Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

[pankajs]

Irrespective of the facts, now that an insider has cast doubts, the deterrence is broken.
It needs to be re-established and that can only be done via testing.

[Sanku]

That is what I believe, this is a dissent in the ranks.

Planned or unplanned dissent?

Planned or unplanned by whom?

[Tanaji]

Now someone tell me please: What was the planned yield?

What was the real yield?

How was it measured.

There is so much uncertainty here that nobody will ever know except those who need to know.

Wrt POK 2- for a charade that was set up in great detail to hoodwink US satellites while bums were kept ready for testing for ten years does anyone really think that the statements to be made after the test - success or failure were all not preplanned to be made depending on what happened?

Every statement could be a preplanned lie - the only "truth" being the squiggles seen on worldwide seismographs and craters that appeared overnight. That's all.

What you make of th truth is just that. What you want to make of it. Nobody _really_ knows.

Thats the question I am asking: does Santhanam have access to radio chemical analysis of core samples? If yes, and his statement is based on that data, then its a serious accusation.

If no, then nothing different has been said then what has been said previously. Given his RAW background and the draconian OSA, one wonders why he is saying what he is saying..

[Sanku]

And that is why when some one who should _REALLY_KNOW casts doubts it destroys the belief in our arsenal and hence the deterrence. (for the record I always believed in what Arun_S said, it was all very credible)

It would a pity that the Chinese inadvertently destroy 6 cities including where I live under the mistaken belief that we don't have TNs and then realize that hey they were wrong and we destroyed 10 of theirs.

That would not give my, by then departed, soul any solace.

You have to live with your fears and your beliefs. That is the burden you must carry. It is your karma.

True, but then I can say what I feel. That is also true.

[shiv]

I believe our scientists are clever enough to anticipate failures and fizzles and I suspect they had pre-planned their statements on the lines of "If the yield looks like X say it is X +/- Y%"

None of these guys are straightforward satyameva jayate types but they are in cahoots with GoI because they are essentially a wing of GoI that funds them and pays them fat pensions to boot.

Only we are satyameva jayate types.

[shiv]

the deterrence is broken.

Deterrence gets broken the day a nuke lands on India. Not before that.

[tejas]

With people at the top this imbecilic is it any wonder India is in the position in the world it is in? APJ Kalam is K. Santhanams' boss and therefore whatever he says is the gospel? This despite Kalams' degree being a M.S. in aeronautical engineering.

The cognitive dissonance I live with everyday is trying to believe Inidia and China are peers when the reality is India should be grouped with Pakistan and Sierra Leone

[shiv]

Planned or unplanned dissent?

Planned or unplanned by whom?

Name the parties involved and I will elaborate my thoughts.

[shiv]

The cognitive dissonance I live with everyday is trying to believe Inidia and China are peers when the reality is India should be grouped with Pakistan and Sierra Leone

Ah - now you are thinking with my brain

[Sanku]

]Only we are satyameva jayate types.

Some of are yes, since there is no conflict of interest, we are too powerless to be spoke in the wheel, a prime mover.

Even we know the truth it doesn't matter since we wont really know if we know it.

We can believe it was all very Chankyan 10 year program by GoI to first chart a course which would suggest that testing would have a disruptive effect on that course and then turn around and feed the media doubts to then justify testing.

The premise being that GoI actually wanted to test but to confuse people took a path which was a "no-test needed" path (at least the justification was) and then turned around and itself seeded doubts allowing it to test.

I think that is just a impractical plan (and nothing to do with GoI being dharmic or BRFites thinking that GoI is incapable)

[pankajs]

the deterrence is broken.

Deterrence gets broken the day a nuke lands on India. Not before that.

You are right saar! What i meant is that with an insider questioning the yield, the credibility of our TN bum needs to be re-established with multiple rounds of testing.

[Sanku]

the deterrence is broken.

Deterrence gets broken the day a nuke lands on India. Not before that.

Deterrence gets broken the day any one can plan such a course of action as a acceptable one to achieve any Geo-political goal.

When the nuke lands on India its not deterrence that gets broken -its the promised counter attack which starts.

A nuke landing on India is TOOOOOOOOO LATE

[Sanku]

Planned or unplanned by whom?

Name the parties involved and I will elaborate my thoughts.

Party A -- a section of GoI establishment which want the GoI to take up new radical approaches to Geo-pol (nukes etc etc) from the 60 year old unbroken understanding and what normally the Indian public understands.

Party B -- the section of GoI establishment which wants status quo

[shiv]

A nuke landing on India is TOOOOOOOOO LATE

Well - it would be certain proof that deterrence has failed. Anything less is only nightmares. I don't have nightmares so I am unable to empathise.

[Kanson]

Dr. Chidambaram, In a 70-minute interview he gave T.S. Subramanian, he answered a range of questions. Excerpts:

There is a controversy about the total yield of the five nuclear tests conducted at Pokhran in May 1998. Roger Clarke, a British seismologist, has agreed with the assessment of the Department of Atomic Energy that the total yield of the three tests conducted on May 11 was around 60 kilotonnes. But another group of seismologists disputes this. For example, University of Arizona geophysicist Terry C. Wallace wrote in the journal Seismological Research Papers that the yield was 10 to 15 kilotonnes on May 11, and 100 to 150 tonnes on May 13. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) scientists S.K. Sikka, Falguni Roy and G.J. Nair wrote in the September 10 issue of Current Science (published from Bangalore) that the interference between the seismic waves from the two main explosions on May 11 would have led to a lowered estimate of the seismic signal strength at stations situated in the eastern and western directions. They have argued that only the data from the stations situated in the northern and southern directions should be taken into account. Can you put the record straight?


It is always difficult to correlate the seismic magnitudes with yields unless it is a well-calibrated testing site like Nevada in the United States or eastern Kazakhstan in the erstwhile Soviet Union. It is also susceptible to deliberate manipulation, as happened between the Soviet Union and the United States. In our case, for the tests on May 11, there is the further complication caused by separated but simultaneous explosions, when the seismic signals interfere, as you mentioned, and their unfamiliarity with the Pokhran geology. The latter is important because the strength of the seismic signal is determined by the way the explosive energy couples into the geological medium, and there are strong regional differences. In fact, each seismic station has to be calibrated, and this is obvious from the range of seismic magnitudes reported by various global seismic stations. A small difference in body wave magnitude of a little over 0.2 corresponds to a halving of the yield estimate. And for any underground nuclear explosion, seismic body wave magnitudes are known to range over 1.0 or even more, which indicates the pitfalls in yield estimates from seismic signals, unless they are done carefully and correctly. This has been done by BARC scientists, using four different methods, and the details have been published in the November 1998 issue of BARC Newsletter.
The first method is to look at the body wave magnitude, or mb. Here is where the asymmetry from the seismic records of the various stations in the world comes into the picture. Because the two (main explosives on May 11) were located in shafts oriented east-west with a separation of one km, the seismic signals produced from them superpose with a phase lag depending upon the direction. However, if one looks at the signal which has been recorded in the northern direction, for which the phase lag is zero, one can clearly see the difference. In fact, if we plot mb versus the orientation, say zero degree for the north, 90 degrees for the east and -90 degrees for the west, you get a bell-shaped curve; in other words, if you allow for this orientational effect, the body wave magnitude for the two tests is 5.4, which corresponds to about 60 kilotonnes, which we had announced immediately after the experiments. This is also consistent with our yield calculations, that is, based on our computer calculations. The design values and the announced experimental yields soon after the tests were 15 kilotonnes for the fission device and 45 kilotonnes for the thermonuclear device (popularly known as the hydrogen bomb); and there was also the small sub-kilotonne device, with a yield of 0.2 kilotonne.
The second method is more straightforward. As I mentioned earlier, the one problem is that you must know the geological medium in which the device has been emplaced before you venture into yield estimation because that decides how much energy couples into the (geological) medium from the device. Then you must calculate the absorption along the path from the point of detonation to the seismic station. Since there is no global or universal model for the earth, these absorptions along the various paths could be different. Unless the site has been calibrated well, you can make serious mistakes in estimating the yields from seismic magnitudes. On the other hand, if the site and the seismic station have been properly calibrated together, these effects can be eliminated.
There was only one experiment to calibrate Pokhran, that is the PNE (peaceful nuclear explosion) experiment carried out by us in May 1974. So in the second method used by the BARC scientists, for eight stations around the world for which we have the data, they have looked at the difference in body wave magnitudes for the PNE experiment done in May 1974 and the tests done on May 11, 1998. There is a small correction coming from the orientational effect I mentioned above. This correction is 0.1 for two stations, 0.2 for one station and zero for the other five. The average body wave magnitude difference is 0.5, which translates into a yield ratio of 4.5. That is, the total yield of the tests done on May 11, 1998 is 4.5 times the yield of the test done in May 1974.
The International Data Centre (IDC), Arlington, U.S., gives the yield of our May 1974 test as between 10 and 15 kilotonnes. We have evaluated it more accurately as between 12 and 13 kilotonnes. This is accepted by leading seismologists in the world. If you multiply these numbers by 4.5, you again get a yield of about 50 to 60 kilotonnes.
The third method used by the BARC scientists was to look at surface waves, which are less susceptible to geological variations. By looking at the surface wave magnitude - Ms, as it is called - from four stations of the United States Geological Survey and three of our own stations, the average comes to 3.62. That is, Ms is equal to 3.62. Then, using the standard formula which relates Ms to the yield, the yield works out to 58 kilotonnes.
All the above methods of measurement are based on internationally available seismic data, which - with all its defects - is the only way anyone can look at other countries' underground nuclear explosions. In fact, seismic monitoring is one of the methods for the international monitoring system of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
The fourth method that the BARC scientists used was to look at the close-in acceleration measurements and compare them with the U.S. data. The U.S. data are available for the dry hard rock of the Nevada test site and the sedimentary formations in Colorado, where the U.S. has carried out two peaceful nuclear explosion experiments - Rulison and Rio-Blanco. When they scaled the yields, our data fit with the Colorado data and not with the Nevada test site data. This is what we expected because the Pokhran medium is closer to the sedimentary formations in Colorado, where these two experiments were carried out, than with the rock in the Nevada test site. So here again, the acceleration measurements are consistent with the yield of about 60 kilotonnes. If we accept the Nevada site parameters, the Pokhran-II yield will go much higher, to 100 kilotonnes.
So we have plenty of data now. From all these data, it is very clear that the yields of the devices we tested on May 11 are exactly what we announced immediately after the tests.
As you correctly said, a number of international seismologists have agreed with our yields within the limits of experimental error. But this one group of seismologists in the U.S. seems to have ignored some of the factors that I mentioned before, and in particular the fact that the U.S. geostations are crowded round an angle westerly to the northern direction. As I explained in the beginning, they are likely to get lower body wave magnitude signal, and this seems to be the main reason for the lower value given by them. On the other hand, it also raises serious questions regarding software and analytical inadequacies in the global seismic network for monitoring simultaneous but separated underground explosions around the world.
It is not surprising that they did not detect the sub-kilotonne explosions of May 13 because the threshold for the CTBT in terms of sensitivity of detection is around one kilotonne

[Sanku]

A nuke landing on India is TOOOOOOOOO LATE

Well - it would be certain proof that deterrence has failed. Anything less is only nightmares. I don't have nightmares so I am unable to empathise.

Then it is the wrong topic to discuss on frankly, nuclear deterrence etc is a game only for paranoids.

Personally to take an example you used a long time and turn it around (on Brahmins in Talikota) "If the Vijayanagar was paranoid enough to have regular nightmares about its fate it might have survived"

Some people must have nightmares so the rest sleep soundly, the only problem is that my having nightmares is worthless -- the right people must be up with nightmares -- the problem is that if they are not -- then the rest must be up.

I vote for paranoia

[sugriva]

Wrt POK 2- for a charade that was set up in great detail to hoodwink US satellites while bums were kept ready for testing for ten years does anyone really think that the statements to be made after the test - success or failure were all not preplanned to be made depending on what happened?

You argument rests on the dubious assumption that the gobarmand of india is more super chanakyian that what we assume it to be. You also confuse tactical brilliance, (aka work only when US satellites don't watch etc) with strategic mastery. Maybe the truth is simpler. Anyway I will allow you to wallow in your cognitive dissonance.

[shiv]

Party A -- a section of GoI establishment which want the GoI to take up new radical approaches to Geo-pol (nukes etc etc) from the 60 year old unbroken understanding and what normally the Indian public understands.

Party B -- the section of GoI establishment which wants status quo

OK here is my take:

India launched a nuclear submarine a month ago:

Since then a series of leaks and statements from "establishment" people or GoI sources have stated (with suitable mumbled denials from others)

• The reactor is not working (yet)
• Its missiles have a range of only 700 km
• We need only 3 nuclear submarines
• We will not make ICBMs
• Our tests were a fizzle

Guess who might feel reassured by this?
Guess who else (apart from inconsequential BRFites) might feel less reassured?

[shiv]

You argument rests on the dubious assumption that the gobarmand of india is more super chanakyian that what we assume it to be. You also confuse tactical brilliance, (aka work only when US satellites don't watch etc) with strategic mastery. Maybe the truth is simpler. Anyway I will allow you to wallow in your cognitive dissonance.

What I choose to wallow in does not require your permission despite your supercilious assumption to the contrary. However - I reiterate that everyone is free to be as delusional as he or she might want to be. And you have no way of denying me permission to be as delusional as you or anyone else. Despite wallowing in your own delusion that your permission is required.

[pankajs]

Nuclear doubts

Now there is a cloud over the 1998 test. The statement by former defence research development organisation (DRDO) scientist K Santhanam that the thermonuclear yields of the 1998 tests were below the standard levels brings into the open what others, especially overseas experts, had pointed out then. He is not necessarily debunking the explosion as much as pressing the need for more tests and cautioning that India should not give up its option to test. His concern should be seen in the context of speculation that India is under pressure to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT).

The time is now for sober assessment of the facts of India's nuclear capability. What prompted Santhanam is not clear but it would be unfortunate if this becomes a needless controversy and it does not lead to serious thinking on nuclear policy.

[negi]

1. ``Based upon the seismic measurements and expert opinion from world over, it is clear that the yield in the thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was claimed. I think it is well documented and that is why I assert that India should not rush into signing the CTBT''


2.
``Two things are clear; that India should not sign CTBT and that it needs more thermonuclear device tests,''

Above are the actual 'statements' made by Santhanam saar as per media sources.

I believe no Jingo(including me) would agree to the CTBT in '2' even if '1' was not true and we would have tested a 100kt device . .

Infact we should keep playing our broken record of 'complete and verifiable nuclear disarmament'.

I believe now that Sree Sanathanam is no longer in government service he has the freedom to voice his opinion and that is exactly what he has done without divulging the details and confronting the POK-II team .And it is beyond doubts that given his role in the POK-II he definitely is privy to unclassified info including the yields. (this despite he not being a nuclear physicist..iirc he is an SME in Biochemistry and was the director of DFRL)

I don't know whether the truth will ever come out from official channels , but what is important is the yield of the TN test notwithstanding there is no reason/excuse to sign the CTBT and of course we need to keep our option of testing open.

[tejas]

While the current situation is far from ideal, I wouldn't be paranoid about the Chinese nuking India as a 17 KT or several 17 KT warheads falling on Beijing or Shanghai would still be enough to severely hurt the feerings of the Chinese people.

[negi]

Thats the question I am asking: does Santhanam have access to radio chemical analysis of core samples? If yes, and his statement is based on that data, then its a serious accusation.

Sanathanam saar was in charge of preparing the test sites and given his pedigree and role in POK-II I find no reason to doubt his access to the yield figures .After all we are not speaking about design or fabrication issues but simple numbers which entire POK-II team would have some idea about ...at least if it met the designed specs or not.

[Drevin]

Infact we should keep playing our broken record of 'complete and verifiable nuclear disarmament'.

I think this will prevail regardless of what happens. Even Congress cannot convince the nation otherwise.

[James B]

Pokhran II successful, insists Kalam
PTI 27 August 2009, 07:05pm IST

NEW DELHI: Seeking to put a lid on the controversy over Pokhran II nuclear explosions, former President A P J Abdul Kalam on Thursday said the tests were successful and had generated the desired yield.

"After the test, there was a detailed review, based on the two experimental results: (i) seismic measurement close to the site and around and (ii) radioactive measurement of the material after post shot drill in the test site," Kalam said.

"From these data, it has been established by the project team that the design yield of the thermo-nuclear test has been obtained," said Kalam, who as director general of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, spearheaded the nuclear tests in 1998.

India conducted five nuclear tests on May 11 and 13, 1998 at the Pokhran range in Rajasthan which included a 45 kiloton (kt) thermonuclear device, called as hydrogen bomb in common parlance.

The other tests on May 11 included a 15 kt fission device and a 0.2 kt sub-kiloton device. The two simultaneous nuclear tests on May 13 were also in the sub-kiloton range -- 0.5 and 0.3 kt.

Kalam, also scientific adviser to the defence minister, R Chidambaram who was chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and Anil Kakodkar, then director of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, were key players in the Pokhran II nuclear tests.

----
Apologies if already posted

[John Snow]

Is kanson a incarination of SS Maverick? the sizemic signature of his posts seem to be having the same resonance frequency.
I wonder

[Anujan]

Dilbu,
Just like a true paki consoles the other, "keep jour chin up biradher"

PS: And you need to respond with, "Don't worry I will biradher" followed by numerous smilies depicting a flag and happy smileys.

You have been doing some slum tourism in deff and dumb forum I can see

Diyar Dilbu

Nook testing is inevitable. Whether Pok-II was a success or not. Do you honestly sincerely believe, that say in the next 25 year or so, nothing will happen to upset the current testing moratorium applecart ?

Unkil will test his RRW (reliable replacement warheard), followed by a Russie test. Followed by a cheeni test. Followed by the french. Ofcourse all the goras will spin it as "We are testing to reduce our stockpile to progress towards disarmament onleee. We are testing to make our bums more safe so nothing happens to the world onleee."

And then the SDREs will also test, because we too are for disarmament and safety onleee.

[shiv]

Personally to take an example you used a long time and turn it around (on Brahmins in Talikota) "If the Vijayanagar was paranoid enough to have regular nightmares about its fate it might have survived"

Off topic - but believe it or not the credit for that thought goes to your dear friend Rahul Mehta.

[Hari Seldon]

Is kanson a incarination of SS Maverick? the sizemic signature of his posts seem to be having the same resonance frequency.
I wonder

[NRao]

Pokhran-II successful, insists Kalam

[JE Menon]

And another curiosity - can anyone point to any statement by GOI that we are even looking at the CTBT in a positive light - i.e. going further than the voluntary moratorium?

Raja Ram, if you are reading this, pls mail me your thoughts at

jemenon at gmai l dot com

[NRao]

Chidambaram 'puzzled' over report about Pokhran II failure

[rakall]

Personally to take an example you used a long time and turn it around (on Brahmins in Talikota) "If the Vijayanagar was paranoid enough to have regular nightmares about its fate it might have survived"

Off topic - but believe it or not the credit for that thought goes to your dear friend Rahul Mehta.

Hello Doctor Shiv -- if you have got an email from RajaRam, could you please forward to band318 at gmail dot com

thanks..

[Sanku]

Party A -- a section of GoI establishment which want the GoI to take up new radical approaches to Geo-pol (nukes etc etc) from the 60 year old unbroken understanding and what normally the Indian public understands.

Party B -- the section of GoI establishment which wants status quo

OK here is my take:

India launched a nuclear submarine a month ago:

Since then a series of leaks and statements from "establishment" people or GoI sources have stated (with suitable mumbled denials from others)

Guess who might feel reassured by this?
Guess who else (apart from inconsequential BRFites) might feel less reassured?

I can not guess, or more appropriately I can guess 5-6 different parties and provide fairly well sounding justification to how it makes sense.

I suppose what you are saying is that India wants to reassure US while it prepares against China since a two front "war" is not something we can fight.

I personally see no correlation between that goal and current fracas. We are too small to threaten US and will be for some time yet AND I DONT see US doing anything to help us with China, it will do what it needs to do anyway. Not because we are pretending to be good boys and girls.

-----------

PS> Please let rajaram post here, or please forward to <> I think I can be trusted.

[pankajs]

And another curiosity - can anyone point to any statement by GOI that we are even looking at the CTBT in a positive light - i.e. going further than the voluntary moratorium?

Saar, while I haven't read any on that subject, there is always a possibility with MMS doing his out-of-the-box thinking. Case in point, the Havana declaration and Sharm el-Sheikh joint statement.

[John Snow]

Party A -- a section of GoI establishment which want the GoI to take up new radical approaches to Geo-pol (nukes etc etc) from the 60 year old unbroken understanding and what normally the Indian public understands.

Party B -- the section of GoI establishment which wants status quo

OK here is my take:

India launched a nuclear submarine a month ago:

Since then a series of leaks and statements from "establishment" people or GoI sources have stated (with suitable mumbled denials from others)

• The reactor is not working (yet)
• Its missiles have a range of only 700 km
• We need only 3 nuclear submarines
• We will not make ICBMs
• Our tests were a fizzle

Guess who might feel reassured by this?
Guess who else (apart from inconsequential BRFites) might feel less reassured?

1) The Armed forces will feel completely assured about DRDO capabilities but would prefer to import some devices.
(Its like my nephew saying I like your recipe, but I want a simple sanwich).

2) The arms lobby.

[Raja Ram]

shiv,
did not receive any mail from you. if you can state your email here, I can forward the mail.

geeth,
sent the mail

two others,
sent the mail

Folks,
Santanam's statement is impossible to ignore. Why he has chosen to speak now is more important in my opinion. With regard to the TN device, there are doubts in some quarters about it. There are no doubts in certain quarters.

Whatever it is, it is no use having a thermo nuke device if there are doubts. Doubts have to be cleared. But at the time and place of our choosing. More than the need to demonstrate technical capability testing is necessary for deterrence value and posture.

That is why, I ask gentle readers to try and answer the question why Santy has chosen to speak now.

There are moves being made that are directed at India yet again. There are two basic possibilities. One, the GOI is willing to sign up to something it should not and Santy's coming out is an attempt by some in the establishment to prevent it. Two, the GOI is being subjected to some pressure to sign up to stuff, which it does not want to without removing doubts once and for all, so Santy is speaking at the behest of the GOI. He is ideal as he was involved intimately in the tests and is now technically outside the goverment.

Which one is it, could be a debate here. I think that debate should be avoided.

[Sanku]

Which one is it, could be a debate here. I think that debate should be avoided.

Why?

-----------

PS> Did you send it to me too? If you did I want to delete my id. Please do. (id on previous page)

[JE Menon]

The SeS statement was a blunder, not a strategic error, and it is not irretrievable by any means. If someone should be held responsible for that one, I would think that person is SS Menon. GoI does make mistakes on occasion.

But that is beside the point on this CTBT issue. While trashing MMS, perhaps it is pertinent to point out that the BJP of ABV went further down that road than Congress ever did. But, and this is the point, neither BJP nor Congress has ever indicated a readiness to sign on the dotted line of the CTBT.

[negi]

Is kanson a incarination of SS Maverick? the sizemic signature of his posts seem to be having the same resonance frequency.
I wonder

Gurudev Kanson is not SS. Infact I remember Kanson since the days when he had a very fundu discussion on beam riding guidance on Trishul with Dileep saar in missile thread.