Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Sep 2009 06:39

Thanks Sanjay. Appreciate the trouble taken

But Santhanam was right no? Only his methods may have been wrong.

We need to test TN as long as a bunch of high caste nations do not allow others to drink from their well even as they threaten to cut off water supply to the untouchables.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 25 Sep 2009 06:47

Wow pisko moment at work!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Sep 2009 06:58

Acharya wrote: Sethna was Gujrati and had good rapport with Desai.

Sethna is a Parsi. All the Parsis I know speak GujArati.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 25 Sep 2009 07:17

Something big is being carried and that's what I want to find out.

Shouldn't it be assumed that every missile will carry multiple warheads? I would assume that every hi-value Chinese "target" will have a heavy terminal area missile defense plus more general provincial and national defenses, so a very heavy attrition must be figured into any targeting.

So there is actually an advantage to going ahead with un-tested designs and building lots of missiles, rather than sitting around wailing about delay in developing massive warheads. The enemy cannot tell which is a working warhead, because India can't either.

And no one can predict which ones will get through the defences.

In the Cold War, the assumption was that only 1 in 5 supersonic strategic bombers would get through to drop a TN on major Soviet cities. That was long before today's superior guidance systems and hypersonic propulsion on ABMs. So today it may be 1 in 10 or even lower probability.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Sep 2009 08:11

csharma wrote:Are there still doubts about the yields?

No no doubts on yeald.

Only doubt that TN flunked , the fact that they did not weaponise TN after nearly a decade of test and choose to remain with Fission,FBF is a good enough indication that they are not confident that it will work in weaponised mode ( even assuming in best case that S-1 provided good confidence on TN )

The proof of the pudding is in the eating , let SFC declare they have TN device

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 25 Sep 2009 08:12

The enemy cannot tell which is a working warhead, because India can't either. And no one can predict which ones will get through the defences.

Funny.

If we need 5-6 25kt bums to hit a city of Beijing's size we would need to fire at least 10 missiles with 6-10 warheads in each missile with that kind of probability. Do we know how much of cow-dung we would need to build all those war heads?

Not that I am against your logic, but is it really practical?

Isn't it a better value to have 10 missiles with 100% CL TN weapons with lots of dummies?

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 25 Sep 2009 08:33

narayanan wrote:
Something big is being carried and that's what I want to find out.
So there is actually an advantage to going ahead with un-tested designs and building lots of missiles, rather than sitting around wailing about delay in developing massive warheads. The enemy cannot tell which is a working warhead, because India can't either. And no one can predict which ones will get through the defences.

Nice summary and flawless logic N^3 sir. Wish the people in charge don't balk because it is so unlike SDRE to be extravagant on matters of fissile material and delivery systems.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Sep 2009 08:36

Austin wrote:
The proof of the pudding is in the eating , let SFC declare they have TN device

Err Austin - given the info that Sanjay has posted - don't you think that even if the SFC were to make public declarations of the Vajpayee genre and say "We have big TN bum" would they not be steamrolled away with a huge public ROTFL?

While Sanjay makes a lot of new points one thing has been absolutely consistent from 1998

1) India has not tested a 150 or higher kt device
2) India is claimed to "have the capability to build" such a device

Here are Sanjay's comments reproduced:

Whatever happened with S-1, can BARC weaponize a TN weapon that will work without further testing ?

The answer I keep getting is "probably".

Have they done it ? "Possibly".

and

Does India have the capability to make a 200KT TN weapon ? Yes.

Has it made such a weapon ? Probably.

Is it 100% certain it will work to specifications ? No.

Is the SFC satisfied with that ? Not yet.

Is it deployed ? No.

I would not hold my breath waiting for SFC to make any such declarations.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Sep 2009 08:38

narayanan wrote: So there is actually an advantage to going ahead with un-tested designs and building lots of missiles, rather than sitting around wailing about delay in developing massive warheads. The enemy cannot tell which is a working warhead, because India can't either. And no one can predict which ones will get through the defences.

Gives a whole new SDRE meaning to the word "decoy"

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Sep 2009 09:03

shiv wrote:Err Austin - given the info that Sanjay has posted - don't you think that even if the SFC were to make public declarations of the Vajpayee genre and say "We have big TN bum" would they not be steamrolled away with a huge public ROTFL?

Shiv it would be very difficult for BARC to bluff the SFC in accepting something where the confidence level is not 100 % , compared to steam rolling that BARC does with DRDO and even GOI blind faith in BARC word.

The fact that they did not weaponise the TN and SFC has no TN in its inventory even after 11 years of test , is a good indication even for a lay man like me that TN weaponisation is a pipe dream.

Ideally any one would first weaponise the TN because it gives more bang ( or variable bang ) for less fissile material , making it cost effective weapon viz a viz Fission/FBF.

As for Sanjay information , indeed Sanjay has produced some interesting information , but I tend to believe that SFC will not accept a weapon ( i.e. TN ) unless BARC can convince that it will work 100 % as desired , hence the reason Fission/FBF still rulez SFC .

The word of faith that it will probably work , has zero value to military and strategic planners.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Sep 2009 09:49

Austin wrote:
Ideally any one would first weaponise the TN because it gives more bang ( or variable bang ) for less fissile material , making it cost effective weapon viz a viz Fission/FBF.

I would disagree with this on a few counts.

One would first weaponise with what one has, rather than what one wants

The argument about "cost effectiveness' is another matter.

Fission and FBF are more costly in fissile material and lead to fewer weapons overall. For that reason TN is desirable. But by far the "costliest" item is the delivery vehicle and sufficiently large numbers of them to ensure survivability and interception with each having warheads and decoys. If one has stocks of fissile material for 1000 warheads then a force of 1000 reliable fission weapons is not to be sneezed at - TN or no TN.

India's first problem was to deploy with no testing. That lasted till 1998

Whatever India did or did not do in 1998 - it certainly tested 5 fission devices.

After 1998 India options are

route 1: Deploy tested fission warheads and try and base deterrence on that
route 2: Deploy tested fission warheads and untested TN warheads
route 3: Test TN and be damned so that TN too can be deployed.

It appears that India has chosen 1. That is a political decision.

In countries where there is no difference between politics and military and the country's decisions are made by a small group not having to answer the entire nation the decision would be easier. It is not a choice of the SFC as far as I can tell.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Sep 2009 10:05

I guess the counter-city 2nd strike doctrine needs to target population centers rather than mil or industrial infra. so a 'dharmic' 25kt strike solely on some C3I bunker in the forests is will not work. wrt to a megacity XYZ, all warheads must be utilized against thickly populated areas only and not far flung industrial parks or infra.

the aim crudely put is to cause maximum KIA. thats the best we can go given limited number of long range missiles even if we had TN warheads.

imo we are a decade away still from fielding a mated force of 100 rail mobile A3
and 10 A3SL on Arihant2 & 3. thats about the bare minimum needed to deter someone like panda or unkil. heavy $$ is needed to ramp up missile production.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 10:09

The debate has reached a hiatus with the news conf. It means what they said. So we can take a break till new information comes in. Am going to lock in a couple of days. Thanks everyone for all the contributions and otherwise.

ramana

udy · Post by **udy** » 25 Sep 2009 10:26

Ramana asked

I was looking for the quote from Sri R.N. Agarwal of RCI on the earliest designs for the REX and its evolution.

Is this the one?

A success story

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Sep 2009 10:57

Why there is no case for further nuclear tests R. Ramachandran

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 11:18

udy wrote:Ramana asked
I was looking for the quote from Sri R.N. Agarwal of RCI on the earliest designs for the REX and its evolution.
Is this the one?

A success story

Thanks.

When the programme on the development of a technology demonstrator for the Agni missile began as part of the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) in 1983, the objective was to establish the re-entry technology for long-range missiles. "Re-entry was the original aim, not the missile itself. So we started working on the re-entry vehicle for long-range missiles," Agarwal said. He and his team had aimed at a 100 kg payload to reach velocities between 5 km and 8 km a second for simulating re-entry conditions. But in mid-course, in 1985, it was decided that the payload should weigh one tonne. So the entire scenario - of the size of the missile, its launch systems and critical dimensions - underwent big changes. "Although it was painstaking in mid-course to make a change of this magnitude, we slogged and revised the designs for the one-tonne payload, including the launcher and the launch complex," Agarwal said.

and

In 1995, the operationalisation of Agni began with the development of the Agni-II missile. It was an ambitious project because the missile was capable of delivering payloads over a distance of 2,000 km. Many new areas of technology, including mobile launch systems and upper-stage motors, were developed. The first flight of Agni-II took place on April 11, 1999, from a mobile launcher at a new launch complex. "It was again a total success in its launch systems, missile systems and velocity," said Agarwal. Agni-II weighed 17 tonnes.

The second flight of Agni-II also went off well, validating the system's design, development and reliability. With the user identified, there was another flight in August 2004 with the user's participation, and it was again a success.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Sep 2009 11:20

SSridhar wrote:Why there is no case for further nuclear tests R. Ramachandran

This article is full of polemics. The case for withholding testing can be made but not complete cessation at India's level of capability. And quoting late Gen Sundarji in present context is appeal to higher authority. A brutus fulmen article.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 25 Sep 2009 11:36

Deterrence wise in actual terms India is way behind TSP. One may ask what should be the punishment melted out to people responsible for putting India into this state? In India, it will be more promotions. In any nation that valued its independence, people responsible would have been part of a rock breaking chain gang for life, and thats if they were lucky! (Even AQ Khan was sidelined because his technical ideas were not completely feasible.)

See India's standing in the eyes of the inhabitants of the High Table: http://cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/09/24/mo ... index.html

In this important announcement, ISRO and CY-1 is just a footnote. They deserve a lot more credit than they are getting. If a PRC probe found the same, I am sure the reporting would have been different.

This is because India has NONE of the "currencies" of real power. TN is one of them. In the book JAWS, the guy says, you yell "Barracuda !!" and people won't give a damned. You yell "Shark !" and people will freeze with fear. This is despite that in reality, Barracudas have harmed more humans than Great White Sharks.

Deterrence is psychology and in the human psyche, TN = credible/big power deterrence, something that has been drummed in for nearly half a century. Also, there are many economic benefits too (much cheaper to build and operate TN based small qty of vehicles and warheads.). If (as Karnad said) the other shoe doesn't drop soon (say within the next 1.5-3 months), the R and E phases of CRE will start and proceed rapidly.

India simply cannot afford a CREDIBLE deterrent based on 20 KT fission devices, FBF's which MIGHT work and TN's that will NOT work. Add to that a NFU, and this is a recipe for national suicide on the part of the Indian leadership.

Santhanam is old. He has personal credibility that nobody else has. Anybody else with perhaps even more info will be brushed aside. I believe the time is within the next 3 months.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Sep 2009 11:52

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote:
Ideally any one would first weaponise the TN because it gives more bang ( or variable bang ) for less fissile material , making it cost effective weapon viz a viz Fission/FBF.
I would disagree with this on a few counts.

One would first weaponise with what one has, rather than what one wants

The argument about "cost effectiveness' is another matter.

May be I did not put it correctly.

What I meant was if TN indeed was successful as BARC claims , then we would have weaponised the TN long back and would have given it preference over say the more fissile hungry fission.

So yes you are right in that we did weaponise with what we had and knew would work with 100 % confidence which was fission weapons.

Where as the TN remains a pipe dream

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Sep 2009 12:21

To add to what Arun_S says about deterrence, no nuclear power can simply afford to stop with city & population busting countervalue weapons alone. That's how they start with but as their assessment of the adversarial situation develops and as their adversary adds more strength to his own nuclear arsenal, and as their own technological prowess increases, the deterrence posture will evolve further and will have to move from countervalue to counterforce. Certainly, a counterforce posture needs TN weapons to take out hardened sites, caves and tunnels, of course, along with accurate delivery platforms. Deterrence is a game that plays only as long as it holds. When it breaks, nobody would care for the Nuclear Doctrine that had been articulated with careful words before. The Nuclear Doctrine is all for peacetime only. In the case of India Vs. China, there is every possibility that China can and possibly will attack counterforce and denude our capabilities and whatever survives may not be feared by China or deter that nation. This is because they know that being a NFU and lacking a credible TN waponry (at least in Chinese eyes), we will not even start a First-Use attack leave alone a bolt-out-of-blue type attack and when challenged we will be unable to take out their weapons leaving them with the ability to unleash a truly punishing second wave. The only thing that may deter a Chinese attack will be the reaction of the rest of the P-5 countries when deterrence between these two largest populous countries has broken down.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 25 Sep 2009 12:27

>>>This is because India has NONE of the "currencies" of real power. TN is one of them. In the book JAWS, the guy says, you yell "Barracuda !!" and people won't give a damned. You yell "Shark !" and people will freeze with fear. This is despite that in reality, Barracudas have harmed more humans than Great White Sharks.

How will it have, when people like you are around making fun of your own people..? First you learn to respect your country and its men..THEN tell others to do so. using your own analogy, let me ask - how would a Chinese respond to a TN failure..or a Chandrayaan failure..? will it be the same way you respond? So, there lies the crux of the matter. Ridiculing someone for the sake of it will take your country thus far onlee..Don't crib if other follow you and ridicule your country and its work worldwide. Those countries haven't reached the position they are in now not by being honest and showing their work for peer review. Lot of posturing and bluffing is there as well, but none of their countrymen crib in public so much.

On top of that you want a peer review by the same goras who ridicule your country!

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 25 Sep 2009 12:34

Geeth,
Please relax. You are targeting the wrong person.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Sep 2009 12:37

geeth wrote:>>>This is because India has NONE of the "currencies" of real power. TN is one of them. In the book JAWS, the guy says, you yell "Barracuda !!" and people won't give a damned. You yell "Shark !" and people will freeze with fear. This is despite that in reality, Barracudas have harmed more humans than Great White Sharks.

How will it have, when people like you are around making fun of your own people..? First you learn to respect your country and its men..THEN tell others to do so. using your own analogy, let me ask !

Worshiping naked emperors is not the way to get to high power, China shoots naked emperors. USSR shot its emperors the moment they became just a little weak. These guys work on the survival of the fittest and devil take the hindmost and are very unforgiving societies. They dont stop at making fun, they start by shooting.

Huge difference, but you have taken the quote out of the context anyway.

Chinese have power because they have a demonstrated TN not because its citizens do not laugh at its non working TN.

arun · Post by **arun** » 25 Sep 2009 12:44

The “Official” Government of India response to the fizzle allegations delivered by Dr. Kakodkar and Dr. Chidambaram in its entirety.

Those who previously missed the much cited Hindu article by K. Santhanam and Ashok Parthasarathy that made the case for a fizzle, may see this link: Pokhran-II thermonuclear test, a failure

Onto the official GOI response:

Press Information Bureau
Government of India

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Department of Atomic Energy

POKHRAN – II TESTS WERE FULLY SUCCESSFUL; GIVEN INDIA CAPABILITY TO BUILD NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: DR. KAKODKAR AND DR. CHIDAMBARAM

18:35 IST

The Union government has reiterated that the Pokhran-II nuclear tests in May’98 were fully successful. Addressing a press conference in Mumbai this morning, Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and Dr. R. Chidambaram, Principal Scientific Advisor and former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission said, “The Pokhran-II tests had achieved their scientific objectives and had given India the capability to build fission and thermonuclear fusion weapons from low yields up to around 200 kilo tonnes (kt).” The statement comes after doubts raised by two scientists Mr. K. Santhanam and Mr. P. K. Iyengar on the success of the Pokhran-II nuclear tests conducted by India on 11th and 13th May, 1998. Mr. Kakodkar also said that on the basis of the capability, India had the ability to meet national security requirements and did not need to conduct more nuclear tests. The AEC Chairman however did not comment on issue of whether India should sign the CTBT Treaty, saying that a number of other factors needed to be taken into consideration for arriving at any decision.

Giving out the scientific details on the success of the May 1998 tests, Dr. Chidambaram, architect of the Pokhran-II tests, said that a number of yield measurement methods based on seismology, radio-chemistry and cavity measurements had confirmed the yield of the tests. He said that reputed US seismologist Professor Jack Evernden, who has professed taking into consideration geological and seismological differences between test sites, had made estimations of the May 1998 tests and they were consistent with India’s results. Dr. Chidambaram said that a number of papers had been written on the results of the tests and they had been peer-reviewed in International Journals of repute. He also said that India now had the computer simulation capability to predict the yields - of nuclear weapons-fission, boosted fission and two-state thermonuclear – of designs related to those tested in May’ 98.

Expressing distress over the objections raised by Shri P. K. Iyengar, the Principal Scientific Advisor said that even P. K. Iyengar agreed with the yield of the tests however the conclusions drawn by him on the efficiency were purely speculative in nature. Dr. Chidambaram wondered how without the knowledge of the design, the nature of fission-fusion break-up and quantity of thermo-nuclear material, Mr. Iyengar could calculate the efficiency the fuel burnt as 10%. He said, “no one outside the design team had the data to calculate fission-fusion yield break-up or any other significant parameter related to fusion burn”. Responding to the doubts raised by Mr. Santhanam, Dr. Chidambaram said that the size of the crater depended on the depth of burial and nature of the rock medium. The Principal Scientific Advisor said that India was the only country, which had given out so much information on the tests and further information could not be revealed because of proliferation-related sensitivities.

A point by point response to the major doubts raised on the Pokhran – II tests as given by Dr. Chidambaram is given below.

Doubt -1

“If one goes by the numbers for the total nuclear yield put out by the Department of Atomic Energy, which I see no reason to dispute, the yield of the thermonuclear device detonated on May 11, 1998, was around 40 kilotons… In my opinion that ratio ( of fission energy to fusion energy) must have been around 1:1… Therefore, by my estimate, the fusion yield could not have been more than 20kt… This suggests that the fusion core burnt only partially, perhaps less than 10 per cent..” (P.K. Iyengar, August 2000, repeated recently )

Response- 1

The important point is that Dr. P.K. Iyengar does not dispute the yield of the thermonuclear test. We do not understand, however, how, without knowledge of the design and, therefore, without knowledge of the fusion-fission breakup ad the quantity of thermonuclear material in the device and its isotopic composition, he has tried to calculate the efficiency of fusion burn.

Doubt- 2

“The fission bomb yield from DRDO’s seismic instrumentation was 25 kiloton…” ( K Santhanam & Ashok Parthasarathi, The Hindu, 17 September, 2009)

Response – 2

The BARC estimate of the yield for the fission device is 15 kiloton ( not 25 kiloton) and for the thermonuclear device 45 kiloton. One of the methods used for the estimation of the device yield was close-in acceleration measurement, for which both DRDO and BARC had set up instrumentation. It soon became apparent that after discussion among the two groups of specialists that the DRDO data had anomalies and had to be rejected and that the BARC data, which had the expected waveforms, would be accepted.

Doubt -3

“..The fission bomb left a crater 25 metres in diameter. If the TN device had really worked with a yield of 50 kiloton, it should have left a crater almost 70 metres in diameter…” ( K. Santhanam & Ashok Parthasarathi, The Hindu, 17 September, 2009)

Response- 3

The surface feature produced at Ground Zero depends on the depth of burial and the rock medium around the shot point and the rock medium between the shot point and the ground. These were all different for the two device tests. The fission device was emplaced in rhyolite medium. The medium for the Pokhran-I test was shale and sandstone. The geology in the Pokhran region is inhomogenous. The propagation of the shock wave is affected by every nterface. 3 – D simulation calculations of the rock mechanical effects done by BARC scientists, after considering all these factors, accounted for the observed effects in the thermonuclear test.

Incidentally, dimensions in rock mechanics scale by the power ( 1/3.4) for underground nuclear explosions- for chemical explosions, they scale by the power ( 1/3) or as cube root; the difference comes from the latent heat absorbed in the former case for vaporizing and melting the rocks around the point of detonation.

Doubt- 4

“Dr. P.K. Iyengar…. Informed me that trace levels of these same ( radio) isotopes ( sodium-22 and manganese-54) were detected in Apsara, a pure fission reactor …..” ( K. Santhanam & Ashok Parthasarathi, The Hindu, 17 September, 2009)

Response – 4

The tail of the fission neutron spectrum extends to beyond the excitation energy of these reactions. But the fusion neutrons are of 14 MeV. That is why isotopes like Mn-54 and Na-22 are found in significant ( not trace) quantities in the rock samples from the thermonuclear device site rock samples. If one sees the gamma-ray spectrum of a typical rock sample of the thermonuclear test site, published in refereed journals by BARC scientists, sharp peaks for these radioisotopes are seen, not just bumps in the background! In the Mn-54/Ce-144 ratios from the samples of the two test sites, reproduced by R. Ramachandran in his Frontline article of 25th September, 2009, this ratio for the thermonuclear test samples is seen as a high multiple of the ratio for the fission test samples”

PIB, GOI

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 25 Sep 2009 12:46

geeth wrote:On top of that you want a peer review by the same goras who ridicule your country!

Please mention who said that they wanted "a peer review by goras" and when (with exact quotes it possible).

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 25 Sep 2009 12:52

Arun_S’s views make interesting reading. To my mind, then what is really deterring us from ‘great power status’ is the focus on economic development. If we had solely concentrated on nuke development, and we had no economic prowess – that would really show the world. We could threaten to thermo-nuke the world with no regard for consequences because we would have nothing to lose (a la North Korea or Pakistan). So our lack of deterrence is amplified by the fact that we have economic growth.

Because we have something to lose we hesitate to use nukes. Now perhaps this annoys the proportion of Indians who have managed to escape the ‘development trap’ and are now focusing on vicarious pleasures of India becoming a great power. Nuke weapons may be a necessary condition for a ‘great power’ but it is certainly not a sufficient one.
Hence, may be the ‘deep development’ factors like power generation, trade, infrastructure, institutional development which take time (and perhaps focus away from instant sugar hits like Nuke explosions) have no place in a jingo-world.

This then brings one to the next question – Is nuke testing really a guns vs butter problem? Can’t we have both? Currently India is booming (in a non-nuke manner at least). So any testing will have minimal (or at most temporary) effects. Probably true. In the grand scheme of things it possibly does not matter – but since we (BR members) are not really at the margin of economic development we can survive ‘temporary irritants’. At the margin would be the people whose lives would be impacted because critical public hospital machines couldn’t be ordered because the higher borrowings by the Government to offset the non-debt creating inflows (halted temporarily due to sanctions), meant higher interest payments and which meant less money for such non-critical areas.

So when we consider trade-offs, we have to do it at the margin in my opinion. Is the feel-good factor of a TN test greater than the loss of the life of a prematurely born child who could have been saved?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 25 Sep 2009 12:56

>>>Worshiping naked emperors is not the way to get to high power, China shoots naked emperors.

Before you can say the words "naked emperors" you would be dead in China. There wouldn't be time or chance to talk any further...

And if the "naked emperor" is only a perception, then the person will shot along with the family.

Talking about context? about Chandrayaan? and TN? in the same breath?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 25 Sep 2009 13:02

>>>Please mention who said that they wanted "a peer review by goras" and when (with exact quotes it possible).

For exact quotes pls read the article by K. Santanam (Arun_S' God Father) & Parthasarathy(?) Published in Hindu

Added Later :

I can't see the quote in the article in one of the posts above. It may be a different article by Santanam or one by PKI. Not sure..But it was there - if I am not mistaken, it was suggested more than once. probably if you go through the pages, you may find it.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Sep 2009 14:25

geeth wrote:>>>Worshiping naked emperors is not the way to get to high power, China shoots naked emperors.

Before you can say the words "naked emperors" you would be dead in China. There wouldn't be time or chance to talk any further...

And if the "naked emperor" is only a perception, then the person will shot along with the family.

Talking about context? about Chandrayaan? and TN? in the same breath?

I cant make any sense of what you are saying. I repeat, criticism is welcome and that is not the issue in India not becoming a great power. Its lack of one actually.

If only more people in India actively and constructively criticized (and not whine)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Sep 2009 14:28

arnab wrote:This then brings one to the next question – Is nuke testing really a guns vs butter problem?

No its not and its never been, its you who has brought it in, I dunno why. No one got the angle that you seem to be alluding to.

And yes a richer house will need more safeguard against thieves, that is obvious and not a knock on being rich.

arun · Post by **arun** » 25 Sep 2009 14:44

merlin wrote:
geeth wrote:On top of that you want a peer review by the same goras who ridicule your country!
Please mention who said that they wanted "a peer review by goras" and when (with exact quotes it possible).

Not sure if this helps given that “international experts” come in colours besides “gora” and that nothing stops a national of ours being an “international expert” on something or the other

.

Dr A. Gopalakrishnan, former Chairman of AERB, called for:

a technological committee comprising of international experts to review the “methodology used by Chidambaram and his colleagues to establish their claims”.

Express Buzz

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Sep 2009 14:54

arun wrote:.

Dr A. Gopalakrishnan, former Chairman of AERB, called for:

a technological committee comprising of international experts to review the “methodology used by Chidambaram and his colleagues to establish their claims”.

Express Buzz

Well the link also has a quote from my uncle's college roommate's friend:

Another former BARC scientist, with intimate knowledge of weapons designing, expressed the doubt whether anybody in BARC had a fullscale understanding of a thermonuclear device.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 25 Sep 2009 15:18

N^3,

Though I was able to understand most of the points you made about Khetolai, there is one which I am missing.

What makes it sure that it is because of the s1 that the damage was done to Khetolai?

What if the other, I mean s2, was the cause of the damage?

I hope I am not asking who is Sita after the page number nearing 3digit.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 25 Sep 2009 15:44

The controversy is not dying anytime soon.

Santhanam's views on nuke test are a clincher: ex-AEC chairman
Agencies Posted online: Friday , Sep 25, 2009 at 1145 hrs
Mumbai : In the midst of the controversy over the success of the 1998 thermonuclear test, nuclear scientist P K Iyengar has said the views of former DRDO scientist K Santhanam on the issue are the "clincher".
There is a "strong reason to believe that the thermonuclear device had not fully burnt and, therefore, further testing was called for," Iyengar, a former Atomic Energy Commission Chairman, said in a statement on Thursday.

He rejected the statement attributed to him by government's Principal Scientific Advisor R Chidambaram on the outcome of the 1998 thermonulcear test, saying he was "misquoted" by him on something he had written in 2000.

He said Chidambaram had "tried to imply that I am in agreement with the official number for the yield of the thermonuclear test of 45 kilotons and that I, therefore, also agree that the thermonuclear device was a success. This is not correct. What I wrote in a newspaper article published in August 2000 was that if one goes by the numbers for the total nuclear yield put out by the Department of Atomic Energy, which I see no reason to dispute, the yield of the thermonuclear device detonated on May 11, 1998, was around 40 kilotons. This is a rather low yield."

The crux of that article was that even if one were to accept without question the DAE yield of 40 kt, there is a strong reason to believe that the thermonuclear device had not fully succeeded, Iyengar said.

Terming the test as "fully successful", AEC Chairman Anil Kakodkar and Chidambaram had said that the controversy triggered by Santhanam, was "unnecessary".

Iyengar said the revelations by Santhanam, who was associated with Pokhran II, are the "clincher".

Santhanam was one of the four leaders associated with Pokhran-II and must certainly have known many of the details, particularly with regard to the seismic measurements, Iyengar said.

He said, "If he (Santhanam) says that the yield was much lower than projected, that there was virtually no crater formed, and that these reservations were formally presented by DRDO in 1998 itself, then there is considerable justification for reasonable doubt regarding the credibility of the thermonuclear test and, therefore, of our nuclear deterrent."

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 25 Sep 2009 15:46

Sanjay: In this fast moving thread, somewhere above you mentioned that untested TN devices have been deployed by others. Can I ask Who? I know of only France, who has a plan to deploy a new TN weapon, which has not been tested before, even if derived from other tested TN Weapons.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 25 Sep 2009 16:01

ShauryaT wrote:The controversy is not dying anytime soon.
Santhanam's views on nuke test are a clincher: ex-AEC chairman

Personally I dont think there is any controversy left now, if Santhanan was trying to show that the 1998 tests does not mean that we have devices other than 50-80KT Fission (max) which we can rely on (with FBF questionable and TN almost certainly not working) he has succeeded.

The questions are now whether we have enough deterrence now based on 1998 tests success and data + the other advances in 11 years.

Clearly even GoI is not attempting to claim weaponized TN status.

Yes test vs no test controversy (if you can call it that) exists -- but I think that is a no-op from a science/need perspective.

The question (not a controversy) is "who will bell the cat & how"

IMVHO etc....

vishwakarmaa · Post by **vishwakarmaa** » 25 Sep 2009 16:15

*** OT **

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Sep 2009 16:36

arnab wrote:Arun_S’s views make interesting reading. To my mind, then what is really deterring us from ‘great power status’ is the focus on economic development. If we had solely concentrated on nuke development, and we had no economic prowess – that would really show the world. We could threaten to thermo-nuke the world with no regard for consequences because we would have nothing to lose (a la North Korea or Pakistan). So our lack of deterrence is amplified by the fact that we have economic growth.

Because we have something to lose we hesitate to use nukes. Now perhaps this annoys the proportion of Indians who have managed to escape the ‘development trap’ and are now focusing on vicarious pleasures of India becoming a great power. Nuke weapons may be a necessary condition for a ‘great power’ but it is certainly not a sufficient one.
Hence, may be the ‘deep development’ factors like power generation, trade, infrastructure, institutional development which take time (and perhaps focus away from instant sugar hits like Nuke explosions) have no place in a jingo-world.

This then brings one to the next question – Is nuke testing really a guns vs butter problem? Can’t we have both? Currently India is booming (in a non-nuke manner at least). So any testing will have minimal (or at most temporary) effects. Probably true. In the grand scheme of things it possibly does not matter – but since we (BR members) are not really at the margin of economic development we can survive ‘temporary irritants’. At the margin would be the people whose lives would be impacted because critical public hospital machines couldn’t be ordered because the higher borrowings by the Government to offset the non-debt creating inflows (halted temporarily due to sanctions), meant higher interest payments and which meant less money for such non-critical areas.

So when we consider trade-offs, we have to do it at the margin in my opinion. Is the feel-good factor of a TN test greater than the loss of the life of a prematurely born child who could have been saved?

Both our neighbours have put their security concerns in front of all other issues. They have f***k***ng cheated, proliferated, lied and showed the finger but got and keep getting whatever amount they can pile up.

On the other hand we have had every PM behaving like their only aim is to get the revered Nobel Prize for peace.
OK let's leave out JLN, lesser said of him the better. Just take IG she tried every dirty trick in the book or out of the book to stay in the power. She even strangled the democracy. But on the International forum she has to be a model of peace and brotherhood.
I remember reading an article somewhere right after the POK II, that how after the tests Kissinger had told an Indian diplomat "Don't do it again or we will destroy you." Of the course the so called Durga chickened out of the whole testing thing.
Look at China they are getting double digit growth since last 3 decades and meanwhile continuously testing + selling locks, toys and whatever else to khan.
The funny thing is that even the first PM of so called Hindu right wing does the tests but still in such a token way. That in 3 days you do 5 tests and declare a moratarium.
And now comes MMS a carrier beauracrat who have only one aim that is how to keep climbing in the position of hierarchy. Now someone mentioned on this thread that he and his siamese twin even want to sign the kyoto or whatever inspite of india producing 7-10 less emission than khan. For what

, well of course to sit on the high table silly

!
The amazing thing is contentment never comes after you are a PM for two simultaneous terms then you crave for a Nobel Prize.
THE SAME DESIRE OF SITTING ON THE HIGH TABLE YOU PROJECT ON YOUR COUNTRY. GREAT JUST, GREAT!!!
Instead of supporting your own Thorium based research you want to lock up 30 billion dollors buying of the shelf plants from rich boys.
And after 10 years you find that some better clean technology like hydrogen fuel cell is available at much less risky, costly price.
Bharatvarsh is in the most unique situation. From the Vatican pov this is the most frustrating spot on the whole face of earth.
This is the only Pagan country left on the face of this earth which is not only standing unconverted, but blessed with the wisdom of our forefathers is influencing caucasians to move away from the path of bi*b*e. They rue the fact that now 27 person caucasian americans believe in reincarnation, karma, 8 fold path of buddha or some other religious source born out of this so called country of "Snakecharmers, beggars and slaves".
In this context they do have a certain leniency towards porkis. Who are part of Judo-christian-mohmdn trio [originating from same source].
They can't digest the fact that how disciples of buddha with a begging bowl in one hand and his teachings in the other hand converted half the humanity.
While they have to take bread in one hand and b#ble in another.
or like others k#r*n in one hand and sword in another.
You would be surprised to know how much Italy and Greece has been working against Indian interest hand in hand with Porkis.
That is why in whole of Europe only Italians and Greeks are not given more than 3 months visa. Or why during 26/11 the terrorists let the gora walk away unharmed 'cause he showed them his Italian Passport.
In this respect they are happy with Chinese koreans and other chinki races, cause they can put aside the teaching of their great masters like lao-tzu, lih tzu and chuang tzu. These are fresh and availble hunting converting grounds for them so they'll go whole heartedly in their favour. I've a korean friend who told me how just in 10-15 years whole country got converted in front of his eyes.
Personally for me Thermo Nuclears are important in this sense. Not for their mega tonnage, or big booms.
But with them we can have a bigger and lightweight stockpile.
Those who talk against TNs as a mere grand wish of having a bigger one than the other.
JUST A CHANGE OF GESTALT IS NEEDED FOR YOU!
With TNs we will have lighter 50kt warheads in more numbers. Much cheaper too. As is being pointed out again and again.
From the thinking I am coming from deterrent is not just for Lizard or porkis. It is against NATO alliance too.
Like Arun_S had pointed out in the Thread 1 that if Porkis nuke us we will have to nuke them + their armourer the lizard.
With current stockpile of FBFs we have, I have a reverse thought. In case lizard starts nuking us, we should first take out porkis and BDs. After obliterating them if we have something left then the we can send them to lizardistan. The reason is though revenge is important, is very very important. But survival as a civilization is more important. A healthy and armed BD and porkistan will be more dangerous to us than chinks. Because chinks are not interested in coverting propogating their culture and religion on us.
Imagine a 14 year old Ramana Maharishi walking up Arunachala mountain weak bodied, undernourished and attaining to supreme enlightenment. Or Shankaracharya taking sannyas at the age of 7 and giving the world the greatest theory of Advaita before dying at the age of 21. Can it happen in Af'nistan or Bakistan? No, I don't think so.
Lokmanya Tilak has proved this by pointing out a constellation of stars mentioned in Rigaveda. It is now confirmed by modern astronomers that it happened only 90,000 years ago. With this fact he has stated that Rigved should be at least 90,000 years old. And the Rigveda is very very respectful towards jainas first teerthankara Parshvnath.
It is sad but to save this civilization TNs are needed. We owe it to the brothers in uniform standing post on Siachin, AP. Dying at the hands of cowardly terrorist attacks. Spies across the border risking their lives so few indian lives could be saved.
Remember after so much cheating and proliferating by porkis and chinks what bad things khan and it cronies have done to them. As I see there are no rewards or punishment for being a good boy or bad boy on the international scene which last for more that 2 years. Whatever sanctions punishments will come we will absorb them together in our small way, each of us.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 25 Sep 2009 16:46

Sanjay wrote:Does India have the capability to make a 200KT TN weapon ? Yes.

Has it made such a weapon ? Probably.

Is it 100% certain it will work to specifications ? No.

Is the SFC satisfied with that ? Not yet.

Is it deployed ? No.

Sanjay, thanks for the reply, and indeed that is long reply. However i find these things not agreeing with my viewpoint. I also must admit that my viewpoints are not shaped by chats with military personnel. I also believe that my viewpoints are based on current information. Reason I'm discussing this thing is not to confront your viewpoint but to share my viewpoint.

Sanjay wrote:Quoting from Karnad's India's Nuclear Policy:

(at page 82) "Until 2002-2003 the high firewalls between the nuclear weapons design program and ASL prevented the optimization of nuclear missile design. Now there is very close cooperation. Thus, for example, S.K. Sikka, as head of the thermonuclear weapons project was asked to change the size parameters of a weapon for a certain Agni missile by a mere 5cm to exactly fit the missile configuration -because changing the missile size would require massive redesign and development work resulting in a delay of 3-4 years. After some quick calculations, Sikka readily agreed to chance the dimensions of the weapon in question. This level of cooperation is a great improvement on what existed when R. Chidambaram headed AEC."

Agni 3 was ready by 2004. Agni 3 is marked for the new payload and it is the TN weapon. I dont think it is wrong to say co-operation exits even with SFC in addition to BARC/DRDO. News item:

There have been indications since 2004 that Agni-III, a three-stage missile that adds a third stage to
the first and second stages of Agni-II, was ready for launch.
Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee has repeatedly stated the launch had been put off due to India's
'self-imposed restraint' on testing the missile.
Media reports in May said the Agni-III test flight had been put off under pressure from Washington,
which felt this would send all the wrong signals at a time when the US Congress, as also the
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), were considering the proposed India-US civilian nuclear deal.

Sanjay wrote:"According to Srinivasan, without more tests, the reliability of the 20kt fission weapon is "100%" of the tritium boosted design -"It will surely work... But the full performance of the booster part will be subject to less than 100% surety; [and] in the case of the full thermonuclear device the confidence level will perhaps be less.""

Mr. Srinivasan wants more tests for every type of weapon. Even then for TN his confidence level of the device seems to be less.
This made me to think, the 'reliability' which he describes is based on the scalability issues or it is wrt to the doubts casted on POK-2. Are we not still talking about the Radio-chem analysis carried out during POK-1 ?

Sanjay wrote:Where does this magic 200kT figure come from ?

It was intended that the S-1 device provide the basis for a weapon up to a "maximum-minimium" 200kT yield.

It was also intended that a contingency 150-200kT FBF be prepared in the event of the TN not working to specifications.

Is it not this 150 KT FBF stuff was prepared much earlier to POK-2 ? I'm not sure.

Sanjay wrote:India's SFC has tailored its requirements and its planning around what is reliably available.

Such a capability is known and understood by the SFC and the GOI - hence Adm. Mehta's statement which is very conservative:

"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.''

If it is taken this way, only meaning it provides is deterrent is based on 15 kt fission weapon which was tested in weaponised configuration. I politely disagree.

Sanjay wrote:Air Marshal Ajit Bhavnani's words to Karnad also speak of greater synergy between the political establishment and the SFC(page 99 of India's Nuclear Policy):

"It has been time consuming for the political bosses to understand what's a de-mate situation, what's a mated situation, why we should have a mated situation and when a de-mated situation...But once they were made to understand, we are now in a good situation."

This is a wonderful quote, gives lot of confidence that politicians are understanding all this nuisance.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 25 Sep 2009 17:32

Shiv, Santhanam, Chidambaram & Co. and Iyengar are all correct in their own ways.

May I add a couple things:

Kanson - your discussions with military personnel say things are better or worse or what ? I am eager to hear.

My contacts are profound cynics and pessimists - usually erring on the side of supreme caution.

A number of the most recent US designs have never been tested dynamically but extrapolated from a combination of earlier test data, sub-kt test data and simulations. Strictly speaking they have not been "tested" in the way we are using the word for "testing" our larger fission or FBF designs.

My indication is that the SFC is very conservative in its approach - a bit like the forces in general.

ASL/BARC are much more ambitious and may well be ok with their TN design.

The FBF comes down to reliable scalability. You may well be able to get 100-200kt but not at 100% reliabilty as it hasn't tested it dynamically. It does not mean that it won't work.

The use of a larger fission stage for the FBF can be considered as well - say 30-40kt.

SFC is not going to publicly declare anything - only one interview has been given.

As far as tactical nuclear weapons are concerned, the first thing to ask is what do you define in terms of yield as tactical ?

Please read my work on the nuclear battlefield in South Asia.

Sub-kiloton weapons are not going to have much of an impact there - the defences are very well constructed. Even 20Kt fission weapons may not impact the DCB/Canal defences as much as you might think.

On targets such as a Strike Corps or ARN/ARS -much will depend on dispersal, composition of the battle group targeted etc. Sub-kiloton or low-kiloton yield weapons would be needed in large numbers to ensure the combat incapacitation of such a formation. Moreover, since the 1980s the Strike Corps have been evolving their tactics to minimize the impact of a nuclear strike on them - don't ask for details.

I am glad somebody posted that link to ASL. I did say on this forum that the 2004 test had been done with user particpation -thanks for the confirmation.