Arun_S wrote: From your initial post today, it appears that you have implicitly chosen, for whatever reasons, to provide rationales and explanations for this persons bogus statements!
However, it is an inescapable fact, that you have subscribed to this peculiar train of "thought" / "logic" on this thread (13-April):India never claimed to have a TN device. The official press releases from 1998 make references only to a boosted fission device.
You withdrew your statement after being presented with overwhelming facts to the contrary.
While I attributed your withdrawal of your statements to you being a reasonable person, let us analyze what you actually stated in your retraction on 14-April:
As far as the Press Release is concerned, it was something that happened 10 years ago and I am not a walking/talking databank of GOI press releases dating back 10 years.
This is a very convenient but clumsy way of opting out of a tight situation! The assertion that GoI never claimed to have a TN device (i.e. GoI never stated that S-1 was a TN test) was the focus of your original statement on 13-April. The fictitious arguments about GoI announcements appear to have been employed in an attempt to further qualify/support your assertion! The reasons for your using these arguments are known only to you!
Can we get the focus where it should be. I am just an ordinary forum member. I read, I study , I understand and I change my viewpoint as more publicly available information becomes available to me. The focus should be on the unwarranted attacks being launched on Indian scientists using this forum as a vehicle. The information that is being used for these attacks is not being disclosed. Let us have a "peer review" of the information because of which long serving GOI scientists are being called traitors and a national disgrace. If you cannot put up the information, your allegations have no merit and you should stop using this forum as a vehicle to launch these attacks.
I am open to all options. As far as the S1,hydrogen bomb, thermonuclear bomb, boosted fission controversery is concerned, there are IMO various possible explanations:
a) What was detonated was only a boosted fission device and was referred to colloquially as a *hydrogen bomb* because of the boosting fuel. In one of the earlier posts, RC's interview on the yield question was posted and he answered only about the yield of the primary and the trigger.
b) What was detonated was indeed a two stage TN device and as per PKI's first interview, days after the tests, he claimed that the amount of fuel for the secondary was very, very limited and as such the secondary yield was very low but in line with the planned yields.
c) What was detonated was a two stage TN device and it underperformed as claimed by all NPA literature and supposedly this information was also given by RaviCv. Incidentally, I had the first run in with RaviCv when he appeared on the forum. Thereafter you took the conversation with him offline.
While I am open to these various options, because I do not believe that there is conclusive information for anyone to judge the actual facts. you on the other hand have made up your mind and with that have started these vicious attacks on India's Science Community without disclosing the rationale on which your attacks are based. I would suggest that you disclose this information given by RaviCV so that everyone can judge for themselves whether he is a hoax and whether you have been taken for a ride by him.
Let's get down to some straight talking and let me tell you that your retraction was far from convincing! Announcement of a Nuclear Weapon test by a Nation whose interest you purport to support will stick in your mind for a very long time. There is a substantial qualitative, strategic, and political distinction between a TN test and an FBF test.
A person like yourself, who purports himself as being knowledgeable about nuclear matters, amongst a myriad of other issues, doesn't need to be a databank of GoI press releases to recollect such an event and the nature of the test!
Similarly I will also do some straight talking and ask you if you are so knowledgeable, why is there a schrizophenic bent to your postings? The Missile Page gives glowing tributes to an Indian TN warhead with a yield of 250-300kt and weighing 250kg. And here on this thread you bitterly attack Indian scientists and claim that there is no Indian TN warhead. Make up your mind whether there is a TN warhead or not. And if there is no warhead, I would suggest that you change the Missile page information and apologize for posting wrong information all these years. And if there is a warhead and you do not want to change the Missile page, then stop these attacks on Indian scientists. By the way, who told you that the yield was 300kt and it weighed 250kg? I do not claim any special knowledge. I am an ordinary forum member. But if you have specifically stated yield and weight numbers, I am curious as to how you are so certain? Just to make sure that what is portrayed is not a fantasy of somebody's imagination.
"If you have a source who said otherwise, you should post it on this thread."
If I had sources this effect, I would be careful to even mention them, let alone post their identities on a public thread!
You should either put up their identities or stop these attacks because your and the forum's credibility is on the line. And before you reply, let me tell you, my credibility does not matter, I am not a forum webmaster nor an administrator, like you, that people will hang on to every word of what I have to say. You on the other hand have to be very careful of what you say because your statements reflect on the credibility of this website of which I have been a member since November 2002.
That the NDA regime was certainly led to this false conclusion, was no doubt influenced in no small part by the SciCom! I would say that each (the NDA and SciCom) fed off the frenzy of each other! Knowing the fact that Indian politicians are almost totally illiterate on issues of science, and there is no culture of competition in Indian science that would allow for an independent verification (like LANL vs LLNL, etc...), the moral and professional onus was on the SciCom to STRESS the truth, inform the GoI of the consequences of making false statements of this nature, and resign if their words of caution went unheeded!
Again, this is only an allegation being made by you. Nobody else in any other fora is claiming anything similar. RC was allowed to stay on by the NDA to the end of their term and continues to serve GOI today as also AK. I again ask you to substantiate your allegations.
2.) Is the NDA regime clean in this fiasco? The answer is NO!!! When reports of S-1 being a flop started filtering out, a re-test should have been ordered, regardless of the consequences!
When did these reports start filtering out? The Nucleonics story posted by me is dated November 26, 1998. Why did you keep quiet for all of these 10 years?
3.) This still doesn't absolve RC of his press statements and presentation and publication of unsubstantiable data, to defend the indefensible, or, for not putting in his papers, and perpetuating a blatant lie!
There could be many explanations for this including ensuring the integrity of detterence value in India's existing warhead stockpile. It has deterred adversaries in the last 10 years, has it not? You do not want to absolve RC. Maybe GOI both the NDA and UPA already have and that is why he is still there.
In summary, India signing onto the 123/NSG deal, which is governed by the Hyde Act, tacitly and legally binds India, and acknowledges India's acquiesce to the CRE objectives of the Hyde Act with regards to India's deterrent. If the UPA regime was so concerned about protecting India's strategic interests, it would have explicitly put down in the 123 text that domestic laws are not binding on the nuclear deal! The NDA was far from perfect, but at least it did not agree to such humiliating terms!
I again ask you. Point out one clause to me in the Hyde Act under which sanctions will be more severe compared to those under the NNPA of 1978 which is what the NDA negotiated to get out off in those Talbott-Jaswant parleys after the 1998 tests. If you cannot point out even one clause, it means that all these objections to the Hyde Act have no merit as it merely restates what is already applicable under prior US laws.
Far from it! You've just reinforced my doubts and concerns, and those of many other people (I am sure), about a lot of issues!
Since you have made up your mind on all of these issues, I dont think your mind can be changed.
If the language of this post appears blunt and verging on the sarcastic, let me say that its tone is no more blunt and sarcastic than your post.
And lastly, can we go easy on the bolding. If you have written something of interest, people will read it, whether it is bolded or not.