Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 23 Oct 2009 15:41

enqyoob wrote:As opposed to all the confirmed public-domain "science" on which the fizzle is "based". Like "privileged information whose sources cannot be revealed" citing "western estimates" done with the same precision as weather-forecasting.

This thread is so much fun. The sheer QUALITY and HONESTY of it.


Ah enqyoob it is fun to see words like quality and honesty from you tickles my bones it does

Meanwhile repeating this because forget 3 pages, people forget what was posted 3 posts ago.

Today, short of belief in one section of GoI (not even the whole GoI any more) the fact remains that there is no data to conclude a sizzle.

Truly the only country in a world to have such a TN device.
Last edited by Sanku on 23 Oct 2009 16:00, edited 1 time in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 23 Oct 2009 15:43

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:As I said dear Amit, I am very well aware by now what to expect from you.


Yes dear Sanku, you can expect me to ask for facts and not settle for shibboleths.

Cheers! :)


Not really given that you have shown no such predisposition towards trying to obtain any facts that show a sizzle.

In fact you are on record saying "I dont really care that GoI shows me what happened" or something like it.

I have always found this fascinating actually, this easy duality of approaches with data depending on whether its needed from one one side or the other.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 23 Oct 2009 15:47

Since this is turning into a debate on how to judge statements rather than on any data point, I think this is germane

http://indiastar.com/venkat1.html

Thapar avers[49] that the Avesta talks of
"repeated" migrations from Persia to the
Indus Valley! She neither cites any
references nor offers any arguments to
back such an extraordinary claim.


In any science, just as even in history, it is not enough to necessarily "aver", one has to show. Otherwise it is only a belief system.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Postby amit » 23 Oct 2009 15:54

Thank you Sanku.

It's good see that the counter-arguments are getting to you finally. And you are not longer "averring" fizzle with your usual jest.

There's hope yet.

So let's open a bottle of vodka? I'm sure we can settle this debate with the best Russia can offer. :)

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 23 Oct 2009 15:59

amit wrote:Thank you Sanku.

It's good see that the counter-arguments are getting to you finally.


I am afraid that it has taken you so long to understand what I am saying, I have always been saying the same thing, and with that lets put and end to this round of pleasantries shall we?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 23 Oct 2009 16:00

Sanku wrote:NRao

NRao wrote:Unless you know something that I do not, POK-I data can come in use only in pre-testing phase. Specifically to determine the depth (and therefore crater size, etc). The soil determines most of these metrics.


Well I was under the impression that the data is also used for correlating the cumulative yield to seismic signature during the test itself. Again it has everything to do with the items you talked about but also to characterize the exact mb equation w.r.t. yield.


Sanku,

I am under no impression.

Will wait for your impression to be verified - it is a technical matter in the public domain.

From the article above by Shri Chari

others urged that the passage of years and availability of open
data had enabled Indian scientists to fashion a low-yield TN
device; it was triggered by a fission core with a fissile
‘blanket’ around it to provide the second stage fusion
reaction.


Does this mean that the blanket around the boosted-fission/fusion device was indeed fissile and not inert at all?


Will have to do some research on this matter (unless there is someone else who knows), BUT, as I post I am inclined not to trust what Prof Chari has stated so far. Let us see.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 23 Oct 2009 17:29

NRao wrote:
Will have to do some research on this matter (unless there is someone else who knows), BUT, as I post I am inclined not to trust what Prof Chari has stated so far. Let us see.


You can make what you want of this link.

R Chidambaram calls the mantle the "tertiary stage". He speaks of India's "two stage" test
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper451.html

The Thermonuclear Device
The Two-Stage Device
The thermonuclear device tested on May 11 was a two-stage device of advanced design, which had a fusion-boosted fission trigger as the first stage and a fusion secondary stage which was compressed by radiation implosion and ignited. For reasons of proliferation sensitivity, we have not given the details of the materials used in the device or their quantities. Also, our nuclear weapon designers, like nuclear weapon designers all over the world, have not given the fusion component of the total yield for our thermonuclear test.

Thermonuclear Devices can be of different Types

Thermonuclear devices can be designed in many ways. In devices designed specially for PNE excavation applications, the fission trigger yield is minimised and the same is done in the low yield (in the region of one kiloton) battlefield weapon called the Enhanced Radiation Weapon or, in popular parlance, the neutron bomb. In a conventional themonuclear weapon like the W-87 of USA, there is a high enriched Uranium ring around the fusion secondary, in which further fissions are caused by the 14 MeV fusion neutrons. In fact, it appears that the yield from the tertiary fission stage can be varied between 0 and 175 kt as the total yield varies between 300 and 475 kt for this weapon which is said to be phased out under the START negotiations and replaced by the W-88. The latter has a fixed yield of 475 kt and is perhaps the most favoured weapon in the US arsenal; it may be recalled that this weapon was in the news recently in the context of alleged spying in a U.S weapons laboratory. There are other thermonuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile where the warhead yield is reported to be widely variable, while the dimensions and the weight are said to be the same. Engineering wise, this is desirable.

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

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

Postby enqyoob » 23 Oct 2009 18:13

It is beyond my Brfizzled brain to understand what is wrong with this situation:
Today, short of belief in one section of GoI (not even the whole GoI any more) the fact remains that there is no data to conclude a sizzle.

Truly the only country in a world to have such a TN device.


Where are the data to PROVE a fizzle?

And how do those "proving" it, counter the visible, reported (yes, despite the obviously false denials) damage at Khetolai, and the (reported, despite the obviously false denials by some on this forum) declaration by Dr. Santanam Himself in 1998 that the yield was limited by the need to ensure safety of the villages?

In other countries, do they invite foreign reporters to witness and measure their underground nuclear tests?

Where is the PROOF that Israel has nuclear weapons? (OK, I see that "fizzles" apply only to "TNs".)

The above quote exemplifies the "arguments" by the "fizzle" experts on this thread, and generally by the same people in any other thread.
1. Jump up and down quoting some nonsense uttered by some politically or bigotically-motivated idiot.
2. Dishonestly ignore simple facts and logic.
3. Claim that there are no facts.
4. :(( :(( when these are pointed out.
5. Back to 1- repeat cycle.

Cheers

P.S. I am too busy to sit here and dig out the clear facts from some 300 pages of these threads, exposing (yet again!!!) the falsehood of arguments posted on this and the previous page. But then, I don't need to - you know what those are, quite well. A couple of the most exotic and memorable :rotfl:
1. Sanku's claim that he had searched but never found any evidence that earthquakes of magnitude less than 6.0 ever did any serious damage or killed anyone.
2. Sanku's claim above that the factual evidence of POK-2 yield being limited by damage to villages, was just "one person's opinion" with "no facts to support it". Yeah, sure, except that the "one persons" included Dr. K. Santanam, the test coordinator himself. When he was not a "strategic affairs" think tank director, but a person responsible for conducting the tests.



BTW, could someone point out pls what is new in Chari's article?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 23 Oct 2009 18:17

enqyoob wrote:BTW, could someone point out pls what is new in Chari's article?


Check the date. It is different from all previous articles. :P

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11029
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 23 Oct 2009 20:12

N^3 saar,
I agree that you have to post that post regularly. It is important for the junta who were expecting a 10 MT blast at khetolai.

But there are two things I want to point out. This current controversy is solely because there were murmurs since 1998 about the status of the TN test, and which were reinforced by KS's statements.
The most interesting of these are: (And both are contradictory)
1. His claim of a crater the size of 75 odd meters which was expected.
2. His claim that the yield that would have protected khetolai itself was not achieved.

I don't know how big an explosion would have been needed for a 70-75 m crater, but if what he said is true, this would surely have flattened Khetolai. Essentially he expected a 40% larger yield than what was achieved.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6138
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 23 Oct 2009 20:56

Surely you know that usage is figurative? And the closeness and marriage are terms related to organizations and relations are organizational relations?

Sankuji - figurative? Than's why there was a :eek:, but as you said you thought that that word was brilliant ... can you explicitly explain what "organization and relations" are being referred there? Now in stead of suggesting that I do not understand figurative use, I challenge you to tell me exactly what relationship (figurative or otherwise)commits incest in that "debate". Please don't weasel out and tell us why you thought the use of that word in the title was liked by you so much that you will take issues, as you did in following posts?

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

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

Postby samuel » 23 Oct 2009 21:52

The interesting thing about this "incestuous" debate -- everyone f*cking one another in the name of debate when they should be fighting together to fix the issue -- is that we are looking to Israel for examples of proper behaviour. A nation that has zero hesitation taking a whole nuke program out without disclosing whether or not it has nukes. We on the other hand, are capable of declaring 100s of KT capability based on two tests with only a question of fabrication and tampering remaining. Tempering and following through, nah, that's just not our style.

S

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6138
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 23 Oct 2009 22:03

Sanku wrote:Meanwhile in all the mocking replies this part is lost track of again
From the article above by Shri Chari
others urged that the passage of years and availability of open
data had enabled Indian scientists to fashion a low-yield TN
device; it was triggered by a fission core with a fissile
‘blanket’ around it to provide the second stage fusion
reaction.


Does this mean that the blanket around the boosted-fission/fusion device was indeed fissile and not inert at all?


Okay, No mocking, looks like you are really impressed with that "incestuous" reasoning/debate (I am using that word, only because Sanku "personally think is quite a good approximation of the issue at hand" - No offense to anyone - it is as figurative as Sankuji wants - again no offense) and giving it a serious consideration.
But that's Sankuji's choice, I OTOH, find the "data/conclusions/etc" given in that has to be taken with lot of salt. AQ Khan (as you know he is renowned nuclear expert) commented some thing about ho HEU bums (with larger diameter missiles and what not) are more efficients than srde's Pu bums) etc.. Many did not draw any conclusion based on mere articles by AQK.

IOW just a statement by shri Chari (even sprinkled with buzz words like 'availability of open data' and talking about 'fissle blanket') does not add ANYTHING to understanding of what kind of the weapon's design. So in my mind, when some one asks:
Does this mean that the blanket around the boosted-fission/fusion device was indeed fissile and not inert at all?

I would say statement adds zero credible information about what the blanket was (or even if there was any blanket?)

Hope this helps.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 23 Oct 2009 22:04

I don't know how big an explosion would have been needed for a 70-75 m crater,


It is not "how BIG", but HOW DEEP a device is placed that determines the radius of a crater (IF AT ALL). You can have a 5 Kt device or a 45 Kt device produce a 70 meter dia crater. Only that the 5 Kt will have to be shallower than the 45 Kt. And there are equations that determine this depth - WHICH IS THE POINT.

Neither you nor me need a Santhanam (or RC for that matter) to tell us how deep to place it.

It is a science. A very predictable one at that.

but if what he said is true, this would surely have flattened Khetolai.


Not necessarily. IF the structures in the village were dilapidated a 5 Kt device could have flattened them. Bad rains in Mumbai flatten real old building. It should be a combination of how powerful the device was, the soil structure and the condition of the building/structures would be the determining factors.

BUT, as I have repeatedly stated. IF what Santhanam is stating is right then even Chengappa is wrong.

'Santhanam's claims over Pokhran N-tests absurd'

Outside of that title:

Chidambaram said wrote:If he has any new scientific information which we are not aware of, it will be nice to have that data. .............. Let him tell exactly what made him give that comment. Who are the seismologists he is referring to. We will go and look back


Part of the review?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 23 Oct 2009 22:49

On the topic of modeling based on a single data point. There has been a LOT of concern shown towards the supposed fact that the S1 was a single data point and therefore could not be used in a simulation.

During my web surfing I have come across articles that claim that S2 was based on a model that was based on a single data point: 1974 PNE!!

The S2 effort is actually the conclusion of what started in 1974, 1974 was then modeled, the model - over the years - refined, to produce an actual nuclear weapon. Compact, light weight, etc.

It has crossed my mind that S2 was a "simple" fission. S1 being a TN the dimension of "complexity" does enter the picture - granted. However, modeling is modeling, data is data. The complexity is in the physics, not so much in the modeling. As long as the physics is very well understood and captured in a model, the rest is plain simple donkey work.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11029
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 23 Oct 2009 22:50

^^^
Minor nitpicking only.
The crater diameter is a function of the yield, nature of the soil strata and the depth of burial of the device.

Rest i agree with.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 23 Oct 2009 23:01

Gagan wrote:^^^
Minor nitpicking only.
The crater diameter is a function of the yield, nature of the soil strata and the depth of burial of the device.

Rest i agree with.


True.

Then this cannot stand:

I don't know how big an explosion would have been needed for a 70-75 m crater,


Point being that in S1 the crater size can be calculated - rather easily. We know the rest.

Umrao Das
BRFite
Posts: 332
Joined: 11 Jul 2008 20:26

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

Postby Umrao Das » 23 Oct 2009 23:07

If some had data other than BARC gurus, they would be obliged to keep mum else they would have spilled the truth beans by now. The very fact that so much convoluted way saying everything is fine and dandy, and anybody asking for reasonable sceintific explanation is branded as having no data or no idea does not put the fear in the enemy.

Then turning around and saying some buildings did not or would have cracked, or that much mega bums are not required to deter is also very convincing for internal debates but not to the enemy.

If we keep harping about deterence some one questions if our leadership is capable of using the device what ever size we have at all.

Then some one else comes and says NFU means we must have the capacity to raze to the ground everything stands still.

Then some chimes in saying If we have to use then deterence is itself a failure.

Then some one muses that if small is beautiful we have to make many small ones so thats expensive.

Once again the law of Naked Fakir Fakuruddin (PBUH) comes into play why waste money on mega bums when children and pregnant women need help,?

Its just merry go round the mulberry bush ....

so lets all take a charminar and do the right thing.

IMVHO etc etc

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6138
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 23 Oct 2009 23:57

Gagan wrote:Shiv-ji saar,
Weight and yield chart of the US N bombs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_nuclear_weapons_yield-to-weight_comparison.svg
IMAGE from wiki - committed.

Just curious, where/how one gets that "6KT/KG" "theoretical upper limit"? (Even for TN we peon as wiki article says.
(Of course, from strictly theory, one would get about 3 times (for fission) or 10-15 times (for LID or D type fusion) of that value)


Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11029
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 24 Oct 2009 02:18

NRao wrote:Then this cannot stand:

I don't know how big an explosion would have been needed for a 70-75 m crater,


Point being that in S1 the crater size can be calculated - rather easily. We know the rest.

My question is why not?
Even if we consider a 200m depth of burial a large enough explosion will cause a large enough cavity and so a large enough crater.
Why can't it be true? I've read the BR monitor topic on yields vs crater diameter and yields and safe depth. But is there a combined equation where depth, yield, and crater size can be amalgamated?
BARC is more advanced in that they have the baneberry model to add the various strata layers and their densities to add and run an actual simulation for this.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6138
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 24 Oct 2009 02:54

Gagan - Checkout Computers & Structures, (Volume 87, Issues 21-22, November 2009, Pages 1366-1373) to find your answer about the crater diameter. Here is the abstract of the paper:
Extensive research activities in the field of blast loads have taken place in the last few decades. There are many experimental results related to underground explosions. The mechanism of crater formation is complex and it is related to the dynamic physical properties of air, soil and air/soil interface. Studies concerned with the characteristics of craters caused by explosions usually resort to dimensional analysis and statistics. Some empirical equations proposed for the evaluation of crater dimensions can be found in the literature. Nevertheless, they were obtained for particular type of soils, shapes of explosives, ranges of explosive mass and depth of explosive and they present considerable variability.

The main objective of this paper is to prove the accuracy of numerical simulation of craters produced by underground explosions. For this purpose, the numerical analysis of crater formation due to underground explosions is performed with a hydrocode. Several numerical approaches are carried out using different models and processors for the soil. Moreover, different alternatives for the constitutive model of the soil are used.

Comparison with experimental results is performed in order to validate the numerical approach and prove its ability to model the crater formation. Many simulations of the same physical model lead to the same crater dimensions and a good agreement between the test results and the predicted crater measures is achieved.


Hope this helps.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 24 Oct 2009 03:11

I've read the BR monitor topic on yields vs crater diameter and yields and safe depth.


At the rick of another tangential set of responses - no you have not. Or you did not understand that article - which is OK.

For IF you had, it tackles precisely your question:

But is there a combined equation where depth, yield, and crater size can be amalgamated?


The graph at the tail end of the BR article by Sunder is your "amalgamated". (I have built an Excel spreadsheet that does these calcs for me.)

Even if we consider a 200m depth of burial a large enough explosion will cause a large enough cavity and so a large enough crater.


True. BUT then we will go off on a tangent (typical Indian mind set).

The point being WE need to stick to S1 - irrespective of SK or RC "side". I for one am open - I am not for RC or against SK -, it just happened that I came across a few articles prior to the BR article that lead me in the Toman direction, but the BR/Sunder article was S1 specific, which is why I got into it.

BARC is more advanced in that they have the baneberry model to add the various strata layers and their densities to add and run an actual simulation for this.


And, that is exactly what they did - AND by extension Santhanam DID NOT (and perhaps he could not either). Just a point being made - NOT a knock on Santhanam - he just did not have the means to do it or the access to it either. BUT this is why I have always been inclined to suspect him - I am fairly confident that even with his background he did not have ALL the data to make a decision. He could not. In fact the most important "data" - that of modeling the explosions he did not have (S2 for example). How on earth can he be so sure of what he is stating in that case? Just looking for answers - NOT speculations - no "could be", "should be", "may be", etc.

Even if we consider a 200m depth of burial a large enough explosion will cause a large enough cavity and so a large enough crater.


Gagan ji,

I am not sure what is so difficult to understand.

"large enough explosion" is between RC's 45 Kt and Santhanam's what 25 Kt? The range of THIS S1 explosion is only limited by these two actors - that is it. Anything beyond that is pure BS, just passing time without any meaning WRT S1. Yes, we can sit and post "large enough", but that does not solve the S1 issue. Even Santhanam cannot accept that.

The other data point is the depth: 200+ meters per Changappa (Sunder accepted this in the BR article) and RR had 230 meters. Santhanam - so FAR - has nothing in this area. I am hoping he will provide some direction here - the other shoe.

IF you have access to Microsoft's Excel I would highly recommend that you (and others) go through this exercise. You can then very easily work out what Kt one needs at 200 meters to gen a crater of 70 meters radius.

OR how deep do you need to place a 45 Kt device to gen a 70 meter radius carter - per the paper and calc there are two depths.

No need to rely on anyone or make general assumptions.

But, better still, let us just wait fro Santhanam to tell us more - the other shoe.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6138
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 24 Oct 2009 04:34

N^3:
For those who are pooh poohing Khetolai concerns and coming out with statements like "That is no more than an individuals statement of belief." should, in my opinion, should really do a reality check and understand the gravity of pooh poohing serious concerns.

I would suggest that those, if they have not heard/read about, look up 'operation plowshare' - 1962 tests, and specifically an appox 100KT (Storax Sedan ( check that out for details in internet wiki) - in some respect similar to S1 (was buried about 200m deep in desert), and because safety concerns were ignored, it ended up creating one of the largest crater, and vented largest amount of radioactivity (about a million curie of I-131 alone ...) in the fallout - caused lot of cancers and effected more than 10+ million (5+% of total US population) people.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 24 Oct 2009 06:08

samuel wrote:The interesting thing about this "incestuous" debate -- everyone f*cking one another in the name of debate when they should be fighting together to fix the issue -- is that we are looking to Israel for examples of proper behaviour. A nation that has zero hesitation taking a whole nuke program out without disclosing whether or not it has nukes. We on the other hand, are capable of declaring 100s of KT capability based on two tests with only a question of fabrication and tampering remaining. Tempering and following through, nah, that's just not our style.

S


Samuelji - nation is different from "us". One or the other of us may be lying no? We cannot allow the nation's reputation to suffer. Nation will look after itself. We will find out who is lying.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 24 Oct 2009 06:14

Gagan wrote:

My question is why not?
Even if we consider a 200m depth of burial a large enough explosion will cause a large enough cavity and so a large enough crater.
Why can't it be true? I've read the BR monitor topic on yields vs crater diameter and yields and safe depth. But is there a combined equation where depth, yield, and crater size can be amalgamated?
BARC is more advanced in that they have the baneberry model to add the various strata layers and their densities to add and run an actual simulation for this.

From
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library ... fects.html

Image

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 24 Oct 2009 06:30

Fully contained explosion (Contained=no leak of radioactivity)

Image

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library ... fects.html
Cavities formed by fully contained explosions typically undergo collapse (in U.S. tests > 95% of the time), the few cases where this does not occur is generally restricted to small cavities in salt formations. If the overburden is compact (like typical bedded rock) then the rock that falls into the cavity forms disordered rubble with greater volume than the original solid rock. Rock continues to fall from the new ceiling left by previous rock falls, causing the collapse to progress upward and form a roughly cylindrical chimney filled with rubble. When the increase in volume of the rubble over the original rock is equal to the volume of the initial cavity, the chimney has become completely filled with rubble and chimney growth ceases. If the cavity was formed at a shallow enough depth, then the chimney will grow until it reaches the surface and a permanent depression called a subsidence crater is formed (Fig. 6-a, Fig. 2-f, Fig. 3 at 350 ft). The ratio of cavity width to chimney height is quite variable, and depends on the properties of the material through which the chimney propagates. For a low porosity rock like granite is is 4.2 to 4.5; for porous rock like tuff it can range from 3.8 to 6.8. Dolomite has a low ratio of around 3.2. if the chimney encounters alluvium or sand during its upward growth, materials that do not bulk, then the ratio is essentially unlimited, the chimney will grow to the surface, even over great vertical distances.

U.S. underground tests were typically designed so that a sufficiently deep chimney of rubble was formed to form a "cap" that prevented significant amount of the volatile radioisotopes from escaping into the atmosphere.

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

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

Postby enqyoob » 24 Oct 2009 08:08

shiv:

U got me there. I have to agree: Chari's article has an entirely new DATE. :oops:

AmberG: Coincidentally, during the 4 days that I was internet-liberated, I found myself reading this thriller novel that has vastly increased my knowledge of earthquakes, nuclear blasts etc. :mrgreen:

So yes, I have read all about "Sedan" and "Baneberry". The numbers cited in what I was reading, were quite different from those on the web so there is some question about how true any published numbers are (but as long as they are published in the "West" it is fine for ppl like Prof. Chari, I guess...)

On one of those, (maybe Sedan) they were saved by the prevailing winds. If the wind had blown in another direction, thousands may have died. As it is, incidence of leukaemia in those parts was apparently hidden by falsifying the statistics, all under the "national security" blanket.

Also, going deep incurs the risk of shaking seismic faults, with entirely unpredictable consequences in the Rajasthan region, where rivers have changed course in the past due to violent earthquakes. (The whole Mohenjodaro / Harappa abandonment is attributed to the Saraswati river drying up / getting lost due to earthquakes in its watershed, and the Indus changing course. The Kutch area losing their drinking water supply is also attributed to seismic shifts). BAD place to set off MT-level blasts underground. This point had not occurred to me until I read that book. Apparently about 1MT is the level needed to seriously shake seismic faults, causing "release of energy" as waves near the surface. A depth of some 2000 feet is also recommended.

So these things mean that any MT-level blast in northwest India is probably ruled out as being way too risky from a seismic point of view.

Note that it was barely 8 years after 1998 that the huge Kashmir quake occurred. Given how long the stresses must have been building for that, it was very lucky that it did not happen within, say, 1 year. Imagine the noise if it had occurred in, say, June 1998! As it is, there was a massive quake in early 2001 in Gujarat.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 24 Oct 2009 08:20

Just came across this article:

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262331

Ground reality: The site of the Pokhran-II blasts
opinion
Non-Fissile Doubts
One nuclear lie puts our entire strategic decision-making at stake
P.K. Iyengar PRINT SHARE COMMENTS




What DAE Says

•Combined yield of Pokhran-II tests was 57 kt: 12 kt for the fission device; 45 kt for the TN one
•International seismologists got yield wrong because of the geological nature of Pokhran-II site
•Claims Pokhran-II yield was 4.45 times Pokhran-I, so TN device worked
•Iyengar can’t be sure about his calculations because he doesn’t know the parameters of the device.
•The radiochemical test of the Pokhran-II site proves its yield measurements were as expected
•The ratio of Mn54 to Ce144 shows fusion took place in excess of fission.
***

What Iyengar Says

•If so sure, why doesn’t DAE make public the video recording of the ground motion during the test?
•If international seismologists got Pokhran-I readings right, they wouldn’t get Pokhran II wrong, since site geology was more or less the same
•Pokhran-I yielded 8 kt. So, total yield at 4.45 times works to 36 kt. Since DAE assigned 12 kt for fission device, leaves only 24 kt for TN one.
•Says only 10 per cent of LiD fusion material burnt. His formula was confirmed by S.K. Sikka, then head of the BARC design team.
•Says error margins in the radiochemical residual analysis too large
•Both fission & fusion neutrons produce Mn 54, DAE ratio no confirmation
***

Recent revelations by Dr K. Santhanam, who was the field director during Pokhran-II, have once again brought into focus doubts regarding the thermonuclear test of May 11, 1998. Thermonuclear weapons are crucial to a credible deterrent because they are much lighter than fission weapons and therefore more suitable for deployment on missiles. Thus, fission weapons are sufficient only if your deterrence is restricted to targets located close to you. By contrast, thermonuclear weapons are not only lighter but also have explosive powers ranging from tens of kilotons to megatons, all coming largely from Lithium (Li) which is much cheaper than the plutonium used in the fission process. True, a thermonuclear explosion has as its trigger a fission device, but here the quantity of plutonium required is much smaller than in a purely fission weapon of comparable yield.



Minor variations in the site geology of the ’98 tests couldn’t have accounted for reduction in yield by half compared to ’74.


The basic design of nuclear devices must be validated through underground explosions before weaponising, underlining the necessity of being absolutely sure that the test carried out is beyond any doubt. Therefore, considering the doubts over the Pokhran-II tests, what’s at stake is the credibility of our nuclear deterrence and, even more importantly, of our strategic decision-making process. No one understands this better than the armed forces, who will be the users of these weapons. Since it’s they who are responsible for national security, they must be convinced about the success of our nuclear tests and our nuclear deterrence—not politicians or bureaucrats. By all accounts, they don’t seem to be in the loop.

At a press conference on September 24, 2009, the principal scientific advisor to the government, Dr R. Chidambaram, and the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Dr Anil Kakodkar, sought to address the ‘doubts’ raised by Dr Santhanam about the efficacy of the thermonuclear (TN) test. Were their clarifications adequate?

First, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) claims that the combined yield of the fission and TN devices tested simultaneously was around 57 kilotonnes (kt). Dr Santhanam, who was in charge of the measurements at the site, claims that the S2 (shaft-2) site in which the fission device was detonated gave a yield of 25 kt and the TN device in S1 gave much less. International seismologists, with rich experience in operating a sophisticated seismic array, all converge on a total yield not greater than 30 kt. The DAE claims that the fission device yielded 12 kt and the TN device 45 kt. It isn’t scientifically possible to reconcile these two claims even though the then NSA convened a meeting to resolve this issue.

Santhanam’s revelations confirm that the fission device created, as expected, a crater similar to that of Pokhran-I. It’s clear that the shock intensity reaching the ground in the S1 shaft was certainly weaker and was due to the much lesser yield of the TN device compared to what is being claimed. Video recording of the ground motion could confirm the poorer upthrust of ground, but neither the DAE nor the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has released this for the public.

Second, the teleseismic recordings and their analysis from a large number of stations can’t be ignored. They had reported 8 kt for Pokhran-I, which was conducted in 1974, and was close to our own measurements. It’s erroneous to argue that minor variations in the site geology of the 1998 tests could lower the signals to account for reduced yield by as much as half (the DAE’s 57 kt as against the 30 kt of others.)

Third, one of DAE’s estimates was made on the basis of a comparative study, giving the yield of Pokhran-II relative to that of Pokhran-I. The rationale for this is that since the location was almost the same, many of the uncertainties regarding the soil composition etc could be removed by such a calculation. The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) calculated that the Pokhran-II yield was 4.45 times the Pokhran-I yield. (Others estimated it to be only 2-3 times.) Taking the Pokhran-I yield as close to 8 kt, as I know it as its project head, the total yield of Pokhran-II works to only 36 kt, leaving only 24 kt for the TN device (since the DAE claims 12 kt for the fission test). This is closer to the international evaluation, though slightly higher.

Fourth, the DAE concedes that the TN device consisted of a boosted-fission trigger and the secondary fusion core. There was also probably a fission ‘spark-plug’ in the core of the TN device (and I say this because this would be a sensible, conservative design for a first TN device; in which case some energy would come from it too. But this hasn’t been revealed). So, part of the TN yield would have come from the boosted-fission trigger and part from the fusion burn. In 2000, I had liberally estimated this ratio to be 1:1. This was later agreed to by Dr S.K. Sikka as well, who was the scientific head of the BARC design team. With this number for the thermonuclear burn—12 kt (the other 12 kt coming from the fission trigger in that 1:1 ratio)—I have calculated that only around 250 gm of the LiD (Lithium-6 Deuteride) fusion material would have burnt. I know for sure that the BARC has the means to make highly enriched Li-6 from 1970. This amount of LiD translates to a core size of around 4 cm in radius, too small for a realistic size of an LiD core. It’s more likely that around 2 kg of LiD (8 cm radius) was used, in which case the burn efficiency would be around 10 per cent. The core’s shape could have been different from spherical.

Fifth, the DAE has quoted the radiochemical method as an accurate method of estimating the yield. However, it depends upon where the sample came from, and the methodology used. In an unreviewed paper by BARC published in the BARC Newsletter, where even scales are not marked on the graphs, they have claimed 50 kt as the yield (for the TN device), with an error of +/- 10 kt. This error range clearly shows that the methodology is suspect. In the case of atmospheric explosions, one could pick the samples from the very centre of the device and thus be more accurate. For the fusion device, one has to rely on the activity produced by fusion neutrons. This is difficult because a good part of the fission neutron spectrum also produces the same radioactive isotopes, thus complicating the problem. BARC scientists themselves agree that there are uncertainties regarding the volume of the disturbed zone which is assumed and not measured, thus resulting in an error of +/- 20 per cent. I have therefore very little faith in this radiochemical analysis, a view which is corroborated by senior retired radiochemists.

For the same amount of energy release, there would be 12 times more fusion than fission events. The fission product Ce144 (Cerium-144) is a small fraction of the fission fragments. The fast fission neutrons and the 14 MeV (million electronic volts) fusion neutrons both produce Mn54 (Manganese 54). The ratio of Mn54 to Ce144 therefore does not necessarily prove that fusion has occurred in excess of fission. The gamma ray spectrum does not prove anything. It only shows that the detector has good resolution irrespective of how the Mn54 was produced.

There are other questions to be asked. For example, what was the depth at which the devices were placed? After Pokhran-I, we immediately declared the depth to be 107 m, since this had nothing to do with the design of the device. Why is it that information about Pokhran-II being kept secret? Secondly, were any measurements made of the tritium concentration at the site? If the boosted-fission trigger worked, then the lithium in the LiD would have been converted to tritium by the neutrons. If the fusion worked as designed, the tritium would have fused with the deuterium and formed He-4 (helium-4). Therefore, a large tritium concentration left behind would suggest that the fission trigger worked, but the fusion part is suspect.

These grave doubts about the efficacy of the TN device should be cleared before any attempt at weaponisation. It’s imperative that the government responds to this crisis immediately, with a detailed, if necessary confidential, review by knowledgeable experts. It’s said that the AEC has already conducted this review. While the AEC comprises very distinguished bureaucrats and scientists, I’m sure that none of them, except Dr Kakodkar, would call himself an expert on nuclear devices or even nuclear physics. Others argue that it would be unwise to rake up the issue now, embarrassing as it is for India. Isn’t it worse to build a nuclear strategy on foundations that are suspect?

The Pokhran-II controversy also raises issues about the nature of our policymaking. Plurality of opinions and inputs is essential to the democratic process and for correctly assessing situations and taking the right decisions. This ethos is present in most areas; that’s why we are a nation of committees! But when it comes to strategic matters, particularly in scientific matters, there’s a deplorable tendency, in the name of secrecy, to listen to only one opinion. The earlier statements of Brajesh Mishra, and even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, only reinforce this impression. The problem is exacerbated by the growing interference of politicians in scientific matters, and perhaps by the growing politicisation of science and scientists. Consequently, you have an impenetrable nexus, which makes scientific decision-making impossible.


Before the event: Vajpayee should have referred to experts

Before Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee declared India as a weapon power and announced no first-use and a unilateral moratorium, he and his advisors should have satisfied themselves by referring to experts and not gone entirely by the claims of the two scientists, Chidambaram and A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, particularly after the DRDO raised doubts. Instead, those doubts were buried without being given a scientific hearing. The government also seems to have used those two scientists to bring about a softening of political opinion on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Weapons design and testing is a specialised field, but it isn’t an exclusive club. Much of the information is available openly nowadays, in books and on the internet! Also, there exists sufficient expertise within the county to do a genuine peer review of the thermonuclear test, which will be in the best interest of the nation.

In the broader policymaking context, I propose that the government should immediately form a special advisory group of experts outside of the administration, and therefore uninfluenced by government, but having a central advisory role in decision-making in sensitive strategic areas—like the JASON committee in the US. Of course, it would be easy for the government to constitute this group in a manner that serves its own purposes, but it should realise that it is in the nation’s, and therefore ultimately in the government’s, best interests that such a group is genuinely expert, independent, and unafraid. Governments should realise that though they may have strong political compulsions to act in one manner or another, when it comes to science and technology, individual opinions and diktats don’t matter, and only objectivity and an open-minded approach can find the best way forward for the country. I can foresee that in the near future the government may have to take decisions on nuclear policies which will have grave consequences for India’s future.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6138
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Postby Amber G. » 24 Oct 2009 08:28

BTW: Funny (if that can be called funny) part about "sedan" was, when the story came out for general public, around 2005.. some body read/took it at "Sudan"
and there was all kind of hangama in the newspapers :rotfl: , diplomatic circles, etc...

US Envoy Summoned Over House Remarks on US Nuclear Tests in Sudan
The Sudanese Foreign Ministry has summoned the US charge d'affaires in Khartoum and requested clarification regarding statements that the United States had carried out nuclear tests in Sudan. Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Uthman Isma'il said his country has embarked on an investigation into the issue:
"In a hearing session by the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives, a US Defense Department official displayed pictures of nuclear tests by the United States in Sudan in 1962 and 1970. The hearing session was held by the said subcommittee on 2 March 2005. I stress to you that we are eager to have this issue clarified. We are working on that with seriousness proportionate to the potential risks. The Sudanese Government takes this issue seriously and with extreme importance."


Xinhua General News Service
March 10, 2005
Sudan holds US responsible for cancer spread in Sudan

KHARTOUM -- The Sudanese government on Wednesday held the United States responsible for cancer spread in Sudan caused by US nuclear experiments in the African country in 1962-1970.
Sudanese Minister of Agriculture and Political Secretary General of the ruling National Congress (NC) party Majzoub el-Khalifa told reporters his government would launch a public campaign and judiciary procedures on the issue.
The remarks came one day after Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Ismail quoted a senior US Defense Department official as saying that the United States made two nuclear explosions in Sudan in 1962 and 1970.
Khalifa said his government would take steps in coordination with the international community to regain rights of the Sudanese people who suffered from these nuclear experiments.

Suna News Agency
March 10, 2005 Thursday 5:14 PM EST
GOVERNMENT RECEIVES ASSURANCES FROM AMERICAN

Khartoum, March 10 -- The government has received assurances from the American Administration that the area where the nuclear experiments and explosions took place was Sedan area in Nevada State in the United States of America and not Sudan.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismail said in a press statement that as a result of urgent contacts made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the American authorities via their embassy in Khartoum and the Sudanese Embassy in Washington on what had been reported that US had conducted nuclear tests in Sudan in 1962 and 1970 assurances were received that there was a mistake concerning the name of the area where the nuclear tests and explosions took place in the American State of Nevada at Sedan area and not Sudan.
The minister added that one of the reasons of the confusion was the spelling mistake committed by an editor of the Armed Forces Committee at the US Congress, when he mistakenly typed the word Sedan as Sudan and put it at the minutes of the committee.
Dr. Ismail said that the government has nothing to make it doubts the explanations it has received from the American administration till now, adding that the investigations began by the government would continue until fully got assured.

This is BBC News Report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4338835.stm

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 24 Oct 2009 09:26

On the re emergence of the sneaky ishara that the "S1" device has a fissionable tamper - I want to point out that whether it had a fissionable tamper or not its total yield was capped at 45 kt as per non liars such as Santhanam. To my knowledge (my ignorance may make me a liar) no bomb with a fissionable tamper can be capped to produce a yield as low as 45 kt. We are looking at hundreds of kilotons with fissionable tamper because the yield from tamper is added to yield from primary and secondary.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262027

K.Santhanam wrote: It was a device for 45 KT; anything above it would have caused a venting of radiation that would have been a violation of the Partial Test Ban Treaty to which India is a party.


I post this for the second (or is it third) time..

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

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

Postby enqyoob » 24 Oct 2009 17:36

However, shiv, that is only one person's opinion. No scientific evidence to back it up. Did he post it on a internet fora, or fauna?

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1179
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

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

Postby D Roy » 24 Oct 2009 19:21

Gentlemen,

The entire fizzle debate has become a sparring match over the veracity of a "scientific experiment", despite the supposed implications for "national security". The calls for peer review using international experts ( God!) seems to suggest that at least one side doesn't really think that it has much bearing on national security, claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

There simply cannot be a "open review" of a thermonuclear test if it is being treated as an important national security measure. As it is all that was put out after the Pokharan tests is more than enough anyway. In my personal opinion even that was not required. it only shows that scientists continue to control the direction of some of our strategic programs. Here I think the views of Admiral Arun Prakash are quite valid. Which is why nuclear testing gets debated like a science experiment.

In my humble opinion, regardless of what happened in May 1998 and in what kind of esteem we hold the Indian government its better if we stick by official announcements. The current NSA made things very categorical in that TV interview.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16482
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 24 Oct 2009 19:34

enqyoob wrote:However, shiv, that is only one person's opinion. No scientific evidence to back it up. Did he post it on a internet fora, or fauna?

:rotfl: :rotfl:

god, you are too much !

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

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

Postby samuel » 24 Oct 2009 20:06

From that interview:
In this case, you think only partial truth is being said?
In this case, they are claiming we managed a yield of 45 KT. This is a blatant lie. It’s a LIE—all capitals.

and
So, what was the yield?

About 20 to 25 KT.

Clearly, he doesn't yield...

Where do you want to take it from here?

I don’t want to take it any further. I want a closure of the discussion so that the dust settles down and the concerned agencies and people in government pull up their socks and try to understand the lessons from my remarks.

But the failure of the TN device bothers you?

It bothered me then, it bothers me now. But it does not bother me to the extent that I spend sleepless nights, because in some sense the deterrence with the fission bomb is available. But obviously, India’s nuclear arsenal is incomplete without a TN weapon. India’s minimum credible deterrent remains untouched because the fission bomb certainly worked like a song and, therefore, the minimum part of our deterrent is fully addressed. (But) certainly, we need a thermonuclear bomb, especially for the Agni class of missiles which have a range of 3,000 to 4,000 km. It really doesn’t make sense that you fly the Agni missile 4,000 km and deliver a 20 KT bomb. This will certainly not be in the category of what we call inflicting unacceptable damage on the adversary who attacks us. For sure, we need to carry out a proper thermonuclear test.

I’ve said that if the opportunity arises we should consider resuming the tests. Ultimately, it’s a political decision and I fully respect that. But if you ask me, I think the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will be pursued with much vigour by the new US administration. The window of opportunity is available now.


So nothing happens and the controversy remains? Anyone know what is "minimum" here -- 100x 20KT or 50KT or 200KT?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 24 Oct 2009 20:09

D Roy wrote:In my humble opinion, regardless of what happened in May 1998 and in what kind of esteem we hold the Indian government its better if we stick by official announcements. The current NSA made things very categorical in that TV interview.


Roy you are committing the unpardonable crime of being rational and sensible. That is not allowed. Did you not read the guidelines banning rationality and sense published briefly on this forum at 12-01 AM on April 1 1997 before it was deleted irrationally and unsensibly by some jihadi adminullah? We exist on a separate plane from the GoI and India - and indeed sometimes from reality as well. Do you want a few puffs of what I smoke? We can issue a "joint" statement after that if you like :D

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 24 Oct 2009 20:17

samuel wrote:
So nothing happens and the controversy remains? Anyone know what is "minimum" here -- 100x 20KT or 50KT or 200KT?



Samuel read that article carefully.

Santhanam says that the fission device (S2) yielded "more than 20 kilotons for sure" (The BARC figure for that is 15 kt) Santhanam claims that BARC accepted the DRDO yield for the S2 fission device. That is clearly not true from the differing statements about that with Santhanam saying "More than 20 for sure" and BARC saying 15 kt.

Santhanam says 20-25 kt for the S1 fizzle Thermo nuclear device. Add the to yield quoted by Santhanam for the S2 fission device and you get a total yield figure of "more than 40kt to more than 45 kt". This is still less than the 55 to 60 kt quoted by BARC but is clearly more than the the 25 kt quoted by the "International seismologists" whose yield figures Santhanam quoted in his early statements.

You can read it all in the write up I am preparing for SRR/BRM "Fizzle ya Sizzle - vote karo"

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 24 Oct 2009 20:21

samuel wrote:From that interview:
In this case, you think only partial truth is being said?
In this case, they are claiming we managed a yield of 45 KT. This is a blatant lie. It’s a LIE—all capitals.

and
So, what was the yield?

About 20 to 25 KT.

Clearly, he doesn't yield...

Where do you want to take it from here?

I don’t want to take it any further. I want a closure of the discussion so that the dust settles down and the concerned agencies and people in government pull up their socks and try to understand the lessons from my remarks.

But the failure of the TN device bothers you?

It bothered me then, it bothers me now. But it does not bother me to the extent that I spend sleepless nights, because in some sense the deterrence with the fission bomb is available. But obviously, India’s nuclear arsenal is incomplete without a TN weapon. India’s minimum credible deterrent remains untouched because the fission bomb certainly worked like a song and, therefore, the minimum part of our deterrent is fully addressed. (But) certainly, we need a thermonuclear bomb, especially for the Agni class of missiles which have a range of 3,000 to 4,000 km. It really doesn’t make sense that you fly the Agni missile 4,000 km and deliver a 20 KT bomb. This will certainly not be in the category of what we call inflicting unacceptable damage on the adversary who attacks us. For sure, we need to carry out a proper thermonuclear test.

I’ve said that if the opportunity arises we should consider resuming the tests. Ultimately, it’s a political decision and I fully respect that. But if you ask me, I think the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will be pursued with much vigour by the new US administration. The window of opportunity is available now.


So nothing happens and the controversy remains? Anyone know what is "minimum" here -- 100x 20KT or 50KT or 200KT?



IF there is "deterrence" there is deterrence, else there isn't.

He is clearly confusing deterrence with destruction capability when a deterrence fails (which is fine).

But, in his own words, there is deterrence. So, he needs to tell why it may fail - under what circumstances.

BUT, as long as there is deterrence, there is really no immediate need to build a destructive capability (unless, of course, there is a huge concern about the deterrence failing).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 24 Oct 2009 20:32

Based on that single data point, IMHO, we can now close the "Deterrence" thread.

Umrao Das
BRFite
Posts: 332
Joined: 11 Jul 2008 20:26

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

Postby Umrao Das » 24 Oct 2009 20:36

Roy you are committing the unpardonable crime of being rational and sensible.


I never succumb to such silly thoughts. I have been in touch with sage naked fakir Fakuruddin Baba PBUH, obviously spiritually. He said to me ingentle voice, O pious one, you are up a gum tree if you go against DAE or BARC. They have top secret Nomogram which is universal in nature, you ask RC they read of it, you ask cavity, they read off the nomogram, you ask retrac they read from bootom of the nomogram, I said O mercifull sorry to to ask why reat from bottom , is it in Kanji or persian or Arabic based on Al jazera? F Baba smiled o pious one, it is not Al jazera it is All zebra. I was educated then itself, but he the (one of a kind) continued because it is palindrome, I did not know what it was so I dare not interreput him, he then said because CARTER when spelled backwards is RETRAC, they read the nomogram from bottom. But Baba PBUH I said how does this all relate to Fission and Fusion that has been a plague to "internet fora and fauna or is it munna?" I voiced in gentle manner befit of a naked sage. He smiled once again and said pious but impatient one, You ask a question of BARC or DAE they give you answer saying wrong again by reading the nomogram but leave you still with doubt as to how is it correct. If you think this is a new method read Amar chitra comics on Vikram Betal series. The dead body ( Ghost)comes to life and goes back to hang on the tree so vikram has to start all over again.

I said pure genius pure genius hats off to BARC in bewilderment!!. Who could have been the father of this nomogram, I mused loudly. The wise naked one once again smiled blessingly, It was Bhaba who never was sure of the leadership of India to decide on any thing, so he made life easy by designing this Nomogram so that posterity can read off answers to any problem with out solving it. He also gently admonished me saying try to read BARC as palindrome and understand its nature.... it has to go back to shell to live and thrive"

As it was sunrise was on the horizon, I realized that in "BRF tomorrow comes today where others await it to dawn" and I have to undersatn the wisdom of Naked Sage Fakuruddin Baba wisdom for days to come....


Om shanti shanti shanti in Dandakaranya the internet forest of fora and fauna infested with duelling monkeys and sages..

(added a little punctuation attention)
Last edited by Umrao Das on 24 Oct 2009 20:46, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests