Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 05 Oct 2009 15:45

shiv wrote:Sankuji kindly point me to where it says that the government claims to have weaponised thermouclear warheads and that Bharat Karnad was misled by that?

All that I can see is a statement that Chidambaram repeatedly assured the government that TN weapons were possible and that Santhanam said that TN weapons have not been weaponized.
.


Shiv please, I am not interested in quibbling.

100-kiloton to 300-kiloton range that Chidambaram had repeatedly assured the government and the military had been realised have,


If the head of BARC, chief defence advisor to GoI etc etc etc.... assures the GoI that the weapons have been realized what does that say.

This combined with repeated assertions by GoI on the floor of the parliament that we have deterrence capability in the range of xyz.

If this is not good enough then nothing will be -- any one will take this to mean that we have a working deterrence in that range, unless they are specifically parsing words to see if Govt is lying. Which did not start till AFTER KS.

KS was the first to go public, irrespective of who all knew privately.

Arun_S stand was clearly based on available public information and any possible projections were justified.

Clearly stated assumptions -- on basis of public info
And clearly stated projections -- labeled as such.

Its a pity that such iron clad clear approach is being faulted -- yeah Arun_S believed RC to begin with, that was his fault and then when he was not allowed to say that he no longer believes.

Truly sad sir, truly sad -- last post here. Please see Nukkad for more.

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7082
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Muppalla » 05 Oct 2009 15:51

Rahul M wrote:most people are not aware of all the facts. in such a situation this discussion will come to all the wrong conclusions and blame all the wrong people.
please find a different place to discuss this.

lastly, let me add that I'm saddened that things came to such a pass and also a bit perplexed.


Though saddened with the turn of events here, why should the forumites miss the drama/fun? Why can't it be published with who said what for everyone of us to know. Is that all classified by RAW. Huh!!! in that case it might have been soldout to CIA as the current MMS..... you know .... :)

Otherwise betting and speculation will increase. Let me indulge too.... Nah I will leave it.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 05 Oct 2009 16:02

Ajatshatru wrote: All I am trying to say here is that is it really fair to indluge in retrospective analysis esp. when Arun is not around anymore so cannot refute such allegations?.


Correct.

Now go back and see

1) the shoot and scoot statement that Arun made about me heading a echo chamber for the Goi
2) The conspiracy theories posted by others.

Either all of us quit the post mortem or I will continue to post what I see as my version of the truth.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 05 Oct 2009 16:06

shiv wrote:Either all of us quit the post mortem or I will continue to post what I see as my version of the truth.


Please do so in Nukkad. I dont think this a webmaster of BR leaving is "all in a days work" this is a great loss. And a deliberately foisted one -- on really weak basis in fact.

On a clearly untenable fact that Arun_S was made a incorrect page on BRF stating Indian capability higher than it is found out now.

This when the entire nation was misled (one way or the other).

And all this with threats of libel etc.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 05 Oct 2009 16:17

Sanku wrote: fact that Arun_S was made a incorrect page on BRF stating Indian capability higher than it is found out now.


But found out by Arun at least 6 months ago after which he had plenty of time to correct the same just as he had time to fix the responsibility on people whom he chose to call liars and made no effort to explain the discrepancy between his forum views and his web page information when asked.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Rahul M » 05 Oct 2009 16:22

either people stop discussing this or this thread is going to be locked.
your choice.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 05 Oct 2009 16:23

In Nukkad please.

rkirankr
BRFite
Posts: 773
Joined: 17 Apr 2009 11:05

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby rkirankr » 05 Oct 2009 16:58

Shiv saar,

I have never been participating in these discussion, saw this post of yours. Could not resist to ask for some questions.Can you give some clarification?
How can this

Code: Select all

At the bottom of the second shaft, a kilometre away, was the thermonuclear weapon. It had a fission-based trigger. The second stage was the fusion weapon. The shaft ran more than a 120 metres into the ground. At the bottom it veered slightly to the left, making an ‘L’. After the turn it ran for a further five metres, called an adit. The small tunnel was about six feet high, high enough for a person to stand.


mean this

Code: Select all

If I have interpreted this article right the S1 Thermonuclear device was in an L shaped shaft that was 200 meters deep and then ran off to one side for 120 meters. (The other interpretation is that the shaft was 120 meters deep). I am assuming the former - i.e 200 meters deep and going off to one side for a further 120 meters at a depth of 200 meters.


I see that your interpretation is based on the previous paragraph which says

Code: Select all

At the White House site (S2 where the dud thermonuclear device was placed), if we are to go by what the scientists led Chengappa to believe, it was placed at a depth of 200 metres (page 427) in contrast to S1 which was about 50 metres less deep (at “over 150 metres”, page 422).

There is also some more in the same paragraph

Code: Select all

There is, however, good reason to believe that the shafts were not as deep as this since they had been in existence since 1981 and going by the accounts in the book were not deepened when readied for the 1998 tests; scientists familiar with the work say that the deeper shaft did not go as deep as 200 metres.


Since there is a belief that it was not really 200 mts but less it could also mean shaft is 120mts and with an L shape with only 5 meters to the left.
Please let me know the basis for your interpretation. Am I missing something here?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 05 Oct 2009 17:19

rkirankr wrote:Since there is a belief that it was not really 200 mts but less it could also mean shaft is 120mts and with an L shape with only 5 meters to the left.
Please let me know the basis for your interpretation. Am I missing something here?


Well I thought it to mean

Either:
A) A 120 meter plus meter going off to one side from the bottom of a 200 meter shaft
or
B) A 120 plus meter deep vertical shaft

Each has a problem which I will briefly restate

1) 120 meter shaft going off to one side the crater will have a center 120 meters away
2) 120 meter vertical shaft: The shaft depth is too shallow for planned 45 kt.
3) 120 plus meter shaft - This is what was already stated by Chengappa (more than 200 meters) and another ref - I think Sikka who said 230 meters (I need to find that)

What do you think the article is trying to say? Only option 3 above fits in with the information that is already there. Option 1 and 2 would constitute new, previously unreleased information.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby harbans » 05 Oct 2009 17:41

On DOB refer graph 1 on this site:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thsc ... prd=fline&

Clearly indicates 200 plus meters DOB.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Philip » 05 Oct 2009 17:56

Regardless of whether our TN fizzled or ssizzled,the inescapable fact in recent times to emerge is that Pak has acquired via the Chinese,a menu of N-warhead designs from which it can arm its delivery systems.The Chinese earlier allegedly stole the entire US N-cabinet of secrets a few years ago ,the quote is from a piece by the then head of US National Counter-Intelligence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020603498.html

In 2003, when I began my three years as the first congressionally mandated national counterintelligence executive (known by the unpronounceable acronym NCIX), Washington seemed ready to transform the fight against foreign espionage into a focused, coherent enterprise. But today, this vital national security mission is on life support.

Think this isn't a big deal? Think again. Most Americans would be astonished to learn how successful foreign intelligence services have been at stealing our national security secrets and threatening our vital interests.

The Chinese stole the design secrets to all -- repeat, all -- U.S. nuclear weapons, enabling them to leapfrog generations of technology development and put our nuclear arsenal, the country's last line of defense, at risk. To this day, we don't know quite when or how they did it, but we do know that Chinese intelligence operatives are still at work, systematically targeting not only America's defense secrets but our industries' valuable proprietary information.


Thus the Sino-NoKo-Pak nuclear proliferation axis,of which a major beneficiary is Saudi Arabia, the Islamic arch-authority over Pak,has a complete arsenal of N-weapons with which to attack its enemies.It has in its vaults,a legacy of decades of US testing and all the results.It is therfore incomprehensible for any GOI to abandon its legitimate right to test,test and test until perfection,a range of N-weapons to suit our needs.The absence of a working TN warhead as alleged in recent times,from those who were right at the scene of past events (P-2) and others from the scientific and nuclear community are too serious to be swept under the carpet.It is now incumbent upon the present and any future GOI to be absolutely 100% sure that we possess the required Divali fireworks to put the fear of annhilation into the minds of the atheists and the ungodly.

PS:As to the reasoning for absence of a crater,undamaged trestle,etc., that the branch of the tunnel where the TN weapon was placed was 120m away,is absurd as that is just 400 ft. away and a massive crater would've still been formed with its edges almost reaching the site of the shaft! One can understand if the device was a km away from the shaft,but the reason for no significant sized crater for such a TN device beggars belief.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby enqyoob » 05 Oct 2009 17:58

MODERATOR statement:
I am going to leave Arun's statement there (with unacceptable and false personal attack on a non-mod deleted) but I am going to go and delete all other posts relating to that post, now that people have had plenty of opportunity to "vent" on it.What has come about here w.r.t. personalities is sad because I consider Arun a good friend with whom I agree on most things. However, this event does bring about a sense of "deja vu" from what happened on the Nuclear Deal thread where we lost probably the most knowledgeable, sane and politically unbiased person(s) we had on BRF on the technical issues of the Indian nuclear program - it would only inflame matters if I were to state why that occurred.

These things happen. Ppl lose sight of the reality that THIS IS AN INTERNET FORUM. Nor a corporate boardroom, a madarssa or Parliament. Ease up.

Pls note that RayC has issued a clear warning to everyone to close out that discussion.


Postor statement:
My personal opinion on this thread has been colorfully interpreted and amplified by several experts with their usual level of accuracy, best described by :roll: , but in fact I am NOT in favor of locking it, and never have been, beyond pointing out at the start that it seemed to be a bad idea - for reasons since very clearly seen without my help. It is in fact very educational, and has given me a very clear idea of how politically-motivated misinformation is foisted on a generally chalta-hai public by organized attack, and that hiding behind the knowledge that those who really know cannot reveal what they know because of the Official Secrets Act and common sense.

I just happen to believe that the point has been proven 1,600 posts back that

Actual Yield of (S1+S2). NLT. Actual Yield of (S1+S2). (NLT means NOT LESS THAN)

This realization hit me, entirely due to reading material posted on the predecessor thread once removed, and I remembered a similar discussion from the Nuclear Deal threads.

If I had not realized this simple fact, I too would have been gypped by all the techno-babble on these long threads.

So I absolutely love seeing this thread every day. I read all the "new facts" which is what ramana cited as the reason for opening this thread, and checking the simple facts against these, and getting a good :mrgreen: out of those.

The recent events, I am delighted to inform all the various Conspiracy-Aware experts here, came about entirely with no help from me except to point out the obvious every now and then and watch said Experts jump up and down in a frenzy because they can't defeat the truth. I could have predicted it, but wasn't so presumptive as to do so. In fact things REALLY seem to have gone "supercritical" when I was away and busy "in the woodwork" in someone's flamebaiting words, eating the wood away as I always do.

BTW, I still love reading the excuse that the brick separation cracks on houses and the cracks that emptied out the village water tank at Khetolai, were only just thin cracks, that had to be photographed from an inch away (some macro lens on that camera, no doubt). So were the cracks on my house - I had to go up real close to understand that I was looking at Brick Separation cracks, and the money leaked out of my bank account in short order like water from the Khetolai tank.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1122
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby dinesha » 05 Oct 2009 17:59

I think much credence should not be given to 120 mts figure..
Simple interpretation would be that the shaft was 200mts deep form the ground and then it runs to further 5 mts after the bend in “L” shaped shaft..



People want to interpret whatever they want to interpret to prove their POV..
Dr. Shiv, what is you interpretation of 5 mts figure mentioned in the quoted article? Surprisingly you have choosen to overlook this figure...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby NRao » 05 Oct 2009 18:09

Philip wrote:Regardless of whether our TN fizzled or ssizzled,the inescapable fact in recent times to emerge is that Pak has acquired via the Chinese,a menu of N-warhead designs from which it can arm its delivery systems.The Chinese earlier allegedly stole the entire US N-cabinet of secrets a few years ago ,the quote is from a piece by the then head of US National Counter-Intelligence.


That is the Venn diagram in words.

PS:As to the reasoning for absence of a crater,undamaged trestle,etc., that the branch of the tunnel where the TN weapon was placed was 120m away,is absurd as that is just 400 ft. away and a massive crater would've still been formed with its edges almost reaching the site of the shaft! One can understand if the device was a km away from the shaft,but the reason for no significant sized crater for such a TN device beggars belief.


Santhanam stated that he expected a 70-72 meter crater (radius).

IF the device was at 120 meters away from the shaft then either you are right and Santhanam is wrong, or the other way around.

IF one follows the equation at hand, readily available even on BR, at 45 Kt, 230 meters depth, no crater should be formed. So, even the depth that is in Chengappa is either misquoted or Santhanam was not aware of the proper depth.

In short there is confusion on plenty of point: yield, depth and crater.

No body is accusing anyone, we ALL just need to get the truth, irrespective of side. And, irrespective of a fizzle or sizzle.

Santhanam has said that he will wait for 3 weeks - to allow GoI to form a blue-ribbon panel - and then he will hav emore to say.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby enqyoob » 05 Oct 2009 18:12

Dinesha: Very little in that IndianExpress article seems to be true. First, do you believe that it was S1 that worked and S2 where the "thermonuclear fizzle" was? This is new to me.

Secondly, the article does say that there was an L-shaped bend. Either that is true, or it is false. If it is false, then so is everything else in the article and it is totally worthless, If it is true, then we can consider how long it might have been.

The purpose of the "L-shaped bend" as given by others before, is to ensure that the vertical blast does not knock out the plug in the long vertical shaft and blast out that way. So to achieve that, 5 m seems a very short distance, does it not? If you were doing it, wouldn't you drive that at least to 1.2R, R being the expected molten cavity radius? Otherwise the liquid/gas state matter would not have any trouble blasting the cap out of the shaft, hain? I am just saying this out of madarssa common sense estimating, not any RadioPhotoChemicalIsotopic Analysis etc. So I think shiv's estimate of 120 m seems much closer to what is plausible than the 5m given in the article.

Thirdly, do you believe that the sources for that article are suddenly immune from the Official Secrets Act? In this whole business, most of what one sees is "gas state". So one has to tightly hold on to the few strands of firm reality that one can find. One is that no one who is under the OSA is going to reveal information that is under the OSA, certainly unless and until they are in some place that is beyond any possibility of extradition.

So ANYONE who claims to have the "TRUE STORY! NOW REVEALED 4 THE FIRST TIME!!" is bluffing.

(except I of course. I could also claim that I get the info straight from my Usually Reliable and Always Knowledgeable Inside Source, Who Spoke to Me on Condition of Anonymity Because S(he) is Not Permitted to Speak to Me, But Does So Anyways Because I am So Special and S(he) is Totally Wacko and Does Not Care About the Certainty of 40 Years R.I.. BUT S(he) is Totally Re-Lie-Able. }

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 05 Oct 2009 18:55

dinesha wrote:I think much credence should not be given to 120 mts figure..
Simple interpretation would be that the shaft was 200mts deep form the ground and then it runs to further 5 mts after the bend in “L” shaped shaft..



People want to interpret whatever they want to interpret to prove their POV..
Dr. Shiv, what is you interpretation of 5 mts figure mentioned in the quoted article? Surprisingly you have choosen to overlook this figure...


Well your guess is as good as mine. You choose to ignore the 120 meters and I choose to ignore 5 meters.

The reason I did not mention the 5 meters is that I fail to understand how a vertical shaft can bend left. Do you have an answer?

If you look carefully at my posts on this issue - you might find that i am taking expressbuzz very seriously and nitpicking on little details. That is because I do not want to mock the people who are quoting expresbuzz as a source of information. Unfortunately it is easier for me to come out as being sarcastic - because the deeper you dig into expressbuzz the more you find that a lot of time can be spent on proving nothing other than calling someone a liar. No new data will come out.

If you want to take expressbuzz seriously you have to try and explain what the guy is trying to say and postpone the ROTFL till everyone is tied up in knots - which is all that happens as far as I can tell. I am game for this.

Hence I post my interpretation. What is your take on all those figures? On what basis can you ignore the figure of 120 meters? I will include my 5 meters in the picture after you tell me what to do with 120 meters which come before the 5 M. You ignore that and I ignore the 5 M

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby RayC » 05 Oct 2009 19:00

because the deeper you dig into expressbuzz the more you find that a lot of time can be spent on proving nothing other than calling someone a liar.


No one need to be called a liar.

Unless one has been involved in the nuclear programme, one cannot for sure know what is reality!

All should confine themselves to their own views and leave it at that or if someone wants to correct anyone including on reports in the newspaper and elsewhere, one will desist from using language where one can take umbrage!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby NRao » 05 Oct 2009 19:24

RayC,

I think it actually goes a little beyond that.

There is plenty of open source information (actually the V Sunder article on BR itself was based on this) that can be used to provide a pretty good picture of what is the truth. All one needs is a few basic data points.

BK or V Sudharsan (of ExpressBuzz) could have actually gone through these computations and come to their own conclusion. (There are but a handful of equations.)

However, as you state, one is more than welcome to provide their views, HOWEVER, if they are related to yield, depth at which the device was placed or crater radius - all these can be rather easily verified or validated via these equations.

Now, the political aspects are subject to shades of whatever - politics. And, we have no control over that.

But as far as "liar" goes, 120 vs, 230 vs. 200 vs, horizontal vs, vertical emplacement, etc - are ALL verifiable (give and take a few units of whatever you are measuring). So, either they are right (truth) or they are wrong (lie), give and take some. Certainly one does not have to state the obvious, since the equations provide for the obvious to be stated. But when this is lost and emotions get into the picture, the obvious gets stated only with the intent to push the discussion into the proper grove.

One more point I would like to make. The BR articleS (on POK-II) were looked at by as close to a proper referee as possible.

In very short: When I take the data points provided by Sikka/RC and those given by Santhanam, when the same equations are applied, the prior computes, the latter does not - so far. This is basic science, no emotions, no taking sides.

And I have stated before - someone else needs to run through the same ringer to validate what i have done.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby NRao » 05 Oct 2009 19:27

Acharya wrote:Thank you


Sure. Tho' I am not sure for what. I have very basic disagreements.

You got it


Again, I am not sure what I got. Here too I have some major disagreements.

But, all that is for another thread I guess.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby ksmahesh » 05 Oct 2009 19:30

An open question who is correcting the "wrong info" on BR pages about Nuclear weapons? AFAIK Arun_S et al wrote these pages and since clearly they need upgradation should some one not edit them asap?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Gagan » 05 Oct 2009 19:35

My take on the shaft design. "A" is where the shaft turns to the left and goes on for 120 m. Entirely possible beacuse indians-are-so-incompetent-that-they-can't-dig-straight-shafts and their shafts always are crooked
"B" is what I think is the actual design.
Image

S1 was the TN and S2 was the Fission (From the Hindu article)
Image

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 05 Oct 2009 19:48

Gagan - nice picture - but doesn't the article say that the shaft goes down 120 meters and then turns left for 5 meters?

That article is far from being clear

if we are to go by what the scientists led Chengappa to believe, it was placed at a depth of 200 metres (page 427) in contrast to S1 which was about 50 metres less deep (at “over 150 metres”, page 422)


and

At the bottom of the second shaft, a kilometre away, was the thermonuclear weapon. It had a fission-based trigger. The second stage was the fusion weapon. The shaft ran more than a 120 metres into the ground. At the bottom it veered slightly to the left, making an ‘L’. After the turn it ran for a further five metres, called an adit. The small tunnel was about six feet high, high enough for a person to stand. The width was about three metres


Regarding which was S1 and S2 the same article says:

“At the ‘Taj Mahal’ site (S1 where the fission device, weaponised for delivery through a missile exploded)


and

At the White House site (S2 where the dud thermonuclear device was placed)


Compare that with your chart above

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Gagan » 05 Oct 2009 20:19

That chart is from the Hindu Pokhran row: R. RAMACHANDRAN

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby NRao » 05 Oct 2009 20:23

Do we have a 120 meter sighting anywhere else?

I do vaguely recall that there was a reference somewhere where it did mention a horizontal dig, but I do not recall it stating how far they dug.

But, no matter what, with or without the 120 meters, the depth being (SO FAR) between 200 and 230 meters, with a yield of 45 Kt, there should not be a crater at all. This was also verified in the V Sunder article. So, where do we scientifically fit in Santhanam's claim of a 70-72 meter radius crater is the question.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Gagan » 05 Oct 2009 20:47

We have to remember:
1. It all boils down to expected yield vs actual yield (Without obfuscation of actual yield. Not only videshis, but Indian seismologists have some discrepencies. Why?)
2. Post shot analysis of elements will have to be considered in the background of the primary being FBF vs Pure Fission. Some amount of fusion takes place in the FBF's core too. Weather the fusion materials obtained in the post shot analysis were from the secondary or the primary FBF's core?
3. Other analysis - crater, A winch, etc depend on the shaft design. A lot of figures keep coming up, but the > 200m appears most often. The 120m is very important too. The shaft characteristics and the surrounding earth consistency decide the size of the cavity / crater / A-winch damage etc.

In the absence of any further info, we are not going to get any further analysis out of the existing info.

When is KS's 3 week deadline finishing?

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby enqyoob » 05 Oct 2009 21:02

What is the "3-week deadline" or dare I ask? I had the feeling that the whole ruckus was about the UNSC meeting and Gang-of-20 meet, but now it seems pretty clear that India said the usual, Foggy Bottom (no less than the SoS Herself) reiterated that deal with India is as per deal with India, and El Baradei said that India needs New Clear Detergent and will not sign EnPeeTee, so will u pls consider signing See Tee Bee Tee - and India again says "when Total NewClear Disarmament Reaches Our Level From Above".

I wonder if that wasn't the whole point of this exercise. Has Santanam thrown the White Silk Handkerchief for the Duel 2 The Rigorous Imprisonment 4 All Concerned by challenging the Establishment to produce data? You think they are going to fall 4 that - or that Santanam actually wants that to happen?

My guess is that the whole thing will quieten down, because neither side wants it to go on. But in 3 weeks BRF will be at POK-2 Thread #12 and discovering what I have always suspected, from the latest "ExpressBuzz" or "Karan Thapar" expose: the three TN tests were #s S3, S4, S5. All fijjles. Which is why they cancelled the 10-Gigaton S-6. :oops:

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 05 Oct 2009 21:22

Gagan wrote:We have to remember:
1. It all boils down to expected yield vs actual yield (Without obfuscation of actual yield. Not only videshis, but Indian seismologists have some discrepencies. Why?)
2. Post shot analysis of elements will have to be considered in the background of the primary being FBF vs Pure Fission. Some amount of fusion takes place in the FBF's core too. Weather the fusion materials obtained in the post shot analysis were from the secondary or the primary FBF's core?
3. Other analysis - crater, A winch, etc depend on the shaft design. A lot of figures keep coming up, but the > 200m appears most often. The 120m is very important too. The shaft characteristics and the surrounding earth consistency decide the size of the cavity / crater / A-winch damage etc.

In the absence of any further info, we are not going to get any further analysis out of the existing info.

When is KS's 3 week deadline finishing?


I have heard only one seismo station being mentioned from India

Which one?
What is the data from there?

According to my general reading accurate yield calculation needs taking 125 stations into consideration.

Is there any source that has questioned the post shot data other than the Sublette whose critique I posted earlier? Since none of us are nuke scientists we have to take someone's word for it. PKI spoke of fission neutrons but that was rebutted.

I will eat my hat if Santhanam does anything after the 3 week deadline.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby svinayak » 05 Oct 2009 21:26

NRao wrote:
Sure. Tho' I am not sure for what. I have very basic disagreements.

There is no basic disagreement. you actually agreed to what I have been saying.
NRao wrote:
I would compromise to "We are asking for a TN test and a credible demonstrated TN weapon". (I would reword it tho'.)
Last edited by svinayak on 05 Oct 2009 21:28, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby shiv » 05 Oct 2009 21:28

Gagan wrote:That chart is from the Hindu Pokhran row: R. RAMACHANDRAN


Yes and the Expresbuzz article reverses S1 and S2. My personal opinion is that Expresbuzz too is doing deliberate obfuscation. I doubt if any of those guys are dumb. I have no idea why they are playing with figures. It reduces credibility.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby NRao » 05 Oct 2009 22:18

NRao wrote:
I would compromise to "We are asking for a TN test and a credible demonstrated TN weapon". (I would reword it tho'.)
[/quote]

Perhaps you did not understand. The "I would reword it tho'." was a very, very polite was of saying that I will agree only to keep the calm.

See below for an explanation.

Acharya wrote:
NRao wrote:
Sure. Tho' I am not sure for what. I have very basic disagreements.

There is no basic disagreement. you actually agreed to what I have been saying.


I hope not.

But if you insist, I am glad you agree that (so far) Santhanam is wrong and that a TN test is needed only to break CTBT OR to test a FAR better design than that the one that succeeded in 1998. And, that India has a deterrent, therefore she does not need to test any further.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby svinayak » 05 Oct 2009 22:31

NRao wrote:
I hope not.

But if you insist, I am glad you agree that (so far) Santhanam is wrong and that a TN test is needed only to break CTBT OR to test a FAR better design than that the one that succeeded in 1998. And, that India has a deterrent, therefore she does not need to test any further.

OK then it is fine. I thought you wanted to be on both the sides of the argument at the same time. Many BRF members are trying to do that. I suspect some admins too.
I agree that TN test has other purposes but to face India's adversary like China it is better to have a credible demonstrated TN test.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby NRao » 05 Oct 2009 22:42

I thought you wanted to be on both the sides of the argument at the same time.


My "side" is dictated by the equations.

I have no problem supporting Santhanam, for instance, IF he can properly clarify some things.

BUT, based on what I have access to (from both sides) AND positions taken by policy makers (all over the world) I am left with no option but to support the RC "side" - with some reservations (which is why had 80-90%).

BUT, this ONLY relates to the TN side of the conversation.

Per Santhanam himself the fission is OK. So, there does not seem to be any "side" there (thankfully). So that is my deterrence. I really do not need a TN for a deterrence.

Then there seems ot be a slightly gray area for the FBF. Now IF Santhanam can clarify that too, then my "side" will be solidified. I am hoping that the FBF can give me a 150 Kt weapon. It can only add to my deterrence stable.

So, IF India has deterrence, why even bother with a TN right now - as a deterrent against SinoPak?

Sure, break that damn CTBT. I agree it is an unfair treaty. The way to do that is to threaten a TN test before signing. And, not one or two tests - test UNTIL the latest design is validated (NOT the 1998 design). A very small/miniature dial-a-TN. Now, this is a deterrent too - just one against the CTBT lobby.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21089
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Prem » 05 Oct 2009 22:54

Acharya wrote:
NRao wrote:
I hope not.

But if you insist, I am glad you agree that (so far) Santhanam is wrong and that a TN test is needed only to break CTBT OR to test a FAR better design than that the one that succeeded in 1998. And, that India has a deterrent, therefore she does not need to test any further.

OK then it is fine. I thought you wanted to be on both the sides of the argument at the same time. Many BRF members are trying to do that. I suspect some admins too.
I agree that TN test has other purposes but to face India's adversary like China it is better to have a credible demonstrated TN test.


Current Chinese Sabre rattling might be just for this purpose. Good chance they dont know Indian capabilities and for sure will like to know as it will help them to charter new course to tackle India in adversial fashion. Strange thing is that their Dogs/Left is not barking right now and keeping quite and what a coincident that Chineese conventional threat is now suddenly major topic in media. I suspect that not knowing much about Indian strategic weapons is keeping our enemies off balance so probing is being done now. We can panic and reveal our hand or play cool and frustrate them. Truth is some where in between and let the controversy remain hot the next 10-12 years or at least till MMS return from DC after eating Turkey.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Sanku » 05 Oct 2009 23:05

NRao wrote:
I thought you wanted to be on both the sides of the argument at the same time.


My "side" is dictated by the equations.

I have no problem supporting Santhanam, for instance, IF he can properly clarify some things.

BUT, based on what I have access to (from both sides) AND positions taken by policy makers (all over the world) I am left with no option but to support the RC "side" - with some reservations (which is why had 80-90%).

.


But the equations have meant different things to different people, up to 300 KT+ for Raj M.

Without the numbers available for key constants, which no one has published, what are the numbers which are backs up RC camp data?

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3000
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby vera_k » 05 Oct 2009 23:05

NRao wrote:Sure, break that damn CTBT. I agree it is an unfair treaty. The way to do that is to threaten a TN test before signing. And, not one or two tests - test UNTIL the latest design is validated (NOT the 1998 design). A very small/miniature dial-a-TN. Now, this is a deterrent too - just one against the CTBT lobby.


There's no reason to think about breaking the CTBT, at least not out of spite. IMO, Indian arguments against the CTBT have always been because the country could not ensure further development of weapons without a critical test. Now, if India is a bonafide N-power, then the CTBT would serve its interests as it will raise the bar for newer entrants. So, India can and should sign the CTBT once the weapons team can ensure subcritical testing, LIF and computer simulation facilities are available for further development and refinement of the weapons. But the weapons team has to make a convincing case that these facilities exist, and are sufficient to ensure that weapons development can be continued in earnest. In other words, all doubts that signing the CTBT would serve the CRE agenda against India should be put to rest.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby NRao » 05 Oct 2009 23:19

Sankuji,

Very, very true. We are datahant. BUT, that is the nature of this topic.

However, there is some out there: Chengappa and now Santhanam and RR (I think the expressbuzz is a bunch of trash - unless proved otherwise). Until Santhanam opened the can, we had accepted Chengappa. RR only brings more clarity to the picture and Santhanam makes it more blured. Now, there are a couple of equations I did not visit because Santhanam's 70-72 M radius statement prevented me from going further - I just stopped there (because that particular thing could not be resolved).

I feel that Veraji has a great point in his post.

BUT, none of them will really solve any issues either way. At best I can say ONLY what I have said before.

I still feel that we must wait till Santhanam says anything more. There is a good chance that he may not say anythign at all - or he may say something that will make a huge difference. Two more weeks to go.

BUT, even then the bottom line is that this Santhanam stuff is ONLY about TN (I am not complaining). That is what we need to keep in mind.

India has 20-25 Kt, perhaps even a 80 Kt or so. And, some qualified FBF - whatever.

Anyways, guys, I think I am pretty much done with this topic and that on deterrence.

archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6821
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby archan » 05 Oct 2009 23:24

NRao wrote:Anyways, guys, I think I am pretty much done with this topic and that on deterrence.

Could you summarize what did you learn in the three iterations of this thread? and does
I still feel that we must wait till Santhanam says anything more.
mean that the debate was premature (IYO of course)?

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby harbans » 05 Oct 2009 23:30

It's very critical India starts an international campaign that 1.2 billion people cannot be kept under discriminatory treaties. The root cause of India being pushed to the corner is being treated on par with Pakistan, NK in the proliferation regime. We must avoid 'India shining' type campaigns and go for educating people internationally and develop public opinion why India considers these treaties discriminatory. India must go on an PR offensive in defending itself. I find it grossly unfair even our presence in the UN. China for example was an authoritarian state detonating TN bombs with mass starvation in millions when it got UNSC seat.

For all those talking about India's relations with it's neioghbours just have to see, that once Chinese influence seeps into a country in the neighbourhood it goes to the dogs. Take Nepal, Pakistan, Burma, BD, SL. Have good relations and that state prospers. Bhutan will has the highest per cap income, social index figures in South Asia for example. Reason: Kept away from Chinese influence. JMT//

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby SaiK » 06 Oct 2009 01:06

is it fair to ask why my dad did'nt support nuclear testing rather he was fighting paki war, and more than than fighting domestic war with tyrants who took away his land that was alloted by Indira G for Exservicemen, internal politics that splits and divides rather unites, ignore what happens in the global aerena yadi yada..

now, we have advanced or still advancing, and realizing a bunch of things our dad didn't do, and say its unfair and discriminatory 'cause P5 did it first, and we were just thinking about it?

whose fault is it? why this feeling of left out, when there is no fault with others,.. its not fair to say, we shall not face the sins of our fathers'. corrections may happen, but if we sleep, its difficult to raise up.. since ours is a giant democracy, with multiple complexity factors.

it is important to understand these fundemantals, since that will exactly drive our desires in the future. btw, if we are discussing in the future, that our sons/daughters are complaining about this.. then we have not done our jobs as well. plain and simple, just ask for testing now, if we all think its a matter of few more assertions.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Postby Gagan » 06 Oct 2009 01:47

From Washington Post:
Key Indian Figures Call for New Nuclear Tests Despite Deal With U.S.
...

One of the scientists, K. Santhanam, who coordinated India's nuclear weapons program when the country conducted five nuclear tests 11 years ago, has said that the original thermonuclear device test was a dud. That claim comes at a time when the idea of a universal test ban is gaining momentum under President Obama. Speaking last month at the United Nations, Obama called for the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 2010.

Some Indian analysts say Santhanam is speaking for a powerful but small group of nuclear scientists, diplomats and military experts who wish to prevent Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh from supporting Obama's call.

"Santhanam finally realized the enormity of consequences of India's never testing again," said Bharat Karnad, a member of the team that developed India's nuclear doctrine and a former member of the National Security Advisory Board. "It has to do with the perception that Manmohan Singh is predisposed to offer no resistance to Obama's nonproliferation policy push and may sign the CTBT. And that the government has to be stopped from doing this. It is, in fact, about keeping our testing option open."

Singh's government immediately distanced itself from Santhanam and reiterated its commitment to the moratorium on tests. But Karnad said the question "is not whether India will test, but when."

Last week, the former chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, P.K. Iyengar, also joined the chorus advocating more tests and said "nobody makes a weapon out of a single test."

Conducting a nuclear test would lead to the termination of the nuclear deal with the United States and would jeopardize fuel supplies. It would also flout India's voluntary moratorium on testing, declared in 1998.

"Santhanam and other Indian Dr. Strangeloves see this as a way to block progress toward disarmament and possibly get more nuclear testing going before it is too late," said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association. "Indian testing would likely trigger additional Pakistani testing . . . and could even provoke a resumption of Chinese testing."

...

Santhanam said that the hydrogen bomb tested in 1998 "completely failed to ignite" and that the shaft, the frame and the winches were found to be intact even after the tests. No crater was formed in the fusion test.

"If the second H-bomb stage of the composite device had worked, the shaft would have been blown to smithereens," he told reporters.

...

"The cost is intolerable if India tests," said Kanwal Sibal, a former foreign secretary. "We will suffer international isolation. It will be a huge setback to our bid for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council."


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests