Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

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

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

Postby PratikDas » 21 Sep 2009 20:20

shiv wrote:
RKumar wrote:
And we dont have any plans for 4th wave of attack or attack from a different adversary as we will fire all our firework in one go. (just a case... too remote)


No. The only plan is not to let the other guy feel happy with what he believes is victory over us.

But that is what nuclear war is all about. It's surprising what a small percentage of educated people actually bother to think this through.

It was Chidambaram that claimed we have a thermonuclear weapon - not BR! All of a sudden one measly test is a good excuse for it not to work? Why just last week Chidambaram was claiming that one test was so good that we don't need any more and computer simulations shall be enough! Have you forgotten? Why do you consistently keep twisting the facts?

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 » 21 Sep 2009 20:23

PratikDas wrote:[ Why just last week Chidambaram was claiming that one test was so good that we don't need any more and computer simulations shall be enough! Have you forgotten? Why do you consistently keep twisting the facts?


Don't be angry with me birader.

Chidambaram said we had TN in 1998 after 1 test

He is saying we have TN in 2009 after that same one test. You chose to believe him because someone made up the 150 kt weapon story. Despite knowing damn well that only one test had been conducted.

Who said India has 150 kt thermonuclear weapons?

Nobody from any official source. In public at least.

Who made up the 150 kt TN bomb story and built castles in the air and took everyone for a tour of that castle?

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

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

Postby PratikDas » 21 Sep 2009 20:28

shiv wrote:
PratikDas wrote:[ Why just last week Chidambaram was claiming that one test was so good that we don't need any more and computer simulations shall be enough! Have you forgotten? Why do you consistently keep twisting the facts?


Don't be angry with me birader.

Who said India has 150 kt thermonuclear weapons?

Nobody.

Chidambaram said we had TN in 1998 after 1 test

He is saying we have TN in 2009 after that same one test

Who made up the 150 kt TN bomb story and built castles in the air and took everyone for a tour of that castle?

I don't care about the 150 KT BS. I care about the 45 kt thermonuclear test having worked! Chidambaram said it:
India can make 200 kt N-bomb: Chidambaram
PRESS TRUST OF INDIA
Saturday, May 23, 1998

NEW DELHI, May 22: Atomic Energy Commission Chairman R Chidambaram has said India could produce a nuclear bomb of 200 kilotonne (kt) yield with the country having tested a hydrogen bomb in Pokhran earlier this month.

A device of lower yield was used for the recent tests to avoid possible seismic damage to buildings in the neighbouring areas of the site, Chidambaram said in an interview to Doordarshan to be telecast tomorrow. India had conducted a 45 kt hydrogen bomb test on May 11.


Chidambaram should be sacked for lying in the open and lying behind closed doors to the Prime Minister and the NSA

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 » 21 Sep 2009 20:33



Can make? Are you joking?

Who said India has made them? There is a big difference between "can make" and making them in your mind. People used Chidambaram's words "can make" to build TN in their minds and are now blaming him for the delusions they had.

Sorry birader. There is more than one bluff floating around here. The sooner you accept that the sooner you can reach peace with the fizzles which are officially admitted as existing. 8)

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 21 Sep 2009 20:34

shiv wrote:With respect Austin - may I point out that the story that we have TN weapons was carried too far by us jingos when it was patently obvious that only one test had been done. Even if that one test was 100% successful it would not have been enough. For heavens sake - ONE test. Of 45 kt? I think people were just freaking out and imagining things that were not there and aiding self-bluffing and bluffing others.


Shiv , Let me just recall what the man himself had mentioned in an interview given to DD post POK-2 ( its etched in my memory so I am certain that I am not missing any thing )

RC clearly mentions three points

1 ) That S-1 TN test was successful
2 ) He then goes on to add that " let me revel the weapons (TN ) is scalable to 300 kT ( so 45 - 300 kT ) "
3 ) He mentions that after the successful TN test with the data he got , he was confident that TN weapons can be build { he does not mentions additional test is needed and says TN weapons of upto 300kT can be built }
4 ) He mentioned TN device using High Explosive and Laser { not using fission as primary } is an area where BARC was working on { this is the least important issue now }

So from what I can make out is RC says TN is successful and weapons can be built without additional test , atleast for me that was crystal clear from the interview that RC gave to DD.

Now whether they choose to weaponise or not for what ever reason is a different issue , but RC was confident we could weaponise TN


Wasn't it clear for 11 years that all this 150 kt TN warhead might well be mythical for the simple reason that nobody from the GoI or any other source outside of BR claimed that such a capability existed.

I have never read any reference outside BR that speaks of the yield of Indian warheads until Santhanam came with his rehash of old revelations in August this year. I believe that we have been bluffing ourselves to a fair extent. Someone please show me some clear references to 150 kt warheads in any Indian publication or news report. It was a dog that never barked. We just believed its existence.

People may have had "private sources" who told them about 150 kt TN. But as a person I do not believe or reveal such stuff unless I see it in a public source. But that is me.


Neither do I believe or BARC or any entity claimed 150 kT device can be built.
Militarily the so called 150 kT weapon has zero value , not tested not proven.

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

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

Postby PratikDas » 21 Sep 2009 20:36

shiv wrote:


Can make? Are you joking?

Who said India has made them? There is a big difference between "can make" and making them in your mind. People used Chidambaram's words "can make" to build TN in their minds and are now blaming him for the delusions they had.

Sorry birader. There is more than one bluff floating around here. The sooner you accept that the sooner you can reach peace with the fizzles which are officially admitted as existing. 8)


Answer this: Why did he need to say Indian can make a 200 kt bomb? Why didn't he just say that Indian can make a 45 kt bomb when even that didn't work?

And frankly I don't care for your know-it-all glib attitude. You speak like you knew all of this to be true since 1998. Please knock it out. I am not "joking".

AmitR
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 25 Jan 2009 17:13

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

Postby AmitR » 21 Sep 2009 20:42

The latest Frontline issue has a very good article on the nuke test controversy.
As per the article Santhanam questioned the yield of Indian TN 10 years back but in more private circles (Santa must have been a DRDO employee then). Assuming this is true, Santa uncle was always clear about the TN device's yield. It is also reported that the DRDOs measuring device had developed a snag that day, so they may not have been able to get accurate data of the blasts. This may atleast in part explain the disconnect between the DRDO and DAE. In addition, there does not seem to be much coherence amongst the western experts with regards to the yield because of the inherent limitations of the mathematical models to predict them, which rely on the seismic data. In the final analysis, DAE and only DAE knows what was the actual yield in the 98 tests.
Rest everyone is trying to be like the blind men trying to figure out what a Airavat Haathi looks like.
:twisted:
I am afraid that if this thread goes on like this, we will have a 100MT blast in the BR servers.
:twisted:

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

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

Postby John Snow » 21 Sep 2009 20:44

some analysts add pisko masala to the confusion that already exists about the issue at hand , that makes even mmore difficult to read what the sizemic waves represent.

Iff only DAE knows about the chidambaram maya then Armed forces will assume rightly that our capability is upto only 25kt. perod.

Chidambaram saying we can build upto 300 KT is like saying If I work hard I can be a brain surgeon....

Also India Today had an article written by a retd Major Gen, who lamented that India does not have tactical nukes where as TSP did.
Last edited by John Snow on 21 Sep 2009 20:50, edited 2 times in total.

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

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

Postby enqyoob » 21 Sep 2009 20:47

shiv, thx. Now I understand, and it makes sense. The "*** will use nukes! :eek: " consideration can work both ways, of course. Say if India were to nuke the Seychelles, TSP might get the message and stop the infiltrations into J&K (nah! what will they do with all those madarssa graduates then?)
N3 I believe that India has no plans to use tactical nukes and is not developing them. As far as my knowledge goes "tactical nukes" are small nukes - usually thermonuclear in which there is a fission/boosted fission primary and a fusion secondary.


If this is true, then this is by far the bigger reason to lose sleep about the prospects for Indian survival. Because Chinese doctrine is well-established that they will use tactical nukes (whether sub-KT or a couple of KT if that can be made by pure fission of FBF - I wouldn't know) in a "limited" border conflict. The Russian-Chinese standoff is populated with large numbers of tactical nukes, because (a) Russia has no hope of protecting Siberia from a massive Chinese armored / infantry thrust and (b) China matches Russian nukes.

So Any Chinese move into Arunachal etc., once the GOI is forced to acknowledge it, will involve either an unimpeded Chinese advance with large-scale Indian surrenders, or a bitter fight where the defender has the advantage, causing massive losses to the Chinese invader - and they will use tactical nukes to clear the way.

India will be unable to do a thing about this, since the "strategic" deterrent is completely matched by the Chinese strategic deterrent.

Which again brings me to my line of argument that this whole tamasha about "TNs" is focused on the wrong "TNs". The drive in India should be to match China in tactical nukes, and alter the Doctrine to include first use of those in case of any invasion. This would fix the problems in Arunachal etc. much quicker, and guarantee true peace and "fliendship" with India's large and smart neighbor.

I am surprised that China did not use nukes against Vietnam - maybe because it would have been an admission that they got routed. Bad for H&D - losing "face" maybe.

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 » 21 Sep 2009 20:53

PratikDas wrote:
And frankly I don't care for your know-it-all glib attitude. You speak like you knew all of this to be true since 1998. Please knock it out. I am not "joking".


Why are you angry with the way I speak? That's not going to unfizzle your fizzle brother. You could have looked at available facts and decided what might be true and what might not be true. You just did not want to do that.

Why get angry with me? :D

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3472
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Postby Tanaji » 21 Sep 2009 20:53

Wasn't it clear for 11 years that all this 150 kt TN warhead might well be mythical for the simple reason that nobody from the GoI or any other source outside of BR claimed that such a capability existed.


Add to that the fact no one has ever said that we have a MIRV. So 3 x 15KT or whatever in a Agni is out. Best of all, there has been not even a single MIRV test. The satellite launches do not count in validating a MIRV.

But Shiv, what do you think of the link posted by Pratik
http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pI ... 50684.html

Seems to contradict the part that I quoted.

As with everything on this topic, there are no absolutes here.. no one knows anything for sure. Everyone is kite flying.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1328
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

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

Postby RKumar » 21 Sep 2009 20:56

narayanan wrote:The drive in India should be to match China in tactical nukes, and alter the Doctrine to include first use of those in case of any invasion. This would fix the problems in Arunachal etc. much quicker, and guarantee true peace and "fliendship" with India's large and smart neighbor.



Completly agreed
+ Do some more tests to mature and validate the system.
+ Do some more tests of existing missiles to validate
+ Have ICBM in good number

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 » 21 Sep 2009 20:57

There is a huge difference between saying 'I can get pregnant" and saying "I am already pregnant with triplets"

Chidambaram said "India can get pregnant.

So who said "India is already pregnant?"

And who celebrated?

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

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

Postby enqyoob » 21 Sep 2009 21:00

The ramana Prohibition (against smileys) becomes very traumatic under these circumstances (reading shiv's analogies, I mean).

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1328
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

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

Postby RKumar » 21 Sep 2009 21:01

shiv wrote:There is a huge difference between saying 'I can get pregnant" and saying "I am already pregnant with triplets"

Chidambaram said "India can get pregnant.

So who said "India is already pregnant?"

And who celebrated?


Great one ... make serious topic lighter :)

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 » 21 Sep 2009 21:02

Tanaji wrote:But Shiv, what do you think of the link posted by Pratik
http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pI ... 50684.html

Seems to contradict the part that I quoted.

As with everything on this topic, there are no absolutes here.. no one knows anything for sure. Everyone is kite flying.



Dead right about the kites and I am going to fly my own kite now.

You know Tanaji if I put myself in the shoes of a set of scientists who have get the maximum information from the minimum number of tests I would have two choices.

1) Test fission devices only and be done with it
2) Try and collect data for building equations of state for at least some theoretical deign for TN bombs. Anyway these will require fission bombs to be set off.

I believe the latter course was taken. Kite flying like I said.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1328
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

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

Postby RKumar » 21 Sep 2009 21:05

I suggest to LOCK this thread.... as it is going no where.

shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

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

Postby shaardula » 21 Sep 2009 21:06

i guess it will be slightly diffusive, but can people in the know start a separate thread to discuss what credible deterrent is/means. that way this thread can concentrate on figuring out what we have.

edited: perhaps the thread shiv has already started?
Last edited by shaardula on 21 Sep 2009 21:09, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby shiv » 21 Sep 2009 21:07

Austin wrote:
RC clearly mentions three points

1 ) That S-1 TN test was successful
2 ) He then goes on to add that " let me revel the weapons (TN ) is scalable to 300 kT ( so 45 - 300 kT ) "
3 ) He mentions that after the successful TN test with the data he got , he was confident that TN weapons can be build { he does not mentions additional test is needed and says TN weapons of upto 300kT can be built }
4 ) He mentioned TN device using High Explosive and Laser { not using fission as primary } is an area where BARC was working on { this is the least important issue now }

So from what I can make out is RC says TN is successful and weapons can be built without additional test , atleast for me that was crystal clear from the interview that RC gave to DD.


The only data I would like to add to this comes from RC's talk in which he said that the subkiloton tests (as well as S1 I am sure) were used for gathering data to build up equations of state which are essential for modeling the design (simulation) of TN bombs.

But no Indian official has ever so much as chirped a word about actual Indian warheads. Doesn't that tell you something? It certainly did to me - but I was following the issue fairly closely.

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

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

Postby Satya_anveshi » 21 Sep 2009 21:20

'India needs two more nuclear tests' - says K Santhanam

K Santhanam, former Defence Research and Development Organisation scientist, who has rubbished the nuclear test at Pokhran in 1998 told journalists that he believed India neede to conduct two more tests to perfect the thermo-nuclear technology required to make a Hydrogen bomb. Santhanam maintained that simulations or computer-based tests were not enough to perfect thermo-nuclear technology. His statements are an antithesis of the Indian governments' position on this issue.

The man who is dubbed as "maverick" by National Security Advisor M K Narayanan was addressing his first press conference on Monday at the Indian Women's Press Corps. Ashok Parthasarathy, former scienctific advisor to Indira Gandhi [ Images ] was also present. Parthasarthy met Leader of the Opposition L K Advani [ Images ] on Monday. Parathasarathy told media-persons that he had briefed the BJP leader about Santhanam allegations on the Pokhran nuclear tests which were carried out when the BJP was in power in 1998.


It was the rare moment, when Parthasarathy said unambiguously that India's nuclear test was a failure. "Santhanam can't be dismissed because he has been in core team of nuclear scienctists for many years," he said.


If Santhanam's claims are true then it will be an embarrassment not just for India's scientists but also for the nation who had taken huge pride and celebrated the event, diplomatic and security concerns will be altered as well.


Santhanam said the government's rejection of his charge is not surprising. He told media that the government was refusing to conduct a professional inquiry, it's like saying, "I have made up mind. Do not confuse me with facts."


Santhanam spoke fearlessly and was did not evade questions but he was excited and tense while facing dozen cameras. He repeated all that he has been saying since the controversy has hit the headlines.


The ageing scientist's dry wit and sarcastic responses made the issue of nuclear science and the politics being played out, more complex to understand.


The government has come out firmly against Santhanam's charge which has multiple impacts on multiple issues. While countering the charge made by Santhanam, NSA M K Narayanan has said that the Atomic Energy Commission was asked to study the data of the 1998 nuclear tests again in the wake of the controversy over the efficacy of the hydrogen bomb. Narayanan has said that the last week, that the AEC had come out with an authoritative statement on the efficacy of the 1998 nuclear tests and no more clarifications were required from the government on this matter.


However, Santhanam ridiculed the NSA and said that there are many inaccuracies in Narayanan's statement. "He has not addressed the main concerns expressed by me in his column and he added, recourse to special pleading is considered fallacy in logic."

When asked to explain his cryptic position, Santhanam said, "When someone says, The rabbit I caught had three legs. When you question such a claim he will then say 'but the rabbit that I caught has three legs so believe me!"


The former nuclear scientist said the government's response is suppressing the facts and "suggesting to contrary.' He said in the matter of national security this kind of 'game' was unnecessary.


Santhanam called upon the government to form a panel of independent scientists and people with in-depth knowledge of the subject to verify the data from both sides again, while keeping the results classified.


During the press conference the most repeated question was why did he not speak before about the sensational failure of India's thermo- nuclear testing? Why now? Santhanam said, "Please note that the tests were conducted in May 1998.The DRDO was in charge of all the field instrumentations to measure acceleration and to record measurements from a variety of instruments and recorders. After the tests were over, we visited in (Pokhran, Rajesthan) the shafts where the thermo- nuclear device was detonated. We found that shafts by and large remained undamaged. So, we moved on to other shafts where the fission bomb was detonated. The fission bomb was estimated to be 20-25 kilotons. It left behind the large crater which was larger than the crater formed in 1974, when India's first peaceful nuclear test was conducted. I had some reservations about whether the thermo-nuclear device actually worked as per our expectations. I had serious doubts about that. We had to check and double check before we could arrive at the actual yields from the test. It was put in the classified report at the end of 1998."

Sathanam added, "Thereafter DRDO and Bhabha Atomic Research Center's scientists held a meeting. Despite fairly long discussion the two agencies agreed to disagree. Under these circumstances, the chairman of the meeting said he would discuss the matter with the minister and then decide on the future course of action. The Data was classified and the fact is that we should not have to have it in the public domain until the government chooses to declassify it."


When confronted Santhanam said, "We are not in business of selling peanuts or chocolates. This is a serious issue. In matters of national security, the government has the right to decide what will be classified. Every country that has gone nuclear has followed the same pattern. It takes some time before all the measurements can be digested, analyzed to project a picture."

It is very difficult for a scientist to reveal the nation's best kept secrets on camera. After a hour long press conference Santhanam rushed out to smoke. 'I am in a tizzy. I don't know if I am going or coming," :-? said the man who has blown the lid on India's nuclear claims.

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

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

Postby kenop » 21 Sep 2009 21:24

Not everything in the media can be trusted as there are reporting errors. This is true for most of the cases where the topic is higly specialized like bums and missiles.
In even simpler things major goof-ups are seen. I remember almost 10 years ago, the secretary to the department of electronics said in a press conference "we should have Rs 5000 PCs". This was reported in the papers as "Department of Electronics to make Rs 5000 PCs". Nothing of that sort was attempted of course.
So, this report about 200kt could be anything. I do not know surely what it is about.
JMT

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

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

Postby samuel » 21 Sep 2009 21:29

Only here, on this forum, a few pages back it was being argued that the TN performed better than advertised. Here we are now, saying, who could possibly in their right mind think the TN actually worked. OK, thanks for that gem of white washing.
To recap...

1. TN- fizz. S1 - 25+2KT - ~60% of 45KT, failed fusion. This splits into fbf etc. as arun says.
2. Fission ok. S2 - 20 - 22 KT

Questions:
1. Why no retarc on S2.
2. How crater on S1 of 70m at 45KT with given depth?

So, where this thread is concerned:
Yes, Pokhran - II not fully successful.

I must say in the old days people would be hanging off ropes for this kind of error. But now we've grown enough balls to say so what, deterrent sheterrent, come check my detergent out, it'll clean all doubt. That's cool attitude 8) (not one of the two).

S

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4447
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 21 Sep 2009 21:30

Probable that the Indian Nuclear stockpile is Maya onlee :D .One can intrepret and make nuklear bombs of any variety at will .. why stick with 25 or 45 or even 250 kiloton ?? .. lets go for fully MIRV ed 5 megaton blockbuster * 8 warheads enough to flatten Beijing many times over with one missile . :mrgreen:

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 » 21 Sep 2009 21:30

Sanjay wrote:Shiv - way too much is being made of omissions of bomb yields in op-ed articles. Just because somebody didn't mention - say 10 kiloton weapons - it does not mean they don't exist.

Santhanam seems to have claimed 25 kt -27KT for S1 and 20-25kt for S2.

In addition, TN devices have been designed with yields as low as 15kT and the US did conduct dynamic tests of 22kT TN devices.

The question that also needs to be probed is that given S1 was a device - as opposed to an operational weapon - what can the individual parts be morphed into ?

50KT FBF ? Possible.

Everybody is looking for data to support a point of view and if you are expecting anyone to be completely honest in this debate, I think you will be very disappointed.

Another general comment, words like "fraud" are unhelpful in this debate.

Separate the "credible deterrent" part from the "need to do more tests" argument and you have two distinct and equally valid viewpoints.

My views on the deterrent have been shaped by Adm. Mehta's comments.

I also agree with the need to perfect the India's TN weapons capability.

Nobody has yet answered this - Agnis are being built, inducted and deployed with 700-1500kg payloads (way too big for a 20-25kt warhead) - what's on them ? A big stone ?

Well stated Sanjay.

On the last question : A3 etc will at minimum carry 3 RV of the old warhead (designed for A-2). (I have that on record, but will not attribute the source).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17088
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 21 Sep 2009 21:32

Sanjay, IIRC, had a question regarding the RVs. Have they been tested?

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

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

Postby samuel » 21 Sep 2009 21:32

Arun_S wrote:
Sanjay wrote:Shiv - way too much is being made of omissions of bomb yields in op-ed articles. Just because somebody didn't mention - say 10 kiloton weapons - it does not mean they don't exist.

Santhanam seems to have claimed 25 kt -27KT for S1 and 20-25kt for S2.

In addition, TN devices have been designed with yields as low as 15kT and the US did conduct dynamic tests of 22kT TN devices.

The question that also needs to be probed is that given S1 was a device - as opposed to an operational weapon - what can the individual parts be morphed into ?

50KT FBF ? Possible.

Everybody is looking for data to support a point of view and if you are expecting anyone to be completely honest in this debate, I think you will be very disappointed.

Another general comment, words like "fraud" are unhelpful in this debate.

Separate the "credible deterrent" part from the "need to do more tests" argument and you have two distinct and equally valid viewpoints.

My views on the deterrent have been shaped by Adm. Mehta's comments.

I also agree with the need to perfect the India's TN weapons capability.

Nobody has yet answered this - Agnis are being built, inducted and deployed with 700-1500kg payloads (way too big for a 20-25kt warhead) - what's on them ? A big stone ?

Well stated Sanjay.

On the last question : A3 etc will at minimum carry 3 RV of the old warhead (designed for A-2). (I have that on record, but will not attribute the source).

I second Arun, Sanjay.
Need two threads:
1. Deterrence not detergent
2. Testing not Teasing.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17088
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 21 Sep 2009 21:34

Santhanam should resort to writing (after some two people proof it for confusion). He is not too good at verbal com and would only cause more problems with his sarcasm, etc.

GoI should stop communicating (with him specially) via press.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 21 Sep 2009 21:40

Samuel and RamaY, The three legged rabbit is straight out of Telugu poem by Pemmayaa! "Tiviri isumuna ...."

Second he Santy wants two more tests. Bigger question is does BARC have anything to test and what if they do one more time the simultaneous horse manure?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 21 Sep 2009 21:43

General note to all posters. There is so much acrimony in this thread with accusations and counter-accusations and added to spin on overdrive that its futile to report posts except for outright name calling. So quit and dont bother. Those reporting are not pristine either.

N^3 thanks for heeding my smileys caution. I do appreciate that.

ramana

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 21 Sep 2009 21:53

I don't mind counter and counter-counters.. as long it yields to a better NFU threshold value at the end of this new game plan. I want the threshold value to be reduced for the first strike.. say a parliament attack could be considered first strike..

that way, I can do tests newer thermos with a reason., and more precisely the delivery vehicle that will actually test at the real target rather pokhran.

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

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

Postby enqyoob » 21 Sep 2009 21:56

Only here, on this forum, a few pages back it was being argued that the TN performed better than advertised.

Yes, and that is STILL ignored by all those involved in the celebrations, festivities etc.
I DO STILL argue that, because there is no counter to it. All these numbers are Maya and no one is going to reveal the truth on the numbers. Or if they do it will be buried in so much noise that it will be missed.

What remains unanswered by all the experts here (and Dr. Santanam) is how as Test Director / Coordinator who claimed to have been constrained by Khetolai safety, he designed a test that should have produced twice as much yield, and risking the mass murder of everyone in Khetolai. Which STILL leaves only two options:
1. The tests yielded WHATEVER they were designed to yield. More, in fact, because there WAS serious damage to Khetolai.
2. The Test Director/Coordinator (Dr. Santanam) is an Attempted Mass Murderer.

Like I said, I don't believe #2. Which leaves No. 1. It's STILL that simple.

BTW, I strongly resent comments like this:
Narayanan is 'barking up the wrong tree', he said at an interaction with journalists at the Indian Women Press Corp in New Delhi [ Images]
The man IS my namesake after all...

shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

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

Postby shaardula » 21 Sep 2009 21:59

NRao wrote:
This does not mean that India should NOT hon her skills in the field on TNs. I think she should for a totally different reason.


Agree. I think one of the basic reasons is that we started with that intention. At some point we determined it necessary. We then should have the persistence and haTha to get to the other side of it. otherwise, we tried, we failed, we moved on, sets a precedence of chalta hein attitude. *end address to you*

general comment:
of course some reality check has to be there. and i have no reason to believe, that we abandoned it in '98. For what it is worth, I would give the people actually working on it that much credit. I would imagine you dont get to do what these folks are doing without that much ego. They chose to work on it. In anycase, they are the only people actually working on it. The rest of us are making statements that imply that these are idiots bcoz the best amongst us dont go there. i mean if there are known/obvious cases of creepy crawlies it is one thing. but to randomly call those who have actually dedicated their whole lives to a cause is another thing altogether - especially when not informed and when we have no sympathy for their positions. every tom dick and harry can comment about about how absolute science ought to be conducted based on ideals in high school texts. and everybody who has worked in it, under real life constraints, knows that is not how it works.

one of the questions that should be attacked here is, why would they choose to do what they did - being "selective with truth"? I think with such high stakes experiment, to say anything other than what they did is almost humanly impossible IMHO - especially, in public to the general masses - in such a high stakes issue. as shiv here said early in the thread, they didnot try to weaponize S1, means that the Community always knew - that much honesty they had.
Last edited by shaardula on 21 Sep 2009 22:06, edited 3 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 21 Sep 2009 22:02

MAybe he should have said "Neroynan"?

MKN was attending a Carnatic music katcheri in New Delhi while Mmmbai burnt.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 21 Sep 2009 22:04

shiv wrote:The only data I would like to add to this comes from RC's talk in which he said that the subkiloton tests (as well as S1 I am sure) were used for gathering data to build up equations of state which are essential for modeling the design (simulation) of TN bombs.

But no Indian official has ever so much as chirped a word about actual Indian warheads. Doesn't that tell you something? It certainly did to me - but I was following the issue fairly closely.


Well what does one make out of the statement , I am confident the data i have is sufficient to make a bomb , he clearly means he can weaponise the TN without additional test.

He certainly did not say , Oh I am confident this worked , but if I weaponise I need more test.

That man sounded and looked so dead sure.

I feel there is no need to dissect this any more word by word , it is possible he know more than others do , so let him be ready for a peer review.

Even Sita being pure as she was had to go through Agni Pariksha and Jesus had to die and rise again to prove he was son of man.

So as honest as he may be , let RC/Sikka claim go through peer review , if they know they got it right , they will get greater glory.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11213
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 21 Sep 2009 22:24

India can make 200 kt N-bomb: Chidambaram


Sure,
Only problem is, if it is not a TN its size will be,

Image

[/scaremongering] :roll:

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

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

Postby enqyoob » 21 Sep 2009 22:24

So Samuel: Based again on the clear evidence of the Khetolai Proof, and the non-proof of all the other non-statements about non-yield speculations, there is unfortunately no basis for your conclusion:
So, where this thread is concerned:
Yes, Pokhran - II not fully successful.


The only possible conclusion consistent with all known facts is:
Yes, Pokhran - II was successful in what it aimed to achieve.


It did not aim to test fully deployed weapon. If that were the case, the proper test would have been for a missile to have been fired, say from SHAR, and to hit the shaft dug for S1 and explode when it had gone 200+ meters down that shaft. Because- even if a 10MT Yield was Proven, that is no proof of anything other than
India can blow up India


Beyond that, the only noise is coming from one scientist/manager/politician/RAW agent/ strategic analyst/CTBT negotiator who has given several different numbers and versions, all contradicting what he said to the media in May 1998 when he had less time to think up these things.

The GOI has flat-out denied his allegations as "horrific". It doesn't get flatter than that.

Maybe the Aim of POK-2 was to claim that India had tested TNs. And all they had to test was 3 sub-KT devices. So they dug a few holes, waited for one of the frequent earthquakes to hit, and claimed credit for it. Flew all the Scientists etc. there in a helicopter for the Press Conferences.

Hey, that triggered Pakistan to test REAL TFTA nuclear weapons, raising dust clouds from Chagai Hills. Success!

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11213
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 21 Sep 2009 22:35

The one thing that strikes me the most is the glib talk that all scientists and netas are indulging in.
They speak something in one line of a sentence and quite another in the next line, to the uninitiated user, these will seem connected. Fact is they are not. for example.

Bill Clinton wrote:I did not make love to that woman. Monica Lewinski

R Chidambram wrote:Atomic Energy Commission Chairman R Chidambaram has said India could produce a nuclear bomb of 200 kilotonne (kt) yield with the country having tested a hydrogen bomb in Pokhran earlier this month.

And in the same vein.
MK N^3 wrote:"We have thermonuclear capabilities. I am absolutely sure. Even if we are hit, we will have enough to be able to deliver something,"

MK N^3 wrote:"I have chosen my words very carefully - (the yield was) 45 kilotons..."


Expect to hear more such in the following weeks.

No one is going to even say "India has a TN of 200KT" in so many words.
Last edited by Gagan on 21 Sep 2009 22:39, edited 2 times in total.

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

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

Postby Gerard » 21 Sep 2009 22:37

1998 thermonuclear test was a dud: Santhanam
The scientist also released photographs of "ground zero" of the thermonuclear device, which showed that there was no crater after the explosion. There should have been a crater of 72 metres radius if the device had been successful, he said.

"This picture tells a story that we have to do more honest homework in the direction of improving our thermonuclear design," said Santhanam.

Asked if the depth of the shaft made a difference to the crater size, he indicated that while he could not reveal the exact measurements, it was sufficient to create a substantial crater.

Santhanam said that the radio-chemical analysis of the test was classified and had not been shared with the scientists.


Santhanam hits out at NSA; wants independent inquiry in N-test
Santhanam, who was the DRDO co-ordinator for the 1998 nuclear tests, said there was a "strong and clear" need to form a group of stalwarts and give them access to all the relevant data.
On repeated questions on why he had raised the issue 11 years after the Pokhran-II, Santhanam said he had already told the Government about the failure of the thermonuclear device in a 50-page classified report submitted in 1998.

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

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

Postby samuel » 21 Sep 2009 22:39

No boss, Narayanan,
You gotta do better than your namesake.
Look at what they did for so-called system identification and even you, who would've been happy with a linear if grudgingly anisotropic medium, will find it shocking. If one of your students did this to quantify the vibration modes of a wing, you'll quit. That too, that too, they used a) a US river basin and when the US guys came with that, our people said, no no no, use the nevada test site for recommended site properties! and b) they then use a previous blast (note: the 100s of airplanes dropping in between were used for background music) at Pokhran 100000000s of years ago, assumed and pegged and sealed and delivered at 12 err 13KT yield. If you put that at 8KT, suddenly it's down to 30KT! So, umm not sure what that is about.

If you want to do simple simulations to see nonlinear response, I am ok with that. That shows a) source dependent response, b) multipath effects etc. and c) anisotropy. At least in simple examples if one were to suppose a linear model, and boss, even a spectral model where you have the opportunity to explore more than one mode (the total energy is what they used), then you will see that it can easily misestimate the response. There are too many reasons why Khetolai could shake -- ranging from whether it was s2 or s1 or s2+s1, what the medium did, what they calculated it did and others. I am happy to go into that but you will have to get back to some basic simple physics/engineering. OK, by me.

But these things like; oh they used 100s of bombs to calibrate, they calibrated a certain way, the medium does not change; common, you hold on to that argument if you like and when there is no one left to debate you on that, I will. Just do a simple sys id problem for a pendulum with gravity not known, a flexible beam, a slippery joint and friction. Tell me you have it with a linear model...I have been reading up on the specifics of what they do in seismology and that I am happy to say is 30^10^10 years behind aero-astro.

S
Last edited by samuel on 21 Sep 2009 22:42, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36423
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 21 Sep 2009 22:49

... and there are "unknown unknowns" - rumsfeld.

btw, just like noise canceling headphones, we need seismic wave canceling tests.


and today is H.G. Wells, BD.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests