vina wrote: Small correction onree. It was Mumbai alone maybe (the 1/3rd of India's tax revenue thingie). Dilli as always was the blood sucking parasite (it continues to be so today as well) and actually probably never contributed anything positive to the national exchequer
I used to get the same thoughts.Then the lament in the last paragraph (Sibal) about loss of consensus is also GoI speak.NRao wrote:The Kanwal Sibal and RR article/s are GoI-speak.
India is prepared to meet Any Eventuality.
Anyone who attacks India will get a Befitting Reply
I think so.shiv wrote:Then the lament in the last paragraph (Sibal) about loss of consensus is also GoI speak.NRao wrote:The Kanwal Sibal and RR article/s are GoI-speak.
In which case he would do well to stay in hiding after the 3-week. Because the Khetolai argument puts him in an untenable position.Santhanam has only one issue: TN fizzle.
Absolutely correct.narayanan wrote: My guess is that if there was a Referendum on
a) Test thermonukes and suffer global opprobrium and sanctions, have economy go down, get H1B visa quota slashed to zero, etc.
b) No more tests, small nukes are enough for MCD , get on with more important stuff
I believe, since MMS &Co got re-elected by the same electorate, that the referendum would be a landslide win for (b) - I mean outside BRF. So what is GOI afraid of?
They should just laugh it off, and keep repeating thatIndia is prepared to meet Any Eventuality.
Anyone who attacks India will get a Befitting Reply
Sathanam is on record stating that a device (expected to yield) 45 kt was lowered into one shaft at Pokhran. After that it took repeated self goals by expressbuzz to defeat the very objections he was raising. At least for those who care even slightly for the technical details. For those who don't "We have big bum" is all that matters.narayanan wrote: In which case he would do well to stay in hiding after the 3-week. Because the Khetolai argument puts him in an untenable position.
a) S1 was a fizzle. If it had not been, the village would have been destroyed and people would have died. Santanam was Test Coordinator, and as such it was his responsibility. So if there is no Statute of Limitations for Attempted Murder, then Dr. Santanam faces jail.
Santanam himself is on record in 1998 saying that the yield was limited by the need to protect the village and villagers. So he can't deny that this was a consideration or that he never thought of it.
So I DON'T believe that this is Dr. Santanam's point at all.
b) S1 met its design yield, but that level was very small, in order to control the total blast. In which case the real issue is that a demonstration at the extreme low end of fusion yield, is not sufficient for confidence that the upper limit can be achieved.
I think this is the message in all his utterances on the issue, and he may very well be speaking for other concerned military and strategic planners.
The Great PM would have ordered the scientists to set off only the teeny-weeniest little explosion that would serve to demonstrate the Deterrent capability and P-6-ness (also to goad Pakistan into revealing their nukes), and not to cause needless waves in Dupleecity, Beijing, Londonistan etc. So from GOI's perspective, the testing was a perfect success in that the teeny-weeniest explosion did manage to have some trace of fusion. Santanam says that the demonstrating some Fission + Epsilon(fusion) does not prove that a weapon with Fission + Big (fusion) will work. Upper limit as I understand here is around 200 - 300 KT for this dial-a-yield technology, but this is what has not been proven in a Big Bang. GOI in 1998 was simply not willing to do any Big Bang. Perhaps it would have taken a lot of hole-digging etc, which was not practical.IF that was the issue THEN, then testing could not have ended, even if the Great PM wanted it to.
Even then, what is the upper limit?
Kanwal Sibal has been pretty vocal in his opposition to many of the UPA govt's foreign policies including nuclear deal, Indo-US relations etc. I agree with amit that we shouldn't shoot the messenger. In this case, by his many articles since his retirement, he has shown that he doesn't have any love for the UPA govt and I feel he is pretty objective on the foreign policy issues.NRao wrote:The Kanwal Sibal and RR article/s are GoI-speak.
IF Santhanam decides to come back after his three week hibernation, I just hope he has a better presentation than the ones he has made so far.
Br loosing charm...oldies leaving...Jcage is not been coming. GJman lingers sometimes. Shivji....what are you doing these days ...hain?Arun_S wrote:Dear friends, please note that I stand by my statements on BR, and time will reveal the self evident truth. Interesting times lie ahead, and matters will become clearer as major events unfold.
It is sad to note that BRF no longer represent "Bharat" and has become a propaganda media for GoI official line; an echo-chamber
I hereby withdraw from BR and BRF.
My thanks to everybody for your support, discussions and bearing with me.
There is a real "Bharat" out there to serve, and I urge my friends to look up to it.
I ask the powers to be on BRF to leave my last post intact.
Thank you
Arun_S
Driving everyone out of fantasy land with reality. Unless you subscribe to Arun's parting shot - now edited, that I am leading an echo chamber for the Indian government.viveks wrote:Shivji....what are you doing these days ...hain?
ssshhh... don't advertise that thread too much in "serious" circles. It could bring harm to it!Dileep wrote: Or even, the lowly EVMs.
Well what was expected after the bulk of the appropriate authorities pronouncement was nothing but a collection of personally perojorative terms towards the whistle blower.RaviBg wrote:A MATTER OF SECURITY- A self-defeating controversy surrounds Pokhran-II - Kanwal Sibal
...
Regrettably, the clarifications by the national security adviser — functionally the appropriate authority to pronounce on the current controversy — have been scoffed at in personally pejorative terms.
...
Neither the constraints or need for obfuscation has ever clearly been explained by some one from strat community, neither was it clear on the board as to what exactly these were ever supposed to be. (Other than some red herrings like Khetolai)Dileep wrote: 1. Total yield is limited because of constraints.
2. Needed two explosions of approximately equal size for obfuscation.
Well, the first one was from KS Himself, spoken right after the test in 1998. The second one is not seen outside this forum.Sanku wrote:Neither the constraints or need for obfuscation has ever clearly been explained by some one from strat community, neither was it clear on the board as to what exactly these were ever supposed to be. (Other than some red herrings like Khetolai)Dileep wrote: 1. Total yield is limited because of constraints.
2. Needed two explosions of approximately equal size for obfuscation.
I also dont subscribe to "chicken little" behavior of be good or Uncle sam will have you for lunch sort of thing. India has never done that in the past, it has cocked a snook and carried on with what it thought was very important. And by all indications Nuke test was very very important to GoI. This pining love for "what will Uncle sam say" is mostly a post J18 phenomena as far as I see.
When you concentrate on personalities and who said what, then you are doing exactly the same thing which you accuse all KS detractors of doing.Sanku wrote:Well what was expected after the bulk of the appropriate authorities pronouncement was nothing but a collection of personally perojorative terms towards the whistle blower.
Tell me a another one.
GoI does not have the maturity to handle "one" KS? And it is everyone's fault but KS? If it was a simple ego issue, to ensure that the credibility is not damaged, why not get KS in the loop by assuaging his ego one way or the other.
Meanwhile it is important to remember that KS did not start the controversy in public, it gradually snowballed from a in camera IDSA seminar.
Do note that Sibal is not a run of the mill DDM reporter and can hardly be called a UPA supporter. As Ravi pointed out, he has written extensively against the nuclear deal. I think Sibal's article as well those by a few others shows that a lot of people from the strategic community are displeased, not necessarily with KS' assertion(s), but rather with his modus operandi.The demand for a peer review of the data from the thermonuclear test may sound reasonable, but it is hardly workable in practical terms. This demand implies the rejection of government claims, reiterated recently, that several such reviews have been undertaken in the last 11 years. A proper, independent peer review is demanded, but what does it mean in effect? Would it entail sharing sensitive information with experts of high public standing in diverse test related disciplines, after they have been sworn to secrecy? Would any government concede an outside review and indirectly acknowledge it had mishandled a vital matter until now? But would such a review necessarily efface the damage already done?
...
Meanwhile if the entire public line up behind KS, including BK and others are all just ego issues (and none from the current position holders in GoI of course) then god save India in any case.
The above is a misrepresentation of my position. I have not concentrated on any personalities.amit wrote:
When you concentrate on personalities and who said what, then you are doing exactly the same thing which you accuse all KS detractors of doing.
If that's your assertion, then I'll accept it. Please accept my apologies for the that part of my post.Sanku wrote:The above is a misrepresentation of my position. I have not concentrated on any personalities.
I summarily rejected the summary as not something I have alluded to.
Dileep I have been trying to find out the exact statement attributed to KS after the tests. Some one did post a statement to the effect ofDileep wrote: Well, the first one was from KS Himself, spoken right after the test in 1998. The second one is not seen outside this forum.
When I say "say" I mean do for all practical purposes. Yes its a concern but hardly a perpetual reason for a debilitating deer in headlight sort of behavior that is expected.It is not simply, "what would Uncle Sam say. It is what US do. It is a very valid concern IMHO.
No need for apologies no offence is taken, my statement was a clarification of my position. However if you think it helps I welcome the gesture.amit wrote: However, the rest of the post stands.
hmm, I guess a known devil is better than unknown devil. We must have built better mechanisms for the known one now the new resurgent China is baring her fangs...The Chinese are moving at breakneck speed to capitalize on what is a mortal wound to the structure of Western power, the collapse of their financial interrelations that acted as a spiderweb of astonishing strength during the past few decades. But that *entire* web is now severly damaged.
But I reckon we're in a far better position that the Chinese. So. . .
On the other hand clear statements on deployment of nukes with
Yield
Depth
Soil mechanics (no big secret)
Expected crater size
etc would be very welcome.
In addition may be they should also take a tour of intl scientist to verify the claims made by local ones to confirm all the depth, expected crater size and soil mechanics calculations are 100% in agreement.This can be done by some IIT soil mechanics types. Surely they wont find something in the shaft which will be a "proliferation concern"Kanson wrote:On the other hand clear statements on deployment of nukes with
Yield
Depth
Soil mechanics (no big secret)
Expected crater size
etc would be very welcome.
Also you think there's no need for excessive secrecy in the nuclear programme. It's funny that you take the CNS' quote about the need or not of secrecy made in the context of various DRDO projects and apllied it piecemeal to the nuclear weapons programme. This is not the first time you have done that.Would it entail sharing sensitive information with experts of high public standing in diverse test related disciplines, after they have been sworn to secrecy? Would any government concede an outside review and indirectly acknowledge it had mishandled a vital matter until now? But would such a review necessarily efface the damage already done?
GoI system is based on checks and balances. It is like saying you have politicians running the country but want judiciary to look into it too, why?Kanson wrote:^^^ bhai saab, If GoI dont have any confidence in a particular agency who are incompetent and anti-national in fudging the test which is of national importance, they why to hand over such an important task of weapon building to them and ask someother agency to cross verify them.
There are so many controversies surrounding KS statements. To the NDTV intreview posted by Csharma in the previous version of this thread, he says, intially he thought the test is Ok but to the Outlook he makes a darring statement saying from the moment after he knew the test is a fizzle. If we go back to check the photos where the four top leaders of POK2 posing for the press, KS raised a victory sign to the press. If he knew in the first place that the test is a failure as he mentions in the Outlook interview then the question is why showed a victory sign and gives the impression that all these are mere drama.Dileep wrote: Well, the first one was from KS Himself, spoken right after the test in 1998.