I had one comment for Dr. Karnad. That was about stockpile stewardship. Dr. Karnad had said that 2000 separate events have to work for a nuclear bomb to work and that simulation did not cut it. My question was about the issue of stockpile stewardship. Nuclear weapons components degrade over time. Plastics degrade, other components suffer the effect of high radioactivity, Helium builds up in Plutonium, cracks develop in the explosive Tritium degrades etc
The last US nuclear tests were in 1992 and France/China last tested 1996. Ultimately - over a course of time nearly every component of a bomb will require to show some proof that it works. In the absence of testing that is not possible. Simulation, along with other methods becomes an absolute must. So the greater the number of years after the last test the greater the need for reliance on indirect methods to ensure that a stockpile works.
Ultimately - when we reach a time frame of say 25 years since the last tests were conducted - you have a stage when all the people who built the original bombs have retired. The machines and raw materials that moulded original parts -even the chemistry of the source raw materials has changed and the exact processes used for fashioning components has become outmoded and is no longer available. That is the time when the "confidence" level in a weapon without regular testing is likely to fall below 90% (or whatever the number is for a given arsenal).
I am reminded of a quote about what Fermi, or was it Feynman who is said to have commented about the US's first nuclear bomb on Japan. He calculated a "confidence level" for the bomb where he said that it was (something like) 90% probable to yield at least 5 kt, 75 % probable to yield at least 15 kt, 50% probable to yield at least 20 kt - something like that I think the graph might have shown 100% probability of yielding 1kt. But yield was a probability. Not a certainty.
i am certain that this is a problem that all weapons builders are faced with. India has the biggest amount of guesswork to do here. I am equally certain that anyone in the armed forces who needs to use a weapon is told about the probability of a bomb yielding a given amount of energy.
Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
The scientists wanted to test more. Both in 74 and in 1998 . But our idiotic politicians never allowed that. If they test on there own without political backing than they ll be jailed and hanged sooner than kasab.
The man does say that the weapons business is not a serious pursuit for the Indian nuclear program. I don't see how anything can be perfected using just 1 test. And if the contention is that the Indian program is sophisticated enough to do most everything via simulations, then why even conduct the 1 test?
I agree that compared to other real high-tech stuff Nuke bomb making is a lot simpler . Any one who understands physics well knows that allowing fission or fusion uncontrollably as in a weapon is a lot simpler than controlling it and using it for productive purposes like energy generation . Even after 60 years of fusion bomb we don't have a fusion based nuclear reactor.
The professor from stanford is right about the Indian programme. A large portion of the research at CERN is done by Indian citizen scientists in India. If you look at any research journal in nuclear physics India scientists are the largest contributors . If the government provides some autonomy and increases grants we can way ahead.
Last edited by gakakkad on 05 Sep 2011 16:50, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
I agree with what Shiv said . Yield is a matter of probability . The calculations are complex . These have been well discussed in the past.
The TNW issue has been blown way out of proportion . Though the politicians made real big mistake . Had we finished with the H-BOMB business in 60's itself we would not be having this discussion now.
By all evidence fusion occurred . Even the most pessimistic yield is 32 kt with an uncertainty factor or 3kt .The Chinese don't want a 100 odd 30kt weapons falling on them. And that too with the definite threat that these could be much higher yield.
Besides what evidence do we have of the yield of Chinese weapons? They could well be bluffing .
The calculations are complicated by the geological presence of granite . However we should have tested full 200kt or 1 mt rather than a scaled down version . Evidently the Politicians chickened out.
The thing is we have the capability. And it would probably take a month to field test deployed weapons should the need arise.
The TNW issue has been blown way out of proportion . Though the politicians made real big mistake . Had we finished with the H-BOMB business in 60's itself we would not be having this discussion now.
By all evidence fusion occurred . Even the most pessimistic yield is 32 kt with an uncertainty factor or 3kt .The Chinese don't want a 100 odd 30kt weapons falling on them. And that too with the definite threat that these could be much higher yield.
Besides what evidence do we have of the yield of Chinese weapons? They could well be bluffing .
The calculations are complicated by the geological presence of granite . However we should have tested full 200kt or 1 mt rather than a scaled down version . Evidently the Politicians chickened out.
The thing is we have the capability. And it would probably take a month to field test deployed weapons should the need arise.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
The reason why you don't see too many Indian nobel laureates is because nobel committee is racist against the Indians. The reason why world does not respect our research as seriously as they should is because we don't respect ourselves.
Why should a Swedish guy respect an Indian atomic scientist if our own people are calling them bluffers besides a host of other expletives ?
Most of the posters who used foul language evidently don't know a thing about physics.
One should only be overtly critical about our scientists if one can solve some of these-
I went through the archives . Some of the posters Amber G , guruprabhu etc seem to have extraordinary knowledge . They seem to be research physicist .
Why should a Swedish guy respect an Indian atomic scientist if our own people are calling them bluffers besides a host of other expletives ?
Most of the posters who used foul language evidently don't know a thing about physics.
One should only be overtly critical about our scientists if one can solve some of these-
I am not challenging anyone here. Nor do I expect anyone to take trouble to post answers to these. In fact I may not be able to visit for a long time now . Because my "research leave" is about to get over and I have to resume my clinical duties . My next duties will be in the critical care unit followed by cardiac imaging. So I ll hardly get time for anything else. But the thing is use these as a guideline. Insult someone only if you know what you are talking . else shut up.Physics Problem wrote:
Calculate the most probable de broglie wavelength of Hydrogen atom at a temperature of 310 K.
Demonstrate that an H+ atom can only move in round orbits ehich can accomodate whole number of de broglie waves.
Use the schrodingers equation to demonstrate that potential energy of a particle has finite discontinuity ,the wave function remains smooth.
etc
I went through the archives . Some of the posters Amber G , guruprabhu etc seem to have extraordinary knowledge . They seem to be research physicist .
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
gakakkad;
Also it is quite a relief to know that engineering a fusion bomb of high yield with minimum weight is a simple exercise, I am sure GP explained it well in a few sentences how easy it was and how generations of weapons designers, testers and users in India could not see it.
Glad that its all sorted out.
And will this be before or after they throw 10, MT devices on many Indian cities + counter force targeting on many possible missile sites?
Anyway no probs, I am sure its all sorted out, now lets go party.
I am slightly at a loss here, I was not aware of fusion being used in a controlled manner for "peaceful" purposes. Although I am sure it must be quite similar to using fission in controlled manner, after all fission ~= fusion, roughly speaking.gakakkad wrote: I agree that compared to other real high-tech stuff Nuke bomb making is a lot simpler . Any one who understands physics well knows that allowing fission or fusion uncontrollably as in a weapon is a lot simpler than controlling it and using it for productive purposes like energy generation , radiotherapy for cancer treatment etc. .
Also it is quite a relief to know that engineering a fusion bomb of high yield with minimum weight is a simple exercise, I am sure GP explained it well in a few sentences how easy it was and how generations of weapons designers, testers and users in India could not see it.
Glad that its all sorted out.
Hundred odd 30 Kt weapons for China? With how many missiles Sir? Of which class?.The Chinese don't want a 100 odd 30kt weapons falling on them. And that too with the definite threat that these could be much higher yield.
And will this be before or after they throw 10, MT devices on many Indian cities + counter force targeting on many possible missile sites?
Anyway no probs, I am sure its all sorted out, now lets go party.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
^^^i edited my sentence a bit to prevent misinterpretation. Reread what I said. And I stand by my opinion. Weapons are not the most complicated stuff in nuclear science. There are things far tougher..
There is not going to be a nuke war anytime soon. The chinese could have well attacked us with nukes pre 1998 .
Avoid using polemics to counter a logical argumentation . You could have confronted me with logic. Nothing that I said in the above sentence could be misinterpreted as me talking about a fusion reactor
In fact inadvertently I made an error that could be misinterpreted as factual.But you failed to point that one out. In medical radiotherapy the nuclear reactions are neither fission nor fusion . I corrected the statement before you commented. But somehow you missed it.
There is not going to be a nuke war anytime soon. The chinese could have well attacked us with nukes pre 1998 .
Avoid using polemics to counter a logical argumentation . You could have confronted me with logic. Nothing that I said in the above sentence could be misinterpreted as me talking about a fusion reactor
In fact inadvertently I made an error that could be misinterpreted as factual.But you failed to point that one out. In medical radiotherapy the nuclear reactions are neither fission nor fusion . I corrected the statement before you commented. But somehow you missed it.
Last edited by gakakkad on 05 Sep 2011 17:52, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
While we see another round of discussion on the success of Nuclear test...here is the Interview from the first Commander-in-Chief of India’s Strategic Forces Command.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.asianage.com/interview-week/ ... t-back-484
Air Marshal T. M. Asthana (retd), a fighter pilot, was the first Commander-in-Chief of India’s Strategic Forces Command which operationalises the country’s nuclear arsenal. He tells Anand K. Sahay that if India faces a nuclear hit from terrorists in Pakistan — which he considers unlikely — it can retaliate with nuclear or conventional forces, and possesses the capability for a surgical strike.
Q. Last Sunday, terrorists in Pakistan attacked the Mehran naval base near Karachi and destroyed two sophisticated maritime surveillance and attack aircraft. This has led to fears that Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile and fissile material are no longer safe from theft by militants. Is India at particular risk of a possible terror strike using nuclear materials? What is our response mechanism like in such a scenario?
A. The retaliation against terrorist organisations can be nuclear or with conventional weapons. If we have ascertained that a nuclear strike from the Pakistan side is by a terrorist outfit, and we want to hit back using nuclear weapons, then we should inform Pakistan that we are not striking at the country but only to destroy a particular group.
We know the sites of the terrorist outfits. We only need to decide the strength of the nuclear weapon to be used. It will obviously be tactical, of a particular yield that does not cause damage beyond, say, a brigade strength.{Check the language. It doesn't give the notion we have only one type of weapon of 20 KT yield and we have indeed weaponized based on the Shakti test a tactical weapon(or many such weapon of various yields)}
But my preference would be to use conventional force in retaliation. I think in nine out of ten cases, this should suffice. We should continue hitting them till they raise the white flag.
Q. Have scenarios of this nature been discussed in government in your experience?
A. Of course.
Q. The course you are suggesting calls for extreme precision in operation — something like what the Americans deployed to take out Osama bin Laden at Abbottabad. Do we have the capability?
A. We certainly have the capability.
Q. If we strike at a terrorist site in Pakistan in retaliation, you don’t think Pakistan as a country will respond using its official forces? Is that something to be taken into account?
A. When we go in, we should seek to convince Pakistan and the USA etc —unless you are sure you don’t care what they think. But that’s unlikely in India.
Q. It is being said that Pakistan is developing tactical nuclear weapons in a big way for use against India. Can these be special target of theft by terrorist groups, especially when they are said to have insider support in the Pakistan nuclear establishment, the armed forces or the ISI?
A. There are rumours, and also some reports, that they are developing tactical nuclear weapons. I doubt this very much. A tactical nuclear weapon is for use against enemy forces, not the population, and is a sub-kiloton device. Our policy is “no first use”. We won’t be the first to use nuclear weapons of any kind against any country. But the retaliation from our side will be massive if a nuclear device is used against us. I wonder if that is an acceptable risk for Pakistan to take — using a tactical weapon against India and inviting a massive retaliation.
Q. What can be India’s response in the event of a failed attempt by terrorists in Pakistan to steal fissile material or a nuclear device?
A. There is no requirement of a response from our side except to strengthen intelligence, our security systems, to have more than a single layer of security. Remember, our policy is only of retaliation against NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical weapons) strike. I think there is not even a small chance of that unless there is provocation from their side. Please remember, we will hit back massively even if Lashkar-e-Tayyaba or any of the terrorists drops a bomb on India. The principle remains the same. We will hit back.
Q. How safe are Pakistan’s nuclear systems — its production facilities and bomb storage sites? Pakistan’s weapons are said to be kept on the move in order to make them less susceptible to theft or attack. Doesn’t that make them susceptible to theft.
A. There is international hue and cry about Pakistan’s nuclear safety because of Taliban, Al Qaeda and others. But no one has said what the final answer is.
The director of strategic planning in Pakistan’s nuclear authority has said lately that the command authority is based on the “two-man rule”, ie clearance is required from two persons for mating and launch (bringing together the weapon and the trigger, and then the launching of it). They also say they have their own — not taken from the US — PALs (Permissive Action Links) to authorise mating and launch. They also claim to have a comprehensive and intrusive personnel reliability system which means screening of all employees before, during and after their stint in the nuclear area. I take this with a pinch of salt.
Anyway, these claims had not come to light earlier. Before, every time they spoke on these issues, they spoke of their doctrine of ‘first use’ (not hesitating to be the first to strike with a nuclear weapon). Apart from the security systems Pakistan now claims, there is always the standard stuff of phoney bunkers, dummy warheads to fool the enemy. In short, Pakistan is trying to say it is very difficult for unauthorised personnel to assemble a device.
Q. Can this be taken at face value?
A. There can be discussion about that. But we find it difficult to believe that any form of terrorist organisation is capable of assembling and launching a nuclear device unless they have insiders with them who have the knowledge. Even if they could steal a weapon, they will have to develop a trigger mechanism for it. A trigger doesn’t work unless the code and authorisation known. So, this scenario is extremely unlikely, although nothing can be ruled out.
Q. What about the “dirty bomb” scenario — terrorists stealing fissile material with help from insiders, assembling a device etc?
A. This is a far-fetched thing. Even if you have insider support, remember that in the nuclear set-up, things are compartmentalised; no one has full knowledge except at top levels. If you steal fissile material, you have to find ways to house the stuff, then develop a trigger mechanism and finally a launch vehicle and the avionic suite (that goes with it). In any case, if any (fissile) material or device is stolen, it becomes Pakistan’s moral responsibility to report the theft to the appropriate international agencies. Else, there are consequences.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.asianage.com/interview-week/ ... t-back-484
Air Marshal T. M. Asthana (retd), a fighter pilot, was the first Commander-in-Chief of India’s Strategic Forces Command which operationalises the country’s nuclear arsenal. He tells Anand K. Sahay that if India faces a nuclear hit from terrorists in Pakistan — which he considers unlikely — it can retaliate with nuclear or conventional forces, and possesses the capability for a surgical strike.
Q. Last Sunday, terrorists in Pakistan attacked the Mehran naval base near Karachi and destroyed two sophisticated maritime surveillance and attack aircraft. This has led to fears that Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile and fissile material are no longer safe from theft by militants. Is India at particular risk of a possible terror strike using nuclear materials? What is our response mechanism like in such a scenario?
A. The retaliation against terrorist organisations can be nuclear or with conventional weapons. If we have ascertained that a nuclear strike from the Pakistan side is by a terrorist outfit, and we want to hit back using nuclear weapons, then we should inform Pakistan that we are not striking at the country but only to destroy a particular group.
We know the sites of the terrorist outfits. We only need to decide the strength of the nuclear weapon to be used. It will obviously be tactical, of a particular yield that does not cause damage beyond, say, a brigade strength.{Check the language. It doesn't give the notion we have only one type of weapon of 20 KT yield and we have indeed weaponized based on the Shakti test a tactical weapon(or many such weapon of various yields)}
But my preference would be to use conventional force in retaliation. I think in nine out of ten cases, this should suffice. We should continue hitting them till they raise the white flag.
Q. Have scenarios of this nature been discussed in government in your experience?
A. Of course.
Q. The course you are suggesting calls for extreme precision in operation — something like what the Americans deployed to take out Osama bin Laden at Abbottabad. Do we have the capability?
A. We certainly have the capability.
Q. If we strike at a terrorist site in Pakistan in retaliation, you don’t think Pakistan as a country will respond using its official forces? Is that something to be taken into account?
A. When we go in, we should seek to convince Pakistan and the USA etc —unless you are sure you don’t care what they think. But that’s unlikely in India.
Q. It is being said that Pakistan is developing tactical nuclear weapons in a big way for use against India. Can these be special target of theft by terrorist groups, especially when they are said to have insider support in the Pakistan nuclear establishment, the armed forces or the ISI?
A. There are rumours, and also some reports, that they are developing tactical nuclear weapons. I doubt this very much. A tactical nuclear weapon is for use against enemy forces, not the population, and is a sub-kiloton device. Our policy is “no first use”. We won’t be the first to use nuclear weapons of any kind against any country. But the retaliation from our side will be massive if a nuclear device is used against us. I wonder if that is an acceptable risk for Pakistan to take — using a tactical weapon against India and inviting a massive retaliation.
Q. What can be India’s response in the event of a failed attempt by terrorists in Pakistan to steal fissile material or a nuclear device?
A. There is no requirement of a response from our side except to strengthen intelligence, our security systems, to have more than a single layer of security. Remember, our policy is only of retaliation against NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical weapons) strike. I think there is not even a small chance of that unless there is provocation from their side. Please remember, we will hit back massively even if Lashkar-e-Tayyaba or any of the terrorists drops a bomb on India. The principle remains the same. We will hit back.
Q. How safe are Pakistan’s nuclear systems — its production facilities and bomb storage sites? Pakistan’s weapons are said to be kept on the move in order to make them less susceptible to theft or attack. Doesn’t that make them susceptible to theft.
A. There is international hue and cry about Pakistan’s nuclear safety because of Taliban, Al Qaeda and others. But no one has said what the final answer is.
The director of strategic planning in Pakistan’s nuclear authority has said lately that the command authority is based on the “two-man rule”, ie clearance is required from two persons for mating and launch (bringing together the weapon and the trigger, and then the launching of it). They also say they have their own — not taken from the US — PALs (Permissive Action Links) to authorise mating and launch. They also claim to have a comprehensive and intrusive personnel reliability system which means screening of all employees before, during and after their stint in the nuclear area. I take this with a pinch of salt.
Anyway, these claims had not come to light earlier. Before, every time they spoke on these issues, they spoke of their doctrine of ‘first use’ (not hesitating to be the first to strike with a nuclear weapon). Apart from the security systems Pakistan now claims, there is always the standard stuff of phoney bunkers, dummy warheads to fool the enemy. In short, Pakistan is trying to say it is very difficult for unauthorised personnel to assemble a device.
Q. Can this be taken at face value?
A. There can be discussion about that. But we find it difficult to believe that any form of terrorist organisation is capable of assembling and launching a nuclear device unless they have insiders with them who have the knowledge. Even if they could steal a weapon, they will have to develop a trigger mechanism for it. A trigger doesn’t work unless the code and authorisation known. So, this scenario is extremely unlikely, although nothing can be ruled out.
Q. What about the “dirty bomb” scenario — terrorists stealing fissile material with help from insiders, assembling a device etc?
A. This is a far-fetched thing. Even if you have insider support, remember that in the nuclear set-up, things are compartmentalised; no one has full knowledge except at top levels. If you steal fissile material, you have to find ways to house the stuff, then develop a trigger mechanism and finally a launch vehicle and the avionic suite (that goes with it). In any case, if any (fissile) material or device is stolen, it becomes Pakistan’s moral responsibility to report the theft to the appropriate international agencies. Else, there are consequences.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
With due respect to AM Asthana,and his choosing the N-weapon of his choice at the appropriate moment,pray in a crisis which is multiplying by the day,nay nby the hour,when will he open the Nuclear "menu " and order from the BARC or Kalpakkam kitchen a 5kt,or 7.5kt or a "starter" of 0.5kt ,a morsel just enough to obliterate a Brigade?! Pray,what will the chef's "cooking time" also be? Most restaurant menus state a minimum time for a dish to be prepared.While the AM sits salivating in anticipation of his tasty dish,the Indian "takeaway " would've been vaporised by a Red Dragon "dimsum",made in Kahuta!
When BR was born,not too long before P-2,and very timely in retrospect,I distinctly remember the engaging debate about what our N-policy should be.At thta time I said that we should follow the French example and test to the hilt as they did in the S.Pacific,until we ad perfected every known kind of N-weapon that we would need and only then after our boffins and militayr men were satisfied,stop of oru own volition.P_2 followed not too long after.sadly,the achievements of P-1 and P-2 have been suqndered totally by Snake-oil Singh who has bartered away the "lamp of the genie" for a tinpot N-deal that has udnermined the country's N-deterrent and also its independent N-power perspective whose master plan was prepared by Bhabha himself.Man Mubarak Singh has almost castrated India's N-capability with his treacherous acts that have suited his white masters to perfection.
When BR was born,not too long before P-2,and very timely in retrospect,I distinctly remember the engaging debate about what our N-policy should be.At thta time I said that we should follow the French example and test to the hilt as they did in the S.Pacific,until we ad perfected every known kind of N-weapon that we would need and only then after our boffins and militayr men were satisfied,stop of oru own volition.P_2 followed not too long after.sadly,the achievements of P-1 and P-2 have been suqndered totally by Snake-oil Singh who has bartered away the "lamp of the genie" for a tinpot N-deal that has udnermined the country's N-deterrent and also its independent N-power perspective whose master plan was prepared by Bhabha himself.Man Mubarak Singh has almost castrated India's N-capability with his treacherous acts that have suited his white masters to perfection.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
An opinion eh? Of nuclear weapons being easy to make, particularly fusion and boosted fission type of weapons ?gakakkad wrote:^^^i edited my sentence a bit to prevent misinterpretation. Reread what I said. And I stand by my opinion. Weapons are not the most complicated stuff in nuclear science. There are things far tougher..
Well I guess you are in the wrong field then, you should go to BARC and teach them a thing or two, they have been trying for many years and yet do not have a provably working design.
Excuse me? What is this supposed to be? What correlation does chances of a nuclear war have to do with the previous sentence? Or they random statements, (incidentally both grossly incorrect) ? In which case perhaps you can explain what are you trying to say here?There is not going to be a nuke war anytime soon. The chinese could have well attacked us with nukes pre 1998 .
Also what is the cause and effect here? What is the relationship between no nuclear war before 1988 and no nuclear war now? Is this mathmatical induction at work here?
Logic? Where?Avoid using polemics to counter a logical argumentation .
Confront what with logic? This statement?You could have confronted me with logic.
So I just wanted to know what "peaceful use of fusion" were you aware of, and did NOT ask youAny one who understands physics well knows that allowing fission or fusion uncontrollably as in a weapon is a lot simpler than controlling it and using it for productive purposes like energy generation , radiotherapy for cancer treatment etc. .
Fusion reactor? Where did I say that? Only asking you to explain how easy it is to use fusion uncontrollably as opposed to its "controlled" use?Nothing that I said in the above sentence could be misinterpreted as me talking about a fusion reactor
That error my friend, was the LEAST of all errors in your rather, shall we say, less than well informed post.In fact inadvertently I made an error that could be misinterpreted as factual.But you failed to point that one out. In medical radiotherapy the nuclear reactions are neither fission nor fusion . I corrected the statement before you commented. But somehow you missed it.
And oh in medical radiotherapy, if there is no fission or fusion, just what produces the radiation?
I also note that you skipped a ton of questions that I had about your post, including some more "logical" statements about about 100 X 30 Kt were going to dissuade China from nuclear war.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
@ sanku. You have clearly demonstrated your ignorance of Physics in general and nuclear reactions in particular.
Fission and fusion are just 2 types of nuclear reactions . Other types of nuclear reactions are projectile capture, particle -particle reaction ,Spallation etc.
Attempts to control fusion have been made for several decades without success. If we are able to control it for electricity generation than a lot of our problems will be solved.
I know a few people in BARC . They know there stuff . Your derision of them was uncalled far.
The problem here is that we don't want to trust our airforce or army chief , we don't want to trust our nuclear scientists , we don't want to trust stanford people who praise our scientists. But we want to trust some armchair generals and journalists who have neither military experience nor science background.
Fission and fusion are just 2 types of nuclear reactions . Other types of nuclear reactions are projectile capture, particle -particle reaction ,Spallation etc.
Attempts to control fusion have been made for several decades without success. If we are able to control it for electricity generation than a lot of our problems will be solved.
I know a few people in BARC . They know there stuff . Your derision of them was uncalled far.
The problem here is that we don't want to trust our airforce or army chief , we don't want to trust our nuclear scientists , we don't want to trust stanford people who praise our scientists. But we want to trust some armchair generals and journalists who have neither military experience nor science background.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
B. Raman's morphing into a WKK is indeed surprising.I guess its India's lack of aggresive options in dealing with TSP's terrorist provocations, and perhaphs growing old has mellowed him quite a bit.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Three or four mountain strike corps - for a total of 20 plus mountain divisions, nearly 400,000 men. After all the majority of India's borders with TSP and PRC are mountainous. There will still remain two-thirds of the Indian army that can largely be dedicated for Punjab/Rajasthan/Gujrat setcors.Singha wrote:leaving aside the TN issue, some of us have ranted about the need to convert the three strike corps into mountain strike corps. hand over their plains kit to the new CBG/rapid formations and requip for war in tibet and kashgar. these would hugely beef up the sole new mountain strike corps being newly formed.
if 250km thrust to the Indus is not on the menu in a nuclear setting the strike corps have outlived their purpose and need to be broken up and repurposed either as strike corps or strike brigades for the mountains.
maybe leave one in kutch area, and convert the other two atleast.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
I am mortified.gakakkad wrote:@ sanku. You have clearly demonstrated your ignorance of Physics in general and nuclear reactions in particular.
Dear my shocking!! Who would have thought. My my.Fission and fusion are just 2 types of nuclear reactions . Other types of nuclear reactions are projectile capture, particle -particle reaction ,Spallation etc.
However surprisingly that was not what I asked was it?
Answer this question above? (Since you claimed that medical radiotherapy does not use fission or fusion)And oh in medical radiotherapy, if there is no fission or fusion, just what produces the radiation?
I asked a set of simple questions you have not been answering them? You claim to know the answers right, so why not answer? Which medical radiological process uses which nuclear process?
I did not deride BARC my friend, my derision is reserved for othersI know a few people in BARC . They know there stuff . Your derision of them was uncalled far.
Are you one of the above? If not kindly spare including them in your general set of confused statements. There is barely any connect between pieces. First you claimed that Fission and Fusion controlled use was the well known and making a weapon was so simple? When I asked some questions about that, you say that you made a mistake about using fission/fusion for medical purposes. When I asked which nuclear processes are involved apart from these two, you give me a general list of nuclear processes without answering the question.The problem here is that we don't want to trust our airforce or army chief , we don't want to trust our nuclear scientists , we don't want to trust stanford people who praise our scientists. But we want to trust some armchair generals and journalists who have neither military experience nor science background.
You have missed the questions about
1) How many and which missiles will be needed for carrying 100, 30 Kt Weapons
2) How will it stack against a chinese response based on multi megaton weapons? Along with counter force weapons?
3) What does the fact that there was no nuclear war before 1998 has anything to do with above discussion?
And please dont tell me I am ignorant, since that is not the point of my asking the question. But since you know about the "controlled use of fusion" and other such advance nuclear studies I was hoping you will enlighten me?
So repeating the two questions
4) What are the known controlled use of fusion?
5) What are the nuclear reactions in nuclear medicine?
Just answer the questions please? If you cant its okay too, but dont put yet another unrelated assertion in response?
-
RamaY
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 17249
- Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
- Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Shivji,
Isn't it your conviction that there is no way China can be destroyed with nuclear force (it would take ~ 10,000 1Mt bums to destroy China totally), so a nimble nuclear arsenal of 20KT variety is sufficient for indian needs?
Did you ask Sri BK why he is wasting his and others time talking about the fizzled TN weapons when there is no need of them to begin with?
I loved the irony in you, a man who doesn't believe in the need of TN weapons, presenting a memento to Sri BK, who proclaims that india's 20KT arsenal is not sufficient and needs TN weapons. Such is the strategic community in Bharat I think
I also find it very interesting and humiliating at the same time when I hear the punditry saying the crux of Indian nuclear deterrence lies in the secrecy (and unprovenness) of India's nuclear arsenal capabilities.
I don't know why I feel like that proverbial frog in that proverbial boiling pot, every time I see "controlled" decimation of truth
Isn't it your conviction that there is no way China can be destroyed with nuclear force (it would take ~ 10,000 1Mt bums to destroy China totally), so a nimble nuclear arsenal of 20KT variety is sufficient for indian needs?
Did you ask Sri BK why he is wasting his and others time talking about the fizzled TN weapons when there is no need of them to begin with?
I loved the irony in you, a man who doesn't believe in the need of TN weapons, presenting a memento to Sri BK, who proclaims that india's 20KT arsenal is not sufficient and needs TN weapons. Such is the strategic community in Bharat I think
I also find it very interesting and humiliating at the same time when I hear the punditry saying the crux of Indian nuclear deterrence lies in the secrecy (and unprovenness) of India's nuclear arsenal capabilities.
I don't know why I feel like that proverbial frog in that proverbial boiling pot, every time I see "controlled" decimation of truth
-
RamaY
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 17249
- Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
- Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
what a foolish way to approach national interests and nuclear deterrencegakakkad wrote: By all evidence fusion occurred . Even the most pessimistic yield is 32 kt with an uncertainty factor or 3kt .The Chinese don't want a 100 odd 30kt weapons falling on them. And that too with the definite threat that these could be much higher yield.
Besides what evidence do we have of the yield of Chinese weapons? They could well be bluffing .
The thing is we have the capability. And it would probably take a month to field test deployed weapons should the need arise.
By this logic most probably every one is bluffing (like we do. Probably that is how people think - they see themselves in others) and there is no need for nuke deterrence.
We are told that war is an awful thing and no one, I repeat no one, wants it. Add nukes to the equation and you have zero probability with 100% certainty. All those hundreds of conflicts and dozens of wars in the world at any given moment is all propaganda.
Sometimes the punditry gets to disgusting levels.
Disclaimer: I am an NRI so I do not know the ground realities in India and I do not have any right to demand a given approach to Indian security as I am not the one who is facing the terror attacks day in and day out.
Sigh
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Didn't the scientist who matter talk about Dial-a-yield kind of weapon configuration? That claim is consistent with the above by the commander.Philip wrote:With due respect to AM Asthana,and his choosing the N-weapon of his choice at the appropriate moment,pray in a crisis which is multiplying by the day,nay nby the hour,when will he open the Nuclear "menu " and order from the BARC or Kalpakkam kitchen a 5kt,or 7.5kt or a "starter" of 0.5kt ,a morsel just enough to obliterate a Brigade?! Pray,what will the chef's "cooking time" also be? Most restaurant menus state a minimum time for a dish to be prepared.While the AM sits salivating in anticipation of his tasty dish,the Indian "takeaway " would've been vaporised by a Red Dragon "dimsum",made in Kahuta!
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Guys knock it off! Every time BK or KS speaks a few BRF members get banned.
So take it easy and keep it civil. We all know every one's position.
And no one will come and teach unobtanium physics here.
Better stick to your expertise.
So take it easy and keep it civil. We all know every one's position.
And no one will come and teach unobtanium physics here.
Better stick to your expertise.
-
RamaY
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 17249
- Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
- Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Kanson ji,
Thank you for the Air Marshal T. M. Asthana interview.
His interview confirms that there are weaponized tactical nukes of minimum yields, but doesn't talk about maximum yields.
The most interesting thing is his separation of TSPA and Jihadis and India's planned action against nuclear terror.
It is a joke that he thinks that IA and GoI will "inform" Pakistan and USA about India's action in the event of a JDAM. If it took ~5yrs to determine the saffron-roots of Sam-jhoota express bombs, one can only guess how long will it take for Sri PC's academy of jokers to determine the perpetrators of a JDAM and then Sri TMA's academy of doctors would prescribe the right medicine (chemotherapy Vs conventional medicine Vs Ayurveda) so GoI can communicate the patients, TSPA and USA, that it is the most suitable therapy and take their letters of consent before starting the treatment. Wah wah! Vande Mataram!
So India's nuke policy is not only NFU, it is also NU (Never to be used) given Sri TMA's understanding/preference that Indian response in the event of a nuclear strike need not be a nuke based.
Sri TMA's interview looks like a low-level engineer's understanding of corporate strategy. It talks about the details but not the intentions, capabilities and posture.
Then he talks about his preference. Why can't he just implement the nuke policy blindly, after all we are a democratic nation and IA is subordinate to GoI?
He wants to give the terrorists a chance to raise the white flag even after a JDAM strike on Indian soil. Does Bharat deserves nukes with this type of noble rishi-like generals at helm?
Another reality check on India's dhimmification is
Mera Bharat Mahan!!!
Thank you for the Air Marshal T. M. Asthana interview.
His interview confirms that there are weaponized tactical nukes of minimum yields, but doesn't talk about maximum yields.
The most interesting thing is his separation of TSPA and Jihadis and India's planned action against nuclear terror.
It is a joke that he thinks that IA and GoI will "inform" Pakistan and USA about India's action in the event of a JDAM. If it took ~5yrs to determine the saffron-roots of Sam-jhoota express bombs, one can only guess how long will it take for Sri PC's academy of jokers to determine the perpetrators of a JDAM and then Sri TMA's academy of doctors would prescribe the right medicine (chemotherapy Vs conventional medicine Vs Ayurveda) so GoI can communicate the patients, TSPA and USA, that it is the most suitable therapy and take their letters of consent before starting the treatment. Wah wah! Vande Mataram!
So India's nuke policy is not only NFU, it is also NU (Never to be used) given Sri TMA's understanding/preference that Indian response in the event of a nuclear strike need not be a nuke based.
Sri TMA's interview looks like a low-level engineer's understanding of corporate strategy. It talks about the details but not the intentions, capabilities and posture.
Then he talks about his preference. Why can't he just implement the nuke policy blindly, after all we are a democratic nation and IA is subordinate to GoI?
But my preference would be to use conventional force in retaliation. I think in nine out of ten cases, this should suffice. We should continue hitting them till they raise the white flag.
He wants to give the terrorists a chance to raise the white flag even after a JDAM strike on Indian soil. Does Bharat deserves nukes with this type of noble rishi-like generals at helm?Another reality check on India's dhimmification is
When we go in, we should seek to convince Pakistan and the USA etc —unless you are sure you don’t care what they think. But that’s unlikely in India.
Mera Bharat Mahan!!!
-
RamaY
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 17249
- Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
- Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Ramanaji,
Saw your post just now. Shutting my mouth!
Saw your post just now. Shutting my mouth!
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
There is a distinction between an energy program and a weapons program. The USA has shut down nuclear energy research due to NIMBY concerns after the three mile island accident, so it is extremely plausible that the Indian program that has been actively building power plants in the interim has pulled ahead.gakakkad wrote:The professor from stanford is right about the Indian programme. A large portion of the research at CERN is done by Indian citizen scientists in India. If you look at any research journal in nuclear physics India scientists are the largest contributors . If the government provides some autonomy and increases grants we can way ahead.
At the same time, he does say that the Indian weapons program is more of a "cottage industry". By definition, anything produced by a cottage industry is expected to have trouble competing with more organised means of production.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Thats no ordinary prof from Stanford.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
I dont comment often on BR, mostly because I dont have much to contribute but also because the SnR has gone down over the years and the general nastyness has increased. Old habits die hard, so I still read BR a lot.
As someone who went through alternate bouts of elation and dejection over the Shakti series of tests, I feel a bit odd at how each of these debates tend to go over the same points and the same arguments over and over.
Most of the points in these debates tend to be about weapons design - dial a yield, radiation implosion, spark plugs, destructive interference, calibration of a test range by using conventional explosives and then using that data to explode the weapons in phase to disguise the seismic signature (yikes!!!) and so on - an area which is not accessible to most of us (no, a Btech from IIT does not make you competent to comment on nuke weapons design.)
IMHO, we dont have enough discussions about strategy, something that is much more open and accessible to all of us, and the end goal which all weapons, including nukes, must serve.
One must therefore understand what Indian strategy is, and what causes Karnad's disquiet before we start to engage his argument. (No, he isnt implying that MMS is an agent).
My understanding of Indian Strategy
***************************************
1. What is Indias nuclear posture?
- Its one of robust offensive deterrence against Pakistan. No Indian general lets go of a chance to say, "if you bomb us, you will be wiped out".
- Its one of passive, defensive, "bomb in the basement" type deterrence against China. Here, we dont say much, except to convey two things:
a. We dont believe our thermo nuke worked all that well. (Ok, we dont say it officially, but we imply the same.) The reasonable response to the kinds of doubts that have been raised, would have been to give a detailed explanation and a tour of our facilities to the doubters, but none of that has been forthcoming. What we see is an imperious bureaucratic repetition of the official line. This means, that the govt. wants this too-too-mai-mai to continue, as a way to guard Indian interests. What they seem to be saying is, yeah - we know our test did not work too well. Dont give us a reason to do another test series.
[Strategy behind (a): This is not a trivial threat - another Indian test series, this time with several hundred KT yields, will severely test the nuclear arrangements the world has put in place over decades of diplomatic, military and moral effort. All of this is laid waste, if India tests. On the other hand, if India tests, the bullet has been fired, what more is left with us to bargain with? At most we can threaten the world with our MT weapons.. Everybody knows thats an empty threat.. Good enough to get us a few sacks of rice (like North Korea), or the odd IMF/WB package (like Pakistan) but not what we really want - technology, access to markets, and generally, leave us alone as we build a cohesive national identity.]
b. We believe we have the ability to design/test in short order, devices that can yield 200KT, give or take. In any case, the 20 odd KT nukes work absolutely, and even 5 of these on key centers in China will inflict tremendous (unacceptable?) damage.
[Strategy behind (b): What will happen to the one party state in China if we wipe out the 'peoples congress', vast areas of industry and service centers? Dont forget, Chinas economy is also very finance based. What will be the reaction of a hostile world to Chinese nuclear aggression?
Chinese power is based on trade and commerce. The Chinese threat is not an alternative 'world system' operating behind an iron curtain, willing to overthrow your economic system and impose its own, like the USSR was willing and threatening to do. What happens if this trade is disrupted because of nuke attacks on ports?
A bullet in between the eyes will work just as well as a JDAM with a CEP of 50ft.]
The strategy Karnad wants India to adopt
**************************************
2. What is the nuclear posture Karnad would like to see?
- In one word, Maximalist. In many words, - "in the right corner, in the laal nuke shorts, taking on all who challenge, THE Indian MAHANUKE on the MAHAMISSILE inside the MAHASUBMARINE".
What he wants is an aggressive, robust, externally focused defense posture - and in service of this posture, he wants his MT weapons.
Strategy- I can only discern, that Karnad thinks that MT weapons will secure Indian interests far better than KT weapons. I used to agree with him, but tend to disagree now.
[Strategic view for disagreement:
What Karnad buys, with his MAHAINVESTMENT, is the 100% assurance that no MT weaons will be used on us, and we will not see foreign tanks (except the T90) rolling down rajpath, ever.
But this does not provide any guarantees against sub-conventional wars, color revolutions, trade war and salami slicing on the borders.
In fact, one could argue, that if we have the MT weapons, we may invite much more interference in our internal affairs, ala Pakistan, to control and mould our leadership so as to neutralize our 'crown jewels'.
Without the institutional heft, social cohesion, economy, hard military and soft cultural powers - we will be punching above our weight (again, like Pakistan) if we go for MT weapons, and the result may well be disaster. The Chinese have MT weapons, but they also have
1. very tightly controlled media
2. social cohesion (or what one can make out by seeing their filtered news)
3. hard military power.
4. soft power of culture.
We are getting there, but not quite there yet. Our economy is a lot smaller, social cohesion is a lot lesser, our military runs on phoren maal and culture cuts both ways, we have Yoga (good image in the west) vs. Brahmin oppressors (bad image in the west), and abt the media - less said the better.
Secondly, Indian borders are fairly stable in the medium term. We are even willing to barter a few sq kms of territory to make them more stable. If the borders are made unstable under the threat of a MT weapon, we always have the option to go MT ourselves. A couple of months notice is probably all we need.
So the only threat that a MT weapon obliterates is a bolt from the blue nuke attack.. I dont see that as something to loose sleep over.]
In short: I dont agree with Karnads strategy. I think itll make India more insecure than ever. Itll invite external interference at an unprecedented scale. We are not ready for MT weapons yet.
About the weapons themselves, I dont think we will ever know if the Shakti II thermonuke worked 100% or not. More importantly, strategically, the argument is pointless and a smoke screen for what we should be debating - i.e. Should our nuke posture be maximalist? or minimalist? or somewhere in between.
As someone who went through alternate bouts of elation and dejection over the Shakti series of tests, I feel a bit odd at how each of these debates tend to go over the same points and the same arguments over and over.
Most of the points in these debates tend to be about weapons design - dial a yield, radiation implosion, spark plugs, destructive interference, calibration of a test range by using conventional explosives and then using that data to explode the weapons in phase to disguise the seismic signature (yikes!!!) and so on - an area which is not accessible to most of us (no, a Btech from IIT does not make you competent to comment on nuke weapons design.)
IMHO, we dont have enough discussions about strategy, something that is much more open and accessible to all of us, and the end goal which all weapons, including nukes, must serve.
One must therefore understand what Indian strategy is, and what causes Karnad's disquiet before we start to engage his argument. (No, he isnt implying that MMS is an agent).
My understanding of Indian Strategy
***************************************
1. What is Indias nuclear posture?
- Its one of robust offensive deterrence against Pakistan. No Indian general lets go of a chance to say, "if you bomb us, you will be wiped out".
- Its one of passive, defensive, "bomb in the basement" type deterrence against China. Here, we dont say much, except to convey two things:
a. We dont believe our thermo nuke worked all that well. (Ok, we dont say it officially, but we imply the same.) The reasonable response to the kinds of doubts that have been raised, would have been to give a detailed explanation and a tour of our facilities to the doubters, but none of that has been forthcoming. What we see is an imperious bureaucratic repetition of the official line. This means, that the govt. wants this too-too-mai-mai to continue, as a way to guard Indian interests. What they seem to be saying is, yeah - we know our test did not work too well. Dont give us a reason to do another test series.
[Strategy behind (a): This is not a trivial threat - another Indian test series, this time with several hundred KT yields, will severely test the nuclear arrangements the world has put in place over decades of diplomatic, military and moral effort. All of this is laid waste, if India tests. On the other hand, if India tests, the bullet has been fired, what more is left with us to bargain with? At most we can threaten the world with our MT weapons.. Everybody knows thats an empty threat.. Good enough to get us a few sacks of rice (like North Korea), or the odd IMF/WB package (like Pakistan) but not what we really want - technology, access to markets, and generally, leave us alone as we build a cohesive national identity.]
b. We believe we have the ability to design/test in short order, devices that can yield 200KT, give or take. In any case, the 20 odd KT nukes work absolutely, and even 5 of these on key centers in China will inflict tremendous (unacceptable?) damage.
[Strategy behind (b): What will happen to the one party state in China if we wipe out the 'peoples congress', vast areas of industry and service centers? Dont forget, Chinas economy is also very finance based. What will be the reaction of a hostile world to Chinese nuclear aggression?
Chinese power is based on trade and commerce. The Chinese threat is not an alternative 'world system' operating behind an iron curtain, willing to overthrow your economic system and impose its own, like the USSR was willing and threatening to do. What happens if this trade is disrupted because of nuke attacks on ports?
A bullet in between the eyes will work just as well as a JDAM with a CEP of 50ft.]
The strategy Karnad wants India to adopt
**************************************
2. What is the nuclear posture Karnad would like to see?
- In one word, Maximalist. In many words, - "in the right corner, in the laal nuke shorts, taking on all who challenge, THE Indian MAHANUKE on the MAHAMISSILE inside the MAHASUBMARINE".
What he wants is an aggressive, robust, externally focused defense posture - and in service of this posture, he wants his MT weapons.
Strategy- I can only discern, that Karnad thinks that MT weapons will secure Indian interests far better than KT weapons. I used to agree with him, but tend to disagree now.
[Strategic view for disagreement:
What Karnad buys, with his MAHAINVESTMENT, is the 100% assurance that no MT weaons will be used on us, and we will not see foreign tanks (except the T90) rolling down rajpath, ever.
But this does not provide any guarantees against sub-conventional wars, color revolutions, trade war and salami slicing on the borders.
In fact, one could argue, that if we have the MT weapons, we may invite much more interference in our internal affairs, ala Pakistan, to control and mould our leadership so as to neutralize our 'crown jewels'.
Without the institutional heft, social cohesion, economy, hard military and soft cultural powers - we will be punching above our weight (again, like Pakistan) if we go for MT weapons, and the result may well be disaster. The Chinese have MT weapons, but they also have
1. very tightly controlled media
2. social cohesion (or what one can make out by seeing their filtered news)
3. hard military power.
4. soft power of culture.
We are getting there, but not quite there yet. Our economy is a lot smaller, social cohesion is a lot lesser, our military runs on phoren maal and culture cuts both ways, we have Yoga (good image in the west) vs. Brahmin oppressors (bad image in the west), and abt the media - less said the better.
Secondly, Indian borders are fairly stable in the medium term. We are even willing to barter a few sq kms of territory to make them more stable. If the borders are made unstable under the threat of a MT weapon, we always have the option to go MT ourselves. A couple of months notice is probably all we need.
So the only threat that a MT weapon obliterates is a bolt from the blue nuke attack.. I dont see that as something to loose sleep over.]
In short: I dont agree with Karnads strategy. I think itll make India more insecure than ever. Itll invite external interference at an unprecedented scale. We are not ready for MT weapons yet.
About the weapons themselves, I dont think we will ever know if the Shakti II thermonuke worked 100% or not. More importantly, strategically, the argument is pointless and a smoke screen for what we should be debating - i.e. Should our nuke posture be maximalist? or minimalist? or somewhere in between.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
sudeepj ji,
good post. I don't agree with it, but still a very good post indeed.
Please do x-post it in the Deterrence Thread also.
good post. I don't agree with it, but still a very good post indeed.
Please do x-post it in the Deterrence Thread also.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
What will worry me a lot more than any perceived lack of Nuke weapons is
1. A disconnect between the periphery and the core. Will Dilli be willing to enter a fight to the death for Arunachal? - If not, no MT weapons will save you from a salami slicing operation in the AP.
2. Conventional power that has atrophied to the point that it can not sustain prolonged sub conventional war. OR a short, sharp conventional war.
3. Institutions that are corrupt (or made corrupt) to the point of being anti national. See BSNL and Reliance buying Huawei switches.
4. Disabling our MT bomb in the basement by way of budget cutting, or a diversion of resources elsewhere.
- We need to be very aggressive in pursuing all of these objectives, if our current strategy is to be effective. If not, even MT bombs on Mirages with their engines turning will not secure us.
1. A disconnect between the periphery and the core. Will Dilli be willing to enter a fight to the death for Arunachal? - If not, no MT weapons will save you from a salami slicing operation in the AP.
2. Conventional power that has atrophied to the point that it can not sustain prolonged sub conventional war. OR a short, sharp conventional war.
3. Institutions that are corrupt (or made corrupt) to the point of being anti national. See BSNL and Reliance buying Huawei switches.
4. Disabling our MT bomb in the basement by way of budget cutting, or a diversion of resources elsewhere.
- We need to be very aggressive in pursuing all of these objectives, if our current strategy is to be effective. If not, even MT bombs on Mirages with their engines turning will not secure us.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Why not just sign the NPT then? Will solve a lot of problems for the world.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
^^ Its a chicken and egg situation of external strength vs internal strength. If we have internal strength, then we can also develop nuclear weapons and other external strength.
We we are weak willed then we are both "khokhla" internally or externally.
Therefore the right way to look at "Mahanukes on mahamissiles etc" is that it effecitively is a way to let the world know that we are strong, because what Bharat Karnad wants is not going to happen with weaklings at the helm in any case, and I am sure he realizes that.
What Bharat Karnad and others of his ilk are doing are essentially
1) Keeping the vision alive -- if you want to live, that kind of power is needed.
2) In keeping the vision alive, and presenting it again and again to the world, provide repeated reminders of what the short falls are.
3) As a result of the visible shortfalls, soul searching happens and people realize that the reason we are weak outside is because we are weak inside.
So what BK is doing, is pointing sudeepj's and sanku's of the world (thanks and apologies for firing off your shoulder) to feel extremely irritated and as result go into a "soul searching" mode.
I think we are being a little unfair to BKs of the world if we think they are merely in a mode of "I have a big one" syndrome of boys with toys.
Effective nuclear strength is symbolic of a lot of things. Sadly thats how it is.
-----------------
And then there is always the question of, "postures change overnight, but capabilities take a long time coming" -- so working towards a MT is needed, now now now.
We we are weak willed then we are both "khokhla" internally or externally.
Therefore the right way to look at "Mahanukes on mahamissiles etc" is that it effecitively is a way to let the world know that we are strong, because what Bharat Karnad wants is not going to happen with weaklings at the helm in any case, and I am sure he realizes that.
What Bharat Karnad and others of his ilk are doing are essentially
1) Keeping the vision alive -- if you want to live, that kind of power is needed.
2) In keeping the vision alive, and presenting it again and again to the world, provide repeated reminders of what the short falls are.
3) As a result of the visible shortfalls, soul searching happens and people realize that the reason we are weak outside is because we are weak inside.
So what BK is doing, is pointing sudeepj's and sanku's of the world (thanks and apologies for firing off your shoulder) to feel extremely irritated and as result go into a "soul searching" mode.
I think we are being a little unfair to BKs of the world if we think they are merely in a mode of "I have a big one" syndrome of boys with toys.
Effective nuclear strength is symbolic of a lot of things. Sadly thats how it is.
-----------------
And then there is always the question of, "postures change overnight, but capabilities take a long time coming" -- so working towards a MT is needed, now now now.
-
RamaY
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 17249
- Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
- Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Welcome to BRF where mind, is expected to be, without fear for india's national interests.sudeepj wrote:We need to be very aggressive in pursuing all of these objectives, if our current strategy is to be effective. If not, even MT bombs on Mirages with their engines turning will not secure us.
We should be a think tank that says what strategy is RIGHT for india and how to get there. Instead we want to live in where we are.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Dhanyawad Rajesh jiRajeshA wrote:sudeepj ji,
good post. I don't agree with it, but still a very good post indeed.
Please do x-post it in the Deterrence Thread also.
I wish we would debate strategy more than physics. There are a lot of engineers on BR, but may be less than 3 physicists and I am being very generous. Engineers are familiar with the tools of Physics, but have little more physics than whats taught in first year UG. Without the proper background, going on and on about - radiation implosion, dial a yield, tritium, lithium deuteride, boosting, tamper, spark plug, reflector - is pointless.
These are just terms, knowing these, or even understanding how they work in a nuke design does not make you competent to comment on weapons design. Similarly, a casual knowledge of Seismic measurement of nuke tests does not make you competent to comment on whether the yield of the tests were 25KT or 60KT.
So discussions about these things are pointless, IMHO and only add to the Noise.
Last edited by sudeepj on 06 Sep 2011 00:58, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Strictly speaking, we can also say that a discussion on strategy by those who do not have a formal training in strategy, political science, and such similar schools are also simply noise. You are not competent to discuss this unless you have a degree in strategy.sudeepj wrote: I wish we would debate strategy more than physics.
Similarly, a casual knowledge of Seismic measurement of nuke tests does not make you competent to comment on whether the yield of the tests were 25KT or 60KT.
So discussions about these things are pointless, IMHO and only add to the Noise.
By the same yardstick the entire mil forum should be simply shut down because we have people with no first idea of aerodynamics designing planes and commenting on armor design.
Dont mind lekin "dont speak unless you are a expert" is a argument which is reflecting really poorly on those who make this point these days (what with Fukushima and all that).
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
I am not imputing motives onto BK, but what he wants, without any varnish is - big nukes, on big missiles, on big submarines. Its a valid model of deterrence, I just dont agree as I think its a strategic mistake.Sanku wrote: I think we are being a little unfair to BKs of the world if we think they are merely in a mode of "I have a big one" syndrome of boys with toys.
I agree, our bomb in the basement needs to be credible. We need lots of labs, lots of scientists, lots of simulation capability, lots of discussions.And then there is always the question of, "postures change overnight, but capabilities take a long time coming" -- so working towards a MT is needed, now now now.
One thing that cant be built overnight is the delivery system - the nukes and the submarines. Thankfully, we do see visible, measurable progress there. But the bomb as always, is behind the 7 veils of secrecy.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Strategy is a lot more accessible than nuclear physics, even to amateurs.Sanku wrote:Strictly speaking, we can also say that a discussion on strategy by those who do not have a formal training in strategy, political science, and such similar schools are also simply noise. You are not competent to discuss this unless you have a degree in strategy.
What you, or almost 99% of folks on BR have to say about the design of the Indian nuke devices, or their yield, is worth very little. Even if experts have been wrong in the past, does not mean their expertise is worth any less, or that non experts get an automatic stamp of validity on their opinions.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
You are not imputing motives, but if I may say so, failing to see what BKs message is beyond the obvious one. His message clearly has many layers, as I pointed out.sudeepj wrote:I am not imputing motives onto BK, but what he wants, without any varnish is - big nukes, on big missiles, on big submarines. Its a valid model of deterrence, I just dont agree as I think its a strategic mistake.Sanku wrote: I think we are being a little unfair to BKs of the world if we think they are merely in a mode of "I have a big one" syndrome of boys with toys.
At the very basic level, there is no option but to have a big nukes on big missiles on big submarines, it is what the big boys need to have and have, period.
We are bigger than many of the boys who have this now, but we dont have it ourselves, primarily because we have been weakened from within.
A bomb in the basement can never be credible, no amount of discussion, simulation or what not is going to convince anyone.I agree, our bomb in the basement needs to be credible.
The only way to convince people is to show them. That is why everyone has done so, either overtly, through tests or covertly, through significant planted "leaks" to let the world peek in.
We have neither, our tests fizzle, and our leaks point quite the other way (for a good reason) -- for all intents and purposes, it is quite clear that India is desperately hiding a lemon behind the seven veils, some how hoping that folks will think that if we have spent money for 7 veils it must be for a purpose.
Unfortunately with time the cloth of the veil gets torn, and people see that the emperor is quite naked.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Well I wonder what the sanctity of that statement is. I think it is merely a value judgment on your part, I personally find it more difficult and not less, Nuclear physics for all the hoopla is merely one branch of science and engineering and as such far more solid, and open to hard analysis as compared to strategy which is far more esoteric, and needs a humongous amount of back ground knowledge of ill defined kind before a stab can be taken.sudeepj wrote:Strategy is a lot more accessible than nuclear physics, even to amateurs.Sanku wrote:Strictly speaking, we can also say that a discussion on strategy by those who do not have a formal training in strategy, political science, and such similar schools are also simply noise. You are not competent to discuss this unless you have a degree in strategy.
What you, or almost 99% of folks on BR have to say about the design of the Indian nuke devices, or their yield, is worth very little. Even if experts have been wrong in the past, does not mean their expertise is worth any less, or that non experts get an automatic stamp of validity on their opinions.
Apparently these experts come stamped with "expert" word stamped from a glorious place and their expertise does not have to be held accountable to the success and failures.
So even if they keep goofing up, they are experts, since they so came branded from a formally approved place, and anything anybody else says is meaningless. I would like to be such a expert, whose expertise once stamped, is completely disjointed from real world performance.
BTW I am sure you know, till Fukushima happened, this was the standard refrain behind which the Japanese atomic folks used to hide their long list of goof ups.
Then finally Fukushima happened.
When "experts" get a free pass and they cant be questioned by others, Fukushima's always happen.
--------------------------------
In any case, lets not talk unless experts mean that ZERO folks talk about anything on BRF. Maybe some retired forces types can directly talk about the few points in their area of expertise but thats it?
In the new improved BRF are helo pilots allowed to talk to submariners? Or is that also different expertise and no talk is possible?
-------------------------------
I personally am quite surprised by how a discussion on strategy is congruent with a call to bring discussion down and also into silos? I thought the first point of any meaningful strategy was to break the silos.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Its his job to point out the layers in his argument, I dont see him doing it. You are saying his argument has layers.. (yet, you have clearly not identified these 'layers').Sanku wrote: You are not imputing motives, but if I may say so, failing to see what BKs message is beyond the obvious one. His message clearly has many layers, as I pointed out.
Please tell me how this argument is not "we need to have Big bombs because we need to have a Big one.."Sanku wrote:At the very basic level, there is no option but to have a big nukes on big missiles on big submarines, it is what the big boys need to have and have, period.
I dont think the Indian goal needs to be a "big boy". I would rather have an India with much greater levels of economic prosperity, much more social cohesion, a must more just society than have an India that is a "big boy" but with all of the flaws.
We are bigger than whom? France? England? The Europeans have coalesced their strategy around a common European security framework. They have a history of fighting wars together. You are making a mistake if you think the Brit or the French weapons are just British or French. They are backed by a security arrangement that spans all of Europe.Sanku wrote:We are bigger than many of the boys who have this now, but we dont have it ourselves, primarily because we have been weakened from within.
As for Russians, they are not able to stop Nato from encroaching in what used to be their backyard. They are declining as a global force. vestigial nukes are not going to stop that. We may have a comparable GDP, but they have much deeper scientific and technical workforce.
The Japanese have a bomb in their basement.. The Pakistanis had a bomb in the basement and we were deterred a number of times..A bomb in the basement can never be credible, no amount of discussion, simulation or what not is going to convince anyone.
Its fair to say, that the yields of the Indian nukes, esp. the thermo nuke is controversial. But coming down definitely on one or the other side of the debate is difficult for me. I am not competent to judge the evidence available, many of the 'analyses' of the yields are based on scraps of information (having authored a few papers myself, I can see where someone is papering over holes in their thesis), and the experts who are in a position to speak, are not saying anything beyond the official line. What reasons are there to trust Santhanam over Sikka? or the other way around?Unfortunately with time the cloth of the veil gets torn, and people see that the emperor is quite naked.
* you are free to believe what you want, I am simply stating, its difficult for me to go beyond stating that the yields of the Indian weapons are controversial.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Rant away man..Sanku wrote:Well I wonder what the sanctity of that statement is. I think it is merely a value judgment on your part, I personally find it more difficult and not less, Nuclear physics for all the hoopla is merely one branch of science and engineering and as such far more solid, and open to hard analysis as compared to strategy which is far more esoteric, and needs a humongous amount of back ground knowledge of ill defined kind before a stab can be taken.sudeepj wrote:Strategy is a lot more accessible than nuclear physics, even to amateurs.
....
Apparently these experts come stamped with "expert" word stamped from a glorious place and their expertise does not have to be held accountable to the success and failures.
So even if they keep goofing up, they are experts, since they so came branded from a formally approved place, and anything anybody else says is meaningless. I would like to be such a expert, whose expertise once stamped, is completely disjointed from real world performance.
I have come to the realization that you are such a MAHAgyani MAHAdhyani, that engaging you in a debate is pointless. I bow to thy superior whizdom.
bye now.
*Feel free to impute motives here, they are all probably true.
-
sanjaykumar
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 6116
- Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
There is so much disinformation out of India that Karnad may be a canard.
No point in getting too excited
No point in getting too excited
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
I did point out the layers quite explicitly, please go back and read some of the posts. Not only have you missed the implicit layers in his speech, you missed the explicit uncovering that I made.sudeepj wrote:Its his job to point out the layers in his argument, I dont see him doing it. You are saying his argument has layers.. (yet, you have clearly not identified these 'layers').Sanku wrote: You are not imputing motives, but if I may say so, failing to see what BKs message is beyond the obvious one. His message clearly has many layers, as I pointed out.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1158972
Also IMVHO its NOT his job to make the layers obvious, his job is to set the vision, thereby setting the layers in motion. Its a speech not a heart to heart interview over many days.
It is exactly that argument, big boys need to have big ones, and wave it around regularly. Period. That's the basics of power play, and after all the discussion and refinement, the basics always remain.Please tell me how this argument is not "we need to have Big bombs because we need to have a Big one.."Sanku wrote:At the very basic level, there is no option but to have a big nukes on big missiles on big submarines, it is what the big boys need to have and have, period.
Anything otherwise is asking for the big boys to gang up behind you in a dark alley at the first suitable opportunity. (which is exactly what is happening now)
So now the real picture comes to play, your issue is not with us having a robust deterrence. Your issue is that you don't want India to be a big boy, because you have somehow convinced yourself that there is a conflict between internally strong and externally strong.I don't think the Indian goal needs to be a "big boy". I would rather have an India with much greater levels of economic prosperity, much more social cohesion, a must more just society than have an India that is a "big boy" but with all of the flaws.
I would say that this is a false dichotomy, it was false when Nehru used exact same argument to destroy the armed forces leading to 62 and is false today.
The internal and external strength go hand in hand. And internal strength does not mean some unobtainable golden rule.
India today is hobbled only be weak will, which hurts internally and externally both by setting up a chicken and egg.
We are bigger today than all these nations were BEFORE they took on a bigger role for themselves in the world.We are bigger than whom? France? England? The Europeans have coalesced their strategy around a common European security framework. They have a history of fighting wars together. You are making a mistake if you think the Brit or the French weapons are just British or French. They are backed by a security arrangement that spans all of Europe.Sanku wrote:We are bigger than many of the boys who have this now, but we dont have it ourselves, primarily because we have been weakened from within.
England and France did not have a golden rule in place before they became "big boys" in fact, it was their will to be big boys and play a bigger role that in turn led to internal growth and strength.
And obviously so for China.
You become a big boy when you decide to be a big boy and then the rest follows.
[/quote]
As for Russians, they are not able to stop Nato from encroaching in what used to be their backyard. They are declining as a global force. vestigial nukes are not going to stop that. We may have a comparable GDP, but they have much deeper scientific and technical workforce.[/quote]
Have you stopped to considered, what would be, the rate at which they would have been encroached, had they no vestigial nukes?
In any case, I hardly think the above is a correct assessment, it appears to west centric to me, as a Indian living in India, I see a Russia which is bouncing back after a brief dull period.
If I was Nato, I would be more worried, what with a collapsing economy with energy lines delicately balanced (basically their balls are in Russian hands)
You miss the point, a credible thermo nuclear weapon by its very nature is "credible" and hence does not need "will she, wont she" games to determine credibility.Its fair to say, that the yields of the Indian nukes, esp. the thermo nuke is controversial. But coming down definitely on one or the other side of the debate is difficult for me. I am not competent to judge the evidence available, many of the 'analyses' of the yields are based on scraps of information (having authored a few papers myself, I can see where someone is papering over holes in their thesis), and the experts who are in a position to speak, are not saying anything beyond the official line. What reasons are there to trust Santhanam over Sikka? or the other way around?
It is a zero-one game. There is nothing like "somewhat credible" -- either we have have a credible deterrence beyond question or we dont.
And today we dont.
By that above definition the Indian weapons are worthless for credible deterrence. Credible deterrences are not built around controversy yielding weapons (pun intended)* you are free to believe what you want, I am simply stating, its difficult for me to go beyond stating that the yields of the Indian weapons are controversial.
Last edited by Sanku on 06 Sep 2011 01:57, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
I may or may not be mahadhyani or mahagyani, but it is quite easy to puncture puffed up balloons who strut about pontificating why others must not discuss since in their opinion the debate does not make sense.sudeepj wrote:
Rant away man..
I have come to the realization that you are such a MAHAgyani MAHAdhyani, that engaging you in a debate is pointless. I bow to thy superior whizdom.
bye now.
*Feel free to impute motives here, they are all probably true.
I fully intend to, as you said, rant away.
I am quite happy that more influential people like Bharat Karnad are also "ranting" away and thus not letting the country dissolve in a fake sense of all is well.
When all is not well, we need to talk about it, no matter how much takleef it causes to self appointed "experts".
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
Teller was also called as one who was for maha bum. We need all types of our own genius.
Re: Talk by Bharat Karnad at IISc on 30 August 2011
I dont think Teller was a non-expert. The way some proudly sport that label, you would think that was a good thing.ramana wrote:Teller was also called as one who was for maha bum. We need all types of our own genius.
Theres nothing wrong with calling for a MahaBum, this is definitely not a debate about the right of someone to have an opinion, whatever that may be (though its definitely in the interests of some to portray the debate as such).
Neither IMHO, should it about the yields in the Shakti series, or about the purported fizzle. The number of folks who can competently comment about these things in all of India is probably in two digits. None of these people are present on these forums. In the absence of this expertise and data, arguing about these things is like blind men talking about the shape of an elephant.
The issue where we can make a difference, and where we may have a sliver of competence, IMHO, is not the size or the engineering of the bums, which are after all simply tools, but what should be the goals of Indian planning and how are they best achieved.
So here would be my questions to Karnad ji.
1. What should be the goals of India in the medium term?
2. What should be our strategy to achieve these goals?
3. What role do Mahabums play in this strategy?
4. What role can a Mahabum in the basement, and a chotubum in hand play in this strategy?
Without answers to (1) and (2), debating about the size and the shape of the Indian deterrent is, once again IMHO, meaningless. Its putting the cart before the horse.