Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby shaardula » 29 Aug 2009 23:59

thanks negi

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13105
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 » 30 Aug 2009 00:01

Gerard garu...apologies for pestering..

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.


And here the mandate of UNSC:

* to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
* to investigate any dispute or situation which mightlead to international friction;
* to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
* to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
* to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
* to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;

* to take military action against an aggressor;
* to recommend the admission of new Members;
* to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas";
* to recommend to the GeneralAssembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.


All in all for Non- NWS and non member of UNSC withdrawal from CTBT can be made difficult ?
Last edited by negi on 30 Aug 2009 00:03, edited 1 time in total.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Aug 2009 00:02

I think the faster we understand that 3/4 letter treaties are to protect the power of the powerful and not the weak, the better off we will be. Damn the actual language.

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vasu_ray » 30 Aug 2009 00:05

its a myth testing with NWS status helps one avoid sanctions (UN is useless), however in reality sanctions can be avoided regardless if the P-5 take heavy losses inflicting that damage on us which implies we should have better trade relations, PRC enjoys the advantage by a big margin in this competition

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7879
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 00:05

we can invoke the right to test if required clause.


There is no such clause

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7879
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 00:11

negi wrote:All in all for Non- NWS and non member of UNSC withdrawal from CTBT can be made difficult ?


Both the NPT and CTBT have a withdrawal clause.

The problem with North Korea's withdrawal is that after five months they suspended the withdrawal and got aid. They later resumed the withdrawal and threw the IAEA out after one month.

Some states argue that the suspension invalidated the withdrawal and that another six month period was required for NoKo's leaving to be legal. They are thus still a NNWS and in violation of the NPT.

In the end it all depends on comprehensive national power.

Suppose Japan decided to leave the NPT and test a TN. Could anyone really punish them?

Japan has never tested a bomb. It has no military nuclear facilities. It has no UNSC seat. It has no ICBMs. Does anyone doubt that Japan could field advanced weapons in short order?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13105
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 » 30 Aug 2009 00:12

Appaah.. I was quoting from the DDM on previous page

It is not as if the defence minister does not agree with this view. His objection to the treaty relates to the clause under which nuclear tests can be resumed in the event of a grave threat to national security.

At present, the clause is restricted to the Big 5 -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France.
Though they are not named as exclusively enjoying the privilege, they are the only recognised nuclear powers under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And as the prime minister himself has admitted, any revision of the CTBT at this juncture to accommodate Indian interests is not possible as it has been signed by more than 140 countries. As a result, it is implied that only the Big 5 will have the privilege.

Fernandes feels New Delhi should not sign the treaty until it is clear if it can invoke the clause in the event of a grave threat to Indian security.
:oops:

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vasu_ray » 30 Aug 2009 00:12

Is there such thing as a 'Radiation credit' similar to carbon credit? after all one needs to quantify P-5 advantage and above ground testing means spewing harmful Radiation in the Earth's atmosphere

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13105
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 » 30 Aug 2009 00:16

Gerard wrote:The problem with North Korea's withdrawal is that after five months they suspended the withdrawal and got aid. They later resumed the withdrawal and threw the IAEA out after one month.

Some states argue that the suspension invalidated the withdrawal and that another six month period was required for NoKo's leaving to be legal. They are thus still a NNWS and in violation of the NPT.

In the end it all depends on comprehensive national power.

Suppose Japan decided to leave the NPT and test a TN. Could anyone really punish them?

I understand where you are coming from but major factor which separates JPN and NoKo from India is ; our god gifted nice and peaceful neighbors both of which have nuclear weapons and reliable delivery platforms.

Japan is under Unkil's BMD umbrella and infact is investing heavily in their own efforts too.NoKo is a lost cause being used by Lizard in a similar way TSP is used by Unkil.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7879
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 00:16

vasu_ray wrote:Is there such thing as a 'Radiation credit' similar to carbon credit? after all one needs to quantify P-5 advantage and above ground testing means spewing harmful Radiation in the Earth's atmosphere


India has already signed the LTBT.

The [Limited] Test Ban Treaty of 1963 prohibits nuclear weapons tests "or any other nuclear explosion" in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water. While not banning tests underground, the Treaty does prohibit nuclear explosions in this environment if they cause "radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the State under whose jurisdiction or control" the explosions were conducted.


India signed the LTBT in 1963.

France continued atmospheric testing until 1974. China until 1980.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7879
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 00:19

Japan is under Unkil's BMD umbrella


Yet Japan still demanded (and obtained) reprocessing and enrichment technology and large diameter solid rocket motor technology as a pre-condition to signing the NPT.

BajKhedawal
BRFite
Posts: 1167
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 10:08
Location: Is it ethical? No! Is it Pakistani? Yes!

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby BajKhedawal » 30 Aug 2009 00:24

vasu_ray wrote:its a myth testing with NWS status helps one avoid sanctions (UN is useless), however in reality sanctions can be avoided regardless if the P-5 take heavy losses inflicting that damage on us which implies we should have better trade relations, PRC enjoys the advantage by a big margin in this competition


What you are saying is correct (albeit all 5 of the P5 have to be happy with you as opposed to just one angry powerful neighbor). But if it’s a matter of priority isn’t that empowering the economy cheerleading team at the cost of our ability to project physical power in the region that we are permanently anchored in? jiske lathee, uski bhais (Buffalo belongs to the one who wields the stick). It doesn’t matter if you have one or fifty buffalos, should you lose your stick the neighbor will enjoy all your buffalos and much more.

Just a novice observation.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 30 Aug 2009 00:25

Gerard wrote: Does anyone doubt that Japan could field advanced weapons in short order?


And the short order will be covered by Unkil till then.

Who will cover our short order?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1779
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sudeepj » 30 Aug 2009 00:26

I have a simple question to pose to detractors of Santhanam/folks who support the posn that no more nuclear tests are needed, what will it take for them to believe that the Indian thermonuclear device test was a fizzle?

If RC/APJ/AK say so, would they then believe it? (Two are the weapons designers whose design is being questioned and one is an elder statesman not really involved in the thick of things).

My guess is, folks will still weave a web of conspiracy theories about Official Secrets Act and speeding tickets and somehow get to a conclusion that favours their own biases.

A leopard cant change its spots, look at the ludak-pudak history of how the Indian nuclear deterrent was put into place, RC claimed that he had enough data from 1974 (!!!!) to do his simulations, MMS claimed that any test would destroy Indian economy..

Today, a person from the inner circle has come forward to state that the design was faulty and Indians were lied to about yields. The entire western world has been pretty much in agreement with these statements all along.. I am yet to read a single paper that said, the NPAs are all wrong and the Indians really have tested a 45KT Thermo nuke!

To the lotus eaters, some how 20 KT is the same as 200KT, and any opinion expressing the contrary is either
1) Dumb ruk-a-shuck expressing deep inner fears
2) Western NPA stooge
3) An elaborate GoI charade to send some kind of message to Barack Obama.

As an aside, did you know how long people believed that flies had eight legs, not six? For centuries.. Why? Because Aristotle made a mistake in counting the number of legs on a fly, and people were content to quote his authority.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 30 Aug 2009 00:26

Are we building everything that Japan can build? Do we have their technical core competencies that they have.
CNCs or even half of this to half the precession?
Image

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13105
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 » 30 Aug 2009 00:34

Sanku wrote:
Gerard wrote: Does anyone doubt that Japan could field advanced weapons in short order?


And the short order will be covered by Unkil till then.

Who will cover our short order?

No the first question is who will attack Japan ? NoKo ... :lol: . NoKo can be reigned in by Lizard but who will reign in Lizard and TSP ?

Japan enjoys a special status in US foreign policy it might have got special token presents or exemptions from Unkil but not without a huge US military presence .Just check the number of military bases and facilities which are manned by US in mainland Japan.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7879
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 00:34

Sanku wrote:Who will cover our short order?


India is not a member of the NPT. It is free to build nuclear weapons.

What stops India from deploying both fully tested fission weapons and TN weapons that have not been tested to full yield?

What stops India from continuous remanufacture of aging weapons, thus maintaining a stockpile without a complicated stewardship programme?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7879
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 00:37

Are we building everything that Japan can build? Do we have their technical core competencies that they have.


Indeed.

India does not have the luxury of breakout capability that Japan is satisfied with.

Hence India has not signed the NPT like Japan. And it has over decades of hard slogging, developed the competencies in developing nuclear weapon and delivery systems. It has had to marathon where Japan could sprint.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 30 Aug 2009 00:38

Gerard wrote:
Sanku wrote:Who will cover our short order?


India is not a member of the NPT. It is free to build nuclear weapons.

What stops India from deploying both fully tested fission weapons and TN weapons that have not been tested to full yield?

What stops India from continuous remanufacture of aging weapons, thus maintaining a stockpile without a complicated stewardship programme?


Why did you leave one question out of the picture -- what stops India from testing and deploying fully tested systems.

That is the question we are discussing right? I think we have already talked about just whats stopping us.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13428
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 30 Aug 2009 00:38

Newer warheads are required for the SLBMs

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13428
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 30 Aug 2009 00:41

France Ending Nuclear Tests That Caused Broad Protests
Mr. Chirac lifted a three-year moratorium on testing last year to try out a new warhead for French nuclear submarines and to gather data for computer simulations that will make future French nuclear weapons tests unnecessary.

"I didn't have any choice," he said. "To get the tests done in time to sign a comprehensive test ban treaty, preparations had to begin in the summer, and if we hadn't announced them, people would have discovered the work going on and accused us of being duplicitous."

French military experts told Mr. Chirac, a Gaullist conservative, that suspension of testing by his Socialist predecessor, Francois Mitterrand, had left a question mark over the reliability of the new TN-75 submarine-launched warhead and had also left France without sufficient data to conduct future nuclear weapons testing by using computer simulations.


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7879
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 00:44

Sanku wrote:Why did you leave one question out of the picture -- what stops India from testing and deploying fully tested systems.


Is that not obvious?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Sanku » 30 Aug 2009 00:47

Gerard wrote:
Sanku wrote:Why did you leave one question out of the picture -- what stops India from testing and deploying fully tested systems.


Is that not obvious?


You lost me with this post, what is not obvious that why you left the question out or why we cant test?

In any case, I AM lost, just what exactly is the point on which we are disagreeing/discussing?

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vasu_ray » 30 Aug 2009 00:49

Gerard wrote:
India signed the LTBT in 1963.

France continued atmospheric testing until 1974. China until 1980.


we just need to quantify their advantage (even underground ones), its ammo against CTBT, whether we should do above ground testing or not is secondary

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7879
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 00:51

Sanku wrote:You lost me with this post, what is not obvious that why you left the question out or why we cant test?


Are there not consequences for testing at this time? Do the decision makers think India should face these consequences at this time?

Hence moratorium but no CTBT.

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vasu_ray » 30 Aug 2009 00:54

BajKhedawal wrote: it’s a matter of priority isn’t that empowering the economy cheerleading team at the cost of our ability to project physical power in the region that we are permanently anchored in?


agree with you, if 1998 tests weren't sufficient for us to generate simulation data, how many false starts will we have to endure for the economy? PRC will enjoy this show, it needn't go to war with us.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7879
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Gerard » 30 Aug 2009 00:55

vasu_ray wrote:we just need to quantify their advantage (even underground ones), its ammo against CTBT, whether we should do above ground testing or not is secondary


A lot of their testing was in the days before computing power/simulation ability had advanced. A lot of trial and error was done. The number of nuclear tests fell as computing power advanced.

After all is said and done, nothing beats a full yield proof test to demonstrate that what has been promised by the designers works as intended and can be deployed. No simulation can take the place of this.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 30 Aug 2009 01:03

our GOI always beleives and applies for anticipatory bail even before sanctions are applied.

1) 25 yrs of moritorium ( i understand the difficult economic times)

2) Test after 11 yrs since we came to know TSP has ready to go bums in 1987

3) test in 1998 and declare again moritorium when it was not the right / opportune time, a negotiation chip was used prematurely

4) Even if the need to know people suspected the satisfaction of the yeilds, we should have said the the pursuit of happiness continues...

5) The parliament attacks to Mumbai attacks were all opportune time to test again. Which we failed.

7) Between Nov 26 till Obama took office we had the best opportunity to test. If the lead time is 5 weeks to test then we are not prepared to test at all..

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby harbans » 30 Aug 2009 01:04

Are we building everything that Japan can build? Do we have their technical core competencies that they have.
CNCs or even half of this to half the precession?


JSji, from the pic i make out it's a crankweb/ crankshaft of a 2 stroke marine Diesel engine. India indeed has the capability machining to those precisions. L&T and many other companies have been doing lots of work requiring precision to higher standards. Industrially India does have a lot of capability, it's gathering that capability to come together thats a big task. Picking up core industries for different project apsects and makng it happen is what is important. Tech wise India is'nt backward in that sense anymore. JMT/
Last edited by harbans on 30 Aug 2009 01:05, edited 1 time in total.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby RajeshA » 30 Aug 2009 01:05

pankajs wrote:
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 anyone's guess....Reliability again without a single test of the data ....well


Well there can be a test series to verify! :wink:
The point being that India considers one series of further testing sufficient to sign on to CTBT, and does not keep on haranguing that India will never sign the CTBT.

Didn't MMS say, "trust, but verify" or was it "test and verify".

Would Obama be willing to support India to become a formal NPT NWS, so as to also be considered for the opt-out clause of CTBT on security grounds? - A NPT-2.0?

The question for Obama is how does he go about circling the square.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13428
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby pankajs » 30 Aug 2009 01:06

Gerard wrote:After all is said and done, nothing beats a full yield proof test to demonstrate that what has been promised by the designers works as intended and can be deployed. No simulation can take the place of this.

The model itself needs to be proven first with sufficient data.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 30 Aug 2009 01:06


vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby vasu_ray » 30 Aug 2009 01:08

Gerard wrote:After all is said and done, nothing beats a full yield proof test to demonstrate that what has been promised by the designers works as intended and can be deployed. No simulation can take the place of this.


Eka is the fastest computer so far at 130-172 Tflops with us, some bade saab suggested we need a 1000Tflop machines before we can start simulation studies of TN weapons

test and migrate to sims, is this the right time? PRC noises will tell sooner or later until then ward off CTBT, part of the wherewithal is quoting quantified Radiation

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54168
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby ramana » 30 Aug 2009 01:34

CTBT will never come into force until India signs it. Due to Lok Sabha way of functioning there is no ratification sequence unlike in US where it was rejected by Senate.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby PratikDas » 30 Aug 2009 01:55

ramana wrote:CTBT will never come into force until India signs it.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

ramana wrote:Due to Lok Sabha way of functioning there is no ratification sequence unlike in US where it was rejected by Senate.

...which is exactly why I and many others are worried that our fearless leader MMS might just go ahead and sign whatever he likes, and exactly why this thread is raging on with the cry that he doesn't sign the CTBT.

What did I miss?

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby John Snow » 30 Aug 2009 02:34

RC can neither swallow nor vomit, ah what pleasurable pain.

After Krishna menon he is going to lead to India into a new watershed then through Nehru now through MMS.

History repeats for sure for India

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Avarachan » 30 Aug 2009 02:37

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.


(Arun_S's post and reply to RajeshA's post is on page 19 of this thread.)

This is a very, very interesting statement by former President Kalam. RajeshA, I read "to be" as "to become" rather than "to remain" because I think Kalam is using "nuclear-weapon state" in the legal sense of NPT terminology. India is not a "nuclear-weapon state" currently, so "to be" must mean "to become." To sum up: former President Kalam wants India recognized as the sixth "nuclear-weapon state." Good for him!

I think Kalam is sending a message to MMS ahead of his meetings with Obama. The phrase "well-equipped" is also pregnant with meaning. I'm not sure what exactly Kalam meant to imply by that, but the statement overall is strong and assertive.

Let me say something about Kalam. He is a very astute politician. He also seems to have a pronounced distate for Communist China and Indian Communists. I read his low-key support of the nuclear deal (and thus, MMS) as a way to sideline the Communists. I don't support MMS, but I think we can all agree that the Communists would be far worse.

Due to the last election, Indian Communists are no longer politically influential. Given that, Kalam is now pushing back against the philosophy of MMS and re-asserting the need for India to have a strong nuclear force.

The reason I say all of that is to say this. I don't support MMS: I disagree with his vision for India (as another Japan) and I don't trust him. But there are others in India's security establishment who have common sense, and backbones. And when MMS goes too far out on a limb, he will be reminded that he is out of the mainstream.

I probably won't be posting on this thread for a while due to work demands. Rest easy, rakshaks: the game is still very much on.
Last edited by Avarachan on 30 Aug 2009 03:47, edited 1 time in total.

kasthuri
BRFite
Posts: 411
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 08:17
Location: Mount Doom in Mordor

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby kasthuri » 30 Aug 2009 02:58

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).


I seriously don't know if one can read into the lines so much, especially if they are not prepared by the speech writers. And especially so if it is done impromptu.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4343
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby sanjaykumar » 30 Aug 2009 03:05

Hey we don't even know where the commas are, but that won't stop people from parsing the sentences.

Kiss me, Dick.

Kiss me dick.

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

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Postby Arun_S » 30 Aug 2009 03:32

amit wrote:Shankar taking you reasoning on Abdul Kalam one step further, are you trying to say rocket experts are absolutely clueless about Nuclear bombs and technology?

Also is K Santhanam a qualified nuclear scientist?


JwalaMukhi wrote:Apologies if posted earlier.
http://news.rediff.com/interview/2009/a ... uccess.htm
Former President A P J Abdul Kalam, who was also involved with the tests, has said that Pokhran II was entirely successful.

I would like to react to that. First of all, Dr Kalam is not a nuclear scientist. He is a missile scientist and he was not present there at that time. He is blissfully ignorant of the facts. Do I need to say more?

All I want to say is that I stand my ground on this issue.

Home Minister P Chidambaram [ Images ] too has shared Kalam's view.

Chidambaram, being part of the establishment, is just repeating what the others are saying, like a parrot.

You have been accused of making this statement after over a decade at the insistence of people against the Bharatiya Janata Party [ Images ].

Let people say what they want. As I maintained I thought that the timing was right and hence this statement was made. I was not provoked or coaxed by anyone to issue such a statement and let me assure you that there is no malice involved in this

ramana wrote: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


Its funny the photo of the so called K Santhanm touted as a biochemist specializing in food science. The sole source of this information comes from:
http://www.drdo.org/pub/nl/aug2000/personnel.htm
Image (Dr K Santhanam has taken charge as Director, Defence Food Research Laboratory, Mysore, wef 1 May 2000.)
Those who have met and seen Shri K Santhnam of Shakti series will immediately know he definitely does not look like this gentlemen.

Versus the person on the extreme left in the picture below
Image K Santhanam is Director General, IDSA and the physicist, who lead Shakti test campaign, ( left to right, K Santhanm, R.Chidambrum and APJ Kalam)

Check for yourself whether the two identities match.

Here is a paper co-authored by the real K. Shantham (Leader of the Shakti Campaign) published by a GoI institution

http://www.idsa.in/publications/strateg ... thanam.pdf
Application of Social Network Analysis (SNA) to Terrorist Networks in Jammu & Kashmir. By - Sudhir Saxena, K. Santhanam, Aparna Basu

On the last page look at his photo and title: "K Santhanam is Director General, IDSA and a physicist".

BTW While K Santhanm touted as a biochemist specializing in food science took over a top DRDO lab position in 2000 (Dr K Santhanam has taken charge as Director, Defence Food Research Laboratory, Mysore, wef 1 May 2000.), Shri K Santanam the physicist joined NSAB in 2001. If they were one and the same person, that would be quite feat of "Hanuman" to have made that BIGG a jump.

Nice try by people who would like to spin webs and obfuscate; they can eat more humble pie again.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests