Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

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

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

Postby samuel » 04 Oct 2009 20:40

China's NFU:
http://nuclearthreatinitiative.org/db/china/nfuorg.htm
And note arguments:
Chinese arguments:

* NFU is important to preventing nuclear war, strengthening the nonproliferation regime, and promoting nuclear disarmament
* The United States does not need to reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first due to US conventional superiority
* A no-first-use pledge is a necessary first step to achieving multilateral nuclear reductions among the five nuclear weapon states
* NFU is a serious political commitment with a strong politically-binding force, and will provide for more strategic stability than the existing deterrence policies

US arguments:

* The option to use nuclear weapons first under extraordinary circumstances is necessary to provide credible security guarantees to its alliance partners around the globe; US security commitments to other countries are much wider than China's and thus demand a NFU policy.
* The adoption of an NFU policy might undermine the credibility of US security guarantees to its allies, pushing them toward acquiring nuclear weapon capabilities of their own
* NFU is highly symbolic, lacks real substance, is not verifiable, and can be easily changed
* The option to use nuclear weapons first can deter the use of chemical or biological weapons (CBW) against the United States and its allies and friends

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 04 Oct 2009 21:03

Shiv ji,

Thanks for that article. Will spend some time.

There is a HUGE difference between "One God" and "One God without a second". : ) Stats is really old!!!!

Which is why I am not worried by this proposed Paki-NoKO testing of whatever. The US has tested their underwater missile system some 150 times. Even after that they are not sleeping well. They (US) tested their nukes some 900+ times, still no proper sleep.

The probability of a missile misfiring or a simple military order being misinterpreted - ALL go into the total probability of nukes. Pushing that button is not an easy decision.

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

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

Postby samuel » 04 Oct 2009 21:17

So, how should be go about restarting testing to improve our arsenal and weapon systems, and not just be considered to have the incredible deterrent using two tests that causes no credible worry (anywhere else?). Or, how should we go about dismantling everybody's arsenal?

S

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

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

Postby Arun_S » 04 Oct 2009 21:39

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

Sridhar
BRFite
Posts: 836
Joined: 01 Jan 2001 12:31

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

Postby Sridhar » 04 Oct 2009 21:50

It's sad to see the forum going through such unnecessary bad blood. We used to pride ourselves on our ability to disagree, vehemently if necessary, without things coming to such a pass. I hope all participants will still think calmly and not allow emotions to take control of them.

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

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

Postby samuel » 04 Oct 2009 22:10

What's to be served by this, Arun?

Sorry, but you need to get in there and steadily squeeze rounds off.

It is obvious to a rank outsider like me with zero affiliations that the forum has several agendavadis, which I suppose makes it interesting. When the argument, for example, becomes the very lack of necessity of a TN, even to a largely nuclear-illiterate person like me, it reinforces the failure of the TN test and at least I won't forget that.

If there are "agents" and "agencies" acting on this forum trying to "craft" opinion, there are sufficient people who think for themselves and appreciate information and data as opposed to argument and rhetoric. Why not continue to provide that in the best way you can, which I can vouch for is accepted and absorbed at least by this member.

Though of course I respect your choices.

Sincerely.

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

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

Postby abhiti » 04 Oct 2009 22:24

flamebait post deleted.
Last edited by abhiti on 04 Oct 2009 22:27, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby svinayak » 04 Oct 2009 22:27

NRao wrote:From POK-II threat:

Acharya wrote:Nothing is guaranteed in a totalitarian country. They will have some version of mass annihilation of their own people or from other countries.


I do not think I am getting across.

OK, let us agree it is totalitarian and willing to let millions die.

My question is, then what?

What is left for them to continue with?

That is what they thrive on and they have been doing this for the last 100 years or so.
They get what they want. PRC in case of India wants Arunachal Pradesh. Even with India having nuclear weapons it is claiming large territories. Only totalitarian country does this.



With nuclear weapons nothing can be counted as irrational.

Although I do not agree I will grant you that.

You dont have to grant anything. You can express your opinion and tell why do you oppose another test.

Let me ask you this:
IF there is an Indo-Sino nuclear war, what would China settle for? What is your, personal, opinion? And, at the end what is that you see in China in specific?

Find out why does PRC need Arunachal Pradesh and other territories inside India even after 60 years of formation.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 04 Oct 2009 22:37

samuel wrote:So, how should be go about restarting testing to improve our arsenal and weapon systems, and not just be considered to have the incredible deterrent using two tests that causes no credible worry (anywhere else?). Or, how should we go about dismantling everybody's arsenal?

S


I am NO expert or belong to any camp. What I post is based on my reading open source information and my experience in policy formulation. That is it.

Samuel,

IMHO, we need to be very precise in what we state/post.

India has fission, FBF(?) and TN(?????). The restart you are referring to I assume is TN (only), and perhaps FBF. Certainly not fission - even Santhanam seems to feel that fission 25 Kt (now could be down to 20 Kt) is deployed.

On TN "restart" - IMHO - that is possible ONLY in the case the world community places so much pressure on India to sign the CTBT that India forces a window for herself as a condition to sign the agreement. Else I do not see any way out.

This also, IMHO, ASSUMES that India does not have a deterrence without a TN. Which includes the inability to field a 150+ Kt based on FBF.

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

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

Postby samuel » 04 Oct 2009 22:50

NRao,

Yes, I am
a) unconvinced 2 tests are sufficient for being confident of any kind of weapon.
b) especially unconvinced that TN (not Fission and FBF in parts but a TN package) has been mastered, let alone proofed and further let alone operational.
c) unconvinced that one cannot reveal the outcomes of the test without divulging the details of the system and thus compromise its effectiveness.
d) unconvinced that the test itself was a well-designed test let alone successful.
e) unconvinced we have an effective deterrent, whether that is mirv'd 20KT devices or sparse MT devices.
f) not amused that senior personnel of our very own establishment are able to level charges in this way, and which are not being addressed.

JMT
S

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 04 Oct 2009 23:00

Acharya wrote:Find out why does PRC need Arunachal Pradesh and other territories inside India even after 60 years of formation.


The conflict IIRC has existed since 1914 or so. It predates even the "PRC". Taiwan has ALWAYS supported the thinking of South Tibet, etc. (Look up wiki.) They had a problem with the Brits, India ONLY inherited the problem. IF the Brits had agreed to AP being in Tibet, that was that. India would never have gone after China to get it back - India has done nothing WRT Kashmir so far. So, what makes you think India is doing something WRT AP?

(Does that change your position?)

Acharya wrote:You can express your opinion and tell why do you oppose another test.


Personal opinion: India has deterrence.

Now, if you want to test a TN, please go ahead and do so.

But that IMVVHO does not make for a better deterrence. One can have more reliable deterrence, but not a better deterrence. And, if you think you can get better reliability with two more TN tests - sure, go ahead.

Remember that the two tests will still be devices (as far as I know). Then you will need some 3-5 tests for weapons, then a few more for mating with missiles. Then a few more to build confidence that ALL these work as a single system.

Total, some 15-20 tests.

(Which is why I was wondering why Santhanam said two more tests. He, I am sure, knows more than I do, but, yet I wonder.)

Acharya wrote:That is what they thrive on and they have been doing this for the last 100 years or so.
They get what they want. PRC in case of India wants Arunachal Pradesh. Even with India having nuclear weapons it is claiming large territories. Only totalitarian country does this.


I do not disagree WRT "PRC". Where I do disagree is that that "PRC" is no longer there. The current "PRC" behaves in one way, but it resembles Indians in most - there are absolute interest-centers that are unwilling to take ANY risk because they feel personally threatened.

India can live and has lived with sanctions. It is some Indians that cannot afford to live with sanctions. That is my point WRT the current China. Chinese leaders may not be sensitive to millions dieing, but millions of dead Chinese is of no use to some of their leaders that need those very millions to run their show.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 04 Oct 2009 23:07

:)

e) unconvinced we have an effective deterrent, whether that is mirv'd 20KT devices or sparse MT devices.


Then, the entire world has been a subject of this hoax? 123, NSG, ......? CTBT has no meaning any more?

NPT still has, but .....................................

God. And, I thought the great train robbery was the greatest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
----------------------------------

No matter. Contemplate on "deterrence" and perhaps you will get somewhere. BoL.

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

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

Postby abhiti » 04 Oct 2009 23:50

NRao wrote:The conflict IIRC has existed since 1914 or so. It predates even the "PRC". Taiwan has ALWAYS supported the thinking of South Tibet, etc. (Look up wiki.) They had a problem with the Brits, India ONLY inherited the problem. IF the Brits had agreed to AP being in Tibet, that was that. India would never have gone after China to get it back - India has done nothing WRT Kashmir so far. So, what makes you think India is doing something WRT AP?


Could you explain by what you mean by "conflict IIRC has existed since 1914"? I am not aware of logic behind PRCs claim to Tibet and AP, Sikkim, and Ladakh.

I do not disagree WRT "PRC". Where I do disagree is that that "PRC" is no longer there. The current "PRC" behaves in one way, but it resembles Indians in most - there are absolute interest-centers that are unwilling to take ANY risk because they feel personally threatened.


India is a democracy, PRC is not. Mere claim at interest-centers don't make you similar to a democracy.
Last edited by abhiti on 05 Oct 2009 00:00, edited 1 time in total.

abhiti
BRFite
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Apr 2009 00:39

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

Postby abhiti » 04 Oct 2009 23:57

flamebait. Deleted.

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 00:06

NRao wrote:

The conflict IIRC has existed since 1914 or so. It predates even the "PRC". Taiwan has ALWAYS supported the thinking of South Tibet, etc. (Look up wiki.) They had a problem with the Brits, India ONLY inherited the problem. IF the Brits had agreed to AP being in Tibet, that was that. India would never have gone after China to get it back - India has done nothing WRT Kashmir so far. So, what makes you think India is doing something WRT AP?

(Does that change your position?)

I know the history. Since India inherited the problem there will be problems for India. It has to protect itself from bullying and war from China. The problem is the PRC leadership which is trying to change the status quo. It is about deterrence and testing and fielding TN weapons will change the perception in the eyes of PRC leadership


Personal opinion: India has deterrence.

Now, if you want to test a TN, please go ahead and do so.

But that IMVVHO does not make for a better deterrence. One can have more reliable deterrence, but not a better deterrence. And, if you think you can get better reliability with two more TN tests - sure, go ahead.

We are asking for test and a credible demonstrated TN weapons. Looks like you agree with that.


I do not disagree WRT "PRC". Where I do disagree is that that "PRC" is no longer there. The current "PRC" behaves in one way, but it resembles Indians in most - there are absolute interest-centers that are unwilling to take ANY risk because they feel personally threatened.

India can live and has lived with sanctions. It is some Indians that cannot afford to live with sanctions. That is my point WRT the current China. Chinese leaders may not be sensitive to millions dieing, but millions of dead Chinese is of no use to some of their leaders that need those very millions to run their show.


PRC leadership remains the same structure even of the economy looks like a market economy.
So you are not saying anything different from what I am trying to say.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 12668
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

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

Postby Suraj » 05 Oct 2009 00:25

NRao wrote:The conflict IIRC has existed since 1914 or so. It predates even the "PRC". Taiwan has ALWAYS supported the thinking of South Tibet, etc. (Look up wiki.) They had a problem with the Brits, India ONLY inherited the problem. IF the Brits had agreed to AP being in Tibet, that was that. India would never have gone after China to get it back - India has done nothing WRT Kashmir so far. So, what makes you think India is doing something WRT AP?

Taiwan's claim on Arunachal Pradesh is corrollary to their claim on China. Before they even pretend to make a claim on Arunachal Pradesh, they need to overthrow the CPC and establish Kuomintang rule over mainland China. Any notional Taiwanese claim on AP has zero credibility without any demonstrable ability to overthrow the communists in the mainland. There's really no point in claiming that 'Taiwan too claims AP' under the current situation.

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

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

Postby samuel » 05 Oct 2009 00:52

self-deleted.

prahaar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2792
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14

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

Postby prahaar » 05 Oct 2009 01:29

Arun_S wrote:I hereby withdraw from BR and BRF.
Thank you
Arun_S[/color]


Arun_S, thanks for your contribution. I have been able to learn many things reading your posts and articles. It is a sad day (for me). Wish you the best for your endeavors post-BR. I am a novice, but when I see the terms of debate shifting (from TN fizzle ya sizzle to why TN), something is not right.

Mods, if this post is OT, please delete it, but since I do not know Arun_S, this was the only avenue to put my thanks.

csharma
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

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

Postby csharma » 05 Oct 2009 01:44

Given the data that is out there at the moment, I am not sure if we can conclusively conclude that TN was a fizzle.
K Santhanam made some points and RC and AK made point by point rebuttals. KS is going to come with new data soon in a few weeks time. So let's wait for that.

TN being an absolute must for deterrence is something that can be debated. Nobody disagrees that having a TN bomb is desirable.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4066
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

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

Postby Manish_Sharma » 05 Oct 2009 02:02

I feel deeply saddened by this development. I have been reading your posts + the missile page you have created and loved it all.

For whatever it is worth let me say that you are a true patriot and Vanshaj of Samudragupta. May the Gods of our Bharatvarsh give you lot of health and energy to keep on serving our country.

Warm Regards

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 05 Oct 2009 02:06

With Arun_S going away from the thread, we have only "one" line of argument which will be posted multiple times which goes like this "TN is not a fizzle" and in any case "who needs a TN". Note as per Gopalkrishnan and Santhanam lot of work remains to be done on fission bomb also. So fission test is successful but weaponization is only "may be". But this line of argument may also be considered to be against the acceptable truth, so I will not pursue it further.

kittoo
BRFite
Posts: 895
Joined: 08 Mar 2009 02:08

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

Postby kittoo » 05 Oct 2009 02:18

Raj Malhotra wrote:With Arun_S going away from the thread, we have only "one" line of argument which will be posted multiple times which goes like this "TN is not a fizzle" and in any case "who needs a TN". Note as per Gopalkrishnan and Santhanam lot of work remains to be done on fission bomb also. So fission test is successful but weaponization is only "may be". But this line of argument may also be considered to be against the acceptable truth, so I will not pursue it further.


Its sad to see this thread coming where it is. I never thought that there could be an argument, not at least in BRF, that whether we NEED a TN.

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

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

Postby Sanku » 05 Oct 2009 02:37

Wow, now Arun_S goes. The place is rapidly becoming barren.

Wonder whats happening behind the scenes?

Its a massive loss to the site and the forum. Probably the heaviest so far.

Its a sad sad day.

John Snow and now Arun_S.

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 03:00

Arun_S Saar,

You should not do this.

When things hot up and misinformaton is spreading (as happening here) people with knowledge (like you) have an obligation to stay put and fight.
______________________________________
This is not good for BR. It is very unfortunate that people who should stay are leaving .....

It is unfortunate that the "powers that be" did little to set things right when personal comments were flying here...

In fact efforts by Ramana was undermined by a person with responsibility ....

Loss of Alok_N, JCage and now Arun_S cannot be compensated.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 540
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

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

Postby Avarachan » 05 Oct 2009 03:00

Arun_S, I'm really sorry to read your post. Please reconsider.

I wish this thread would have been locked some time ago. In the absence of substantial new information, continued discussion of this topic is simply generating bad blood.

Perhaps you can stay on as editor of the B-R Missile section?

Whatever you decide to do, may the peace of God be with you always. Thank you for your great contribution here: I have learned much from your work.

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

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

Postby Sanku » 05 Oct 2009 03:03

I get the impression that it is not the bad blood on the thread that is forcing Arun_S out but there is something going on in the back ground which is forcing out a chain of thought.

May be legal issues, may be other stuff. There is definitely back ground stuff happening beyond the thread which we dont see.

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

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

Postby samuel » 05 Oct 2009 03:17

NRao,
Can you categorically state that we have 100KT class operational nuclear weapons? If that is true, we have hope of hitting back. What about 200KT class? 300KT? Since no one seems to know, where does your confidence of the tonnage starts to fizzle, if I may ask? Call me a shmuck, but before this TN blow-up, I was of the belief that India had the technology and was capable of producing highly effective nuclear weapons. It had gathered sufficient data for small sub-kiloton to medium 100s of kiloton weapons and could deploy them in all kinds of packages. That it could, with just a bit of effort take on P5 in the direst of irrational scenarios and that was our deterrent. Now, I do not and I realize the joke was on me.

Consider the prospect of having ~100 weapons of the 20KT kind and requiring 5 of these per city to cause a 100KT equivalent with some slop for duds (note we don't apparently have an MIRV yet, probably demo version is there). That's twenty towns partially damaged or perhaps 10 cities totally damaged. In return, you face all of Pak and China. Please look up what the published arsenal is and then say,

How come TNs are predominant in most arsenals. Did they not think it stupid to go for this complicated mess, relying instead on vaccum tube technology to do the job, i.e. a little slow but the green light surely comes on?

How come the weapons of substantially higher yield are in most arsenals. Please look for example at US, or you can even look at Chinas.

If you look at the test history of NWS and consider India has declared herself to be that, one thing that strikes is that there is little doubt about their capacity to deliver 1KT or 1MT and more. They just tested it like that. Our own scientists are expressing doubts of our own tests, and that give one confidence how?

Why one would argue that we must not test to maintain and improve our arsenal, especially when we have what is essentially 1940s technology refurbished, and we happen to be one of the most threatened nations in the world.

How come most of these guys have a full spectrum of yields and not just the 1945-20KT rehash that every new entrant starts with? Is that not good enough to deter?

Do you believe that the US and others have more or less information about Indian nuclear capabilities than Indian government. If they have more, who are we bluffing? If they have less, how long will that work?

S

ppatil
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 16:35
Location: unkilstan

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

Postby ppatil » 05 Oct 2009 03:55

Arun_S, sorry to see you go :cry: . I always looked forward to your informative posts. All the best in your future endeavors.

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 884
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

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

Postby Guddu » 05 Oct 2009 05:13

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


Arun_S
I truly believe you are making an error in judgement (in deciding to leave BR). Besides, by now you are addicted to the forum, so you cant go :mrgreen: . Your comments are very valued by me and others. Pl. agree to disagree and move on. Remember, our real enemies are not in BRF....

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 05 Oct 2009 06:08

Arun_S wrote:It is sad to note that BRF no longer represent "Baarat" and has become a propaganda media for Bollywood official line; an echo-chamber lead(sic) ****

I hereby withdraw from BR and BRF. [/color]


Goodbye Arun. It surprises me that you considered yourself capable of taking on ministers and heads of government departments who could not come on here to answer you but feel you are being chased away by a complete non entity like me whose only power was to hold a different viewpoint?

Ironic isn't it? I have seen quite a few other valuable members leave because you could not agree with them or allow their viewpoints to exist alongside yours and I played a large role in protecting BR's interests and your interests despite difficult to defend statements from you. I still have all those emails with me. And now you, who were taking on the Atomic Energy Commission and the mighty offices of the PM of India are leaving because I represented them? That sir is a fine piece of humor from you. I thank you for making me laugh after causing me needless distress.

If you must go you must go. The decision must be yours. If blaming it on me makes you feel better - I am nobody to stop you. You did say the truth will come out didn't you? I am certain that it will. At least we must agree on that.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 05 Oct 2009 06:44

Wow. Been out all this long. So, sorry that I did not respond earlier.

abhiti,

Just google on "South Tibet".

It seems to me that you are claiming two contradictory things. On one hand you claim that India has (reliable) deterrence, while also laying out a plan for 15-20 tests. Could you explain please?


1) I feel India has deterrence against China, based on what I have read in open source
2) "Deterrence", IMVVVHO, does NOT have to be MT class
3) BUT, if India does decide to test - IMHO, it cannot be a few tests, it should be 10+. Which is why I do not understand Santhanam's 2 more test (perhaps he meant 2 or more tests?). Whatever, I am eagerly waiting to see if he will expand on that

Acharya wrote:We are asking for test and a credible demonstrated TN weapons. Looks like you agree with that.


I would compromise to "We are asking for a TN test and a credible demonstrated TN weapon". (I would reword it tho'.)

PRC leadership remains the same structure even of the economy looks like a market economy.


Even if the structure (of PRC leaders) remains the same, I am arguing that their mentality is very different. Like Indian "leaders" they also have similar pressure points - as individuals or very small groups. (For deterrence: target those pressure points.)

I am not sure you are saying that.

Since India inherited the problem there will be problems for India. It has to protect itself from bullying and war from China.


Inherited some 60 years ago. Tested something in 1974, something else in 1998 and in 2009 complaining that more needs to be done to "protect itself"?

On "bullying", yes true. But, a bully can ONLY bully someone who is willing to get bullied. A nation and its leaders who are more engrossed for decades on some silly cricket game and bollywood is asking for trouble. Forget China, India has got bullied by BD, SL, Pakis and Nepal too in the past. Not to talk of 20-25% under some yahoo Maoist group, a parallel economy that is underground for about 30+ years and just read a Trillion+ US Dollars in Swiss bank accounts. At times I wonder why China even does anything to try and crush India.

Suraj wrote:Taiwan's claim on Arunachal Pradesh is corrollary to their claim on China.


Perhaps it is. But, from what I have read so far, the problem started in 1914 - that is way before even the Commies came to power. So, IF Taiwan claims to be the rightful rulers of China based on being the rulers before the commies, then this problem started when they were in power.

samuel,

I suspect you are better than me in stats. However, I have just enough under my belt to be dangerous - my brain takes a little time to warm up, but I am not lost in these matters - just slow.

I have the same open source that you have - nothing at all that is different.

Where you and I MAY differ - my understanding - is with "deterrence".

On TN and yields, there are plenty of open source material - including BR based. From what I have read there was an era when TNs were in vogue. But, it seems to me (and anyone can correct me) that with the advent of more precise missiles the NEED for large yields went off the radar. Simply put, a smaller yield hosted on a missile with a LOT more precision would achieve the deterrence objective of an older larger yield bomb hosted by a missile that was not as accurate.

The stuff in bold is the key - IMHO.

If you look at the test history of NWS and consider India has declared herself to be that, one thing that strikes is that there is little doubt about their capacity to deliver 1KT or 1MT and more. They just tested it like that. Our own scientists are expressing doubts of our own tests, and that give one confidence how?


So, based on what you posted, which is based on what you have read so far, the missiles India have are great, it is only what is on top of it that is of concern. That is an OK statement to make, IMHO. However, we need to come to some sort of an agreement: fission 20-25 Kt bombs are functioning well (Santhanam), the Good Admiral seem to claim that FBF of upto 500 Kt are possible (!!!!!!!!!! salt please). TN is an issue. No one knows. From what we have computed (and that is all we can do) we seem to see conflicting information out there - from depths, to yield, to crater size or crater vs. no crater.

Meanwhile India does have very accurate missile that can host a viable 20-25 Kt nuke.

Can that be considered a deterrence? I think it can, BUT there are plenty who think it does NOT constitute a deterrence.

I think we need answers for:
1) Is there a tested, confident FBF capability?
2) IF FBF exists, how far up can it be scaled?

IF the answer is yes to both and it can go to 150-200 Kt, then IMHO, based onw hat Santhanam has stated, there is not concern.

CTBT is never an issue - India cannot sign it.

Comments, including opposing views, are more than welcome.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 05 Oct 2009 06:52

samuel wrote:Can you categorically state that we have 100KT class operational nuclear weapons? If that is true, we have hope of hitting back. What about 200KT class? 300KT? Since no one seems to know, where does your confidence of the tonnage starts to fizzle, if I may ask? Call me a shmuck, but before this TN blow-up, I was of the belief that India had the technology and was capable of producing highly effective nuclear weapons. It had gathered sufficient data for small sub-kiloton to medium 100s of kiloton weapons and could deploy them in all kinds of packages. That it could, with just a bit of effort take on P5 in the direst of irrational scenarios and that was our deterrent. Now, I do not and I realize the joke was on me.

Consider the prospect of having ~100 weapons of the 20KT kind and requiring 5 of these per city to cause a 100KT equivalent with some slop for duds (note we don't apparently have an MIRV yet, probably demo version is there). That's twenty towns partially damaged or perhaps 10 cities totally damaged. In return, you face all of Pak and China. Please look up what the published arsenal is and then say,

How come TNs are predominant in most arsenals. Did they not think it stupid to go for this complicated mess, relying instead on vaccum tube technology to do the job, i.e. a little slow but the green light surely comes on?

How come the weapons of substantially higher yield are in most arsenals. Please look for example at US, or you can even look at Chinas.

If you look at the test history of NWS and consider India has declared herself to be that, one thing that strikes is that there is little doubt about their capacity to deliver 1KT or 1MT and more. They just tested it like that. Our own scientists are expressing doubts of our own tests, and that give one confidence how?

Why one would argue that we must not test to maintain and improve our arsenal, especially when we have what is essentially 1940s technology refurbished, and we happen to be one of the most threatened nations in the world.

How come most of these guys have a full spectrum of yields and not just the 1945-20KT rehash that every new entrant starts with? Is that not good enough to deter?

Do you believe that the US and others have more or less information about Indian nuclear capabilities than Indian government. If they have more, who are we bluffing? If they have less, how long will that work?

S


Samuel the "second attack" on one's beliefs is easier to withstand after you have swallowed the first attack. I mean India remains a second rate nuclear power and with a testing moratorium India can only remain a second rate nuclear military power.

There is no reason to call anyone a schmuck for having missed information that is obvious if you look for it. Just do a Bing search for lists of tests done by various nations and you find that the P5 have tested far more and far bigger bombs than India. In addition no Indian source (aside from BR's missile pages by Arun S) has ever claimed that India has deployed 100 or greater kiloton warheads. Exactly where did you get your information from? India biggest test was claimed to be 45 kt and that was disputed right from 1998. Assuming the people who dispute that yield are wrong - you still find that the test is only 45 kt. Not 100 kt. Or 200 kt.

India has been known to have air-delivered nukes and India missiles are of low to medium range and are deployed in miniscule numbers. This is clear from public reports.

So does India have deterrence?

I will state my view. Against Pakistan and China yes. Against the US? No. I have stated why I hold these beliefs - they are my beliefs even if I am echoing the beliefs of the India government - but a discussion of that should done on the nuclear deterrence thread.

Many weeks ago I tried to put an end to the acrimony on here by saying the same things I have said above and started a new thread which got pushed to the Strat forum. And version 2 of this fizzle thread was started. There is no way even 1000 Pokhran fizzle threads can change reality if all you seek to prove is that some scientists are liars. The truth about India's arsenal is clear - even if the missile pages on India's biggest and most comprehensive military website, Bharat Rakshak have told a different story about India's nukes for years.

You only need to choose what information you want to believe. The GoI and its representatives have never said that India has deployed 100 or higher kt nukes.

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 07:05

I am deeply hurt. Here I waste 1,700,000,000 posts :rotfl: and hurting the tender feelings of the Uber Patriots who cannot shake the Khetolai Elementary Certainty - and shiv gets all the credit and the Bharat Ratna nomination. UNFAIR!! :(( :((

Anyway, I am going to do what moderators should have done long ago - delete the cra* posts like the one abusing shiv.

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

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

Postby samuel » 05 Oct 2009 07:08

OK, so, if should we say we have X KT nukes for our own discussion here, what would X be?
I say 25KT. Over 100KT does not seem to exist, and that makes a point I was trying to make.
I've only heard >100KT here on this forum, based on either scaling arguments or that it would be "stupid" to put 20KT warhead on A-X series. That, and before the TN-blow, 100KT class warheads.

So you pick a number for a mean, 50KT? Let's say we have about 100 war heads. Each with 50KT. would that be reasonable?

If we can put these numbers even with error bars around them, we can ask ourselves some questions regarding deterrence. We can calculate using CEP, typical population radii, damage radii, etc. how many we need to total a city X number of cities. I'll posit that against irrational action by China+Pak, our deterrence is not effective (if the numbers remain in this ballpark). There will of course then be a debate about whether or not damaging one city is any better than damaging two, but that is not going to be my concern in the sense that all that matters here in this gedanken experiment is that "India comes out on top" and that deters (at some scale...the terrorism and arunachal grabbing still goes on and needs other solutions).

S

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 05 Oct 2009 07:11

samuel wrote:If we can put these numbers even with error bars around them, we can ask ourselves some questions regarding deterrence. We can calculate using CEP, typical population radii, damage radii, etc. how many we need to total a city X number of cities. I'll posit that against irrational action by China+Pak, our deterrence is not effective (if the numbers remain in this ballpark). There will of course then be a debate about whether or not damaging one city is any better than damaging two, but that is not going to be my concern in the sense that all that matters here in this gedanken experiment is that "India comes out on top" and that deters (at some scale...the terrorism and arunachal grabbing still goes on and needs other solutions).

S


Samuel - could you please visit the deterrence thread on this forum and read through the posts there. Viewpoints are presented and there is no acrimony (yet)

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

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

Postby samuel » 05 Oct 2009 07:21

Will do, many thanks.
S

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
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 » 05 Oct 2009 07:30

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 don't want to comment on Arun_S' decision to withdraw from the discussions. It's his choice and everyone should respect what he decides. However, I would welcome it if, in future, he decides to come back since I feel he has a lot to contribute just like anyone else who posts here especially senior members like Shiv, N^3, Ramana and others.

However, having said that it pains me to read the above quote from Arun_S' post. I don't think it behooves a single member - who represents a particular line of thought - to declare that the B in BRF no long represents Bharat.

Is he trying to say that anyone who does not agree to this particular line of reasoning is anti-Bharat and by extension anti-national? I take this personally because I happen to be part of group which does not agree with Arun_S line of thought.

Also is GoI anti-national as well? His sentence implies that.

I am sorry but it is disheartening to see this kind of reaction against people with whom you disagree with.

Note to mods
: If you think this post is inappropriate please delete. However, I personally felt I should make my thoughts known on this issue. Thanks.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

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

Postby Pranav » 05 Oct 2009 07:48

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


Thanks for your contributions. But yaar, one should be rough, tough and thick-skinned.

Look at the EVM thread (in the Tech and Economy forum) where a few intrepid souls have been waging a lonely battle against the combined might of the empire, and have pretty much come out on top, IMHO. :)

Hope you will reconsider. Maybe you can pop up in another guise.
Last edited by Pranav on 05 Oct 2009 07:50, edited 1 time in total.

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 07:49

amit: perhaps he really meant "Baarat". It is true that the Romance Forum was cruelly deleted on BRF long ago. Anyway, let's pls. move away from the sizzlingly fizzling Fedayeen IED-Mubaraks of Dera Adminullah Khan. I too am very sorry to see Arun become, shall we say less than happy, and I do hope his vacation from ()RF is short and pleasant and I am sure we will see his very educative technical posts here soon. I have learned much from them, like the revelation that TN stood for Thermos New Clear, not Tac-Tickle New Clear.

shiv: Have been away from here for several days because work interfered with yada-yada - and when I return I find that retarcs and fizzles and vent plumes and mushroom clouds have formed, and hardly an A-winch to be found undamaged. Had I stayed through these convulsions, I would have been crushed like a child who came home early from school in Khetolai during a Sijjling Hydrogen Bum Test.

The Indian Express DDM masterpiece seems to be the main new flamebait contribution in the intervening days. I read it carefully, and apparently, so did you.

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.

If that is the case- and surface disturbance and crater if any should form with its center at a spot 120 meters away from the shaft and winch. The wrong place to look for a crater would be at the site of the vertical shaft and winch. Any crater must form directly above the explosion cavity and if that cavity is 120 meters away from the bottom of the vertical shaft then the intact winch means nothing. It means only what Sublette said 10 years ago - the test could have been a fizzle but a sizzle can't be ruled out.


Didn't the article say that S1 was a Sijjling Fijjile and S2 was the Fijjling Fusile from Tamil Nadu?

In fact I read it to say that S1 was a WEAPONIZED fijjile, which means that Deterrent was tested to a pretty advanced stage there.

The point of the article was then to suggest that S2 fizzled. At the end of the article, there was nothing new - just some quotation of 3rd-hand hearsay that PC and Sikka stared in "disbelief".

But the writer confirmed the reasoning that I had used to show that a surviving A-frame and winch meant nothing, since the actual vertical location of the device was well away from that location, and there was no reason for the A-frame and winch to be damaged because there was neither high heat nor any venting, just a lot of in-phase up-and-down movement, as we have seen from the videos of trailers parked at test sites. In fact, all said and done, there was nothing at all new in the article to suggest that the TN failed (or succeeded).

And the fact remains that if another very powerful TN had gone off at the S2 site in addition to whatever happened there at the same time, the village of Khetolai would have been finis - Dr. Santanam etc. in jail for negligent manslaughter and womanslaughter and childslaughter. So the article is another fizzle by the fizzle lobby.

Just making my periodic note that the Khetolai Certainty remains certain, thx.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 05 Oct 2009 08:17

N3 I must now sadly admit that you were right and I was wrong about the romance forum that I opposed in May 1998. When I read that Expressbuzz article my mind was so consumed by thoughts about shafts and holes that I missed the detail that you have pointed out.

S1 and S2 are reversed in this story

“At the ‘Taj Mahal’ site (S1 where the fission device, weaponised for delivery through a missile exploded) the shockwaves from the blast lifted a giant mound of sand (page 430), the size of a hockey field (emphasis mine). DRDO’s colonel Umang Kapur who was flying high above in a helicopter to monitor the radioactivity and video film the event saw a plume of dust. As he neared he saw that the bunkers around the side had toppled like a pack of cards. Then, in awe, he watched a giant crater form as the sand poured down through a cylindrical chimney to fill up the cavity deep below the ground. …. On the ground the scientists suddenly felt the earth under their feet quake violently…. (They) ran out in time to see a giant wall of sand akin to a tidal wave rise and fall.”


and

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


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest