Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36301
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 06 Oct 2009 01:58

U.S. Rethinks Nuclear Strategy

"It's been the better part of two decades since most of us in the Defense Dept. invested the necessary time in the topic of strategic deterrence,"

"We've allowed an entire generation to skip class. We've allowed our understanding to plateau--but it turned out that the plateau was a ledge, and we've stayed too long on that ledge."


"We [in the U.S.] don't think nuclear weapons are useful. We think they are dangerous. But most countries think they are useful." .. Indeed they are. "would not view nuclear weapons as a first resort, but might not see them as a last resort." The result: "The presence of nuclear weapons brought on operational paralysis."



Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory : "There is an increasingly rare group of people who have developed a nuclear weapon and added it to the stockpile." ..."there are a lot of issues that have tested our mettle and we see more looming on the horizon."

"If the labs are not permitted to practice design, then the development of any warhead can't assume competence and proficiency, and a credible deterrent cannot be maintained."

"smug bomb," known formally as the High Surety Warhead.

CBM at least begins to respond to another important question: Are nuclear weapons a credible deterrent against a chemical or biological threat? "Is it credible to use the threat of a nuclear warhead against a chemical attack that kills 1,000 people?" Hamre asks, adding, "It's not helpful to have policies based on your own confusion."

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

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

Postby enqyoob » 06 Oct 2009 02:06

So is there some smart alternative to either "testing" thermonukes and displacing Iran again as the World's Bad Guys, or knuckling under with Voluntary Moratoriums and CTBT / FMCT signatures?

I would say, sign CTBT, then call in the papparazzi and explain the fundas to them about Chinese use of Pakistani tests, Pakistani-Chinese use of NoKo tests etc., and do a systematic Global Education program, then test citing the obvious National Security Imperative. This for sure is what AmirKhan will do when the new models are really ready for testing.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21044
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 06 Oct 2009 02:30

Why not test first and then Sign any CTBT etc. , this way we dont violate any signed treaty .
Indic reet sadha chali ayee
Signed Treaty Fully Nibhayee.
Jo paper signed kee jay
Woh deal pooree kee jay.

In da meantime expolit the threat of testing and negotiate strategic benifits . Instead of threating , the world has to humor India to refrain from testing.

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

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

Postby harbans » 06 Oct 2009 02:51

deleted
Last edited by Gerard on 06 Oct 2009 04:53, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: content deleted - user warned

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11084
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 06 Oct 2009 03:35

narayanan wrote:I would say, sign CTBT, then call in the papparazzi and explain the fundas to them about Chinese use of Pakistani tests, Pakistani-Chinese use of NoKo tests etc., and do a systematic Global Education program, then test citing the obvious National Security Imperative. This for sure is what AmirKhan will do when the new models are really ready for testing.

That will only result in articles in some 3rd rate media outlets that no one watches anyway with words such as "India claims" all over.

An example to ponder over. The moon discovery of water. How many main western media outlets carried that news with ISRO mentioned? How many western hemisphere residents know of India's contribution to the discovery of water on the moon?

If India does decide to sign the CTBT, it will be after:
1. India is treated at par with the P-5 in all treaties.
2. India is sure that its N weapons program is at par with the P-5
3. If India feels that it needs to test nukes, I am afraid two tests as recommended by KS will simply not do. There will need to be a few series of tests where various designs will be validated and follow on tests when these have been trouble shooted, some tests will be for the end user to perform.
4. A CTBT signature by India will mean that pakistan will follow suit. It will ultimately result in Israel having to face immense pressure on signing up. India is the one who is holding the other two in some ways. Indian signature will not be cheap, it will mean a complete roll-back of all policies that various nations have followed that have sought to retard India's progress in various fields citing the N-weapons bogey. IOW P-6, G-3 etc.

This issue is of vital military-scientific-political importance. I don't think any GoI will take it lightly without having clear targets being met by the world.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52586
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2009 04:24

X-posted...
ramana wrote:My weekend work.....

While reading the numerous threads after K. Santhanam’s revelations, I came to some conclusions on the process by which Indian elite makes its policy decisions.

---------------------------
Indian Strategic Elite and the Nuclear Question

Despite George Tanaham’s RAND report there is an Indian strategic elite consisting of: scientist-strategists, military- strategists, and civilian strategists. These three groups are responsible for charting the Indian nuclear strategy.

Scientist-strategists were the early pioneers, Scientists like Drs. H Bhabha, V. Sarabhai, H.N. Sethna, Raja Ramanna, M.R. Srinivasan, PK Iyengar were the well known proponents of this group of startegists. Being aware of the power of the atom they helped formulate the initial strategy. The main aims of the group are: acquire, demonstrate and retain the nuke capability.
Military-strategists- Some well known members are: K.K. Nayyar, Raja Menon, Brajesh Jyal, Gurmeet Kanwal. However the doyen of this group is Gen Sundarji. His principle contribution to the nuclear strategy was : Minimum credible deterrent based on Realist school of International Relations. It is based on proven warheads on proven delivery vehicles. When his strategy was formulated, only fission weapons were envisaged without further tests. His doctrine is contrary to the prevailing political view that nukes are symbolic weapons of power. A key component to the strategy is that the deterrent requires reliable delivery vehicles which are solely in DRDO’s purvey. The 1998 tests before the proofing of the required delivery vehicles was factor for later events. The main aims of this group are: acquire, proven weapons deployed in the forces.

Civilian-strategists – All members not belonging to above two types are included in this group. The civilian-strategists include four broad sub-divisions: maximalists-seek what ever the front ranking powers have (B. Karnad, B. Chellaney et al), minimalists- seek the bare minimum to maintain a nuclear deterrent based on a borderline pacifist world view (Dr. C. Rajamohan et al), disarmament strategists: some former Ministry of External Affairs officials, peace activists(Praful Bidwai et al) and chatterati (Achin Vanaik)- seek disarmament of India as first step of global disarmament ideally and together with others as a maximum position, and lastly political-strategists- seek to support the government stand and build support or consensus behind it. The principal doyen of this grouping is Dr. K. Subramanyam. The main aims of this group are: acquire, demonstrated weapons with out jeopardizing the international status of India. The Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) in 1974 was a break with the civilian-strategists dogma. The 1974 PNE broke the consensus this group had built up and they quickly reacted to prevent the follow-thru of the test. Again the 1998 tests, broke the consensus that these groups re-forged after the 1974 PNE and caused great dissension. However this time this group was not able to reverse the situation due to the atmospherics in the neighborhood and the constant wars after the tests: Kargil, Operation Parakram and unrestricted terrorism from Pakistan and the unsettled borders with China.

One common theme of all three groups(except the disarmament and chatterati groups) is that nuclear weapons are required only to deter China. The crafting of the No First Use (NFU) doctrine is a clear indication of that. This doctrine clearly states that nukes will not be used on Pakistan unless in retaliation. On all other issues( Force posture, Force composition, Nuclear doctrine, International treaty negotiations etc) these three groups dissent often vehemently. The interaction between these groups can be seen by the opinion-editorials and speeches in the Indian news media.

Consensus

Even before Independence the scientist- strategists embarked on a program to acquire nuclear capability which received official approval of PM Nehru after Independence and were at the forefront of developing the strategy. The consensus was to acquire all the technologies that are required to demonstrate nuclear capability in all aspects- electrical power and weapons without overt demonstration. Until 1960s the emphasis was on the symbolic and prestige value of the nuclear technology and the pursuit of power reactors were an indication of that thinking. Weapons research wasn’t pursued with any seriousness and people were content to give the impression that the acquisition was an easy task. The literature of the Fifties (Beaton, Maddox et al) seeks to address the question when will India test and it was a given that they would. After the twin blows from China of 1962 aggression and the first nuclear test in 1964, the consensus shifted to seeking a nuclear umbrella from the West and failing that to retain a capability to acquire the technology by staying out of the NPT. The 1971 victory and the creation of Bangladesh reduced the threat from Pakistan. However superpower interventions and inducements to PRC, forced the pace and resulted in 1974 PNE. However again the consensus was that the technology would not be weaponized.

Again the events in 1970s and 1980s overcame peaceful thinking- Pakistan acquisition of nuclear technology and weapons from Western Europe and China forced the Indian decision. Again the acquisition was not demonstrated and led to instability. In 1990s the CTBT, was forced and had India in its Entry-into-Force clause and there were repeated moves to break out: 1995 Rao, 1996 ABV and finally the political system decided to take the heat and sanctioned the 1998 tests during NDA government. The scientists chose the technologies to demonstrate and there was little input from other groups. The tests broke the national consensus on retaining weapon capability without demonstration. In addition the underperformance of the TN device did further damage to the consensus and re-arranged the strategic elite in all the three segments. Some of those who were scientist-strategists(officials) moved to the political-strategist spectrum and within the civilian-strategists spectrum the groups were further re-shuffled with the political-strategists managing to come to primacy. The important thing is the disarmament-strategists also coalesced into this latter group. In addition it put the rationale of Gen. Sunderji’s doctrine of Minimum Nuclear Deterrent (MND) which was based on fission weapons at risk.
------------------

Hope its all kosher and passes the tests.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6803
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

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

Postby Anujan » 06 Oct 2009 05:01

narayanan wrote:I would say, sign CTBT, then call in the papparazzi and explain the fundas to them about Chinese use of Pakistani tests, Pakistani-Chinese use of NoKo tests etc., and do a systematic Global Education program, then test citing the obvious National Security Imperative.


This is the no 1 thing that any amri-khan strategist will burn his midnight oil trying to prevent.

1. What makes you think that the Nuke-deal with desh was not a quid-pro-quo vis-a-vis not raising too much rabble about AQK ? Desh has been strangely silent about AQK, ever wondered why ? AQK has damaged our security, atleast as much as, if not more than paki-sponsored terrorism. We raise rabble by writing about it in the media, passing resolutions in the UN, delivering dossiers*. Was there a single resolution passed by desh in the UN calling for investigating the role of proliferation networks in the spread of nuclear weapons ? It is after all in accordance with our policy of global nuclear disarmament. We certainly seem to have the dirt on him (Santy is said to have investigated it and collected sackloads of evidence), why are we silent ?

2. Any nation can get out of NPT after 6 months of notification. If they do, guess who they will go to to get bum designs, especially if desh was continued to be ostracized ? If we are part of axis of evil anyway, and are illegit vis-a-vis the bum, we might as well not work towards the P5 consensus of not spreading the bum.

*Granted, these dont accomplish anything, but we still are making noise.

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 » 06 Oct 2009 05:53

Nobody (that I know of on here) opposes testing as such. But testing is not a fullstop. One set of tests may be good for now but after a few years another will be needed.

One thing that i have learned about discussions such as these is the powerful presence of the "Who is Sita?" factor. You can post as much information as you like and only a few will actually read it. I had posted a ref about the uncertainties the US faces over arsenal reliability in the absence of testing. So one set of tests is never enough.

That really brings out the true meaning of CTBT. CTBT actually hampers everyone and puts developers of nuclear weapons under pressure like the analogy I made earlier about medical researchers being asked for guarantees for new drugs without human testing. OK CTBT hampers the new nuclear states more than the old ones - but persist without testing for a long enough time and it starts telling on capabilities.

Let me yet again restate an opinion of mine - it may be without scientific basis. Fission bomb designs are relatively simple and fail proof if you are willing to accept a penalty of weight and relatively lower yield per kg of bomb. Thermonuclear warheads need refining by repeated testing and not much is known about the loss of reliability after 15 or 20 or 30 years of not testing. An entity that wants to have a "big bomb" equivalent to an entire Air Force worth of bomb load being dropped in one go - the surest method is a "crude" fission bomb - especially using U 235. Every component of the fission bomb can be tested without ever coming under the purview of CTBT or NPT or GT#$% or &HT%. As long as you have the fissile material of sufficient purity and 1960s engineering skills - you have a "deterrent"

But that is a different subject.

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

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

Postby enqyoob » 06 Oct 2009 06:03

Anujan:

IMO, whole AQK saga is hogwash. Other than stealing some ancient blueprints for centrifuges, what is AQK even alleged to have achieved? AQK may have been front man to negotiate transfer of PRC nuclear tech to various nations, but nothing else. All the rest is imaginary drama where PAF C-130s fly in and out of Sargodha and Beijing and Pyongyang and Tripoli and Tehran carrying nukes and missiles, with none of the governments having any idea of it.

I agree with Prem's assessment of the standard desi media reaction, but I think GOI, if it puts its Babucratic mind to it, CAN do something very much better than that.

Also, I think not signing CTBT and testing is really not an option any more. Just one set of tests now is not going to do a whole lot. What happens if the 5MT weapon fizzles? OTOH, the better course is to sign the CTBT, THEN see the Clear & Present Danger, state where it is from, and then test everything needed.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52586
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2009 06:46

Arun_S has contacted the domain name owner to remove his files. He was told it takes time. So please dont post OT stuff in meantime.

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 » 06 Oct 2009 07:06

Anujan wrote: AQK has damaged our security, atleast as much as, if not more than paki-sponsored terrorism.



Anujan I have some thoughts about this particular view on things - not directed specifically at you. I may end up using inappropriate words while saying it but I will try not to botch it.

As I grew up through the 1970s and celebrated Pokhran 1974 - I seemed to detect what could only be a subtle snootiness - bordering on racism of the Western haves with regard to the underdeveloped have nots concerning nuclear technology. That ability to destroy was their baby. The golliwogs would not get it. The attitude continues to this day but is more subtle and nuanced and I believe that we too have absorbed those attitudes to a small extent and apply it to Pakistan in an act of fractal recursivity.

In truth it seems likely that any "second rate" technological power of the 21st century can make nukes as a direct snub to the snootiness. There is an "equalization" that is occurring between nations that can only be countered with rhetoric such as "You only have fission bum but we have hydrogen bum. Nyahaha"

In my view such rhetoric is meaningless. It is not hard to get a nuclear bomb and everyone is getting it. That is why there is a desperate scramble to make atim bums unikosher starting with the idiotic unequal and fully raped NPT and later the CTBT. Xerox Khan is only the tip of the iceberg.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11084
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 06 Oct 2009 07:39

A thought occurred to me. WRT Shitty bitty.

India is the only one holding out the other two from signing. I mean an Indian signature will mean that pakistan will follow suit. So that's two in the bag.

This leaves the Israelis out. Alone, the only non signatory.

Is the US willing to let Israel sign the CTBT without turning overtly nuclear? All hell will break loose in the middle east.

The current situation suits the world the best. Indian self imposed moratorium on testing is keeping the peace all around. If India signs CTBT, the apple cart on delicate balance gets horribly upset.

If this line of thinking is valid, there goes the last nail in the coffin for signing up for CTBT and maintaining the moratorium and not testing. India testing nukes is the lesser evil than an India and pakistan signing the CTBT.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

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

Postby negi » 06 Oct 2009 07:40

Shiv ji its not about TSP getting nukes itself; the takleef is due to the manner in which the world players have turned a blind eye or some even conspired to facilitate TSP's ambitions.Basically an open and gross violation of laid down rules which in first place were discriminatory as far as have nots are concerned.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7532
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

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

Postby Gerard » 06 Oct 2009 07:49

Gagan wrote:This leaves the Israelis out. Alone, the only non signatory.


Israel signed the CTBT on 25th September 1996. It has not yet ratified the treaty. One report (Mark Hibbs in Nucleonics) claims Israel will ratify in exchange for a civil nuclear reactor deal with US and NSG exemption.

a_bharat
BRFite
Posts: 621
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 09:54

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

Postby a_bharat » 06 Oct 2009 07:56

It is absurd to sign CTBT now and to break it later citing NoKo tests being proxy tests for China/Pakistan. The logical sequence of steps for India would be:

- raise a hue and cry about NoKo tests being proxy tests for China/Pakistan; we should have started doing it much earlier
- build up delivery vehicles in sufficient numbers on an urgent basis
- announce that India will sign CTBT after US ratifies, but it needs more tests in view of NoKo tests and to clear the doubts raised regarding Indian nuclear capability
- lift the voluntary morotorium for 1 year
- conduct tests, don't announce the results, make necessary fixes, re-test -- until the scientific and military folks are satisfied and have complete confidence in the weapons
- sign CTBT as soon as US ratifies

Of course, there will be international pressure and economic sanctions etc., but the Government should use diplomacy to minimize the fallout by dangling the CTBT signature carrot and justify to the world the need to protect a population of 1.2 billion from rogue neighbours. In my opinion, the cost of sanctions (which will in all likelihood go away in a couple of years) is much lesser than having no credible deterrence -- as can be seen by India's handling of Pakistan on Kargil, 26/11, etc.
Last edited by Jagan on 06 Oct 2009 08:10, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: please stop peddling conspiracy theories.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36301
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 06 Oct 2009 08:00

you see the indo-us agreement was signed under the notion, that its done for the importance of strategic reasons. one for making pakistan sign up and delink on this hyphenation with India. where is the effort in making that happen after bush exit? and the second to make and iran (remember mms calling spade a spade wrt iran) just before signup!.. iran and pakis will have to do it much before we have to.. this is all part of the agreement text, where we drafted such that we have the rights to test.

at the same time, they have the right to withdraw all nuke supplies. now, where does it stand? its chankiyan enough to test, and not to source any nuke materials from unkill land or its associated queenship countries. testing should be done in containers.. that means any future tests have standards to be kept. ie, we can blow up a mega ton or giga ton, as long as the signatures equals conventional kilos. we are free to test in space as well, as china has already demonstrated the need to take this deterrence war to space (they blew one of their old sats!).

lab testing should have been done by now, to go for 200KT or more. i can't understand why BR's ideas must not be true from a strategic deterrence stance. all we need to add an * stating the need rather that reflects reality. come on, no nation will consider such articles as true until its demonstrated or should our real. what starts out as UFOs becomes F22s and X35s. If we do it, its sin, and if the khan does it, its technology demonstration. that is unacceptable.

we are not going to lose any stance rather increase our power projections by doing a contained testing.. in fact, it only shows our capability, and thus spring shoot to "the p" status.

jmt

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 » 06 Oct 2009 08:00

a_bharat wrote:It looks like there is a concerted effort by senior BRF folks to mould an opinion that 1. TNs are not needed and 2. signing of CTBT is in India's interest. I don't know if it is their personal opinion, or, if their day jobs require them to propagate such views.


Tough innit? Tough to get a viewpoint through without insinuating that an opposing viewpoint must involve a defect in its holder such as one who holds a day job to push a viewpoint

Anyhow I am reporting your post as a possible personal attack on people who hold a viewpoint and are wiling to state it.

archan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6825
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 21:30
Contact:

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

Postby archan » 06 Oct 2009 08:44

He is lucky that Jagan got to him before I did and seems like Jagan was in good mood. :)

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

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

Postby Sanatanan » 06 Oct 2009 08:57

Self Deleted
Last edited by Sanatanan on 06 Oct 2009 10:13, edited 1 time in total.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

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

Postby geeth » 06 Oct 2009 09:01

>>>I would say, sign CTBT, then call in the papparazzi and explain the fundas to them about Chinese use of Pakistani tests, Pakistani-Chinese use of NoKo tests etc., and do a systematic Global Education program, then test citing the obvious National Security Imperative. This for sure is what AmirKhan will do when the new models are really ready for testing.

IMO, all these things can be done without signing the CTBT. The problem with Indian elite is, they hold any international treaty as holy bible, even when the whole world around, and far away from trashes it. We can trust the foreigner, in that they will trash any treaty according to their conveninece, but our babus & nethas will never do it. Look at Shimla accord..IG was charmed by Bhutto and she signed on the dotted line! And that is now bible for us, not for Pakis - They attack us day in and day out, and we keep repeating that Kashmir should be solved according to provisions in the Shimla accord. This will happen with every treaty that we sign.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52586
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2009 09:02

Sorry mahodaya. Please dont sue me. I will correct it.
Anyway other than that you have anything to say on the content?

a_bharat
BRFite
Posts: 621
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 09:54

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

Postby a_bharat » 06 Oct 2009 09:32

shiv wrote:
a_bharat wrote:It looks like there is a concerted effort by senior BRF folks to mould an opinion that 1. TNs are not needed and 2. signing of CTBT is in India's interest. I don't know if it is their personal opinion, or, if their day jobs require them to propagate such views.


Tough innit? Tough to get a viewpoint through without insinuating that an opposing viewpoint must involve a defect in its holder such as one who holds a day job to push a viewpoint

Anyhow I am reporting your post as a possible personal attack on people who hold a viewpoint and are wiling to state it.


Sorry if I touched a raw nerve here. My intent was not to attack anyone to get my viewpoint through. Not knowing the background of the posters, I had certain doubts and was only expressing them. I could be wrong.

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 731
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

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

Postby krishna_krishna » 06 Oct 2009 09:35

Guru Log I tried to post this however I do not know how the previous one disappeared. Sorry if it is a repeat. I wanted to share a story with you. In some time in a village of not many families. There use to be a big zamindar (lets Call him Guy No.2). There was his neighbor Guy No.1 who had only 3 sons. The Guy No. 2 had about 100 sons (through his many wives and mistresses). Now in panchayat with help of his cousins Guy No.2 proposed to Guy No.1 to undergo Vasectomy (as guy No.1 was recently married, had his second child birth of twins recently and much younger) he said even he himself was also going to do the same next week. In the greater interest of the nature and village we have limited resources and many lives would put lot of burden on this world and our village. They have to fight for basic necessities.
Guy No.1 got excited as first time he was called to attend panchayat session and said he will consult with his wife and give them the date of operation. Being happy he reaches home and brags that today he along with elders of village in panchayat agreed that all the young males of village will undergo vasectomy. His wife was worried, he asked her what was it. She said what if this 100 sons of their neighbor attack our son and their families. Our sons would be slaves and would never be able to live with head high. He says we have panchayat look today even I was asked to be part of it. But his wife argues it is dictated by Guy No. 2 and his cousins.
Even though he was stupid he knew his wife was telling truth because he knows how he went through his childhood in this village. He begins to worry and then tells his wife we can secretly save 1000 samples of semen in the local sperm bank. His wife tells even though you can sneak this samples a child takes 9 month to be born and I have my own capacity, as you are good husband and has only one wife there is no way we can get more sons when we need. The Guy No. 1 is speechless.
Moral of the story : All the learned gurus here and any common man who has common sense and knows what kind of dangerous neighborhood we live in , we need to do what is in our interest and if needed we need to wipe our enemies ( otherwise its us who would be wiped out ). Take any great country in human history who have survived on having policies of global goodness rather than its own interests. We would otherwise be a part of humiliating chapter of human history and people like us discussing in future how great our civilization was and how miserable end it had.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11084
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 06 Oct 2009 09:44

krishna_krishna,
Very interesting analogy. But I feel this is an over simplification.
Deterrence is much more complicated than that.
Specially the one that India has chosen to be imposed on itself voluntarily.
India talks of Minimum Credible Deterrence, AND No First Use.
I feel that is a dangerous combination.

1. How credible is the deterrent now?
2. Most importantly how credible will the deterrent be after the first strike has tried to wipe out the small numbers that India has?

The minimum credible numbers should be based on a factor of the surviving numbers after suffering a first attack.
As it is I feel that the two - MCD and NFU, are incompatible when placed together.

JMTs

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11084
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 06 Oct 2009 09:47

Altogether India's Nuclear posture is it seems bound by the three self imposed lakshman rekhas:

1. MCD
2. NFU
3. VMT (Voluntary Moratorium on Testing)

All three are in a position of unease with each other it seems, given India's current capabilities.
Last edited by Gagan on 06 Oct 2009 09:47, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52586
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2009 09:47

Gagan, what do you have to comment on my above post? I tried to answer your questions.

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 » 06 Oct 2009 09:57

a_bharat wrote:Sorry if I touched a raw nerve here. My intent was not to attack anyone to get my viewpoint through. Not knowing the background of the posters, I had certain doubts and was only expressing them. I could be wrong.



Well most of us don't know the background of most people on here other than those who might be exchanging info in private mailing lists about what happens on here. This is a public internet forum for discussion and for discussion to continue to happen without sliding into flamewars it is better not to hide under the burqa of innocence and make claims that someone else (other than oneself) is a liar or being paid to say things. How is person X to know that person Y accusing him of lying is not a liar or traitor himself?

Hence your explanation comes too late. Thanks anyway.

a_bharat
BRFite
Posts: 621
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 09:54

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

Postby a_bharat » 06 Oct 2009 10:03

krishna_krishna wrote:Even though he was stupid he knew his wife was telling truth because he knows how he went through his childhood in this village. He begins to worry and then tells his wife we can secretly save 1000 samples of semen in the local sperm bank. His wife tells even though you can sneak this samples a child takes 9 month to be born and I have my own capacity, as you are good husband and has only one wife there is no way we can get more sons when we need. The Guy No. 1 is speechless.


An apt analogy. Our leadership may not be stupid, but I have doubts whether they would do the right thing for the country. My worry is that they put personal glory (Nobels, G-X, P-Y, etc, statesmanship at the expense of the country) and electoral benefits ahead of national interest.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11084
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 06 Oct 2009 10:06

Ramana Saar,
Its a wonderful post. I re-read it twice.
Two things I would like to add.
1. There existed an equilibrium between India and the world powers too, which was disrupted by India in 1974 and 1998. That equilibrium was IMHO not to India's best interests, since it essentially froze India's interactions, its trade, its development while allowing India's peers - specifically China - a nation which traditionally lagged behind India, to take a lead.
2. We again arrive at the oft quoted statement about India being a reluctant N weapons power. And it comes out very clearly in your post. I fail to understand how the various groups of India's strategists failed to recognize that the status quo was what the world desired from India, in return for nothing, and after 1998, again a status quo is desired instead of CRE.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52586
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2009 10:35

Well the Indian strategic elite got a good thing going in the early years. A lot of prestige without the baggage of having to shown anything. If you do trade-offs all the time you will be stuck at low end of the table. The big thing is they ddint want to weaponize when it was possible due to their abhorrence of force (before 1968) and when they wanted to the options were closed. In other words the time to test was right after 1962 debacle but it wasn't there to do it as it was all policy papers. A good lesson for all of us in other areas too.

I fail to understand how the various groups of India's strategists failed to recognize that the status quo was what the world desired from India, in return for nothing, and after 1998, again a status quo is desired instead of CRE.


The world wants strategic arms balance i.e. is don't rock the boat. In return what was the world ready to give India? More terrorism and off shore balancing even by two bit powers like China.

Great leaders fight with the weapons that they have. Greater leaders create new options to win.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11084
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 06 Oct 2009 10:46

China was testing well into the 90's. What stopped India from responding to each chinese test with one of its own?
Perhaps the governments then were grateful for the small mercies bestowed on India from the world, and were afraid of loosing even that.

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

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

Postby RayC » 06 Oct 2009 10:47

And greater leaders have Vision and Courage.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52586
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2009 10:57

Rubiyat by Omar Khayyam!

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1061
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

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

Postby Kailash » 06 Oct 2009 11:47

Can the government sign the CTBT (or any such strategic agreement) without bringing it for discussion in both the houses of the parliament? Can they do it entirely behind the scenes without the knowledge of the people or opposition?

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

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

Postby Sanku » 06 Oct 2009 12:11

ramana wrote:
Hope its all kosher and passes the tests.


Exceptional post Ramana. A gem from the "old times" of BRF.

Completely agree -- 100%.

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

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

Postby harbans » 06 Oct 2009 12:18

Gerardji, i was responding to this: (my last post you deleted)

So is there some smart alternative to either "testing" thermonukes and displacing Iran again as the World's Bad Guys, or knuckling under with Voluntary Moratoriums and CTBT / FMCT signatures?


I'm not sure if you read it but i clarified quite consciously it was not intended to be some constitutional usurpation and in light sarcastic vein. I'm certain we all are aware that the Pres and PM do have power within the constitution to remove elected assemblies that have been constitionally instated. It was within those boundaries that i posted it in mildly sarcastic vein. Not sure if you read my post properly. Anyways will be more careful later. :)

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 » 06 Oct 2009 12:32

ramana wrote:Rubiyat by Omar Khayyam!



Ramana ji,

That particular verse by Fitzgerald has been used by the most unlikely of people in the most unlikely of places. :)

Bill Clinton used it in - guess what - 1998 in his famous "I am profoundly sorry" speech. Link

Like anyone who honestly faces the shame of wrongful conduct, I would give anything to go back and undo what I did.

But one of the painful truths I have to live with is the reality that that is simply not possible. An old and dear friend of mine recently sent me the wisdom of a poet who wrote, "The moving finger writes and having writ, moves on. Nor all your piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line. Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.''

So nothing, not piety, nor tears, nor wit, nor torment can alter what I have done. I must make my peace with that.


Ray Saab's comment:

And greater leaders have Vision and Courage.


Acquires a new meaning, nah? :lol:

kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby kgoan » 06 Oct 2009 18:12

So is there some smart alternative to either "testing" thermonukes and displacing Iran again as the World's Bad Guys, or knuckling under with Voluntary Moratoriums and CTBT / FMCT signatures?


N,

I would say that the key issue is what happens in the Global financial crisis.

I don't think many of us have fully grasped just how spectacular India's position is compared to the rest. And given how bad we had/have things, . . .

The Chinese are moving at breakneck speed to capitalize on what is a mortal wound to the structure of Western power, the collapse of their financial interrelations that acted as a spiderweb of astonishing strength during the past few decades. But that *entire* web is now severly damaged.

But I reckon we're in a far better position that the Chinese. So. . .

The smart alternative is simple: wait for the them to come hat in hand, then we could simply *buy* the Mega - Giga -Tera booms that those you term the "Uber patriots" want so badly. And the upside is that since those are made by non-Indian scientists, (don't giggle now), our Uber patriots will be happy they actually work as opposed to those made by our incompetent Indian scientists.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16768
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 06 Oct 2009 18:38

good to see you posting after a long time. welcome back !

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 » 06 Oct 2009 19:00

Wow - blast from the past. Where have ya been Rip van Winkle.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest