Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 26 Sep 2009 17:26

geeth wrote:>>>"I will not believe 2+2 = 4" What attitude

Pls show me who has eqalled 2+2 to 4


No Geeth - just read the summary of information I have posted taken from all the reports and calculations we have seen after Santhanam broke his mauna-vrata of 11 years.

Clearly 2+2=4 from the reports. You need to see them all together. If you disagree you don't know the meaning of 2+2=4

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23310
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 26 Sep 2009 17:37

shiv wrote:Santhanam has an effective, if crude way of speaking - but it could also be deep bitterness: About Kalam who was his boss and not the other way round as someone said:
He was head of the DRDO. He is a missile man, he’s not familiar with nuclear issues. You must have seen the statement of Dr H.N. Sethna. I think Dr Kalam was put up to give a statement and Dr Sethna from Bombay gave such a whack after which Dr Kalam does not know where to hide his face.


Yes True , but sometimes it is better to call a spade a spade

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

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

Postby Sanjay » 26 Sep 2009 17:48

Austin - he didn't call a spade a spade. He is not a "nuclear scientist" either.

He gloated over a totally reprehensible, purile and juvenille comment made by Sethna.

If Sethna's rant is taken to its logical conclusion, Santhanam should shut up, the former and serving service chiefs and members of the armed forces should shut up, DRDO should shut up, Karnad, Chellaney and other academic "experts" should shut up and most of all BRF should shut up.

I equally say that neither Mishra, nor Chidambaram, nor MKN has any right to belittle Santhanam.

To me the real tragedy of this story is the despicable conduct from the major players when anyone disagrees with them.

I have a lot more respect for the Lok Sabha after this.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 26 Sep 2009 17:55

Austin wrote:Yes True , but sometimes it is better to call a spade a spade


Austin - that is a self goal by Santhanam simply because it takes the focus off his claims and focuses on something else. By calling Kalam anything - his claims do not become more robust - given that he has contradicted himself several times over many reports.

He has been given several chances by the media to make his case and he has changed statements several times. Once you start trying to make your case stronger by cursing someone - you are allowing your opponent a chance to duck away from the spotlight and accuse you back of something. If KS's statements had been consistent it would have been one thing - but they are not even consistent - other than that he believes that the TN device did not wrok as expected.

In order to say that he has released a thousand conflicting statements and many rants against people and provided the licence for others to have a rant back at him - making a good media war - but it gets easier to dub him a senile disgruntled crank now and sign CTBT.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

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

Postby Sanjay » 26 Sep 2009 18:01

Notice how after the 24 Sept press conference Santhanam has not attempted to debate the viewpoint on the basis of the rebuttals offered ?

Notice also how Iyengar's response was not particularly effective ?

I am not passing judgment on who is right or wrong but if you have the courage of your convictions, deal with the rebuttals point by point.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 26 Sep 2009 18:08

Credibility is a mind game - as has been discussed in the context of credible deterrence"

If you do things to destroy your own credibility - you are gifting away a chance to have your beliefs considered as valid. Santhanam has gone a tad too far (IMO) in that Outlook article - and is beginning to sound more bitter than anything else to me.

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

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

Postby Raja Ram » 26 Sep 2009 18:11

Sanjay,
thanks for the post.

Gentle rakshaks,
While fizzle ya sizzle debate here and elsewhere swings by statements made and not made, it does seem that the wider issue of realpolitik of nuclear weapons that are sought to be influenced. Increasingly, it seems to me be an "encouraged debate" that sends out messages and signals for a variety of issues.

India has signalled its intent clearly on NPT and not so clearly on CTBT. While guru log well versed in technicalities of fizzle and sizzle and other guru log well versed in piskology and mocking can indulge in another form of "encouraged debate" on this forum, the lesser talented mortals like some ramblers can and should look at the large happenings in the background and what GOI is signalling, no?

Perhaps it does not qualify as a subject worthy of debates by gurulog, and this exalted highly milatary forum and perhaps should be discussed in the designated "hot air" forum of strategic matters!

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

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

Postby Sanjay » 26 Sep 2009 18:13

In the Outlook article he has altered some of his yield positions - 25-27kt down to 20-25kt. He has offered neither proof nor science to support his claims.

What gets me is that he started out this debate quite well - moderate tone, made his points about the yield etc.

After that he becomes enamoured of the glib sound-byte.

I stress again, he is demeaning himself by this conduct. His points may be valid or they may not be valid.

Raja Ram, you could be correct. There are elements in the GOI perfectly capable of engineering and manipulating this situation to where it suits their purposes.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23310
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 26 Sep 2009 19:32

Shiv/Sanjay , Bottom line is GOI/BARC should be ready for a peer review as Santy puts it

"the procedure is to form a blue-ribbon panel with retired, distinguished scientists, give them the relevant data and the classified report and get their view"

I would say involve the defence forces in this review , as they are stake holders in this.

And for Santy coming with more data , he already mentioned to quote

"By the end of May 1998, we came and spent considerable time in analysing the data from the DRDO’s instrumentation for the tests. We checked, we double-checked and triple-checked. We submitted a report to the government saying these were the expected readings based upon BARC predictions and the actual readings are lower than that. This was given in a classified report to the government"

So the data is there with the GOI and its classified in nature , let the peer review panel have a look at what DRDO and BARC had to say then on the test result and let them review the other facts before coming to appropriate conclusion what ever it may be.

Though I agree that they should avoid name calling and making this more murkier , but I am afraid in coming days and weeks ahead , we might see more of this from GOI/BARC , Retd Scientist and people like Santy , as the credibility of Institutions and Individual both serving and retired is at stake.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 26 Sep 2009 20:07

Austin wrote:
"the procedure is to form a blue-ribbon panel with retired, distinguished scientists, give them the relevant data and the classified report and get their view"

I would say involve the defence forces in this review , as they are stake holders in this.
.



As I see it - the problem is that if GoI, BARC and anyone else says "The peer review has been done and we are satisfied" what are Santhanam or anyone else going to do about it other than making more noise and pleading that it is not good enough?

This is going to get exactly nowhere.

I find it interesting that Santhanam says " retired, distinguished scientists,". That possibly means that he wants to be included in that panel. In a sadly ironic way - Santhanam pleading in public wanting to be included in a peer review (which is claimed to have been done but does not include Santhanam) sounds eerily similar to India's pleading bleats to be "counted among the global high table". And Santhanam is being rejected in the same way that the P5 and even Gadha-fi of Libya snorts snootily at us.

Making bum, or making bigger bum as Santhanam and others want clearly cuts no ice on the issue of high tables - either among peer reviewers of at a global level.

udy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 02 May 2005 21:53

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

Postby udy » 26 Sep 2009 20:15

The following is an enlarged version of an article that appeared in The Hindu (September 17, 2009).
Pokhran-II Thermo-Nuclear Test: A Failure

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23310
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 26 Sep 2009 20:17

Well BARC can say they have done the peer review and they are satisfied , that is what they have been saying , and that is what Santhanam and others are claiming is not fair and not done.

Santhanam clearly states blue-ribbon panel is the procedure that has not been done , he does say retd scientist , but he does not say me , so GOI can choose retd Distinguished scientist may be their own folks who are doubting it like Sethna and PKI and involve the military as well.

That is the least GOI can do now , is to have a peer review done by blue-ribbon panel to be fair to yes and nay sayers

Plus the 1998 report submitted by DRDO to GOI , Santhanam is hinting that there is something in there which the peer panel can review it as part of their exercise.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 26 Sep 2009 20:25

RayC wrote:
I don’t have any problem to defer to well informed and ‘well reasoned’ or say mathematically calculated reason rather than a dictat as some BRF moderators are desperate to issue.


Could be more dangerous than the bomb we are discussing.

So, would you take it easy and not fan flames?

The moderators are not 'desperate' to issue any fatwas.

They are desperate to moderate.

Your help will be appreciated.



It might be bad grammer used by me, actually I was trying to agree with Ramana. Pls edit my post where necessary.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 26 Sep 2009 20:25

dinesha wrote:
I am a person from a nuclear background, who spent close to 16 years in Trombay, published articles in various journals. I was doing strategic analysis long before I came to Delhi.


What is striking is in his numerous media interactions and articles, KS has never once mince the word “Boosted”. Given his credentials, it’s not an omission by accident but by design.. He simply says our MCD is based on 20-30 KT fission weapon. But nothing can be inferred from it..

either he does not acknowledges the existing FBF capability to create bigger hype about the TN testing
or he does not want to talk about lack of FBF capabilities because of it being detrimental to our strategic health..


Interesting

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 26 Sep 2009 20:31

Raj Malhotra wrote:
RayC wrote:
Could be more dangerous than the bomb we are discussing.

So, would you take it easy and not fan flames?

The moderators are not 'desperate' to issue any fatwas.

They are desperate to moderate.

Your help will be appreciated.



It might be bad grammer used by me, actually I was trying to agree with Ramana. Pls edit my post where necessary.


If you are seeking to say that the tests fizzled - it means RayC agrees with you. Note his words - that statements on this forum may be "more dangerous than the bomb we are discussing". If the bomb was a fizzle then the statement is spot on.

Innit? :lol:

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 26 Sep 2009 20:34

ramana wrote:India to drive tough bargain as US pushes hard for CTBT
India will not be easily won over. It could use its indispensability to the CTBT regime to drive a hard bargain. Foreign minister S M Krishna indicated as much. Talking to reporters in Pittsburgh, he said, ``We have taken a principled stand and so the question of India revisiting it depends on a number of other developments that would address our concerns.''

Though the negotiating stance is yet to be crafted, sources said that access to simulation data with the US, which can add to the nuclear weapon knowhow, can be the starting point. Though India has maintained Pokhran II yielded enough data for computer simulation, data sharing with the US will help allay any concern that may arise if the right to test is signed away.



I dont know about that. It could be spurious data and might be real fizzles in use. There has to be several measures that add crediblity to the data simulation and removal of several sanctions to do that. And for starters and show of good faith get rid of Hyde Act.


Note the red words!

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

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

Postby John Snow » 26 Sep 2009 20:43

John Snow: It is an unfair assumption that I can read.


Dont fault me N guru, but you write so well, which I cant. Hence you are my guru. 8)

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 26 Sep 2009 21:05

Today MMS said “Pakistan should stop using terrorism as instrument of State policy”. It cannot be more blunt than this.

There is two ways to evaluate MMS. One he is American agent and harsh words are only before Maharashtra elections but I don’t believe soil of Indian Punjab can produce a Sikh who can be soft on Pakistan. I believe history may record him as another Narsimha Rao.

I think this controversy by Santhanam may have blessing of Govt. Note MMS comments “un-necessary controversy” or NSA “horrific”. I think MMS is pulling down BJP chaddi and also telling Obama where to get off.

MMS is telling USA, give me your TN designs, TN test data, allow me to conduct more tests, curb Pak terrorism, cut their aid & arms supply and then we will start thinking of CTBT & FMCT.

Note: - I still say S1 was fizzle and S6 was pulled away to protect H&D.

Note: - Am a supporter of US-India nuke deal as strong India can interpret it in the way it likes.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16195
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 26 Sep 2009 21:13

As a FYI only (this post - at the moment - has nothing to do with S1, specially the on-going controversy):

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Nts.html

Test: Sulky
Time: 19:35 18 December 1964 (GMT)
Location: NTS Area 18d
Test Height and Type: Shaft, -27.1 m
Yield: 0.092 kt

This was the 11th Plowshare shot and was conducted by LLNL. Sulky was fired to explore cratering mechanics in hard, dry rock and to the study dispersal pattern of airborne radionuclides. Sulky was fired in granite strata overlaid with basalt. To the surprise of the test designers, who had expected a depression,it produced a permanent rubble mound called a "retarc" (an inverted crater - the word is "crater" spelled backwards). Permanent retarcs of this kind are restricted to hard rock where the shock displaced material, which has three times the volume of the original strata, is strong enough not to undergo compaction and subsidence. Strong rock like granite is especially conducive to this, since it tends to fracture in large blocks for maximum bulking effect. Sulky was in fact the only retarc producing event in the history of US nuclear testing. The mound was 24 m wide and 6 m high, and had a small depression in the center (9 x 3.5 m). Sulky released 13 kilocuries of I-131.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16195
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 26 Sep 2009 21:24

RM,

I would think no matter what, India will need to test. Even if the US provides a design, data, etc. India can live with a"Trojan" in the MRCA, but certainly not in a deterrent. And, if the US declines to cooperate, then a test would be needed to complete the cycle.

That is IF the US insists on India signing the CTBT. If that pressure is not there, then the current status quo can continue.

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

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

Postby John Snow » 26 Sep 2009 22:03

I think BARC has to design a giant Spherometer to accurately measure the radius of curvature so that the yeild can be computed accurately. I think the problem we have in not able to do this is ,we dont havethe required CNC machines. Sunil used often say this and we never understood.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 26 Sep 2009 22:20

Nobody wants the binary file with CORRTEX data. The end result of that data is the radius of cavity of the underground test. What was that result? Was it same as expected radius based on POKI scaling? And how does it compare to the one published in the radio-chem report?

All these are secondary checks for S-I which add to the credibility.

BTW some posters have been calling scientists as being inexact, by quoting others posts. In retrospect the count is probably more than the original name calling.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 26 Sep 2009 22:25

NRao wrote:As a FYI only (this post - at the moment - has nothing to do with S1, specially the on-going controversy):

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Nts.html

Test: Sulky
Time: 19:35 18 December 1964 (GMT)
Location: NTS Area 18d
Test Height and Type: Shaft, -27.1 m
Yield: 0.092 kt


This was the 11th Plowshare shot and was conducted by LLNL. Sulky was fired to explore cratering mechanics in hard, dry rock and to the study dispersal pattern of airborne radionuclides. Sulky was fired in granite strata overlaid with basalt. To the surprise of the test designers, who had expected a depression,it produced a permanent rubble mound called a "retarc" (an inverted crater - the word is "crater" spelled backwards). Permanent retarcs of this kind are restricted to hard rock where the shock displaced material, which has three times the volume of the original strata, is strong enough not to undergo compaction and subsidence. Strong rock like granite is especially conducive to this, since it tends to fracture in large blocks for maximum bulking effect. Sulky was in fact the only retarc producing event in the history of US nuclear testing. The mound was 24 m wide and 6 m high, and had a small depression in the center (9 x 3.5 m). Sulky released 13 kilocuries of I-131.


At a minimum how did the S-I retarc compare to this one? This one was obviously a very small yield device.

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 773
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

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

Postby tejas » 26 Sep 2009 22:34

As long as bilateral nuke deals between India and Russia/France remain intact after Pokhran III, who gives a rat's gluteus maximus what Umrikah thinks? All we need now is a Gulf of Tonkin like incident to shout bombs away! Whether this is in the form of a Puke terrorist attack or on our border with the Tibet Autonomous Region of Zhong Guo, I care not.

kittoo
BRFite
Posts: 894
Joined: 08 Mar 2009 02:08

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

Postby kittoo » 26 Sep 2009 23:02

Raj Malhotra wrote:Today MMS said “Pakistan should stop using terrorism as instrument of State policy”. It cannot be more blunt than this.

There is two ways to evaluate MMS. One he is American agent and harsh words are only before Maharashtra elections but I don’t believe soil of Indian Punjab can produce a Sikh who can be soft on Pakistan. I believe history may record him as another Narsimha Rao.

I think this controversy by Santhanam may have blessing of Govt. Note MMS comments “un-necessary controversy” or NSA “horrific”. I think MMS is pulling down BJP chaddi and also telling Obama where to get off.

MMS is telling USA, give me your TN designs, TN test data, allow me to conduct more tests, curb Pak terrorism, cut their aid & arms supply and then we will start thinking of CTBT & FMCT.


But Raj ji, if that was the case, would Santhanam had said that NSA is 'babe in the woods' etc? I mean, these are pretty harsh words to be used in a high level planned drama. Whats your say?

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

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

Postby George J » 27 Sep 2009 00:29

Either BR missile page has got it wrong and we don't even have MIRV technology or perhaps Mr.Santhanam has not been privy to DRDO's missile prowess...

NSA dismisses doubts over Pokhran-II tests In an interview on a TV channel, Narayanan reinforced the official position on the burgeoning controversy. "We have thermonuclear capabilities. I am absolutely sure. We are very clear on this point. If you hit a city with one of these, you are talking about 50,000 to 100,000 deaths," the NSA said.


Santhanam's reply to the Q:But the failure of the TN device bothers you?...........India’s minimum credible deterrent remains untouched because the fission bomb certainly worked like a song and, therefore, the minimum part of our deterrent is fully addressed. (But) certainly, we need a thermonuclear bomb, especially for the Agni class of missiles which have a range of 3,000 to 4,000 km. It really doesn’t make sense that you fly the Agni missile 4,000 km and deliver a 20 KT bomb. This will certainly not be in the category of what we call inflicting unacceptable damage on the adversary who attacks us.


I thought a primitive Hiroshima device took out 120,000 civilians. If we have MIRV then shouldn't we get multiples of 100K?

Can we split this thread....this thread has all the qualities of an irrelevant Hot Air Forum thread. Since they already have a couple of 100 threads on the Nuclear Discussion, they could certainly use one more. There is enough really relevant Missiles/warhead related info for a meaningful stand alone thread

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

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

Postby John Snow » 27 Sep 2009 00:44

Yes we should split, we have perfected Fissions.

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

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

Postby Babu Bihari » 27 Sep 2009 01:18

Chidambaram’s dud blows up strategic deterrent

EVEN though the Atomic Energy Commission certified that the dud thermonuclear device tested during Pokhran 2 in May 11, 1998, was no dud, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, and R Chidambaram, the AEC chairman in 1998 and currently scientific adviser to the Prime Minister, felt compelled to step out on Thursday to mount a fresh defence of their untenable claim. This was necessary because the previous attempt by the AEC did not find any purchase in the media. It was left to Chidambaram, who, peers and associates say, was an extremely reluctant nuclear bomb tester, to make his case.

Chidambaram made a power point presentation so abstruse, esoteric and arcane to a general audience that most of the reporters of the event failed to convey even a half-way accurate picture. He did not present any relevant scientific data for his disbelieving peers to pore over. It is another matter that the gobbledygook he produced did not make any scientific sense to those scientists who watched the proceeding with great interest.

What is of relevance, however, is that Chidambaram, who worked under P K Iyengar, who has questioned the efficacy of the thermonuclear test, asked the press: “We do not understand, how, without knowledge of the design and, therefore without knowledge of the fusion-fission break-up and quantity of thermonuclear material in the device, and its isotopic composition, he (Iyengar) has tried to calculate the efficiency of the fusion burn.” (Pokhran II: “no scientific basis for doubts”, The Hindu, Friday September 25) Considering that Iyengar has been for the most part a DAE insider and at the core of the Pokhran I team, who knows the test site like the back of his hand, its geological features, the shaft depths and various other parameters, and as someone who no doubt knows and interacts with other scientists in the establishment he has long served and headed, and given the innate curiosity a scientist has, it would have been prudent for Chidambaram not to ask a question that is so completely naive. But then again, considering that Chidambaram believes he can create thermonuclear bombs of up to 200 kilo tonnes from half-baked data from just one botched thermonuclear test his assertion about Iyengar is not even half as naive.
In 1995, when the Narasimha Rao government was contemplating nuclear tests, a thermonuclear device was part of the plans. Between then and 1998 is just three years.

It would, of course, have been far simpler for Chidambaram to provide the complete data in camera to Iyengar so that the matter could be set at rest without further damaging the rapidly eroding credibility of the DAE and its style of management. After all, Iyengar has never been a security risk. It cannot be that once he retired he instantly turned into some sort of untouchable or that his expertise gained over a lifetime of proven scientific achievements became suddenly worthless. Consider for example what happened in Chidambaram’s Mumbai exposition. It was an absurd stratagem where a highly technical and complex subject was presented at a press conference where most of the media obviously did not follow closely the implications of the mumbo-jumbo uttered by the scientists. There was thus no scope for seeking clarifications over what was said, or even challenge the assertions that were made. You asked a question and got more mumbo jumbo for answer. For example, Chidambaram’s breathtaking explanation of the lack of the crater after the thermonuclear explosion: He said the thermonuclear device was emplaced in pink granite. It would, of course, be logical to assume that shock waves would travel faster through granite and produce accurate readings. But we know that the purpose of the press conference was not to provide clarity.

The point is: The studied refusal to take on board valid scientific criticism and analysis will surely lead to more idiosyncratic functioning of the kind that Chidambaram represents. Given the fact that Chidambaram has systematically and deliberately refused to sit with Iyengar and clear the giant nuclear mushroom-sized clouds over the efficacy of the device, his throwaway line deserves to be discussed in some detail.
Iyengar told this reporter that so beset was he by doubts of the efficacy of the thermonuclear device that was tested on May 11, 1998 that he dashed off a paper with his arguments on why he thought the device underperformed to then National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra who promised to take it up with Chidambaram and arrange a meeting where it could be sorted out. Subsequently, there was no response from the National Security Adviser. When Iyengar ran into Mishra quite by chance at an event both were attending, Iyengar asked Mishra what the delay was about. Mishra responded, “He (Chidambaram) doesn’t want to meet you. The chemistry (between you two) seems to be wrong.” “What has chemistry got to do with this?” asked Iyengar, and made the point that, “These are technical issues and personal chemistry doesn’t come into it.” Mishra responded: “He (Chidambaram) doesn’t want to meet you.” There the matter rested for some time, and later efforts to broker such a meeting involving Raja Rammana as an intermediary also bore no fruit.

Mishra clearly felt disinclined to push Chidambaram to sort the doubts out or get to the bottom of the matter on which India’s deterrence against China rested. And obviously Chidambaram had more than a sneaking suspicion that he might get caught out if he took on Iyengar and therefore, it could be argued, is afraid of the repercussions of being totally exposed. Bharat Karnad in India’s Nuclear Policy (Praeger Security, 2008) deals with this aspect of what amounts, clearly, to a most serious dereliction of responsibility on the part of the then national security adviser.“Even when the military’s doubts about unproven and untested nuclear weapons are conveyed to the government, it has had little effect,” he writes (pages 69-70). Karnad quotes Ved Malik, the chief of army staff in the period of the 1998 tests. Malik recalled that Iyengar, who was then waging a relentless campaign for additional testing, met with him and gave him technical reasons why he thought the thermonuclear device did not work and more testing was needed.

“Troubled by what he had been told Malik conveyed the former nuclear chief ’s misgivings to National Security Adviser Brijesh Mishra.” Karnad asked Mishra about this. “Mishra states that the BJP government had no choice but to believe R Chidambaram, the AEC chairman at that time. “Who am I to go and say (these tests did not work)” says Mishra, “and...I will appoint a commission to enquire into whether the scientists are telling the truth or not?” Mishra was being rhetorical, of course, but clearly acknowledged the possibility that the scientists may not have been telling the truth. So, is Chidambaram lying? Did Mishra want to get to the truth? With Chidambaram at the helm of sensitive nuclear affairs, what must really be going on in the DAE? Did the national interest lie in pampering the ego of Chidambaram or in removing even the faintest shadow of doubt that the thermonuclear device underperformed? There was a mountain of credible sceptical analyses that piled up even as Mishra deliberately took the side of Chidambaram in a manner that did not serve the interests of the nation.

His reaction to scepticism is the textbook example of how not to behave in a moment of such crisis. Surely there were other ways he could have handled the situation. Iyengar, Mishra was able to fob off far more easily than K Santhanam of the DRDO, who, along with other people in the control room and the instrumentation room knew near instantaneously that the thermonuclear test failed miserably. But Chidambaram refused to acknowledge the reality staring him in the face and had it conveyed to New Delhi that the tests succeeded. The DRDO data that came in and was analysed also showed conclusively that the thermonuclear part of the test failed. Santhanam submitted a 50-page report to Brajesh Mishra towards the end of 1998, with the approval of A P J Abdul Kalam, making certain recommendations. Mishra knew he could not ignore Santhanam’s report the way he ignored Iyengar’s repeated efforts. Mishra called for a meeting to discuss it.

“Mishra recalled he had convened a meeting to clear the suspicions and doubts that arose in the minds of some, particularly Santhanam, about the yield of the TN test” (‘‘No voice vote over result’’, Mail Today, September 16). In just one cursory meeting Mishra disposed of a hugely complex scientific subject that goes to the heart of India’s future defence requirement. Apparently Abdul Kalam kept his own counsel at the meeting even though the damning report was prepared with his consent. Chidambaram disagreed with Santhanam’s contention. Mishra agreed with Chidambaram. End of meeting.

It is simply bizarre the way the then National Security Adviser handled the issue. Santhanam, being in a minority of one, was effectively shouted down. The then chairman AEC was against testing. He believed he could do it through computer simulation alone and advocated signing CTBT even without tests.

Karnad writes in India’s Nuclear Policy (page 68) that when Narasimha Rao latched on to Chidambaram’s “simulation option and ruled out resumption of nuclear tests in 1995” “the BARC council — the highest decision making body in the nuclear council” sent a “unanimous note” to Chidambaram challenging his view and demanding new tests” Is it even remotely possible that this man, this reluctant nuclear weapons tester, who claimed he could do it without conducting tests, failed? But one thing is for sure: the more Chidambaran tries to explain his miraculous non-working thermonuclear weapon the less likely it is that the people will believe him. That is the simplest equation of state that we can derive from this particular dud thermonuclear device. And we certainly don’t need more tests to prove it. Not even computer simulations, thankfully.

sudarshan@epmltd.com

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 27 Sep 2009 02:07

udy wrote:The following is an enlarged version of an article that appeared in The Hindu (September 17, 2009).
Pokhran-II Thermo-Nuclear Test: A Failure


He says clearly that the test article should have yielded 70m crater radius for the yields announced.
I bet all the people with access to supercomputers are busy modelling the carter.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

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

Postby Sanjay » 27 Sep 2009 02:09

That has to be the single most deceptive and misleading, selective and pretentious piece of pseudo-analysis of the press conference I have yet read.

Just say you're not convinced yet and that more testing is needed don't try to get into details that you don't understand.

The mocking derision at the end is deeply symptomatic of the pathetic tone of this debate.

Ramana, Santhanam may or not be correct on that one - things are not as definitive as he is making out.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 27 Sep 2009 02:16

You are right. However as Galileo said "it still moves". So what do the facts say? Lets ignore K Santhanam and all the critics.

Do we have all the facts to say it worked?

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

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

Postby Sanjay » 27 Sep 2009 02:17

Short answer - yes, no and maybe.

Wait for the book.

For what it's worth - my view: wasn't a total failure but was not a complete success. I buy the 60% success and support the need for TN testing.

I don't support the comments on the rest of the deterrent.

There is a possibility yet to be considered that I am trying to work around. To say more would be premature.
Last edited by Sanjay on 27 Sep 2009 02:19, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52340
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 27 Sep 2009 02:19

Hope its not like waiting for Godot.
8)

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

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

Postby Sanjay » 27 Sep 2009 02:20

Prelim work has started - I am moving at my own pace - enjoying law too much and indulging a hobby (the Soviet army in WW2).

Another point to note in your Godot reference is that I have embraced female participation - unlike Beckett.

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

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

Postby Satya_anveshi » 27 Sep 2009 02:34

On the contrary, for simple folks like me, the modus-operandi even in the matters of great importance and national security is very much similar to what we see in otherwise all walks of life in India. Mediocrity, shortcuts, pure cheating, egos pervade all thru and goes for professionalism.

Only thing that surprises me is that some folks like Sri PKI, Sri Santhanam, Sri Sethna et al have still gotten out of their comforts at the cost of taking HUGE risks and still fighting for the sake of greater good. It just does not surprise me and fits with the general view of India.

That article is the most damning op-ed we have seen all this while. Essentially it all boils down to Sri Sri R. Chidambaram garu. Does any one else in his position (even if he was completely right and case was water tight) would stand the same chance? I wonder how much of this factor is involved?

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

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

Postby Sanjay » 27 Sep 2009 02:38

It is a damning op-ed piece which starts with saying it doesn't understand what he's saying.

Not a good piece of work.

Too much vitriol and not enough sober analysis of the press conference.

Note also that the discrepancy with the yield of POK-1 was never dealt with the same vitriol and scorn and tantrums - Sethna and Iyengar didn't answer too much on that.

Iyengar did not even think a TN was tested in 1998. He was no longer in the loop.

That does not belittle his concerns and of all the participants his view, though with some problems in his interpretation of things, is the one which needs attention.

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

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

Postby Satya_anveshi » 27 Sep 2009 02:52

IMO the "sobriety", settling not via media, no exchange of insults are fine but what is someone to do when all these have failed.

Clearly according to the so called "dissenters", they have from the start raised objections, printed so many articles in the media minus all this new stuff, raised objections to NSA, raised it to the real end users, claim all concerned know of this all along, and yet if no action is still performed and GOI was about to go on to signing all manner of treaties, what the hell are these gents supposed to do?

What is one other thing they could have done? It just escapes me.

On the one side you bulldoze the nation into lies, deceit, and try to screw up the nation’s future and when called out you say the discussion is insulting, names are called etc. That does not seems like a fair play to me.

And yes the argument that what was he doing for 11 years is just too simplistic and it is not even worth discussion. Clearly all other measures were taken to bring attention of important stakeholders.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

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

Postby Sanjay » 27 Sep 2009 03:13

What are you saying ? I bulldozed the nation ? I am the one saying the debate is degenerating into insulting behaviour - not Chidambaram or Kakodkar.

Have the "lies" and "deceit" been proved beyond doubt ?

The same Santhanam supported the nuclear deal.

What else could they have done ? Publish their concerns in a scientific journal and let BARC respond

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

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

Postby Satya_anveshi » 27 Sep 2009 03:19

>>I bulldozed the nation ?
No boss. This is not about us posters.

>>Have the "lies" and "deceit" been proved beyond doubt ?
This has to be settled. I was just saying that the fiasco fits what we generally observe in India in all walks of life. there is some consistency that was shown by the "dissenters" and apparently the whole bunch of retired folks may not have anything to "gain" from this. There needs to be someway to settle this and if it is too difficult the nation may be better off to err on the caution side and validate yet again.

>>>Publish their concerns in a scientific journal and let BARC respond
How can they when the data is proliferation sensitive? Isn't it one thing to publish in a journal but forming some kind of committee to validate is something GOI can/should do easily.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16195
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 27 Sep 2009 03:21

The debate via the news media is a stalemate. IF Santhanam really had valid points I think he has burnt all his chances. 500 calls of support in one day, support from PKI and Sethna, etc, will not result in what he wanted - rehash of the data by neutral experts and TN testing. He just did a terrible job of presenting the issue. A head-on discussion was bound to result in a loss.

Just hope this media based discussion does not continue any further - it is just too cheap.

ramana,

Have not done any computations.

But my feel is that @ 230 M, it would take a much larger device than 45 Kt to create a crater, and a much, much larger one to create a 72 M radius. (I am still having difficulty thinking of a crater - but then I could be badly wrong.)

_______________________________________________

I think the POK-II S1 was a very unique test. Note that Sulky was the only retarc AND a dedicated granite/basalt test. S1 was - from what we know - granite/alluvial. So, I am sure the Toman graph has to be tweaked to fit the ground situation - the question is in which direction and by how much.

I feel that a TN needs to be tested, a reliable TN will also help deterrence, but a TN - under the present and near future circumstances - is not a must as a deterrence. India, I feel, has deterrence. IMHO of course.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests