Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Sep 2009 12:27

This is fast becoming a DRDO vs DAE / BARC public spat.
GoI needs to step in and do what is needed to be done. Settle this matter once and for all, so that BRF jingos are satisfied.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2009 12:36

So people are still on their fav game of shooting the messenger I see, meanwhile Google Zindabad

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 829#p21829
Ramana Post subject: Re: India planning another nuclear test: Shamshad
PostPosted: 13 Sep 1999 03:21 pm

2) CORTEX. Here a cable is lowered and gets crushed during the test. You measure the radius of the hole by measuring the cable length. Then you back calculate what should be the yield that causes the cable to be of a particular length. Again this was stated in the press conference after the tests. Need to look up Hindu back issues in May '98

It was also confirmed in the very second post Arun_S posted
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories ... 902000.htm

surprisingly the link is broken now.

Anyway happy hunting folks...

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 23 Sep 2009 12:36

amit wrote:
Arun_S wrote:Just that I have my own sources that I can cross check from.
That also means I may know there were more than 2 measurement data source apart from Accelerometer & CORRTEX, but then I wont put that on forum.
Then I suppose we have to take your word for it and not follow the BRF tradition of cross verification via independent sources? OK, I'll take your word for it.

May be I should have said: Just that I also have my own sources that I can cross check from, to make my determination on validity of assertions made by various journalist. How you make your determination I seek to have no control.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 23 Sep 2009 12:41

Sanku wrote:So people are still on their fav game of shooting the messenger I see, meanwhile Google Zindabad

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 829#p21829
Ramana Post subject: Re: India planning another nuclear test: Shamshad
PostPosted: 13 Sep 1999 03:21 pm

2) CORTEX. Here a cable is lowered and gets crushed during the test. You measure the radius of the hole by measuring the cable length. Then you back calculate what should be the yield that causes the cable to be of a particular length. Again this was stated in the press conference after the tests. Need to look up Hindu back issues in May '98
It was also confirmed in the very second post Arun_S posted
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories ... 902000.htm

surprisingly the link is broken now.

Anyway happy hunting folks...

Ah Saar - nobody (not even Balachandran) is saying CORRTEX was not used. He is simply saying DRDO did not use CORRTEX. If you read Joshi's article - he skirts the issue by saying 'cortex confirmed DRDO results' (does not claim DRDO used cortex). sez who? proof? yada yada. so much time..so little popcorn.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 23 Sep 2009 12:45

Quality reporting in Indian Media ( India Today). Be cautious when using Indian media or any media.
*****
ISRO launches 7 satellites at one go
Headlines Today
Chennai, September 23, 2009

The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) on Wednesday launched seven satellites into space from the Sriharikota range off Orissa.
A Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) took off with the 970-kg Oceansat-2 and six European satellites.

Oceansat-2 is India's 16th remote sensing satellite and will replace Oceansat-1, which has completed 10 years of its space journey.

Oceansat-2 is slated to have a mission life of five years and is meant to help identify potential fishing zones and aid weather forecasting.

Of the six European satellites launched, four are from Germany and one each from Switzerland and Turkey.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... ne+go.html

From India Today

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2009 12:49

arnab wrote:Ah Saar - nobody (not even Balachandran) is saying CORRTEX was not used. He is simply saying DRDO did not use CORRTEX. If you read Joshi's article - he skirts the issue by saying 'cortex confirmed DRDO results' (does not claim DRDO used cortex). sez who? proof? yada yada. so much time..so little popcorn.

Huh!! And I suppose DRDO was at Nevada and others at Pokharan so the DRDO component (including the test site preparation director

KS) did not know Cotext results?

Guys there is a time to stop behaving like "EVMs are rigged parties" take a break please.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Sep 2009 12:49

John Snow wrote:Quality reporting in Indian Media ( India Today).
The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) on Wednesday launched seven satellites into space from the Sriharikota range off Orissa.

See that is technically correct! SHAR is off orissa. Off Chennai might be closer to the truth, but off orissa is too.

Just like BARC saying they have a big bomb, they have tested a thermonuclear device.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 23 Sep 2009 12:57

Sanku wrote:
arnab wrote:Ah Saar - nobody (not even Balachandran) is saying CORRTEX was not used. He is simply saying DRDO did not use CORRTEX. If you read Joshi's article - he skirts the issue by saying 'cortex confirmed DRDO results' (does not claim DRDO used cortex). sez who? proof? yada yada. so much time..so little popcorn.
Huh!! And I suppose DRDO was at Nevada and others at Pokharan so the DRDO component (including the test site preparation director KS) did not know Cotext results?

Guys there is a time to stop behaving like "EVMs are rigged parties" take a break please.

don't understand Nevada comment. Yes in the absence of explicit confirmation by KS that he knew the cortex data - we have to believe that GOI like any other country operates on the 'need to know' principle. Incidentally, this is often taken to ridiculous extremes by GOI. The NSA has claimed that DRDO did not have the data. So the matter rests. Perhaps KS can through the media counter Balachandran's assertions.

Apologies !! missed the Nevada sarcasm

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 23 Sep 2009 13:08

To me the upshot of this BR discussion is that you cannot base assessments on sources who, despite all the controversies, still refuse to go on record.

There is also no cause for the sneering contempt exuded on occasion by members of the forum towards BARC or DRDO, RC or KS simply because they have a different viewpoint.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 23 Sep 2009 13:28

csharma, in answer to your question about thermonuclear weapons:

Short answer is that I don't know.

That is a cop out. Every discussion I have points to fission and boosted-fission being deployed or deployable. Fusion weapons are met with a "possibly".

That said, it is possible that fusion warheads have been assembled and trial mating done with delivery systems but nothing more.

The only real "expert" (I use "" because he is more than an expert, he represents the current user) on the inventory who has commented is Adm Mehta and he had nothing to lose by speaking the truth whatever it was because he was retiring and there was not much the GOI could do to him.

I know this is an unsatisfactory answer but I am not going to shadow box with unnamed sources who say "x" and then "y" as it pleases them.

To those calling for Sikka to publish in Current Science - I agree. So should Santhanam. What is good for one is good for the other.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 23 Sep 2009 13:31

Sanjay, I deleted my earlier post before you posted your reply since I was not sure if anyone can definitely say whether TN has been deployed.

Santhanam has asserted that they have not been weaponised. I have not heard anything from NSA or others saying that TN has been weaponised. Not that they have to and that by itself does not mean they are not weaponised.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2009 13:35

arnab wrote:. Perhaps KS can through the media counter Balachandran's assertions.

KS has already claimed he was privy to all information needed for the tests including the device design and the yield and other nuclear and non nuclear signatures expected, he was also the test program director, given all these if he says he knows, we can assume he knows since he had access to ALL the in situ information (he did claim that)

So unfortunately the articles by R Ramachandran and Balachandran are repeat of the 1998/99 stance and thus do not refute anything KS bought up. KS also refers to this in his latest interview (previous page) on NDTV where he says no one has refuted his points with new data.

Sanjay wrote:There is also no cause for the sneering contempt exuded on occasion by members of the forum towards BARC or DRDO, RC or KS simply because they have a different viewpoint.

I agree, and in fact, I am careful not to do that since it then gives a handle to those who want to derail the main discussion to go after the "did you mean to say that you think that he thinks that he is an idiot" type of discussion. Many a point that Arun_S has made has similarly been sidestepped by some others who have preferred to go after his personal opinion (to which he is entitled, however wrong) rather than the substance of his arguments.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 23 Sep 2009 13:48

Everyone is entitled to express an opinion in a civil manner. Implying BARC is a "fraud" or that KS is a"liar" or whatever is unhelpful.

Also bear in mind that however much people purport to be "experts" almost everything said on this forum is guesswork - educated guesswork at times - but guesswork. It can be correct and it can be wrong but more often somewhere in the middle.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 23 Sep 2009 13:51

K Santhanam does not have access to all the data since he himself has said that. IMHO, he may not have access to the data that BARC might have collected. He is asking for that data to be made available to scientists.

http://www.zeenews.com/news565301.html

"I would love to see the radiochemical data, the instruments used and the calibration done," he said suggesting that the details about it were not made available to scientists.

He said there were claims that Manganese-54 was detected but its quantity was not known. "DRDO was not given access to the data," the former DRDO scientist said.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Sep 2009 13:58

We seem well on the way to building our own mythology here.

KS has never said he was privy to all data. In fact he has categorically said he was not privy to the all important radio chem data. He has never categorically said he was privy to the Cortex data. It is being assumed that he was privy to it. KS has never claimed he was privy to the design details save for knowing what were the expected yields from the devices.

Someone of the eminence of Balachandran says that there was already a dispute between DAE and DRDO regrading the accuracy of DRDO measurement instrumentation even before the tests. This is an important data point which needs to be refuted before anything else. Unless this is done then the story that is doing the round that the measurement dispute happened after the test does not hold water.

Balachandran has also said that DAE was in charge of most of the measurements save for the sesmic signature which is the most inaccurate method of testing. Just saying KS was programme director so everything was under him does not cut ice unless more proof is provided.

If this debate is to go further the fizzle crowd will have to come up with more convincing counters, private sources notwithstanding, IMO.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Sep 2009 13:59

CSharma, I see you beat me to it, accompanied by a link. Good job!

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 23 Sep 2009 14:05

amit wrote:CSharma, I see you beat me to it, accompanied by a link. Good job!

amit, it is better to have a link for every assertion on this thread!

One way to resolve this would be to share the BARC data with reputed scientists. OTOH, govt might think there is no need to do that since they are convinced and others need not be convinced. What they will do is provide articles like the one by Sikka to counter the doubts that have been raised.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Sep 2009 14:09

csharma wrote:One way to resolve this would be to share the BARC data with reputed scientists. OTOH, govt might think there is no need to do that since they are convinced and others need not be convinced. What they will do is provide articles like the one by Sikka to counter the doubts that have been raised.

Boss,

I agree with you a peer review would be the best thing to do in this situation. But the point is as Shiv mentioned in a previous post, the moment you see the radio chem analysis you get an idea of what the actual design of the device really is. And that is the most well kept secret on the Indian establishment.

I'm not implying the scientists are not trustworthy but giving them privy to this data brings with it all manner of security considerations, more so if it is publicly announced who these review scientists are.

A peer review in this case is not going to be as easy as it would be for an academic paper/problem.

I think folks sometimes forget this point.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 23 Sep 2009 14:11

I agree with that.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2009 14:20

csharma wrote:K Santhanam does not have access to all the data since he himself has said that. IMHO, he may not have access to the data that BARC might have collected. He is asking for that data to be made available to scientists.

http://www.zeenews.com/news565301.html

"I would love to see the radiochemical data, the instruments used and the calibration done," he said suggesting that the details about it were not made available to scientists.

He said there were claims that Manganese-54 was detected but its quantity was not known. "DRDO was not given access to the data," the former DRDO scientist said.

We were talking of the online data like cortex and not radiological data.

The link is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Meanwhile the basic rules of maths physics and engineering say that if the online system give a result of 100 +/- 10; then post shot radioactive measurements wont give results of 500 +/- 10.

This is basic, and the argument that all (three types of online system, seismic, accelerometer and similar sensor based and cotex) all failed, while radiological system mysterious got it right is plain lack of technical understanding.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2009 14:29

amit wrote:We seem well on the way to building our own mythology here

No only one section actually, with claims like "if villagers looked at test site they would go blind"

KS has never said he was privy to all data

No one claimed that he was privy to all data. What I claimed was as follows

KS has already claimed he was privy to all information needed for the tests including the device design and the yield and other nuclear and non nuclear signatures expected, he was also the test program director, given all these if he says he knows, we can assume he knows since he had access to ALL the in situ information (he did claim that)

ALL is a wonderful word, for example I am sure he did not know the names of all the Jawans who were involved, neither did he know the make and the tech spec of all the equipment that is needed.

He does not need to have all the data, to say what he is saying he just needs to know enough.

And anyone who thinks that director of test program does not know the online instrumentation data is completely entitled to his view, the church also can not be made to believe in evolution still.

KS has said he was aware of the design details including yield, I wont post a link its posted many a times before. Please double check.

When the debate goes to ascribing statements to others which have not been made and side stepping the substance made, you know what the other those have to say.

--------------

Bottom line -- KS has put out a lot of data and claims in his support, and publicly rubbished those who said he did not know. He has explicitly said that he is saying because he knows.

He has yet not been contradicted.

Evey thing else is spin.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 14:33

I had yet another aha moment.

Nowadays I am having aha moments every 2 days - especially after reading tall stories on this thread - makes me really high.

Some days ago someone linked on here a statement by Dr RC and someone else asked "wtf?"

Chidambaram wrote:
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper451.html

As mentioned earlier, we have not given the fusion-fission breakup and, since we have not given the composition of the materials used nor their quantitites, for reasons of proliferation sensitivity as mentioned earlier, no one outside the design team has data to calculate this fission-fusion yield breakup or any other significant parameter related to fusion burn.

Someone said "WTF?. What is proliferation sensitive about this?"

Then someone mentioned that famous venn diagram from the same paper - here it is:

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper43.gif

And suddenly I had my aha moment!

What if the Venn diagram is a lie? What if India - sitting North of Russia in the Venn diagram suddenly had an attack of gravity and fell downwards to attach with Russia?

Just like Xerox did to China - some Indian could have done to brother Russia no?

The Russians invented the "Layer Cake" design. It was their first thermonuclear design. They did Teller Ulam only later. Layer cake will not reach multimegatons without becoming too big and taking up too much fissile materials - but at its smallest (and crudest?) it is smaller than early Teller Ulam designs.

Why does Pakistan accuse India of having acquired nuclear tech from Russia? Well. Is the Venn diagram wrong?

It is quite possible that the Radionuclide signature of Layer Cake is different from Teller Ulam. Any knowledgeable person who sees the Radiochem reports may say "Aha! layer cake. Russia!" Brahmaputra and Moskva mated to produce a baccha and a birthday Layer Cake was produced.

That is why it is "proliferation sensitive"

No? I have no links. No private sources. I only have to cross check with myself. 100% original Indian.

Incidentally the following image on BR shows what appears to be teller Ulam design. How about some Layer cake? Did someone say "Have the (Layer) cake and eat it too?".

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/ ... n_r15c.jpg

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 23 Sep 2009 14:37

Manoj Joshi is the first person in public domain who talks about the CORRTEX test showing lower yield. No one prior or after him have ever mentioned any findings from the CORRTEX results. Further, there are no public sources which indentifies testing agency for this particular test.

May be the true story is somewhere in middle.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2009 15:04

dinesha wrote:Manoj Joshi is the first person in public domain who talks about the CORTTEX test showing lower yield. No one prior or after him have ever mentioned any findings from the CORTTEX results. Further, there are no public sources which indentifies testing agency for this particular test.

May be the true story is somewhere in middle.

I posted a link where Ramana in 1998 was talking of Hindu details, at that point of time he was using to justify that sesimic data is not be all and end all since there are two other data points DRDO/BARC have for backup and they are more accurate.

Are we saying that Manoj Joshi spread the cortex thing in 98? Why has it not been rebutted since then if not right? And Manoj Joshi was not even with Hindu then.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 23 Sep 2009 15:24

Where does it says that CORTTEX data was collected by DRDO? ..or CORTTEX results showed lower yield?
Manoj Joshi is the first person to talk about lower yield results from CORTTEX data... he has made a comment without attributing it to anybody or any organization..

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 23 Sep 2009 15:40

CORRTEX from Google

May be no separate drill hole were used for CORRTEX because of lack of time and other secrecy considerations ...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2009 15:49

dinesha wrote:Where does it says that CORTTEX data was collected by DRDO? ..or CORTTEX results showed lower yield?
Manoj Joshi is the first person to talk about lower yield results from CORTTEX data... he has made a comment without attributing it to anybody or any organization..

No KS has spoken specifically about it.

All available data strongly indicates it was done, and if its being claimed that it shows fizzle why doesn't GoI say, it worked because of XYZ? After all its been saying it works because KS is a Bull shitter?

Then the point is, if there are three online measurement systems, and radiological data, we have a total of 4 data points to compute the yield, independently. If you add crater morphology as a independent system then 5.

What do we have for them--
Online shock instrumentation -- KS says fizzile, BARC says DRDO system did not work. (of course as KS points out it mysteriously failed for S1 only and S2 it worked )
ARS and other seismic data -- very unclear, if not straight forward fizzle not a proof for sizzle either.
COTEX data -- KS says fizzle -- not contested by BARC
Crater morphology -- extremely unclear, KS says fizzle, BARC says sizzle and quotes data from Arizona tests to substantiate.
Post shot radioactive measurements -- the one published by BARC is said to be the incorrect method, that assertion is not contested, however the even assuming method was right the paper too has been contested.

So data points and equations revealed about the test by GoI == 0
Hard proofs for sizzle == 0
Insinuations for sizzle -- weak and countered.
Insinuations for fizzle -- strong and not countered.

--------------------

Edit --> Correcting some data points.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2009 16:02

Oh thank god another bit of spin killed right here (Cortex was done and by DRDO to boot, and KS did know the designs)

http://southasiastrategicforum.com/

On the Yield of the Thermonuclear Device tested in May 1998
Written by K Santhanam
Friday, 18 September 2009 10:43
On the Yield of the Thermonuclear Device tested in May 1998
Exclusive for the South Asia Strategic ForumTM

K Santhanam September 18, 2009

Programme Coordinator, Pokhran II

the DRDO team was assigned the full and critical responsibility of designing, building, clearing, commissioning, operation and maintenance of field instrumentation at the Pokhran test site for recording seismic data from all the tests. The measured data is vital in estimating the yield and help refine theoretical calculations. The instrumentation included seismic and advanced fibre-optic sensors which were placed at a large number of points in the adits of the shafts where the devices were placed and to a radius of about 2.5 km from the axis of the shafts. The entire range of sensors and recorders fully international standards class in terms of accuracy and reliability; and, so acknowledged by BARC .as well.

This recital would make it abundantly clear that DRDO, indeed, was deeply involved in all the seismic measurements and was fully aware of expected readings and actual experimental data. I personally was aware of the core designs of the devices tested as well.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Sep 2009 18:10

Sanku wrote:Oh thank god another bit of spin killed right here (Cortex was done and by DRDO to boot, and KS did know the designs)

The instrumentation included seismic and advanced fibre-optic sensors which were placed at a large number of points in the adits of the shafts where the devices were placed and to a radius of about 2.5 km from the axis of the shafts. The entire range of sensors and recorders fully international standards class in terms of accuracy and reliability; and, so acknowledged by BARC .as well.

So you think advanced fibre-optic sensors {note the use of plural} which were placed at a large number of points in the adits of the shafts... means that it was a the Cortex test?

Let me quote what Ramana wrote in 1999:

) CORTEX. Here a cable is lowered and gets crushed during the test. You measure the radius of the hole by measuring the cable length. Then you back calculate what should be the yield that causes the cable to be of a particular length. Again this was stated in the press conference after the tests. Need to look up Hindu back issues in May '98.

Link

Now I really wonder if both are the same thing? Perhaps Ramana can comment?

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Sep 2009 18:50

Another curious thing about the KS article posted by Sanku vis a vis the Cortex test is that it is not explicitly mentioned anywhere by KS despite the writing style being fairly technical with a fair share of jargon. Considering the subject matter of the article isn't the omission rather glaring?

I know Arun_S private sources say the Cortex fell under DRDO but?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 23 Sep 2009 19:00

Just that I have my own sources that I can cross check from.
That also means I may know there were more than 2 measurement data source apart from Accelerometer & CORRTEX, but then I wont put that on forum.

Took the words right off my fingertips there!! I too am writing whatever I write on BRF because I have this direct source from Up Above. In fact I thought this should be obvious to all, from the BENIS forum Fatwa deliberations. Of course I cannot put my actual source data on the forum, but you are all free to See the Light and never disagree with me.

Wonder why when BARC / DAE / other ppl who are authorized to speak on these issues say things, there is so much skepticism.

I have have heard it b4 at conferences, where someone claims: "Oh yes of course we know that, but it's Classified, In the immortal words of John Wayne Himself:

If I tell ya, I'm gonna have to kill ya!

Seriously, let me ask ppl to consider for a moment what is wrong with the above claim. People who actually KNOW anything CLASSIFIED are also under the Damocles Sword of life-ending prison terms if they are FOUND TO HAVE revealed any such info. In fact, if any such info comes out in public, some nasty agencies with very little sympathy but infinite patience, are going to hunt down the source of the leak, remorselessly. If necessary by the process of systematic elimination of all other possibilities. At minimum, the person who leaks is facing a lie detector test. (In India, also "narco-testing", hanging by the fingers, whatever)

There is only one way to be sure that one does not "leak" inadvertently - DON'T DISCUSS any such stuff with anyone who is not clearly authorized to know.

So - what happens if you are a very knowledgeable person and proud of said knawlidj, and someone whom you know to be an Insider sidles up to you and whispers:

Pssssst! Abdul, I know I am not supposed to tell you this, but you are such a fine Fedayeen Patriot. Let me tell u - but DON'T TELL ANYONE! what the REAL SCOOP is..

There is only one real piece of knowledge to be gained from this: Someone wants you to go off and post all sorts of stuff in public, ACTING ON THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION. In the sure knowledge that this is NOT going to get the Insider in trouble.

IOW, it is garbage. No other valid solution, sorry Arun. So the moment you post something that says:

Just that I have my own sources that I can cross check from. That also means I may know..

it is like posting flashing neon signs (OK, make those LEDs to be more current) saying:

HELLO!!! What Arun is posting is based on Total Misinformation from ppl who are sitting somewhere reading this and

Again, sorry Arun, but that's the logical conclusion. Not that I had any specific disagreement with anything you posted, but now I have to go back and see if anything I believe is based on "data" that you posted - and see what happens if I delete all those "facts".

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 23 Sep 2009 19:25

fiber optics sensors does not mean that is a CORRTEX set-up. There are N number of these sensor used for measuring temperature, displacement, strain, pressure etc..

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2009 19:31

amit wrote:
) CORTEX. Here a cable is lowered and gets crushed during the test. You measure the radius of the hole by measuring the cable length. Then you back calculate what should be the yield that causes the cable to be of a particular length. Again this was stated in the press conference after the tests. Need to look up Hindu back issues in May '98.
Link

Now I really wonder if both are the same thing? Perhaps Ramana can comment?

AFAIK a light can be used instead of electrical impulses too, these tech were posted on this thread before. (there is nothing to think here, it either is or is not)

In general--

I dont see what purpose this unnecessary quibbling serves, there appears to be more discussion around was the spelling used by posters about Chidambram or Chidambaram rather than the meat of the matter.

Given that various assertions about KS (was he test site director or director of testing?, did he know where is it printed that he saw the report which said S1, does he say explicitly that he knows S1 is S1 etc etc etc ) which were clearly untenable to being with have fallen hollow, I am surprised the same tactic is used again. One would think people would learn to avoid missing woods for the trees.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Sep 2009 19:33

dinesha wrote:fiber optics sensors does not mean that is a CORRTEX set-up. There are N number of these sensor used for measuring temperature, displacement, strain, pressure etc..

Well cortex was set up, this was known as far back as 1998, we also know that fiber optic based cortex setups exist.

Now it is possible that the fiber optics were for XYZ reasons, it is also possible that they were all duds.

But given the plethora of references to Cortex and the fact that KS has said that DRDO was responsible for instrumentation (goes on to say they can do radiological tests too) there is very little to quibble about.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Sep 2009 20:04

The west has started giving advice once again

:

India must turn away from the bomb

India's hawks want to start a series of nuclear tests that could isolate the nation and spark an arms race

Scientist Santhanam's 'more H-bomb tests' call goes unheard

New Delhi: Scientist K Santhanam, who called for two more thermonuclear tests on Monday to perfect the hydrogen bomb (H-bomb), found few takers on Tuesday, with most experts and western diplomats saying a test at this juncture would jeopardise India's position as a responsible world power and cost it a seat in the expanded United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

When India and the US signed a civilian nuclear deal last year and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) lifted decades of sanctions imposed on the country, there was the reciprocal responsibility on India to continue with the moratorium on further tests, a policy announced by the former AB Vajpayeegovernment and scrupulously followed by the current UPA regime.

"National interest, which Santhanam is talking about, is not just a technical call but also a political call which has to be taken only after a sober assessment by the government. It cannot be done because of bitter disputes between two groups of scientists. We cannot reduce testing to a Corsican vendetta of the retired lot," an expert said. A Western diplomat in the capital pointed out that the national security advisors in two governments had vouched for the 1998 nuclear tests and said no more were required.

India would not have declared a unilateral moratorium on further tests if there was even an iota of doubt. "But if India were to now decide to test without provocation, meaning imminent threat from another country, India's image as a major power ready to take on global responsibilities will take a beating and the first casualty will be a seat in the UNSC, which India has long claimed," he said, adding,

"India is certainly not a country which wants to be in the same league as North Korea and Iran, which is exactly what will happen if it decides to test without reason."

The Indo-US nuclear deal will certainly go for a six, because it clearly mentions that if India conducts a test without a change in the security environment in the neighbourhood, the agreement would automatically cease. "If India tests again, there will be immediate sanctions, the Indo-US nuclear deal will be revoked and the country will be isolated in the world. It would cost us a seat in the UNSC," former foreign secretary Lalit Mansing, who was also India's ambassador to Washington, said.

"It will be a tragedy, unnecessary and irrelevant, considering we already have a minimum credible deterrent," he added.

Another former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal, asked about the consequences of a test, said, "India will be immediately isolated.There will be sanctions and the nuclear deal will be revoked, the political dialogue with the US, which is at the moment forward-looking, will then concentrate on damage control."

Another former diplomat G Parthasarathy said India's earlier tests in 1974 and 1998 were conducted under pressure. "The tests enabled us to break out of this pressure, but today it is a different matter. Our economy is integrated with the global economy, the world is gradually coming out of the economic downturn and the international environment is against nuclear tests. Therefore, it will be unwise to do so [conduct tests] now, unless a neighbour tests," he said. At the same time, Parthasarathy said, India should not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Awww Gawd. I hate this stupid attitude, will someone ask the respectful diplomats and former diplomats to grow a pair and start using their brains.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 20:05

I respect Santhanam and I am sad to see him writing in "Southasiastrategicforum.com" - a site registered in Utah that is even more ROTFL and irrelevant than Sikka's Frontline.

However he writes a sober article. read this

It would be utterly laughable if the long range Agni missile is to carry a 20 kT fission bomb or a thermonuclear device with a highly suspect yield to inflict 'unacceptable damage' in the second-strike mode as part of our declared doctrine of 'No First Use (NFU). This doctrine, also, needs a very urgent re-visit leading to an early withdrawal. The withdrawal pains will not be so severe as made out in some circles.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2009 20:18

shyamd wrote:The west has started giving advice once again :

India must turn away from the bomb

THAT article is written by: Randeep Ramesh, Delhi based correspondent for the Guradian. It is AN INDIAN, based in INDIA that has written this.

But the article does have huge flaws in logic.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 20:22

Well folks - I am certain that you will enjoy reading this fountain of truth - southasiastrategifoum.com about who conducted the Mumbai attacks.

Sorry it's OT - but it is a sorry site
http://aakrosh.southasiastrategicforum. ... &Itemid=61

If the analysts are on the right track, it is evident then that the Mumbai attack did not originate in Islamabad, because neither Zardari, nor Kayani, nor ISI chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha would survive the jihadi onslaught for any length of time if the latter claim control over Pakistan

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Sep 2009 20:22

shiv wrote:I respect Santhanam and I am sad to see him writing in "Southasiastrategicforum.com" - a site registered in Utah that is even more ROTFL and irrelevant than Sikka's Frontline.

The author Dr. K Santhanam is on the Core Group of the South Asia Strategic Forum(TM) .

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 23 Sep 2009 20:26

Arun_S Post subject: Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2Posted: 22 Sep 2009 05:37 am

Webmaster BR

Joined: 14 Jun 2000 06:01 am
Posts: 2750
Location: KhyberDurra First get TN going, even if a 250-300 kt weighs 500 kgs. Then talk about getting it on PJ-10. You may want to peek into its nose cone to see how small that space for the bomb is, much less a TN bomb. And if you want BARC to make it, don't count on it.

Quote:
according to Santhanam with whom you have agreed from day one said it achieved 60% of the yield which was aimed. So how come you are saying that it is now a complete failure.

TN failed to ignite the fusion stage (just 2 kT fusion yield), thus it is abject failure (no two ways about it).

In S1 the Fission from Primary and sparkplug yielded (27 kT) which is 60% of the grand success that Dr R.Chidambaram claimed with his 45 kT yield of S1.

Simple madrasa Al-Zebra only.

Clear

Anyway specifically 45 == 17+3+25 (FBF+trigger etc+ fusion)
Total achieved was 25-27 == 60% of 45, 27 == (17+3+some others)

Now note none of the numbers are iron clad, all of us including Arun_S are trying to fit possible numbers to understand things as we go forward.

As new data comes some of these guesstimates change. (Arun_S posted, but hey I already typed it)

Very Clear

ramana Post subject: Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2Posted: 22 Sep 2009 03:17 pm

Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 12:00 am
Posts: 8121 Manish, Another way of saying is its the 40% that wasn't achieved that is important, for fusion releases high energy neutrons which are used to fission the reactive tamper and increase the total yield. So if the secy failed to ignite it causes difficulty in credibility of scaling. The hopeful thing is the pry worked and as per the press conf it was a boosted one. This can be scaled reasonably say by same ratio as was done in S-I.

Still this debate has been very Chanakian in that esteemed experts were forced to reveal their bottomline positions. the surprise is those who were considered hawks turned to be sparrows and those who were doves turned to be eagles. And the sarkari types (Brajesh Mishra etc for pointing fingers at APJK) were vultures as usual.

Raj Malhotra give me time to respond to your questions.

Crystal Clear

narayanan Post subject: Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2Posted: 22 Sep 2009 03:24 pm

Forum Moderator

Joined: 06 Jul 2008 02:55 pm
Posts: 2138 And my take on what ramana said is that I don't see how they could have PLANNED to have the remaining 40% yield, because that would have been the end of Khetolai. At minimum, it would have been criminally dangerous and irresponsible test planning, and I am sure they would not have done that.

So I agree with ramana that the "remaining 40%" may not have gone off. My take is that it could not have been INTENDED to go off.

Maybe they didn't know how, so they did not try. Maybe they knew how, and used the bare minimum just to get some "trace" data and decided that trying any more would be too risky.

But either way, what they planned, they got. Any more and it would have been a disaster.
As shiv says, we all agree that no big 150kT or 200kT or 1MT device has been live-tested by India.
Whether there is a fair amount of confidence that any such devices, if built , will work, is somewhat open to question. Big question, I would agree. Maybe the GOI has decided that Indian Credible Minimum Deterrent will stick to 25-40kT devices,and focus all the R&D on delivery systems. I would agree with that choice for other reasons, because I firmly believe that 1MT ICBMs are liabilities.

But still, no "fizzle" occurred.

But Narayanan why not go for full 40%?
Why this kanjoosie?
As for Khetolai couldn't they have done the test a little further away or dug much deeper. I can understand that they had to factor in US satellites overhead or ABV govt. wanted to do at earliest.
or just moved the whole village away to someplace else giving them houses somewhere else.
To start Metro trains in Delhi it was BJP govt. under Khurana who brought the rule that whatever property comes in the way of Metro will be taken out. No appeal possible, no no courts nothing. Take whatever money is given and move.

And here we had the biggest experiment in the History of India, compromised 'cause of 600 houses in desert of rajasthan. Just 600 houses in DDA Delhi would have made a fortune for the villagers.

Near Punjabi Bagh Delhi, their is a place called Rani bagh. In 1984 Govt. wanted to run a road straight from Britania chowk to Pitampura. but around 150 houses one primary school "M.M. Public school" were in the way creating a chicken neck Govt. gave them all 3 lakh cash each + a flat in posh Shalimar. Everybody moved so happily. While many of them buffaloes in the houses. I was living just 2 kms. away from the place and going to school through them. Sorry for these mundane facts but.......
Even nano car or a mountain bike is tested so many times. While this TN warhead which will go in Agni, go out the atmosphere of earch reenter at I don't know 20-30 mach. Is tested 2/3rd time.
Let's say they started thinking of the Nuclear bomb in '64 then tested in '74. Now after waiting for 24 years they test partly because of lack of real estate?

Like Ramana says:
Another way of saying is its the 40% that wasn't achieved that is important, for fusion releases high energy neutrons which are used to fission the reactive tamper and increase the total yield. So if the secy failed to ignite it causes difficulty in credibility of scaling.

I mean it's clear from the above that is fusion is what makes a nuclear bomb a Thermo Nuclear bomb. And that fusion is token tested because of lack of the empty space?
I am not saying it has not happened or happened 'cause of my lack of technical knowledge. But if that is the reason for not testing Fusion stage to full capacity then it is quite pathetic.