Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

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

Postby geeth » 28 Sep 2009 14:42

>>>The S-1 FBF was of ~ 17 Kt , the S-2 was a pure fission ( ~ 20 Kt ) but not boosted , if you want to do a FBF from S-2 design to say ~ 50 Kt FBF type , you still need to proof test it although this is far less complex then trying to simulate a TN. ( you may not test it and call it high confidence FBF based on proven S-2 )

Can you say the bolded part for sure?

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

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

Postby dipak » 28 Sep 2009 14:44

Getting unpleasant - request to give it a break.

rajeshks
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 29 Dec 2007 22:43

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

Postby rajeshks » 28 Sep 2009 14:45

shiv wrote:2) It is better not to depend on a TN arsenal in the absence of further testing. But it is better to be ready to test with a few designs and those "ready to test" devices should ideally be deliverable as well - just in case so that they can double up as untested weapons in case of serious war. But the main and reliable deterrence is going to have to come from fission weapons


Eventhough not the right time to test a nuclear weapon, in a WORST case scenario we can conduct a test during a war.. I dont know what kind of signal such a test will send to
1. the enemy
2. rest of the world
3. indian armed forces

Sanctions, threat etc etc everything can follow except a nuclear war... :)

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21914
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 28 Sep 2009 14:48

geeth wrote:>>>The S-1 FBF was of ~ 17 Kt , the S-2 was a pure fission ( ~ 20 Kt ) but not boosted , if you want to do a FBF from S-2 design to say ~ 50 Kt FBF type , you still need to proof test it although this is far less complex then trying to simulate a TN. ( you may not test it and call it high confidence FBF based on proven S-2 )

Can you say the bolded part for sure?


Geeth , that part of information reveled by Santhanam recently, as I understand the S-2 now we know is a pure fission weapon ( ~ 20 Kt ) without boosting ( some say that was part of our inventory minus proof testing before going overt , so they proof tested it during POK 2)
Last edited by Austin on 28 Sep 2009 14:48, edited 1 time in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 28 Sep 2009 14:48

BARC gave a error margin of +/- 2 for the POK - I, i.e the max is 12.

From POK - II , it corrected that to 15 kt, i.e. max is 15.

As per the paper authored by ramana it is 12 +/ - 3.

No where i have seen this explanation that s2 yield is 15+/- 10%. Unless this cited by proper evidence it is considered as untenable.

Or if i have to follow the BRF tradition, it has to said as utter lie.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 28 Sep 2009 14:50

Austin wrote:
Arun_S wrote:Response: Has not R.Chidambram/Anil Kalkodkar been speaking for 11 years of TN devices upto 200 KT? FAS writes 300 KT per
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaShakti.html


Well the claim of ~ 300 Kt came from RC , in an interview given to DD few days after the POK 2 , where he mentioned that the design was scalable up to ~ 300 Kt , that was for the first time the figure ~ 300 Kt came into being.

RC/AK in recent press conference revised it to ~ 200 Kt.

So this a response to those who said Santy keeps on putting different figures to S-2 yeald , to be fair even RC toyed with the ~ 300 Kt figure and now dropped it to ~ 200 Kt


Pls cite the sorce where RC was quoted as saying 300 kt.

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 » 28 Sep 2009 14:52

rajeshks wrote:
shiv wrote:2) It is better not to depend on a TN arsenal in the absence of further testing. But it is better to be ready to test with a few designs and those "ready to test" devices should ideally be deliverable as well - just in case so that they can double up as untested weapons in case of serious war. But the main and reliable deterrence is going to have to come from fission weapons


Eventhough not the right time to test a nuclear weapon, in a WORST case scenario we can conduct a test during a war.. I dont know what kind of signal such a test will send to
1. the enemy
2. rest of the world
3. indian armed forces

Sanctions, threat etc etc everything can follow except a nuclear war... :)



Well as can be seen from this thread testing is a scientific event and should not be a political event. I believe that testing for data should be done in peacetime. If a TN must be "tested" at all during war - it should be tested over enemy territory in case of nuclear war.

jmt

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 » 28 Sep 2009 14:54

Kanson wrote:BARC gave a error margin of +/- 2 for the POK - I, i.e the max is 12.

From POK - II , it corrected that to 15 kt, i.e. max is 15.

As per the paper authored by ramana it is 12 +/ - 3.

No where i have seen this explanation that s2 yield is 15+/- 10%. Unless this cited by proper evidence it is considered as untenable.

Or if i have to follow the BRF tradition, it has to said as utter lie.


Thanks for calling a spade a spade. If S1 primary=S2=15kt then Santhanam is also bluffing and his quoted email propagates that bluff by saying S2 was 25 kt.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 28 Sep 2009 14:54

Gerard wrote:



My mistake.
I didn't realize that was the original source for the 300kt claim.

I assumed the figure came from here

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/ ... %20AGNI-II
Shakti-I test at Pokharan-II (PoK-II)
• Boosted fission primary of ~20KT
• Plutonium based boosted primary stage. Li-D secondary
• Reportedly dial-a-yield weapon (0.3/10/250 Kt)

The primary warhead for the Agni family would be a 200-300 Kt fusion weapon based on the Shakti-1 (Pokhran-II) test in 1998. The weapons yield is adjustable from 45-300Kt by changing the amount and quality of tertiary fuel.


Even here there is not a single shred of evidence available to suggest a dial-a -yield weapon. May i know how this is arrived and from where ?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21914
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 28 Sep 2009 14:57

Kanson wrote:Pls cite the sorce where RC was quoted as saying 300 kt.


RC interview to DD after POK 2 , its etched in my mind as I had mentioned few pages back and he even spoke of 4th gen Weapon that BARC was working on during that interview

Arun has quoted FAS for it , but I am not too sure if the DD interview of 1998 with RC was archived or do DD archive it any where I can find ? it was as I remember it ~ 2 - 3 days after POK-2

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

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

Postby geeth » 28 Sep 2009 15:02

>>>Geeth , that part of information reveled by Santhanam recently

If you are saying you will only believe what Santanam says, I have no problem. But please don't put these figures with some sort of finality.

To be frank with you, nobody for sure knows what exactly had happened on that fateful day. More often than not, whistle blowers turn out to be correct also. But in this particular case, I personally feel that the Whistle blower is passing off his opinion and educated guess work as fact, and his followers are just parroting him. Even though I don't believe Santanam's figures, I wouldn't call him a liar.

Take your own case - for you what Santanam revealed appears to be the only truth. May be you want to support him, hence the belief.

I would suggest not to pass these data as gospel truth.
Last edited by geeth on 28 Sep 2009 15:09, edited 1 time in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 28 Sep 2009 15:05

Thanks Austin for the reply. So can i take it as untenable ?
Does BR cite FAS as the source for the 300 kt figure in the bibliography ?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 28 Sep 2009 15:13

Shiv is right when he says that no one in the Nuclear or defence establishment have categorically stated that we possess "deliverable" TN-warheads at all.Earlier on in this debate which seems to have lasted a few decades,I pointed out a staement from one worthie,who claimed a successful TN test,that we had only fission warheads in service.As mentioned earlier,unless we possess large TN warheads,critical command centres burie deep underground will be immune to attack from mere fission warheads.Therefore,in the absennce ot lighteer TN warheads,our delivery systems will be unable to carry MIRVs unless the missiles are far larger than what we posses right now.For India and Pak to fight a nuclear war would be suicidal given the proximity of the two nations,but the Chinese well know that the can lob umpteen number of missiles into India in a surprise pre-emptive strike,while the major part of the Chinese landmass will not be affected by any fallout from such a devastating attack! Our second strike ability to cause "unacceptable" damage to China is currently suspect and remains so.

The absurd statements emerging from our NSA about "horrific" Santy,indicates his desperateness as the entire establishment has been caught with their pants and dhoties down.Santy is the only one,plus a few other senior Nuclear bosses and analysts,who have said that the Indian nuclear emperor is actually a "naked" emperor in TN terms.I don't know if excerpts from the latest Outlook interview in which he calls the statements from the establichment a LIE has been posted.Subba rao has also written his views on the subject.Unless we conduct further tests the issue will remain a painfull diabetic sore ,giving the nation much doubt about the capability of India to deter China and any other ncuclear pwoer from attacking India in the future,a most unhappy and unwelcome situation.

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

Excerpts:
“Our recording instruments were calibrated to record exact yield. We instantly knew the test had failed when it didn’t show predicted yield.”

“When our team (including Kalam and Chidambaram) went there, we saw the damage in the TN shaft was minimal. No crater was formed.”

When did you realise that the test for the thermonuclear device had failed?

Almost immediately, it was almost instantaneous, because we had the recording instruments that were calibrated to accurately record the predicted yield of the various tests. And so when the instruments didn’t show the predicted yield, we knew almost instantaneously (that the thermonuclear device had under-performed.)

Secondly, after the tests, it’s a practice to take the vehicles and visit the site of the shafts. When we (the team also included Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Dr R. Chidambaram) went there, we saw the crater was very large for the fission bomb, it was even larger than the one in 1974. But for the TN shaft, the damage was very little. No crater was formed.

“The statement attributed to Kalam is because some people beseeched him, ‘Sir, you are a Bharat Ratna. Entire India adores you. Speak in our support’.”

No crater?

No crater.

Were there other sceptics about the performance of the thermonuclear device?

Almost immediately, the international seismological centres, including those with decades of experience of monitoring underground testing, put out their assessment that the 45 KT yield claimed for the thermonuclear device didn’t happen. It was instantaneous, it was not inspired, it was not racist. You can’t give any such labels and say that they were deliberately doing it to downplay India’s success.

What about the other team members? Were they also sceptical?

Seeing is believing. They accepted that the TN device had under-performed. The Bombay team didn’t accept that.


“International seismological centres immediately said the claimed 45 KT yield didn’t happen. It was instantaneous, you can’t call it inspired or racist.”

They said it right there?

No, they went back. Then they went to some rather ridiculous extreme by saying that the DRDO’s instrumentation was faulty. This is amazing. With respect to the fission bomb, which gave more than 20 KT for sure, the DRDO’s instruments worked perfectly. But when it came to the TN device, its instruments failed! This is talking with a forked tongue.

Is there any sure sign of telling that a TN test has failed?

If you look at the seismic data recorded by the DRDO instruments, which worked beautifully, you can tell that the 45 KT yield didn’t happen.



PS:Why was there no supposed 6th test? Was it cancelled because the TN test failed?

ksmahesh
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 10 Jan 2007 17:55
Location: Mt Everest - its the coolest one

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

Postby ksmahesh » 28 Sep 2009 15:19

geeth wrote:To be frank with you, nobody for sure knows what exactly had happened on that fateful day.


Are you sure?

geeth wrote:More often than not, whistle blowers turn out to be correct also. But in this particular case, I personally feel that the Whistle blower is passing off his opinion and educated guess work as fact, and his followers are just parroting him.

Another attitude "I will not believe that ID is wrong".

geeth wrote:Even though I don't believe Santanam's figures, I wouldn't call him a liar.


What stops you. If you believe he is giving out wrong figures then he is LIAR (whether intentional or inadvertent is another matter).

Perhaps you are not sure that what he says is wrong. Half belief as half knowledge is "you know what"

Geeth, Look at the posts from Shiv and the summary of the information he has provided from neutral perspective and the lies propagated by BM/RC/AK will be clear.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21914
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 28 Sep 2009 15:24

Kanson wrote:Thanks Austin for the reply. So can i take it as untenable ?
Does BR cite FAS as the source for the 300 kt figure in the bibliography ?


The one Arun cited was from FAS.

Yes you can take that 300 Kt , because I will never forget that interview.

The interviewer asked him about the 45 Kt TN weapon and then RC responded by saying that the yeald can go up to 300 Kt.

He also mentioned in that interview BARC was working on 4th Gen TN weapon which will use Explosive or Laser as primary trigger instead of fission { probably as we know now the holy grail to achieve TN }

Sorry to my best effort I cannot google that out , Does DD archive their interviews and stuff like that ?

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

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

Postby geeth » 28 Sep 2009 15:26

>>>Are you sure?

Yes dear, I am sure it is only my belief and is not based on any fact. So is everybody else's. I also believe that, what Santanam says is only his belief.

The only people who can put up facts & figures is in the BARC, but nobody wants to believe them ( I too don't want to believe them 100%). Even DRDO couldn't put up any fact or figure, because, to begin with, whatever Santanam Claimed to possess was only partial data, that too contradicted by his boss Kalam. So, why should I believe Santanam?


Am I clear to you?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21914
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 28 Sep 2009 15:34

geeth wrote:>>>Geeth , that part of information reveled by Santhanam recently

If you are saying you will only believe what Santanam says, I have no problem. But please don't put these figures with some sort of finality.

To be frank with you, nobody for sure knows what exactly had happened on that fateful day. More often than not, whistle blowers turn out to be correct also. But in this particular case, I personally feel that the Whistle blower is passing off his opinion and educated guess work as fact, and his followers are just parroting him. Even though I don't believe Santanam's figures, I wouldn't call him a liar.

Take your own case - for you what Santanam revealed appears to be the only truth. May be you want to support him, hence the belief.

I would suggest not to pass these data as gospel truth.


I am not suggesting Santy , RC , AK or GOI are proclaiming the Gospel Truth.

I for one know that no one is a Saint out here neither Santy or RC or GOI.

If some one is really interested in finding the truth then they should get a scientific peer review done involving retd Distinguished Scientist , RC/AK and Military ( involving military is very important I feel and it should not be one scientist word vs another )

But if GOI/BARC is shy of peer review , and keep saying we know it worked , then i would think there is something they want to hide.

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

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

Postby dipak » 28 Sep 2009 15:37

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

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

weaponization should be under the deterrence doctrine team, nothing to do with RC/BARC/DRDO.

Based on what B Karnad has published/email, it seems that RC has assured them that India can weaponize a TN. Which means that the team that is busy with deterrence has accepted his assurances (not asked for tests) or asked for tests and teh political wing has either declined the offer or postponed it.

RC cannot force the issue of deploying a TN.

What Santhanam is saying is that NEEDS a TN - as a weapon - to deter China (in specific). Santhanam is playing the cheif os scicom and the chief of deterrence team (which he may be qualified to do - as he seems to be both a scicom + RAW). And since his contention is TN does not exist, he wants to start from there. IF S1 had succeeded he would have forced the issue of making it a weapon and at some time mating it with a viable missile (not that in his last article he brings this (TN + missile) point up too).


I take it as TN successful and capability is there. It further means the weapon they can produce would be dependable.

In that case, why would the defense doctrine team/GOI would embark upon a policy where it would consciously decide to drop the use of weapon which is of higher destruction power, range with smaller weight and volume, which is scalable to higher yield values - considering India has limited stock of weapon grade fissile material?
What rationale it can give to use fission weapon and not use TN weapon?
It beats me.

On the other hand, if its not deployed for the lack of further testing (then the deterrence doctrine as a reason has to be removed)
then there is a strong case for suspicion in the lack of confidence shown by the end user and perhaps, GOI.

Only if we had conducted few more TN tests in 1998, then despite one TN test being partially successful (or failure) we would have been in much more better shape today, in terms of sufficient available data and reliability of TN tests.
And all this Santy bomb would be rendered useless.

On Santhanam pressing upon the weaponization of TN and mating of warheads - I think its perfectly logical. I can't see anything odd in this. Or may be, I am not able to get your point.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

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

Postby geeth » 28 Sep 2009 15:48

>>>But if GOI/BARC is shy of peer review , and keep saying we know it worked , then i would think there is something they want to hide.

I personally feel the Peer review can not solve the problem, because the controversy could still persist about why mr x gave gave an opinion for or against...May be if the Military brass says they are happy with the TN and is in a weaponised form mounted on top of missiles, people may keep quiet.

But then, do we have it actually on top of missiles? :lol:

All said and done, there is no escape from few more rounds of tests. But asking them to do it right now may not yield the best results. At the same time if MMS starts saying Indian people love obama, then even God almighty can't save our country!

Note:

IIRC, the controversy about TN was first raised by P.K. Iyengar. I vividly remember his tussle with M.R. Srinivasan for the post of AEC Chairman. What I could make out was that he was a cantankerous person - so, some amount of personal ego could also be a reason for this acrimony - that is purely my opinion.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 28 Sep 2009 15:49

Sanjay wrote:
My indication is that the SFC is very conservative in its approach - a bit like the forces in general.
ASL/BARC are much more ambitious and may well be ok with their TN design.

if there is any view from SFC/military personnel after 2004, i'm interested to hear lest others are outdated, IMHO.

The FBF comes down to reliable scalability. You may well be able to get 100-200kt but not at 100% reliabilty as it hasn't tested it dynamically. It does not mean that it won't work.

The use of a larger fission stage for the FBF can be considered as well - say 30-40kt.

I guess the whole reliability and scalability is so messed up.

Do the BARC knew before the POK2 that the chances of getting their device tested is very low and even if they got it will be an one time opportunity ? Ans: Yes

Before POK 2 does BARC knew about the yield estimate needed ?
Ans: Yes, There are so many information regarding the yield figure from military personnel to Strategic expert on this.

They knew all these thing and backed by several years of research (we are producing Tritium/LiD from '80s) they knew exacxtly how to design the test data as they knew chances of testing again is down to zero. They knew all these problems before the test. And also how to get the yield.

To put it simple from Op Castle series, one can know from available information, a 2 stage TN wiht fissionable tamper and LiD as fuel gave a fission/fusion ratio of ~80/20. i.e. if 20 kt is from fusion the total yield is 100 kt. IF 30 kt as fusion total yeild is 150 kt and 40 kt from fusion then total yeild is 200kt. From official figure, if we assume 15 from primary and rest from fusion i.e. 35 kt we are getting the fugre of ~200 kt. It is just a rough idea..

IIRC, PKI is one who started this. May be it will grateful if he can clarify what he means.
I dont buy into this. And any data before 2004 is outdated , IMHO.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 28 Sep 2009 15:57

Austin wrote:
Kanson wrote:Thanks Austin for the reply. So can i take it as untenable ?
Does BR cite FAS as the source for the 300 kt figure in the bibliography ?


The one Arun cited was from FAS.

Yes you can take that 300 Kt , because I will never forget that interview.

The interviewer asked him about the 45 Kt TN weapon and then RC responded by saying that the yeald can go up to 300 Kt.

He also mentioned in that interview BARC was working on 4th Gen TN weapon which will use Explosive or Laser as primary trigger instead of fission { probably as we know now the holy grail to achieve TN }

Sorry to my best effort I cannot google that out , Does DD archive their interviews and stuff like that ?
Thanks Austin, thats why i told it is untenable. I'm *not* telling you are faulty.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

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

Postby geeth » 28 Sep 2009 15:59

>>>Do the BARC knew before the POK2 that the chances of getting their device tested is vew low and even if they got it will be an one time opportunity ? Ans: Yes

Now, I would suggest you to look at another scenario:

Suppose the TN test was a success and BARC was cock sure about fabricating 200 KT weapons and hand it over to the military. But, suppose a TN weapon is not yet mounted on any missiles - what could be the reason?

Could it be that the Military / end user is refusing to accept BARC word and insisting on proof testing the TN weapon before it is mounted? And that they would be happy with a tested pure fission one than an untested (though vouched by BARC) TN weapon? And that the GOI is not able to force the Military / end user to accept the TN weapon?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21914
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 28 Sep 2009 16:05

geeth wrote:>>>But if GOI/BARC is shy of peer review , and keep saying we know it worked , then i would think there is something they want to hide.
I personally feel the Peer review can not solve the problem, because the controversy could still persist about why mr x gave gave an opinion for or against...May be if the Military brass says they are happy with the TN and is in a weaponised form mounted on top of missiles, people may keep quiet.


Agreed , that is the key reason why I think military should be involved in such peer review , as they are major stake holders as far as implementing and strategizing deterrence.

Having military also brings in some sanity , checks and balances in the otherwise very complicated task which is better not left to be done by scientist alone from both camps.

Once military says Yes we agree we have a weaponised ~ 200 Kt TN weapon and they are happy about it, this will shut all the nay sayers for ever .

But if they say we think we doubt about the reliability and we think we need more test before weaponising TN , then this will be GOI perrogative to go ahead or cap it at fission.

What ever be the outcome , it is very critical to keep the military involved at all times and stop treating them as outside players.

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

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

Postby Sanjay » 28 Sep 2009 16:09

Kanson, care to e-mail me at sbmvv_2000@yahoo.com ?
Thanks

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

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

Postby dipak » 28 Sep 2009 16:12

shiv wrote:should be done in peacetime. If a TN must be "tested" at all during war - it should be tested over enemy territory in case of nuclear war.
jmt


But how will you check/verify/confirm yield saar ..! No sensor cables available there. :)

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21914
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 28 Sep 2009 16:15

geeth wrote:>>>Do the BARC knew before the POK2 that the chances of getting their device tested is vew low and even if they got it will be an one time opportunity ? Ans: Yes

Now, I would suggest you to look at another scenario:

Suppose the TN test was a success and BARC was cock sure about fabricating 200 KT weapons and hand it over to the military. But, suppose a TN weapon is not yet mounted on any missiles - what could be the reason?

Could it be that the Military / end user is refusing to accept BARC word and insisting on proof testing the TN weapon before it is mounted? And that they would be happy with a tested pure fission one than an untested (though vouched by BARC) TN weapon? And that the GOI is not able to force the Military / end user to accept the TN weapon?


Yes before we went overt , BARC was the final Mai Baap on Nuclear Weapons and matters, if BARC said look this will work because my theory and computer simulation shows this is working perfectly well , then the Military took it as a Gospel Truth , as they had no other option.

But since we went overt , there is no room for duplicity , no military worth its salt will just take an untested weapon in its inventory purely on basis of faith and trust. They would rather build a deterrence and strike capability around a proven fission weapon rather than over unproven untested unreliable one.

So if SFC does not have a TN weapon in its inventory after ~ 11 years of test ( and Santy hints at that ) , then there is good reason why SFC is not keeping TN in its inventory.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 28 Sep 2009 16:28

geeth wrote:>>>Do the BARC knew before the POK2 that the chances of getting their device tested is vew low and even if they got it will be an one time opportunity ? Ans: Yes

Now, I would suggest you to look at another scenario:

Suppose the TN test was a success and BARC was cock sure about fabricating 200 KT weapons and hand it over to the military. But, suppose a TN weapon is not yet mounted on any missiles - what could be the reason?

Could it be that the Military / end user is refusing to accept BARC word and insisting on proof testing the TN weapon before it is mounted? And that they would be happy with a tested pure fission one than an untested (though vouched by BARC) TN weapon? And that the GOI is not able to force the Military / end user to accept the TN weapon?


Only Agni 2 started as scientific experiment rest all missiles(Agni series) are catered to the military needs. I just quoting a reply which i gave on page 47 of this thread.
Sanjay wrote:Quoting from Karnad's India's Nuclear Policy:

(at page 82) "Until 2002-2003 the high firewalls between the nuclear weapons design program and ASL prevented the optimization of nuclear missile design. Now there is very close cooperation. Thus, for example, S.K. Sikka, as head of the thermonuclear weapons project was asked to change the size parameters of a weapon for a certain Agni missile by a mere 5cm to exactly fit the missile configuration -because changing the missile size would require massive redesign and development work resulting in a delay of 3-4 years. After some quick calculations, Sikka readily agreed to chance the dimensions of the weapon in question. This level of cooperation is a great improvement on what existed when R. Chidambaram headed AEC."
Agni 3 was ready by 2004. Agni 3 is marked for the new payload and it is the TN weapon. I dont think it is wrong to say co-operation exits even with SFC in addition to BARC/DRDO. News item:
There have been indications since 2004 that Agni-III, a three-stage missile that adds a third stage to
the first and second stages of Agni-II, was ready for launch.
Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee has repeatedly stated the launch had been put off due to India's
'self-imposed restraint' on testing the missile.
Media reports in May said the Agni-III test flight had been put off under pressure from Washington,
which felt this would send all the wrong signals at a time when the US Congress, as also the
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), were considering the proposed India-US civilian nuclear deal.
Last edited by Kanson on 28 Sep 2009 16:33, edited 1 time in total.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

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

Postby geeth » 28 Sep 2009 16:30

>>>So if SFC does not have a TN weapon in its inventory after ~ 11 years of test ( and Santy hints at that ) , then there is good reason why SFC is not keeping TN in its inventory.

In conclusion, the military has got the final word and burden of proof rests with BARC. That is a happy outcome of going overt, If I believe your words.

So, we may shift our focus onto : Whether the Military has accepted BARC word or not (on TN) is the one needs to be confirmed, instead of BARC trying to prove whether TN detonation was a success or not.

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

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

Postby Sanjay » 28 Sep 2009 16:35

Dinesha - still checking but tentatively 2002.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

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

Postby geeth » 28 Sep 2009 16:39

>>>Agni 3 was ready by 2004. Agni 3 is marked for the new payload and it is the TN weapon. I dont think it is wrong to say co-operation exits even with SFC in addition to BARC/DRDO. News item:

I agree with you sir, wholeheartedly. In fact I must thank you for bringing the SFC into picture.

With little bit knowledge in rocketry, I can say for sure Agni 3 is an ICBM. You know for sure how much money is involved in maintaining a strategic force with ICBMs. And I cannot believe that such a strategic force will be fitted with piddle low yield fission weapons alone. That is one of the reasons why I want to believe the TN was a success and is scaleable. Only doubt nagging me is whether a FBF of 150 KT could be mounted as a single warhead. Otherwise, testng an ICBM without a proper warhead for it only will create unnecessary enemies, which GOI would go out of the way to avoid.

However, if I say all my beliefs, I will be eaten RAW!
Last edited by geeth on 28 Sep 2009 16:42, edited 1 time in total.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1056
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

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

Postby dinesha » 28 Sep 2009 16:40

The S-1 FBF was of ~ 17 Kt , the S-2 was a pure fission ( ~ 20 Kt ) but not boosted , if you want to do a FBF from S-2 design to say ~ 50 Kt FBF type , you still need to proof test it although this is far less complex then trying to simulate a TN. ( you may not test it and call it high confidence FBF based on proven S-2 )
What ever you try to do beyond the 100 % proven 20 Kt , from boosting to the far complex TN , you will have to proof test it as a proven and 100 % reliable working weapon.

Speculation of yield of boosted primary in S1 of 17KT or 25 KT is moot.
That is not the point.

My point is
1. BARC did not to test standalone Boosted device/Bomb.
2. The only Boosted tested was for small yield (w.r.t 150-200 KT deterrence)primary to TN.

So what gives?

One or more of following can be concluded form above:
1. BARC scientists must be biggest fools (No disrespect intended) for not testing standalone FBF device.
2. BARC scientists were so confident of TN device that they did not think of Boosting to play major role for strategic arsenal because of wt. and other issues...
3. BARC scientists were 100% confident about the FBF design capability (by whatever means) for various yield that they thought S1 Primary was enough to validate the boosting efficiency and same or higher efficiency can be achieved for other “Boosted” device.

IMHO, we should not under-estimate BARC. I think our FBF capabilities are much more then claimed in BRF. I think what KS is stating in not 100% true. The story lies somewhere in between Boosted and TN weapon and not between Pure Fission and Boosted Weapons. As SBM Says in his post Agni –II is carrying something big...

Also different design capability requirement for smaller and bigger (but less then 200KT) boosted weapon can be pure speculation .. in absence of any authentication
Last edited by dinesha on 28 Sep 2009 20:08, edited 2 times in total.

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

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

Postby dipak » 28 Sep 2009 16:44

NRao wrote:
dipak wrote:1. China -- Its so big and developed, that it stands to loose too much, forget TN, even ~20kt Fission weapon sufficient deterrent.

2. Pakistan -- Its so small and undeveloped, really no worry for India, forget TN, even ~20kt Fission weapon sufficient deterrent.


Unless you are trying to confuse both the Chinese and Pakistanis, you need to note that no one said "forget TN". THAT conclusion is totally wrong.


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.

NRao wrote:
dipak wrote:Is there any adversary which India should worry and think about TN ?
If not, why test TN and build capability at all?
If this was the case, was this not clear to our strategic thinkers before May 1998?


There has been a reset in thinking among some strategists. The missiles have become so accurate that they argue that a bunch of mush smaller N-weapon will suffice (look up MRV (NOT MIRV) in wiki).

The argument for TN seems to be that it is far more better in terms of ROI. Besides that I have not seen much in my surfing.

However, I think/feel/suggest that a LOT of articles (associated with Indian nuclear devices AND missiles) need to be re-written. Withdrawing them first.


So, its all about accuracy of the delivery systems.
There is no thought given to bunker busting or ROI (range, payload, efficiency) of weapons.
I am sure our planners are much more capable than likes of myself.
Seems I am missing something here.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21914
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 28 Sep 2009 16:46

geeth wrote:>>>So if SFC does not have a TN weapon in its inventory after ~ 11 years of test ( and Santy hints at that ) , then there is good reason why SFC is not keeping TN in its inventory.

In conclusion, the military has got the final word and burden of proof rests with BARC. That is a happy outcome of going overt, If I believe your words.

So, we may shift our focus onto : Whether the Military has accepted BARC word or not (on TN) is the one needs to be confirmed, instead of BARC trying to prove whether TN detonation was a success or not.


That is how it should be , that is how it is in other countries where they have overt nuclear deterrence , the military should have the final word.

But as one retd Admiral had stated in his oped , in Delhi turf battle , between DRDO wala , Babus , Politician and Military the military is always at the loosing and receiving end.

But it will be a tough nut for the BARC wala's to BS the Military and shove the TN off their throat.

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 » 28 Sep 2009 16:47

geeth wrote:>>>Do the BARC knew before the POK2 that the chances of getting their device tested is vew low and even if they got it will be an one time opportunity ? Ans: Yes

Now, I would suggest you to look at another scenario:

Suppose the TN test was a success and BARC was cock sure about fabricating 200 KT weapons and hand it over to the military. But, suppose a TN weapon is not yet mounted on any missiles - what could be the reason?

Could it be that the Military / end user is refusing to accept BARC word and insisting on proof testing the TN weapon before it is mounted? And that they would be happy with a tested pure fission one than an untested (though vouched by BARC) TN weapon? And that the GOI is not able to force the Military / end user to accept the TN weapon?


Well again - quoting from Sanjay's post:

Whatever happened with S-1, can BARC weaponize a TN weapon that will work without further testing ?

The answer I keep getting is "probably".

Have they done it ? "Possibly".

I also note Chidambaram's words to the effect that BARC has been continuously working on things over the last 11 years. To assume things are static is dangerous. Indeed, Karnad at page 71 of India's Nuclear Policy states that:

"There are over 12 untested weapons designs, encompassing nuclear and thermonuclear gravity and glide bomb and warheads optimize for delivery by aircraft, land based cruise and ballistic missiles and ship and submarine-launched cruise and ballistic missiles on the shelf."

The most conservative of these designs could be viable with out dynamic testing - the most ambitious would be a gamble.

Regarding TN weaponization, I would say "weaponization" is a strangely undefined word.

Does it mean a fabricated device that is ready to be either tested or mated to a delivery system ?

Or does it mean a fabricated device that is ready to be handed over to the user with the designers giving an assurance of its viability ?

If it is the latter, I do not believe it has been done for any Indian TN device. The former, probably yes.

Where does this magic 200kT figure come from ?

It was intended that the S-1 device provide the basis for a weapon up to a "maximum-minimium" 200kT yield.

It was also intended that a contingency 150-200kT FBF be prepared in the event of the TN not working to specifications.

Does India have the capability to make a 200KT TN weapon ? Yes.

Has it made such a weapon ? Probably.

Is it 100% certain it will work to specifications ? No.

Is the SFC satisfied with that ? Not yet.

Is it deployed ? No.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1056
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

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

Postby dinesha » 28 Sep 2009 16:48

Thanks SBM.
since 2002 .. if true it means we have this test facility since last 7 years .. than (As per Arun_S post of 5 years research requirement) our Boosted design capability might have been significantely Boosted :) in so many years..

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

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

Postby Sanjay » 28 Sep 2009 16:52

Dinesha - I stress that is simply a preliminary inquiry. I am still checking. Incidentally, my own view - not entirely uninformed - is that option 3 of your bunch is the one most likely to exist.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21914
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 28 Sep 2009 16:55

Kanson wrote:Thus, for example, S.K. Sikka, as head of the thermonuclear weapons project was asked to change the size parameters of a weapon for a certain Agni missile by a mere 5cm to exactly fit the missile configuration -because changing the missile size would require massive redesign and development work resulting in a delay of 3-4 years. After some quick calculations, Sikka readily agreed to chance the dimensions of the weapon in question. This level of cooperation is a great improvement on what existed when R. Chidambaram headed AEC." Agni 3 was ready by 2004. Agni 3 is marked for the new payload and it is the TN weapon.


Just because Sikka was the head of TN weapons project , and x weapon need to be changed by y factor to fit into A 3 RV , does not mean the weapon in question was a TN weapon.

Sikka will be handling the entire N weaponisation program ( RC was handling before Sikka ) and the weapons in question could be fission to fit into the high beta RV of A -3

Either the GOI comes out and says we have TN weaponised , the SFC says it or BARC says it we have weaponised the TN and its in our inventory to make this credible , so far none have and BARC keeps saying we have confidence we can design TN with certain yeald.

Which makes me believe Santhanam claims of we do not have a weaponised TN in inventory ~ 11 years after test
Last edited by Austin on 28 Sep 2009 17:05, edited 1 time in total.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1056
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

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

Postby dinesha » 28 Sep 2009 17:05

Dinesha - I stress that is simply a preliminary inquiry. I am still checking. Incidentally, my own view - not entirely uninformed - is that option 3 of your bunch is the one most likely to exist


Then the TN issue is being sensualised (spelling?) to earn other brownie points...may be personal scores.. granted it is desirable to go for more TN test.. but our deterrence is not purely based on 25 KT pure fission weapon.. and or CMD is not so unbalance (w.r.t China) as it is made out to be.. by SO many experts..

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 » 28 Sep 2009 17:09

In that case, why would the defense doctrine team/GOI would embark upon a policy where it would consciously decide to drop the use of weapon which is of higher destruction power, range with smaller weight and volume, which is scalable to higher yield values - considering India has limited stock of weapon grade fissile material?


Why would they .......... well, all policies emanate from the "head" (if you follow the US, you can witness the change between the Bush and Obama administrations). But, yes, that can happen.

In fact, MMS being at the head it is more than likely to happen. For some years now MMS has had a "Japan Model" tag on him. So, if it happens WRT India, this is the time. Now, how much he will give away is debatable.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 28 Sep 2009 17:17

Austin wrote:
Kanson wrote:Thus, for example, S.K. Sikka, as head of the thermonuclear weapons project was asked to change the size parameters of a weapon for a certain Agni missile by a mere 5cm to exactly fit the missile configuration -because changing the missile size would require massive redesign and development work resulting in a delay of 3-4 years. After some quick calculations, Sikka readily agreed to chance the dimensions of the weapon in question. This level of cooperation is a great improvement on what existed when R. Chidambaram headed AEC." Agni 3 was ready by 2004. Agni 3 is marked for the new payload and it is the TN weapon.


Just because Sikka was the head of TN weapons project , and x weapon need to be changed by y factor to fit into A 3 RV , does not mean the weapon in question was a TN weapon.

Sikka will be handling the entire N weaponisation program ( RC was handling before Sikka ) and the weapons in question could be fission to fit into the high beta RV of A -3

Either the GOI comes out and says we have TN weaponised , the SFC says it or BARC says it we have weaponised the TN and its in our inventory to make this credible , so far none have and BARC keeps saying we have confidence we can design TN with certain yeald.

Which makes me believe Santhanam claims of we do not have a weaponised TN in inventory ~ 11 years after test


Austin, i think you know the meaning of this...and how to do read.

S.K. Sikka, as head of the thermonuclear weapons project was asked to change the size parameters of a weapon


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest