Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

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 03:23

Things on this have been published before without revealing anything. The same claims Santhanam and Iyengar made - with the proof they claim to have - can be published and debate scientifically. Inevitably there may be a limit but that limit has not been reached.

For the record - S.K. Sikka declared in an interview to India Today that he isn't afraid of a peer review.

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 03:31

Sanjay,

I think we are rehashing (on this thread) some of the things.

The offer for peer review, for instance, has been countered by that it was already done (in 2000 or so?).

On your first comment, that does surprise me. A lot. In these discussion the two things I got to know were the depth at which the device was tested and the radius of the expected crater.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5222
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 27 Sep 2009 04:19

ramana/Arun_S, You have mail at y and g respectively. Thanks.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5222
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 27 Sep 2009 04:29

NRao wrote: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.)
The two data points of 230 m and type of rock are BARC data points and need validation.

Remember the accusation is the leadership in BARC is LYING! So, caveat emptor.

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 05:01

What comment surprises you ? I believe that both sides would have been better served by publishing their respective viewpoints and debating in a recognized science journal rather than yelling.

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 05:10

ShauryaT wrote:
NRao wrote: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.)
The two data points of 230 m and type of rock are BARC data points and need validation.

Remember the accusation is the leadership in BARC is LYING! So, caveat emptor.


1) Chengappa's (sp?) book stated greater than 200 meters, so the 230 meters only provides greater precision. Note that even 230 meter they said about 230 meters, so even that is not THAT precise. So, that cannot be THAT controversial.
2) Similarly WRT the geo too there should not be any controversy. Sikka has always argued about the situation being so different that the West could not have got that right. (And, from my little googling I would support him at this point in time.)
3) Santhanam has called for whatever, because he says the YIELD is what is not rightly computed and therefore basing the deterrence on that flawed yield is wrong. (And, that is fair play - but within some boundaries. Like I said before, he should have packaged it better and I suspect he MAY have got somewhat better resultS.)
4) What seems to be controversial is that Santhanam feels that there should have been a crater and that it should have been 72 meters in radius for a 45 Kt device. Perhaps he needs to let out one or two more data points to back his claim. But, perhaps he cannot due to confidentiality. ??????


With the CTBT/NPT statements from GoI I think this topic is sealed. End of story.

Perhaps "West" can provide more fodder, but I doubt that the Indian policy will change for a few years to come. As I said India has deterrence. The question is does it need to be upgraded - with a reliable TN.

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 05:13

Sanjay wrote:What comment surprises you ?


"but that limit has not been reached."

I would have thought any more data points and the world would have got to know more than they ought to know. ?????? (I am certainly not as well read as you - that too is an understatement. So, that could be THE issue. Apologies.)

rather than yelling.


Very true. It is getting very cheap.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5222
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 27 Sep 2009 05:17

NRao wrote:
4) What seems to be controversial is that Santhanam feels that there should have been a crater and that it should have been 72 meters in radius for a 45 Kt device. Perhaps he needs to let out one or two more data points to back his claim. But, perhaps he cannot due to confidentiality. ??????
He is talking quite freely. It is DDM that is bungling in not asking the right questions.

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 05:22

Oh the limit has not been reached at all - nobody is asking the questions or if they are they are not getting answers.

Don't kid yourselves - Santhanam and all the others are survivors in an unusual set up and Santhanam more so because of his RAW background. They are masters at talking, critcising, insinuating and not really saying much ! If they are asked direct detailed questions, they start to spin you around. This is from experience.

This does not mean they aren't telling the truth when they say something.

I notice Chengappa is silent - that is very unusual. He had more access than anyone - Karnad included.

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

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

Postby csharma » 27 Sep 2009 05:34

Sanjay, when is your book tentatively going to be available in the market?

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 06:16

ST/Sanjay,

(Very slow night. So pardon me.)

Perhaps I am missing something.

I did notice that the proper questions are not being asked - scribes tend to gravitate towards worthless drama.

However, let me ask this of you (without, hopefully putting you on the spot), what questions would you ask that you hope to get decent/good answers and what would you then determine from that? I am curious and understand that I am not up to par on this topic WRT most out here.

A person like Chengappa, the best he seemed to have been able to do was 'device was placed at >200 meters'. If it were not for Santhanam we would be still at >200 meters. Note that even Sunder (BR article) computed pretty much everything based on =200 meters.

I have noticed, and hope I am right, that Santhanam is not willing to reveal classified information. Which is what I would expect to be considered "mal". The rest is this equation or that - I can borrow my kids TI and compute most of these things.

So, what am I missing? What kind of info can "proper questions" get?

TIA.

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 06:19

On another point, IF RC and AK by extrapolation are fibbing, then what confidence can I have that Santhanam is not? Not trying to knock him or anyone else, a genuine (academic) question.

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 06:46


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 » 27 Sep 2009 06:48

John Snow wrote:Yes we should split, we have perfected Fissions.

Disagree. We should not split. It is fusion we seek!

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 » 27 Sep 2009 06:56

The article clarifying the Hindu article says

http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article1669.html
Dr Chidambaram’s statement—“the post-shot radioactivity measurements on samples extracted from the test site showed significant activity (levels) of (the) radioisotopes, Sodium 22 and Manganese 54, both of which are byproducts of a fusion reaction rather than a pure fission (device)”—is incorrect. He should indicate the exact level of activity instead of merely stating “significant activity” as the activity level determines whether a fusion reaction of the magnitude claimed by BARC actually occurred.


The rebuttal had earlier been given
http://www.pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=52813
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”

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2970
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

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

Postby vera_k » 27 Sep 2009 06:58

NRao wrote:On another point, IF RC and AK by extrapolation are fibbing, then what confidence can I have that Santhanam is not? Not trying to knock him or anyone else, a genuine (academic) question.


But the burden of proof is on RC and AK. Santhanam is not claiming to have a bomb.

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 07:12

vera_k wrote:
NRao wrote:On another point, IF RC and AK by extrapolation are fibbing, then what confidence can I have that Santhanam is not? Not trying to knock him or anyone else, a genuine (academic) question.


But the burden of proof is on RC and AK. Santhanam is not claiming to have a bomb.


Hmmmmmmmmmmm.... OK, agree, ...... for the time being.

However, not in the public domain - I hope.

Which brings me to why is it that (AK/)RC do not show data/design to PKI? Or why is that MMS/GoI does not - do not know the right word, but either encourage or force them from giving it to PKI.

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 » 27 Sep 2009 07:36

ramana wrote: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.


That means I must remove from my list the data that has been posted on here which cannot be attributed to any scientists or state the source.

I will repost my list and highlight the two data that came from this forum in red with a clarification Links for others except PKI statements for which the links are knwon to me and have already been posted on this forum

*summary of the information so far*
    A 45 kt device was lowered into one of the shafts at Pokhran (link)
    That shaft remained undamaged (Link)
    The A Frame and winch remained intact (Link)
    There was no crater (Link)
    There was a 25 meter crater(Link)
    The yield of the fission device was 25kt and not 15 kt as claimed by RC -claim by Arun_S in red based on alleged email from Santhanam
    The yield of the thermonuclear device not more than 60% of its designed yield.(link)
    The thermonuclear device yielded 25kt+2kt fusion (Link)
    There was a 20-25 kt yield in the TN test (Link)
    One report speaks of weaponization 15 kt fusion devices (link)
    Calculations by experts on here show that 17 kt was the yield of S1 -claim by Arun_S
    PK Iyengar thought the yield was 40kt
    He said maybe 10% fusion burn
    He also mentioned that 400 grams of LiD had been consumed

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 » 27 Sep 2009 07:43

vera_k wrote:But the burden of proof is on RC and AK. Santhanam is not claiming to have a bomb.


VeraK - with respect when we in the business of hairsplitting - let us split the hair right up to its root. Neither RC nor AK are claiming t have built a Thermonuclear bomb. They have consistently stated that there is "the capability". What KS has done is to openly ask them how they can claim that capability.

But Santhanam in my view lost the plot by his inconsistency in terms of information given. and inability to rebut the rebuttals. Maybe he does no have the cards to play - but if you don't have the cards you must not gamble and then fall back to rely on personal invective.

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 08:17

Shiv,

I think the two sides are separated by if a TN is needed for deterrence.

KS in the article you posted seems to have slightly moved goal posts. From what he states ("to hit Beijing with a 25 kt, or even 50 kt, pure fission warhead which is all we have today!"), it appears as though he is conceding that there is more capability than he thought possible when he started this discussion. When he says "even 50 Kt" - he certainly does not know, or there are other possibilities too. Now, since he feels that a TN is needed for deterrence he is not willing to accept a capability for TN. (He also seems to have added: "We must also upgrade our A-bomb in many respects." Talking of creeping goals.)

On the flip side RC claims India has the capability - conceding that India does not have one that they can field. BUT, even more specifically, that India does not need one today or in the near future as a deterrence - the deterrence India has is sufficient.

I do not know if India has the capability to deploy a TN. But, I would imagine that the people in charge of developing a credible minimum deterrence have a pretty good to a very good picture of what the capabilities are "to deter". India may have other issues related to pulling the trigger on Nuke-divas, but I doubt if it will be because of a lack of deterrence.

But, IMHO, both Santhanam and Parthasarathi have dug a small crater for themselves. Just hope this whole episode ends here and is taken underground. I just do not see the GoI going any further on this topic and if there is a bluff plenty of other governments have been bluffed - which sounds rather funny - a Three Stooges style stuff. Neat I would label it.

On China I very much doubt that they would let anything escalate to any meaningful/less level. I see the current border problems as typical Chicom reactions to something they see and do not like (India building infrastructure in that area). China, if they want, can cause plenty of problems without having to fire a shot. So, IMHO, a nuclear exchange with them is rather remote and China - as time goes by - will have more to lose than India. I really do not see a NEED for a TN.

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 » 27 Sep 2009 09:30

Hmm..

Here is a scientific journal providing concise data proving that S1 was a dud and it demands that a reply be made in scientific circles. :lol:

Link

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 » 27 Sep 2009 10:04

NRao wrote:
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 in fact Carey Sublette accepts that the retarc formation from S1 is consistent with the original Indian claims but does not rule out a lower yield. He also says that burial depth for the claimed yield should have been more than 200 meters.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/I ... ields.html
The combination of geological factors, depth and yield reported from Indian sources thus is consistent with the observed effects. The observed effects are also consistent with lower yields of course. The absence of a subsidence crater however effectively rules out a burial depth of only 200 m however with the reported yield.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23309
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 27 Sep 2009 11:15

RC itself has not been consistent with what he said about TN test , immediately after POK 2 he claimed that the device can scale up to 300 kT ( ~ 45 - 300 kT ).

Now AK/RC in recent press conf has put that figure to ~ 200 kT for TN device.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

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

Postby Shankar » 27 Sep 2009 11:48

ow AK/RC in recent press conf has put that figure to ~ 200 kT for TN device

This statement alone confirms the TN test did not achieve its objective - A TN weapon if design is good and proven should be able to go go up to 5 MT -why only 200KT - that is the limit of boosted fission type weapons

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 » 27 Sep 2009 11:50

NRao wrote:Shiv,

I think the two sides are separated by if a TN is needed for deterrence.


The www via Googla uncle has quite a few references to Chinese nuclear weapons.

I chose one at random - based on language that I can understand.

http://www.nti.org/db/china/wdepdat.htm

This source says China has 400 nuclear warheads. But another source - the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has revised that estimate to about 250 or so.

Also from the above source (which please see)

China has tested and deployed six nuclear warhead designs:
a 20-40 kiloton (kT) fission gravity bomb
a 20 kT missile warhead
a 3+ megaton (MT) thermonuclear missile warhead
a 4-5 MT warhead for the DF-5 ICBM
a 3+ MT thermonuclear gravity bomb;
a 200-300 kT warhead possibly for the for the DF-31 and DF-41 and JL-2 SLBM.


China apparently has about 300 gravity dropped bombs to be delivered by aircraft ranging from 10 kt to 3 MT

The same source says China has about 90 missiles capable of carrying one warhead each of 3.3 megatons, and 500 missiles capable of carrying 50-350 kt warheads.

All sources about this are Western and they tend to count only what is aimed at the US. Technically all can be aimed at india, although China IMO is likely to "reserve" some to be aimed at the US. China's biggest headache

The same source has tables that show China as possessing some 600 odd missiles of which 50 have ranges of 200 to 600 km. These would have to be fired from the border into India - and would have to be moved into Tibet - to target areas in India which are 200-400 km from the border China has about 150 missiles that can hit any part of India.

It also has 150 nuke capable bombers that can drop gravity bombs =- but in terms of hiting India they would have to take off from Tibet bases - or inland bbases and be refuelled.

From all this is is difficult to reach a precise estimate of megatonnage that can be used against India. For reasons that I have mentioned in earlier posts calculating area of damage by megaton bombs gives smaller values than if you use kiloton bombs - i.e Ten 100 kt bombs can take out a greater area than one 1 megaton bomb - so it would be worth the effort to calculate exactly what China may have to throw at India and exactly where it would hurt most.

Here are some stats

India total land area 3.3 million sq km. When I start looikng at the individual areas of 20 major cities I find that the total areas are huge with Delhi being listed as 1800 sq km and Greater Mumbai as 480 sq km. For ease I am assuming 20 biggest Indian cities to have a core central area of 200 sq km and that leaves 4,000 square km of area to be hit Using my own paradigm that only 25% of a city area needs to be hit to cause unbearable pain, China still needs to destroy 1,000 sq km of city area. Taking 1 megaton nuke as capable of destroying 120 sq km we get an estimate of about 40 x 1 megaton nukes to be aimed at 20 cities in India to take 25% of the central areas of those cities. To destroy completely the major central areas of 20 cities in India, China would need 4 times that number - i.e 160 x 1 megaton nukes - which is a number that puts China's total arsenal and long range missile force under some stress.

Note that all this destruction would leave central areas of 20 Indian cities totally destroyed even as China uses up much of its arsenal. Still only about 4,000 sq km of India would have been destroyed - representing less than 1% of India's land area. Assuming 100 million dead and injured India would still have 90% or more of its land area safe for inhabitation and 90% of its population alive. And none of India's retaliatory nuclear force will be based in the centers of cities - leaving them largely intact.Chances are that China will reserve only 25% of its force for cities and maybe another 25% or more to target Air bases ad missile sites. But each of those form smaller targets and using 1 MT bombs would be a waste and China would rapidly run out of bombs and still not be able to hit much. If India's retaliatory forces are dispersed in 150 different locations outside cities, China will have to hit all of them and would have to know their precise locations. Each hit with a nuke on the wrong location is one nuke less for them - because any Indian nuke that survives is destined only for the center of a Chinese city.

That begs the questions

1) Just how much damage can anyone hope to achieve with nukes?
2) Just how much damage does one need to achieve?
3) What does one need to deter?

The expression "Glass parking lot" is great rhetoric - just like "rolling thunder" and "carpet bombing". Interestingly all are imported from the US.

JMT in a hurriedly compiled post

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 » 27 Sep 2009 11:54

Shankar wrote:
ow AK/RC in recent press conf has put that figure to ~ 200 kT for TN device

This statement alone confirms the TN test did not achieve its objective - A TN weapon if design is good and proven should be able to go go up to 5 MT -why only 200KT - that is the limit of boosted fission type weapons


Shankar - with respect there is no need to say that you cannot touch the top of the Qutb Minar to prove that you are less than 10 feet tall. India has not managed to test anything that has registered even 100 kt - so the convoluted argument is unnecessary.

It is plain for anyone to see that in terms of yield India has tested in tens of kt. No more. Now that is not very difficult to understand is it?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

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

Postby negi » 27 Sep 2009 12:03

It is obvious in fact needless to say that RC's claims about a TN of 200Kt are based on his knowledge/estimate of the 'SCALABILITY' of the design which was tested in POK-II .

And btw there is no such 'corollary' i.e. successful TN test == ability to make 5MT nuke.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

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

Postby negi » 27 Sep 2009 12:09

I think the two sides are separated by if a TN is needed for deterrence.

Before we even talk about a TN weapon's significance as far as deterrence in concerned; the question is does India need one ? or to put it in other words is TN a part of India's nuclear doctrine (at least on paper) ?

Well I would say YES, else what was the need for testing S-1 ?

Indian nuclear fraternity and the GOI could have might as well tested/proofed fission based designs and concluded the tests as successful in case the latter never felt the need for a TN weapon.

The discussion about how much tonnage is sufficient for credible nuclear deterrence is a different matter all together and deserves a separate discussion.

JMTs.

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

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 27 Sep 2009 14:30

kittoo wrote:
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?


Harsh words don't make a difference! Lot of friends meet with BCs and MCs. If they actually wanted to take each other down, they will know dozens of secrets with which they can dis-credit each other. If I was PM and thought that Santhanam was going to endanger nuclear security then he would have had an accident by now. He is being supported by lot of eminent people who would have normally kept quiet. What do you expect NSA & MMA to say? We believe Santhanam and are going to resume testing???????????

My take-

This whole thing is orchesterated by MMS + NSA to rip off BJP chaddi and tell USA to get off!

I repeat Indo-US nuke deal is good for India and I am coming around to the view that SeS statement over Balochistan was also good. Everytime Pak mentions Balochistan they dilute their "legal" position regarding J&K. Regarding terrorism it will not be solved by talking (or being sullen), it will be solved by lot of Eid Mubarraks in Pakistan especially in Lahore (swat, NWFP doesn't count)

I add - S1 was meant to 1000kt and was a fizzile. S6 was meant to be 350kt was not tested. We don't have any FBF and only have 20-30kt Fission bombs weighing 170-250kg each. (my guess)

Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4409
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

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

Postby Mahendra » 27 Sep 2009 14:47

I don't see any politics in the issue
If the INC had a chance for political goal scoring, they would have grabbed it with both hands.
not even the biggest INC motor-mouths are pointing a finger at BJP, which is surprising considering the amount of bilge that was on display during the heights of Kargil conflict.
If the whole issue was orchestrated it would have been prudent to do it during the elections considering that the BJP was counting Pokhran 2 as one of its achievements.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11062
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 27 Sep 2009 15:04

Two things we must remember:
1. The people who are saying that the TN fizzled are from a varied background. They are former nuclear scientists, even BARC heads, RAW men from DRDO, we even had the geologist from the seismic monitoring station chipping in with the yield measured being less than what was claimed. There are also the scientists who did the post shot analysis.

On the other side we have just RC and AK repeating much the same arguments as in that press conference after the 98 tests. BM seems to be the black goose here whose handling of the issue has caused so much heartburn.

To the ordinary reader, the finger of suspicion points to the tests being less than what is being claimed to be, even a failure.

2. What is so special about the 200 or 300KT figure that is being bandied about wrt the TN test? If India has mastered the TN, with computer simulations shouldn't it be possible to extrapolate and scale?
I hope that the 200 KT is not scalability of the kind where the core remains essentially the same and only the tertiary changes.

Here the issue is that the TN has not been mastered, which is more basic.

Now, If the primary of the TN was a FBF, with boosting gas in the core, wouldn't it also give out much the same readings of fusion as the Secondary? Now there is I believe obfuscation (Ashwathaama haati maara gaya) going on when RC says that post shot radiochem analysis found traces of Na and Mn. How do we know this was LiD undergoing fusion from the secondary, and not boosting gas from the FBF primary.

So here there is another cover that the bomb design has. Just as S1 + S2 + S3 were tested simultaneously to mask each others seismic signals, the TN had an FBF primary to 'mask' the fusion of the secondary.

Layers within layers.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23309
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 27 Sep 2009 16:17

negi wrote:It is obvious in fact needless to say that RC's claims about a TN of 200Kt are based on his knowledge/estimate of the 'SCALABILITY' of the design which was tested in POK-II .


Yes , but immediately after test , he had put the figure of scalability to ~ 300 Kt , now in recent press conference with AK/RC , they now revised that figure of ~ 200 Kt

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

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

Postby negi » 27 Sep 2009 16:25

I am very poor when it comes to archiving links or any such stuff. Austin can you post the relevant links for supporting your claims ?
Last edited by negi on 27 Sep 2009 16:25, edited 1 time in total.

dipak
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

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

Postby dipak » 27 Sep 2009 16:25

RC, AK claim:
------------
S2 - (Fission) successful -- Weaponized -- End of Story

S1 - (TN) successful -- Not weaponized -- Why continue story, just weaponize and be done with it!

But just harping on 'capability' for 11 years but not weaponizing and inducting formally, is itself proof enough that TN test was not successful. Repeated claims of success and capability do not cut it.

If the reason given is TN not needed for deterrent, well what was the need in the first place to conduct a TN test then?

Also, TN is an area of science that in itself is a goal for India as nation to pursue with (else, why Chandrayaan - I is necessary, for enough water is on earth itself :wink: )

JMT

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5222
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 27 Sep 2009 17:00

NRao wrote:So, what am I missing? What kind of info can "proper questions" get?

TIA.
For the most part, a complete credible alternate story, which rebuts every little set of assumptions and claims of the BARC team and provides a coherent and scientific basis to his own claims on expected crater size of S1 along with yields, rock materials, DOB, the Azimuth destructive/constructive blast wave theories. His take on how an entire organization with men who have sacrificed other lucrative careers for the nation, could be lying for all these years?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2980
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

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

Postby kit » 27 Sep 2009 17:05

India needs thermonuclear weapons because of its smaller stockpile and lesser number of delivery systems vs its principal potential aggressor(s) . India is scared of testing again due to reasons imagined or otherwise.India needs access to simulation data which again proves that it does not have sufficient data even for modernization of its fission weapons.India is naive.What guarantee is there that the data if at all supplied will extrapolate to better weapons in terms of yield and weight ? or even that it will work ? It needs to test again period., if at all it needs to pose as a nuclear weapons state.Posing as something which it is not or sitting on the fence will not do any good for it or the world for that matter.Why not just renounce nuclear weapons and sign the NPT and concentrate on the well being of its people alone if it doesn't have the balls (the politicians or the people who matter that is) to maintain a credible nuclear arsenal ?

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 » 27 Sep 2009 17:14

kit wrote:. India is scared of testing again due to reasons imagined or otherwise.


This IMO is the crux of the issue.

On second thought Indians may not even be scared. Many do not feel a TN deterrent is needed. What kind of convincing argument can be made to tell them that it is necessary?

Scaremongering and telling people that somebody is a liar does not work in India because everyone in India sees everyone else as a liar. Any person who calls another person a liar is believed with a smirk and the caveat that he may himself be a liar. It is a cheap trick to change strategic thoughts based on calling someone a liar - a better argument is required. The word "liar" is used freely and lightly by everyone.

Who is capable of making that? On BRF I have not seen one.

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 17:24

Austin ever since I got the telephone call informing me of the tests in 1998, I have never seen a ref by RC or AK to S1 being scalable to 300kT. Please provide the reference.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7532
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

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

Postby Gerard » 27 Sep 2009 17:56

Austin wrote:RC itself has not been consistent with what he said about TN test , immediately after POK 2 he claimed that the device can scale up to 300 kT ( ~ 45 - 300 kT ).



No. The 300kt figure comes from BR web pages.

RC said 200kt. That has not changed.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5222
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 27 Sep 2009 18:00

shiv wrote:
kit wrote:What kind of convincing argument can be made to tell them that it is necessary?
Shivji: The arguments are there, but some people will get convinced only when they actually experience it :x

One has to only look around. The arguments for the "minimal" set of quantitative and qualitative type of deterrence is rooted in a set of assumptions on the nature of the enemy and what they are likely to be deterred by in theory. That theory, something that K. Subrahamanyam (a doyen among Indian deterrence theory analysts and a key author of the MCD and NFU) champions, is valid as long as the rational mind of the opponent is valid.

There is no way to prove that these assumptions are indeed valid and hence based on a set of risk parameters alone, it would be prudent to match capabilities, rather than speculate on intent, something that most others seek to do.

Add to the above, the unique nature of the threat, where TSP's arsenal is an extension of PRC's, the nature of the government in these states, the continued indirect support for the TSP arsenal by the United States, the inherent liabilities of the NFU doctrine, the costs of maintaining a large enough counter force with low yield weapons and its comparative efficacy with TN weapons, the recessed nature of our deterrence - it seems a tad bit too much to risk the security of the nation on the rationality of the enemies, we are likely to face.

In an actual war game scenario, India is likely to fold, without these weapons, if say the choice is between loosing Arunachal or getting Delhi Nuked.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest