Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 28 Sep 2009 05:40

Arun_S wrote:
shiv wrote:Calculations by experts on here show that 17 kt was the yield of S1 -claim by Arun_S[/list]


Please substantiate when and where did I claimed that, for you to attribute the above falsity to me?



Arun, this is the post I am talking about dated 21st September

viewtopic.php?p=741676#p741676

Arun_S wrote:The 17 kT primary of S1 is the only successful test by India. And that was designed for a yield required for TN. At best it can be extrapolated few times over to ~50 kT, but need confirmatory test. To get to 150kT OTOH requires different design features, and being a new design will require few proof shots.



The next day, on the 22nd of September you added a clarification

viewtopic.php?p=742305#p742305
Arun_S wrote:
In reality the S1 TN also had a fissionable/fissile tamper thus technically a 3 stage bomb where most of the yield comes from third stage (just like all TN bombs deployed worldwide).

What is being said thus is that the multi-stage TN device that S1 was, only gave 25 +/-2 kT total yield (if you are interested in details only 2-3 kT came from Fusion (the Hydrogen bomb part), 17 kT came from the primary/Trigger stage (from fission) , and the rest from fissile spark plug and minute amount from 3rd stage that had no chance to work since the second stage (Fusion stage) failed.



The statement that S1 had a fissionable tamper and that it was a 3 stage device is quite original. Could you state how you were privy to the design details that have not been released anywhere in public. Note that the word falsity was used by you. That is a strong word which we really must not use so freely. I would say originality.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16508
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 05:41

kittoo wrote:What is Santhanam sir going to do after three weeks? In both scenarios, whether govt does something or not, he must have planned some course of action.


He perhaps more info that he can divulge?

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

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

Postby Sanjay » 28 Sep 2009 05:43

All three of us submitted peer reviewed work which has been vetted.
All three of us have made many mistakes.
All three of us continue to have a network of sources from whom we derive information.

Chellaney does score over me as I have never been accused of sedition - I am glad he was cleared.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 28 Sep 2009 05:50

Babu Bihari wrote:i agree with this. note that how the debate has changed from "yield of TN" to "whether we need a TN?"


Nooooo! :(( :(( You have to be fair to me Babu Bihariji - I started saying why not only fission bombs right at the beginning of the fizzle debate so the debate has not changed. What I actually think is another matter - but the debate has not changed at all. Only my posts have been missed

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11202
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 28 Sep 2009 06:16

This is a Mirage 2000 with a centerline pod. Now although this is likely the fuel pod, but a 20 Kt gravity bomb will essentially look the same, perhaps a lot shorter.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/at ... 1223801241

Babu Bihari
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 05 Sep 2009 00:33

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

Postby Babu Bihari » 28 Sep 2009 06:19

negi wrote:how the debate has changed from "yield of TN" to "whether we need a TN?"
Couple of things.

This is being discussed in a separate thread, secondly BARC has clearly released a public statement about capability to design a 200Kt TN device so there is no question of any debate here. Having said that in case folks amongst us on BRF are interested in discussing a deterrence doctrine with or without TN then it is a different matter.



negi- first, all these years, we were (at least i was) under the impression that we have TN as part of our weaponry, we considered it as an instrument of deterrence, of playing mind games with the enemy, of inflicting "unacceptable damage" to the enemy. this is very different from the "capability" to design a 200kt TN. second, yes there should be a debate on deterrence and this is good. but the point is, before KS' claims, TN was a part of deterrence but now it is being debated, whether we need it as a part of our deterrence. i may be wrong, but i for one, see this change as a soft way of saying - no more testing please.

Babu Bihari
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 05 Sep 2009 00:33

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

Postby Babu Bihari » 28 Sep 2009 06:24

shiv wrote:
Babu Bihari wrote:i agree with this. note that how the debate has changed from "yield of TN" to "whether we need a TN?"


Nooooo! :(( :(( You have to be fair to me Babu Bihariji - I started saying why not only fission bombs right at the beginning of the fizzle debate so the debate has not changed. What I actually think is another matter - but the debate has not changed at all. Only my posts have been missed



ok shivji, i may have missed your posts. did you also say before the fizzle news, why not only fission bombs?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 28 Sep 2009 07:02

Babu Bihari wrote:ok shivji, i may have missed your posts. did you also say before the fizzle news, why not only fission bombs?


No but let me be honest. I am the sort of person who does not believe anything until I find corroborative evidence. I will not believe something just because I like the idea and makes me feel secure. I am too much of a pessimist for that.

I have never mentally accepted the idea that India has 150 kt or even 100 kt nukes because it is clear (from my reading) that you can build one but unless you test a few they might not work reliably. Besides there was never any public reference to India's arsenal other than fission bombs. The only decision I had to reach in my mind was whether the people who are in charge of these things live in la la land or not. My general reading also tells me that fission bombs are relatively easy to "get it right" reliably. (Sub systems can also be tested fully without a nuclear explosion)

So putting these points together

1) It is possible to get fission bombs right consistently
2) India has fission bombs
3) India has never tested any 150-200 kt TN
4) The planners who need to use bombs do not live in la la land

Based on this I mentally envisaged the manner in which deterrence maybe possible assuming that all those juicy centi-tons were unavailable. That is why I have so many ready made arguments to support the contention that deterrence is feasible with fission bombs only.

That does not mean that I do not favor the development of TN bombs. But if you look at this idea honestly without wasting bandwidth on calling someone or the other a liar you find two facts staring at you in the face

1) India can theoretically make TN bombs in the absence of proof that they will work - using stolen data, borrowed data, simulation data or even lies. The idea that India has such bombs may make some people happy but they cannot be guaranteed to work. It is better not to have such "aase" - I use a Kannada words that means "desire" but the inner meaning comes to my mind more easily by using the Kannada word.

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

These conclusions are easy to reach if you do not waste time imagining things that have not been released into the public space by reliable official sources. I personally am surprised at the number of people who seem "disappointed and angry" that India's deterrence is with fission only. That means those angry and disappointed people have believed that 150 kt or bigger weapons exist. Who gave them that idea? Who encouraged those ideas? No Indian source has ever claimed the existence of such weapons. Sadly BR itself, via the missile pages has served as a source for so many people who have been led up the garden path to believe that 150 kt or bigger weapons exist and it could alleged that BR itself was led up the garden path by the lies of some people. Chidambaram himself has never claimed that India has 150 kt nukes. No official source has done that.

On what basis are people "disappointed and angry" about the indian fizzile arsenal? Naturally the need to "get real" and "smell he coffee" will make people upset. But they would not have been upset if they had been cynics in the first place.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

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

Postby negi » 28 Sep 2009 07:08

Babu Bihari wrote:negi- first, all these years, we were (at least i was) under the impression that we have TN as part of our weaponry
we considered it as an instrument of deterrence, of playing mind games with the enemy, of inflicting "unacceptable damage" to the enemy. this is very different from the "capability" to design a 200kt TN. second, yes there should be a debate on deterrence and this is good. but the point is, before KS' claims, TN was a part of deterrence but now it is being debated, whether we need it as a part of our deterrence. i may be wrong, but i for one, see this change as a soft way of saying - no more testing please.

BabuBihari ji

I believe when it comes to India's nukes we have very little in fact no information on the deployed 'weapons' (apart from an official endorsement of the fact that S-2 was an improved weaponisable POK-I type device) , usually it is a given that if a country has conducted nuclear tests of a certain kind it has the ability to deploy such weapons and we leave it at that (again assuming these were not already built devices/weapons procured from nuke market) ,unless of course there is more de-classified info to be taken into consideration.

Now we need not bother about the actual TN 'WEAPON' itself for there will not be a PDF document illustrating the weapon specs which is the case as far as conventional weapons are concerned ,what is important is the ability to design a working TN device, the actual weaponisation and deployment are political in nature.

All in all the debate on actual YIELD of the S-1 not withstanding there was no official statement from GOI about deployment of 200Kt class nukes the latter merely stated that the capability exists.And as long as India does not ratify the CTBT the deterrence based on TN weapons still holds ground (that if testing a 200Kt TN is indeed a pre requisite as far as MCD is concerned ).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16508
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 07:14

Shivji,

Have you come across the possibility that India does not have a missile to host a 100+ Kt TN by any chance? I do not think there is missile to host a TN.

Also, MIRV seem to be an issue. ?????? None in sight so far. India has RV (and excellent ones at that it seems), but not more than that. So, for the time being it is one-on-one. (This actually deflated my deterrence stand quite a bit. For some odd reason I had this in my head that India had a MIRV and actually it was a very good RV. That said they have to go to a MIRV, then a MRV. Fun times. Hope there are enough funds out there for this all. I seriously think the best route for India is to get verifyable everything and if she cannot get that then test a TN - to force the issue.)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53976
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 28 Sep 2009 07:15

Babu Bihari wrote:
Satya_anveshi wrote:at this rate....we should also go thru..."why does India need nuclear bums anyway?"

It is safest to assume that if a nation can be deterred to avoid testing lest sanctions can be applied or just log kya kahenge after we see total destruction, then that nation cannot hope to retaliate using nukes.

For example: If Pak nukes India, then a case can/will be made saying how can India stoop to the level of Pak and kill hundreds of thousands of people. Lets bring international pressure, let's try to bring the same damage by other means and yet not be called the users of nuke power on a smaller nation with less military power than India.

It is all downhill only.


i agree with this. note that how the debate has changed from "yield of TN" to "whether we need a TN?" downhill skiing all the way. i will go further to say that even if our fission bum fizzled with 5-10kt yield, claims would have been made that its sufficient to deter PRC. mirv them, deploy in large numbers and so on.....ramana rightly said - deterrence ke liye kutch bhi chalega

ajay shukla in BS-
not any new info, but some background of KS
'Figures will not lie'


I dont know who you are but if you are true to your name (namo namah!) you have spoken bilkul satya vachan. There is something in dehati that they see the truth which the urabanised elite can't in their pretzelised logic. the most upsetting thing is India/Bharat had to suffer a lot in the hope that these great ones will deliver which they obviously state is in the future. every paisa allocated to them in the hope that they will project a strong India was a paisa which was not allocated for the dehati who are the salt of the earth of Mother India.

Sub dhoka kiya! and worse there are supporters who claim all those genii did this forsaking greener pastures.
Nothing is more scurrilous!

NRao, The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Lets not claim MIRV before its time.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16508
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 07:19

There is no MIRV to claim anything.

I can fudge at best. But who will believe me?

But, even more seriously, there seems to be no missile to carry a good 200 Kt TN even IF India had one.

The reason I bring it up is that MAY explain why it is only at the "capable" stage.

??????

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

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

Postby negi » 28 Sep 2009 07:23

The proof of the pudding is in the eating
Ramana garu

I am afraid if we can apply this logic universally because if this is indeed the case then even POK-I or S-2 cannot be qualified as battle ready for they were never tested under the conditions which an actual air drop or missile deliverable payload undergoes.And I don't see India doing it in future as we have signed the LTBT.

Having said that long time back when I was a newbie to BRF and at prime of my EB phase I had speculated about the actual weapon components being subjected to such conditions in controlled lab conditions before the actual testing but does that address the Jingo sentiments ? :mrgreen:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16508
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 07:31

Last edited by NRao on 28 Sep 2009 07:40, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby John Snow » 28 Sep 2009 07:36

I am totally in agreement with Surgeon Generals warning that we need to be worried about pregnant women and unborn children.
This fusion vision is all gol gappas. Just get back to panch sheel which is the cheapest umbrella and nobody can touch us. Let uncle and PRC fight over us.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

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

Postby negi » 28 Sep 2009 07:37

<pushes the pagal scientist button on the arm rest>

Coming to the MIRV issue well it is obviously linked with the size of our nukes and the payload of the missile itself; but from a layman's pov it should not be a big deal for a country that has capability to design complex systems like the payload and the delivery vehicle itself, right ?

And if one would observe the relevant technology areas in Indian context one would realize that MIRV as a concept is already proven (not being specific else dual use dhakkans and NPAs will latch on to it ).

</back to internet warrior mode>
:P

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 28 Sep 2009 07:44

NRao wrote:Have you come across the possibility that India does not have a missile to host a 100+ Kt TN by any chance? I do not think there is missile to host a TN.


NRao - I have not allowed my mind to wander that far and Sanjay's note seems to fit in with my guesswork.

I see the issue of a thermonuclear bomb as follows based on Wiki level knowledge (I am sure you have read all this - it shows in your posts)

In a three stage TN bomb (This terminology is ambiguous - but I will call it 3 stage) - there is a fission (or boosted fission primary) sitting next to a secondary of Tritium (or rather Lithium Deuteride that generates the Tritium). I am not even talking about the third stage.

That secondary must first be compressed, and then heated. The compression must come first, the heating microseconds later. Public sources say that this is tricky business and may require a degree of trial and error. Even if you get it right first time it does not mean your design is perfect. It is the result of this process that has been debated on here with much emotion and acrimony.

Based on this information it seems likely that for near 100% reliability a thermonuclear warhead will require real hot tests perhaps 3-4 times at least. It is obvious that you cannot test a TN device unless you build one first. So stating that you have the capacity to build one does not mean that you have a successful bomb design ready. But you may have devices ready to be tested.

The only question to my mind is whether they will get tested in Pokhran or over Beijing. I would prefer former over latter.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

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

Postby Arun_S » 28 Sep 2009 07:58

Arun_S wrote:
shiv wrote:Calculations by experts on here show that 17 kt was the yield of S1 -claim by Arun_S[/list]


Please substantiate when and where did I claimed that, for you to attribute the above falsity to me?


shiv wrote:Arun, this is the post I am talking about dated 21st September

viewtopic.php?p=741676#p741676

Arun_S wrote:The 17 kT primary of S1 is the only successful test by India. And that was designed for a yield required for TN. At best it can be extrapolated few times over to ~50 kT, but need confirmatory test. To get to 150kT OTOH requires different design features, and being a new design will require few proof shots.



The next day, on the 22nd of September you added a clarification

viewtopic.php?p=742305#p742305
Arun_S wrote:
In reality the S1 TN also had a fissionable/fissile tamper thus technically a 3 stage bomb where most of the yield comes from third stage (just like all TN bombs deployed worldwide).

What is being said thus is that the multi-stage TN device that S1 was, only gave 25 +/-2 kT total yield (if you are interested in details only 2-3 kT came from Fusion (the Hydrogen bomb part), 17 kT came from the primary/Trigger stage (from fission) , and the rest from fissile spark plug and minute amount from 3rd stage that had no chance to work since the second stage (Fusion stage) failed.


In the above you have not provided/shown any quote where I said yield of S1 was 17 kT. Pls answer to that or remove the false attribution to me, with apology.

Thank you.

It is clear you understand that yield of S1 is different from yield of primary stage of S1.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7242
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 28 Sep 2009 09:04

shiv wrote:On what basis are people "disappointed and angry" about the indian fizzile arsenal? Naturally the need to "get real" and "smell he coffee" will make people upset. But they would not have been upset if they had been cynics in the first place.


How about a agony aunt for fusion for the jingoes. Maybe that will cheer them up!!

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7242
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 28 Sep 2009 09:09

ramana wrote:The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Lets not claim MIRV before its time.


A quick question, what is the difference between injecting multiple satellites in appropriate orbital slots and a trajectory that does not intersect with the curvature of earth and injecting multiple satellites in appropriate orbital slots and a trajectory that does intersect with the curvature of earth at a known point?

Does the equations for the above change or just the data that goes into the equation? Why is India making a song & dance of injecting 9 record breaking satellites in space or injecting 7 satellites within 1200 seconds in space?

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7242
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 28 Sep 2009 09:10

negi wrote:<pushes the pagal scientist button on the arm rest>

Coming to the MIRV issue well it is obviously linked with the size of our nukes and the payload of the missile itself; but from a layman's pov it should not be a big deal for a country that has capability to design complex systems like the payload and the delivery vehicle itself, right ?


Right. The rest is all simulation.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 28 Sep 2009 09:11

Arun_S wrote:In the above you have not provided/shown any quote where I said yield of S1 was 17 kT. Pls answer to that or remove the false attribution to me, with apology.


Please clarify that you are not cooking up figures by quoting sources for your 17 kt primary only figure. You are the first person that I know of who is giving that particular figure.

Please also say on what basis you state that the 17kt primary of S1 was the only successful test by India. This is a misleading statement that is clearly false given that S2 was declared successful.

I quote your statement yet again
viewtopic.php?p=741676#p741676

Arun_S wrote:The 17 kT primary of S1 is the only successful test by India. And that was designed for a yield required for TN. At best it can be extrapolated few times over to ~50 kT, but need confirmatory test. To get to 150kT OTOH requires different design features, and being a new design will require few proof shots.


As a person who posts on BRF with the label "Webmaster" by your name you need to hold yourself up to high standards - not only in the information you post here but in the informaton that you have posted on your missiles site where you speak of 150 and higher kiloton weapons and MIRVs with no attribution. Please explain to all readers where you got that information from clearly and credibly.

If you are not able to do this i suggest you resign from your post as Webmaster for misleading people for so long.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21111
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 28 Sep 2009 09:23

Look like no one can figure out the Sir,Paar, Laata, Banwa ( head,feedt,legs and arms) of our deterence capability or policy . Hope this is deterence enough for our enemy . Going by the unyielding debate here ,One thing for sure , enemies will never engage in argument war with indians. I just want to know that HAS this current tussle between scientists, GOi, Rakshaks, Bhakshaks etc added strength to India's defence or contributed toward weakining it in strategic sphere? If no positive goona come out then might as well close the chapter and move on.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

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

Postby Arun_S » 28 Sep 2009 09:29

shiv wrote:
Arun_S wrote:In the above you have not provided/shown any quote where I said yield of S1 was 17 kT. Pls answer to that or remove the false attribution to me, with apology.


Please clarify that you are not cooking up figures by quoting sources for your 17 kt primary only figure. You are the first person that I know of who is giving that particular figure.

Please also say on what basis you state that the 17kt primary of S1 was the only successful test by India. This is a misleading statement that is clearly false given that S2 was declared successful.

I quote your statement yet again
viewtopic.php?p=741676#p741676

Arun_S wrote:The 17 kT primary of S1 is the only successful test by India. And that was designed for a yield required for TN. At best it can be extrapolated few times over to ~50 kT, but need confirmatory test. To get to 150kT OTOH requires different design features, and being a new design will require few proof shots.


As a person who posts on BRF with the label "Webmaster" by your name you need to hold yourself up to high standards - not only in the information you post here but in the informaton that you have posted on your missiles site where you speak of 150 and higher kiloton weapons and MIRVs with no attribution. Please explain to all readers where you got that information from clearly and credibly.

If you are not able to do this i suggest you resign from your post as Webmaster for misleading people for so long.

Seems like you are finding it hard to understand simple English, the issue is you on this FORUM are falsely attributing to me a statement I have not made. Either show "where I have said it" or BACK OFF. !!

I restate again:
    In the above you have not provided/shown any quote where I said yield of S1 was 17 kT. Pls answer to that or remove the false attribution to me, with apology.

    Thank you.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 28 Sep 2009 09:36

On the issue of accusations here is an archived statement by Arun_S, Webmaster BR from 27th Feb 2008 in response to a statement by another forum member

viewtopic.php?p=460924#p460924

Arun_S wrote:
Austin wrote: I believe RC is still OSD at PMO looking at Weponisation of Indian Nuclear deterence.
Isn't it a sad commentary on Indian strategic setup? The unrepentant arrogant liar is in OSD of PMO, when his butt should have been whipped one leather shoe for each Indian citizen he repeatedly lied, and compromised their security and wellbeing of their future generations!


I hope Arun will be able to clarify the meaning of this statement so that he can clear his name completely. As far as I can tell from the post this is an accusation of lies being made against an "RC"

Could I ask Arun to say who this "unrepentant and arrogant liar" "RC" is supposed to be?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 28 Sep 2009 09:42

Arun_S wrote:Seems like you are finding it hard to understand simple English, the issue is you on this FORUM are falsely attributing to me a statement I have not made. Either show "where I have said it" or BACK OFF. !!



You are trying to wriggle out by denying what you wrote and saying that I can't understand what you said sir. But my understanding is that you have made a statement that is patently untrue as far as my understanding goes.

Please state clearly

1) How you arrived at a value of 17kt Primary for S1
2) How did you say that the S1 primary was the only successful test by India
3) The sources from which you obtained figures of 150 and higher kiloton warheads for India missiles on your missiles page

And while you are at it, let me remind you to state your source that the S1 test had a fissionable tamper.

Arun you have to show that you are not bluffing. By accusing me your statements are not going to get cover up. You have a chance to prove them

Please resign from your post as Webmaster and apologise.

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

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

Postby samuel » 28 Sep 2009 10:00

Here are what I remember of the main claims:

Arun_S wrote:
So the data that is added from above is:

1. the TN device had a yield of 20-25 kilotons and not 45 kilotons (I.e. same yield as the S2 Pure Fission warhead)
2. The primary FBF trigger of the TN worked as desired
3. The S1 Secondary fusion that completely failed to ignite should have produced 25 kT Fusion yield (design yield).
4. The failed thermonuclear device “totally incapable of weaponisation,”


And for the sake of completeness :

5. S2 pure fission yield was also 20-25 kT.


(which may be found in shiv's message quote above...).
So, S2 worked, S1 failed. S1-fbf worked. S1-secondary failed. TN not capable of weaponization.

Do we still believe S1 worked as advertised? That is, the TN test was successful?

jmt
S

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 28 Sep 2009 10:15

No S-1 did not worked as advertised ( which means TN failed ) or atleast that is what the current controversy is about.

There is a belief that the first stage ( FBF ) of S1 worked as desired , but for a system which was designed to work as TN , I am not certain if first stage of S-1 working as desired has any military significance. ( from a scientific POV it has significance )

But S-2 worked like a song , so we have atleast a pure fission with 100 % reliability from military/deterrence POV.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

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

Postby negi » 28 Sep 2009 10:36

Ok for time being let us buy into this 'fizzle' theory i.e. S-1 indeed did not achieve the desired YIELD .

Now my next question is what is the 'ostensible' MOTIVE for the TEST team to make FALSE claims ?

Remember we are talking about a group of elderly men (usually rest of the public retires by this time) who might have worked on Op Shakti for at least 10-20 years ,only to taste the fruit of their labor on the day of TESTS .

Also it is high time we realize that KS himself talks about a difference in the measured yield across BARC and DRDO (he never said that BARC's readings are WRONG) ; i.e. he believes whatever readings were registered by DRDO sensors was in fact the 'accurate' measured YIELD.

My question is even in above case for laymen like us how is it possible to take sides (assuming we don't let personal prejudices over come our judgment) ? .And I am not even talking about the post shot radio chem analysis or other forms of YIELD estimation which folks from BARC might have carried out after the tests .

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 28 Sep 2009 11:12

Regarding the hotly contested failure of S1 - there is a BRM paper here which I presume some people have read

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... rajan.html

Conclusions
Dr.Iyengar's starting point in his article is the BARC-reported fusion yield of 20kT (or 30kT). He does not - as has been suggested by some - claim that the fusion yield was any less than this.Complete burn of the fusion fuel or 100% efficiency is an ideal scenario likely never approached in real designs. It is not known if the design efficiency for fusion in S-1 was 10% or 20% or 50%. However, if the actual device yield was roughly equal to the design yield (at whatever efficiency), it follows that the device worked as planned. It would be completely incorrect to provocatively assert that the "thermonuclear explosion…was a fizzle" [3].

As Dr.Iyengar goes on to write, if a higher design efficiency is desired – either purely in terms of the yield or in terms of the size of the device/weapon - further testing would be unavoidable. His article also details other technical reasons for not signing the CTBT anytime soon. Coming from such an eminent source, one trusts that they are reaching the eyes and ears of the decision-makers.

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

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

Postby csharma » 28 Sep 2009 11:41

FWIW. So apparently anything above 50KT is considered high yield.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d63f3a70-ab90 ... ck_check=1

They said India had built weapons with yields of up to 200 kilotons, which would be considered a “proper strategic deterrent” by the global community. A nuclear weapon above 50 kilotons is considered high yield. India’s enhanced capability gives it a considerable edge over Pakistan, its nuclear-armed arch-rival.


Did RC and AK say that they have "built" weapons of yields upto 200KT in the press conference?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 28 Sep 2009 11:54

csharma wrote:FWIW. So apparently anything above 50KT is considered high yield.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d63f3a70-ab90 ... ck_check=1

They said India had built weapons with yields of up to 200 kilotons, which would be considered a “proper strategic deterrent” by the global community. A nuclear weapon above 50 kilotons is considered high yield. India’s enhanced capability gives it a considerable edge over Pakistan, its nuclear-armed arch-rival.


Did RC and AK say that they have "built" weapons of yields upto 200KT in the press conference?

sharmaji this is the first news item I have ever read that says India "has built" as opposed to "can build"

I would take that with a pinch of salt until we find out who these "New Delhi's senior Atomic officials" are - whom the news clams to quote.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1145
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

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

Postby dinesha » 28 Sep 2009 11:57

What if?
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... if/371406/

When specialists quarrel, laymen are often left clueless as to who is talking sense. In the belated controversy about whether India’s testing of a fusion (hydrogen) bomb in 1998 was a success or failure, one former nuclear expert from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is ranged against virtually the entire atomic energy establishment. If one applies common sense, though, it would seem that K Santhanam of the DRDO has scored the goals so far. He has asserted that a failure report on the fusion bomb was filed in 1998 itself, within months of the test being conducted—a fact that can easily be verified. He has argued that the usual peer review by independent experts has not been done, to verify the claims of those in office who conducted the test—again something that can be verified. He has given some graphic details of the test result (no big crater at the test site, for instance—for which photographic evidence must exist), and defended the testing measurements that he oversaw. He has questioned the technical knowledge base of his critics (an easy goal to score, since neither APJ Abdul Kalam nor MK Narayanan is a nuclear scientist). And, of course, he has the weight of international scientific opinion on his side.

While no final judgment can be made on the subject so long as the atomic energy establishment continues to swear by what it has been saying for 11 years, the question must be asked: what if Mr Santhanam is right? He argues, for instance, that pressure is going to mount on India all over again to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and that India therefore has a narrow window of opportunity to test a fusion bomb once more so that weaponisation can proceed with full confidence in the designs and equipment being used. He also asserts that true nuclear deterrence does not exist without a hydrogen bomb positioned at the top of a long-range missile like the Agni.

These are questionable positions. The advantages of repeat testing must be weighed against the costs that will be incurred through such an action. As for the gains from fresh testing, they are only a question of degree. After all, no one believes that Pakistan has not acquired nuclear deterrence because it does not possess a hydrogen bomb. The Agni is a massive threat, even with only a fission (atomic) bomb as its warhead. Yes, pressure can and probably will be brought on India to sign the CTBT, but surely the country is strong enough to withstand such pressure. In any case, if it all gets to be too much and the world does not leave India to decide its own defence priorities, that is when the country should test the fusion bomb again as a suitable brush-off, but not until then.

.A balanced assessment.... IMHO

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

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

Postby csharma » 28 Sep 2009 12:04

I agree. The statement mentioned capability to build 200KT weapon.

Following is from the FT story.

By James Lamont in New Delhi and James Blitz in London

Published: September 27 2009 22:30 | Last updated: September 27 2009 22:30

India can now build nuclear weapons with the same destructive power as those in the arsenals of the world’s major nuclear powers, according to New Delhi’s senior atomic officials.
This we understand.

They said India had built weapons with yields of up to 200 kilotons, which would be considered a “proper strategic deterrent” by the global community. A nuclear weapon above 50 kilotons is considered high yield. India’s enhanced capability gives it a considerable edge over Pakistan, its nuclear-armed arch-rival.


This part is probably a little careless reporting. They have not read the BR discussion to know the big difference between "capability" and "built" and "in service" and "reliable" and "deterrence" etc.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

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

Postby Arun_S » 28 Sep 2009 12:42

shiv wrote:
Arun_S wrote:In the above you have not provided/shown any quote where I said yield of S1 was 17 kT. Pls answer to that or remove the false attribution to me, with apology.


Please clarify that you are not cooking up figures by quoting sources for your 17 kt primary only figure. You are the first person that I know of who is giving that particular figure.

Please also say on what basis you state that the 17kt primary of S1 was the only successful test by India. This is a misleading statement that is clearly false given that S2 was declared successful.

I quote your statement yet again
viewtopic.php?p=741676#p741676

Arun_S wrote:The 17 kT primary of S1 is the only successful test by India. And that was designed for a yield required for TN. At best it can be extrapolated few times over to ~50 kT, but need confirmatory test. To get to 150kT OTOH requires different design features, and being a new design will require few proof shots.


As a person who posts on BRF with the label "Webmaster" by your name you need to hold yourself up to high standards - not only in the information you post here but in the information that you have posted on your missiles site where you speak of 150 and higher kiloton weapons and MIRVs with no attribution. Please explain to all readers where you got that information from clearly and credibly.

If you are not able to do this i suggest you resign from your post as Webmaster for misleading people for so long.

Arun_S wrote:Seems like you are finding it hard to understand simple English, the issue is you on this FORUM are falsely attributing to me a statement I have not made. Either show "where I have said it" or BACK OFF. !!

I restate again:
    In the above you have not provided/shown any quote where I said yield of S1 was 17 kT. Pls answer to that or remove the false attribution to me, with apology.

    Thank you.


Shiv falsely attributes to me statement that I have not made.:

1.
"Calculations by experts on here show that 17 kt was the yield of S1 -claim by Arun_S",

He goes on to ask, "How did you say that the S1 primary was the only successful test by India".

Response: That was in the TN/FBF context (as the trend of the original topic of discussion in which the post was made will confirm).
About S1 primary, S1 and S2 pls see my summary below from Page24 of this thread. It clearly indicates S1 primary and S2 worked.

Code: Select all

Test           Claimed           Actual              Notes

S1 (TN)        43 - 45 kt      27-30        FBF Primary fission = 17,   Fusion 2-3 kt, rest from plug and tertiary
S2             12 - 15 kt      20-25         Pure Fission. Weaponized version of 1974 Pok-I
S3             0.2 kt          As Stated 
S4             0.5 kt          As Stated
S5             0.3 kt          As Stated

May-11 Event    55 kT          47 kT       BARC transferred S2 yield to S1 to make believe fusion. Strong  (Pressure wave) seismic diffraction along azimuth. Minimum will show along axis formed by the two shafts, as ~20 Kt


The figure of 17 KT comes from 15 KT+/-10%~17 KT (max). The figure 15 KT comes from FBF (S1 primary) yield that approximately reproduces BARC claimed yield of 15 KT from pure fission device (S2).

2.
The sources from which you obtained figures of 150 and higher kiloton warheads for India missiles on your missiles page


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

3. About tamper, I have this from three different sources which cannot be disclosed (I am also in process of writing a book).

Now, Shiv WILL APOLOGIZE and withdraw his statements and start practicing truthfulness himself. He does not seem to practice what he preaches.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

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

Postby Arun_S » 28 Sep 2009 13:04

Using 20 kt pure fission bums of R Chidambraram: India felt it would win nuclear war with Pakistan - DNA

Monday, September 28, 2009 2:14 IST
New York: In the event of a nuclear war with Pakistan, Indian leaders had predicted a bizarre victory, according to former US president Bill Clinton. Indian officials had calculated that while 300 million to 500 million of their countrymen would die if Pakistani nukes hit India, all 120 million Pakistanis would be annihilated in a tit-for-tat Indian strike, Clinton is quoted as saying in a book.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian Taylor Branch's new book, The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President, which goes on sale this week, has an unguarded Clinton venting about Indian and Pakistani leaders' so-called willingness to threaten the death of millions in their standoff over nuclear arms.

"Indian officials spoke of knowing roughly how many nuclear bombs the Pakistanis possessed, from which they calculated that a doomsday nuclear volley would kill 300 [million] to 500 million Indians while annihilating all 120 million Pakistanis. The Indians would thus claim 'victory'," Branch has quoted Clinton as saying.

New Delhi is likely to be furious with the observation, which portrays it as a government willing to play fast and loose with its citizens lives to notch up a bizarre win against Pakistan.

Clinton had slapped sanctions on India and Pakistan over the tit-for-tat nuclear tests in 1998. His successor George Bush lifted those sanctions after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks as a reward, particularly for Pakistan, for offering to support Washington's pursuit of Osama bin Laden.

Branch's 700-page book is the result of his access to Clinton, in 79 sessions, during the two terms of his presidency from 1993 to 2001.

In an interview with USA Today, Branch said Clinton, who had read the manuscript, expressed concern about some details in the book. Branch said he believed Clinton "was nervous" about the book's publication but had not asked for changes.

The Internet is abuzz with a smashed Boris Yeltsin anecdote in the book. Clinton recalled getting a security alert in 1995 that the secret service had found a whisky-tanked Yeltsin, in his underwear, teetering outside Blair House on Pennsylvania Avenue and trying to hail a taxi.

A longtime-friend, Branch quizzes Clinton on his political passions, his marriage and picks at the scabs of the Monica Lewinsky affair. One night in August 1999, six months after Clinton had survived the Senate impeachment trial, Clinton told Branch the Lewinsky affair began because "I cracked; I just cracked."


It is a slap in the face to worthies who have been arguing of "nukes are horrible thus will never be fought", thus don't have to worry about economic cost of 20 kt based nuclear deterrence. And that onle few 20 kt on few enemy cities will deter.

Also check how many bombs Pakistan will need to inflict 300- 500 million casulties on India versus Indian warheads required to CRE 120 million pakistanis.? How you also factored in warheads required to hold back chinese while India CRE's tellibunnies?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 28 Sep 2009 13:04

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

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 28 Sep 2009 13:29

Arun the statements I have quoted clearly do not carry the long explanation that you have made in retrospect after I asked you. So you have accepted that your post was misleading and that you needed to make an explanation. Please edit your original statement and apologise for misleading people, including me accepting your error. Add your detailed explanation before your apology.

And your sources about 150 kt are not mentioned as a footnote in your missile site as honesty would require and that excuse made in retrospect after I asked you is not good enough. Please edit you missile page, add the attributes and apologise to me for making a false accusation when you have made the error of omission.

And please indicate where Chidambaram or Kakodkar have said that 200 kt warheads have been built. Your link does not say that. Are you trying to bluff again sir?

You need to give up your title as Webmaster for this shameful state of affairs. And apologise in public for making misleading statements which you are attempting to correct in retrospect only after I pointed out that you have been misleading people. I love your chutzpah You do the misleading and you are asking me to apologise for pointing that out. That is funny sir. You need to correct yourself sir, before you ask others to correct themselves.

It is my opinion that the title of Webmaster that you wear is an insult to Bharat Rakshak. Shame on you sir.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1145
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

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

Postby dinesha » 28 Sep 2009 14:09

If the boosted primary of S1 worked flawlessly then why do AEC/DRDO/SFC lacks confidence and proof-testing? Boosted is a boosted irrespective of being part of primary or standalone pure FBF bomb. I have been trying to get this clarifications from BR laurels, but to no YIELD.

SBM Sir
you ware checking on 2-axis radiographic hydrodynamic facility? If yes, how long has it been operational.

BTW: Veterans should stop this catfight(s)...only leads to shift in focus and degradation..
Last edited by dinesha on 28 Sep 2009 15:44, edited 1 time in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

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

Postby Austin » 28 Sep 2009 14:36

dinesha wrote:If the boosted primary of S1 worked flawlessly then why do AEC/DRDO/SFC lacks confidence and proof-testing? Boosted is a boosted irrespective of being part of primary or standalone pure FBF bomb. I have been trying to get this clarifications from BR laurels, but to no YIELD.


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.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests