing it now and this is
particularly damning?

The former Army chief said that the team of scientists led by then Chairman of the Atomic Energy commission R Chidambaram should reassure the armed forces on the yield of the weapons.


- Remove doubts for a weapon that does not exist??
- What weapons. These comments were made in TN context:

"Let us not forget that Dr Santhanam was part of his (Kalam's) team. And it came as quite a shock with Dr Santhanam himself mentioning that it was a fizzle. Of course, again he was referring to the thermonuclear weapon. So, Dr Kalam's statement was not quite convincing," he said.


-

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Sanjay » 19 Sep 2009 21:49

Samuel - did you read the full interview ?

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/need-reassur ... ingle.html

The line I quoted is directly from this.

That contextualizes the comment.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby samuel » 19 Sep 2009 21:54

Thanks Shiv for intro to nukes...there's plenty of "online" info on the 10Kg Pu version etc. So, if it's all that easy, why not scale up and remove all doubt?

S
PS: Thanks Sanjay. I did not read the interview.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Sanjay » 19 Sep 2009 22:03

Samuel - never go only by the press report of an interview.

I am trying to get the full text of Adm Mehta's comments.

Shiv - critical mass for a Hiroshima weapon would be 5-8kg weapons grade or 7-12kg reactor grade plutonium.

It is the issue of fission/boosted-fission scalability without a test that will determine the size and composition of the current deterrent.

As I see things KS, PKI etc they are calling for taking the nuclear weapons project to its full potential before giving up on testing. That will require full mastery of TN technology - which is a very valid goal and point. It does not go to the credibility of the deterrent, however.

That said, I am disappointed at the tenor and tone of the discussion/debate.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3005
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby vera_k » 19 Sep 2009 22:07

samuel wrote:So, if it's all that easy, why not scale up and remove all doubt?


From what I've read, large Pu weapons are susceptible to accidental detonation. Therefore, the desire to build a safe weapon would impose a upper bound on the yield of a fission or fbf weapon.
Last edited by vera_k on 19 Sep 2009 22:20, edited 1 time in total.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby samuel » 19 Sep 2009 22:08

I am posting the Chief's interview in full as referenced by Sanjay. This opens the pandora's box even more in my mind but that in another post.

t
How do the armed forces respond to reports that cast a doubt over either the credibility of India's nuclear deterrent as well as reports that suggest that Pakistan's nuclear capacity has enhanced and its delivery improved? Karan Thapar asked one of India's former Army chiefs and the victor of Kargil, General V P Malik.

Karan Thapar: General Ved Malik, three leading Indian scientists, Dr Santhanam, Dr Sethna and Dr Iyengar, have raised doubts about India's nuclear as well as thermo-nuclear tests of 1998. The thermo-nuclear test is said to have been a fizzle and the nuclear test is said to have been done in haste. Have these comments said to have cast a shadow of doubt over the credibility of India's nuclear deterrent?

General V P Malik: I don't think that out ability to produce nuclear weapons and to deliver them is in doubt. However, what is in doubt today is the yield of these weapons. That is linked to whether we need more tests or not.

Karan Thapar: So in a sense if the yield is in doubt then there are also question marks about the efficacy of them?

General V P Malik: Yes, that is true. It affects the armed forces particularly because they have to plan. When they do the planning they have to execute the task given to them, then they have to know what is the kind of yield that each bomb or nuclear weapon has.

Karan Thapar: Now, the armed forces will have question marks assessing the yield because there is a dispute about it?

General V P Malik: Particularly about the mega-tonne weapons, I'm talking about the fusion weapons, the thermo nuclear ones.

Karan Thapar: And therefore there will be question marks within the armed forces about the efficacy of the weapon and their own planning?

General V P Malik: They need to be reassured, there is no doubt about it. That the weapon system that they are going to use and for which they have to do their planning, about what kind of yield it has and what kind of damage it can cause at the target.

Karan Thapar: Now if there are doubts in the minds of the Indian armed forced and they need to be reassured, what would the same comments have done to the planners in Pakistan and in China in a sense to have strategic opponents. How will they view these doubts?

General V P Malik: As I said earlier, right in the beginning, that we have the weapons and we can deliver them. The question is that we would probably have to over-ensure in places we feel the yield may be less.

Karan Thapar: Also the Pakistanis and the Chinese, having heard what our three scientists have said, will themselves question marks about the credibility about India's nuclear deterrent?

General V P Malik: Well, credibility and deterrence is about how you convince people and how they take it. And therefore to that extent they could have.

Karan Thapar: The truth is that these doubts have existed for a while. In fact, even in 1998 after the tests, when you were Army chief, one of the former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr Iyengar, came to meet you and expressed these doubts to you at that time. How did you respond?

General V P Malik: Well he met me and many others also. I had a long chat with him, then he gave something in writing to me and I told him that I would put it across to the National Security Advisor and which is what I did.

Karan Thapar: Which was Mr (Brajesh) Mishra, what happened after that?

General V P Malik: When I met Mr Mishra he told me that the matter had been discussed with the scientists and they are quite convinced that the indicated yield is correct.

Karan Thapar: And Mr Mishra and the government of the day left the matter at that point?

General V P Malik: That is right.

Karan Thapar: But the truth again is that these meetings did not assure someone like you. As in 2008 to mark the tenth anniversary of Pokhran you wrote an article for the United Services Institute Journal in which you write 'technical claims of Pokharan too have been challenged by some scientists who need to be allayed convincingly'. You further wrote many of our own scientists have created fear in the minds of public and more importantly the armed forces. So, even after 10 years later you still had doubts which needed to be convincingly allayed?

General V P Malik: Because there had been so much of writing, talk about it, not only for Mr Iyengar, but some foreign scientist had also written about it. The doubts were only about the thermo nuclear weapons.

Karan Thapar: And if you, as the former army chief, expressed these concerns last year, on the tenth anniversary of Pokhran they I assume that these concerns have worried several of your successors as army chiefs and in fact have worried the armed forces as a whole?

General V P Malik: Look, I can't say about my successors but I will say one thing that this is a very important issue. And therefore, to build your credibility in the minds of the adversaries, as well as for your proper planning and execution, you do need to be reassured on things like this.

Karan Thapar: And to be reassured these doubts as you put it have to be allayed convincingly?

General V P Malik: Yes, that is right.

Karan Thapar: Now after these doubts appeared in the last 10 days, Dr Abdul Kalam who was he head of the DRDO at the time of the Pokhran test, issued a statement effectively rubbishing what Dr Santhanam said. Did that convince you?

General V P Malik: Let's not forget that Dr Santhanam was part of his team and it came as quite a shock when Dr Santhanam himself mentioned that it was a fizzle, of course he was referring to the thermo-nuclear weapon. So, Dr Kalam's statement was not quite convincing.

Karan Thapar: In fact in your article of 2008, you said: the doubt is compounded by the fact that our DRDO scientists are well known for claims and over-optimistic public statements. In a sense their boastfulness has added to the problem?

General V P Malik: Well that has been our experience over the development of the weapons and that equipment that the DRDO has delivered or not delivered.

Karan Thapar: In fact, Dr Kalam when he was the head of the DRDO, it established a small track record for committing the Government to creating weaponry in India, which clearly India couldn’t create. As a result the Army went short of critical things like weapon locating radar and radio sets which was needed particularly during Kargil, but you didn't have?

General V P Malik: Yes, we had one or two incident particularly on the weapon-location radar. If the DRDO had not come into the way, we would not have got them before the Kargil war and we would have definitely reduced our casualties.

Karan Thapar: In a sense Dr Kalam over-estimated India's capacity and ability?

General V P Malik: Well, I don't want to go more into that.

Karan Thapar: A second response from the government to the recent that questions the credibility of our deterrent is an interview given by our present national security advisor to The Hindu, where he dismissed Dr Santhanam as a bit of a maverick. He questioned why is he (Dr Santhanam) speaking up now? But is that in your mind a convincing way to allaying the doubt

General V P Malik: Look, you can convince people only through the scientists and particularly those contributed to the exercise, I'm referring to Chidambaram and his whole team from the economic energy commission, so I don't know if we can be convinced so easily by people who are not scientists. It is a matter of technology and these are the people who can discuss and reassure people.

Karan Thapar: So in other words what you are saying it that if the Government wants to convincingly allay these doubts then scientists Chidambaram and Kakotkar need to speak up. And secondly they need to speak put with detailed fact and not just make a simple assertion.

General V P Malik: It's not a political or military matter alone, but it is primarily a scientific issue.

Karan Thapar: And it needs to be done convincingly and with detail?

General V P Malik: Obviously.

Karan Thapar: So when the Prime Minister last Sunday on a visit to Barmer just spoke two sentences, 'We believe in our scientists. It is very clear that the test was successful' that is not sufficient?

General V P Malik: Well, that is a political statement. But for things like this, particularly for the armed forces they have to be convinced by the people who have developed these weapons.

Karan Thapar: If the sort of convincing rebuttal of these doubts doesn't come from the Government or the scientists, then what will be the impact on the armed forces?

General V P Malik: Look, it is not necessary to bring it out in the open. I also don't believe it is a public debate.

Karan Thapar: But it can be done privately, reassuringly?

General V P Malik: That is right.

Karan Thapar: If it is not done privately then what will be the impact on armed forces and the confidence in the nuclear deterrent?

General V P Malik: I'm sure there will be questions and answers within the establishments and if the armed forces raise this point they will have to be reassured.

Karan Thapar: Do you think the armed forces are likely to raise this point, though not in public but privately?

General V P Malik: I think they should discuss this matter.

Karan Thapar: Because it is important to remover doubt?

General V P Malik: Yes, it is important to remove doubts.

Karan Thapar: Is it also important to remove doubts that may be in the minds of strategic planners in Pakistan and China, that if they are taking any joy from what the Indian scientists have said, do we need to remove that joy?

General V P Malik: The issue is only of thermo-nuclear weapons so when it comes to its use, if we want to make use of those, which means it has to be counter-value target then only this doubt creates this kind of problem.

Karan Thapar: But with regard to the thermo-nuclear weapon you are also saying that we do need to remove it?

General V P Malik: Yes, that is right.

Karan Thapar: And that doubt has to be removed for both our armed forces but also from the minds of our potential enemies and adversaries?

General V P Malik: To make our deterrence credible yes that is required. But more importantly it is the end user, as he must know what and how he has to plan.

Karan Thapar: So it is critical that for the Indian armed forces these doubts be removed?

General V P Malik: It is important.

Karan Thapar: Side by side with doubts being cast over the credibility of India's thermo-nuclear deterrent, there are also reports from America which say that Pakistan could have anywhere between 70-90 nuclear weapons.

It has the nuclear-capable ballistic missile ready for deployment, it has nuclear-capable cruise missiles which are being developed and in addition it is developing chemical separation facilities as well as plutonium production reactors.

As a former army chief how do you respond to these reports?

General V P Malik: We have to go into the details of these reports both from the points of view of the intelligence and to prove their credibility. It does affect us because it creates the imbalance of the deterrence level that we have got and particularly when we are banking on our second-strike capability. In the sense that we believe in no first use. So, when your adversary accumulates such large number of weapons, you have to worry about your survivability.

Karan Thapar: And when there is an imbalance in the deterrent that suggests that both quantitatively and qualitatively that they are better or gaining an edge that is worrying?

General V P Malik: Yes, that is true because the report which has been published talks both about the quantity as well as quality being improved.

Karan Thapar: And that again would worry our armed forces because it would suggest that since we are entirely dependant on the second strike, their first strike imbalance could be a matter of great concern?

General V P Malik: Yes it is, as I said both quantity and quality-wise it would be worrisome.

Karan Thapar: Is there a second problem that arises from these reports as this could boost Pakistan's confidence to carry out low-intensity warfare in the belief that they have such a large deterrent India wont react?

General V P Malik: That is true, because if you recall even in 1999, one of the reasons why Pervez Musharraf and his colleagues carried out this incursion in the Kargil was because they thought that with the nuclear symmetry we will not be able to wage any type of conventional war.

They were quite confident about it and that was their belief and that is how they carried out the incursion. So it's not only the low intensity conflict but even the ongoing proxy war may get extended because they are so confidant the we will not be able to do anything. Of course Kargil-type incursions can take place.

Karan Thapar: If Kargil happened because of nuclear symmetry then in fact the situation could be much worse and imbalance in Pakistan's favour?

General V P Malik: Well that is true, it makes them more confident and reassured. But I'm not saying that it was the only reason that Kargil happened, it was one of the important reasons.

Karan Thapar: And clearly this imbalance would once again give them the opportunity for that sort of behaviour Kargil, proxy wars or even low-intensity warfare?

General V P Malik: That is true, it can impact that.

Karan Thapar: So this is a very worrying situation?

General V P Malik: Yes that is true. There is one more reason and that is that we now have good relations with United States and we are in the process of buying a number of weapons and equipments from them. But now what we see is that Pakistan is violating the weapons export laws of the United States.

Karan Thapar: Now you are referring to the reports in the ‘New York Times’ that Pakistan has the American delivered Harpoon to make it both nuclear capable and also enable it to hit land targets.

General V P Malik: This is another report which appeared in the ‘New York Times’ and I'm referring to that.

Karan Thapar: This is a clear violation of the agreement and because this violation is targeted directly at India, you are worried this will effect India's relations with America.

General V P Malik: Obviously they continue Indo-centric and they are not as concerned about counter-terrorism for which they are being so much of aid $ 7.5 billion in the next five years.

Karan Thapar: This is a proof in fact that they are using it to target India?

General V P Malik: Well as I said they continue to remain indo-centric.

Karan Thapar: Do these two reports - ‘New York Times’ and the American Bulletin of Scientists - suggest that the perception of the strategic threat that India faces from Pakistan has increased significantly in the recent days.

General V P Malik: Yes, they have to be taken note of because of these developments that are taking place. We have to take note of these and think of how to counter them.

Karan Thapar: And on the converse the doubts which have been created of our own nuclear deterrent suggest that the perception of India's ability to stand up to these strategic threats may now have a few question marks around it?

General V P Malik: We have to strengthen our deterrence capability. Unfortunately over the years because of so many weapon system that we need and haven't been able to get, both referring to missiles in terms of conventional weaponry, we have been lagging behind.

So, obviously our deterrence capability both for deterrence and other nature of conflict has got eroded and we have to build it, particularly now with the kinds of reports that are coming it. When you mention about these Harpoons being modified what it really means is, they will be able to target any of our establishments along the coastline, not only from the ships but also from the aircrafts.

Karan Thapar: Which means cities like Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai but also cities right around eastern and western coast of the peninsula are now vulnerable which they weren't earlier?

General V P Malik: It gives them extra capability now and it's not only the cities, lets not forget our important establishments like the atomic energy commission, the headquarters and the ONGC platforms that we have in the seas are all vulnerable.

Karan Thapar: the govt has called the American ambassador on Saturday and filed a formal protest, but is that a sufficient response, surely this isn't a diplomatic issue but a strategic planning and response which I take you are more interested in?

General V P Malik: One aspect is strategic response and the other is diplomatic as it effects indo-us relations, particularly of the kind of weapons system we are going to but from them. If they are going to find their way to Pakistan obviously we have to be worried.

Karan Thapar: Side-by-side you also want to see the govt respond strategically building up its own equipment and strength.

General V P Malik: I'm absolutely convinced that we need to build our deterrence capability much more than what we have today.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Satya_anveshi » 19 Sep 2009 22:35

General V P Malik wrote:General V P Malik: I'm absolutely convinced that we need to build our deterrence capability much more than what we have today.


This interview is available on u-tube for everyone to see and has been discussed before here. General saab is very very measured in his statements (perhaps our diplomats can take a few lessons here given their performance in Egypt) and his bottom line the last line mentioned above says it all. This cannot be spinned any other way and there is simply no place to hide.

There is so much more to read-in-between but that is besides the point. I really don't know on what basis the supporters of Dr. Chidambaram are still standing on their legs and arguing about this whole mess.

a) Why don't you Own up ?
b1) if things got corrected, you folks should be the first one to seek testing
b2) if the fix isn't yet ready, it make sense to not own up yet and keep bluffing.

Is it b2? Then why the ef we created this mess in the first place? Not to foreclose our options which the govt was trying to do? Why the ef govt is trying to foreclose the option if it knew that we will have to do further refinements?

Babu Bihari
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 05 Sep 2009 00:33

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Babu Bihari » 20 Sep 2009 00:55

Pokhran II was successful, says Rudy

He asked if the Pokhran-II was not a success, than why would the US, which was supposed to having great know-how about nuclear affairs, imposed economic sanction following the test and what prompted Pakistan to follow the suit by conducted nuclear tests.
This amply proved that Pokharan-II was a great success, Rudy claimed.

i can only do this :rotfl:

BJP condemns questioning of Pokhran-II

"Some Indian nuclear scientists have demanded a review of the Pokharan tests of 1998. We condemn this outright. Giving full respect to these scientists, we would like to say, `please don't play with our strategic security and nuclear deterrence'," an assertive BJP spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad said.


N-reality: UPA backs NDA on Pokhran II

The government on Friday appeared disinclined to accept the demand from some nuclear scientists for a peer review to determine if the 1998 thermonuclear test had failed.



India's incredible nuclear deterrent

.....Contrary to what government agencies and officials state, many security experts and scientists believe that while India’s nuclear arsenal is enough to deal with Pakistan, it can’t hold a candle to China’s nuclear might which comprises a minimum of 400-500 warheads.
...
Security expert Bharat Karnad says Santhanam’s assertion has proved that then AEC chief R Chidambaram’s claims on the 1998 hydrogen test were fraudulent. ‘‘Santhanam’s revelations suggest that R Chidambaram’s longstanding claim that has rendered the Indian government complacent about Barc being in a position to design and develop thermonuclear weapons of yields between 100 kilotons and 300 kilotons on the basis of data from one flawed test in 1998 is actually fraudulent,’’ says Karnad.

‘‘So India has only a 20 KT fission weapon arsenal to bank upon. This may be enough to tackle a minor nuclear weapon state like Pakistan, but against China it will find itself grossly inadequate and over-matched.

In a strategic crisis which may materialize sooner than anybody expects, India will be compelled to throw in the towel and kowtow to Beijing,’’ he added.

His remarks assume significance in context of the Navy launching INS Arihant, India’s first nuclear submarine. ‘‘How can the country have a nuclear submarine equipped with 20 KT nuclear bombs? This submarine is meant to launch intermediate range ballistic missiles with powerful nuclear warheads,’’ he said.

Other scientists differed with Chidambaram and Anil Kakodkar, the present AEC chief, saying a computer simulation was no substitute for an actual test. ‘‘No defence force will accept a bomb which has been tested only in a computer. And this was made absolutely clear at a seminar which was held in New Delhi last week in which serving military officers participated,’’ said a scientist, who didn’t want to identified by name.

According to strategic affairs analyst Brahma Chellaney, India doesn’t even have a minimal nuclear deterrence, let alone a credible one.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby csharma » 20 Sep 2009 01:12

A question for Sanjay and other experts: Does India need to have TN capability against China as a deterrent?

That's what Bharat Karnad and others seem to be saying. Can fission based bombs provide enough deterrence against a full fledged nuclear power like China?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Sanjay » 20 Sep 2009 01:17

My view - no.

If the boosteds and ordinary fission weapons can reliably get to 50-100kt - 120kt is the upper limit of safe fission weapon though the US deployed 90 500KT fission weapons - without renewed testing then to deter China,no TN aren't needed.

I would say that if India deployed weapons between 60-80Kt and can deliver them 70 of them to Chinese cities while preserving a reserve, then China will be deterred.

However, the drawback is that more fissile material is needed than is the ideal case 10-25kg of Pu per weapon.

It means that the weapons are bulkier and fewer in number than ideal.

Deterrence can even be achieved with 15kT-25KT fission provided they are deployed in large numbers. 4 per target would do a lot of damage and remember they are being aimed at cities - India is not looking at nuking PRC C3I or IRBM/ICBM sites - nuke us, your cities suffer - that seems to be the Indian doctrine.

Karnad is all for the best and most effective deterrent for India - that is a laudable goal and one I wholeheartedly support.

It doesn't mean that China cannot be deterred with less.

Don't get me wrong - I want renewed testing if the sanctions impact is carefully thought out and catered for - but I am not about to go to the extremes of Chellaney and Karnad in criticizing the deterrent. They have valid points on so much else, why go for the sound-byte rather than analysis ?

I will say something else -if India were to make the decision to test, I am more convinced of this government's ability to manage the fiscal fallout than any other.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby John Snow » 20 Sep 2009 01:41

one more time.

**
Once upon a time in India there was tabloid magazine published from Bombay in English, which most people read from the back page to front, and that was BLITZ of RK Karanjia ( I was too young to really grasp the picture of the semi nude lady, but still I used gaze at it).

In that Magazine there used to be a column called

"I told you Son"

Here is modern version ie 2009 of the same column.

Father
Yes son
I heard India has launched a Nuclear Submarine is it true.
It is true son, our PMs wife did the cermonial coconut breaking.
Father, but now I hear that India's nukes are not that powerful?
No son, they are powerful but ours is Minimum Credible Nuclear deterrent.
But father how can we have minimum Credible Nuclear deterrent if we dont have proven Hydrogen bomb?
Why son we have Fission bombs which can be bunched together and give the same effect.
But Father then we have to bunch many of them so then it wont be minimal but be maximal numbers no? and then it can only be minimally credible Nuclear deterrent?
Hmm son you are making me think hard.
Father...
Yes son, go on I am still thinking
We have now Arihant which needs to be effective second strike platform because of our no first use policy.
That is correct son.
Father, if it is correct then the space for weapons and missiles is limited in submarines no?
That is again correct son
Father, then is it correct to say India can not efford many subs and many fission bombs and many missiles, because of economics and few resources?
Yes son that is also correct
Father...
Yes go on son you are making me think twice already
Father, then it is better to develop few Hydorgen bombs and conserve resources than make many Fission devices.
You are correct again son.
So father with out Hydrogen bomb,and a NFU policy,what deterrent should we call it and against whom is this deterrent?
Now Son you are making me think thrice hmmm....
Father,
yes son go on
Is it then Arihant is just a Nuclear powered submarine but not a Nuclear Armed submarine for Second and decisive strike against enemy?
I DONT KNOW SON!

Thank you father

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby enqyoob » 20 Sep 2009 01:49

As for Malik - he said:
"Particularly about the mega-tonne weapons, I'm talking about the fusion weapons, the thermo nuclear ones."


Please put that statement up on a wall. It shows why it is a complete waste of time to micro-analyze the statements reported in the media from all these high-titled worthies. Even if they are in recorded interviews.

The above is an utterly loose statement, of the quality of a typical chai-biscoot chat between two passengers whiling away time on a long-distance train. Not the sanitized, deeply-considered, weighed words of a thoughtful expert making an official comment.

The same is true of most of the public discourse reported here from Dr. Santanam etc. One moment it is
"arre yaar, it was only about 40-60% successful onlee!"
by which he meant either
"2kT" or "20kT" or "27kT" or "15kT" or "43kT" or something in between. Or maybe 600kT if we concatenate the above deep quantitative analysis from "hey, Dr. Santanam is NYOOKLEAR SCIENTIST" with the equally deep Strategic Need Estimate from "hey, Gen. Malik was the COAS who won the Kargil War".

When "The HINDU", the most venerated newspaper of colonial India wrote "15kT fusion weapon", they meant either "15kT fission device" or "1kT fusion fizzle" or maybe something else entirely. Maybe the Hindu reporter was drunk, and his editor a complete moron. Or maybe this was a deep statement intended to lull the Chinese into unilateral disarmament with its sheer "transparency" straight across through the ears of the writer.

All thermo-biological emissions (TBE) of N2-O2-CO2-CH4.

So... go back to the undeniable PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and LOGIC. Khetolai. Brick-separation cracks. Several hundred sensor tests of the impulse transfer function between POK-2 site and Khetolai. Children and their parents asked to stand outside as thermonuclear blasts are about to occur.

Maybe they just predicted that an small earthquake was about to occur, by the time-tested technique of flipping a few oyster shells and conches, and looking in the "Panchangam"?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Sanjay » 20 Sep 2009 02:00

Kanson - the 15KT weapon shrank from 1000kg in 1974 to 170-200kg in 1982-83. This is per George Perkovich in his book and I would say that subsequent probing has established no reason to change that figure.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53908
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby ramana » 20 Sep 2009 02:21

Sanjay wrote:Ramana, in my opinion the armed forces are not seeking reassurance. They may want a TN capability but even Sundarji never sought it - and his deterrent was predicated on no more testing.

Brig. Nair is the main TN exponent of the army and he called for weapons of up to 4 MT to be deployed after testing.


........

I honestly don't think AK and RC are any more incompetent traitors than PKI and Sethna or KS. BARC's weapons team obviously didn't have faith in the TN test as they have not operationalised it. Public bluff and private honesty ? Not altogether a bad approach.

Admiral Mehta was talking about the here and now.

See:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 941925.cms

"Outgoing Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta, also the chairman of the chiefs of staff committee, on Thursday said India had "a credible minimum nuclear deterrent'' in line with its no-first use (NFU) policy.

"We are a nation which maintains a credible deterrent...more than enough to deter anybody,'' said Admiral Mehta. And should someone do the unthinkable by launching a first-strike, then the "consequences will be more than what they can bear...As far as we are concerned, scientists have given us a certain capability which is enough to provide requisite deterrence...the deterrent is tried and tested.""

That is present tense - not future.

The esteemed gentleman was retiring so if he wanted to say something there was nothing that the GOI could really do!

Credible deterrence does not equal TN weapons.

It could mean large fission, multiple smaller fission and boosted-fission weapons.

Think of this - as to weapons we know we don't have - Santhanam confirms no weapons exist greater than 150kt.

He said nothing of weapons under that save and except that the 25kt weapon was on many platforms and he didn't think 15kt weapons were sufficient and that the TN test produced about 25-27KT which was about 60% of the design yield.

....................................

Ramana and anyone else with some tech knowledge still asking you this- what of the scalability of Indian fission designs without testing ?

I will re-iterate - Agni is not yet near MIRV status yet it is deployed and tested with 700-1000kg payloads in the case of A-1 and A-2 and 1500kg in the case of A-3. Those payloads are operational (not saying mated) at present.



first comment:
Is Gen. K.Sunderji's assumptions in 1988 the same even now? Lets see under what conditions he ennunciated that requirement. There was no insight of the political decision to test anything other than what was tested in 1974 at that time. In fact scheduled tests were cancelled per all the reports. So he wanted the deployment of what was already proven by then. And K Subramanyam garu also is hung up on that.
- The global power perception was the super powers are still there. Now one has collapsed and the other is financially beholden to PRC.
- Moreover PRC proliferated left and right to TSP since then. The US has turned a blind eye to this aspect and highlights AQK's fizzle centrifuge technology even before the financial mess. So in all intents and purposes the PRC-TSP arsenal is conjointed.
- When Sunderji ennunciated the sufficient conditions it was assumed PRC just transferred some weapons and TSP was a standalone threat.

Second no one except some strawman creators called the scientists traitors. So lets not follow that path.


Third as you say the TN wasnt weaponized despite its 'scalablity' proclaimed in 1998. And that speaks for itself.

Fourth, I really dont kow. It all depends on whether the S-I primary worked. we need to better understand what happened. The surface evidence is not too encouraging. At this state of knowldege boosting voosting is all conceptual. Lets wait till we hear more.

To me it matters not, for if the S-2 is weaponized, at the weight quoted in your post, it gives great range flexilibility and opens up vistas which were closed due to mota lotas.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Sanjay » 20 Sep 2009 02:26

Ramana - Sundarji looked to deter China as well. He suggested a 4 MT equivalent being sufficient to deter even a large nuclear power. China and Pakistan were major considerations in his thought. Scalability of S-1 depended on whether it worked. It didn't it would appear. Scalability does not arise.

S-2 did. Scalability of that design and possibly of primary of S-1 is at issue.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby samuel » 20 Sep 2009 02:30

0. All done, no need to test any more.
1. TN performed better than advertised.
2. TN performed maybe.
3. The guy is unstable. Loose talk. Open mic, why now.
4. What's in a test.
5. Who needs a TN. <-- here is where we are now.
6. Let's just scale S2.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Sanjay » 20 Sep 2009 02:41

Samuel - all issues are not mutually exclusive.

In the absence of a TN - what do you do in terms of operational weapons to maximize capability ?

Don't look at this as one thing or another.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53908
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby ramana » 20 Sep 2009 02:44

Sanjay wrote:Ramana - Sundarji looked to deter China as well. He suggested a 4 MT equivalent being sufficient to deter even a large nuclear power. China and Pakistan were major considerations in his thought. Scalability of S-1 depended on whether it worked. It didn't it would appear. Scalability does not arise.

S-2 did. Scalability of that design and possibly of primary of S-1 is at issue.


Sanjay, how do you scale S-2?

I think even the pry scalability is an issue till there is more clarity on the surface damage to S-I shaft.

To answer your question to Samuel, more of the same that worked to get to the MTe postulated.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Arun_S » 20 Sep 2009 02:59

Kanson wrote:
Sanjay wrote:Right now checking is in progress but I am not relying on a single source at
all.


Sanjay, you are earnestly trying to figure out, in current controversy bare minimum (Or should i say median) where India is at the moment.

I do know from where you are getting this 100 - 300 kg mark. Now if you like to give equal importance or no preference to anybody, what is your opinion on Adm. Menon quote from India today.

“One submarine carries at least 12 missiles with Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles, which could mean as many as 96 warheads. When such a submarine goes out to the sea, that many missiles are removed from our own territory. The enemy’s targeting of that many sites gets neutralised,” says Rear Admiral (retired) Raja Menon.


How do you reconcile ?


I am still awaiting reconciled reference/source to Kanson's gem on 12 MIRV on K-15 and Prithvi PGM is precursor for those tiny MIRV that have boom of nuclear deterrence !!
Arun_S wrote:
Kanson wrote: And I do remember Adm. Menon talking abt 12 MIRV for K-15.

Pls no serious jokes on this thread, some one can die from it.
Arun_S wrote:
Kanson wrote: Hahaha, I dont know who is the joker here, the one who babble without seeing what was written in the article or the one who dabbled that out. Pls reserve such scarcasm for Adm. Menon and India Today reporter who reported that.

Ahhhh ... first please provide the exact source / link that you attribute to Adm. Menon.

Kanson wrote: And I do remember Adm. Menon talking abt 12 MIRV for K-15. Prithvi PGM is precursor for that. That may not be feasible without the warhead being minaturised and of light weight.

It will be indeed hilarious to think of Prithvi style PG-muntion that has 12 MIRV muntion coming out of the 0.7m dia K-15 missile cone. I am amazed how cheaply you bought the Thames bridge and Eiffel Tower.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby csharma » 20 Sep 2009 03:39

Sanjay wrote:
I would say that if India deployed weapons between 60-80Kt and can deliver them 70 of them to Chinese cities while preserving a reserve, then China will be deterred.



Sanjay, K Subrahmanyam has written in the recent past that India has manufactured 60-80 kt bombs (fission).
That does not match with the 25 or 15 KT number that Santhanam is quoting.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby enqyoob » 20 Sep 2009 04:09

If Dr. K. Santanam, former (current?) RAW veteran, says:
Obviously India has not weaponized TN
as he seems to have said from that apparently arrack-soaked writeup by the ace reporter of The Hindu,
Do you believe that he is saying that
India has not weaponized TN

and if so, why would he reveal that in public?
or
From obvious (western published) sources, what might appear is that India has not weaponized TN, so per western declarations, India needs to test TN more


Which should I believe and run around like the infamous "headless chickens" so aptly quoted by the former Ambassador to the US?

For instance, how many here believe that the US has not deployed on-demand access to LEO with reusable craft, in the Classified domain? Can you find something in the open literature that confirms that the US has deployed these? After all the US Space program is famous for being "transparent", hey? Just an example. Of course, the default answer here is that "Indian condishuns onlee, in India Ophishial Secrets Act is like Anti-Dowry Act onlee! No one pays attenshun to such things!"

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby ss_roy » 20 Sep 2009 04:16

csharma,

I think they are sure that the 15-25 kt pure fission component of those bombs will work. The 60-80kt output is post boost (tritium or LiD).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16489
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby NRao » 20 Sep 2009 04:22

ss_roy wrote:csharma,

I think they are sure that the 15-25 kt pure fission component of those bombs will work. The 60-80kt output is post boost (tritium or LiD).


This could be getting into the silly column, but, first: URL?, second safe to say that is at reduced burn?

dipak
BRFite
Posts: 199
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby dipak » 20 Sep 2009 04:27

Sanjay wrote:As I see things KS, PKI etc they are calling for taking the nuclear weapons project to its full potential before giving up on testing. That will require full mastery of TN technology - which is a very valid goal and point. It does not go to the credibility of the deterrent, however.

That said, I am disappointed at the tenor and tone of the discussion/debate.


You nailed it.
It is a worthy goal to pursue this area of science and is crux of current fracas.
While arguing or counter-arguing is everybody's right in debate, wisdom demands that woods should not be lost for the trees.

However, I agree the whole episode could have been steered in more civil manner (off-BRF and on-BRF, RRji proved to be prophetic here)

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby ss_roy » 20 Sep 2009 04:34

NRao,

Boosted fission typically results in weapons with 2.5-10 times the yield of the pure fission weapon.

Example 1- (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-3.html)
The Joe-4 device used a 40 kt U-235 fission bomb acted as the trigger and produced a total yield of 400 kt for a 10-fold enhancement, although tritium spiking was partly responsible. 15-20% of the energy was released by fusion (60-80 kt), and the balance (280-300 kt) was from U-238 fast fission. A later test without tritium spiking produced only 215 kt.

or

Example 2- (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Boosted_fission_weapon)
A sense of the potential contribution of fusion boosting can be gained by observing that the complete fusion of one mole of tritium (3 grams) and one mole of deuterium (2 grams) would produce one mole of neutrons (1 gram), which, neglecting escape losses and scattering for the moment, could fission one mole (239 grams) of plutonium directly, producing 4.6 moles of secondary neutrons, which can in turn fission another 4.6 moles of plutonium (1099 g). The fission of this 1.338 kg of plutonium in the first two generations would release 23 [3] kilotons of TNT equivalent (97 TJ) of energy, and would by itself result in a 29.7% efficiency for a bomb containing 4.5 kg of plutonium (a typical small fission trigger). The energy released by the fusion of the 5g of fusion fuel itself is only 1.73% of the energy released by the fission of 1.338 kg of plutonium. Larger total yields and higher efficiency are possible, since the chain reaction can continue beyond the second generation after fusion boosting. [4]

or

Example3- MR-41 Warhead (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/France/ ... alDev.html)
The MR-41 was France's first boosted fission warhead, and its highest yield non-thermonuclear warhead. The MR-41 was in the stockpile from 1971 to 1979 and armed the MSBS M1 and M2 SLBMs. The initial development of the warhead began in 1963, and a second development stage ran from 1966 to 1971. This design was based on highly enriched uranium boosted with deuterium and tritium. It was tested 15 July 1968 and 3 August 1968. The final design was tested 12 June 1971. It had a surprisingly light weight for a high yield fission bomb, about 700 kg, and had a yield of 500 kt. Fabrication of warhead components began in 1969. The MR-41 went into operational service with the first patrol of Le Redoubtable on 28 January 1972. About 35 warheads were built to support two sets of strategic submarine missiles loads (16 MSBS M1/M2 missiles each for two subs). The MR-41 was replaced by the TN-60, which armed the MSBS M20, between 1977 and 1979.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Arun_S » 20 Sep 2009 05:40

ss_roy wrote:csharma,
I think they are sure that the 15-25 kt pure fission component of those bombs will work. The 60-80kt output is post boost (tritium or LiD).

NRao wrote:
Both fission and boosted-fission types that were tested worked.


What is the estimated weight of this puppy? BR has it around 500Kg (with a comment: Assured deterrence to those who doubt full yield 250 Kt TN weapon). Yield is estimated at 150-200 Kt!!!

Can ride an Agni too.


Unfortunately based on newly uncovered information that BR-Agni page is dated and require significant overhaul.

Without testing that 150-200 FBF will be as reliable as the S1 TN shot of 11 May 98.

FBF scale-up is not simple as people on this forum are touting/imagining. The maximum the S1 FBF primary (that gave 17 kT) can scale up is few times, and even that requires testing. Further yield increase to say 150 kt will require a different design, else current design will have unacceptable efficiency & weight penalty. In either case enough testing need to be done to statistically validate reliability.

From what I know now from multiple independent (public and private) sources, there is no FBF weaponized.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests