Yield of Pokhran II ?

Jash · Post by **Jash** » 10 Oct 1999 23:34

In that case India should be allow to test duds as they are not nuclear test accrding to auther.

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 11 Oct 1999 00:06

This is all the more reason we should *write* to Republican Senators to *force* a vote and put an end to the limbo that the CTBT treaty ratification has been in.*Any* delay keeps alive the possibility that:(a) the Democrats will muster up enough moderate Republican support in the Spring of 2001 to pass the treaty with 2/3 votes(b) Delays any tests that India wants to hold to create credibility for their posture, because of fears of pushing the Senate to *acceding* to the treaty;

Jash · Post by **Jash** » 11 Oct 1999 00:19

Calvin if I have to bet I will bet that either senet will ratify the trity with 2/3 majority or Trent Lott will agree for postponding the trity.Rejection looks less likely as the way slik willy is trying his la Monica style.

bala · Post by **bala** » 11 Oct 1999 00:25

Quote: --------------------------------------- "The Indian claims were exaggerated," said George Perkovich, author of "India's Nuclear Bomb" (University of California), to be published this week. The problems were so great, he added, that India left another nuclear device in the ground undetonated. ----------------------------------------When did George find this - a year later. Brilliant Jack Clusou! Is this guy angling for the job of chief Inspector CTBT? Good luck.The real issue that rankles the West, is that they are confounded as to how India managed to come up with advanced nuclear devices without the help of US & Russian heritage designs. So they make all kinds of false accusations to draw/provoke India into giving them more details. Meanwhile they churn in the brew called CTBT and how the darn thing can work. Good luck fellas. Put on your thinking caps for a change.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Oct 1999 01:01

By George!Did we goof up!Then what did ABV say "we have a big/bigger bomb"after the second round of tests,that was quickly cut off in media reports later as an unwanted leak?The reasoning for this was that a bigger H-bomb was to have been tested in case the first failed,but that after the success of the tests it was not necessary.The pressure is mounting in the word war against India as matters relating to the CTBT get hotter.Denigrating India's abilities is seen by the nuclear hegemonies as the only way to keep India out at the nuclear high table.Nuclear apartheid is alive and well and does not want a gate crashing India to change the rules of the club.India therefore will have to start it's own club instead!Another reason could also be that of ferreting out as much info on the tests.The CIA has said that it cannot successfully detect N-tests,so what's the worth of George's tome?Toilet paper?

Jash · Post by **Jash** » 11 Oct 1999 02:04

Tim are you still lurking? I wants your input.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Oct 1999 02:11

The BARC in their Nov. '98 newsletter expalin the basis of their yeild estimates. They show by four different seismic methods that the yileds are as stated. Subsequently they have drilled the test holes and recovered the samples. In Lok Sabha they stated that the radio-chemical analysis matches the seismic results. Later S-1 results were confirmed by RC in many news confrences. I am sick and tired of newbies who claim to be lurkers bringing up old stuff which was settled. Go back to lurking. As for Perkovich if the tests are duds what's the problem? He also is a policitacl scholar. I already spoke of his essay in the strategic affairs folder.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 11 Oct 1999 02:37

What if I were to tell perky George that we've tested about 15 times since May 13, 1998 - only we didn't announce it, and neither did the CIA/NSA who have their collective knickers in a twist on the matter? Of course, I could be lying, just as George is implying that RC, APJAK, AK and KS have been. BTW, what was life like before CTBT and "minimal" deterrence?

VRaghav · Post by **VRaghav** » 11 Oct 1999 02:51

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The CIA has said that it cannot successfully detect N-tests,so what's the worth of George's tome?Toilet paper?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Mush less probably! Weren't they caught slacking again when Russia recently conducted underground testing? AS JE Menon says, what's the proof that India did not test *any more* nuke device after 13 May 1998? Whatever be it, boy, I like this suspense and cynicism from the West about India's nukes.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Oct 1999 07:18

This sounds like another Paki questionThis topic has been discussed to death - and unfortunately for hopeful Pakistanis and others - Pokhran II did work as stated and unlike the duds in Chagai - so there is no need to hope that the Pokhran series may not have worked.In any case the scientific community in India - many of whom have been teachers to many others on this forum have a much better record of telling the truth and calling a spade a spade than their counterparts to our West.Try these - the first ref is from the New Scientist - not the Daily Dung of Pakistan <A HREF="http://www.newscientist.com/ns/980613/nfocus.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.newscientist.com/ns/980613/nfocus.html</A> <A HREF="http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1998/ ... right.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1998/ ... ht.html</A> <A HREF="http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/nuclear/cdi052198.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/nuclear/cdi052198.html</A>

Jash · Post by **Jash** » 11 Oct 1999 07:54

Shiva after watching Clinton News Network(CNN) I came to cunclusion that hence forth I will believe Indian Scientist rather than people like George who is selling his bull**** because of money paid by Clinton Adm.to spin for retification of CTBT. This is the reason I think treaty will pass or delayed.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 11 Oct 1999 08:20

This is the May 13th not the May 11th test. I suspect they may have "faked" it for the creating doubts about the CTBT's verification. Lets hope they bring it up when the voting gets underway on the CTBT in America's congress.

Jash · Post by **Jash** » 11 Oct 1999 08:43

Neshant I don't agree with you because how can "GOI imagined on 13th may 1998 that they should do fake test as on Oct. 1999 there will be debate about CTBT in US senet."

jarugn · Post by **jarugn** » 11 Oct 1999 11:39

Denial is a long river in Egypt - someone once said. America wants to deny this that suits the Vajpayee government just fine for the time being. However the Prime Minister must realize that for the posterity sake India must show it's capasity. Not this non-sense with the 12 kiloton and sub critical experimentation.All they need to do is let off a solid 60-80 megaton thermonuclear weapon over ground! Video tape it from mnay angles and release it! - heck I would broadcast live on the internet with a quick four hour notice to the media!

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 11 Oct 1999 12:09

Excerpt from <A HREF="http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/nuken ... enote.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/nuken ... te.html</A> Nuclear stockpiles. We assume that there are proven Indian plutonium designs for a two-stage thermonuclear weapon, a standard fission weapon in the 1015 kiloton range, and a smaller tactical weapon in the 23 kiloton range. We believe that India has sufficient materials for as many as 50 weapons. Pakistan evidently has uranium-only unboosted fission weapons designs in the 3035 kiloton range (though none of the tests achieved this stated yield). We believe that Pakistan has sufficient materials to arm a dozen weaponsBy the way after having negotiated a deal and before penning the deal India should detonate a 5MT weapon to wake up its detractors and secure undisputed proof for all Indian posterity to come.That is if CTBT does not die a natural death in US arms.Cheers - Arun S

P Smith · Post by **P Smith** » 11 Oct 1999 13:15

The yield story so far:Counsel for the Prosecution: a) <A HREF="http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geophysics/f ... index.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geophysics/f ... ex.html</A> , the Terry Wallace paper. b) "Monitoring Nuclear Tests" Barker, B. et al (1998). Science, Sep. 25 1998.Defence Counsel: a) <A HREF="http://www.barc.ernet.in/barc/explosion.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.barc.ernet.in/barc/explosion.html</A> b) <A HREF="http://www.barc.ernet.in/barc/letter/july99.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.barc.ernet.in/barc/letter/july99.html</A> c) <A HREF="http://www.the-hindu.com/fline/fl1601/16010840.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.the-hindu.com/fline/fl1601/16010840.htm</A> For CTBT monitoring to be reliable, it needs to detect low-yield tests. The May 13 tests were not detected on the IDC monitors, which throws a spanner in the works. Enter Perkovich and the NYT and the 'dud' tests...[exit Psmith, stage left]

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 11 Oct 1999 20:16

psmith: Do you have a webpage listing all these links?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Oct 1999 20:52

psmith, Thanks a lot. I have been looking for this R-C data for sometime. It did not occur to me to look up BARC for the updates. shiv add these to you page. Calvin, shiv is working on a page to handle all these links.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 11 Oct 1999 21:15

Psmith rules... all hail.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Oct 1999 21:24

Sunil can you read the July 99 link and try to put describe it in layman's terms? Groundrule -Layman is College physics level.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 11 Oct 1999 22:42

Ramana,yes. I'll do it. I have a lot of work today so give me until tomorrow. regards

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Oct 1999 22:59

Thanks. My reading is they measured the abundance of two isotopes- 46 Sc and 54Mn and calculated number of fissions to produce these. From this they figured out the yield at 50Kt. There is uncertainity of 20% due to this method. So they fix it at 50+/- 10. What I would like to know more - Mote Carlo simulation and the integration methodology used. All in all it describes an independent method of arriving at the yield apart form the usual seismic methods. Their stuff has been reviewed by quite a few in-house talent.Next line of attack by Wallace types will be on the numerical integration algorithim. Or they will want the y-axis units so they can do the integration themselves.[This message has been edited by ramana (edited 11-10-1999).]

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 11 Oct 1999 23:20

So, lets see if I get this straight. India did not achieve nuclear explosions..but Pakistan did. Great! So why are there sanctions on India? Personally, I think there was a small earthquake, and ABV took credit for it. In future, to avoid such uncertainty, Indian nuke tests should be done where there are really reliable people around to observe it from Ground Zero: the Pak Army. I propose Lahore, Peshawar and Sargodha as eminently acceptable test sites.

member_1262 · Post by **member_1262** » 11 Oct 1999 23:51

Narayanan, I think the sanctions were for the May 11 th tests which are independently verifyable.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Oct 1999 00:19

Soon after the Indian tests the Center for Security Policy run by Frank Gaffney had the following to say: <A HREF="http://www.security-policy.org/papers/1998/98-D86.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.security-policy.org/papers/1 ... 86.html</A> True he is a conservative but listen to what he says. The problem is CTBT does not detect low yield tests. The Indian tests proved it.

Yogeshwar · Post by **Yogeshwar** » 12 Oct 1999 00:27

In absolute layperson terms, the May 13 tests questions lead to the following:1) US lobbying (read CIA/NSA/etc.) for greater peeping capabilities and the necessary $$ to fund such programs.2) US trying to find legitimate reasons to get penetrate into nuclear facilities of NON Veto Nations under the wraps of inspections.3) The anti-CTBT lobby trying to justify why US should not ratify it because they are not able to detect tests and thus need future capabilities to improve their own yields.4) The excuse of a nation to the northwest of India simply trying to question our capabilities via the western press (since theirs were perfect and came with 10 year 200 yield warrenties from their dealerships). 5) The pro-CTBT lobby trying to project that the may 13th tests failed. If USA ratifys, they can pressure others to comply and not test.6) Maybe a game to provoke India to test or give out more techno babble about the tests to see how far we really are.One thing is for sure, there is no better time to test then now (before others retify). The sanctions are already on. A stable govt is on. Economy is cruising (needs a little more gas). However, we must sign and ratify immediately like China and France did for a diplomatic gesture.Oh yes! we could do the preparations for a test in the open and negotiate for not testing in return for the following:a) UN Security Council Seat with full Veto Powersb) Nuclear weapons state status (read equal) for all future disarmament/NPT/FMCT etc.Yes I understand that it amounts to blackmail.

bala · Post by **bala** » 12 Oct 1999 02:17

Ramana with your permission, I want highlight the key points made by the following:The Center for Security Policy run by Frank Gaffney had the following to say: <A HREF="http://www.security-policy.org/papers/1998/98-D86.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.security-policy.org/papers/1 ... 86.html</A> 1) India did not become a nuclear weapon state last week. It has had an active program aimed at developing a variety of nuclear devices and delivery systems for at least twenty-four years. It would be more accurate to think of the Indian explosions as a sort of "coming-out" party, a public display of technological prowess aimed at making political points at home and strategic points abroad. These events put to an end Delhi's decades of denials of its covert nuclear programs and -- it is to be earnestly hoped -- its sanctimonious denunciations of those who have such military capabilities. 2) India's nuclear program, like its decision to test five weapons, is the product of regional as well as domestic calculations. Neither its acquisition of nuclear arms nor its tests of them are a function of the status of the U.S. nuclear deterrent or the Clinton Administration's determination to forego future nuclear testing. 3) India's nuclear program will not stop if it now accedes to American pressure to eschew future nuclear tests. To the extent that the United States and other nations in South Asia, and beyond, have concerns about an India capable of engaging in nuclear attacks, those concerns should in no way be allayed by the absence of further underground explosions in the Indian desert. 4) Pakistan will have a nuclear weapons program, whether it decides to test its own nuclear device or not. Goaded on by the perceived threat from India's conventional and nuclear capabilities and abetted by China (notwithstanding Beijing's repeated promises to refrain from proliferating relevant technologies), Islamabad is determined to be a nuclear weapon state. Here again, however, that determination is unrelated to American nuclear testing or the absence thereof. 5) It has now been established that, if India (or other nations) wish to conduct nuclear tests in the future -- even after pledging not to do so, they can be reasonably sure of getting away with it. Four of the five Indian nuclear tests were not detected by seismic stations that are to be used to monitor compliance with the Comprehensive Test Ban. As of this writing, two of the tests have yet to be independently confirmed. Had the Indians wished to do so, they may have been able to conceal all five; at the very least, through well-understood "de-coupling" techniques, the evidence of even a relatively large test could have been made sufficiently ambiguous as to defuse charges of violating the CTB. ---------------- I really like point 4!

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 12 Oct 1999 04:27

> Neshant I don't agree with you because how > can "GOI imagined on 13th may 1998 that > they should do fake test as on Oct. 1999 > there will be debate about CTBT in US > senet."Doubts about verification of nuclear tests didn't just crop up now, it was a hotly debated topic 3 yrs ago during the treaty's negotiation which India vetoed. In fact it was the main issue of contention other than the discriminatory nuclear have and have-nots that India brought up.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Oct 1999 04:36

Enough of this BS and uncertainity. I strongly feel another repeat is needed to gve credibility. The US Senate debate has done nothing to the credibility of Indian posture. Many pip squeak pols have come to podium and used the May tests didnt work arguement. I was browsing my data bank on POK-2 and found an article by TVR Shenoy saying no strategic advantage was to be gained by following the Chagai tests. That was then this is now.

P Smith · Post by **P Smith** » 13 Oct 1999 02:06

Calvin: No, don't have a webpage. Just stored bookmarks.Any news/answers in Parliament about analysis of tritium samples from the H-bomb site? Look forward to Sunil and Salman's English translations!

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 13 Oct 1999 02:40

psmith,you shan't have to wait long.. just in the process of typing up the thing, need to check some thing about the type of Monte Carlo simulators used. keep the bookmarks coming.

Kaushal · Post by **Kaushal** » 13 Oct 1999 21:42

Is the BARC newsletter on the internet ?KaushalSCIENTIFIC DATA CONFIRMS MEASURED YIELDS OF POKHRAN TESTS: DAE Print this story NEW DELHI, OCT 12 (PTI) DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY (DAE) TODAY ASSERTED ITS SCIENTIFIC DATA CONFIRMS MEASURED YIELDS OF ALL FIVE NUCLEAR TESTS CONDUCTED AT POKHRAN IN MAY, 1998 AND MORE DATA ON THE SUB-KILOTON TESTS WOULD BE 'REPORTED SHORTLY'. INDIA HAS BEEN 'UNIQUE IN PROMPTLY ANNOUNCING YIELDS OF ALL THE FIVE TESTS (ON MAY 11 MAY 13, 1998) AND BACKING IT UP WITH SCIENTIFIC DATA, DAE OFICIALS SAID WHEN ASKED TO COMMENT ON A REPORT IN ''NEW YORK TIMES'' THAT THE MAY 13 TESTS WERE EITHER FAKE OR UNSUCCESSFUL. THE PAPER QUOTED AN UPCOMING BOOK 'THE INDIAN NUCLEAR TEST' BY GEORGE PERKOVICH WHICH SAYS THE INDIAN TEST CLAIMS WERE EXAGGERATED. IT ALSO SAID SEISMIC WAVE GRAPHS RECORDED AT NALORE IN PAKISTAN ON MAY 13 DID NOT SHOW VARIATION, UNLIKE GRAPHS ON MAY 11 THAT CLEARLY SHOWED THE MAGNITUDE OF THE SEISMIC WAVES. DAE OFFICIALS SAID THEIR DATA CONFIRMS THAT THE MEASURED YIELDS CLOSELY MATCH THE DESIGN VALUES FOR ALL THE FIVE DEVICES TESTED AT POKHRAN. DETAILED SCIENTIFIC DATA ON SEISMIC MEASUREMENTS AS WELL AS RADIOACTIVITY OF CORE SAMPLES FROM THE SITE HAVE ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED IN NEWSLETTERS OF BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE (BARC) AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS, THEY SAID. RADIOACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS OF FISSION PRODUCTS (THOSE FORMED AFTER A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION) PERTAINING TO THE SUB-KILOTON TESTS WOULD ALSO BE REPORTED 'SHORTLY', THEY ADDED.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Oct 1999 21:57

Kaushal, The links posted by psmith a few posts back in this thread are the barc newsletter. Please read them and discuss.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 13 Oct 1999 22:01

Have you heard the story of the man who went to market and bought a horse? As he was returning, proud of his new possession, a couple of his "friends" stopped him at a bridge. And asked: "Why are you riding a Musharraf?" (BTW: that means "a**")The man was outraged. He went to great lengths to explain why this was a horse, not a Musharraf. No dice. The peer reviewers kep saying: "No, its a Musharraf". The man eventually kicked the horse into the river and walked away, disgusted. Which was the whole point of the exercise, since the peer reviewers went home, richer by one horse. Same technique here. First ban Indian scientists from conferences. Then say: "Nah, their tests were duds..." What better way to get the original, classified data? And all you folks are racing to try to reconstruct exactly that.

Kaushal · Post by **Kaushal** » 13 Oct 1999 22:11

narayanan, completely agree with your analogy. In the immediate aftermath of POK II, RC said as much that the international busybodies were trying to extract info by questioning the data or denigrating it. But we have only access to what is publicly available and there is no harm at least in squashing such doubts at least in BR. My suspicion is that there are some 'heavyweights' who lurk in BR. Why not, it is an excellent source for Indian defense and security issues.Kaushal

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Oct 1999 23:32

The Washington based Center for Security studies run by Frank Gaffeney has posted a series of papers opposing the CTBT. They are basically summaries of opinion. Gives good reasons. BTW, read the one about verifiability. It states the monitoring system can detect only one kt. Explains why the May 13 tests were not detected. RC in his Frontline interview, psmith already gave a link to this, had said the same. <A HREF="http://www.security-policy.org/latest.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.security-policy.org/latest.html</A>

Madhusudhan · Post by **Madhusudhan** » 13 Oct 1999 23:57

saw some defence advisor dude from Bush's administration.. I think this was on MSNBC.. the reporter asked him who was ahead on the nuclear race.. this guy said "India conducted a series of very successful tests last year while pakistan's tests weren't exactly successful.. so India is ahead in the race right now"

swarup · Post by **swarup** » 14 Oct 1999 00:04

Good Points.Remenber, this is a mind game. Ever hear of psychological warfare?That is as much a part of nuclear posturing as building the weapons themselves.India must learn to play poker.Best course of action concerning yields is to keep your mouth shut and say the yields are classified. But go ahead and make credible claims--i.e. that India did test and H-bomb. This is what the P-5 did all through the cold war and go ahead and deploy warheads to the fact.Let the other guy squirm trying to guess your true ability--like the Americans are during the CTBT debate. If they don't want to believe that India can make an H-Bomb, ascribe it to their racism that they have never believed brown skinned people can do anything as good as they can and suggest they take a fact finding trip to silicon valley.[This message has been edited by swarup (edited 13-10-1999).]

Bharat Rakshak

Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?

Re: Yield of Pokhran II ?