Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

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

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

Postby archan » 06 Oct 2009 19:11

woh wapas aaye bhi to kis jawamardi ke saath,
lafzon ke teer maaray bhi to, haye, kis bedardi ke saath..

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 06 Oct 2009 19:13

The smart alternative is simple: wait for the them to come hat in hand,


Already per today's FT!!

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

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

Postby shiv » 06 Oct 2009 19:30

kgoan wrote:The smart alternative is simple: wait for the them to come hat in hand, then we could simply *buy* the Mega - Giga -Tera booms



And then THE Venn diagram would _really_be_ a lie.. :lol:

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

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

Postby svinayak » 06 Oct 2009 20:18

kgoan wrote:
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.

The change had to happen with the global imbalance for many decades.
Countries and the threats will continue to exist.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2009 20:31

kgoan wrote:
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.



Welcome back kg. Return of the Prodigal. Where have you been and what have you seen or learnt since then?

Yes Shyam Saran has been very articulate on the rise of PRC and decline of US financial power and what i means to India.

Was the uber patriots dig necessary especially for one who returns after a long time?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 06 Oct 2009 21:07

Developing warheads for missiles and torpedoes is an area of core competence of the centre. All missiles – Agni, Prithvi, Trishul, Akash and Nag – developed by the DRDO have warheads made by the ARDE. It is working on futuristic warheads, such as aimable warheads or those with fragment generators. It recently developed a 450-kg high-speed, low-drag bomb, which was a complete indigenisation of the Russian variety and with added lethality.

source: flonnet

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 21:29

The 2012 Olympics Sync Swimming Tryouts must have commenced heh, KG, to justify spending more time on the internet/TV?

Good to hear from you. U have 2 b extra-careful here now. I have tentatively settled on the term "Energetic Bharatpremi" but may very well get booted out for that too since said ppl may or may not consider themselves Enlightened Bharatpremis.

First, re: ramana's post:
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.


Very encouraging observation. So what you see is a rise of Indian Strategic Debate based on Indian realities and choices? Involving Indian techno-experts who have come through the insider track where the the problems have been faced and the choices have been made?

This should be the real way to look at this whole debate, instead of through the sensationalist conspiracy theory lenses so preferred by the desi media, which forces extreme responses from otherwise calm professionals. I cite for instance the media blurbs on statements by retired Generals, Directors etc. etc. If you want to read something really deep that you would think the Indian media could handle, search for the interview of Karan Thapar with Mansoor Ali Khan, aka Nawab of Pataudi. And then read the headline that they put on his statements.

Anyway, my point is that Dr. Santanam or Chidambaram or Iyengar or General Malik should be free to express independent views on strategic choices and dangers, without it coming across as No Confidence Motion Against GOI. Such debate is very healthy if people get used to looking at it right.
***********************

To the historian-strategists here, I believe that one should be exceptionally careful in judging actions/inactions of long-gone leaders in distant times. 1962 was in the distant past, as was 1968. India of those days had some 40-50 crore population, with a tax base comprising entirely of New Delhi and Mumbai and a few Nawabs and Film Stars who were raided from time to time. This may explain why the Indian tax form ITR-xx STILL devote about a page or two to details on the race-horses you own. RACE-HORSES???

India was a bullock-cart economy, facing annual famines. The maximum foreign exchange you were allowed to carry out was a grand total of $5 - and no foreign entity except the smugglers etc. would agree to buy an Indian rupee outside India. Food had to be imported - or, more to the point, got from Aid. Polio and Smallpox had not been eradicated.

The Indian Army operated on Centurion tanks retired by the British early in WW2, and the Indian Air Force had just a few Folland Gnats and Canberra bombers left. Check how powerful the Indian Navy was, too, while u r about it.

To sit in 2009 and judge whether the Leaders of that time should have exploded thermonuclear weapons, is not entirely fair, to put it in the New BR PC-speak. The world could have mass-starved India into submission without even caring by just neglecting to pass the next Aid India Bill - and the grand total of 0.1% of the world economy that was India, would hardly have caused a ripple in the markets. If u remember the photo from ISRO, the rocket payload modules used to be taken to the launch sites on sturdy Raleigh bicycle luggage carriers. So indeed would the thermonukes have had to be carried into battle in bullock carts drawn by bulls fed on A-1 CattleFeed. OK, maybe Jeeps. I would say that the Leaders of that time really got their priorities right, to get India to where you can type such judgements on the internet today - and Indians can read them and wonder. I was looking up the data recently: 246% increase in foodgrain production in 50 years, which was the only way to outpace a 175% increase in the # of mouths (well.. in shiv's words, "opinions".) They got the important things right.

So to have any credibility in strategic debate, one must at least try to grasp the realities of the times where one is debating the choices that Leaders faced. Otherwise, how can one's projections for today and tomorrow be credible?
**************************************

Finally, back to kgoan's point.

1. The prospect of buying a thermonuke is, well... interesting to others too, hain? The KSA, I would say, has more discretionary funds for that? And certain parts of the Royal Family too? But I see your point.

2. Is the Economic Upheaval really all that seismic? I can't understand what is happening, but I tend to disbelieve all the outlier predictions, as being just ppl expressing their darkest inner hopes/fears. The PRC may hold 50% or 70% of all the dollars in the world, but if I were they, I would be worried about the value of that plunging, so I would be scrambling to support the value of the dollar. India, OTOH, claims to be "Immune to foreign upheavals" because 60% of the population is simply too poor to be above subsistence level, but both India and China share the problem that without rich, well-fed, lazy foreigners to buy stuff, there is a huge question of where the next 8% growth is going to come from. Anyway, this discussion runs risk of being declared seriously OT so I'll stop here.

3. OTOH, last time you made an appearance here, it was to point out the value of glowing garbage (a point that had entirely escaped me until then), so you must be on to something equally deep here. I gotta think about it for a few weeks to grasp it.

Anyway, if the Strategic Debate in India is growing up and becoming much more diverse, then THAT is the real way out. It will provide the basis for well-understood Indian decisions on strategic matters, and the power of the western "Alms Control Donks" etc. can be cut down.

Somehow I have never understood why GERMANY of all nations, gets to bully Iran on whether they should or should not develop nuclear power plants.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3129
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

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

Postby vera_k » 06 Oct 2009 21:51

narayanan wrote:Somehow I have never understood why GERMANY of all nations, gets to bully Iran on whether they should or should not develop nuclear power plants.


Because they are a major proliferator. Talks with a state attempting breakout have no meaning unless all of the proliferators involved are on board.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
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 21:57

Germany and Japan both have a chip on their shoulder as far as nukes are concerned both are having to trust the Unkil's nuke umbrella and hence their obvious takleef with regards to IRAN & Co. Not long ago they used to air similar views against India too. :)

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

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

Postby svinayak » 06 Oct 2009 22:01

N3 do you think this author is a conspiracy theorists

Karsten Frey - India's Nuclear Bomb and National Security

Routledge | 2006 | ISBN: 0415401321 | Pages: 232 | PDF | 5.16 MB

India's Nuclear Bomb and National Security gives an analytic account of the dynamics of India's nuclear build up. It puts forward a new comprehensive model, which goes beyond the classic strategic model of accepting motives of arming behaviour, and incorporates the dynamics in India's nuclear programme. The core argument of the book surrounds the question about India's security considerations and their impact on India's nuclear policy development.

Karsten Frey explores this analytic model by including explanatory variables on the unit-level, where interests are generally related to symbolic, less strategic values attributed to nuclear weapons. These play a significant role within India's domestic political party competition and among certain pressure groups. They also impacted India's relationship with other countries on non-proliferation matters, for example the concept of the country's 'status' and 'prestige'.

Identifying the role of the strategic elite in determining India's nuclear course, this book also argues that one of the pivotal driving forces behind India's quest for the nuclear bomb is India's struggle for international recognition and the strong, often obsessive sensitivities of India's elite regarding 'acts of discrimination' or 'ignorance' by the West towards India.

Thanks to original uploader!

http://turbobit.ru/4rxaj975ybeu.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/229621639/nn38.rar

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

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

Postby svinayak » 06 Oct 2009 22:12

Last edited by archan on 07 Oct 2009 07:03, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Large inline image converted to URL.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2009 22:18

N^3, I have been the first to say we should look at total historical picture and you want to remind me?
Thanks, ramana

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 22:39

No, ramana, you certainly don't need reminding of anything, but some others here may not have any memory or perspective at all of things pre-1998 (I mean when "Y2K" really hit, not POK-2), which is already 11 years ago. So I have to wonder when I read posts complaining about the leaders who didn't make India a thermonuclear superpower in 1962 - or 1968. Also, the same folks commenting in full confidence that international anger is of zero consequence to the Indian Superpower. Would you say that they don't need reminding - or in many cases informing?

N3 do you think this author is a conspiracy theorists

Acharya, are you asking whether that guy should be considered to be anywhere near your league? No way, bro! :mrgreen:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2009 22:44

It couldnt be a TN power at that time. All refs point to fission capablity before 1960. It was matter of when and not if. The time line for TN after fission in the NPT states is 4-6 years.

Yes as long as there was no threat from a challenger keeping the option was best option i.e. 1962 and even 1964. However in the meantime the world changed and would not accept the option to be exercised. Its still the same with the repeated hectoring from Aussies etc about India and NPT.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21169
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 22:45

kgoan wrote:
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.

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.


This is why GOi ought to take positive steps and give various incentives to bring back the huge capital back in India instead of letting it rot in Swiss/Euro banks to be used by Western Ponzi Masters. This will be a huge boost for India to negotiate better sttegic space for Bharti World Order. Instead of 15 years we will rival China in less than decade and if both desire can reshape geopolitics of the world.

shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

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

Postby shaardula » 06 Oct 2009 22:55

ramana,
for what it is worth, awesome post. that was very useful. thanks.

that was one of the questions i had. between scientists, army and babus who decides what is the size of the bum? in general who specs the deterrent, was my question. that question came from a doubt, what if 'india' (whoever decides on these things) does not want to annihilate? what if it only wants to gravely injure? so, when the indent was given to the scientists, what was the mandate etc etc., aparently, it was only recently that fauj got involved with bums (issues related to mating weapons with agni, aircrafts(old planes had weird geometries, so when they when they designing sukhois, they worked specifically on geometries etc etc..)

again thanks. perhaps your post needs a place on the deterrence thread too, or perhaps a separate thread, understanding india's new clear doctrine or something like that.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2009 23:08

My reading is whoever is sarkar decides for whatever reasons and the civilian-strategists create the consensus. The scientist-strategists create what they can and the military-strategist induct what is given to them. Its not a top-down or bottom-up approach but a sideways slither. What this does is protect the peaceful image no matter whether the world is changing. If there is change at top the civilian-strategists turn on adime and create a hawkish image and hector the doubters for even thinking such 'vile' thoughts. This is what gives the soft image and eternal hope that India can be persuaded to close its options and join the mainstream.
--------
NDA must have got the shock of their lives after the tests and had to scramble to get the 'consensus' back.

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

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

Postby svinayak » 06 Oct 2009 23:27

narayanan wrote:
Acharya, are you asking whether that guy should be considered to be anywhere near your league? No way, bro! :mrgreen:

N3. Every post from you comes with some tag - historian-strategists, CA, etc. one never knows who you will label each day with your alphabets. :lol: no offense.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

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

Postby RamaY » 06 Oct 2009 23:30

ramana wrote:NDA must have got the shock of their lives after the tests and had to scramble to get the 'consensus' back.


Ramanaji,

I am a student here. Could you pls elaborate this statement?

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7047
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 06 Oct 2009 23:31

Good to have you back kgoan old friend. Interesting that your first post in years (almost) comes just after a quote from the Rubaiyyat of Omar Khayyam :wink:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 06 Oct 2009 23:55

I doubt pretty much our doctrine has set any guidelines as to how many we should have and what kind. This is very evident from the nature of programs we have uptill now. We would find evolutionary ways to get to where our deterrence requirements be fullfilled., but that needs sometime revolutionary strategists and such Santanic triggers to act catalyst to where our end goals should be driven towards.

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

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

Postby svinayak » 07 Oct 2009 00:23

ramana wrote:NDA must have got the shock of their lives after the tests and had to scramble to get the 'consensus' back.


I am not sure it was a shock but local politics. There is two kind of politics in India. One is local and there is another for international audience.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 07 Oct 2009 00:37

Acharya wrote:
ramana wrote:NDA must have got the shock of their lives after the tests and had to scramble to get the 'consensus' back.


I am not sure it was a shock but local politics. There is two kind of politics in India. One is local and there is another for international audience.



What about from the strategic elite? They went out on a limb and authorised the strat-elite to test what they want and got the doubtful results. What do you think was the impact on them? You think the Minister for External Affairs would talk to a Deputy Secy for so long?

All in all it was a good reality check.

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

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

Postby svinayak » 07 Oct 2009 00:40

ramana wrote:
What about from the strategic elite? They went out on a limb and authorised the strat-elite to test what they want and got the doubtful results. What do you think was the impact on them? You think the Minister for External Affairs would talk to a Deputy Secy for so long?

All in all it was a good reality check.

Yes, They had to scramble to Plan B to take care of the new reality. But the story has not ended.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 07 Oct 2009 01:23

The reality is "we can", and that does not mean "we have", that happens only after testing. so whatever that takes further steps to make it to have, must happen or been happening now., in our labs. If not, then we are commiting huge blunder for not preparing for the future.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

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

Postby RamaY » 07 Oct 2009 03:24

SaiK wrote:The reality is "we can", and that does not mean "we have", that happens only after testing. so whatever that takes further steps to make it to have, must happen or been happening now., in our labs. If not, then we are commiting huge blunder for not preparing for the future.


In 1998 we couldn't demonstrate unambiguously whatever we thought "we can" prior to that. That is what should concern the current leadership about all those "we can" statements. We do not "have" it until it is tested.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4488
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

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

Postby putnanja » 07 Oct 2009 04:03

A MATTER OF SECURITY- A self-defeating controversy surrounds Pokhran-II - Kanwal Sibal

...
The issue raised touches the core of India’s national security. It is so sensitive that even the initiation of the debate by scientists associated with Pokhran-II on whether the country has, in fact, the kind of nuclear deterrent it officially claims to possess has profound external ramifications. India is building a nuclear deterrent to meet real threats to its external security, not as an addition to its internal security armoury. The government has maintained for 11 years that the thermonuclear and other tests were fully successful, that no further testing is required, that India now has the wherewithal to build a broad spectrum credible minimum deterrent, and on that basis a nuclear doctrine has been enunciated. The dissenting scientific voices, by publicly disputing this official position, are sowing internal confusion and giving comfort to our adversaries.


...
If the argument is that having once rejected the dissenting view, the then government was obliged to suppress the truth, then it needs to be asked whether the matter was raised afresh with the United Progressive Alliance government, in the reasonable expectation that it would appraise the issue with an open mind. If it wasn’t then it must be explained why not. And if it was, and the new government reached the same substantive conclusion as before, then the evidence that the test had failed was inconclusive. It is well to remember that the tests were projected as a great national security achievement by the National Democratic Alliance government, as opposed to the pusillanimity of the previous Congress governments on the issue of testing, and therefore the UPA government would have had the incentive to nail fraudulent thermonuclear claims. And, even if for the sake of national interest, the findings could not be made public, at least the cabal of scientists responsible for hiding the truth and duping the country through technical obfuscation, could, at the very least, have been moved out.
...
...
The demand for a peer review of the data from the thermonuclear test may sound reasonable, but it is hardly workable in practical terms. This demand implies the rejection of government claims, reiterated recently, that several such reviews have been undertaken in the last 11 years. A proper, independent peer review is demanded, but what does it mean in effect? Would it entail sharing sensitive information with experts of high public standing in diverse test related disciplines, after they have been sworn to secrecy? Would any government concede an outside review and indirectly acknowledge it had mishandled a vital matter until now? But would such a review necessarily efface the damage already done?
...
...
One might have hoped that after the initial deplorable indiscretion, wiser counsel would have prevented any further damaging debate. Regrettably, the clarifications by the national security adviser — functionally the appropriate authority to pronounce on the current controversy — have been scoffed at in personally pejorative terms. The argument that he lacks the scientific credentials to make a judgment would apply to the prime minister too. The recent briefing by Anil Kakodkar and R. Chidambaram should normally suffice to end a self-defeating debate, but when egos and rivalries are at play one cannot be sure. Unfortunately, the present controversy is symptomatic of the growing breakdown of consensus in society.
...

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

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

Postby Gerard » 07 Oct 2009 04:09

harbans wrote: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 did read it and understood the sarcasm. I know what the last line said.

Even so, such talk is strictly verboten here.

I'm not the only mod who saw a problem with your post. In future, just don't go there (even in jest). The mods will do whatever is necessary to protect the forum.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 07 Oct 2009 04:15

Its because the sarcasm was understood that you were not banned. Please dont repeat.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 07 Oct 2009 04:24

RaviBg wrote:A MATTER OF SECURITY- A self-defeating controversy surrounds Pokhran-II - Kanwal Sibal

...

It is not easily comprehensible why those who have held positions of responsibility and trust in our atomic energy and defence establishments should have been so unmindful of the national security repercussions of the public controversy they have stirred up over the status of our 1998 thermonuclear test. This is not an academic debate, a professional wrangle between scientists about the correct interpretation of complex technical data from some experiment with only in-house implications — however the conflicting arguments are settled. .....
The issue raised touches the core of India’s national security. It is so sensitive that even the initiation of the debate by scientists associated with Pokhran-II on whether the country has, in fact, the kind of nuclear deterrent it officially claims to possess has profound external ramifications. India is building a nuclear deterrent to meet real threats to its external security, not as an addition to its internal security armoury. The government has maintained for 11 years that the thermonuclear and other tests were fully successful, that no further testing is required, that India now has the wherewithal to build a broad spectrum credible minimum deterrent, and on that basis a nuclear doctrine has been enunciated. The dissenting scientific voices, by publicly disputing this official position, are sowing internal confusion and giving comfort to our adversaries.


...
If the argument is that having once rejected the dissenting view, the then government was obliged to suppress the truth, then it needs to be asked whether the matter was raised afresh with the United Progressive Alliance government, in the reasonable expectation that it would appraise the issue with an open mind. If it wasn’t then it must be explained why not. And if it was, and the new government reached the same substantive conclusion as before, then the evidence that the test had failed was inconclusive. It is well to remember that the tests were projected as a great national security achievement by the National Democratic Alliance government, as opposed to the pusillanimity of the previous Congress governments on the issue of testing, and therefore the UPA government would have had the incentive to nail fraudulent thermonuclear claims.[/color] And, even if for the sake of national interest, the findings could not be made public, at least the cabal of scientists responsible for hiding the truth and duping the country through technical obfuscation, could, at the very least, have been moved out.
...
...

...
...
...
[color=#800000]Unfortunately, the present controversy is symptomatic of the growing breakdown of consensus in society.

...



Again that consensus word.

To me in hind sight it looks like the TN controversey is irrelevant to the deterrent posture. The TN is a science experiment that may or may not have worked. And looks like all stake holders were not engaged in the ramp up to the tests.

BTW, even though initially NDa claimed credit, the euphoria died down soon after and by June it was acknowldeged it was the combined effort of all previous govts.

The reason why UPA didnt do what the writer thinks it should have is TINA.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21169
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

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

Postby Prem » 07 Oct 2009 05:14

Sibal is right , the public controversy about TN has hurt the national security by diminishing the deterrence value of strategic response in case of war with mortal enemies . The moment issue became public , it was obvious that it will be nation which will come out as looser. there aint any winners here . :(

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

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

Postby shiv » 07 Oct 2009 05:25



From the above source

Скачать файл мгновенно! Всего за 3,5 руб*
Bозможность в течение 40 дней скачивать любые файлы без ограничений, в несколько потоков, с поддержкой докачки и download менеджером


I really don't know what to think

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

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

Postby shiv » 07 Oct 2009 05:35

May I point out that the discussion on page 15 of this thread has little to do with the technical aspects of the nuclear tests and is more suitable for the strat forum

Is this forum going to me made a clone of the strat forum? This discussion need to go in an appropriate thread. It is OT for both forum and thread.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

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

Postby vina » 07 Oct 2009 06:36

To the historian-strategists here, I believe that one should be exceptionally careful in judging actions/inactions of long-gone leaders in distant times. 1962 was in the distant past, as was 1968. India of those days had some 40-50 crore population, with a tax base comprising entirely of New Delhi and Mumbai and a few Nawabs and Film Stars who were raided from time to time. This may explain why the Indian tax form ITR-xx STILL devote about a page or two to details on the race-horses you own. RACE-HORSES???


Small correction onree. It was Mumbai alone maybe (the 1/3rd of India's tax revenue thingie). Dilli as always was the blood sucking parasite (it continues to be so today as well) and actually probably never contributed anything positive to the national exchequer

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 07 Oct 2009 06:43

shiv wrote:


From the above source

Download instantly! Just 3.5 LCY * Bозможность within 40 days to download any files without restriction, in multiple threads supporting long download has and download manager


I really don't know what to think

What is this?

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4128
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

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

Postby pgbhat » 07 Oct 2009 06:49


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 » 07 Oct 2009 06:55

RaviBg wrote:A MATTER OF SECURITY- A self-defeating controversy surrounds Pokhran-II - Kanwal Sibal

...
The issue raised touches the core of India’s national security. It is so sensitive that even the initiation of the debate by scientists associated with Pokhran-II on whether the country has, in fact, the kind of nuclear deterrent it officially claims to possess has profound external ramifications. India is building a nuclear deterrent to meet real threats to its external security, not as an addition to its internal security armoury. The government has maintained for 11 years that the thermonuclear and other tests were fully successful, that no further testing is required, that India now has the wherewithal to build a broad spectrum credible minimum deterrent, and on that basis a nuclear doctrine has been enunciated. The dissenting scientific voices, by publicly disputing this official position, are sowing internal confusion and giving comfort to our adversaries.


...
If the argument is that having once rejected the dissenting view, the then government was obliged to suppress the truth, then it needs to be asked whether the matter was raised afresh with the United Progressive Alliance government, in the reasonable expectation that it would appraise the issue with an open mind. If it wasn’t then it must be explained why not. And if it was, and the new government reached the same substantive conclusion as before, then the evidence that the test had failed was inconclusive. It is well to remember that the tests were projected as a great national security achievement by the National Democratic Alliance government, as opposed to the pusillanimity of the previous Congress governments on the issue of testing, and therefore the UPA government would have had the incentive to nail fraudulent thermonuclear claims. And, even if for the sake of national interest, the findings could not be made public, at least the cabal of scientists responsible for hiding the truth and duping the country through technical obfuscation, could, at the very least, have been moved out.
...
...
The demand for a peer review of the data from the thermonuclear test may sound reasonable, but it is hardly workable in practical terms. This demand implies the rejection of government claims, reiterated recently, that several such reviews have been undertaken in the last 11 years. A proper, independent peer review is demanded, but what does it mean in effect? Would it entail sharing sensitive information with experts of high public standing in diverse test related disciplines, after they have been sworn to secrecy? Would any government concede an outside review and indirectly acknowledge it had mishandled a vital matter until now? But would such a review necessarily efface the damage already done?
...
...
One might have hoped that after the initial deplorable indiscretion, wiser counsel would have prevented any further damaging debate. Regrettably, the clarifications by the national security adviser — functionally the appropriate authority to pronounce on the current controversy — have been scoffed at in personally pejorative terms. The argument that he lacks the scientific credentials to make a judgment would apply to the prime minister too. The recent briefing by Anil Kakodkar and R. Chidambaram should normally suffice to end a self-defeating debate, but when egos and rivalries are at play one cannot be sure. Unfortunately, the present controversy is symptomatic of the growing breakdown of consensus in society.
...


It is good that someone like Kanwal Sibal has raised these concerns.
I hate to do this but I must point out that many of us on this thread and its predecessors have raised exactly the same issues especially with regard to this nonsense about “International experts” being shown the classified data in order to do a “blue ribbon” peer review.
The reaction to that has been less than civil, I must regretfully add.
Last edited by amit on 07 Oct 2009 07:06, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 07 Oct 2009 07:03

The Kanwal Sibal and RR article/s are GoI-speak.

IF Santhanam decides to come back after his three week hibernation, I just hope he has a better presentation than the ones he has made so far.

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 » 07 Oct 2009 07:14

NRao wrote:The Kanwal Sibal and RR article/s are GoI-speak.

IF Santhanam decides to come back after his three week hibernation, I just hope he has a better presentation than the ones he has made so far.


N Rao ji,

Let me restate a popular adage common BRF (especially among folks who like histrionics) which has been used several times to defend a lot of folks including Praful Bidwal. And that is: Don't Shoot the Messenger!

These two gentlemen may represent GoI-speak but I'd like to see their positions challenged with a proper and cerdible point-by-point rebuttal.

And yes it will interesting to see what KS writes next. I am sure he knows what he is doing. And I personally have high respect for his courage to do what he is doing, even though I may not personally agree with his modus operandi.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 07 Oct 2009 07:15

True he is reflecting the political-strategists view. If so then the MND was not affected at all since its not based on the need for a fusion weapon which is the P-S view since the eighties. So how does the revelations effect his POV? Not at all. Where it effects his POV, is that the GOI went with charade.


However what if his premise that the scientists were squabbling due to egos were not true?

There is quite a bit of confusion in policy circles.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests