Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14734
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 29 Aug 2009 22:39

Friends Further testing is needed, fizzle or sizzle debate not withstanding. If anything written here offends anyone, let me know and I will remove it. Only selected portion is being posted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Stockpile Stewardship Program at Los Alamos National Laboratory
http://appropriations.senate.gov/download.cfm?file=2008_04_16_-Energy-_Testimony_of_Michael_R_Anastasio_at_the_April_16_Energy_and_Water_Subcommittee_Hearing.pdf&dir=Hearings

The Stockpile Stewardship Program @ Los Alamos National Laboratory
Hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations U.S. Senate
April 16, 2008

Michael R. Anastasio, Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Opening Remarks
The Los Alamos National Laboratory remains committed to sustaining confidence in the United States’ nuclear weapons stockpile through a more fundamental science-based understanding of weapons performance, safety, and security. I am keenly aware of the daunting technical challenges demanded by this mission, requiring the best science, engineering, and technology that we can muster. I am responsible for providing this set of capabilities and skills for today and, equally important, ensuring that they are sustainable over the long term.

Development of the Stockpile Stewardship Program
My first key theme is that the Stockpile Stewardship Program has been the correct program for the United States, even though it presents extreme technical challenges.

In 1995, the United States embarked on an ambitious effort to sustain the nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing, an effort for which we could not guarantee success. [By 1998 our BARC scientists where 400% confident of building NEW weapons just based on 6 tests. These bums, after more than 1000 tests where not confident of being able to certify existing weapons stockpile.]

This decision was a very significant policy shift because the scientific and engineering capabilities needed to confidently execute this program did not then exist. [And we had to go through so many hoops to be recognized as a country with advanced nuclear technology, when way back in 1998 our scientists had mastered simulation and what not with just 6 test. I tell you there is great injustice in this world.]

Congress, the White House, the relevant Executive Branch agencies, and the national laboratories outlined a core set of requirements that would be needed to take on this challenge. All involved understood that it would take at least a decade to bring together all the complicated elements of the new Stockpile Stewardship Program. It was also understood that success was in no way guaranteed because of the unprecedented scale of cutting edge science needed to accomplish this mission. [There he goes again, success no way guaranteed, etc, etc. Shut-up B**ch. Come visit us at BARC and we will show you how it is done.]

The approach relies upon developing, and validating through inter-laboratory peer review, a more fundamental scientific and engineering understanding of the performance, safety, and security of weapon operations. [Man UR never going to make it! U need peer review, for what! We at BARC do not believe in peer-sheer review. All just to prove how scientific you are…Sheesh!]

This fundamental approach is based on a much more extensive range of non-nuclear above-ground testing and a vastly improved simulation capability—calculations with high resolution both in spatial description and in physical models. These calculations are necessary for addressing issues requiring extrapolation beyond tested regimes. The existing nuclear test database is used as a crucial resource for challenging the validity of these improved simulations. Ultimately, expert judgment and rigorous peer review assures that critical conclusions are drawn from the best available data, appropriate high-resolution simulation outputs, and results from the suite of evolving testing capabilities. Sound science is always at the core of our confidence. [Now we are on the same page! But what is this nonsense about nuclear test database? We just have data from 6 tests but see our simulation is so powerful that it is all that is needed]

Tools of Science-based Stockpile Stewardship
With the loss of the ability to test the integrated operation of a weapon, more technically sophisticated and more frequent nonnuclear above-ground tests were essential. We judged at the time that these tests should include at a minimum:
• subcritical experiments to elucidate the dynamic behavior of plutonium driven by high explosives (now proceeding at the U1a facility at the Nevada Test Site);
• advanced radiographic experiments with multiple images and enhanced spatial resolution to provide multiple sequential views of high-explosive implosion dynamics with very fine detail (e.g., Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrotest Facility);
• ignition experiments to explore the fusion process crucial to the operation of modern warheads (e.g., National Ignition Facility); and
• enhanced surveillance tools for destructive and nondestructive testing and analysis to characterize the status of the stockpile.

[A lot of mumbo-jumbo. Trying to get extra funding I guess. Who needs all this!]
At the same time, we judged that our computer simulations would need to be enhanced at least one million times in order to incorporate the known physics and scientific resolution. We judged that this computational requirement was the minimum necessary to model subsystem behavior and predict integrated weapons safety, reliability and performance without underground testing.
[I can’t believe u need such powerful computers. I told you, our 6 data point model is much better than your 1000+ data point model. We were able to use 1998 computing resources for all our new weapons design!]

All of these capabilities were first-of-a-kind, requiring technical advances beyond the existing state of the art at the time. Because of technical challenges and funding limitations, all of these needed capabilities are still not yet fully in place 13 years later. [I don’t belive it! We were done by 1998 and by 2008 you say you still have not overcome all technical challenges. You should come to India and work in BARC to see real progress.]


Friends, it was a real eye opener reading this document, realizing how super super advanced our simulation has reached.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3170
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vera_k » 29 Aug 2009 22:40

arun wrote:Excerpt from an interview of Dr. S.K. Sikka by India Today's, Raj Chengappa.

But western researchers say they took all these distortions into account?

They never reveal how they came to such conclusions saying it is classified. Our findings are on the basis of sound scientific analysis. So let them refute it scientifically. We are not afraid of peer review. We have data from monitors close to the tests site which are far more sensitive and accurate. There are also other methods to measure the results of our tests. All of them clearly indicate that our thermonuclear device was successful. …………………

Indiia Today


There is a comment on the ACW blog that contradicts Dr. Sikka's version.

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.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 29 Aug 2009 22:43

We have some fundamental issues with our role in global community.

Do we want to be a regional power
Do we want to be a global power.
DO we want to be on par with PRC
Do we want to beyond that.

What is threshold of our holding the posture of NFU.

Who are we seeking detrrence aginst.

Does not deterrance mean that the enemy clearly knows our capabilities?

Couching in vague terms like expected results, met desired parameters is like bush saying "Mission accomplished"
Is there any engineering rational to say after 1 test we have a device working to our satisfaction especially acomplex system we are told.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 29 Aug 2009 22:44

RajeshA wrote:
India needs to be a nuclear weapon state: Kalam
Very very important statement from Ex-president Kalam. Note the words he used.

One who has not, "Needs". IOW India is not a reached the point where it IS a nuclear weapon state. It Needs to be one.

Satya Vachan

Arun_S ji,
I am all for more testing, so don't take me wrong, but from PoV of semantics

"to be" can be interpreted both ways, as "to become" or "to remain", as it merely refers to an imperative, but it does not say whether the imperative has been heeded to or will have to be heeded in the future.

So "India needs to be a nuclear-weapon state" can be interpreted as "India needs to be a nuclear-weapon state, and that is why we have deployed nuclear-weapons", ie. "India needs to remain a nuclear-weapon state".

It can of course also mean, that "India needs to become a nuclear-weapon state", as you have implied.

Only a further thesis on how President APJ Kalam uses the verb "to be" can clarify all lingering doubts. :wink:

Just playing with semantics.

Read the full sentence of Ex-President APJ Kalam : "India needs to be a nuclear-weapon state, as other nations are well-equipped" meaning India needs to be a full fledged NW state, well-equipped with nuclear weapons (I.e. in quantity, TN yield and payload range on various delivery vehicles). Right now India is just a newly un-virgin-ed boy, to have "strength respects strength" clout it needs to carry a exclusive harem of shakti. We dont even know if RC was man enough to "Nathh-utaar" the TN bum, yet he announced he fathered a son who died after birth, and no one has seen the fabled "Peacock dance in the Jungle".

Apologies for my rustic simile to convey the message.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 29 Aug 2009 22:46

Tanaji wrote:Subbarao was cleared of any wrong doing by the highest court in the land.


Being let off a criminal charge doesn't mean he is innocent.

The former US ambassador admits this was a CIA operation. He protected the CIA case handler and later wonders if Subbarao was a "double agent" all along.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby enqyoob » 29 Aug 2009 22:48

Sanku :(( :(( :

narayanan wrote:
Yes, KS said all that :mrgreen: if you just read and think carefully through his short statements.

Now back to the wailing and ranting...


And narayanan repeats that. :mrgreen:

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 29 Aug 2009 22:49

Gerard wrote:
Tanaji wrote:Subbarao was cleared of any wrong doing by the highest court in the land.


Being let off a criminal charge doesn't mean he is innocent.

Gerard saab, is that how the legal system and constitution works in India? I am amazed.

Similar things have been unraveled from KGB record that were opened up for public scrutiny after USSR disintegration, implicating Mrs Gandhi, and Rajeev Gandhi Family. And some evidence that Subramanyam Swamy had unearthed against Mrs Sonia Gandhi. You pick.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 29 Aug 2009 22:57

Gerard wrote:We are at 18 pages and no closer to knowing the 'truth' or 'proving' anything.

We have one group of people saying something and another group saying something else.

Not one iota of extra information has been released. We have statements from the politicians, the bureaucracy and the military yet none reveal the numbers of warheads, their type, their yield, the number of delivery systems. Nothing additional about the 1998 tests either.


But why was it expected to be otherwise? We cant prove anything legalistically here.

We can only take the data and form theories and put circumstantial supporting evidence.

Every one here can chose what seems more probable to them -- but why
1) Mock ?
2) Call for end debate?

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

Finally do people see who things are playing out

1) Man Mohan says -- since Kalam said test successful
2) Kalam says -- since RC said, test successful
3) RC says -- what do you mean of course test successful

0) Santy says -- how test successful? Which data says? OTOH lot of data says test unsucessful.

So pretty much everyone has washed their hands off the whole thing and based it on how truthful RC was -- and Santy is questioning that approach from fundamental principles.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 29 Aug 2009 22:59

Gerard wrote:
Tanaji wrote:Subbarao was cleared of any wrong doing by the highest court in the land.


Being let off a criminal charge doesn't mean he is innocent.

The former US ambassador admits this was a CIA operation. He protected the CIA case handler and later wonders if Subbarao was a "double agent" all along.


Umm you need to speak to Narayanan off line. He claims that this is never possible if GoI has NSA any person who has signed on it cant speak anything on it otherwise Govt will send him to jail and SC will nod assent.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 29 Aug 2009 22:59

Gerard saab, is that how the legal system and constitution works in India? I am amazed.


That is the way things are in the real world. We are not in some civics class in school. These sort of accusations hang like a cloud and when confirmed by outside sources, condemn the accused.

Or are to to believe all what judges say? Godhra was an accident says Justice Banerjee. Was it?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby negi » 29 Aug 2009 23:00

I agree we do not have facts nor figures to make any claims; and infact none of my posts are about refuting the GOI's or BARC's stand about success of the TN device.

My concerns are only about the noises being made about the signing of the CTBT specially when the emphasis is being laid on the fact that 'our tests were successful and we don't need any more tests' I have never heard anyone say such a thing in any field of knowledge/science ...specially if concerned parties indeed wish to acquire more knowledge or make progress.

My apprehensions are about the idea of signing the CTBT doing rounds in the upper echelons of the GOI. I see KS's outburst as an alarm indicating the same.But then I could be wrong and the scenario being put forth by N^3 might be infact true (and I hope that is the case) .

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 29 Aug 2009 23:01

when Gerad edited my postmentioning the same, I was perturbed but....
The onus of proving some guilty lies on the system or persons who brought the charges themselves. Innocent till proven guilty.

Even Van ho lee was aquitted like that

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 29 Aug 2009 23:02

pankajs wrote:
Friends, it was a real eye opener reading this document, realizing how super super advanced our simulation has reached.


Yes actually this was discussed during the Nuke deal, I then realized that we are so advanced that we can actually make words written in English on a legal text mean something else if we chose.

I also realized today that India has a 400% effective legal system.

We are stupid whiners only.
Last edited by Sanku on 29 Aug 2009 23:26, edited 1 time in total.

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby tejas » 29 Aug 2009 23:03

I was unaware the CTBT loophole allowing testing on national security grounds applied only to NWS, of which India is pointedly NOT. The treaty is thus even Shittier and Bittier from India's pov than I had thought.

BO and company have no respect (nor should they) for India. When in impoverished and nook nude China could take on the US in Korea 60 years ago, when if ever, will India be able to stand up to the unbearable hypocrisy of the NPT ? If the US via the NSG will blackmail even non-NSG countries into denying India uranium, then build 200,000 MW of coal fired plants kick in another 100,000 MW of solar/wind power and no need for imported LWRs.

If self-respect is always 10-20 yrs. away we will forever be a banana republic. I have a feeling I'm beating my head against a wall as I still recall the pandemonium in India's parliament when Slick Willie visited after Pok II. India was under various sanctions where many of its scientists were treated like dogs when attempting to get visas for international scientific conferences. Yet it was quite difficult to make out Slick Willie after his useless speech as he was surrounded by dhoti clad SDRE MPs trying to kiss his hand.

It was at that point I realized why India is in the state its in. A country that worships foreigners and a people that don't care if its cities and roads are named after Islamic mass murderers/rapists 60 years after partition has no hope. Yet there is always a small wish inside me that India could one day get a leader who could call a spade a spade and dish out a little of what India has been getting fed throughout its history. APJ Kalam was quoted a few times that India should have smashed the MTCR through exports of missiles, of course that was never done.

Some nations/people will bite off a hand that is being used to choke them. Others will fight with each other over who can be the first to kiss it. Are we forever condemned to be the latter?

JMT.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby negi » 29 Aug 2009 23:05

Captain Subbarao's case is completely different we cannot draw an analogy to recent developments from any angle what so ever.He should indeed consider himself lucky had it been some other Government he would have been taken care of in an appropriate way by now.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 29 Aug 2009 23:06

negi wrote:My concerns are only about the noises being made about the signing of the CTBT specially when the emphasis is being laid on the fact that 'our tests were successful and we don't need any more tests' I have never heard anyone say such a thing in any field of knowledge/science ...specially if concerned parties indeed wish to acquire more knowledge or make progress.


In fact we can use this absurd methodology -- it works because XYZ said so and carry on to the deduction that something is fishy.

The actual problem is not whether it fizzled or not, big deal things fizzle and are put right again. Stuff happens.

The bigger issue is that the entire Nuke deal is built on the edifice of never testing. CTBT through back door. If we test the deal falls through.

And those who have made their fortunes (political ones) cant allow it to happen.

So US will do 1000 tests as close as 2 decades ago and still worry about their stewardship program etc. While WE WILL announce -- "we made one test now we never need to test again everything is fine forever"

This sort of illogical stuff comes only because of the vested interest in the deal.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 29 Aug 2009 23:07

I agree we do not have facts nor figures to make any claims;


Exactly.

We do not even have public debate on this by interested parties.

Where is the Indian equivalent of General Curtis LeMay? Where is the equivalent of Robert McNamara? Or Jacques Chirac?

Has any official called for proof testing before induction? Have weapons been handed over to military custody?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 29 Aug 2009 23:14

Being thrifty we had all three in Gen Sundarji!

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby negi » 29 Aug 2009 23:16

Gerard ji ; I will speak for myself here (for as Shiv ji said now that board has hundreds of members it is obvious opinions and theories put forth by everyone might not be in synch).

I am least bothered about the yields and the technical details TN test , why ? I no nothing about the TN stuff . However I will definitely be alarmed if there are mutually conflicting statements emanating from people who at some point in time have been involved with India's NW programme.

KS has never directly challenged the GOI's official press release on the achieved yields ; he has quoted third party resources and then made a conclusion that we need to test and emphasized on the part about not singing the CTBT.

Kalam sir's pov too re-iterates the same i.e. he clarifies the doubts over the TN test itself but he does re-emphasize the need for India to become a NWS.

The only way to get the NWS tag is either to expand the P-5 and include India ; or keep the testing option open by not signing the CTBT.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15999
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby RajeshA » 29 Aug 2009 23:24

Arun_S wrote:Read the full sentence of Ex-President APJ Kalam : "India needs to be a nuclear-weapon state, as other nations are well-equipped" meaning India needs to be a full fledged NW state, well-equipped with nuclear weapons (I.e. in quantity, TN yield and payload range on various delivery vehicles). Right now India is just a newly un-virgin-ed boy, to have "strength respects strength" clout it needs to carry a exclusive harem of shakti. We dont even know if RC was man enough to "Nathh-utaar" the TN bum, yet he announced he fathered a son who died after birth, and no one has seen the fabled "Peacock dance in the Jungle".

Apologies for my rustic simile to convey the message.


MMS & Co. seem to be using President APJ Kalam as their authority on the issue of India's nuclear testing. His position viz-a-viz K Santhanam seems to be - Santhanam is not satisfied with the S-1, Kalam is. Both however seem to support a nuclear weapon strength parity with other countries.

So the critical question is "What does the Honorable President deem necessary to arrive at qualitative and to some extent quantitative parity?" - More Testing or just Computer Simulations?

Kalam ji needs to answer the question in the present circumstances.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Roemer promised, "big, bold and a broad series of undertakings" are expected during MMS's visit to USA in November. Is he just trying to say, that "joint cooperation in studying the mating habits of Lachs" would be the crowning glory, or is something on the nuclear non-proliferation front also expected?

Just a musing, Can USA share computer data of their testing with India, to get India to forego our option of further testing and sign-on to CTBT? Would NPT allow that? Can the data be reliable and trustworthy?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 29 Aug 2009 23:26

negi wrote:I am least bothered about the yields and the technical details TN test


RC has challenged KS to debate the data.

A Physicist/Weaponeer vs a Biochemist in a debate on device yields using seismic data from overseas with everything else classified? Clearly there is no intention to have these matters aired in public. GOI will not allow it. We will not get technical details.

The only way to get the NWS tag is either to expand the P-5 and include India ; or keep the testing option open by not signing the CTBT.


The tag and the UNSC seat are not important IMHO. Far better to have the nuclear deterrent and the economic muscle to back it up. The tags and seat follow.

Not signing the CTBT without adequate proof tests (President Chirac's position) seems obvious to jingos.

By his statements, KS has probabaly ensured there will be no unpleasant surprises or pressure when MMS visits Washington.

SagarP
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 02 Aug 2009 22:18

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby SagarP » 29 Aug 2009 23:27

Why test a TN devise when our yindoo fishermen can catch enough snapping (politicians) shrimps to cause bubble fusion. Just pass the mic to our beloved behenji and mamtadi and they will cause spontaneous sonoluminescence :rotfl:

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14734
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 29 Aug 2009 23:29

RajeshA wrote:Just a musing, Can USA share computer data of their testing with India, to get India to forego our option of further testing and sign-on to CTBT? Would NPT allow that? Can the data be reliable and trustworthy?

I guess that's how they mollified the French. In India's case, it is anyones guess....Reliability again without a single test of the data ....well

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 29 Aug 2009 23:30

Gerard wrote:RC has challenged KS to debate the data.

A Physicist/Weaponeer vs a Biochemist in a debate on device yields using seismic data from overseas with everything else classified? Clearly there is no intention to have these matters aired in public. GOI will not allow it. We will not get technical details.


Can I restate that as follows --

A weapon designer has challenged a weapon tester to the debate where the referee GoI has already announced that the test passed?

----------

If Santy was such a biochemist why put him as head of testing ny GoI only? Aint it too late to disparage him on the basis of his first educational degree without considering his experience?

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3304
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Tanaji » 29 Aug 2009 23:31

Gerard wrote:
Tanaji wrote:Subbarao was cleared of any wrong doing by the highest court in the land.


Being let off a criminal charge doesn't mean he is innocent.

The former US ambassador admits this was a CIA operation. He protected the CIA case handler and later wonders if Subbarao was a "double agent" all along.


He was not "let off", he was acquitted. By that reasoning, anyone who is accused is guilty, and if courts clear them, they are "let off". Like it or not, we have agreed to the principle of innocent till proved guilty, the government failed to prove its charge. This, even when it had the draconian OSA in its corner, where the government can essentially declare a photo of Arjun as a state secret. Speaks volumes about its case.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 29 Aug 2009 23:31

Tanaji wrote:
Gerard wrote:
Being let off a criminal charge doesn't mean he is innocent.

The former US ambassador admits this was a CIA operation. He protected the CIA case handler and later wonders if Subbarao was a "double agent" all along.


He was not "let off", he was acquitted. By that reasoning, anyone who is accused is guilty, and if courts clear them, they are "let off". Like it or not, we have agreed to the principle of innocent till proved guilty, the government failed to prove its charge. This, even when it had the draconian OSA in its corner, where the government can essentially declare a photo of Arjun as a state secret. Speaks volumes about its case.


Sort of like Col Purohits case today really.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 29 Aug 2009 23:32

negi wrote:Gerard ji ; I will speak for myself here (for as Shiv ji said now that board has hundreds of members it is obvious opinions and theories put forth by everyone might not be in synch).

I am least bothered about the yields and the technical details TN test , why ? I no nothing about the TN stuff . However I will definitely be alarmed if there are mutually conflicting statements emanating from people who at some point in time have been involved with India's NW programme.

KS has never directly challenged the GOI's official press release on the achieved yields ; he has quoted third party resources and then made a conclusion that we need to test and emphasized on the part about not singing the CTBT.

--------------
If people are hung up on K Santanam's qualifications, they should look up what RC's Phd is in.

Let me save the search. Its in crytallography. So dont appeal to false authority.

Kalam sir's pov too re-iterates the same i.e. he clarifies the doubts over the TN test itself but he does re-emphasize the need for India to become a NWS.

The only way to get the NWS tag is either to expand the P-5 and include India ; or keep the testing option open by not signing the CTBT.


This is the correct meaning of the KS disclosure. Without getting formal NWS status in the legal sense and not in de-facto sense, acceding to CTBT is premature. So if India is forced into the CTBT then it has to breakout. No two arguments about it.

Most likely MMS will say India will work towards consensus on the treaty when he is on DC.
And it means many things.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 29 Aug 2009 23:34

Gerard wrote:By his statements, KS has probabaly ensured there will be no unpleasant surprises or pressure when MMS visits Washington.
I am not so sure Gerard. India committing to a moratorium in exchange for a clean exemption, is effective CTBT. This horse has already bolted from the gates. If there is enough pressure, and potential tangible economic gains offered in exchange, I think MMS is willing to sign. I hope I am wrong.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 29 Aug 2009 23:40

ShauryaT wrote:
Gerard wrote:By his statements, KS has probabaly ensured there will be no unpleasant surprises or pressure when MMS visits Washington.
I am not so sure Gerard. India committing to a moratorium in exchange for a clean exemption, is effective CTBT. This horse has already bolted from the gates. If there is enough pressure, and potential tangible economic gains offered in exchange, I think MMS is willing to sign. I hope I am wrong.


No test clause in 123 was justified as saying we have a voluntary moratorium anyway.

CTBT will be justified by saying we have 123 anyway.

Salami slicing

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 29 Aug 2009 23:40

If Dr. K. Santhanam is being derided for being a biochemist, Dr. R. Chidambaram is crystallographer.
However both are steeped in Scientific method.


All,
BTW please read this to argue better in this thread.

Fallacies in Logic

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 29 Aug 2009 23:41

ramana wrote:If Dr. K. Santhanam is being derided fro being a biochemist, Dr. R. Chidambaram is crystallographer.


One has built nuclear weapons. The other hasn't.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 29 Aug 2009 23:43

Gerard wrote:
ramana wrote:If Dr. K. Santhanam is being derided fro being a biochemist, Dr. R. Chidambaram is crystallographer.


One has built nuclear weapons. The other hasn't.


Well the tester does not have to know how to build. In fact in the line of work that I am in, the good tester don't want to know how it is built.

It brings a fresh different perspective, checks and balances.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 29 Aug 2009 23:46

No wonder we have this problem.

On the cruise ship the PA system said "Is there a doctor on board? We have a blonde lady fainted at the pool!" Three of the four doctors who rushed to revive the patient were Doctors of Divinity!

shaardula
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2591
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 20:02

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shaardula » 29 Aug 2009 23:46

The only way to get the NWS tag is either to expand the P-5 and include India ; or keep the testing option open by not signing the CTBT.


what does this mean? how is tag a substitute to a working deterrent?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby negi » 29 Aug 2009 23:48

Gerard wrote:
The only way to get the NWS tag is either to expand the P-5 and include India ; or keep the testing option open by not signing the CTBT.

The tag and the UNSC seat are not important IMHO. Far better to have the nuclear deterrent and the economic muscle to back it up. The tags and seat follow.

And the only way to have the nuclear deterrent with current number of tests is:

1. Do not sign the CTBT
or
2. Get the NWS tag so that we can invoke the right to test if required clause.
Last edited by negi on 29 Aug 2009 23:51, edited 1 time in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 29 Aug 2009 23:50

negi wrote:And the only way to have the nuclear deterrent with current number of tests is:

1. Do not sign the CTBT
2. Get the NWS tag so that we can invoke the right to test if required clause.


And then test as soon as we get the tag.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby negi » 29 Aug 2009 23:51

shaardula wrote:
The only way to get the NWS tag is either to expand the P-5 and include India ; or keep the testing option open by not signing the CTBT.

what does this mean? how is tag a substitute to a working deterrent?

Because a NWS can test depending on 'ostensible' threat perception and still not be subjected to any sort of economic/trade embargo
Last edited by negi on 29 Aug 2009 23:54, edited 1 time in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 29 Aug 2009 23:51

http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/tr ... art09.html

ARTICLE IX

DURATION AND WITHDRAWAL

1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.

2. Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.

3. Withdrawal shall be effected by giving notice six months in advance to all other States Parties, the Executive Council, the Depositary and the United Nations Security Council. Notice of withdrawal shall include a statement of the extraordinary event or events which a State Party regards as jeopardizing its supreme interests.
ARTICLE XV

RESERVATIONS

The Articles of and the Annexes to this Treaty shall not be subject to reservations. The provisions of the Protocol to this Treaty and the Annexes to the Protocol shall not be subject to reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 29 Aug 2009 23:54

One more conspiracy theory -- GoI asked Santy to say this to test if anyone really cares about the deterrent and will anyone care if they do a S e S on the CTBT talks.

It turns out no one cares and hence CTBT will be signed.

----------

Hey that was jesting -- but since all sorts of spins are the order of the day instead of the simplest explanation, why not?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 29 Aug 2009 23:58

ramana wrote:

All,
BTW please read this to argue better in this thread.

Fallacies in Logic

I had sent this to everyone in my company. It is a good one.

Also, this square has never been circled, from Subbha Rao:
According to R. Chidambaram and R. Ramanna (from a scientific paper "Some Studies on India's Peaceful Nuclear Explosion Experiment", published as part of Proceedings Panel Vienna, IAEA (1975) 421-436), India's first nuclear test on May 18, 1974, gave a body wave magnitude (mb) of 5.0 or 5.1 on the Richter scale and the yield was estimated to be 10 to 12 kilotons. According to S. K. Sikka and Anil Kakodkar, the present Director of BARC, the nuclear tests in May 1998 gave a mb equal to 5.2, only slightly higher than that of the 1974 blast. Their research work appeared in BARC Newsletter No. 172, May 1998, available on the internet at http://www.barc.ernet.in. The title of their article is "Some Preliminary Results of May 11-13, 1998. Nuclear Detonations at Pokhran". However, despite the claim of a magnitude of just 5.2, Sikka and Kakodkar concluded that the yield of POK2 detonations (May 1998 tests) was about 60 kilotons. Thus we see that Chidambaram and Ramanna reported the yield of the May 1974 Pokhran I nuclear test at less than 12 kilotons though it had a Richter scale value of 5.1 mb, whereas Sikka and Kakodkar, despitetheir reported Richter scale value of 5.2 (mb value), claim a yield of 60 kilotons for the May 1998 nuclear tests. Both the 1974 test and the 1998 tests were done in the Rajasthan desert and, therefore, the terrain was similar for both the tests.


Kalamji essentially threw out the seismological evidence and accepted the radiological evidence and the rest is history. What we are fighting here are not the scientists or their work, we are fighting a culture. A culture that breeds supreme secrecy, essential in these type of things, however, someone needs to validate or this organization needs to deliver irrefutable proofs and a product that can be believed in by one and all.

This is about our most prized strategic arsenal.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 30 Aug 2009 00:01, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest