Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Aug 2009 22:08

Arun_S wrote:
kit wrote:ps : Is Arun_S running for president ? Hope he does
I do not have any deserving quality to be President.

But does the office of President have power to play a decisive role in defending and defining the future of Bharat? Or pay enough to take care of my extended family? I doubt.

Its better to keep him as CTO.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 27 Aug 2009 22:09

Raja Ram, haven't received it...

jemenon@gmail.com

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Aug 2009 22:12

RajaRam garu I am a big fan of your posts (which you classify as rambles); kindly post the topic for the greater benefit of the junta .I think we should give members and lurkers a chance to have a decent discussion .

Given the manner in which GOI springs up surprises it is sensible to take into consideration all the possible scenarios, hence the timing of this disclosure indeed needs to be discussed by the learned members.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 27 Aug 2009 22:15

Sanku wrote:Why?

Because that would be missing the forest for the trees. In both cases, the answer is simple -- we must test.

The question about whether Santhanam was speaking out against the guvrmand (which will cause our guvrmand to go into ostrich mode) or speaking for the guvrmand (which will cause scientist and bhajpha to go into ostrich mode), will prevent the only possible solution from being carried out. We must test.

Remember what it took to do Pok-II, PVN passing a note to ABV and ABV giving a go ahead with the cooperation of the top echelons of the scientific community. Such a cooperation is needed for any future testing. So lets not debate who was the culprit, this will only cause one or more parties whose cooperation is needed, to go into hunker down mode.

Let us discuss angles. There are only three angles, the cheeni angle and the US angle. (The paki angle is irrelevant, we have enough fission bums and delivery systems to glass them thrice over.). Testing now can serve only one of three purposes. 1. To demonstrate to the cheenis that we are able, willing and ready. 2. To demonstrate to unkil, if he pressurizes us on shittybitty and other 3 or 4 letter treaties, we *will* test. Desh has enough rabble rousers to whip up a frenzy among aam aadmi and so manipulating a few people in the guvrmand wont work. 3. Internal coup of scientists against the top echelon who conducted the test.

What angle is it ?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 27 Aug 2009 22:16

raja ram garu>> If it so privileged that only select people be informed then I dont want to know your thoughts, but if they are not you may post them here and your views are always welcome.
tIA

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 27 Aug 2009 22:17

Edit .... received mail from RR sir.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 27 Aug 2009 22:20

JE Menon wrote: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.

Saar, one of the report that I remember reading had noted that the position arrived at SeS was after a one to one session between MMS and Gilani. I may be wrong.

JE Menon wrote: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.

Saar, if the state of TN bum is as feared on this forum, then the responsibility rests with the BJP's for not having corrected it ASAP.

JE Menon wrote:But, and this is the point, neither BJP nor Congress has ever indicated a readiness to sign on the dotted line of the CTBT.

The timing of the disclosure by an person associated with POK II is impossible to ignore. In the November MMS is going to DC to meet Obama. Agendas for such meeting are setup and discussed much in advance and will definitely be known to the inner circle in Delhi. CTBT is one of the key policy proposal of Obama. So the suspicion that another grand bargain like the new-clear deal might be in the air.

JMT

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 27 Aug 2009 22:27

JEM Sanku Rakall,pgbhat and Anujan
Sent the mail to you all.

Rest,
I do not want to post something that causes a lot of heated fights and disrupts meanigful discussion. I have seen of late that this leads to unnecessary name calling and results in bans. Will write up a more acceptable version and post it later tommorrow.

JS,

How can what I write be ever classified as something worthy? I am like you, a rambler. Will send you the mail. Just let me know where to send it sir. Just want to avoid unnecessary name calling that is all.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 27 Aug 2009 22:30

The best window to test was during (right after) 11/26 that would have been a message and confirmation of what we got.

I had said so during that time. It would have been easily palatable to unkil as Bush was leaving Obama in the woods now as tough as nails. But then our dynamic duo of NSA MKN (CBS) and Menon were busy else where organizing Christmas party and New year party for the Indian envoys summoned from all over tghe world.

...

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 27 Aug 2009 22:30

Rajaram, can you send it to me too. Thanks.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Aug 2009 22:31

Raja Ram wrote:..........

raja ram ji, if it's not too much of a problem please send the mail to my account too.

my email is in my profile signature.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 27 Aug 2009 22:33

Dak e Bijli to this nacheez too

busyinpakistandoingpakistaniyat@zardari.pk.10%

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 27 Aug 2009 22:33

Pankajs,

I'm only talking about the CTBT... not whether the TN was a "fizzle" or not... As the good doc said, choose whom you want to believe.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 27 Aug 2009 22:39

Better believe Wallace than Chidambaram or Govermad of India,
The enimies know what we are and they will attack us on their choice and timing, then we will respond by floating tenders...

rest all is fuzool ki baataien

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Aug 2009 22:41

Anujan wrote:
What angle is it ?

Wise words, also just read RajaRams piece. Wonderful both of them and they also show clear unity of purpose while approaching it from completely different angles.

I concur.

-------------------

However -- the debate is needed so that Sanathans voice does not get lost, and the attack must be on the current GoI, since it is them who can call for the test now. It is they who must be pressurized (I am not anti congress -- it is pro India)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Aug 2009 22:44

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

snow sahab, the blog and BR are separate entities. please keep it that way.
there is no need to figure out blog posters by their BR usernames or vice versa.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 27 Aug 2009 22:45

John Snow garu,

you know very well that for attaining the ultimate truth, we hindus believe that you have to take a leap of faith and not rely on gnana marga alone. For only that will take us beyond the magical veil of maya. If Santhanam garu says something we have to regard it as something close to truth. For he was close to the ultimate reality.

But what is he saying? Is he like Yudishtra when it came to ashwathama?

you sir are all knowing one, so will get the drift of what I am saying

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 Aug 2009 22:48

raja ram ji, wonderfully articulated. and I think anujan says it perfectly for me.

posting it again since every word is worth it :

Anujan wrote:
Sanku wrote:Why?
Because that would be missing the forest for the trees. In both cases, the answer is simple -- we must test.

The question about whether Santhanam was speaking out against the guvrmand (which will cause our guvrmand to go into ostrich mode) or speaking for the guvrmand (which will cause scientist and bhajpha to go into ostrich mode), will prevent the only possible solution from being carried out. We must test.

Remember what it took to do Pok-II, PVN passing a note to ABV and ABV giving a go ahead with the cooperation of the top echelons of the scientific community. Such a cooperation is needed for any future testing. So lets not debate who was the culprit, this will only cause one or more parties whose cooperation is needed, to go into hunker down mode.

Let us discuss angles. There are only three angles, the cheeni angle and the US angle. (The paki angle is irrelevant, we have enough fission bums and delivery systems to glass them thrice over.). Testing now can serve only one of three purposes. 1. To demonstrate to the cheenis that we are able, willing and ready. 2. To demonstrate to unkil, if he pressurizes us on shittybitty and other 3 or 4 letter treaties, we *will* test. Desh has enough rabble rousers to whip up a frenzy among aam aadmi and so manipulating a few people in the guvrmand wont work. 3. Internal coup of scientists against the top echelon who conducted the test.

What angle is it ?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 27 Aug 2009 22:50

Deleted

Devendra · Post by **Devendra** » 27 Aug 2009 22:51

Raja Ram

Please send it to following id

deven@iitk.ac.in
thanks in advance

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Aug 2009 22:51

--deleted--

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 27 Aug 2009 22:55

Pokhran-II: Did Buddha really smile?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 27 Aug 2009 22:59

yes one thing for sure we need Tests.

we dont know where in world Carmen sandiego is

Kalam Directed
Chidambaram Conceived
Anil produced
Santhanam Chipped
Mahajan clapped
LKg gloated
Jasoo bloated
India Shined
Uncle Sanctioned.
ABV declared
Wallace faulted
MMS signed
Parliament defaulted
Now Naked.

kittoo · Post by **kittoo** » 27 Aug 2009 23:00

I hope my small post count doesnt deter you from sending me the mail RajaRam sir. I too am fan of your 'rambles' and would like to read your take on it. Could you please send it to-

Got it sir...

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 27 Aug 2009 23:14

This thread should be merged with the "Capitulation at Sharam el Sheik"

Here is what Santanam actually said, per the report, and its context:

He said, "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."

Sources claim that Santhanam had admitted that the test was a fizzle during a discussion on CTBT organised by IDSA.

IOW, he just used the "phoren experts" nonprollotullahs' claim against them. That's all that he has done.

BTW, isn't Chagai Hills in Balochistan?

Sarma · Post by **Sarma** » 27 Aug 2009 23:26

Narayanan garu:

Please clarify. Santhanam also refers to "based on seismic measurements ..., it is clear"

This is a very clear statement, and it does not seem that he is merely passing off somebody's judgment. To me, he is making a statement on the quality of Shakti-I and not just reiterating the western opinion of the tests.

Thanks
Sarma

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Aug 2009 23:30

Sarma Ji
He is doing both so we dont know if or which Ashwathama is alive.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 27 Aug 2009 23:31

Raja Ramsaar please send dak to this talib's dak patha of bijushet at gemale dat Kaum

yossarian · Post by **yossarian** » 27 Aug 2009 23:35

Just wondering why NDTV doesnt believe this is any sort of news?

There has not been a single report, denial, confirmation or otherwise. Ofcourse they are running an exclusive on how BJP is infighting and another on a tribute to Michael Jackson, I would call that an NDTV 'Fizzle'. Mr. Som, is Mr. Roy stifling you?

Sarma · Post by **Sarma** » 27 Aug 2009 23:37

Here is a news article, where Sri K Santhanam presents a more-nuanced position, and it is clear beyond doubt that he believes that the Shakti-I was not an unqualified success. Please read on. We should take Sri Santhanam's words very seriously and not attribute everything to some yindoo chankian thought.

http://blog.taragana.com/n/scientific-c ... am-151254/

NEW DELHI - Top defence scientist Dr.K. Santhanam said on Thursday that the scientific community in India had felt after the May 1998 nuclear tests that there should be another test to complete the research.

Speaking to ANI after controversially revealing that Pokhran II tests were not entirely successful Santhanam said: “The Science and Technology Community as a whole wanted to have some more tests.”

“…but conducting a nuclear test is a highly political decision, and no matter the wish of scientific community may be, the political leadership of the country will have its say,” he added.

Santhanam also clarified that he had at no stage said the tests were a complete failure.

“I didn’t say it was a failure but partially successful,” Santhanam added.

He also said that in the reports given to the government, the scientists had mentioned the outcome of their experiments.

“The scientific community placed its reports about the out come of the tests. They are highly classified and the political leadership of the country is aware about that,” he said.

Maintaining his stand to go for more tests before signing CTBT or NPT Santhanam said, “Many people in the administration knew that India is in need of another test.”

“The energy released after the blast were measured and the energy release was much lower than what was expected by the designers. It was not a surprise to me,” Santhanam recalled.

India tested five nuclear devices including two-sub kilo category of thermo nuclear devices code named “Operation Shakti,” on May 11 and 13, 1998 at Pokhran in Rajasthan.

Countering Santhanam’s views, former National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra said: “When they (scientists) said about the success of the tests in 1998, May 11 and 13, we asked whether they want to go for another test, but they (scientists) said No, and were satisfied by the tests.”

“It was very clear that based on their report only, we have announced it to the world. We have not lied to any one,” Mishra said adding it was only then that plans developed to discuss civil nuclear co-operation with the United States.

” In the entire scientific history, no country has gained 100 percent success in its first test of thermo nuclear device…if we get a chance, India should go for another test, especially of a thermonuclear device.” Santhanam said.

He, however, cautioned the country’s political leadership against signing either Comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT) or Non - proliferation treaty (NPT).

The NPT is a highly discriminative treaty and divides the whole world into a nuclear haves and have nots, “Santhanam claimed.

Santhanam said the new Indo- US nuclear deal does not come in the way of going for more tests.

“There is one clause in the Indo- US nuclear deal that if the security scenario around the country changes, then we can go for a test, and the country’s leadership should take a decision to go for a test taking confidence of all the factors involved,” Santhanam said. By Shreeraj Gudi(ANI)

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Aug 2009 23:43

For a change, from NPA blog:

Yes, Virginia, India’s H-bomb fizzled.

K Santhanam (who was director of test site preparations for India’s 1998 nuclear tests; pictured above, handing the firing keys to the range safety officer) has admitted what everyone else has known for a long time — that India’s 1998 test of a thermonuclear device was unsuccessful:

“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,’‘ Santhanam told [the Times of India] on Wednesday.

[snip]

Sources said that Santhanam had admitted that the test was a fizzle during a discussion on CTBT organised by IDSA. Karnad also participated in the seminar. He told TOI that no country has succeeded in achieving targets with only its first test of a thermonuclear device.

“Two things are clear; that India should not sign CTBT and that it needs more thermonuclear device tests,’‘ said Santhanam.

This is a subject we have covered in some detail here at Arms Control Wonk.com (see The Bomb, Dmitry. The Hydrogen Bomb, 10 April 2005.)

1. Yes, India’s thermonuclear device probably probably did fizzle, looking at the seismic data.

2. Some Indian scientists, including the former chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission PK Iyengar and now Santhanam, keep pointing out this somewhat embarrassing fact because it is part of an argument for India to resume nuclear testing.

3. India’s evident need to resume testing to complete development of a thermonuclear device is the principal reason that I opposed a “clean” NSG exemption for India (See: Will India Test Again?, 23 June 2008 ).

Here is my original post on the subject, reproduced because I am lazy and I recall the reading list was somewhat helpful:

Did India successfully test a two-stage thermonuclear device in May 1998?

There are substantial reasons for skepticism. India claimed that it detonated three devices on 11 May 1998 at Pokhran (right)—a 43-kiloton thermonuclear explosion, a 12-kiloton fission explosion and a 0.2-kiloton fission explosion. (India then claims to have conducted low yield tests on 13 May 1998.)

Seismic analyses (particularly Wallace et al) conclude the cumulative yield for the 11 May tests was only 12-kilotons. A yield that low is probably “too small to have been a full test of a thermonuclear weapon”—suggesting the test fizzled.

The US intelligence community reportedly shares this conclusion. Govenment officials told Mark Hibbs of Nucleonics Week that analysts from Livermore’s Z Division “have now concluded that the second stage of a two-stage Indian hydrogen bomb device failed to ignite as planned.” Subsequently, “senior U.S. expert” confirmed to Hibbs that this account was correct.

Indian scientists have been quick to dispute these estimates, arguing that Western scientists have made inaccurate assumptions about the geography of the Indian test site. This argument has always struck me as unconvincing, in part because of data that has been presented from the 1974 test.

A former chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission, PK Iyengar, has used calculations similar to those of Wallace et al to suggest that the second stage of the two-stage thermonuclear weapon failed to ignite—“the fusion core burnt only partially, perhaps less than 10 per cent.” Iyengar, however, has an axe to grind—he wants India to resume nuclear testing.

Such failures have plagued new nuclear designers before. China’s seventh nuclear test (CHICOM 7)—and second thermonuclear weapon—also fizzled, resulting in a yield estimated at the time between 15-25 KT.

Similarly, Livermore’s first attempt at “super” also failed—resulting from what Herb York called “a simple design flaw … engendered by the novelty of the technology and by our inexperience.”

Sources:

Brian Barker et al, “Monitoring Nuclear Tests,” Science 281:5385 (25 September 25, 1998) 1967-68 (subscription).

Mark Hibbs,”India May Test Again Because H-Bomb Failed, U.S. Believes,” Nucleonics Week 39:48 (26 November 1998) 1.

Mark Hibbs, “Because H-Bomb Fuel Didn’t Burn, Iyengar Pleads For Second Test,” Nucleonics Week (1 June 2000) 6.

PK Iyengar, “Nuclear Nuances,” The Times of India (22 August 2000) (full text in the comments).

SK Sikka et al,”The recent Indian Nuclear Tests: A Seismic Overview,” Current Science 79:9 (10 November 2000) 1359-1366 (draft).

Gregory van der Vink et al, “False Accusations, Undetected Tests and Implications for the CTB Treaty,” Arms Control Today 28:4 (May 1998) 7-13).

Terry C. Wallace, “The May 1998 India and Pakistan Nuclear Tests,” Seismological Research Letters 69 (September 1998) 386-393 (preprint).]

Herbert York, Making Weapons, Talking Peace: A Physicist’s Odyssey from Hiroshima to Geneva (Basic Books, 1987) 78.

Comment
Nuclear Nuances

Credible Deterrent Through Testing

By P K IYENGAR, August 2000

(The author is former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission)

AFTER a long period of indecision and ambivalence regarding its nuclear preparedness, India detonated five nuclear devices in May 1998. Consequently, it declared itself a nuclear weapons country. However, it is unlikely that we will be accepted as a weapons country under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), because there is no provision for threshold states maturing to become nuclear powers.

When Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visits the US next month, the CTBT will certainly be one of the important issues raised by the Americans. There may be political arguments both for and against signing the CTBT, but if we have decided to follow a policy of nuclear deterrence, which will require weaponisation, then, scientifically, we have no option but to continue testing. It is the scientific case that I wish to make here.

If one goes by the numbers for the total nuclear yield put out by the Department of Atomic Energy, which I see no reason to dispute, the yield of the thermonuclear device detonated on May 11, 1998 was around 40 kilotons. This is a rather low yield. If the yield was deliberately kept low to restrict damage to the nearby villages, then surely it would have been more sensible to test the thermonuclear device separately, and not along with the 15 kt fission device. Now, the thermonuclear device itself consisted of two parts: the fission trigger and the fusion core.

The crucial question is not what the total yield of the device was, but what was the ratio of fission energy to fusion energy? Clearly, for a given total yield, the greater the fraction of the fusion energy, the more efficient is your thermonuclear device. In my opinion, that ratio musts have been around 1:1, and no one has so far, to my knowledge either publicly or privately, disputed that number. Therefore, by my estimate, the fusion yield could not have been more than 20 kt. Further, it seems likely that a fission `spark-plug’ was used at the centre of the fusion core, in which case the actual fusion yield would have been even less.

Sticking to the larger number of a 20 kt fusion yield, one can easily calculate that the amount of LiD fusion material needed would be only around 400 grams or around 500 cc. This is a very small size for the fusion core, and the actual core used must certainly have been much larger. This suggests that the fusion core burnt only partially, perhaps less than 10 per cent. This can easily be checked; if the burn was only partial, there should have been a lot of tritium produced, which should have been detected after the explosions.

In such a complex system as a two-stage thermonuclear device, getting any burn at all is a credit to the abilities of the scientists and engineers of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). However, a thermonuclear device that only burns partially is certainly inefficient. Logically and scientifically, the next step would be to improve the design of the device to achieve greater efficiency. This is particularly important from the point of view of a weaponisation programme.

The government has declared a policy of maintaining a minimum nuclear deterrent. Nuclear deterrence means that we have a demonstrable nuclear capability that deters a potential adversary from attacking us. For us to have a nuclear deterrent we must weaponise. For this, we must have fusion weapons, because these are smaller, lighter, and more efficient than fission weapons. But for that deterrent to be viable, we must master all aspects of thermonuclear weapons, and demonstrate that expertise not just in one, but many thermonuclear designs, particularly those of greater efficiency.

Whether that should include a neutron bomb or not, is not of the essence. In a neutron bomb, one establishes a thermonuclear burn by igniting only a part of the core, and making the burn propagate. This is the crux of the matter in designing an efficient thermonuclear device. One may not have a neutron bomb in one’s arsenal, but it would strengthen our abilities if we successfully tested one.

Some people argue that we have benchmarked our computer simulations using the data from the Pokhran tests, and, therefore, further weapons can be designed based on those computer simulations. We should note that we have conducted only one thermonuclear test, and that too of low yield. It is, as mentioned before, likely that this device burnt only partially. Devices that are more efficient will have to be built. In order to weaponise, we will need missile-mountable devices, which will have a different geometry. They will also have to be of higher yield. Then these will have to be made compact, and integrated with delivery as well as command and control systems. Can our nuclear deterrent be credible if we go through this long process of weaponisation without a single additional test? The bottom line is that we just cannot hand over to the army, or deter potential aggressors with, weapons based on computer simulations.

It is unscientific to embark on a long programme of weaponisation, and develop elaborate plans for maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent, all based on just one, low yield, thermonuclear test. When we do not do this for the Agni or Prithvi missiles, why would we want to take this risk for nuclear weapons? I am sure that the BARC scientists themselves, like their DRDO counterparts, would prefer to take a more conservative approach and test further to refine their designs and their capabilities. This is the scientific way. It would be wrong for the government to pressure the scientists to put a premature end to nuclear tests, for political expediency.

In principle, India accepts nuclear disarmament, and hopes its problems will be solved if all countries accept non-discriminatory, global, nuclear disarmament. Yet, this is unlikely to happen, from what we see around us as well as in the `N5’ (five nuclear weapons) countries. In spite of long and friendly discussions with the US, we haven’t come to any concrete decision relating to a new status under the CTBT. If we are to maintain our independence in today’s world, it is essential for us to have a credible nuclear deterrent, and this requires us to continue testing.

— Jeffrey Lewis · Aug 27, 09:08 AM ·

Mnhm-hmnh. As the prospect of ratifying the CTBT draws closer, we can expect to hear more of how everyone’s weapons don’t work well enough to give up testing.

That’s not to say that I don’t believe that India’s H-bomb didn’t work as planned. The evidence is there.

From the United States, we can expect to hear that there are hitherto undisclosed safety questions that can only be resolved by testing, although this ploy becomes less and less credible with repetition, along with the assurances that the RRW doesn’t need testing.

Or, come to think of it, maybe it does!

— Cheryl Rofer · Aug 27, 09:18 AM ·

Is this cool or what?

I remember what happened when I wrote that article in the fall of 1998 saying in the headline that the US had concluded that the Indian “H-Bomb failed.”

Almost overnight after the article was published I got a huge bundle of papers from BARC and DAE sent to me by diplomatic pouch from Mumbai informing me with all kinds of numbers that I was wrong.

I gave the papers to laboratory geoscientists at several European countries and the US. One main CTBTO monitoring scientist told me explicitly: “Nope. The stuff in these papers is shitty science. They haven’t shown that you are wrong.”

That having been said, please note however that, as PK Iyengar had made the case to me back a decade ago, once again this “news” is surfacing in India because their bomb makers want to keep testing. Some things in India are changing fast. Other things aren’t.

— mark hibbs · Aug 27, 09:57 AM ·

I got into a huge pissing match with the Indians on this issue as I was the principal author of Barker et. al. 1998 which had the yield estimates far below the Indian press releases. A number of Indian scientists tried to submit a comment to Science rebutting our analysis. We asked them to provide the in-country seismic data on which they based their analysis, but they refused. Luckily, in the end, their comment was rejected and never published.

On a related note, I saw the other day that wikipedia has a glowing description of the Indian 1998 tests, citing the inflated yields and saying the tests were a huge technical accomplishment. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokhran-II

In the next day or so, I plan to submit a corrected analysis.

— charles meade · Aug 27, 10:48 AM ·

Charles, I recall one of your co-authors back then explained to me in nitty-gritty detail your frustration on this with these guys. Please do correct the record for posterity.

— mark hibbs · Aug 27, 11:14 AM ·

Their arguments at the time were quite remarkable. They said that our seismic data didn’t reflect the true yield because of a complex interference pattern caused by the simultaneous tests. Under these circumstances, they said that one could only obtain the correct yield from near field data. We said, “fine, show it to us”. They refused and that was the end of their paper.

— charles meade · Aug 27, 12:24 PM ·

The Indian argument:
For us to have a nuclear deterrent we must weaponise. For this, we must have fusion weapons, because these are smaller, lighter, and more efficient than fission weapons.

is a lot of hooey.

They claim to be building a deterrent force, not a war-fighting arsenal with a counter-force capability.

For the size and mass of their likely early-generation fusion designs, they can instead use basic fission bombs yielding in the multi-dekakiloton range – multiples of the hell weapons that incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That should be sufficient to deter any rational adversary. And if they aren’t rational, then you have no deterrent.

=========================
A nice discussion of the actual yields of the Indian tests is from Carey Sublette back in 2001, here

— Yale Simkin · Aug 27, 12:40 PM ·

kittoo · Post by **kittoo** » 27 Aug 2009 23:47

Thanks RajaRam ji, got the mail.
Great analysis and it shed light on some new angles. But in the end most of us are agreeing that before we call it a day, a few more tests are needed.

Javee · Post by **Javee** » 27 Aug 2009 23:48

Yeah, Santhanam's interview is all maya onlee, may be GoI is softening the playground

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Aug 2009 23:48

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

If the SS denotes "Schutzstaffel" then probably, yes.

Pls link the post where he concurred with me so i too can enjoy.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 27 Aug 2009 23:54

Anujan wrote: The question about whether Santhanam was speaking out against the guvrmand (which will cause our guvrmand to go into ostrich mode) or speaking for the guvrmand (which will cause scientist and bhajpha to go into ostrich mode), will prevent the only possible solution from being carried out. We must test.

What he says is different from what BK and other are saying. To sample it, he says, We cannot sign CTBT, need to conduct many more tests. But it has political implication and there also economic ramification. Becoz of these we cannot test so we should not sign CTBT.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 28 Aug 2009 00:03

Raja Ram

can you please send it to balaji_b4 at hot ma le dat com

Surya

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Aug 2009 00:05

Kanson wrote:
What he says is different from what BK and other are saying. To sample it, he says, We cannot sign CTBT, need to conduct many more tests. But it has political implication and there also economic ramification. Becoz of these we cannot test so we should not sign CTBT.

I am not sure if he is saying that, but even if he is, Makes sense to me, you want to score 10 out of 10 in the exam, but cant but that does not mean you dont try and score 7/10 and instead leave the paper blank.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Aug 2009 00:05

deleted...

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 28 Aug 2009 00:10

Sanku wrote:
Kanson wrote:
What he says is different from what BK and other are saying. To sample it, he says, We cannot sign CTBT, need to conduct many more tests. But it has political implication and there also economic ramification. Becoz of these we cannot test so we should not sign CTBT.
I am not sure if he is saying that, but even if he is, Makes sense to me, you want to score 10 out of 10 in the exam, but cant but that does not mean you dont try and score 7/10 and instead leave the paper blank.

The emphasis is on how he arrives at the conclusion.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Aug 2009 00:13

Rajaram Please post a clean version here or you will be inundated with e-mail requests.

- Indian deterrence is not broken. It just needs more of them. So FMCO is out as India needs more to do the same.
- Even in my first post I had alluded that its GOI signalling on the CTBT pressure. And the need for Arihant payload proofing.
- Nothing is solved by blaming anyone. It was a GOI policy decision to declare the morotarium. Santhanam supporting the nuke deal is the right thing for it got the NSG sanctions lifted.

And about the nuke deal. As Obama admin doesnt want to do any thing to carry forward the deal its a non starter, as they wont have any leverage anyway if India decides to proof its arsenal. IOW Obama admin is ultra vires to Indian nukes anyway. There is nothing India can do that will mollify them. Only thing ois resumption of testing for that will change the whole CTBT charade. The PRC needs to proof all the codes it recieved as part of deal and not use NoKo anymore.

According to WOP the scientists knew soon after they looked at crater for S-1. Go and read that. RC said some stuff about shaft was oversized etc.

The NPAs dont realize what they are doing. Let them gloat.

More once I read Rajaram's e-mail.