Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 28 Sep 2009 17:17

Sanjay will do....

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 17:21

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


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

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


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.


It is a combination of accuracy and yield.

Long back the missiles were relatively inaccurate, so they needed larger yield (to cause the computed pain).

Today the missiles are not just accurate, but have the ability evade defenses too, so a smaller yield will deliver the same pain as a larger yield + inaccurate missiles did some 3 decades ago.

The current Pakistani effort to build more nukes is based on Indian efforts to build a ABM system. And, you can expect India to build something better. The cycle continues.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 17:25

dipak,

Deterrence is about acceptable and unacceptable pain.

That is a very simplified statement, but should suffice for this discussion.

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 17:32

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


I do not see the name Chidambaram in that news item

Could you explain clearly why you choose to associate Mr Chidambaram's name with that news item? Exactly what is the message you are trying to get across by using this news item to speak of the "20 kt pure fission bums of R Chidambraram". Kindly recall sir that your words represent the words of a Webmaster of Bharat Rakshak - and if you have done this in jest there is no smiley to indicate that.

And sir, you further state:

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.


May I ask if you are referring to India in that post or some other country. If you are referring to India, I find the "20 kt based nuclear deterrent" coming from you difficult to believe considering that your page on missiles quotes large warheads of 150 kt and more. Surely one of your figures is an error. Your errors carry a long way sir because you bear a label of responsibility as Webmaster. I think you owe it to the people who use the site to be cautious about what you say. Someone might mistake one or the other figure to be a bluff.

Please clarify your view and state what you think is correct. Sir.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 17:38

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 ?


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

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 17:44

NRao 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 ?


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


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

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 28 Sep 2009 17:45

NRao wrote:..and unacceptable pain...

ours or theirs? it matters.. the size of weapon yield can change based on this.

for example population/nerve center/demographics/strategic assets... etc.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 17:48

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.


Not just that, I would highly recommend that ALL articles, specially on BR, related to nukes and missiles be either withdrawn or place some sort of a water-mark stating something like "Subject to change".

There are a few other web sites I would suggest the same.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 17:53

SaiK wrote:
NRao wrote:..and unacceptable pain...

ours or theirs? it matters.. the size of weapon yield can change based on this.

for example population/nerve center/demographics/strategic assets... etc.


well, it is funny that you ask JUST when Clinton squeals. IF what Clinton stated is true, then you have - right in front of your eyes, in print - what pain India is willing to accept - in EXCHANGE for wiping out TSP.

That ALSO puts into perspective some of the lesser happening - such as the Mumbai attack.

What does befuddle me is that IF India is truly willing to absorb that much pain, why does she not take the risk of say splitting TSP. Perhaps not to annoy Uncle, but still India should have plenty of other options.

BUT, from a deterrence PoV ..................... there you have it.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 17:57

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.


Given what Clinton has stated, what would be your current view? Starting with your assumptionS.

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 18:04

India's urban population is about 40% - i.e about 400 million and India has over 5000 cities and towns that house this urban population. Other than the US and Russia nobody else can even put one bomb per city.

Also if Hiroshima sized bomb caused 100,000 casualties, then even the lower figure of 300 million would need 3000 bombs. The estimate is suspect

Similar arguments can be made for the Pakistani figure - its too high. But hey when we are in the game of cooking up figures to suit our personal agendas - why not these guys? Bindaas..

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul Mehta » 28 Sep 2009 18:06

Dear All,

Pokharan-2 was dud

Experts lied.

Now what next do you propose?

=====

I propose parity with China i.e. conduct atmospheric test of 3700 kt. The atmospheric tests are difficult to fake and the data (air temperature at various points at various times from explosion point) is so that experts will NOT get a chance to lie.

Essentially, we need an "expert-proof" test now, and so 3700 kt ton is what we need.

===

What steps you all propose?

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 18:17

Shiv - has anyone read pages 215 and 216 in my book ?

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3272
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Postby Tanaji » 28 Sep 2009 18:19

Rahul Mehta wrote:Dear All,

Pokharan-2 was dud

Experts lied.

Now what next do you propose?


Any of these three should make it a success

  • Jury system
  • Replacing EVMs by paper ballot
  • Give 3 Rs. to talati for Yes/No

Mahendra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4407
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 17:20
Location: Chronicling Bakistan's Tryst with Dysentery

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

Postby Mahendra » 28 Sep 2009 18:21

Tanaji wrote:
Rahul Mehta wrote:Dear All,

Pokharan-2 was dud

Experts lied.

Now what next do you propose?


Any of these three should make it a success

  • Jury system
  • Replacing EVMs by paper ballot
  • Give 3 Rs. to talati for Yes/No

:rotfl:

AmitR
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 25 Jan 2009 17:13

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

Postby AmitR » 28 Sep 2009 18:23

Soon all the BR members will be wiped out by the Thermo-Unclear yield of POKII TN device.
Hope, ya all have insurance.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 18:24

There you go:

FT :: India announces capability to build high-yield nuclear arsenal

FT, Today, Front page:

Published: September 28 2009 03:00 | Last updated: September 28 2009 03:00

India now has the capability to build nuclear weapons with the same destructive power as those in the arsenals of the world's major nuclear powers, bolstering its strategic defence against potential aggressors within the region.

New Delhi's senior atomic officials said India had built weapons with yields of up to 200 kilotons, which they said 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.


Has the other shoe already fallen? Dunno. Wait and see.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 18:30

shiv wrote:India's urban population is about 40% - i.e about 400 million and India has over 5000 cities and towns that house this urban population. Other than the US and Russia nobody else can even put one bomb per city.

Also if Hiroshima sized bomb caused 100,000 casualties, then even the lower figure of 300 million would need 3000 bombs. The estimate is suspect

Similar arguments can be made for the Pakistani figure - its too high. But hey when we are in the game of cooking up figures to suit our personal agendas - why not these guys? Bindaas..


I think that was talk between politicians. They can say pretty much anything ----------- and have the scicom cover up for them.

I think it is the ratio and also how much India was willing to accept at a very high level. A means to tell the US that India means business. Of course, to the US, one nuke is one too many, so Clinton found that to be excessive and irrational.

Cultural differences.

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1303
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

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

Postby chanakyaa » 28 Sep 2009 18:44

NRao wrote:There you go:

FT :: India announces capability to build high-yield nuclear arsenal

FT, Today, Front page:

Published: September 28 2009 03:00 | Last updated: September 28 2009 03:00

India now has the capability to build nuclear weapons with the same destructive power as those in the arsenals of the world's major nuclear powers, bolstering its strategic defence against potential aggressors within the region.

New Delhi's senior atomic officials said India had built weapons with yields of up to 200 kilotons, which they said 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.


Has the other shoe already fallen? Dunno. Wait and see.


How did we end up on the first page? Am I the only one who thinks this "Nuclear thing/capability" should be a taboo subject and should not come out in open like some kind of John Wayne adventure? :-?

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul Mehta » 28 Sep 2009 19:05

Rahul Mehta: Dear All,

Pokharan-2 was dud Experts lied. Now what next do you propose? . I propose parity with China i.e. conduct atmospheric test of 3700 kt. The atmospheric tests are difficult to fake and the data (air temperature at various points at various times from explosion point) is so that experts will NOT get a chance to lie.


Tanaji:
Any of these three should make it a success

1. Jury system
2. Replacing EVMs by paper ballot
3. Give 3 Rs. to talati for Yes/No


Tanaji,

Why dont you start a separate thread to curse me? Because your cursing me in EVERY thread after every post I type is cluttering too many threads.

If you can suggest ways by which we can test our nuke capabilities, ways that leave minimal scope by which experts can lie and fudge results, I am positively interested. Otherwise, cursing me in every thread after every post I type is becoming too annoying.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3272
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Postby Tanaji » 28 Sep 2009 19:10

Rahul,

Have you not read the thread at all? You assert that the test failed. Others do not. Only conclusion one can draw so far is no one knows for sure. You are the only one making categorical statements one way or the other.

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 19:23

Sanjay wrote:Shiv - has anyone read pages 215 and 216 in my book ?


I just re read them.

Quotes from Rashid Naim and Gen Sunderji and their estimates of casualties after a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.

I suppose one only has to decide whether Gen Sunderji had a better grasp of strategic issues or an article in a paper purporting to quote someone or other.


Incidentally Sanjay I vaguely recall email exchanges with you sparking off my visiting someone and asking about civil defence. Don't recall getting much info at that time - but since then we have had many "Disaster management" drills in Bangalore. Not aimed specifically for nuke attack though although Bangalore sort of feels like its been nuked minus the casualties due to torrential rain, roadworks and the construction of the Metro.

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 19:29

NRao wrote:
I think it is the ratio and also how much India was willing to accept at a very high level. A means to tell the US that India means business. Of course, to the US, one nuke is one too many, so Clinton found that to be excessive and irrational.

Cultural differences.


Interesting perspective - but we really need to wait for the book because I suspect there may be some ddmitis in the numbers quoted.

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 19:32

The point is both of them put forward casualty estimates based on 20kT detonations that are frightening enough.
S. Rashid Naim is very, very good but then so is Sundarji.


As far as civil defence goes, the drills are important as they establish communications/ responses and coordination.

Much of the response in the event of a nuclear strike depends on whether the country is formally at war or not. Mobilization of CD assets takes time and there are many provisions that can be made.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 20:08

Interesting perspective - but we really need to wait for the book because I suspect there may be some ddmitis in the numbers quoted.


I do not think the numbers themselves have value (to us they will because we think differently).

Like you say better to wait for the book, but due to habit: What the Indian official either did not state or was not reported by Clinton is, IF Pakistan decides to start a nuclear war (remember Indian NFU), THEN we are willing to settle for these numbers. For one they are ball park figures, but more than that the rest of the world has to accept a nuked (non existent) Pakistan. I think one of the purposes of these numbers was to also tell the US to put more pressure on Pakistan to act in a certain way. Then there are other benefits - India can always argue that the Prez of the US was "informed".

__________________________________

Did you notice that topic has gone from 'yield' to 'capable' to what would be considered a "proper strategic deterrent". The last is a proper quote from a "senior atomic officials".

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 20:15

How did we end up on the first page? Am I the only one who thinks this "Nuclear thing/capability" should be a taboo subject and should not come out in open like some kind of John Wayne adventure?


the same issue of FT has three more nuclear related articles.

Why should the topic be a taboo?

Perhaps you are not aware that 60,000+/year people die in automobile related accidents in the US alone. There are some 250,000 incidents of automobile accidents per year in the US alone. This has been happening for some decades!!!!

driving should be ...........

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 20:26

Kanson wrote: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


Kanson , I have read it , it is true that the design of TN ( S1 ) is credited to Sikka , but once RC moved over to PMO , Sikka took over the Nuclear weponisation program from RC.

So he certainly took over the entire weaponisation program , not just TN .

Certainly it does not mention the device in question was a TN , it could be Fission or FBF , just because Sikka was told to change the dimension of a certain weapon . it does not mean the certain weapon in question was a TN.

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 20:30

No offence to Dr. Shiv (for he is so particular about citations.. ) :mrgreen:
But I do remember reading RC’s claims of capabilities of up-to 300KT TN weapon-days after test... later even capabilities of Neutron bombs were claimed... all of this were discussed here in BRF at that time..but of course I have no source to authenticate... other than those already posted here..(which seems to have no credibility anymore.. :twisted: )

..had 1000+ post at that time... and suddenly got that trainee tag... :(
Last edited by dinesha on 28 Sep 2009 21:05, edited 2 times in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 28 Sep 2009 20:37

Taboo not, but accidents and such unnatural deaths are a different cause/effect analysis and can't be related to this topic here.

I am amazed that we are questioning the needs. .during mahabarat days, they didn't question to obtain any type of astra or capability. they acquired it over the period of time, to be used at a time when it asks for to be used [nfu extension] - may be our culture as changed at large.

If the question is waiting for a yield proof, the GoI is not going to give it. If Santanizing the diminishing deterrance value is questioned, then we have to revert back to mahabarat culture.

If we grow, our enemies can too.. so lets put that in perspective and not one country specific.

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 20:39

Dinesha thats right , all these things were discussed in BRF , but that was 1998 and people have grown older now.

If Ramana remembers this , I had sent him a small hindu article from Vladimir Radyuhin , which mentioned that India was the first country in the world to conduct a controlled TN test.

Ramana do you ?

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 20:51

yes he called it "Dial a yeild" ( Dial Y for Yeild like Dial M for Murder)

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 20:52

For those who are still wondering if India should have a TN deterrent at all should add this to the list of considerations in favor of having a TN weapon.

The TN weapon is technologically challanging and the materials that go into building it are extremely expensive. In fact, it is suggested that the major limiting factor towards developing a TN is the materials needed to build it.
Specifically Li 6 - D is supposedly horribly expensive, further Li has to be enriched.

Now consider this, India has already invested two decades and several thousand crore rupees into developing the materials for this - might as well go ahead and develop and deploy them.

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 20:58

John Snow wrote:yes he called it "Dial a yeild" ( Dial Y for Yeild like Dial M for Murder)


Yes it is Dial a Yeald , that is what our TN is supposed to be ( 45 - 300 Kt )

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 28 Sep 2009 21:06

I think with the FT article, that is the end of or the answer to Santhanam's request for a blue-ribbon panel.

So, wait for three more weeks, for whatever has to happen then, when Santhanam is supposed to escalate(?).

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16879
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 28 Sep 2009 21:07

dinesha wrote:No offence to Dr. Shiv (for he is so particular about citations.. ) :mrgreen:
But I do remember reading RC’s claims of capabilities of up-to 300KT TN weapon-days after test... later even capabilities of Neutron bombs were claimed... all of this were discussed here in BRF at that time.......

I remember the neutron bomb claim too. didn't know of BRF at the time.

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 21:08

Check this out: A collection of archived news reports on the N tests, civilian N program and the ATV
India-Nuclear Chronology:1998
India-Nuclear Chronology:1999
India-Nuclear Chronology:2000
and so on.

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 21:11

dinesha wrote:No offence to Dr. Shiv (for he is so particular about citations.. ) :mrgreen:
But I do remember reading RC’s claims of capabilities of up-to 300KT TN weapon-days after test... later even capabilities of Neutron bombs were claimed... all of this were discussed here in BRF at that time..but of course I have no source to authenticate... other than those already posted here..(which seems to have no credibility anymore.. :twisted: )


By RC I persume you mean R. Chidambaram? Nothing wrong in recalling what he said and he may well have said that. But there appears to be a campaign to vilify that man on here.

I am particularly concerned about the attitude of Arun S. While webmaster Mr Arun_S is welcome to have his views about anyone what is of concern is the manner in which Mr Arun S has been attempting to support the idea that India's thermonuclear tests did not work even as he takes the stand in his own missiles section that large thermonuclear warheads exist in India's arsenal.

It appears to me that India's warheads cannot exceed 50 kilotons if Mr Chidambaram is associated with them, but they can exceed 150 kt in Webmaster Arun_S's missile page.

Is Webmaster Arun_S trying to disprove his own information, or is he hedging his bets and saying both success and failure so that he can claim credit no matter what transpires? Either way the information he is giving is contradictory which is shameful because as Webmaster he owes it to BR to achieve as much dispassionate neutrality and accuracy as possible. When Mr Arun S claims on the forum that the Thermonuclear test of 1998 failed and calls Mr RC a liar, he needs to explain how India's thermonuclear warheads of 150 and more kilotons are part of India's missile arsenal in a web page of his creation under the auspices of BR. He also needs to explain his sources because until today nobody had claimed in public sources that India has 150 or greater kiloton warheads.

And this situation has gone unquestioned on BR and BRF for years on end now and there have been complaints about it earlier. It is high time someone took a stand about the ambiguity and obfuscation being perpetrated by a Webmaster of BR by saying two diametrically opposite things about the state of India's arsenal with very little concern about attribution of sources or reason for the ambiguity.

Of course Webmaster Mr Arun_S he has made some libellous comments about a person called "RC" on the forum in at least one post - but that is a problem that Mr RC will have to handle. Some possible racist or casteist remarks that he made were edited out - but not before I saved a screen grab of the egregious statement.

Who is going to moderate the Webmaster? It is not possible for moderators to question themselves without rocking the boat too much. And if forum members sit back and watch we have the perpetuation of what I consider as a ridiculous situation caused by a person who is called Webmaster.

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 21:20

Everything under the sun was claimed and we beleived it. Age of innocense then now age of the incensed

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 21:25

Shiv ji has finally succeeded in Fusion attempts with his latest post!, All the while I was stressing we need for clear fission. :mrgreen:

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 21:31

Austin wrote:Dinesha thats right , all these things were discussed in BRF , but that was 1998 and people have grown older now.

If Ramana remembers this , I had sent him a small hindu article from Vladimir Radyuhin , which mentioned that India was the first country in the world to conduct a controlled TN test.

Ramana do you ?

Austin: Many years ago an SFC source mentioned the same Russian report on Indian DAY.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests