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.
See my prior post K Santhnam the Physicist (Leader of Shakti Campaign) is being confused by another name by same name but a biochemist.
R.Chidambrum the crystallographer versus K Santhnam the Physicist. And BTW Shri APJ Kalam with his diploma in Aeronautics is one or two order away from high energy physics that Physicist and crystallographer understand.
By your own argument R.Chidambrum the crystallographer may have designed the weapon used in Shakti series, by the same yardstick K Santhnam the Physicist (Leader of Shakti Campaign) measured what it yielded.
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.
Yes, I wondered about that too before I posted. But the phrase "nuclear-weapon state" is a particular one, and as someone well-versed in these policy debates, I think Kalam meant something particular by using that particular phrase. Especially given the atmosphere of debate about the CTBT.
And, the overall context of his statement leads to a reading of "to become" rather than "to remain."
Looks like the PM intends on continuing down the path to the CTBT.
The PM has lost a little of the Teflon with the SeS deal not only in political circles but also in the public eye. Even the Kangress party and madam let him dry out in the sun for around a week before bringing out the umbrella this time. The signals from the party are conflicting and he may not have the free hand that he was allowed on previous occasions.
Can he remain PM without madam's blessing? If S-e-S is so important why PM would make a comment on PII?
India Today was allowed access to their major findings and permitted to interview top scientists including S.K. Sikka, director of BARC's solid state physics group and head of the team that made the physics design of the nuclear devices (see interview).
Based on the range of the data, India put the seismic magnitude of the tests at 5.4 while the CTBT's provisional International Data Centre pegged it at a much lower 5.0 and the US geological stations at 5.2. These differences may seem small but the Indian scientists say it could skew the yield figures by as much 20-30 kt. Sikka says other factors need to be taken into account. On May 11, apart from an H-bomb explosion, India conducted two other tests simultaneously: an atom bomb and a low-yield fission weapon with sub-kilotonne yields (below 1,000 tonnes of TNT equivalent). The Indian scientists now put the yield from the fission bomb at 15 kt and the hydrogen bomb at 45 kt.
ShibaPJ wrote:For getting a full, leading & bleeding edge TN/ Neutron/ Gamma weapon test and weaponization, I would humbly submit that we would get the chances sooner than later.
So what did the Government that represent "We" above, do when that chance came when North Korean did a nuclear test on 25 May 2009 a test device whose testing was outsourced to a proxy.
Pls say at least now that the Government that represent "We" was sleeping. .
"Our H-Bomb is not a fizzle and we are not afraid of peer review"
Satinder Kumar Sikka, 55, jokes that he could have easily ended up ploughing wheat fields in Ferozepore, Punjab, where he grew up. AEC chief R. Chidambaram, who was his Ph D guide, says it was fortunate for the country that he didn't. For as director of BARC's solid state and spectroscopy group, Sikka heads a team that is credited with the physics design of all the nuclear devices tested in May. He also played a key role in the 1974 Pokhran explosion. Last week the soft-spoken Sikka, in a rare interview to Deputy Editor
Raj Chengappa, revealed some secrets of India's H-bomb. Excerpts:
What is your response to the charge by international scientists that the yields of the 1998 Pokhran tests are far less than what India claims?
They have just not done their analysis properly. They have underestimated the yield by as much as a factor of four. Part of the reason is that they have taken the average of seismograph readings across the world without compensating for interference that could have distorted the results. Especially because factors such as location of the shafts, geology of the region and the fact that the three tests were done simultaneously could seriously affect calculations on yield. Seismic waves are like sound waves. And everyone knows that when you blare two loudspeakers placed close to each other the sound is usually distorted. Our hydrogen bomb test was certainly not a fizzle. Our device worked successfully.
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.
The explosive yields for H-bombs are usually in megatons. Isn't India's claim of 45 kilotons a bit low for such devices?
That isn't true. The yields for a hydrogen bomb can vary from as little as 1 kilotonne to over 60 megatons. We kept our yield deliberately low to minimise damage to villages which are just 5 km from the blast site. Controlling yields does require a certain sophistication in design. Ours was a two-stage thermonuclear device. In early models the first stage was usually an atom bomb. We never revealed this before but our first stage was a boosted fission bomb which uses far more advanced technology.
Why test an H-bomb when experts maintain that bombs with such explosive force are not needed any more?
There was a similar debate even in the US in the 1950s when it was first exploded. All I can say is that it demonstrates our enhanced nuclear capability. The advantage with a hydrogen bomb is that with a small inventory of fissile material you can produce large yields. Whether we use it or not, it is good for us to have such a capability.
Are these five tests enough?
That's for the country to decide. All I can say is that these tests are worth about 50 in terms of experience and have enhanced our capability.
Looks like the best bet is to get the next test series ready, and do it as soon as the Pakis conduct the next terror attack. Like inside 5 days (just to convey that it was decided after the attack).
Unless the test can be conducted "live" on the L-e-T camps in Islamabad and Muridke and Muzzafarabad, in which case they should be done the day after the attack.
ShibaPJ wrote:For getting a full, leading & bleeding edge TN/ Neutron/ Gamma weapon test and weaponization, I would humbly submit that we would get the chances sooner than later.
So what did the Government that represent "We" above, do when that chance came when North Korean did a nuclear test on 25 May 2009 a test device whose testing was outsourced to a proxy.
Pls say at least now that the Government that represent "We" was sleeping. .
When No Korea tested the low yield primary that was one chance for India to test its TN series. Thank you sardar MM Singh.
The next chance was in May 2009 when teh same device with gas boosting was tested, that was the second chance for India to test its TN series. Thank you sardar MM Singh
Our next chance will certainly come sooner than later when Pukis and NoKO take the next step and successfully test a 2 stage device, or when the terrorist again rape and kill my sisters. I will again greatfully say thankyou sardar MM Singh.
GoI certainly has got no brains to test when it is needed, rather than find excuse for the next "Tithi" (auspicious date).
When No Korea tested the low yield primary that was one chance for India to test its TN series.
Testing bombs while the UN Security Council is meeting to impose Chapter VII sanctions on North Korea for testing bombs would perhaps have been inopportune.
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?
See I am a pan eating bahyyia fram the hindi is-peeking Uttar par-desh, so plz dant be affended.
I will go out on a leg and say that is what RC thought, and got him into the hot soup on 11 May 1998.
So more of the same is not better, and certainly no learning from past follies.
Unless one does a series of test to first validate key datum points on the data and code; this talk is going to go nowhere.
I say "Apna Haath Jagannath". {Loosely Translated to "Your Own Hand is the Lord that will fullfill your desires": I.e. Do it yourself, so there is no possibility of Trojan Horse}
When No Korea tested the low yield primary that was one chance for India to test its TN series.
Testing bombs while the UN Security Council is meeting to impose Chapter VII sanctions on North Korea for testing bombs would perhaps have been inopportune.
Let me restate: GoI certainly has got no brains to test when it is needed, rather than find excuse for the next "Tithi" (auspicious date).
I am not able to understand what is the point that is being made in the post made by you. Other than the obvious sarcasm, is there something else you are stating sir?
Please do not misunderstand my post, but I am genuinely not able to understand what is the point being made.
I think that N3 has been trying to derail this thread. He had opened an absurd thread on Arihant to ridicule this discussion!
NSA: India doesn’t need another nuclear test
Says claims about ‘fizzle’ will increase international pressure on CTBT
Siddharth Varadarajan
New Delhi: Describing India’s commitment to its voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing as “steadfast”, National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan on Saturday came down hard on those making a case for the resumption of testing by claiming the May 1998 thermonuclear device test had been a failure.
In an interview to The Hindu, the NSA described the man at the centre of the current controversy --- former Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist, K. Santhanam --- as “a bit of a maverick” who had no locus standi to comment on the measurement of the test yields despite being the DRDO’s point-person at the Pokhran test site in 1998.
Asked whether Mr. Santhanam’s claims had undermined the credibility of India’s nuclear deterrent because this was the first time Western doubts about the yield of the 1998 test had been echoed by a DRDO insider, Mr. Narayanan said: “First and foremost, DRDO has nothing to do with [this aspect of the] tests, frankly, whatever plumage they may like to give themselves. The measurements are not done by DRDO”. [Ooops..]
Citing the “authorised and proven measurements” of yields done by Anil Kakodkar and S.K. Sikka from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, he said nobody had really questioned their conclusions. “If those who were involved come forward and say, ‘I have looked at the measurement and these are the mistakes’ that would be different. If Santy says, ‘I have an independent set of measurements about the tests’, let him come forward”, Mr. Narayanan said, referring to Mr. Santhanam by his nick-name. Western analysts had been questioning the Pokhran-II tests because “they don’t want to recognise that we are a nuclear weapon power, particularly that we are capable of a fusion device”, the NSA said. “Now if Santy honestly believed that there was something about it, he should have said so [then], not 10 years later.”
Mr. Narayanan said that Mr. Santhanam’s statement would lead to increased international pressure on India on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), even though U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had publicly declared that Washington had no right to make demands on Delhi until it had itself ratified the treaty. “I think we are going to face pressures from the international community. They don’t know Santy … I mean, he is extremely bright but he is a bit of a maverick in these matters! But the international community is going to say that this is one of India’s very devious methods of preparing for a test, that [our] scientists are saying that was a fizzle, therefore India may find it necessary to prove itself once again. This is my worry. I hope it doesn’t happen”.
Anticipating a “new rash of [statements] saying India should not test”, Mr. Narayanan said, “In any case, our decision not to test has nothing to do with this. We have a voluntary moratorium. At the moment, our people feel that we don’t need a test. I suppose that’s where we are”.
Asked whether he could think of a situation where India might want to resume nuclear testing absent a deterioration in the international security environment, the NSA said, “As of now, we are steadfast in our commitment to the moratorium. At least there is no debate in the internal circles about this”.
No view on CTBT yet
But if that were the case, did the Manmohan Singh government stand by the formulation first advanced by Atal Bihari Vajpayee as Prime Minister in September 1998 --- that India would not stand in the way of the CTBT entering into force? Throughout the world, that statement was understood to mean India would have no problem signing the treaty if the others whose ratification is required for the CTBT to enter into force --- especially the U.S. and China --- did so. Mr. Narayanan
ducked a direct response. “I think we need to now have a full-fledged discussion on the CTBT. We’ll cross that hurdle when we come to it”.
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.
Eitherway, Kalam is not a nuclear scientist so what is point of doing all this jingles. Suddenly his words on N-staus is looking so welcoming...becoz you can use it for ur pov ? On othercases, he can be dismissed as he knows nothing... He is instrumental in developing the N-command and other paraphernalia needed for this.
Last edited by Kanson on 30 Aug 2009 05:42, edited 1 time in total.
Hmm... from looks of it does look like this was all about the 'CTBT'. As for Sanathanam ji I don't think he needs to clarify anything...I am sure he has said/done what he wanted to.
He cannot go into any more details than what he has already ...irrespective of whether he is privy to 'test data' or not.
So MK Narayanan saar says
“I think we need to now have a full-fledged discussion on the CTBT. We’ll cross that hurdle when we come to it”
Interesting times ahead.
Last edited by negi on 30 Aug 2009 05:43, edited 1 time in total.
So its the CTBT after all. And MKN is right there will be pressure now from NPA saying don't test as your worked already! Countdown for Perkovich to thunder Indian scientists are Dr Strangelove clones.
I think that N3 has been trying to derail this thread. He had opened an absurd thread on Arihant to ridicule this discussion!
Glad to hear that you think, but I wonder, did you bother to read my detailed and careful response to Raja ram's query? Seemed to satisfy him... though of course not the likes of Sanku.
Yes, I did open the Arihant Poll to show how silly the chicken-little ranting here is, with postors who are too lazy to do elementary thinking, and political hacks who will start ranting with or without any excuse like Energizer Bunnies, (and I made my point very effectively, thank u) so again, I am delighted to hear that you are an exception to that - you THINK!!! Awesome! Now if you could also please READ... But hey, one out of two ain't bad, though it only denotes 50% success, not even the 60% achieved in S-1.
But.. in view of these new test results, has the assumption
I think
been proven, or isn't it subject to considerable doubt? More tests indicated?
But u r right in that I think this thread is asinine. It's representative of many threads on BRF these days, so nothing special.
Kanson wrote:NSA: India doesn’t need another nuclear test
Says claims about ‘fizzle’ will increase international pressure on CTBT
Siddharth Varadarajan
New Delhi: Describing India’s commitment to its voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing as “steadfast”, National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan on Saturday came down hard on those making a case for the resumption of testing by claiming the May 1998 thermonuclear device test had been a failure.
...
Mr. Narayanan said that Mr. Santhanam’s statement would lead to increased international pressure on India on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), even though U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had publicly declared that Washington had no right to make demands on Delhi until it had itself ratified the treaty. “I think we are going to face pressures from the international community. They don’t know Santy … I mean, he is extremely bright but he is a bit of a maverick in these matters! But the international community is going to say that this is one of India’s very devious methods of preparing for a test, that [our] scientists are saying that was a fizzle, therefore India may find it necessary to prove itself once again. This is my worry. I hope it doesn’t happen”.{GUBO}
Anticipating a “new rash of [statements] saying India should not test”, Mr. Narayanan said, “In any case, our decision not to test has nothing to do with this. We have a voluntary moratorium. At the moment, our people feel that we don’t need a test. I suppose that’s where we are”. {GUBO}
Asked whether he could think of a situation where India might want to resume nuclear testing absent a deterioration in the international security environment, the NSA said, “As of now, we are steadfast in our commitment to the moratorium. At least there is no debate in the internal circles about this”.{GUBO}
No view on CTBT yet
But if that were the case, did the Manmohan Singh government stand by the formulation first advanced by Atal Bihari Vajpayee as Prime Minister in September 1998 --- that India would not stand in the way of the CTBT entering into force? Throughout the world, that statement was understood to mean India would have no problem signing the treaty if the others whose ratification is required for the CTBT to enter into force --- especially the U.S. and China --- did so. Mr. Narayanan
ducked a direct response. “I think we need to now have a full-fledged discussion on the CTBT. {GUBO} We’ll cross that hurdle when we come to it”.
Negi, Ramana, could you please spell out for us mentally challenged folk exactly what it is you're so excited about?
Is it just this: If the N5 countries tell us not to test then it would be because our previous test already worked and the N5 would be forced to acknowledge it? And if they refuse to acknowledge our capability then we would be forced to re-test and prove our capability?
Isn't this a rather very wet dream? Since when did the N5 govern themselves by the rules of logic? China giving Pakistan and North Korea nukes and nobody doing anything about it is the perfect example of how anything goes
The N5 has been denying India its thermonuclear capability and will continue to do so even as they force us to sign the CTBT.
^ The fact that this was never about the performance of the TN device in the first place ; KS threw a stone at the bee hive and the rest as they say is history.
As I have highlighted in most of my posts that KS episode needs to be looked at in conjunction with the talk about CTBT. The contention was about if KS is indeed speaking at behest of the GOI or he raised an alarm due to some perceived impending blunder at the top level.
Whatever be the case point is India cannot dodge the CTBT issue; and as an energizer bunny I look forward to the discussion.
Pratikdas, Its not about the N5 (hu are they? I know P-5) denying India the TN capability. its already there. What they want is to preserve their club called NPT with its membership rules. etc. They don't want India to demonstrate and bring it down.
Its not our dream but what MKNji is also saying. KS revelation could be sued to apply more pressure on India not to test and continue the moratorium. However KS has used the NPA arguments(their reports) to lobby for keeping the option to test. So they need to decide what they want to reconcile with Indian capability.
The questioning of the yield is a transparent tactic to bully and taunt desi scientists to reveal the actual "in-country" data. Americans expect, with good reason, that desis can be bullied into being blabber-mouths, just to impress phoreners.
sanjaykumar wrote:There has never been a non-American source, on record, questioning the S-1 yield.
Why spoil your relationship with a country when a larger friend is willing to stand in your place and do the job for you. UK scientists did question the Indian yield. The US enforced the sanctions.
John Snow wrote: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.
Snowgaru - The sense I get is that "India" does not "want to be" any of these things.
The vast majority of Indians are looking for food, shelter, healthcare, education, jobs and energy to cook. That is all.
It is an offshoot of this that India needs "security" and as a wing of security we need armed forces and as a way to keep those armed forces matched with any "aggressors" we need nuclear weapons.
If we start looking at India this way - it gets easier to explain Indian behavior. Those who disagree with this need to work to change viewpoints.
A forum member had said (in the Indo-US thread) that Americans are concerned only about local issues. This is equally true of India. The difference IMO lies in the way the US government evolved and the way the India government is elected and this difference is rooted in the history of both nations. I don't want to go into the historical detail but I believe the US has evolved from a self -sufficient nation of European conquerors that inherited European technology and ethos of imperialism, conquering and domination. India has a much longer memory in which all the conquering-shonquering business has experienced many cycles of defeat and subjugation interspersed with periods of victory and domination. The need to be powerful militarily has been forgotten. Both the Ramayana and Mahabharat speak of peace only after victory. For India Independence was taken as victory in itself which is a flawed and blinkered view.
Sanku wrote:
Every one here can chose what seems more probable to them -- but why 1) Mock ? 2) Call for end debate?
I think this standard should apply to every side of the opinion spectrum. For example if one chooses to believe Santhanam and Bharat Karnad, there should b no need to mock Manmohan Singh or Chidambaram. When there is a breakdown of deterrence (to mockery ) on one side the other side too gets wise soon enough. Hain?
PS if you go back nd check dispassionately you find insidious examples of "innocent mockery" by deliberately and repeatedly misspelling a name. Maybe i will deliberately start doing that too and claim that they are repeated typos and that I am not so good at spelling.
Shivji: I agree, mocking of individuals who have served the nation in a respectful manner should not be par for the course, however critques should not be viewed as mocking. The issue is not as much about mocking BK or MMS or KS or RC, it is about mocking forum participants with broad strokes.
Here are some examples from this page from N^3 posts.
Yes, I did open the Arihant Poll to show how silly the chicken-little ranting here is, with postors who are too lazy to do elementary thinking, and political hacks who will start ranting with or without any excuse like Energizer Bunnies, (and I made my point very effectively, thank u) so again, I am delighted to hear that you are an exception to that - you THINK!!! Awesome! Now if you could also please READ...
Glad to hear that you think, but I wonder, did you bother to read my detailed and careful response to Raja ram's query? Seemed to satisfy him... though of course not the likes of Sanku.
- Assuming one's own views to be superior and those you disagree with to be one of chicken heads is best reserved for a professors class room and not a discussion forum
- Simple rules of etiquette, such as would you say it this way to someone sitting face to face with you should be kept in mind
Do not think it is too much to ask for, from such a talented person (I am not mocking).
Kanson wrote:Citing the “authorised and proven measurements” of yields done by Anil Kakodkar and S.K. Sikka from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, he said nobody had really questioned their conclusions. “If those who were involved come forward and say, ‘I have looked at the measurement and these are the mistakes’ that would be different.
Isn't there a serious problem with the way the 1998 tests were conducted? How can Kakodkar and Sikka be tasked with taking the measurements when they built the device? These people would be biased towards seeing what they set out to see.
Edited later: Updated post to better reflect what I was trying to say.
Last edited by vera_k on 30 Aug 2009 07:50, edited 1 time in total.
Arun_S wrote:I say "Apna Haath Jagannath". {Loosely Translated to "Your Own Hand is the Lord that will fullfill your desires": I.e. Do it yourself, so there is no possibility of Trojan Horse}
So it’s okay then, if I choose to convey the same using phrase “Apna Haath Allah kay Naam” {loosely Translated to "Your Own Hand is that of the almighty Allah (pbuh) which will fulfill your desires": I.e. Do it yourself, so there is no possibility of Trojan horse}
Or is it okay to deride one’s own majority, but mollycoddle the minority such that their balls don’t touch the ground?
I am just saying, otherwise I am with you wrt self help is the best help.
ShauryaT wrote:
- Assuming one's own views to be superior and those you disagree with to be one of chicken heads is best reserved for a professors class room and not a discussion forum
- Simple rules of etiquette, such as would you say it this way to someone sitting face to face with you should be kept in mind
Do not think it is too much to ask for, from such a talented person (I am not mocking).
Well said - but I reiterate that the person you named is not the only guilty party or even the first to do that.
When I was in the UK - used to detect mild racism in the way people deliberately mauled and massacred names. This is a valid way of taking a personal pot shot at a person you dislike.
Neither forum members nor admins nor webmasters should be guilty of doing that. I believe that ArunS needs to stop deliberately misspelling Chidambaram's name. He is setting a precedent that makes it easy for another sufficiently motivated and scheming forum member to change the same name or another name into a word that mocks (eg: Chi-dumb-rum). Typically the admins can come down heavily on a member who does that but unless someone says it nobody will be able to come down on an admin or webmaster.
negi wrote:Vera problem with above line of thinking is no answer will satisfy you or anyone; to cut the short story short let us not make this EVM dhaga part-II.
True, there is no way to say that the 1998 tests are enough if compared with commonly used procedures for other weapon systems. It would be difficult to get a satisfactory answer until one of the 3 services independently tests weapons from their stock.
If Sri MMS goes ahead and signs the CTBT (or commits India to it prior to signing) by overriding the objections of the security establishment*, am sure we on BRF shall manage to find a chankian interpretation there too.
*precedent set in Sharm-al where MMS overruled MEA+PMO babu objections and insisted on the 'delink talks from terror' as well as 'baluchistan' references with predictable results.
But admittedly, all this is now conhecture. Come november, when Sri MMS travels to dupleecity, we will know. So what if it will be too late if the excitable ones on the forum right now are proved right. Now if the same excitable ones are proved wrong, everyone of us can collectively heave relief-sighs only.
The point is as everyone knows today, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is the fastest growing in the world today. That is why the North Korean test is disquieting. Everyone KNOWs the deal there. NoKo missiles for Pakistani Nukes, with Chinese as the middleman . Both are Chinese proxies of course. The key here is to cut the Chinese strategic linkage to these two. Do that and you can handle both easily.
In all probability, the No Ko weapon was a plutonium weapon and Pakiland has now access to Plutonium weapons. That is the big difference. Beyond CTBT and everything, I would put this as high among the reasons why the Indians are getting worked up.
The last time India tested , there were two red lines that were crossed. 1) The NoDong test (whatever it is called in Pakistan) and 2) The opening of the Chasma reactor (which is unsafeguarded) . The NPT and NPA ayatollahs did not come down hard on China and Pakistan for open violations of MTCR and NPT by China earlier. We were left holding their cross for them. It is exactly the same pattern repeating.
India cannot bear the NPT cross . We have to look after our own interests. India MUST pay the Chinese back in their own coin. We SHOULD give the MTCR complaint solid state Prithvis to all states in Chinese periphery like Vietnam etc (which they can ofcouse "modify" for longer range) and do the trade in nuke components so that they can "independently" acquire nuke capabilities.
It is India pussilanimity that gets in the way. Give such capability to Taiwan as well. DO that with 3 states in Chinese periphery and we will have strong "behavor modification" by the Chinese.
But on Saturday PK Iyengar, former chief of the atomic energy commission backed Santhanam and asked as to why Kalam's words should be taken seriously considering he is only a missiles expert. "What is so sacrosanct about Abdul Kalam? Even Einstein made mistakes. Before the scientists on the site called New Delhi to confirm the tests, they should have checked the yield of the thermo-nuclear bomb with the seismic centre in London, with which India has a co-operation agreement. Dr Kalam did not check and doubts about the yield were there after the tests.''
Iyengar said that though he had retired by then, he made it a point to meet Brajesh Mishra and talk about his concerns. "I told him if you are looking for a deterrent against Pakistan we have it, but if you want a deterrent against China, we don't.'' He claimed to have asked Brajesh Mishra to make sure that India does not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and tie its hands, because more tests were required to perfect the H-bomb. Those who want the H-bomb are now worried that the Obama administration will force India to sign the CTBT. However, the CTBT first needs to be ratified by the US Congress. Presently, the Obama administration is keen to get it ratified. Once the US ratifies it, the rest of the world will follow suit and India will find it difficult to resist signing it. In fact, privately, officials admit that the government's position has shifted on the CTBT, because it doesn't feel the need to test again.
Kalam as well as R Chidambaran, the chairman of the department of atomic energy during Pokhran II, had reported back to Brajesh Mishra that the sixth test which was scheduled need not be undertaken as the requisite data from the five previous underground blasts had yielded enough results. This is why the NDA government announced a unilateral moratorium on further tests. The scientists were confident that India could make do with computer simulations in future.
vera_k wrote:
Isn't there a serious problem with the way the 1998 tests were conducted? How can Kakodkar and Sikka be tasked with taking the measurements when they built the device? These people would be biased towards fitting the results to the design they built.
verak - I don't doubt the solid scientific temper that is incorporated in your post. But did you see the link I had made of China's nuclear tests. Would you be able to speculate on how they arrived at those specific yield values?
I am disappointed at the state of mind of so called "top Indian scientists". Someone explain to me which weapon in the world has ever been declared full functional with just ONE test.
vera_k wrote:How can Kakodkar and Sikka be tasked with taking the measurements when they built the device? These people would be biased towards fitting the results to the design they built.
Are Kakodkar and Sikka somehow less patriotic than the members here?
I assume most BRFites wish to see a powerful India, one armed with nuclear weapons that deter potential adversaries. Nuclear weapons that are as 'state of the art' as possible.
Why this assumption that the men who designed and built India's nuclear weapons would put their own interests above that of their country? Why this assumption that they would prefer to mislead one billion of their countrymen by massaging data?
.
But hey, one out of two ain't bad, though it only denotes 50% success, not even the 60% achieved in S-1.
) on one side the other side too gets wise soon enough. Hain?