Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

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 07:20

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


:rotfl: I used to get the same thoughts.

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 07:22

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


Then the lament in the last paragraph (Sibal) about loss of consensus is also GoI speak.

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 07:33

Hi amit,

1) We and anyone else can challenge their positions, but as Kanwal saheb says it is not quite possible. Actually on one item Sibal saheb has made a big boo boo. Santhanam asked for an eval of the METHOD used. Sibal states we cannot do eval of "data" - security risk, etc, etc, etc. GoI is deliberately obfuscating too IMHO

2) Rebuttal is of no use. What are we going to discuss in public? Any thing that has value is clearly under tight security - and that is how it should be. RS/AK stated two things, India has given out more info than any other nation, and giving out any more would not be possible. So, that is the end of that as far as public discussions go

3) What I meant by GoI-speak, is that they are setting the table to stonewall Santhanam (and rightly so IMHO). I do not expect the GoI to conduct an open discussion - give out a 800 number and have everyone dial in. IMHO, GoI has gone as far as they can go. No matter what Santhanam or anyone else states - GoI will HAVE to say, we can have deterrence based on TN

4) Santhanam CANNOT give out any secure information (based on what PKI has stated, he may have given some to him - my guess) in public. So, he is stuck with what he has said so far - which is not much outside the crater and expected radius of it (which I think is to much). I expect him to expand on the crater issue when he comes out again ................... do not know what that would mean at this time

5) CTBT is not and never was an issue. MMS may want to sign, if he wants to there is plenty of toilet paper I am sure for him to do that on - and I guess it is fine to send that to the Oz-Jap NPT committee


So, IMHO, Santhanam has only one issue: TN fizzle. All his other issues have been taken off the table (CTBT and 150+ Kt as a deterrent). And, that cannot get resolved in the public domain for sure.

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

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

Postby enqyoob » 07 Oct 2009 07:35

Sibal seems to attribute the "revelations" to ego etc. Does this make sense? Someone like Santanam, to come out now and make such statements, cannot be driven by ego alone. Why doesn't GOI just call it a debate about Test-vs.-Not2Test and leave it at that? Of course, these big netas should have stuck to calm statements and never said anything about each other's competence, awareness etc. But that's desi chit-chat for you.

My guess is that if there was a Referendum on
a) Test thermonukes and suffer global opprobrium and sanctions, have economy go down, get H1B visa quota slashed to zero, etc.

b) No more tests, small nukes are enough for MCD , get on with more important stuff

I believe, since MMS &Co got re-elected by the same electorate, that the referendum would be a landslide win for (b) - I mean outside BRF. So what is GOI afraid of?

They should just laugh it off, and keep repeating that
India is prepared to meet Any Eventuality.

Anyone who attacks India will get a Befitting Reply

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 07:36

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


Then the lament in the last paragraph (Sibal) about loss of consensus is also GoI speak.


I think so.

GoI is saying you guys in the public better tow our line "consensus in society".

I read as: those of us in GoI have consensus, it is you in society (outside GoI) that do not. IF you pay close attention then you will too agree with us.

I did not take it as a lament.

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

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

Postby enqyoob » 07 Oct 2009 07:42

Santhanam has only one issue: TN fizzle.


In which case he would do well to stay in hiding after the 3-week. Because the Khetolai argument puts him in an untenable position.
a) S1 was a fizzle. If it had not been, the village would have been destroyed and people would have died. Santanam was Test Coordinator, and as such it was his responsibility. So if there is no Statute of Limitations for Attempted Murder, then Dr. Santanam faces jail.

Santanam himself is on record in 1998 saying that the yield was limited by the need to protect the village and villagers. So he can't deny that this was a consideration or that he never thought of it.

So I DON'T believe that this is Dr. Santanam's point at all.

b) S1 met its design yield, but that level was very small, in order to control the total blast. In which case the real issue is that a demonstration at the extreme low end of fusion yield, is not sufficient for confidence that the upper limit can be achieved.

I think this is the message in all his utterances on the issue, and he may very well be speaking for other concerned military and strategic planners.

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 07:43

narayanan wrote:My guess is that if there was a Referendum on
a) Test thermonukes and suffer global opprobrium and sanctions, have economy go down, get H1B visa quota slashed to zero, etc.

b) No more tests, small nukes are enough for MCD , get on with more important stuff

I believe, since MMS &Co got re-elected by the same electorate, that the referendum would be a landslide win for (b) - I mean outside BRF. So what is GOI afraid of?

They should just laugh it off, and keep repeating that
India is prepared to meet Any Eventuality.

Anyone who attacks India will get a Befitting Reply


Absolutely correct.

One of the things that I have tried unsuccessfully to point out is that is this situation has to change for anyone who does not like this - it has to be done at individual MP/MLA level. It can be done at aam junta level by buying off Doordarshan, and not by buying off BR.

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 07:44

ramana,

Are we sure that even the P-5 holds the fusion vision to be true today?

I am not convinced of that. It is my gut feel that they have moved to smaller yield and that may mean fission for all we know.

The table I put up on China seems to indicate that: they seem to have moved from 4-5 Mt to max of 1 Mt and 3*100+Kt.

I THINK it all has to do with the accuracy of missiles. And, even perhaps why do we need that kind of destruction today.

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 07:47

N^3,

IF that was the issue THEN, then testing could not have ended, even if the Great PM wanted it to.

Even then, what is the upper limit?

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 07:49

narayanan wrote:In which case he would do well to stay in hiding after the 3-week. Because the Khetolai argument puts him in an untenable position.
a) S1 was a fizzle. If it had not been, the village would have been destroyed and people would have died. Santanam was Test Coordinator, and as such it was his responsibility. So if there is no Statute of Limitations for Attempted Murder, then Dr. Santanam faces jail.

Santanam himself is on record in 1998 saying that the yield was limited by the need to protect the village and villagers. So he can't deny that this was a consideration or that he never thought of it.

So I DON'T believe that this is Dr. Santanam's point at all.

b) S1 met its design yield, but that level was very small, in order to control the total blast. In which case the real issue is that a demonstration at the extreme low end of fusion yield, is not sufficient for confidence that the upper limit can be achieved.

I think this is the message in all his utterances on the issue, and he may very well be speaking for other concerned military and strategic planners.


Sathanam is on record stating that a device (expected to yield) 45 kt was lowered into one shaft at Pokhran. After that it took repeated self goals by expressbuzz to defeat the very objections he was raising. At least for those who care even slightly for the technical details. For those who don't "We have big bum" is all that matters.

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 07:52

Shiv,

Every serious work of writing is supposed to have an insert of comedy: expressBuzz.

Even if he TRIED he could not get a self goal.

one more comment:

"growing breakdown of consensus in society."

could also be directed at Santhanam and everyone who sided with him (PKI, Sethana, those 500 engineers that called KS, etc)

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 08:02

Nrao "fusion" is only about increasing the efficiency of fission in bombs that are not Gigabooms. The definition of an efficient "fusion bomb" is one that has the highest yield per kg (weight of device). If you are looking at that degree of fusion efficiency you need to rely on Gigabooms of the Tsar Bomba type. But they are too heavy and high yield to be of practical use.

The shift to lower yield made it necessary to rely on "high yield" (150kt to megaton yield) bombs that are mainly fission, with the secondary fusion getting a tamper of Uranium to fission. I think you know the nuances here.

A few things that were never discussed here in the general anxiety to deride the people who worked in these fields were

1) What means may have been used to increase the efficiency of fission so that you can get 40-50 kt from just 3 kg of Pu rather than 15 kt from 9 kg of Pu. That means research in high energy conventional explosive and in materials.

2) How much U235 or U238 India has to utilize in large tampers for high yield weapons - even if India got a proven design from the US or Russia (Venn bending)

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 08:08

self-deleted
Last edited by NRao on 07 Oct 2009 08:10, 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 » 07 Oct 2009 08:10

NRao, the answer to that is easy.
IF that was the issue THEN, then testing could not have ended, even if the Great PM wanted it to.

Even then, what is the upper limit?


The Great PM would have ordered the scientists to set off only the teeny-weeniest little explosion that would serve to demonstrate the Deterrent capability and P-6-ness (also to goad Pakistan into revealing their nukes), and not to cause needless waves in Dupleecity, Beijing, Londonistan etc. So from GOI's perspective, the testing was a perfect success in that the teeny-weeniest explosion did manage to have some trace of fusion. Santanam says that the demonstrating some Fission + Epsilon(fusion) does not prove that a weapon with Fission + Big (fusion) will work. Upper limit as I understand here is around 200 - 300 KT for this dial-a-yield technology, but this is what has not been proven in a Big Bang. GOI in 1998 was simply not willing to do any Big Bang. Perhaps it would have taken a lot of hole-digging etc, which was not practical.

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 08:12

Well, the Great Pm was replaced by the Smart Pm (getting to be like those NoKo statue presidents, eh?), who can still "order" one?

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

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

Postby enqyoob » 07 Oct 2009 08:15

I can't see it happening unless there is some huge undeniable provocation. Like a Paki H-bomb test in Pakistan (I mean, not in NoKo).

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 08:16

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.


Kanwal Sibal has been pretty vocal in his opposition to many of the UPA govt's foreign policies including nuclear deal, Indo-US relations etc. I agree with amit that we shouldn't shoot the messenger. In this case, by his many articles since his retirement, he has shown that he doesn't have any love for the UPA govt and I feel he is pretty objective on the foreign policy issues.

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

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

Postby samuel » 07 Oct 2009 08:29

I am wondering if in the regions encircled in red other than khetolai, if any structure cracks were seen. If anyone can point to that info. many thanks in advance. Further, I am wondering if anyone has access to say gravity or magnetometric data over this region (we are also looking through); we are trying to ascertain if there are any subsurface channels that are apparent and would be responsible for some kind of nonlinear and/or anisotropic response.

Image

viveks
BRFite
Posts: 257
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 06:01

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

Postby viveks » 07 Oct 2009 11:04

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


Br loosing charm...oldies leaving...Jcage is not been coming. GJman lingers sometimes. Shivji....what are you doing these days ...hain?

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 11:06

viveks wrote:Shivji....what are you doing these days ...hain?


Driving everyone out of fantasy land with reality. Unless you subscribe to Arun's parting shot - now edited, that I am leading an echo chamber for the Indian government.

But if I live in India why should anyone get his chaddis in a twist if I echo the government's views - hain? :P

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5846
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 07 Oct 2009 11:15

AHA!! moment :idea:

The test was under two constraints:

1. Total yield is limited because of constraints.
2. Needed two explosions of approximately equal size for obfuscation

So, BARC prepared a TN with a little bit of fusion fuel. Their argument: If that 'little' fuses fine, 'a lot' of it will also fuse.

Some knowledgeable people, like KS, didn't believe that. They take is that fusion of the 'little' is not proof enough for assured fusion of 'a lot'.

Probably heated arguments happened, sparks flew, statistics and probability figures were thrown etc. But, there was no other way, because of the constraints above.

Test happened, 'the little' fusion fuel fused, and the expected yield was obtained.

BARC maintained the claim that since 'the little' fused, 'a lot' will also fuse, so all confident etc.

Skeptics like KS maintained that 'the little' fusion doesn't mean anything, hence the TN capability is not established.

What PKI said meant exactly this. 400 gm of LiD etc. etc.

When KS wanted to come out fighting, he could not say any of these in the open. Remember, there is no open source info on the design of the device. We assumed it is 3 stage. KS can not tell the actual reason, without going into the actual design of the device. That is absolutely haraam.

So, he did the best he could. Say that the TN didn't work, which is only a partial truth.

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

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

Postby RayC » 07 Oct 2009 11:24

It was a Fizzle and it was a Sizzle.

Depends on which side of the discussion you are on!

And you cannot change the reality, which in any case you have no purview to!

You all are bantering on borrowed knowledge from various sources!

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5846
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 07 Oct 2009 11:35

^^^ Well, that is true on pretty much EVERYTHING that is being discussed here, ain't it? Be it the missiles, aircraft, subs.

Or even, the lowly EVMs.

Why nukes be any different?

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

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

Postby archan » 07 Oct 2009 11:39

Dileep wrote:Or even, the lowly EVMs.

ssshhh... don't advertise that thread too much in "serious" circles. It could bring harm to it! :shock:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20897
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 07 Oct 2009 12:25

Words of wisdom from the expert Indian "bomb-by-bomb commentator",expert Al Balls.

India vs Pak N-test P-2.

And now we are eagerly waiting for the first bomb of the day being sent down from the Pokharan end,by speedster Sikka.It's a glorious sunny day for this test,P-2,the second in the Pokharan series,India's only Nuclear test venue.India's captain,RC won the toss and has elected to bomb first-not to be confused with another popular "RC",which comes from a well known distiller..In fact a great many bottles of RC will be opened tonight across the length and breadth of India (Ha!Ha!)if RC succeeds in leading India to another great test victory.We're told that RC has a secret up his sleeve with the second bomb of the day,where India will reveal that it has something special...Ha!Ha!...yes,another great Scottish blend,several bottles of that "special something" and the ice bucket is waiting for us and the VIPs to quench our parched throats during "drinks" in the drinks tent,to enable us to survive this dreadful desert heat.

The stands are completely empty,a fabulous effort at keeping all those nosy-parker CIA Yanquis away from our test-not a single satellite in sight,though there are the ususal flock of vultures hanging around waiting for someone to die,Ha!Ha! There's a book being opened at guessing how many scorpions and snakes will be food for the vultures after the tests.A lot is riding on the performance of the Indian bombsters,who claim that they can match the best of the west and can show the upturned finger to Pak.


The tripods are erect over the shaft,the first sign of success will be the obliteration of the tripod "stumps" with runs scored being the dimensions of the crater.We're just waiting for the umpires to take their seats.I see "Gen.Kalam",..can make him out from his grey locks peeping out from under his hat! The test is about to start.Over to you Bull S.Hit.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 07 Oct 2009 12:38

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

...
Regrettably, the clarifications by the national security adviser — functionally the appropriate authority to pronounce on the current controversy — have been scoffed at in personally pejorative terms.
...


Well what was expected after the bulk of the appropriate authorities pronouncement was nothing but a collection of personally perojorative terms towards the whistle blower.

Tell me a another one.

GoI does not have the maturity to handle "one" KS? And it is everyone's fault but KS? If it was a simple ego issue, to ensure that the credibility is not damaged, why not get KS in the loop by assuaging his ego one way or the other.

Meanwhile it is important to remember that KS did not start the controversy in public, it gradually snowballed from a in camera IDSA seminar.

Meanwhile if the entire public line up behind KS, including BK and others are all just ego issues (and none from the current position holders in GoI of course) then god save India in any case.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 07 Oct 2009 12:51

Dileep wrote:1. Total yield is limited because of constraints.
2. Needed two explosions of approximately equal size for obfuscation.


Neither the constraints or need for obfuscation has ever clearly been explained by some one from strat community, neither was it clear on the board as to what exactly these were ever supposed to be. (Other than some red herrings like Khetolai)

I also dont subscribe to "chicken little" behavior of be good or Uncle sam will have you for lunch sort of thing. India has never done that in the past, it has cocked a snook and carried on with what it thought was very important. And by all indications Nuke test was very very important to GoI. This pining love for "what will Uncle sam say" is mostly a post J18 phenomena as far as I see.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5846
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

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

Postby Dileep » 07 Oct 2009 15:09

Sanku wrote:
Dileep wrote:1. Total yield is limited because of constraints.
2. Needed two explosions of approximately equal size for obfuscation.


Neither the constraints or need for obfuscation has ever clearly been explained by some one from strat community, neither was it clear on the board as to what exactly these were ever supposed to be. (Other than some red herrings like Khetolai)

I also dont subscribe to "chicken little" behavior of be good or Uncle sam will have you for lunch sort of thing. India has never done that in the past, it has cocked a snook and carried on with what it thought was very important. And by all indications Nuke test was very very important to GoI. This pining love for "what will Uncle sam say" is mostly a post J18 phenomena as far as I see.

Well, the first one was from KS Himself, spoken right after the test in 1998. The second one is not seen outside this forum.

It is not simply, "what would Uncle Sam say. It is what US do. It is a very valid concern IMHO.

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 15:42

Sanku wrote:Well what was expected after the bulk of the appropriate authorities pronouncement was nothing but a collection of personally perojorative terms towards the whistle blower.

Tell me a another one.

GoI does not have the maturity to handle "one" KS? And it is everyone's fault but KS? If it was a simple ego issue, to ensure that the credibility is not damaged, why not get KS in the loop by assuaging his ego one way or the other.

Meanwhile it is important to remember that KS did not start the controversy in public, it gradually snowballed from a in camera IDSA seminar.


When you concentrate on personalities and who said what, then you are doing exactly the same thing which you accuse all KS detractors of doing.

And it is true KS did not start the controversy in public but he did nothing to nip it in the bud once the thing blew up. Irrespective of whether it is true or not he let the entire world know that India's deterrence consists of 20kt weapons and nothing more.

And it is simplistic to say that the entire world, particularly India's enemies already knew as you have no way of proving the same. India's nuclear (weapons) sector has been labeled by various outside commentators as the most secretive in the world.

It also did no one any good that KS alleged that BARC scientists reportedly inflated the radiochem results of POK1 when they reported to Raja Ramanna. Note it's not a question of whether this is true or not. The point is irrespective of truth or falsity this is not something that should be shared with the rest of the world as that badly destroys the credibility of all scientists of BARC and I would go so far as to say the entire scientific establishment. Surely he didn't need to say that just to prove the TN was a dud? There are various offline ways of reporting this - KS as an ex-RAW man would certainly be aware of that.

Anyway coming back to the Sibal article perhaps you can share your thoughts on some of the things he wrote in the piece starting with this:

The demand for a peer review of the data from the thermonuclear test may sound reasonable, but it is hardly workable in practical terms. This demand implies the rejection of government claims, reiterated recently, that several such reviews have been undertaken in the last 11 years. A proper, independent peer review is demanded, but what does it mean in effect? Would it entail sharing sensitive information with experts of high public standing in diverse test related disciplines, after they have been sworn to secrecy? Would any government concede an outside review and indirectly acknowledge it had mishandled a vital matter until now? But would such a review necessarily efface the damage already done?
...
Meanwhile if the entire public line up behind KS, including BK and others are all just ego issues (and none from the current position holders in GoI of course) then god save India in any case.


Do note that Sibal is not a run of the mill DDM reporter and can hardly be called a UPA supporter. As Ravi pointed out, he has written extensively against the nuclear deal. I think Sibal's article as well those by a few others shows that a lot of people from the strategic community are displeased, not necessarily with KS' assertion(s), but rather with his modus operandi.

JMT
Last edited by amit on 07 Oct 2009 16:07, edited 1 time in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 07 Oct 2009 16:05

amit wrote:
When you concentrate on personalities and who said what, then you are doing exactly the same thing which you accuse all KS detractors of doing.



The above is a misrepresentation of my position. I have not concentrated on any personalities.

I summarily rejected the summary as not something I have alluded to.

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 16:08

Sanku wrote:The above is a misrepresentation of my position. I have not concentrated on any personalities.

I summarily rejected the summary as not something I have alluded to.


If that's your assertion, then I'll accept it. Please accept my apologies for the that part of my post.

However, the rest of the post stands.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 07 Oct 2009 16:14

Dileep wrote:Well, the first one was from KS Himself, spoken right after the test in 1998. The second one is not seen outside this forum.


Dileep I have been trying to find out the exact statement attributed to KS after the tests. Some one did post a statement to the effect of

"we designed the test so as to not cause damage"

Which is not what it has been taken to mean by some on the forum. So if you can find the exact quote it will be good.

Secondly

It is not simply, "what would Uncle Sam say. It is what US do. It is a very valid concern IMHO.


When I say "say" I mean do for all practical purposes. Yes its a concern but hardly a perpetual reason for a debilitating deer in headlight sort of behavior that is expected.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 07 Oct 2009 16:31

amit wrote:However, the rest of the post stands.


No need for apologies no offence is taken, my statement was a clarification of my position. However if you think it helps I welcome the gesture.

Finally I do not see how the post stands since a bit of it was discussion on personalities issue, anyway let me reiterate. The whole thing became personality specific since the way to address the concerns was to downplay KSs role (incorrectly) rather than address the concerns. (remember he was called a maverick) and then it begins.

Finally I have always rejected the obsessive secrecy syndrome of Indian establishment. As I posted in an article from Adm Sureesh Mehta (I may be getting the wrong CNS here) that "obsessive secrecy may or may not fool your enemy but is likely to confuse your own side to no good end"

This is what the case appears to be -- there is no reason why the depth of burial and yeild and soil characteristics can not be revealed. All the P5 have multiple tests of TNs yeild details of which are published. They also have a situation of mutual verification etc.

So clearly I do not buy RCs assertion that they have released a lot of information in the press. I cant see what information they have released which cant be recreated by a pure open source Nuclear physicists and related field, say one from IISc publishing however I agree this is how it should be.

It is just that GoI should not make these untenable claims
KS is a maverick
we have released lot of data
KS is out of loop
One test is enough for purposes
We have deterrence we can deliver something

These sort of statements apart from making other rotfl do very little else and take GoI credibility down a 500 m shaft.

On the other hand clear statements on deployment of nukes with
Yield
Depth
Soil mechanics (no big secret)
Expected crater size

etc would be very welcome.

Note none of this would be important if a statement was made as to no moratorium on testing.

But if we have VM, then the above data is important for credibility.

Otherwise its like saying -- "I wont tell you anything, but you must believe me nevertheless since I have already told you a lot"

We can have either a moratorium on testing with this info, or no moratorium without it. Not both.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3020
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 07 Oct 2009 16:42

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. . .

hmm, I guess a known devil is better than unknown devil. We must have built better mechanisms for the known one now the new resurgent China is baring her fangs...

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3020
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 07 Oct 2009 16:47

On the other hand clear statements on deployment of nukes with
Yield
Depth
Soil mechanics (no big secret)
Expected crater size

etc would be very welcome.

:D In addition may be they should also take a tour of intl scientist to verify the claims made by local ones to confirm all the depth, expected crater size and soil mechanics calculations are 100% in agreement.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 07 Oct 2009 16:51

Kanson wrote:
On the other hand clear statements on deployment of nukes with
Yield
Depth
Soil mechanics (no big secret)
Expected crater size

etc would be very welcome.

:D In addition may be they should also take a tour of intl scientist to verify the claims made by local ones to confirm all the depth, expected crater size and soil mechanics calculations are 100% in agreement.


This can be done by some IIT soil mechanics types. Surely they wont find something in the shaft which will be a "proliferation concern"

I find all this "nothing cant be done" type of thing very puzzling, a whole manner of little things can easily be done without any issues and easily solve the problem (if you are not hiding anything that is)

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3020
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 07 Oct 2009 16:57

^^^ bhai saab, If GoI dont have any confidence in a particular agency who are incompetent and anti-national in fudging the test which is of national importance, they why to hand over such an important task of weapon building to them and ask someother agency to cross verify them.

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 17:00

Sorry Sanku,

You have written a long post but you have not specifically tackled what Sibal has written.

What RC has asserted or not asserted is not moot.

At the risk of sounding repetitive let me re-quote Sibal:

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?


Also you think there's no need for excessive secrecy in the nuclear programme. It's funny that you take the CNS' quote about the need or not of secrecy made in the context of various DRDO projects and apllied it piecemeal to the nuclear weapons programme. This is not the first time you have done that.

So I suppose you think it doesn't matter if we tell China the exact kt value of the bombs that we have to target their cities. Perhaps we should ask them to reciprocate that information?

Do note it would be instructive to see how other nations treat folks who divulge nuclear secrets. There are several US examples which I'm sure you are aware of. But more recent and interesting was the way the Israelis reacted when one of their citizens revealed nuclear secrets. Remember the James Bond type of reaction?

I guess these guys must be excessively paranoid, nah?
Last edited by amit on 07 Oct 2009 17:12, edited 2 times in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Postby Sanku » 07 Oct 2009 17:01

Kanson wrote:^^^ bhai saab, If GoI dont have any confidence in a particular agency who are incompetent and anti-national in fudging the test which is of national importance, they why to hand over such an important task of weapon building to them and ask someother agency to cross verify them.


GoI system is based on checks and balances. It is like saying you have politicians running the country but want judiciary to look into it too, why?

Checks and balances are essential for any system design -- all are human and capable of failure. Trusting some one to be 400% correct is not the way systems are made.

Cross check even if correct.

This is not about love and relationship where the magical trust word keeps coming up.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3020
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

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

Postby Kanson » 07 Oct 2009 17:10

Dileep wrote: Well, the first one was from KS Himself, spoken right after the test in 1998.

There are so many controversies surrounding KS statements. To the NDTV intreview posted by Csharma in the previous version of this thread, he says, intially he thought the test is Ok but to the Outlook he makes a darring statement saying from the moment after he knew the test is a fizzle. If we go back to check the photos where the four top leaders of POK2 posing for the press, KS raised a victory sign to the press. If he knew in the first place that the test is a failure as he mentions in the Outlook interview then the question is why showed a victory sign and gives the impression that all these are mere drama.

Who knows, may be both MKN and KS are playing the game. Both are spooks and both know the trade.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests