Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby ShauryaT » 15 Jun 2008 03:43

That RG ordered weaponization is really no solace or credit to RG. His job was to act and wage war on TSP BEFORE, TSP was able to assemble a device - reports point to 1984 as the time TSP was ready and reports also say that the Indian intelligence services were in the know. 1988 was after Brass Tracks, when TSP reportedly threatened India. Translation, India weaponized AFTER TSP did.

As far as I am concerned, our leaders failed us and failed to protect our national interests.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Gerard » 15 Jun 2008 03:57

The Rediff Interview/Benazir Bhutto
So in 1988 uranium enrichment was running at 93 percent, which is weapons grade level?

Enrichment was at 93, but we had done a cold test by... well, we decided about the proliferation and we decided it was important first to achieve a certain level. So they did a cold test around January '89.

So that was without the nuclear core?

I don't know how cold tests are done. But they said before I gave any guarantees to the West, I must have a cold test to see if everything works.

Between January and March the cold tests were done. I don't know if they did it in January or they did it several times, or what they did. But it was completed by March.


http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Pakista ... velop.html
The Wah Group had a weapon design - an implosion system using the powerful but sensitive HMX as the principal explosive - ready for testing in 1983. The first "cold test" of a weapon (i.e. a test of the implosion using inert natural uranium instead of highly enriched uranium) took place on 11 March 1983 under the leadership of Dr. Ishfaq Ahmed of the PAEC. This test was conducted in tunnels bored in the Kirana Hills near Sargodha, home of the Pakistan Air Force’s main air base and the Central Ammunition Depot (CAD).

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 15 Jun 2008 06:01

never mind..
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 15 Jun 2008 07:50, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16448
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Rahul M » 15 Jun 2008 06:25

N^3 ji, might be still in your browser cache.
Plz,check and see if you can post it again.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby shiv » 15 Jun 2008 06:30

Chandi Prasad, you say that you will answer some of the questions I have raised at a time and place of your choosing, and I will leave the unanswered questions at that.

Of course I was not questioning your views but merely extrapolating the conclusions that can be reached from your views assuming that your views are the only truth. Those extrapolated conclusions are what interest me because they have a fundamental bearing on what India's world view should be, assuming that those extrapolations of your views are correct.

However, you have said:
Chandi Prasaad wrote:
    1.).

    2.) Of course India did not have credible deterrent till the first warhead was crafted by re engineering the 1974 PNE. I am sure one can easily find references that it happened much later than 1974.

    3.) As for credible deterrence since the time fission warhead was crafted, or after 1998 when fission warhead was first tested, and the thermonuclear weaponisable test fizzled, it might be useful to get rid of technical/scientific language and communicate using analogies in a manner that is easily absorbed.

    A.) India as a nation has changed and evolved since 1974 and the threat perception and deterrence requirements have changed. So one size fits all deterrence posture that is frozen in 1974 or 1998 is not a useful concept.

    B.) As for Indian deterrence after 1998, I will try use Shivani style analogy (Thanks Shivani for that post, it is good post, however I don't agree with your assumptions and conclusions).


Let me cross post a part of my original post:

shiv wrote: I am particularly interested in knowing if there is such a thing as "partial deterrence" in anybody's view? i don't believe that there can be partial deterrence. Either we have it, or we don't .


From the views you have stated it appears that you believe that deterrence is a continuously moving target and keeps changing. Therefore deterrence cannot be anything but partial over a period of time. Deterrence may be have been robust in 1999, but may have become become non-robust and inadequate in 2003. Or perhaps in your view deterrence has never ever been robust.

I do not dispute this view of yours (assuming I am not misinterpreting your view), The value of one's deterrence must change as new possibilities arise. But that only means that an existing deterrent is no longer a deterrent, because deterrence is a one or zero affair. Either it exists or it does not exist.

Is this right, or would you be happy to define deterrence as a fuzzy goal that can never be complete, and is ever changing, and it is always impossible to pin down deterrence as being totally effective or totally ineffective.

The difference in the two interpretations of deterrence is significant.

1) If you can pin down deterrence as a particular goal, you can aim for achieving that goal first and the reviewing your deterrent from time to time to see if the stated goal is being met, and to consider if the goalpost has moved, requiring further modifications in plans.

2) If you cannot pin down deterrence to any particular goal and consider it continuously moving, you have to aim for everything and have no stated goals to reach because the goals remain unstated and forever changing.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 15 Jun 2008 06:35

deleted by self.
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 15 Jun 2008 07:49, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby shiv » 15 Jun 2008 06:39

content deleted by self

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby shiv » 15 Jun 2008 07:06

enqyoob wrote:Hello! Some worthy deleted my post. This thread is getting weirder and weirder. :shock:


enqyoob - I have browsed through the forum log that tracks moderator actions. No post deletion/editing has been done on this thread.

Probably some other explanation.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 15 Jun 2008 07:47

Thanx, glad to hear it. The CIA/Mossad/ISI/RAW must have done it, or maybe the thunderstorm. :shock: Anyway, no loss.

An associated thought that came to me after I went back to house-painting after ( I thought) posting whatever that was:

Why was Dr. Abdul Kalaam present at POK-2? No question that he had every right to be there, but given all the elaborate precautions they were taking to keep it secret, why risk exposure by sending so high-profile a figure, whose movements were probably tracked by the ISI/CIA etc., to this place? Why not send him to Assam for laddoo-distribution in kindergartens or something?

I don't think I've seen any discussion on this anywhere, it was just accepted that he would be there. But he was not in charge of the nuclear program - that was a DAE show, right. So what did this mean? You can see where this is leading.... I am wondering about the 2 chotus on May 13. In fact this may be a good reason to delete this post. :eek:

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16448
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Rahul M » 15 Jun 2008 08:00

N^3 ji, perhaps a simpler explanation can be found.
He was the scientific adviser to the Def Min at that time, wasn't He ?
That would put him in place as the direct representative of Def Min/PM at pokhran.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 15 Jun 2008 08:04

Hmm! True, true. But.. if it were u, would u send such a person to the site days ahead?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16448
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Rahul M » 15 Jun 2008 08:13

would u send such a person to the site days ahead?

most certainly !
let's not forget he went there as some maj gen !!
the disguises were probably good enough.

OR, if the disguises were not good enough, let's think of it this way : CIA/ISI keeps tabs on APJ 24/7, when he goes to some place they would check why. he goes to pokhran before the work there reaches a frenzied pace. He cools his heels for a couple of days and they lose interest !

Certainly better option than sending Him on a high profile visit the morning of the test.
Of course, this is not to mean that we are ignoring his credentials as India's premier missile scientist. Which would mean that his presence as a scientist was also valuable in the last moment fine tunings of the warheads.

Chandi Prasaad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 11:50
Location: Triveni

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Chandi Prasaad » 15 Jun 2008 08:14

Shiv saar, I am a slow thinker, so the first post took good part of my day. So let me only briefly respond to some questions.
shiv wrote:From the views you have stated it appears that you believe that deterrence is a continuously moving target and keeps changing. Therefore deterrence cannot be anything but partial over a period of time. Deterrence may be have been robust in 1999, but may have become become non-robust and inadequate in 2003. Or perhaps in your view deterrence has never ever been robust.


Yes, however deterrence evolves through growth in POTENTIAL. Deterrence capabilities are planned at what is valid today + estimations of what would be valid after 5 years + say ~10 % for any exigencies.

Note that the above cant be evaluated if one doesn't know where one wants to go. Even today, India has no idea where it wants to be in 10 years (talk of Indian Interest thread). At the other end of the spectrum, China has a rough idea of what it should be in the next 100 years + (the middle kingdom and center of the universe).
I do not dispute this view of yours (assuming I am not misinterpreting your view), The value of one's deterrence must change as new possibilities arise. But that only means that an existing deterrent is no longer a deterrent, because deterrence is a one or zero affair. Either it exists or it does not exist.

IMV deterrence is not a one dimensional equation, but is context sensitive.

Let me use an example of Law(Police) v.s. Jewelery Store v.s. Thief (tendency to steal).
Now think of a Thief-X who has 4 million frequent flyer miles (a.k.a an upward mobile thief) :
1.) In Arabia the law/Sharia against stealing is stiff (cut off a limb) and that sets a deterrence in mind of "Thief-X" to evaluate the risk and reward of the venture/enterprise.
2.) The same law (cut off a limb) in Egypt sets a different deterrence in mind of Thief-X to evaluate the risk and reward of the venture/enterprise, in view of laxity of law enforcement.
3.) The law (An assured jail term + caning) in Malaysia sets a different deterrence in mind of Thief-X to evaluate the risk and reward of the venture/enterprise, in view of assured law enforcement.
4.) The law (jail term) in Amsterdam sets a different deterrence in mind of Thief-X to evaluate the risk and reward of the venture/enterprise.
5.) The law (jail term) in Bihar sets a different deterrence in mind of Thief-X to evaluate the risk and reward of the venture/enterprise, in view of assured lax enforcement.
One can change the 'jewelery' above to 'smuggling Narcotics' where mandatory death penalty is applicable in Arabia and Singapore.

In all the countries cited above the varied degree of deterrence and assuredness of deterrence does not result in 0% theft or 100% theft or drug smuggling statistics. And Thief-X may determine its own tradeoff to steal (grab valuable assets {E.g. Kargil} in spite of risk of deterrence) or smuggle (very high monetary gain in spite of risk of being caned and hanged by the noose {a.k.a serious peril to existence of a nation}).

The Third element to evaluate deterrence is the "Thieves" motivation. A Thief that is well organized and is the son-in-law of OBL/Gen Musharraf will not see the same deterrence as "Thief-X" if he thinks he has influence on the other side to squeeze their balls and if things go horribly wrong can be called to prevail on the victim/law and get off the hook). Or if the needs of Thief is so great he will risk his limb to steal from Arabian jewelery shop to pay for imminent medical procedure back home {E.g. if Japan had A-bomb choice before raising Kamakazi units in WW2}

Then there is the deterrence of the Decoits who can raid the armory of its weapons and go up the palace to loot in grand style. {a.k.a Pre-emptive strike}

Then there is the deterrence of the Mob who can send their proxy to do the dirty job, knowing that the hitman may be killed, but mafioso house will remain intact. {AKA China using Pakistani proxy}

The crucial factor in Nuclear deterrence is figuring out how high one can test the deterrence threshold before he has to worry of major few cities going up in mushroom cloud in direct counter attack or blowback (if working via proxy).

IMO over period of time new contexts (scenarios) are created and over period of time tend to aggregate into much bigger scenarios, as friendship/enmity based on interest evolves that can be very coercive/predatory on targeted country.

The time and effort it takes to transition from No-POTENTIAL to POTENTIAL is very high.
And time it takes for a POTENTIAL to become INTENT is very short and that can immobilize the unprepared party.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 15 Jun 2008 08:44

The cover of this month's "Aerospace America" blares: "Oirope Speeds Up Hypersonics Research". Inside it says, with the Editor's nose getting longer and longer,
"With programs such as LAPCAT and ATLLAS, Oiropeans are joining forces to make hypersonic civil transport a reality".

The word "civil" is a dead giveaway that someone told them to lie. At a time when supersonic transport is considered to be far away because of steeply rising fuel prices, consideration of HYPERSONIC civil transport is truly ludicrous. The word "civil" is ONLY introduced there because it is so obviously a military program. So I looked inside. It says: "Toward the end of this year the second stage of research is due to begin on the Long Term Advanced Propulsion Concepts and Technologies (LAPCAT) program, a study coordinated by ESA for a hypersonic, cruising civil transport to connect Brussels and Sydney in 2 to 4 hours".

Elsewhere it says something about turboramjets from Mach 3-4 and rocket based combined cycle at Mach 5-8. And the other shoe drops when they say how much money is being spent: 7.4 to 10 Million Oiros. Given the large number of collaborating organizations, that would not pay for the Chateau L'Afite and the escargot avec beurre at the kickoff meeting. Maybe they'll be serving Americaine Champagne (Coca Cola) instead.

This article would make the DDM look like Einsteins, but one has to read between the lines. What the article DOES have is a table listing a series of 13 hypersonic vehicle projects. Every time they say "X passengers" you can replace that with "X 100 kg payloads". The point is that all Oirope is focusing on grand hypersonic-cruise technology. The concept pictures shown are all ridiculous "artists conceptions' drawn by highschoolers with no clue about waverider geometries, stagnation point heat transfer, or engine-airframe integration. They are completely bogus.

Why do I snicker at the idea of Brussels-Sydney hypersonic bizjets? Simple. Airbreathing hypersonic cruise vehicles have a lift/drag ratio on the order of 4.5, max.
By comparison, a supersonic airliner at Mach 1.7 can exceed L/D of 11, and a transonic airliner (what we all travel on) reaches 17+. So why are the Oiropeans so energetic in this?

This is yet another big lighting bolt in the sky that says: MTCR and MTBT on the way! Maybe they'll call it HTBT, so that our Experts can keep building their 10MT Mega_Agni and Soorya boosters. A.k.a. "Targets".

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby rocky » 15 Jun 2008 08:58


Raju

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Raju » 15 Jun 2008 10:59

what if we have Russian MT designs, just like the pakis have been accusing us of. Then we just need to test the micros.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Gerard » 15 Jun 2008 18:01

Russians take their NPT obligations seriously. They have no interest in providing weapons design assistance to India.

CIA - Jeremiah News Conference - 2 June 1998
The identification of the Indian nuclear test preparations posed a difficult collection problem and a difficult analytical problem. Their program was an indigenous program. It was not derived from the US, Chinese, Russian or French programs. It was totally within India. And therefore, there were some characteristics difficult to observe.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 15 Jun 2008 18:23

Totally India-genius. It was not derived from the US, Chinese, Russian or French programs.

AoA! What a kick by the CIA to the UQ H&D! :mrgreen: :rotfl:

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Gerard » 15 Jun 2008 18:51

Admiral Jeremiah's statement confirms Paine and McKinzie's Venn diagram. Note the position of the UQ.

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publi ... 2Paine.pdf

“Does the U.S. Science - Based Stockpile Stewardship Program Pose a Proliferation Threat ?” by Christopher E. Paine and Matthew G. McKinzie, Science and Global Security, 1998, Vol. 7, pp. 151 - 193.
Last edited by Gerard on 15 Jun 2008 18:57, edited 1 time in total.

Chandi Prasaad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 11:50
Location: Triveni

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Chandi Prasaad » 15 Jun 2008 18:54

enqyoob wrote:This article would make the DDM look like Einsteins, but one has to read between the lines. What the article DOES have is a table listing a series of 13 hypersonic vehicle projects. Every time they say "X passengers" you can replace that with "X 100 kg payloads". The point is that all Oirope is focusing on grand hypersonic-cruise technology. The concept pictures shown are all ridiculous "artists conceptions' drawn by highschoolers with no clue about waverider geometries, stagnation point heat transfer, or engine-airframe integration. They are completely bogus.

Hummm. Rings a bell. :wink:
Last edited by Chandi Prasaad on 15 Jun 2008 21:30, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35979
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby SaiK » 15 Jun 2008 19:28

enqyoob wrote:
Totally India-genius. It was not derived from the US, Chinese, Russian or French programs.

AoA! What a kick by the CIA to the UQ H&D! :mrgreen: :rotfl:


from the same link:-

Code: Select all

Q: The Pakistani ambassador went so far as to say that India deceived the United States and that was now evidence in State Department memos. Would you go so far as to say that it was deception?

A: I would certainly say that they had an effective denial activity.

and this eats the cake:

Code: Select all

Q: Do you think with the proper intelligence we could have averted tests this time around too?

A: Personal opinion, no. I don't think you were to going to turn them around.


and.. what are we waiting for? is there a shift in the shaft place as I suggested.. somewhere near the lagoons of arabian sea.

Chandi Prasaad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 11:50
Location: Triveni

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Chandi Prasaad » 15 Jun 2008 21:46

Gerard wrote:Admiral Jeremiah's statement confirms Paine and McKinzie's Venn diagram. Note the position of the UQ.

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publi ... 2Paine.pdf

“Does the U.S. Science - Based Stockpile Stewardship Program Pose a Proliferation Threat ?” by Christopher E. Paine and Matthew G. McKinzie, Science and Global Security, 1998, Vol. 7, pp. 151 - 193.



Dr. David Crandall, the Director of DOE's Office of Inertial Fusion Research,in formed a National Academyo f Sciences( NAS) ReviewC ommittee in September 1996, that "it is apparent that most experiments on NIF will be unclassified in and of themselves. This means that, in most cases, it will be possible to publish the results. However, while perhaps 80 percent of the work will be unclassified, 80 percent will likely also have some relevance to weapons. Information which is otherwise unclassified can become classified when it is associated with a particular weapons system. This distinction must be kept in mind." Indeed it must. The "Alice-in-Wonderland" quality of the SBSS Program's approach to "controlling" the proliferation of weapons-relevant ICF information is exemplified by this problem of "association" of nominally unclassified information with formally classified information. The Chairman of the NAS/lCF Review Panel asked two senior scientists from the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE)-the lab that houses DOE's 60-beam OMEGA Upgrade Laser-about the possibility of directly comparing the results from LLE's "unclassified" "direct-drive" ICF codes with those obtained from the "classified" design code (LASNEX) used by the weapons laboratories for modeling indirect drive ICF, by tasking both codes to simulate the same problem. "Drs. McCrory and Verdon both expressed the fear that if this were attempted it would lead to classification of the LLE codes."sl
In light of this now large unclassified domain for NIF experimentation encompassing essentially all laser-driven experiments designed to achieve ignition and some 80 percent of all planned ICF experiments-it is useful to review what the relevance of this nominally unclassified work is believed to be for the U.S. nuclear weapons program, and thus, by extension, for the proliferation of nuclear weapons design capabilities of other nations. Dr. Michael Anastasio, a senior weapons designer at LLNL, recently gave a presentation entitled, "Role of Ignition in Stockpile Stewardship," to the same NAS Panel charged with reviewing the DOE's ICF program. According to the DOE's minutes of the meeting:
    Dr. Anastasio described the way in which weapon designers integrate the. available science base and apply that knowledge to present and future stockpile stewardship issues. He compared this process to achieving ignition on the NIF, which will be a "grand-challengein tegrated test" similar in many ways to the nuclear design process [for weapon secondaries]. Both systems are imploded by x-rays which are transported through hot, high Z flowing matter. In both cases the codes used to model experiments must integrate radiation flow and opacities, plasma hydrodynamics including instability and mix, and thermonuclear ignition and bum.


Z-PINCH AND HE-DRIVEN PULSED POWER MACHINES
The role of such "grand-challenge integrated tests" in improving nuclear weapon design codes is not limited to laser-driven ICF. Something of a convergence is occurring in the SBSS Program between the capabilities of increasingly powerful electrical pulsed power facilities originally designed to simulate nuclear weapons effects and laser-driven ICF. In fact, Sandia's existing pulsed power program has already met or exceeded several of the key NIF parameters at the Z Machine-such as the x-ray pulse width, peak x-ray power, and total radiated x-ray energy-believed to be essential for achieving fusion target ignition, and it is now closing in on a fourth-extremely high temperatures. At the Z Machine, the passage of high currents (currently 10-20 MA) through a cylindrical array of fine wires produces an azimuthal magnetic field, causing the wire plasma to accelerate radially inwards. Stagnation and thermalizatidn of the plasma on axis (on the axis usually labeled by the variable z, hence the term z-pinch) provides a source of soft x-rays. It has been found that the total x-ray energy output scales as the current squared, and is a strong function of inter-wire distance and wire thickness.33 Hohlraums are incorporated into this arrangement in three ways: currently referred to as "static," "dynamic," and "secondary." A static hohlraum surrounds the z-pinch, thereby in.::reasing the x-ray power within the cavity as the z-pinch radiation is reflected, absorbed and re-emitted by the hohlraum. A dynamic hohlraum resides inside the z-pinch and undergoes compression upon being shocked and irradiated by the imploding pinch, while a secondary hohlraum can be attached to the primary hohlraum to conduct studies of radiation flow.

In September 1997, Sandia's Z Machine achieved an x-ray flux temperature of 146 e V (about 1.6 million degrees Celsisus) "in a container the size of a spool ofthread."34 Subsequently, a peak temperature of 190 eV (about 1.6 million degrees) and an x-ray power output of 290 trillion watts was achieved by using a more sophisticated z-pinch: nested wire arrays which reduce hydrodynamic instabilities in the implosion.35 By comparison, laser-plasma instabilities limit NIF indirect drive ignition experiments to a temperature of around 320 e V, and the baseline NIF indirect drive target is designed to operate at around 250-300 eV. According to Sandia scientists, these recent results at the Z Machine suggest that the already planned next generation pulsed power machine-the X-I Advanced Radiation Source (see below)-"should be able to produce 16 million joules of energy, more than 1,000 trillion watts of power, and temperatures of more than 3 million degrees.»36 Temperatures in the range of 2-3 million degrees Celsius are generally thought to be an essential condition for fusion.

In April 1998, permission to prepare a conceptual design for the X-I was formally requested of DOE by Sandia President C. Paul Robinson.37 It will likely be proposed for construction at the Nevada Test Site. Until some time in 1995, Sandia had been planning an even more powerful x-ray facility, called Jupiter, as part of a "Joint DOE/DoD Advanced Development Program" that responded to the fact that "with the loss of Underground Nuclear Testing, both DOE and DoD have a need to produce ultra-high energy density plasmas."s8

satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby satyarthi » 16 Jun 2008 01:26

enqyoob wrote:This is yet another big lighting bolt in the sky that says: MTCR and MTBT on the way! Maybe they'll call it HTBT, so that our Experts can keep building their 10MT Mega_Agni and Soorya boosters. A.k.a. "Targets".

What is a realistic time frame in your opinion when "10MT Mega_Agni and Soorya boosters" will become sitting (or flying) ducks/targets. Five years, ten years, fifteen years?

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 16 Jun 2008 02:18

Satyarthi, I can't say how long before ICBMs become completely useless, because all this hype in public articles is not even the tip of the iceberg. That's the scary part about those budget figures. Please read through that article again, and note several things. Note first that it is ESA, not EADS, that is listed as heading the hypersonic CIVIL transport effort. That should tell you something. But if it was just re-usable spaceplanes, then why go into all this "Brussels-to-Sydney" stuff? What's wrong with saying: "Ouee are building les space launchers re-usabless"?

Secondly, the long list of participating organizations clearly means a huge budget. I had to look several times to make sure it wasn't 7.6BILLION Oiros, just 7.6MILLION. So there is a very large "black" component to the program, and this "civil" study is the periscope sticking out of the iceberg with the big sign saying: "There eez no iceberg here!"

In the 1990s, the US hypersonics program went down a similar path, with well-advertised industry-government-university programs on aerothermodynamics / propulsion etc. etc. First the hypersonics program was cancelled. Then they cancelled the SUPERSONICs program saying: "Sorry, no commercial merit", but if you ask people involved, they say freely that it was just a study of technologies over the WHOLE Mach range from 2 to 25, not any focused civil transport study.

I conclude that the effort reached the point by 1999 where further public discussion of options was unnecessary. Oirope is maybe 1 - 2 years from that stage. 10-15 years behind US capabilities, so that they can get much of the technology by buying it with US approval.

Best estimate? 5 years to demonstrated capabilities for an offensive force based on hypersonic missiles in Oirope, catching up with the already existing US and Russian equivalents (you are right, Russia was ahead on airbreathing hypersonics, but then they ran out of cash, so I don't know what happened since). It's not as bad as nuke testing, since most of the issues can be refined separately, so the testing of actual hypersonic airbreathing flight in the atmosphere is what they will have to try and stop.

Japan has been testing "supersonic transport" objects over the Australian desert for a few years now. These are mostly code-validation efforts, and I must say they are very very good (meaning they have figured out these parts to the needed accuracy) in the parts that they publish. I think there have been a couple of hypersonic tests too.

US capabilities can be gauged from the fact that US and Oirope/UQ were wind-tunnel testing hypersonic-cruise missile configurations (sorry, CIVIL hypersonic-cruise configurations that could carry the billionaires' pet poodles from Los Angeles to Tokyo in 1 hour) as early as 1985. The Soviets were into flight testing such things piggy-back on rocket/ramjet missiles.

So in 2 years there will be loud hype about the Danger to Humanity From Hypersonic Missile Proliferation. In 5 years the pressure to sign the HTBT will be intense.

The global noise is ensured by making sure that TSP and Saudi Arabia get conventional cruise missiles and submarines, with not a peep from the US or Oirope. Doesn't this constitute reason to be VERY scared? Cruise missiles and submarines in the Ummah's hands? Suddenly you don't need to worry about suitcase JDAMs any more - they can be air-delivered directly to your doorstep from an unidentifiable location offshore. Why are the US and Oirope not panicking about this?

All technologies related to hypersonics are already under sanctions, and I hear they may not even be giving visas to students to study in programs dealing with these things. They are on the watch list of technologies.

ICBM launcher technology, on the other hand, may soon be taken off the Controlled lists. North Korea and Iran already know how to shoot things into orbit, which means they can reach anywhere on Earth.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby John Snow » 16 Jun 2008 02:40

so based on eqyoob saars observations , Shivani's model of incremental development of Agni, the suitable bum to ride on it are obselete by the time we finsih the installment testing.

So better scrap the DRDO agni development team reconfigure and retool to get int Hypersonic transporter from dilli to spin city via panda head quarters.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby negi » 16 Jun 2008 02:50

Ballistic missiles are here to stay... for the simple reason that despite ABM maturing to a level that a salvo of two missiles would guarantee a 90% kill probability.The issue with the early detection of the launch is still unaddressed.

US might have a geographic advantage by virtue of which its Missile warning network does get ample time to detect a launch and engage the ABM components, but even as on date it is practically impossible to patrol the vast oceans to deny SSBNs a shot at the target , and things would become complicated if the shot is taken from say 500-2000 miles from the coast as against a 8000-10000 mile land based ICBM strike , for this would not only mean a very small flight time to target but also will allow for more payload per missile.

Unless the electromagnetic rail gun,ABL or similar concepts become economically and practically viable as ABM components the Ballistic missiles will prove to be an effective and reliable deterrent.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35979
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby SaiK » 16 Jun 2008 04:33

I have even a better idea for Mega tons and Giga tons that we can build up slowly.. device conventional hardest deplete uranium - tungsten metal alloy balls and carry about 1 ton balls in a bag along with every time ISRO launches civilan space satellites... have these bag carry with them a micro device, with a small deployable antenna and solar pannel.. in the future, have intelligence built up, such that all these bags can aggregate and congregate, at a press of button with a signal on the co-ordinates, it will send those bags all at once raining on the mega cities..

this plan would be worse than giant asteroids that could strike us. the best thing about it, is its not banned by NPT, CTBT, FMCT, yadi yada..

:)

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 16 Jun 2008 06:26

I am not saying that Agni or any other current program should be curtailed,delayed or scrapped, please. I am saying that any plans to set up arsenals of megaton nukes is a gross waste of money and expertise, that are desperately needed elsewhere. The defense budget is more limited than the uranium supply, so this is a crucial decision. The "nuclear deterrent" should quickly evolve to use small packages with fast delivery systems, not ballistic missiles.

Negi, there is no need for railguns to guarantee that the probability of a ballistic warhead getting through to a given area (as large as South India, for example) is essentially zero. It can be done with existing large airliners, hypersonic interceptors and small missiles. The numbers game is overwhelmingly on the defender's side.

So then comes the question: if the MT-level warheads and the ICBMs are no use to worry the big powers, then whom are they going to deter, and aren't there smarter ways of deterring those?

satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby satyarthi » 16 Jun 2008 07:09

enqyoob,

Thanks for the reply. I guess crux of your argument is (please correct me if I am misrepresenting):

1. India needs to acquire some advanced technologies (e.g. hypersonics), at a rapid pace (~5 year time frame).
2. The west is not going to hand over anything related to these technologies, so India needs to develop them on its own.
3. Sanctions by the west can affect the development of these technologies by squeezing India in many other areas, and making the development slow and expensive.
4. And if these technologies are not developed rapidly, their acquisition can be put under some new denial regimes and exclusive clubs.
5. So until these technologies are developed locally and preferably within 5 years time, no nuclear tests should be performed.
6. The west is not unduly worried about Indian ballistic missiles, but does want to restrict its warheads (e.g. their yield to weight ratio).

As Negi suggested, how does ATV with Agni type ballistic missiles mounted on it fair in all this? This question is also for Shivani, since ATV can do what ICBMs can. Shouldn't the west go ballistic over Indian ATV with Agnis?
Last edited by satyarthi on 16 Jun 2008 07:16, edited 1 time in total.

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Tilak » 16 Jun 2008 07:15

SaiK wrote:I have even a better idea for Mega tons and Giga tons that we can build up slowly.. device conventional hardest deplete uranium - tungsten metal alloy balls and carry about 1 ton balls in a bag along with every time ISRO launches civilan space satellites... have these bag carry with them a micro device, with a small deployable antenna and solar pannel.. in the future, have intelligence built up, such that all these bags can aggregate and congregate, at a press of button with a signal on the co-ordinates, it will send those bags all at once raining on the mega cities..

this plan would be worse than giant asteroids that could strike us. the best thing about it, is its not banned by NPT, CTBT, FMCT, yadi yada..

:)


:roll: :x

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2008 07:30

Tilak wrote:
SaiK wrote:I have even a better idea for Mega tons and Giga tons that we can build up slowly.. device conventional hardest deplete uranium - tungsten metal alloy balls and carry about 1 ton balls in a bag along with every time ISRO launches civilan space satellites... have these bag carry with them a micro device, with a small deployable antenna and solar pannel.. in the future, have intelligence built up, such that all these bags can aggregate and congregate, at a press of button with a signal on the co-ordinates, it will send those bags all at once raining on the mega cities..

this plan would be worse than giant asteroids that could strike us. the best thing about it, is its not banned by NPT, CTBT, FMCT, yadi yada..

:)


:roll: :x


:rotfl:

And I am getting emails that say that technical discussions on this forum are getting too serious and are sending out signals to all the wrong people suggesting that Indians are surreptitiously acquiring technology in the US to take on the US.

satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby satyarthi » 16 Jun 2008 07:35

Tilak, There is another super-secret ISRO (Indian Space-Rakshasa Organization). Perhaps you don't know that the Rakshasas are India's hi-spirit answer to Paki djinns.

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Tilak » 16 Jun 2008 07:46

satyarthi wrote:Tilak, There is another super-secret ISRO (Indian Space-Rakshasa Organization). Perhaps you don't know that the Rakshasas are India's hi-spirit answer to Paki djinns.


Forget the Djinns, alloy balls and bags in space, it's a true blue Backpaki scenario. :eek:

AOT

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby ShauryaT » 16 Jun 2008 07:55

shiv wrote:And I am getting emails that say that technical discussions on this forum are getting too serious and are sending out signals to all the wrong people suggesting that Indians are surreptitiously acquiring technology in the US to take on the US.
Probably OT for the thread. But, Shiv, could you clarify for BR as a whole, on your take on the view that some views, discussions, knowledge (open source) sharing by people can be "dangerous" and can send wrong "messages" to whoever in US, India etc.

If not, why do some people talk like that?

There is another view that I have heard, it says "harsh" or "close" scrutiny of GoI actions does not serve our interests? What is your or BR's take?

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby enqyoobOLD » 16 Jun 2008 08:04

I don't see why steel balls etc. are needed. Why not a constellation of Bak Paks?

Satyarthi:
Minor quibbles with the following points:
"5. So until these technologies are developed locally and preferably within 5 years time, no nuclear tests should be performed."

I am saying that time and resources are short, and they should be focused on advancing where advances are most needed, instead of rushing towards setting up the equivalent of a Maginot Line. Also, that testing large warheads suited only to big missiles, is the wrong priority.

"6. The west is not unduly worried about Indian ballistic missiles, but does want to restrict its warheads (e.g. their yield to weight ratio)."

Worse, the West may be quite happy to let India put its scarce resources to build large MT weapons and ballistic missiles. They are not worried because these will pose no threat to any of them, and can be rendered irrelevant. Happy because in the rush to these, India will drop back in the race towards the next generation of weapons, allowing the West to freeze their advantage in those for the next couple of decades or more.
Same thinking as in 1968 re: NPT and 1996 re: CTBT.

As Negi suggested, how does ATV with Agni type ballistic missiles mounted on it fair in all this? This question is also for Shivani, since ATV can do what ICBMs can. Shouldn't the west go ballistic over Indian ATV with Agnis?

Indian ATVs do not threaten the West - that has never been their problem. Also, note that "remote sensing" (like from Space) is now on the US Consulate's "watch list" for student visa applications. Detecting submarines has always been a big problem. Wonder why?

But my argument is that ballistic missiles can be defeated - you don't need to hit them at launch or during boost. And the retaliation cannot be defeated, so submarine-launched BALLISTIC missiles are not a serious threat. Sub-launched cruise missiles, esp, supersonic ones, are an entirely different problem. Goes far outside the parameters of this thread.

Note that currently, the West has a problem with jehadi-infiltrated cargo ships, that is far worse than any submarine problem.

satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby satyarthi » 16 Jun 2008 08:28

enqyoob,

In my opinion any direct military engagement with the west is rather improbable. So, any acquisitions by India are meant only for deterring rather than actually fighting the west.

But Indian situation with Pakistan & China is unique. No other country in the world faces this bizarre combo.

Think about it. China would love Pakistan to neutralize India, and doesn't particularly care if Pakistan becomes toast in the process. The west would love to see India and China neutralize each other, removing the two asian giants from the power equations for a long while to come. India just wants to be left alone.

So, in the immediate future, a war with Pakistan is much more likely, followed by a war with China. In a war with Pakistan, India may count on western sympathy, but must be ready for Chinese hostility. In a war with China, India will face pakistani hostility and western complicity at worst and neutrality at best.

India will have to deal with the chanda-munda of Paki-Chinese threat much before anything else. In that sense, how relevant is a push for hi-tech gizmos at the cost of basic capabilities like BMs and nukes.

Are you saying that a hypersonic missile kind of capability will make Indian ABM efforts much more credible, and will be a great asset in the only feasible wars that India may fight in near future, i.e. with Pakistan and China.

P.S. Tilak, balls in bags floating in space reminded me of Dr. Evil. :)
Last edited by satyarthi on 16 Jun 2008 08:32, edited 2 times in total.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby ShauryaT » 16 Jun 2008 08:31

satyarthi wrote:In a war with Pakistan, India may count on western sympathy, but must be ready for Chinese hostility.
We may get their "sympathy" but not their support - at least not now, not yet.

satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby satyarthi » 16 Jun 2008 09:13

The west wants to keep pakistan alive to keep india on the leash. A nuclear war between Pakistan and India will please China, but won't be useful for the west. The west would rather have India and China fight a nuclear war. So, western efforts would be to stop any indo-pak war degenerating into nuclear exchange with a FU by Pak. I mentioned "sympathy" only in that sense. The west will of course try to stop any conventional gains by India, but its ability to squeeze pakistan is much higher than its ability to squeeze India.

Harish
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 10:30
Location: Bharat

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby Harish » 16 Jun 2008 12:02

N^3,

I'd like to understand exactly how acquiring hypersonic weapons by the US/Europe renders Indian ICBM capability less useful to India. Are you suggesting that the imminent appearance of hypersonic weaponry in the US/European arsenal makes them less inclined to try and stop the modest ballistic missile capabilities we are working toward? For sure it does not.

From an Indian pov, the appearance of hypersonic weapons does not significantly alter the threat perception; given that US and Europe are both far more than a match for India if things come down to an actual conflict. Whether you get nuked by a hypersonic air-breathing missile or a plain-vanilla ICBM makes little difference if your major cities are gone.

What India is trying to do is match China in the ability to inflict AD. Suryas and Agnis are the way to go for us; and this does mean we need to be extremely mindful of what is being planned to stop us acquiring such a capacity, obselete though it may be / may become in the light of Western advancements.

Having said that, I am sure efforts are being made as we speak to develop some sort of a hypersonic engine for powering missiles. If I remember right, DRDO did speak about air-breathing hypersonic engines years ago. As a nascent technology which will mature over a long time, India cannot really factor in hypersonic capabilities into our threat/response matrix just yet. I am no expert to speak on what these systems will do to deterrence and military doctrines - but I am pretty sure they will rewrite the rules of the game in the India-China context.

India is doing the right thing by working toward a viable conventional missile arsenal that can fly about 5-6000 kms without worrying too much about what is on the anvil. This capability is guaranteed to work in the India-Pakistan-China context.

The whole point I am making is there is no sense in waiting till we have some exotic technologies to plan when to test our nukes next. The moment we have viable delivery systems (assuming TN designs are good to go), we should test come what may.

BTW, what's with the threat of HTBT? Can't we hold chai-biskoot meetings like we've done for CTBT, and finally test when we are ready? Can't we preach "complete and verifiable hypersonic disarmament" in the meantime? We have various options for dragging our feet. And are you sure the Chinese will promptly collapse and sign up the same afternoon? :shock:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Future Nuclear testing: pros and cons-2

Postby shiv » 16 Jun 2008 17:23

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:And I am getting emails that say that technical discussions on this forum are getting too serious and are sending out signals to all the wrong people suggesting that Indians are surreptitiously acquiring technology in the US to take on the US.
Probably OT for the thread. But, Shiv, could you clarify for BR as a whole, on your take on the view that some views, discussions, knowledge (open source) sharing by people can be "dangerous" and can send wrong "messages" to whoever in US, India etc.

If not, why do some people talk like that?

There is another view that I have heard, it says "harsh" or "close" scrutiny of GoI actions does not serve our interests? What is your or BR's take?


Shaurya - nearly 10 years ago I used to believe that the collating of information in one place would be friendly to anyone who wanted such on a platter.

But over the years I have begun to see BRF as just another Internet forum for chai-biskoot. If forum members anticipate events or write well - it is to their credit and I am grateful for their participation. The forum remains a medium of information and news exchange and its speed in picking up news and its geographic spread make it fascinating, but BRF ultimately is totally wedded to the media and those who manipulate the media are manipulating the world along with BRF.

If forum members become personally wiser and better informed by visiting the forum, so be it, but BRF can play no major role in anything more than that. Personally I only tend to watch out for people who might post stuff that is embarrassing to themselves or others and occasionally might pose some security risk - but since I can't even read every single post every single day there is probably much that passes my filter. If no one else picks that up or sees it as suspicious - it only proves that BRF is just as I said - an entertaining internet forum. Nothing more. Nothing less.

So relax and bring on the depleted Uranium balls floating in space. :)


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest