Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4761
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 29 Sep 2009 10:25

negi wrote:
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 ?


It seems that difference of opinion is leading to taking umbrage on behalf of someone else and muzzling under threat of legal action or reality of legal action. Not exactly 'difference of opinion'...

Anant
BRFite
Posts: 227
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 10:27

Geeth,

Can I ask you a simple question? How do you know the TN works? If you believe it works, is there objective data to show that it works? If it works, is there any clue to its weaponization? Informed sources seem to say that this is not the case. It's one thing to be an optimist, it's another thing entirely to be an optimist when no optimism is in the offing. Simple stuff really. I await your analysis. Thanks.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 29 Sep 2009 10:33

Satya_anveshi wrote: 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?)


What you can't see you don't know.

These things have been discussed on private email and "through proper channels". Only you and others don't know. So you are yet another person commenting about what you don't know about.

Go ahead - be my guest. Reach any conclusion you like. Fizzle or sizzle.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5141
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 29 Sep 2009 10:38

Are there "pure" fission devices anymore? With the very little I figured about the science involved, it is like "pure vegetarian", more of a matter of principle, not science/technology limitation.

If you place a little bit of fusion fuel inside the pu pit, it will definitely fuse, releasing the fast neutrons and adding to the chain reaction, hence increasing the efficiency of the bomb.

There is absolutely no incentive to keep your devices "pure fission". If you have the fusion fuel available, you better add a little into the pit to get more juice from your existing stuff.

Things become a bit difficult when you try to increase the boosting, because you need to worry about the increased volume of the fuel, and the energy released by the fusion breaking the containment. So, you have lesser confidence with them. But I don't see any reason to avoid a small amount of boosting.

Unless of course, I am terribly wrong, and in that case, could someone set me straight please?

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1193
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

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

Postby geeth » 29 Sep 2009 10:41

>>>Can I ask you a simple question? How do you know the TN works? If you believe it works, is there objective data to show that it works? If it works, is there any clue to its weaponization? Informed sources seem to say that this is not the case. It's one thing to be an optimist, it's another thing entirely to be an optimist when no optimism is in the offing. Simple stuff really. I await your analysis. Thanks.

Boss, do you have any objective data to show the TN DOES NOT work? If yes, put it on the table. Your "informed sources seem to say" is only your belief. Mt "informed sources" have already said in public that the TN works, and I believe them. It is YOU who doesn't want to believe them. No point in asking me to produce proof for your disbelief.

I have stopped bothering about the yield of the TN test, because I believe it is a success, same as my other beliefs like India has ICBMs, are developing SLBMs, LCA is a success, BARC is doing exemplary work in nuclear field, our FBR will work, we have enough weapon grade fijjile material etc etc.

If you don't want to believe any or all of these, don't curse me - it is entirely your problem.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 29 Sep 2009 10:47

Snow Garu - hope you return in the morning - but better to think also of education for all as well as making sure mothers don't die at childbirth.

After all women are 49% of Indian population and children below 14 are 40% of total

70% of India's population are women and children under 14.

No prizes for guessing where maximum effort will go.

Anant
BRFite
Posts: 227
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 10:55

Geeth,

Unlike the vitriol on this thread, my point is not to insult anyone, you included. I live in the US and the US is well known for having a crap ton of nukes. I am not worried about Iowa being nuked anytime soon by the Chinese or Pakistanis. However, I have people I love who live in India and my heritage is Indian and ergo I want India to be a strong country. Let me also be clear. I am not a weapons designer, nuclear guru or wanna be arm chair nuclear physicist but I find elegance (scientifically speaking in this topic of nuclear weapons). And more over, I don't have a dog in the fight or a reason to go after you.

I am clearly stating that the onus is on those who say that the TN exists (atleast to give us non believers or slight believers a whiff that it exists).
Why?
1) Because the prima facie evidence by one who was there and in the know suggests that it doesn't exist (regardless of sources on BRF)
and
2) Because people I trust and who know physics and weapons deployment who are on this forum suggest that India doesn't have a TN weapon and corroborate the above through objective physics analysis. Simple as that.

To me, India having no TN is laughable because India isn't some tin pot country, but rather one that has a mature military industrial complex and some of the smartest people on Earth. If you believe the TN exists, feel free to do so. I don't and neither do many BRF'ers, Mr. Snow included. That doesn't mean I need to make personal attacks or ruin my reputation or sully my name with those who have posted for over a decade and whose posts I've enjoyed and sometimes disagree with. Kind regards.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

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

Postby arnab » 29 Sep 2009 11:30

Anant wrote:Geeth,

Unlike the vitriol on this thread, my point is not to insult anyone, you included. I live in the US and the US is well known for having a crap ton of nukes. I am not worried about Iowa being nuked anytime soon by the Chinese or Pakistanis. However, I have people I love who live in India and my heritage is Indian and ergo I want India to be a strong country. Let me also be clear. I am not a weapons designer, nuclear guru or wanna be arm chair nuclear physicist but I find elegance (scientifically speaking in this topic of nuclear weapons). And more over, I don't have a dog in the fight or a reason to go after you.

I am clearly stating that the onus is on those who say that the TN exists (atleast to give us non believers or slight believers a whiff that it exists).
Why?
1) Because the prima facie evidence by one who was there and in the know suggests that it doesn't exist (regardless of sources on BRF)
and
2) Because people I trust and who know physics and weapons deployment who are on this forum suggest that India doesn't have a TN weapon and corroborate the above through objective physics analysis. Simple as that.

To me, India having no TN is laughable because India isn't some tin pot country, but rather one that has a mature military industrial complex and some of the smartest people on Earth. If you believe the TN exists, feel free to do so. I don't and neither do many BRF'ers, Mr. Snow included. That doesn't mean I need to make personal attacks or ruin my reputation or sully my name with those who have posted for over a decade and whose posts I've enjoyed and sometimes disagree with. Kind regards.


Sir, you being a scientist and all should then follow Ramanna's advice and read the papers published by BARC on pok-II. While you are at it also read the rebuttles given to the doubters. That is all the official data you are going to get on the subject. Now if your onus is to keep doubting because people with background in physics and weapons deployment (?) on BRF say they don't 'believe' the outputs, there is not much anyone can do - right? Otherwise you can thank you stars you are a scientist in Iowa - India sucks - really.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2155
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

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

Postby merlin » 29 Sep 2009 11:31

ramana wrote:Austin, Just weight!


Now you are going too far! :)

Anant
BRFite
Posts: 227
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 11:37

Arnab,

Thanks for the sarcasm. I have read Ramana's (I assume you mean the BRF poster) posts with great interest and that of Arun_S also. Ramana had suggested (and I paraphrase only) that he might have to pull his Bharat Rakshak Monitor article in light of recent findings or that modifications would have to be made because the yield suggested seemed cooked up or fudged because it seemed like a reverse fit of yield to make it seem plausible to test conditions, regardless of seismic and radiological evidence. If you are referring to something else, post the link and I'd happily read it. And thanks for your views on Iowa and India. I'll learn to ignore them. Thanks.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Postby amit » 29 Sep 2009 11:37

Anant wrote:To me, India having no TN is laughable because India isn't some tin pot country...


Anant,

We've had statements from both the GoI and a representative from the users (military) which state quite categorically that India has the capability to make 200kt devices as well as the ability to deliver them.

If that be the case why is India not having a TN "laughable"? Sure it's desirable due things like weight considerations but certainly not a ego trip kind of thing is it?

At the end of the day what matters is what size of bombs we deliver, not whether its a TN or something less "sexy".

Added later:

2) Because people I trust and who know physics and weapons deployment who are on this forum suggest that India doesn't have a TN weapon and corroborate the above through objective physics analysis. Simple as that.


The knowing physics bit I can understand, there are some outstanding academic experts on the subject (and other subjects I must add) on this forum.

But weapons deployment knowledge?

That's a new one? Could you elaborate who on BRF has actual weapons deployment experience? Just note that nice drawings on webpages don't really count for actually hands dirty kind of weapons deployment experience on the various missiles that India possesses, IMHO of course.
Last edited by amit on 29 Sep 2009 11:48, edited 3 times in total.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

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

Postby arnab » 29 Sep 2009 11:44

Anant wrote:Arnab,

Thanks for the sarcasm. I have read Ramana's (I assume you mean the BRF poster) posts with great interest and that of Arun_S also. Ramana had suggested (and I paraphrase only) that he might have to pull his Bharat Rakshak Monitor article in light of recent findings or that modifications would have to be made because the yield suggested seemed cooked up or fudged because it seemed like a reverse fit of yield to make it seem plausible to test conditions, regardless of seismic and radiological evidence. If you are referring to something else, post the link and I'd happily read it. And thanks for your views on Iowa and India. I'll learn to ignore them. Thanks.


Not his posts, read his advice (a few posts earlier). The papers by RC et al on current science (slightly higher impact factor than BRM) :) I said 'official' data. You seem to be forming your 'views' based on other peoples 'beliefs' - not very scientific IMO.

Anant
BRFite
Posts: 227
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 11:46

Amit,

It's an issue of arsenal size, not just yield. I have no problem accepting the fact that 200KT weapons are in the Indian arsenal. What the TN weapon offers is more bang for the buck, aka more with less fissile material. In the context of American pressure and the other G-19, it makes sense to have it because if there is a cap on the amount of fissile material produced, we will need TN weapons to make up for the lack of raw material available. Mate this with the fact that we want to build nuke boats and MIRV missiles it makes sense. If the goal is to lob some 200KT stuff on China or the Pukes, that is different; then FBF might be fine. But make no mistake, China will lob everything and some of that stuff is heavy stuff (yield wise). We need to make (my opinion), a high-lo mix of nukes. Some TN, some FBF and some fission. Most nuclearized countries do this. It is laughable to me because it doesn't seem to be a priority perhaps due to the argument that we have a 200 kT bomb so why bother and in my humble opinion has little to do with ego and more to do with the fact that we need to make the most of our raw materials. I see the TN bomb being the only way to go. Thanks.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Postby amit » 29 Sep 2009 12:06

Anant wrote:Amit,

It's an issue of arsenal size, not just yield. I have no problem accepting the fact that 200KT weapons are in the Indian arsenal. What the TN weapon offers is more bang for the buck, aka more with less fissile material. In the context of American pressure and the other G-19, it makes sense to have it because if there is a cap on the amount of fissile material produced, we will need TN weapons to make up for the lack of raw material available. Mate this with the fact that we want to build nuke boats and MIRV missiles it makes sense. If the goal is to lob some 200KT stuff on China or the Pukes, that is different; then FBF might be fine. But make no mistake, China will lob everything and some of that stuff is heavy stuff (yield wise). We need to make (my opinion), a high-lo mix of nukes. Some TN, some FBF and some fission. Most nuclearized countries do this. It is laughable to me because it doesn't seem to be a priority perhaps due to the argument that we have a 200 kT bomb so why bother and in my humble opinion has little to do with ego and more to do with the fact that we need to make the most of our raw materials. I see the TN bomb being the only way to go. Thanks.


Anant,

I'm sure you've noticed that there's a degree of ambiguity about the TN weapons capability. You can quote KS and say India doesn't have a TN, others can quote RC, AK etc to say yes India can and has the ability to build a TN.

This line of debate gets us nowhere. However, one point on which I think we all can agree on is that we need more testing. Period.

Now, I think from a geopolitical point of view instead of debating who screwed up on that fateful day in 1998 and demanding blue ribbon reviews or peer reviews and what not, it would be more fruitful to have a look at what signals India is sending out with respect to all the treaties like shitty bitty (CTBT), NPT etc which can potentially foreclose our option to test.

I have posted many times on this thread and its predecessor that the most definitive articulation of India's stand on this debate was Shyam Saran's speech at the Brookings Institute in March. (This was before Krishna's recent statement).

Yet despite this we've had in house experts give dire predictions of how India would commit harakiri by signing on to CTBT later this month (the oblique reference was to the G20 Pittsburgh meeting). Well Pittsburgh has come and gone and it hasn't quite proved to be the battle of Plassey that was predicted.

Krishna's statement IMO shows India's position remains exactly the same. The testing will be done when the economic conditions are better and/or when external geopolitics allows for testing. India will not do a rogue testing, just to prove a point.

Till then our deterrence would be (I'm relying on what Sanjay has written) based on FBF and it seems our military has accepted this fact.

Another point this is not some kind of static game. Maybe India does not have TN capability at this point of time. However, that doesn't really mean that for all times to come India will not have TN capability does it?

India's security is not just dependent on the number of TN bombs in its arsenal. It is dependent on a whole gamut of factors including economic strength, conventional military, geopolitical clout etc. And all these have to be developed in tandem and not one after the other. The folks who decide on these things don't only think in terms of TN or no TN, IMHO.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby svinayak » 29 Sep 2009 12:33

The point of defending a nation that has no chance of living is giving it a chance of living. Put it this way: Let's say someone (like China) has a bunch of nukes. And we don't. What's to stop them from blowing our asses to kingdom come?

I personally prefer the guarantee against man-made uninhabitable wastelands over the possibility of nature-made uninhabitable wastelands.

If you don't like it that way, I'm sure there are still countries out there (other than iran) that don't have nukes yet.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 29 Sep 2009 12:52

negi wrote:Excellent write up by the former Naval Chief .

Yes I do realize the significance of the quoted lines and the emphasis on the FBF ; perhaps this also should answer the clarification I sought on the discussion between Austin and Kanson ji . :wink:

negi saab, i was talking about the Agni 3 missile which was made ready by 2004. All other missiles mentioned in his article were developed before that and so the payload.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 29 Sep 2009 14:15

Only one line of humble suggestion folks -- there is no one grand monolithic GoI, it would be amazing how often it works at cross purposes to achieve different goals and competes with itself.

Heck anything larger than a set of 3 folks in India does that, why should GoI be different.

So all those playing the part of the vengeful defenders of the affronted pride of GoI, please do remember dear Knights, that your love is one neurotic lady.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 29 Sep 2009 14:37

The interesting part about this latest round of accusations and counter accusations about yield is that the fog is no clearer. In the last few weeks we have seen yields for weapons being quoted from a low of 15 kt to a high of 500 kt :shock:

Fissile material is another slightly shady business. One is the large amounts of spent fuel apparently lying about which India is neither reprocessing nor is anyone offering to take it from us. W are "good-boying" that spent fuels with all the Pu it has.

Another is reactor grade Pu which apparently makes bombs that go off without notice (or some such drawback - I can't for the life of me recall) - or it tends to fizzle easily and is more dangerous to handle from radioactivity.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 29 Sep 2009 14:50

shiv wrote:The interesting part about this latest round of accusations and counter accusations about yield is that the fog is no clearer. In the last few weeks we have seen yields for weapons being quoted from a low of 15 kt to a high of 500 kt :shock:


I dont understand why that comes as a surprise frankly, any "data points" around which discussion used to happen were the declarations and assumptions around the PoK II tests, by all those in power including RC and Smt Vasundhra Raje Scindhia

Now since a lot of that has been blown out of water by another section of GoI, all thats going to remain is such confusion.

For the while we can just hope that things work out, after all through the 80s and 90s India had a nuclear arsenal (including delivery devices and doctrines) which was completely untested and of far inferior quality/scale than China and perhaps a little less than Pakistan even. Yet we are not nuked so far, so deterrence holds, the same principles may see us through for a few more years. By which time it would my Children headache -- an excellent operating principle for India -- so far it has always seen folks through, may be it will in future too.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 29 Sep 2009 15:03

Raja Bose, I have flicked a post of yours from Nukkad and posted it here due apologies if you didnt like my republishing original research methods

report.php?f=24&p=744851

I am appalled and amazed even now at the amount of impractical BS "ideas" backed up by "simulations" papers that float around in the best conferences (whether it is IEEE or ACM or other). The only value of these papers is to gather dust on the shelf till one fine night, one accidentally runs out of toilet paper at 1am (after heavy desi dinner) and no janitor is available in the department/lab to replenish TP supply. One such idiocy led to much :(( :(( from one of my committee members (who was coming up for tenure in a few months) when one of my results proved that his last 3 years of research was basically BS with no link to ground realities. If its engineering, it needs to be shown practically, in a system, on the ground, NOT as some dumb ideas in the ether. I think they need to raise the status of demo papers to be that above regular papers instead of consigning them to SDRE poster/workshop level coz the effort to create a demo is much more than ppt slides with slick visuals - doodh ka doodh paani ka paani.


Posted without comments.

dipak
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

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

Postby dipak » 29 Sep 2009 15:13

NRao wrote:
dipak wrote:Its being suggested that the small fission weapons are sufficient to serve as nuclear deterrent for India. Also questions are being raised on the efficacy or utility of TN weapons in Indian context ..its in this context that I mentioned 'forget TN'. Its not a conclusion, its an observation.


Sure it has been suggested, among other suggestions. However, speaking for myself, TN is desirable, but since India does not have a TN does not mean that there is no deterrence. Unless Santhanam knows more - and he probably does - it is difficult to say a TN is needed.

As an example (ONLY, please - not suggesting anything beyond and example), IF I were to target Saudi Arabia, I really do not need a lot of nukes. Similarly with China, I would suspect that they would be deterred with a few nukes over HK or the like. Deterrence is about how much pain is the enemy willing to accept and you build just one more nuke than that and they will be deterred - the assumption is that you have computed that deterrence value right.


(The thread moving so fast, it becomes difficult to keep pace. Please bear with it)

Regarding TN: Glad that you agree that the TN are desirable. And at that point, the current doctrine (massive strikes on enemy cities with relatively smaller fission warheads) becomes redundant (or due for evolving).
So, somewhere down the line if we seek to acquire the TN, current MCD has to pave way for a new doctrine.
In that context, current MCD looks more like stop-gap measure, a doctrine tailored according to current situation. And as recently MMS declared, India not going to sign NPT or CTBT at least in immediate future, situation is open for evolving.
But all is speculation only on my part.

Also its clear that not having TN doesn't mean absence of deterrence.
I would rather say its dilution of deterrence, not complete absence of deterrence - I presume this is what KS wanted to convey.

Understand the scenario described.
However, as you quote above, to compute the deterrence value correctly - is a million, not billion dollar question.
And that we have cracked it right - can we be sure, its been correctly gamed to near perfection that 25kt fission will do the job, as KS-Pitamah discussed with an article with VSA, few weeks back.

I think new data coming out, Let's us leave it here and wait how it pans out.
Last edited by dipak on 29 Sep 2009 15:15, edited 1 time in total.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6947
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 29 Sep 2009 15:15

ss_roy & others,

My point is very specific. I am not saying we have to trust anybody, that the government is always right, that bureaucrats do not make mistakes, etc.

I am talking about our behaviour on the forum with regard to the above-mentioned bunch.

Is it a good thing that Santhanam has been making these comments? Yes it is. Do we know the exact reason why? No we don't. We can only speculate as to his motives, and if they are his motives alone. But if you know his background, only some of which is in public domain (Kaoboys of RAW for example), we will be more circumspect in our analysis of what is happening. Ditto MKN. Same applies for Chidambaram, Kakodkar, Shyam Saran, Subrahmanyam, Sikka, MMS and others. The personal character of all these men, and others, have been repeatedly called into question - unfairly and without evidence. Does this mean that they are not human beings with human failings, massive egos and whatever else? It does not. Do they have differing points of view on various key strategic issues? Of course they do.

But repeatedly referring to them as liars, traitors, flunkeys, bribe-takers and so on is simply not right. I am amazed that we have to repeat this here on the forum. I have asked this many times before. If we were to meet any of these gentlemen and talk to them, would you think twice before referring to them in those terms? I think the answer would be yes, you would. Whatever their personal faults, government imperatives, etc... these are men who have contributed in one way or another to the strategic welfare of India. Most of us who refer to them in disparaging terms, have done far less, if anything. I, personally, have done nothing.

That is why I am suggesting a bit of humility.

Then there is the legal issue, which Sanjay has rightly pointed out. This is not a joke or excessive caution. No one knows when an invisible red-line (which we do not know exists) will be crossed. Someone may take the matter seriously, and the dynamic can change within a few hours. This I know, and I will not quote any sources for this. But the advantage of that is that members can take it or leave it. Do remember though that the person most vulnerable is the domain owner, and we have no right to expose this person in such a fashion.

Remember that the data we see, is only the data we are allowed to see. We are speculating. One little bit of additional information released by the test team, can change the parameters of the debate - maybe entirely. Remember we also have one of the most compartmentalised strategic communities worldwide, if not the most.

So please exercise restraint in personally labelling people.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22580
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 29 Sep 2009 15:17

PM commits again to no testing
"We are committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. As a nuclear weapon state and a responsible member of the international community, we will participate constructively in the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) in the Conference on Disarmament," he said.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 29 Sep 2009 17:43

A few items of interest:
1) Where is this "B Subbarao article makes some sense in outlook." article? TIA.
2) I am still trying to figure out what was KS's motive. I have to assume that he was privy to much of what has spilt out, at least some of it. His contention that it was CTBT make absolutely no sense to me.
3) dipak, answer in "deterrence" thread

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 29 Sep 2009 18:00

merlin wrote:
ramana wrote:Austin, Just weight!


Now you are going too far! :)


Not really. Some countries do counterforce planning based on the potential opponents capabilities and not current intentions. IMO, the deliberate confusion on gigaboom development, deployment, mating, demating is done deliberately by GOI to avoid being in the cross hairs of all such counterforce planning. Because the capabilities of the delivery vehicles are harder to disguise. FWIW this strategy appears to have been followed by both the NDA and the current UPA govts.

On another note, I am very happy to see BRF's powers that be exercising some control/(damage control?) on wayward cheerleading elements which have held such threads hostage for the past several years. BRF started down this unsavoury path a few years ago. Hopefully this return to sanity is better late than never.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 29 Sep 2009 18:01

NRao wrote:A few items of interest:
1) Where is this "B Subbarao article makes some sense in outlook." article? TIA.


Can some one also please post a link to Adm Mehta's (?) article which has been talked about?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 29 Sep 2009 18:03

ldev wrote:On another note, I am very happy to see BRF's powers that be exercising some control/(damage control?) on wayward cheerleading elements which have held such threads hostage for the past several years. BRF started down this unsavoury path a few years ago. Hopefully this return to sanity is better late than never.


This is what is called as class A flame bait. Guaranteed to take the thread down.

I would humbly recommend that none of us sit in high judgment of what BRF is supposed to be or not, esp if they are not webmasters or moderators.

Many can play this game and it would be tantamount to leaving the topic and then discussing "what is good for BRF", which is a short step from "who is good for BRF"

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

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

Postby negi » 29 Sep 2009 18:08

Kanson wrote:negi saab, i was talking about the Agni 3 missile which was made ready by 2004. All other missiles mentioned in his article were developed before that and so the payload.

I realise that Kanson ji ; however the specific mention of a 200-500Kt class FBF being a part of our deterrent from a former navel chief itself made me ponder over the reference to Dr. Sikka's involvement with changing the dimensions of a certain weapon type (which you and Austin were talking about). So now we haph 3 possibilities F,FBF and TN. :)

And that is why I sought clarification from Sanjay ji on the above .

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22580
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 29 Sep 2009 18:10

ldev wrote: Some countries do counterforce planning based on the potential opponents capabilities and not current intentions.


All planning can be made only based on our capabilities. Nothing more.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 29 Sep 2009 18:15

SSridhar wrote:
ldev wrote: Some countries do counterforce planning based on the potential opponents capabilities and not current intentions.


All planning can be made only based on our capabilities. Nothing more.


The issue is not India's planning here. It is that India does not want to create more enemies than it has. A TN in that sense is escalatory. An unambigious TN fielded capability gives a certain range/payload dynamic which would enlarge the number of countries that would do counterforce planning against India. And it appears that the deliberate obfuscuation of this capability is to avoid being in those cross hairs.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21364
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 29 Sep 2009 18:25

Oh this is taking things to the extreme , people who do counter force planning will always keep in mind what capabilities we have and field based on their National Technical Means/Intelligence information and open source information.

We fielding TN or not will not create lesser enemies for us that what we already have.

This is like hiding behind some silly argument , when the grapes are sour.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 29 Sep 2009 19:59

Request of Adm Mehta's statements/article please. Pretty please!!

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10941
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 29 Sep 2009 20:05

Adm Arun Prakash's article?
Here it is.
Klick

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 29 Sep 2009 20:06

Gagan wrote:Adm Arun Prakash?
Here it is. It was only 3 pages back.
Klick


Thanks, four days away from forum made tracking very difficult.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 875
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

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

Postby dinesha » 29 Sep 2009 20:07

Hearty congratulations!!! 120 pages and counting... :D
Net result: utter confusion and fish market quarrels..
Time for “Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3” thread..

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10941
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 29 Sep 2009 20:09


negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

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

Postby negi » 29 Sep 2009 20:15

Austin wrote:We fielding TN or not will not create lesser enemies for us that what we already have.

Austin trust me deep with in my EB heart I share your sentiments , however please look it from a different perspective i.e. we have not yet signed the CTBT , what is more beneficial to Indian interests a gung-ho moment of deploying a TN and attracting world attention and pressure for signing the RAG or quietly work behind the scenes and buy our time ?

I know this sounds very un-Jingo like but if deterrence is what you care about we have our delivery systems and integration of already proven weapons to work on ; there is still some time before we talk about deploying a TN warhead.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 29 Sep 2009 20:16

negi wrote:I know this sounds very un-Jingo like but if deterrence is what you care about we have our delivery systems and integration of already proven weapons to work on ; there is still some time before we talk about deploying a TN warhead.


Thats a key point, but with A3 deployed, isnt the time already ripe from the perspective you mention?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49648
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 29 Sep 2009 20:31

Austin wrote:Oh this is taking things to the extreme , people who do counter force planning will always keep in mind what capabilities we have and field based on their National Technical Means/Intelligence information and open source information.

We fielding TN or not will not create lesser enemies for us that what we already have.


This is like hiding behind some silly argument , when the grapes are sour.



Very true. In late 70s there used to be a coffee table picture book form UK on total nuke war etc. It had a map of places which could get hit. I counted ~45 such places in India in those days itself that are in cross hairs even withtout any capablities. In other words if there is global nuke war atleast that many places in India would be hit as gratituous violence. The idea was if they were going down they want to ensure others also would go down for post nuke era.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

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

Postby negi » 29 Sep 2009 20:47

^ Yes Ramana garu and that is why I made that post on our 'MCD' a couple of days back. Having said that given the ruckus about the TN weapon I thought it is the delivery platforms which should first mature to neutralize the cross hairs in question the TN deliverable atop these platforms will materialize in due course of time.And this is something which our scientific establishment is very much capable of ,all we need is the political will.

And Admiral Arun Prakash's article re-affirms my first statement in that post i.e. 'Nehruvian' policy making still drives/influences our Interests and global stature and whether they are in our interest or not is there for everyone to see and ponder .


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest