Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

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

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

Postby ss_roy » 29 Sep 2009 04:10

JE Menon,

Are you suggesting that indian bureaucrats and scientific administrators are doing the best they can? A lot of people, including me, feel that they could do better.

I do understand that their attitudes are a consequence of the era they grew up in, but the world has changed. Indians above a certain age, have attitudes and views (including deference to whites), that many below a certain age do not have- or see the need for.

I think it really comes down to age and attitudes. Older indians look up to whites, younger indians look at whites.

However many decisions including testing nukes are made by the former group, inspite of their actions having an impact on the later. Older bureaucrats and scientific administrators won't be alive in two decades, but their actions will hurt future generations.

PS- Nehru's decisions are still haunting us, aren't they?
Last edited by ss_roy on 29 Sep 2009 04:18, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby vera_k » 29 Sep 2009 04:17

ss_roy wrote:Are you suggesting that indian bureaucrats and scientific administrators are doing the best they can? A lot of people, including me, feel that they could do better.


The point is that any criticism should avoid attacking the person.

So,

Person XYZ is a liar - Bad form
Person XYZ's claims about ABC are false because of DEF - Okay

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

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

Postby ss_roy » 29 Sep 2009 04:19

agree.. ad hominem attacks are never a good idea.

The point is that any criticism should avoid attacking the person.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3694
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

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

Postby hnair » 29 Sep 2009 04:26

ss_roy wrote:I think it really comes down to age and attitudes. Older indians look up to whites, younger indians look at whites.


I dont think that is the objection here. Objection here is disrespect not disagreeing. Particularly with widely respected figures.

In a sense, you did bring out an issue. Younger Indians might be looking too much at whites. As some white dude in Germany warned against looking too much into the abyss. McCarthy and Lavrentiy Beria are two abysses that come to mind during these incidents.

For the record, when it comes to insanity and destroying joy on earth, I am with Gandhi when asked to comment on "Western Civilization", so I look down

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52353
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 29 Sep 2009 04:28

Sanjay wrote:Ramana - I am not so sure. TN may be ready. Who knows ?

This is a brawl between pro-test and those who are more cautious about resuming testing(I don't think they are anti-test - if no consequences they would jump at the chance).

The 500kt is interesting and coming from Adm. Prakash - odd.

JE Menon - thank you, thank you, thank you.



So Raj Malhotra's guess is has some core truth to it.

BTW, link to Outlook interview of K Santhanam:


http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262027

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

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

Postby John Snow » 29 Sep 2009 05:01

After reading the Outlook interview and also B subba rao article one can agree that

"Catering is not an exact science"

Some cater to the nations need some to themselves.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 29 Sep 2009 05:04

I am VERY glad that the good Admiral said 200-500 kt. IF he had said India has deterrence then the 20 Kt boogie would have raised it head again!!!

Good, with 200 Kt India can deter Pakistan and use the 20 Kt set for China.

However, he said that "given that deuterium-tritium boosted-fission weapons can generate yields of 200-500 kt,", this I bet will be re-interpreted as "capable" and not deployed.

Based on the FT article it seems India has the 200 Kt built. This one claims that it can go all the way to 500 Kt. And since smileys are not allowed - cool.

I had wondered if Santhanam was out of the loop. I think this supports that theory.

_______________________________________________________________________

As an aside, is/would there be a difference in weight between a 200 Kt device and one that gens 500 Kt?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 29 Sep 2009 05:11

So Raj Malhotra's guess is has some core truth to it.


The one that states 800 Kt to 1000 Kt?

@ 230 M depth you would get a fairly large crater. And, IF that had gened some 20-25 Kt explosion, there is no way - I would think - that the data they got from that would be usable in any model.

I still think the geology had something to do with the diff in yields. And, that the yield was closer to the truth. And, that they were able to actually use the data from S1 to build a viable model.

The question do have is how does one model based on one data point? Wonder if some data floated down.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

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

Postby RayC » 29 Sep 2009 05:17

JE Menon wrote:>>As far as calling a public person a liar is concerned then we call politicians, judges, army brass corrupt & traiters every day on this forum, so nothing new here.

That is not the case. Many people have been banned for the same. Then, there is a difference between calling politicians (elected officials) liars and - especially if they have done exactly that, in public. They are elected officials, although there is a limit there too.

But calling senior bureaucrats and scientists traitors and liars - with NO evidence whatsoever - is a totally different ballgame. Politicians can respond. Bureaucrats, especially those in the security establishment, cannot - especially not to allegations on a site like BR which has a unique position.

Virtually ever senior bureaucrat in the foreign ministry, the security establishment and scientist in the nuclear enclave has been vilified here, while very few people know their backgrounds or what they have done for the country.



I don't think one should call anyone a liar per se.

I would seriously wonder if there can be discrimination where you could call politicians, judges and army brass corrupt and traitors, while giving immunity to public figures and bureaucrats. They are surely no Holy Cows!

The problem here on this thread is that everyone has assumed that he is an expert on nuclear science and testing as we all do here for every subject under the sun. Nothing wrong actually.

However, one can't blame anyone from airing his views, informed or otherwise, poster or otherwise, since the the cat has been set amongst pigeons by the very august scientific community that we talk of and apparently the Indian society is worried stiff given the issues happening around our frontiers.

Notwithstanding, I totally agree with you that the choice of words should be appropriate.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

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

Postby Bade » 29 Sep 2009 05:26

NRao wrote:The question do have is how does one model based on one data point? Wonder if some data floated down.


The one data point you refer to if it is the crater radius, then that is for the rest of world to see. Sure, there must have been other measurements made even in realm of gaining acoustic signatures far out of the crater region. All a guess, like in such secretive games.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 29 Sep 2009 06:01

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote:
A LOT of citations (mostly in BR papers) are wiped out. My preliminary research finds that anything associated with The Hindu could not be traced. For instance, Kakodker's interviews are no longer there.


nrao - if you point out some of them I can help search - through my archives as well.


Shiv,

Thanks.

However, my point was that there is really no use having papers out there whose references no longer exist. Perhaps in the future we need a better mechanism to deal with this issue.

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 » 29 Sep 2009 06:17

Gagan wrote:So I guess there is a 500Kt Haathi atop the agnis? How much would a 500Kt FBF weigh? Does this answer the query raised by Sanjay-ji wrt the large payload attributed to the agni missiles?
Is it possible that the SFC is hedging its bets by having two warheads atop the missiles in a tandem fashion, one proven but small fission bomb, and the other larger unproven yet high confidence FBF warhead?

I assume that by now it is known and accepted that India does not have TN weapons in the hands of the SFC.



Gagan - I think 500 kt was the maximum achieved by an BF device tested in the US. Gosh those people had fissile material to waste.

Apart from large yields the significance of TN weapons is that they give more bang for less fissile material. One of the types of analyses that we used to see perhaps a decade ago was the amount of fissile material that a given state that was suspected of "going nuclear" had access. In that sense Xerox Khan knew what he was doing when he single mindedly worked on his centrifuges - knowing that once there is enriched U 235 a working atomic bomb is a small step away.

To me one of the most interesting twists on the issue came from a paper that I have linked somewhere in these last 100 odd pages that this topic has occupied. This was a paper commenting on the NoKo tests (authored by a Chinese IIRC) that started with the assumption that the NoKo test was 0.4 kt and worked backwards. The author argues that unless one knows the design goal of the people who conducted the test it is difficult to reach judgement whether it is a fizzle or not. He says that the planned yield of the test (announced to the Chinese) was 4 kt and says that achieving 10 % of that in seismic estimates is a good result and means that they have a working bomb. On the other hand if the design goal was 20 kt then it was a fizzle.

The point of significance is that if one day NoKo attacks the South and the US and the South resist strongly NoKo may be able to use a bomb. For the forces facing that bomb - the specifics of whether it was TN or fission only or of 4 kt or 2 kt hardly make a difference. For the US in particular - such an attack would put great pressure because of the domino effect of breakdown of deterrence. Would the US then use tactical nukes to stop the Koreans?

If the US uses nukes it is a signal to both Russia and China that the US is a country that is willing to use nukes in war yet again. Why just Russia and China - it would be a signal to states like Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia and god knows who else.

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

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

Postby John Snow » 29 Sep 2009 06:25

You dont have to wait for long just two weeks thats it.

Israel is going to bomb the Iranians and watch happens next

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11063
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 29 Sep 2009 06:26

WRT the "liar" thing.
I think that all the people are lying while at the same time they are not.

I don't think anyone, the scientists, the politicians, the bureaucrats is anti-india. People call them names based on very little information in the public domain, which does not explain the course of action they took or the statements they make.

There is also an element of obfuscation involved, which the people in question have to indulge in, after all this being the most secretive fields of national power.

So RC is not lying when he says that BARC can build a 200 Kt bomb. He did not use the word TN did he in 1998. Notice how he is a little more explicit now when he says,
RC in 2009 wrote:"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).”

and so on. I notice a difference in the two statements.

I consider people obfuscating issues in national interest to be not guilty, because obfuscation of issues tends to make you a liar.

I guess we all have to wait for 2 more weeks to pass.

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 » 29 Sep 2009 06:30

Shiv garu and perhaps equally important as the fissile material utilization is the fact that the constraint due to the practical limitations on the size of the warhead itself cap the maximum YIELD for a FBF weapon ; at least this is what a cursory glance at P-5's arsenal indicates. :-?

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 » 29 Sep 2009 06:37

negi wrote:Shiv garu and perhaps equally important as the fissile material utilization is the fact that the constraint due to the practical limitations on the size of the warhead itself cap the maximum YIELD for a FBF weapon ; at least this is what a cursory glance at P-5's arsenal indicates. :-?


Oh absolutely. Recalling all the reading that I have been doing in the last few weeks - a couple of titbits. One source said that for a subkt bomb one can use a larger mass of fissile material to explode inefficiently - IOW wasteful. The diametric opposite would be a highly refined and miniaturized TN warhead of the sort that the US has no doubt practised to perfection - using a minimum of fissile material to achieve criticality and getting the secondary to work as efficiently as "state of the art" demands.

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

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

Postby Sanjay » 29 Sep 2009 06:59

Shiv the US tested a 500kt pure fission weapon. France deployed a 500kt 700kg boosted-fission warhead - MR41

RayC: there is a recognized sphere of political license. Not so for professionals.

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 » 29 Sep 2009 07:02

ss_roy wrote:There seems to be an unspoken assumption that tests will result in sanctions, and hurt poor indians etc..

Nothing could be further from the truth- The actions of indian politicians, babus and journalists have hurt indians far more than any external action ever could.

PS- The west is broke and aging, don't pay too much attention to their whims and posturing.


roy I don't think you are wrong actually but exploring this any further would take it seriously OT. The only Indians who get hurt by sanctions are the elite, but the elite own the bat and the ball so the game is played only the way they (we) want. Not particularly nice - but way way OT.

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 » 29 Sep 2009 07:03

Sanjay wrote:Shiv the US tested a 500kt pure fission weapon. France deployed a 500kt 700kg boosted-fission warhead - MR41



Ah OK.

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

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

Postby Satya_anveshi » 29 Sep 2009 07:27

>>>RayC: there is a recognized sphere of political license. Not so for professionals.

SBM ji and others,

Just a curious question: Is it true that R Chidambaram is related to P Chidambaram?

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 » 29 Sep 2009 08:27

This Expressbuzz article has some interesting views by an N.Krishna who claims he was part of the Pokhran I team in other feedback on the same site.

But what struck me was the choice of sites mentioned in this love letter for removal from AERB. Anything to do with the nuke deal?

Other units removed from AERB purview are the uranium enrichment plant in Mysore, the large high activity liquid radioactive waste storage facilities at Tarapur, Trombay and Kalpakkam and the high-risk reactor test facility for nuclear submarine reactor development coming up at Kalpakkam which are all part of the BARC installations are now being self regulated becasue of this bast**ard R. Chidambaram. Most of these installations were not accessible to anyones’ purview even earlier, because of the clandestine nuclear weapons programme to which they were contributing all along. These older installations started in the sixties are not been designed, for the earthquake figures applicable to various zones, or constructed or maintained over the past as per acceptable safety standards. Most of the Ghati Maharatrians in the Chembur area is using radioactive borewell water and the Ghatis are eating radioactive fish that are caught in and around Mumbai sea.
By n.krishna
9/28/2009 11:20:00 AM



8)

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1086
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

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

Postby dinesha » 29 Sep 2009 08:39

Sanjay wrote:Please read this:
From Admiral Arun Prakash CNS 2004-2006 in:
http://www.maritimeindia.org/pdfs/STRAT ... MAKING.pdf


guess what, BARC deserves more respect then KS seems hell bent to give...
Curiously, nobody (KS included) elaborated on our FBF capabilities..
Everybody is taking everybody for songs..

KS (to make his point) is doing greatest disservice to the Nation by questioning the Deterrence by claiming it being based on 25KT pure fission bombs...

after all we are self doubting SRDEs only...

IMHO..

No doubt about India’s nuclear deterrent: former Navy Chief
http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/29/stories ... 231100.htm

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

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

Postby John Snow » 29 Sep 2009 08:59

I for one am proud that Santanam garu is dissenting based on his knowledge and the nation has to be grateful for that.

All along we have been told Kaveri is great Tejas is going with Kaveri blah blah and we end up with GE engines.

All along we were told that we can depend on indigenius design to scale up reactors to generate bijlee and then we end up signing the most restrictive agreements with Uncle.

We are told Akash is here then go get Barak. We have Pinaka but we get from dear friends MRLS
We are told Arjun is here and go and import T-90

We are told Indian field gun is on the way but never field it and look for Bofors for supply of ammo

There is whole bunch of Tamasha going on, since 1998/99 we have not developed anything comparable to bofors at home.

A nation of gol gappas, its time to call spade a spade. The first cut of prithvi and Agni oxidizer and fuel tanks were in 1986 Godrej plant 7 (IIRC).

How many have we fielded with strides that match for the time since 1986 (nit to say of the money spent)

If ISRO can deliver with transparency, BARC should be atleast be prepared for independent Blue Ribbon Review and let the members vote in secret. Let the GOI take action. If TN is not required and our deterrent is fine then no harm to admit TN was a fizzle, if on the other hand if TN is required and its called success even if it fizzled then we are on to GUM trees as RayC says.

B Subbarao article makes some sense in outlook.

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

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

Postby Austin » 29 Sep 2009 09:07

ramana wrote:Not necessary. It could be purely political decision not to rock the boat -arms control wise. Weaponizing the TN has its own escalatory ladder of capabilities.


Ramana , how can weaponising a 200 Kt TN be any more escalatory than say 300 Kt - 500 Kt FBF ?

And why on earth would India not weaponise it considering one of your number 1 opponent has weaponised TN of many megaton in its invetory and atop missile

Not to mention the technical benefit for the same yeald it will be lighter and use less of fissile material.

IMHO this argument is very weak , if we do not have a weaponised TN then its as simple as we cannot weaponise it for now or say 11 years later.

Well if I be allowed to speculate

PKI ji, Sethna ji are the one's who are asking for an Independent review so how can they be a part of it ?

My point about the folks of desired caliber inside the establishment and yet which are not at all involved in the programme still holds .


Why not ?
They are Distinguished Scientist and have held the same position as RC/AK did at some point in their career , if you can convince your critique what better ?

Military involvement is absolutely critical as well in such peer review , if not scientist A vs Scientist B debate here.

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

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

Postby Austin » 29 Sep 2009 09:11

John Snow wrote:If ISRO can deliver with transparency, BARC should be atleast be prepared for independent Blue Ribbon Review and let the members vote in secret. Let the GOI take action. If TN is not required and our deterrent is fine then no harm to admit TN was a fizzle, if on the other hand if TN is required and its called success even if it fizzled then we are on to GUM trees as RayC says.

B Subbarao article makes some sense in outlook.


Indeed perfect summarization 8)
If they indeed have nothing to hide , let them be ready for a Blue Ribbon type review

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52353
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 29 Sep 2009 09:11

Amber G. wrote:Saw in another blog:

A google video (2008) Interview) withe the "father of India's cold fusion" : PKI.
(PKI's website has a few references to cold fusion)

It is rather long (1 hr+) but he talks about " his history with cold fusion, fission and the geopolitical aspects of nuclear energy"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6297541355654871093#

(He also talks about mega-gauss-bombs etc..)


He also talked of low yield weapons made with the new heavy metals in a conf in US. The US interlocutor, Franz Von Hippel pooh poohed it as science fiction. In a few years time it was revealed that US had set off a few bombs using these exotic metals.

Say what you want, but PKI thinks weapons all the time. Thats what you want in that job. He could have just cashed his pension check, but he justified the check by figuring out what went wrong in S-I.
------------------
Austin, Just weight!

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 » 29 Sep 2009 09:13

Austin wrote:
Military involvement is absolutely critical as well in such peer review , if not scientist A vs Scientist B debate here.



Austin - what Adm Prakash says about the military and their knowledge of nuclear issues does not inspire confidence. We seem to have a huge strategic "hole". But anyway that article is a real keeper - even without the reference to 500kt.

The deeper I go into the issue in my mind - the more irrelevant it becomes in a thread such as this. Maybe pisko thread.

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 » 29 Sep 2009 09:23

Austin wrote:Why not ?
They are Distinguished Scientist and have held the same position as RC/AK did at some point in their career , if you can convince your critique what better ?

Boss how can it be ? The critics are questioning the very data based on which the YIELD has been published .Now I am not even competent enough to articulate my pov on this matter but it seems to me that most of the data collected from the TEST (seismic readings or post shot samples etc) are direct imprints of the nuclear explosion itself how can this data be re collected without a re TEST ? And if no new data is gonna be collected then what exactly is gonna be reviewed; that the equations have been correctly formulated and solved in the relevant papers ?

Military involvement is absolutely critical as well in such peer review , if not scientist A vs Scientist B debate here.

Relationship between the military and the Scientific establishment is based on TRUST now unless a re TEST is being conducted I don't see what sort of role will a Military poc will have in a peer review of an experiment of this nature.

tripathi
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 11 Dec 2008 12:35

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

Postby tripathi » 29 Sep 2009 09:38

austin ji,

/Sarc on as our dear pakis call it

Arjun is ArJUNK
DRDO is DODO
Akash is KAASH

then we must sure redefine BARC also for its Dud bombs.

/Sarc off

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

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

Postby Austin » 29 Sep 2009 09:41

negi wrote:Boss how can it be ? The critics are questioning the very data based on which the YIELD has been published .Now I am not even competent enough to articulate my pov on this matter but it seems to me that most of the data collected from the TEST (seismic readings or post shot samples etc) are direct imprints of the nuclear explosion itself how can this data be re collected without a re TEST ?


Well why not ?
Involve RC/AK and PKI in it , if we can involve RC who says it worked , why not involve the critique as well ?

You need credibility as well for the independent peer review ? who better than RC/AK and PKI/Sethna being part of it and lending credibility no matter what ever the outcome is.

Relationship between the military and the Scientific establishment is based on TRUST now unless a re TEST is being conducted I don't see what sort of role will a Military poc will have in a peer review of an experiment of this nature.


Trust is one part , verifiable trust is another , there is a need for verifiable trust , not blind trust ( even god needs proof test and does it for its disciple from time to time)

So involving military will add sanity as they are major stake holders in strategising and operationalising/manning the deterrent.

This is not about credibility of A scientific claim versus B scientific disbelief , but a question of India's credible deterrence .

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 » 29 Sep 2009 09:47

Austin wrote:Well why not ?
Involve RC/AK and PKI in it , if we can involve RC who says it worked , why not involve the critique as well ?

You need credibility as well for the independent peer review ? who better than RC/AK and PKI/Sethna being part of it and lending credibility no matter what ever the outcome is.

Kindly Re read my post what will these gentlemen review ?

1. Collected readings/Data : well if BARC team is indeed making false claims about the yield then they would have doctored the data already; no one in the world would be able to make out anything.

OR

2. The methods to calculate the YIELD from the data: Well if '1' is taken care of '2' is a cake walk .

Basically asking for review== asking for a re-TEST. :lol:

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

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

Postby John Snow » 29 Sep 2009 09:48

how?
If it is fizzle then no need to test it again, test something new if any is handy.
Last edited by John Snow on 29 Sep 2009 09:49, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 29 Sep 2009 09:49

If it is fizzle then no need to test it again, test something new if any is handy.

First fizzle claim needs to be established isn't it ? :)

On a serious note testing something new has never been ruled out , has it ? we have not yet signed the CTBT .
Last edited by negi on 29 Sep 2009 09:52, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Sep 2009 09:50

Re lovers of 500kt pure fission bombs and 500-1000kt FBF bombs PLEASE provide their weights!

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

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

Postby Austin » 29 Sep 2009 10:01

negi wrote:1. Collected readings/Data : well if BARC team is indeed making false claims about the yield then they would have doctored the data already; no one in the world would be able to make out anything.

OR

2. The methods to calculate the YIELD from the data: Well if '1' is taken care of '2' is a cake walk .

Basically asking for review== asking for a re-TEST. :lol:


No not necessary that they have doctored all the data , As santy mentioned there was huge amount of data , they would have just chosen to make sense of the data what pleased them , or just get those data that suits their claim.

In a peer review the entire source and type of data would be taken into account , not just BARC but even DRDO data.

Santy also hints at a classified data ( which is DRDO view ) given to the GOI , so there is something in there as well.

The fact that santy mentioned for a Blue Ribbon type of review , means that he does know that it is the only credible way for an impartial review of BARC claims.

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

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

Postby Satya_anveshi » 29 Sep 2009 10:02

(OT)

I like Shiv's posts in many instances but in this instance, IMO, he has gone ape$hit.

There was this nice debate going on and well, I agree, there was need to summarize who said what. While doing this he misquoted Arun and when asked for clarification, instead of doing the needful or calm down...he went, how should I say, a little northwesternish in his approach.

Of course if you have issues with other material on the website, do take it up and BTW, WTF have you been doing all along (well..this sounds like the logic people used against KS...what did he do all these 11 years?)

Also, to say that just because someone is babu, one should not be criticized is also laughable. Further, people don't give two hoots before criticizing for example Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). We see this all the time (me included) directly, implicitly or indirectly.

Why do we have to make Gods out of mere mortals that too when the stakes are so high?

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 » 29 Sep 2009 10:02

John Snow wrote:With this I close my association with BRF good luck and Good night.

Bye Bye Audios etc etc.

Oh common Snow garu; you cannot be serious . Have some zam zam tonight this is a phase will pass.The difference of opinion with fellow postors should not be an issue for a old hand like you.
Even I have felt like throwing the cap many a times before but then at the end of the day I ask myself "What goes my father's" ? :mrgreen:

Once a BRFite always a BRFite, hain ji ?
Last edited by negi on 29 Sep 2009 10:07, edited 2 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52353
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 29 Sep 2009 10:04

negi wrote:If it is fizzle then no need to test it again, test something new if any is handy.

First fizzle claim needs to be established isn't it ? :)

On a serious note testing something new has never been ruled out , has it ? we have not yet signed the CTBT .


if you are seerious try to read the SHOCK 3D paper in Current Science describing the POK I crater phenomenon and the S-I Post Shot Radio Chem paper. They both are trying to tell a story. Only thing is we need to understand it. For starters stick to the cavity size of both tests.

Anant
BRFite
Posts: 268
Joined: 02 May 1999 11:31
Location: Iowa City, Iowa
Contact:

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

Postby Anant » 29 Sep 2009 10:05

John Snow,

Sir you have the best post in this thread (about a page ago). It really to me is an intellectual disconnect that when those in authority promise so much, produce so little and compromise the security and well being of nearly a billion people. For the rest who are satisfied with boosted fission bombs, I urge you to go to you tube and check out the Chinese and Russian and American and French and UK's tests from the 60's and 70's to realize thermonuclear tech ain't hard. It can't be. Some of the pics including of the Tsar Bomba show people working with antiquated equipment and vacuum tubes that produced a yield of 57 Megatons. Given India's intellectual prowess (most Indians are wicked sharp, hell look at BRF), it is sarcastically laughable we can't produce a Hydrogen Bomb. Either these bomb designers are incredibly busy and subsist on obfuscation since there is no accountability or the technology is laughably and woefully inadequate. If we are to believe the Arihant is indigenous then what is going on at BARC and DRDO? I'm a scientist and I feel shameful and guilty if I don't produce for my boss and investors. Don't these people feel the same way? What is the problem here? Lack of money? Resources? I mean come on it is 2009. We can't make and prove that we made a H bomb. That is pathetic. That is all there is to say and I am glad KS said it. For the rest who believe the existing arsenal is adequate, I would firmly disagree. By the way I highly recommend seeing this movie. It explains tech and shows almost all nuke tests, air, space, underground, h bomb, a bomb and things in between. "Trinity and Beyond." After viewing that, it makes me even more sad to think how primitive India is at nukes. By the way, the Chinese megaton tests are detailed in that movie.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

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

Postby geeth » 29 Sep 2009 10:22

I feel this thread reflect the typical Indian attitude..Many of us want to believe the negative news onlee. That means, subconsciously, we still feel like an enslaved civilisation.

Why we are not thinking positively..? I don't know. See ISRO - they say they found water in Moon in June itself, but they would like to oblige NASA and allow them publish it first.

Same way, how can RC be more genius than his western counter parts? How can Indian TN succeed in the first shot itself, when others have perfected it after a number of tests?

How can we make a nuclear submarine better than that of China..?

These questions are being fed into the minds of our population day in and day out. We need to come out of this cocoon sooner than later.

Let us be proud of LCA or any other product. If somebody is jealous about us, be happy! because we are doing well - that is why they are jealous. This is the reason why USA is putting all kinds of spokes in our work and making new international laws just to prevent us from growing.

Cheer up Snow Garu! Our TN is working!! RC is not a liar!!!


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests