Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Sep 2009 22:12

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3365020.pdf

Here is the method for reducing seismic wave by sequential activation!.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 30 Sep 2009 22:16

Acharya wrote:
negi wrote:Idev are you serious ? If what you say is indeed true then I have to admit Acharya garu has been right on dot since the day one with his pov. Btw what ever happened to NoKo and IRAN.
Absurdity has no end.
Fear mongering seems to be new tactic to keep India from taking decisions.
Lot of people still think BR members are stupid.

The ego fights take even reasonable folks to lows. It is pity that just to prove that India need not/should not test again one has to do fear mongering and every alternative post should also contain that "5 out of 60 years rule of BJP" is sole reason for the problem. Otherwise there will be a lot of digestion and sleep problems (I guess?)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Sep 2009 22:22

NRAo, The minimum deterrent is not being questioned with respect to particular challengers. Its being questioned whether it is all azimuths and all challengers. This is an open question where diplomacy and state craft enter to ensure such threats dont materialize.

S-I test is dud is an ongoing process.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Sep 2009 22:30

there is this important political silence from bjp too.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Sep 2009 22:31

[quote="Muppalla"][quote="Acharya"][quote="negi"]Idev are you serious ? If what you say is indeed true then I have to admit Acharya garu has been right on dot since the day one with his pov. Btw what ever happened to NoKo and IRAN. ]
Absurdity has no end.
Fear mongering seems to be new tactic to keep India from taking decisions.
Lot of people still think BR members are stupid.[/

The ego fights take even reasonable folks to lows. It is pity that just to prove that India need not/should not test again one has to do fear mongering and every alternative post should also contain that "5 out of 60 years rule of BJP" is sole reason for the problem. Otherwise there will be a lot of digestion and sleep problems (I guess?) /quote]

Thanks Lord , Uncle cant put sanction on Oxygen otherwise no desi will be able to breath. In current geopoliticial enviorenment no one wants or have the capability to earn the ire of billion Indians. Chocking India will be suicidal for civilized world.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 30 Sep 2009 23:51

ldev wrote:Look, India never went far enough to test US sanctions on other fronts besides military and hitech which were already in place. One of the reasons for the unilateral test moratorium was to head off US sanctions in other areas such as banking/finance.

Come on. The Americans imposed sanctions immediately and insisted that Vajpayee sign the CTBT. The moratorium was meant to counter the demand to sign the CTBT, nothing more. The first move to dilute the 1998 sanctions were made by the US Congress in opposition to the Clinton Administration's policies. Which is to say that even the last time around the administration could not find support for maintaining wide ranging sanctions even from its own establishment let alone other countries.

Logically, things should be no tougher this time round. Further, many American legislators are poor these days and are trapped in a system that circumscribes their power. They will be open to help from their properous and unencumbered Indian counterparts. But then if the Americans were serious about influencing Indian government policies - without respecting any of their policies or treaties they signed up to - it would be cheaper for them to pull some green cards and naturalisation certificates of people with relatives in the government.

But, even if Dr. RC himself comes out and says that the TN was a dud, the decision to test would be political and would not be inevitable.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 01 Oct 2009 01:26

sorry, it does matter if RC has a changed view.. a lot more devaluation of detterance can be seen. paki's chinese weapon can look much bigger than the TN in discussion.

it matters what they say more than what it is (yield) for deterrance valuation.

regarding "to test again" may be a political decision, but not preparing to test again is definitely a technical issue, driven by the capability of our designers. now, there is this chicken-egg for funding our scientists.. that goes back to our desires(political).

it is very very important for MMS team (of course sadly not by vote politics - since the previous elections proved nuke is not a voting issue at all) that they say a huge fund is being established for mil-nukes lab/testing.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Oct 2009 02:56

Prem wrote: Chocking India will be suicidal for civilized world.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Oct 2009 06:39

After 127 pages of discussion on this subject I am presuming that a lot of people did a lot more Wiki-ing like I did.

So tell me your views folks

If India were to test again - in say the next 6 months and assume that India would not be able to test again for another 10 year or more and assuming you are responsible for the scientific goals and political "success" of the test

1) What would the goals of the tests be?

a)Scientific goals
b)Political goals

2) How many tests? Spread out over how many days?

3) Where would you do the tests?

a)Underground
b)Atmospheric
c)Underwater

4)if you design underground tests, would you use the knowledge you have gained from 1998 regarding how people view seismological data and crater sizes to dictate the depth at which you do your tests? If so what would you seek to achieve so that crater sizes (via satellite photos) are not used against your planned goals? And what specific measures would you use to ensure that seismological data is not used against your planned goals?

5) Would you announce tests beforehand or not?

6) If you do not plan to announce, how would you ensure that preparations are kept secret?

7) In case of doubts being raised by someone or the other regarding your claims what measures would you institute beforehand to ensure that all doubts can be clarified? Where would you "draw the line" for doubters i.e which doubters would you exclude as unimportant or a security threat? What would constitute a security threat?

8) How long would you expect the analysis of the series of tests to last until all doubts are cleared with all colors of ribbons and shades of beard expended in analysis? On what would you base this estimate of time - i.e what specific test analysis and data would take the longest time?

9) If the tests are deemed a failure after all that what would you plan to do about it given that you have been warned beforehand that only one more series of tests is politically possible? What parameters based on initial planed goals would you use to decide honestly whether your tests were a success or a failure? What minimum goals to be met for planned tests?

10 What designs and concepts would you seek to test?

11) Would this post be the basis for a new thread to be split off from the old one here?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Oct 2009 07:02

OT, perhaps, but a very interesting item:

Iran takes nuclear programme off table

“We will never bargain about our sovereign rights,” Mr Salehi told a selected number of international media, including the Financial Times. “If we have the right to enrich uranium . .. convert uranium . . . have fuel fabrication . . . design reactors and manufacture reactors, we will do them and will not freeze them.”

He said Iran was committed to the “integrity” of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and would not accept the six big powers’ “freeze-for-freeze” proposal by which Iran should suspend all nuclear-related activities in return for a halt in international punitive measures.

“They say the only guarantee you can give us is to stop all kinds of nuclear technologies and activities, but this is absolutely . . . nonsense,” he said.

P-5. Who is this "six"th?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Oct 2009 07:05

NRao wrote:OT, perhaps, but a very interesting item:

Iran takes nuclear programme off table

P-5. Who is this "six"th?

From the link

The comments on Tuesday by Ali-Akbar Salehi add to the pessimism that talks on Thursday in Geneva with the US, Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China will bear any fruits and will further fuel international suspicions about the link between the country’s nuclear and missile plans.

Appears that Germany's successful portrayal of "mine is bigger" does not depend on nuclear weapons. Not surprising given its great history of competence in recent centuries.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Oct 2009 07:24

. Thanks. My mind totally skipped "Germany".

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 Oct 2009 07:35

There is more than one possible way to skin a CAT ; Germany and Japan enjoy a special status outside of the P-5 (say honorary membership, without any teeth ) and co-incidentally both suffered irreparable dammage during the WW-II and paid the allied forces in the name of war reparations/damages ,Japan for all purposes is just a forward US post in the pacific.

India too can become a economic powerhouse if Germany and Japan are being projected as exemplars of economic prowess (just need to sign the 'RAG' ).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2009 08:16

negi wrote:There is more than one possible way to skin a CAT ; Germany and Japan enjoy a special status outside of the P-5 (say honorary membership, without any teeth ) and co-incidentally both suffered irreparable dammage during the WW-II and paid the allied forces in the name of war reparations/damages ,Japan for all purposes is just a forward US post in the pacific.

India too can become a economic powerhouse if Germany and Japan are being projected as exemplars of economic prowess (just need to sign the 'RAG' ).

The UNSC P-5 powers were the victorious powers of WWII aka Allies. After cold War , US wanted to induct Germany and Japan in an expanded UNSC. However the claims of India which had done a lot for UN and was a de-facto nuke power prevented that. since then the US has been trying to pull this roping in of Germany(non NE Asia) and Japan(NE Asia) as the situation warrants.

India is a power because of its population and its internal market. All these need external markets to be powerful.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Oct 2009 08:17

negi wrote:There is more than one possible way to skin a CAT ; Germany and Japan enjoy a special status outside of the P-5 (say honorary membership, without any teeth ) and co-incidentally both suffered irreparable dammage during the WW-II and paid the allied forces in the name of war reparations/damages ,Japan for all purposes is just a forward US post in the pacific.

India too can become a economic powerhouse if Germany and Japan are being projected as exemplars of economic prowess (just need to sign the 'RAG' ).

Well we will be going OT when we enter into the philosophical considerations of "big power status" in a world that is defined by Western civilization as the zenith of human endeavour. The Big 5 or the Big 6 or Big 7 (including Japan) are products of the wars of that civilization and probably started their rise to what is now the "high table" about a century ago.

6 of the 7 (i.e all except China) probably started their "rise" 150 years ago. China got in via a different route not shared by the other 6. If India ever enters the much bandied about exclusive club/high table - it will have to be by a route different from the first 6 and more akin to China.

I have certain personal reservations about Indians hankering for India to enter a club whose rules are decided by its existing members without clear benefit to India other than echandee.

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 Oct 2009 08:27

Shiv saar

If there are certain aspects of P-5 or its outlook towards India which are not in line with our interests the only way to change that is by making some space on the table and then bringing about the desired change ; standing from a distance will yield nothing, the rules you talk about will change once a misfit enters that club.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Oct 2009 08:47

Negi-ji, let me tell you how I see it.

I am reminded of the day I became a member of an exclusive club in Bangalore 18 years ago.. My membership came relatively cheap and quick because I was the son of an existing member (just like non superpower continues to be member of P5 because it was superpower in an earlier era). Although a lot of people were waiting in the queue for membership - as son of member I got priority. And guess who was standing behind me in the next "lower" category of people waiting? Raja Ramanna.

The point I am trying to make is that to join an existing club you have to conform to the guidelines set by that club and behave by their rules to get in. If you have a problem with their rules you should not be trying to get in - but to either change the rules, start a new club or break down the existing club.

As I see it - one of the biggest risks and "blow in India's balls" and to India's H&D and clout will be "low caste membership" which may allow inside a whole lot of second rate powers including Pakistan alongside India under new rules made by the existing high priests

3 out of 5 P5 members have actively aided Pakistan to India's detriment. Is that really a club India wants to join? For what reason? I do not want to see such a day. Luckily India's fizzled tests may ensure that India stays outside the club without being humiliated publicly and shown its place by the P3/5

OT - let's stick to technicals.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 01 Oct 2009 09:14

geeth wrote:Santanam Camp (so to say) fijjled or what?
We must justify the existence (ours and this thread as well) to Santanam Garu

That is correct - hence the subtle shifting of goal posts

Apparently now yields do not matter, processes do. BK is the process type and RC is the anti-process type. KS was the primary for the larger secondary debate (so to say)

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 01 Oct 2009 09:35

>>>It would be interesting to speculate if Gopalkrishnan is the same as one "n.krishna" who has left some kind and affectionate comments about RC and Kakodkar in the feedback to another expressbuzz article linked earlier. G's age and K's claim that he was at Pokhran I seem to match as well as the respect and awe displayed.

Does anyone of you remember how much rucuus he had created while he was in the head of the regulatory board (or after retiring from it) about the safety of the Indian Nuclear plants? He was specifically telling that that there was numerous instances of leakage of radioactive heavy water into the surroundings and ALL the Indian nuclear plants are safety hazards etc., etc. At that time also this gentleman wanted inspection by International experts of the unsafeguarded plants as well. IIRC he was ably backed by another gentleman from Matscience (Mr. Jayaraman?)

I don't know his background, but at that time I had a feeling that he had a commie agenda and was hell bent on tarnishing the image of AEC and the scientists.

This guy is poison, IMO.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2009 10:07

Yes and he was against the nuke deal too. Must be very bad person!

Being jingo doesn't mean you let radio active waste/contamination harm you own citizens.

Its not over yet. If the S-I were unambiguous India would have gatecrashed that P-5 club instead of a thud.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 01 Oct 2009 10:16

>>>Being jingo doesn't mean you let radio active waste/contamination harm you own citizens.

Ah! I forgot to add - there was no truth in his accusations.

1. There was no known cases of radio active leaks on the scale he was accusing of.
2. There was also no known cases of radio active waste/contamination harming our own citizens.

If you have any information contrary to that, I would like to hear about it.

My point is, even when he knew that there was no such case, why did he point an accusing finger towards the establishment? Did he have any specific agenda to follow?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Oct 2009 10:34

arnab wrote:
geeth wrote:Santanam Camp (so to say) fijjled or what?
We must justify the existence (ours and this thread as well) to Santanam Garu
That is correct - hence the subtle shifting of goal posts Apparently now yields do not matter, processes do. BK is the process type and RC is the anti-process type. KS was the primary for the larger secondary debate (so to say)

Oh since it was for me, I am sure we dont have working TNs.

The point is not that yield does not matter. The point is yield alone in S1 does not matter. Hey I have been asking for more tests etc even when I thought S1 worked.

The difference seems to be getting lost.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 01 Oct 2009 10:46

>>>The point is yield alone in S1 does not matter. Hey I have been asking for more tests etc even when I thought S1 worked.
>>>The difference seems to be getting lost.

Even the RC Camp (so to say) had been asking for more tests 'knowing' fully well S1 worked. So, there is no difference to begin with, and hence the question of the 'difference' getting lost doesn't arise.

But all along, the impression I got from your posts is that you are not convinced about the S1 yield..now that you have clarified your position, I shall change that impression.

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 Oct 2009 10:47

Raj Malhotra may I ask what is it you are trying to prove/communicate by quoting and highlighting comments posted by a certain individual ?

The sheer hate, and religious bile dripping from those comments by N Krishna is unbelievable ; I feel sad that people use high decibel issues like S-1's YIELD to push their personal agenda , and even more disgusted at the person who moderates expressbuzz (wonder if there is any moderation in first place).

There are times when even I feel dejected and low with certain developments in India but things are definitely not as bad and not all is lost as being projected by N Krishna ; least of all in premier scientific institutes.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 01 Oct 2009 10:50

geeth wrote:>>>The point is yield alone in S1 does not matter. Hey I have been asking for more tests etc even when I thought S1 worked.
>>>The difference seems to be getting lost.

Even the RC Camp (so to say) had been asking for more tests 'knowing' fully well S1 worked. So, there is no difference to begin with, and hence the question of the 'difference' getting lost doesn't arise.

But all along, the impression I got from your posts is that you are not convinced about the S1 yield..now that you have clarified your position, I shall change that impression.

Bingo Geeth ji - only caveats being, clarity in objectives and timing. We also realise that research in this field is dynamic and one would need to eventually demonstrate capabilities here. Unless in the mean time we invent photon torpedoes

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Oct 2009 10:53

RC spoke about 4th Gen TN device , which will use conventional explosive/laser to trigger a fusion that BARC was working on, i think these weapons wont be affected by CTBT or NPT ?

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 01 Oct 2009 10:54

negi wrote:Raj Malhotra may I ask what is it you are trying to prove/communicate by quoting and highlighting comments posted by a certain individual ?

The sheer hate, and religious bile dripping from those comments by N Krishna is unbelievable ; I feel sad that people use high decibel issues like S-1's YIELD to push their personal agenda , and even more disgusted at the person who moderates expressbuzz (wonder if there is any moderation in first place).

There are times when even I feel dejected and low with certain developments in India but things are definitely not as bad and not all is lost as being projected by N Krishna ; least of all in premier scientific institutes.

I agree that comments made by this individual are bizzare. The problem is that if I had just quoted one or two lines then it would have seemed that I agree with him. So I quoted full comments without comments or edits so that one can judge that he is an extreme maverick and foaming at his mouth but why???????????????????/

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Oct 2009 11:04

geeth wrote:>>>The point is yield alone in S1 does not matter. Hey I have been asking for more tests etc even when I thought S1 worked.
>>>The difference seems to be getting lost.

Even the RC Camp (so to say) had been asking for more tests 'knowing' fully well S1 worked. So, there is no difference to begin with, and hence the question of the 'difference' getting lost doesn't arise.

But all along, the impression I got from your posts is that you are not convinced about the S1 yield..now that you have clarified your position, I shall change that impression.

Geeth, I am not convinced about the S1 yield, and if push comes to shove, I will think that S1 did not work. So I lean heavily on the side of the fact that S1 did not work as expected. I am still saying that.

What I said was, in the 1998-2003 period before the 123 debate went into the yield aspects for the first time I thought that S1 worked but I was pro testing even then and thus dead against 123.

After Santy has come out, post that debate, when many new data points were freshly reexamined my confidence changed.

Furthermore I have always said that posters do not neatly fall in the camps I described, however RCs official position is that no test is necessary, and hence when making a RC camp I have to put that fact in it.

I dont see any confusion, arnab seems to be attributing statements or views to me which I dont hold.

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 Oct 2009 11:07

Austin wrote:RC spoke about 4th Gen TN device , which will use conventional explosive/laser to trigger a fusion that BARC was working on, i think these weapons wont be affected by CTBT or NPT ?

Austin interesting find , specially when CTBT in its current form does not prohibit sub critical testing.

Here a nice article on technical aspects of CTBT.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10471&page=9

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 01 Oct 2009 11:17

http://www.dae.gov.in/press/nuctest.htm

An addendum: Just to be clear, RC does not have an 'official' position. GOI has one. Tomorrow if GOI changes its 'voluntary unilateral ban on testing'. RC will test.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Oct 2009 11:52

arnab wrote:http://www.dae.gov.in/press/nuctest.htm

An addendum: Just to be clear, RC does not have an 'official' position. GOI has one. Tomorrow if GOI changes its 'voluntary unilateral ban on testing'. RC will test.

Please look at RCs recent statement, he has assured the nation that no testing is needed for working deterrence. He has taken a technical position that testing is not needed.

That is BARCs official position right now.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 01 Oct 2009 12:04

Sanku wrote:
arnab wrote:http://www.dae.gov.in/press/nuctest.htm

An addendum: Just to be clear, RC does not have an 'official' position. GOI has one. Tomorrow if GOI changes its 'voluntary unilateral ban on testing'. RC will test.
Please look at RCs recent statement, he has assured the nation that no testing is needed for working deterrence. He has taken a technical position that testing is not needed.

That is BARCs official position right now.

Which statement would that be? Please understand that BARC cannot choose to decide whether to test or not test. It can give an assessment. Per RC (and the DAE press release) - POK-II was successful. So by extension, India has a successful TN deterrent. It is finally GOI's call (So NDA could have chosen to act on PKIs doubt at the time or the present GOI can choose today to test again).

Now if KS predicates future tests on results of POK-II (by saying India must test again because POK-II failed), it can't be helped. RC (DAE) has only said that POK-II was successful. The rest is inferred either by GOI or the media. So if KS's objective was to say that we should have more tests, perhaps he should not have brought up POK-II.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Oct 2009 12:39

Sanku wrote:Please look at RCs recent statement, he has assured the nation that no testing is needed for working deterrence. He has taken a technical position that testing is not needed.

That is BARCs official position right now.

Sanku,

After so much acrimony in this thread, it would be advisable to quote a link to state what BARCs official position is.

But even going by your statement, RC doesn't preclude future tests. While (again taking your line of reasoning further) RC may think we don't need further tests for a working deterrence that does not mean he's saying that we don't need to test in future to refine bomb designs, make new type of bombs, test for stewardship purposes etc.

In real life things are hardly black and white, there is usually several shades of grey.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Oct 2009 12:44

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Please look at RCs recent statement, he has assured the nation that no testing is needed for working deterrence. He has taken a technical position that testing is not needed.

That is BARCs official position right now.
Which statement would that be? Please understand that BARC cannot choose to decide whether to test or not test. It can give an assessment.

Please look back at this thread or google, RC and AK are on record saying simulations are more than enough. I am not inclined to do this for you, there are tons of articles covering it. Please google.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Oct 2009 12:46

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:Please look at RCs recent statement, he has assured the nation that no testing is needed for working deterrence. He has taken a technical position that testing is not needed.

That is BARCs official position right now.
Sanku,

After so much acrimony in this thread, it would be advisable to quote a link to state what BARCs official position is.

.

Frankly if people continue to insist on asking who is Sita after n reading of Ramayana, they should find another pandit for that. Next we will have discussion on whether India wants to have nukes.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Oct 2009 12:57

ramana wrote:Yes and he was against the nuke deal too. Must be very bad person!

Being jingo doesn't mean you let radio active waste/contamination harm you own citizens.

Its not over yet. If the S-I were unambiguous India would have gatecrashed that P-5 club instead of a thud.

Ramana,

If I may ask, what do you make of this "jingo's" repeated call for "international experts" to come in and make a judgment call on whether Indians can do nuclear stuff on their own?

I would think anyone who calls for "international experts" to pass judgment on POK2's success or otherwise after being given access to classified data is an immediate suspect. The same applies to someone (interesting that its the same person) who wants "international experts" to roam around unsafeguarded nuclear plants.

But who knows his opposition to the nuclear deal might have earned him his uber jingo status and thus he gets a free pass to appeal for "international experts" to teach us In'juns how to do nuclear stuff.

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

Seriously, I find it extremely bizarre how what started out as very convincing scientific arguments against claims of POK2 success now turning into more of a personality witchhunt in which questioning RC's character and integrity seems to be one way to prove POK2 was a failure.

Personally RC may be a horrid person and colleague or he may be a humble person and a wonderful colleague - I have no way of knowing either way. But whatever type of person he may be, I don't see how that can be used to either enhance or bring down his scientific credentials or the success or otherwise of POK2.

POK2 was not a basement/garage experiment, it involved hundreds of qualified people who did their bit. And this included KS, who had a vital role to play.

Now KS has questioned the POK2, which is fair enough. But folks who tend to think themselves to be in the so-called KS camp are now trying to show that RC singlehandedly tried to hide the so-called failure at POK2. My question is could he have done that with so many other qualified people involved?

Finally I would like to point out that KS has, to the best of my knowledge, has never personally attacked/vilified RC. This is beginning to look like a case of being more loyal than the King.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Oct 2009 13:04

Sanku wrote:Frankly if people continue to insist on asking who is Sita after n reading of Ramayana, they should find another pandit for that. Next we will have discussion on whether India wants to have nukes.

I wish there was a clapping Simile.

Really I do. I appreciate the clever way in which the main point of my post (which was snipped in the quote part) was avoided by floating a strawman. And what better one to use than Sita and Ramayana?

Just for record let me reproduce the snipped part:

But even going by your statement, RC doesn't preclude future tests. While (again taking your line of reasoning further) RC may think we don't need further tests for a working deterrence that does not mean he's saying that we don't need to test in future to refine bomb designs, make new type of bombs, test for stewardship purposes etc.

In real life things are hardly black and white, there is usually several shades of grey.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 01 Oct 2009 13:09

arnab wrote:http://www.dae.gov.in/press/nuctest.htm

An addendum: Just to be clear, RC does not have an 'official' position. GOI has one. Tomorrow if GOI changes its 'voluntary unilateral ban on testing'. RC will test.

Raja Ramanna was in the meeting and privy to the data. Seems like both PKI and Santhanam were not shown the data. Santhanam has himself said that he would like to see the radio chemical data. PKI was probably not invited.

The other techincal question is what can be done to gain more confidence in the weapon designs without conducting tests. There was some mention of some facility that was started in 2002 or something. Can someone explain what would be the use of such a facility.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Oct 2009 13:14

amit wrote: Finally I would like to point out that KS has, to the best of my knowledge, has never personally attacked/vilified RC. This is beginning to look like a case of being more loyal than the King.

Irrespective of what I think of RCs role or not, let us stay away from discussing him personally, it can get quickly out of hand. The thread had to be Sanitized because of this.

This applies to Shiv looking at N.Krishan's comment and speculating on personalities as well, let us follow common standards.

Shiv is guilty of breaking his own code of conduct in my opinion.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 01 Oct 2009 13:17

amit wrote: POK2 was not a basement/garage experiment, it involved hundreds of qualified people who did their bit. And this included KS, who had a vital role to play.

Now KS has questioned the POK2, which is fair enough. But folks who tend to think themselves to be in the so-called KS camp are now trying to show that RC singlehandedly tried to hide the so-called failure at POK2. My question is could he have done that with so many other qualified people involved?
Finally I would like to point out that KS has, to the best of my knowledge, has never personally attacked/vilified RC. This is beginning to look like a case of being more loyal than the King.

I have often wondered about this angle. Even managing a team of 10 people like engineers/scientists is not like running a dictatorship. There would be whole teams doing radio chemical analysis. I would presume it will be very difficult for RC to suppress all the evidences of failure in case there was one.