Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

[vera_k]

Vera_k: That is not my comment. It is a quote from the article by RC. Please read it. Yes, 1-stage and 2-stage split up of the total yield will matter. FYI, K Santhanam is only questioning the 2-stage yield.

You're right about the quote. But, Santhanam is questioning the total yield observed, not the split between the two stages.

Pokhran II not fully successful

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

[NRao]

But, Santhanam is questioning the total yield observed, not the split between the two stages.

Pokhran II not fully successful

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

OK. Understand that.

Now, how about this?

Is India's H-Bomb a Dud?

Sikka:

Our H-Bomb is not a fizzle and we are not afraid of peer review

[NRao]

Recall that MMS during the 123 discussion was very clear and emphatic "Our scientists tell me that we have deterrence - we do not need to test."

Why is it that KS did not open his mouth then? Clearly the CHANCES of signing the CTBT increased hugely at THAT point in time - when MMS said that.

[NRao]

Santosh/Vasu,

The web has its own deficiencies. Just to let you (others too) know, my questions are not in anger. They may appear so.

Cool as a cucumber.

[vera_k]

The problem I have is his half statement. It is a fizzle. When he should be giving more details - IF he has more details. THAT I would consider a valid whistle blower.

Please read this paper from Current Science and check if there has been a rebuttal to their claims. I believe this is the British report that KS based his statement on.

Seismic magnitude and yield for the Indian nuclear test of 11 May 1998

The main conclusions are: (1) There is no justification for assuming that interference between P from the two
largest yield explosions of 980511 reduces the average mb by more than a few hundredths of a magnitude unit. (2) All Ms observations published in bulletins have been measured on earthquake signals that were mistakenly assumed to be from 980511. (3) The Ms of 980511 estimated from ten highest-quality observations is 3.32 ± 0.04, which implies a yield of around 25 kt.

Our H-Bomb is not a fizzle and we are not afraid of peer review

As far as I can make out, the peer review ended without a convincing answer in 2002.

[JwalaMukhi]

It definitely is not going to be like S-e-S. Because at S-e-S the chankianess of it was thought after the fact. chanikianess was retrofitted. Essentially look after leap. But in case of the CTBT rendevouz is in november, there is ample time to build up of how not signining CTBT is going to be loosing out the chankianess. Chankianess demands the CTBT should have been signed yesterday and not in coming november will be the argument. Ah, the chankianess.

Now the debate is going to be about what are the advantages/disadvantages of CTBT. From a position of rejecting CTBT "in toto"; the stage is set to climb down and discuss about CTBT. CTBT is discriminatory and hence non-starter is going to be thrown away and chankianess about signing a discriminatory and flawed treaty will be explored. Only satisfaction will be atleast there will be a chance to work in a flawed reference framework, and be EB (Energizer Bunnies to borrow N^3 ji's) spouting demerits of associating with CTBT of an already flawed system. Now we look and leap; just as Ekalavya had to.
Is informed agony better than blissful ignorant agony?

[Guddu]

Body-wave magnitude bias between Pokhran and eastern Kazakh nuclear test sites (Support of Indian claim)
Sikka's paper suggests 50-60 kT...why are we blowing it off..

[NRao]

Please read this paper from Current Science and check if there has been a rebuttal to their claims. I believe this is the British report that KS based his statement on.

I will read it.

However, are you saying that KS based his fizzle statement on a foreign analysis?

Could that be a general consensus?

IF true, THAT is very dangerous. And, unacceptable. Specially in the current offer from Sikka for peer review.

IMVVVHO, Sikka has checkmated KS. (I cannot say how such a review would be conducted, but that currently is a different issue.)

BUT, a KS statement of fizzle based on ANY foreign analysis that is older than a year or so is unacceptable. IF there is an analysis that is fairly current, then IMHO, it is OK.

[ramana]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuk ... 0-barc.htm

POST SHOT RADIOACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS ON SAMPLES EXTRACTED FROM THERMONUCLEAR TEST SITE
S.B.Manohar, B.S.Tomar, S.S.Rattan, V.K.Shukla, V.V.Kulkarni and Anil Kakodkar

So radius of crush zone was ~ 60m and minimum radius of cavity was 32m. They are using average radius of cavity at 40m+/-4m ie 10%. So average Radius of cavity is 36m minimum and 44m maximum. So find the formula that shows the realtionship between yield and radius of cavity. And we can get a second cehck on the RC analysis. The radio-chem analysis says its 50kt +/- 10kt. I dont understand the math here nor the variation. If the original figure had 10% variation in the radius estimation, how did the yiled estimate improve? Chodoo, koi baath nahin. Lets try to get some senses.
The yield has to relate to the spherical volume of the cavity. And changes with the soil composition.
Y= K* r^3. Now need to find K for PokII soil. Is it granite like or sandy!.

[Arun_S]

Define what are the redlines, and other important milestones to earn a rightful place in the comity of nations.

any TSP ass uttering use of nuclear weapons in a future standoff based on a terrorist attack is a redline for us to test

NK testing is a redline if only we can 'prove' in intelligence terms the link between the trio or atleast duo, the seized NK ship helps in this, why is Iraq burning? just because Bush had a grudge

PRC border moves is also a redline, why do they cover up saying its a local matter only

we can do some civil works, like creating craters for open cast mining, just make sure there is no dirty radiation

There is no intelligence work that can be proven to satisfaction of International court in Hauge that only moral and political support is being to given to nuclear smuggling/cooperation.

India should expound unambiguously the following redlines. Any one of them breaks and India tests:

• 1. If ANY nation (not just no-koera, Packee or China) on face of earth does any nuclear test, India will immediately conduct next series of nuclear tests. (No if's and butt's. The powers to be must ensure that all dogs are aligned all the time). Where nuclear explosive test means not just fission chain reaction but also nuclear test that do not require chain reaction (I.e. fusion without fission).
  
  2. Any attempt to further constrain India in CTBT (entry into froce) or FMTC will invite Indian nuclear test series.
  
  3. Any new nuclear weapon development/deployment by any other country (No Reliable replacement series of bum by US or UK)
  
  4. Any energy weapon that can reach Sovereign Indian land/real-estate (irrespective of deployed in space or air) {I.e. no ABM "nas-bandi" of Indian missiles}.
  
  5. Military action/maneuver by any country (state or non-state actor) that threatens Indian security or interests in its neighborhood (including AfPak)

[enqyoob]

OK, now that the nonsense about the weapon yield is put to rest, I can change sides.

The valid concern is that in India the Executive (PM) goes in and signs, and informs later, on the theory that

It is better to mumble-mumble for forgiveness than to inform and seek prior permission

US also does this, but then coolly backs out citing "Senate did not rat-e-fy". India does not have the rats to do this. Debates in Parliament can at most lead to a no-confidence motion. The deed is still done. Also, this process is binary - it puts the entire Govt in a win-lose position, so Govt-side MPs cannot vote on the side of common sense, since that would mean loss of gaddi. This is the huge flaw in the system. In comparison, the Senators on either side can moon the POTUS in the Rat-e-fication debate, so it turns out to be a much more free (meaning WHOTUS has to promise a lot of "free" baksheesh) debate and vote.

So I do hope there is the most informed debate possible. It does seem to be well-established that MMS' personal view would be to ban nukes worldwide - and he may be therefore vulnerable to snake-oil promises that there will be a Breakthrough in getting PRC and TSP to "promise" to disarm.

To recall the Coca Cola ad of 1978:

I'd like to teach
the world to sing
in perfect harmoneeeeeeee

I'd like to buy
the world a Coke
to keep it companeeeeeee!!!

Next time I'd like to see one of these nice smooth symmetric craters, pls.

[Gerard]

BUT, a KS statement of fizzle based on ANY foreign analysis that is older than a year or so is unacceptable.

Did you miss this gem?

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_be ... al_1286240

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.''

[enqyoob]

Gerard: That was so outrageous that it destroyed the credibility of the person making that statement. I tried to imagine the scenario where the scientists in India call the foreigners and inform them of the blast and its nature BEFORE calling their own PM. Boggles the imagination. Also the notion that you have to call someone 5 time zones away to get info on what happened in your backyard.

[Gerard]

PokII soil. Is it granite like or sandy!.

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper451.html

The threshold limit for seismic detection is much higher in, say, a sand medium than in hard rock; the Pokhran geological medium comes somewhere in between

[vera_k]

The valid concern is that in India the Executive (PM) goes in and signs, and informs later

From the article Gerard posted, a signature on the CTBT is a mere formality.

The Congress party may have been tempted to side with Santhanam, but backing him would amount to admitting that more tests are needed to perfect India's nuclear arsenal. Another such test today would mean an end to the India-US nuclear deal because the 123 agreement clearly lays down that more underground tests would result in Washington pulling out of the agreement. More over what ever equipment purchased from the US will have to be returned. Once the US does this, other countries like France and Russia will be under pressure to follow suit.

If only BO would rename the CTBT to the Congress TBT, India could sign it without any complaint

[ramana]

Flip this ENTIRE story of a fizzle around.

May I suggest that IF the design team REALLY wanted to fudge, they could easily have looked the resulting "fizzles" output (say 20Kt) and said "yeah, we had a designed 20Kt devise". And, everyone around the world would have said - Shabhas. Good jab.

Now THAT would be a true cover up.

AND, the design team is eminently qualified to conduct such a cover up too. Who would figure it out? Kalam? No. KS? Certainly NOT. KS would be dancing and saying - sign that CTBT.

NRao garu. The 43kt is the fudge. let me elaborate.

As someone said earlier that the apportionment of the total yield over the various stages is important. For a 200kt weapon there are: boosted primary, secondary, fission sparkplug, and tertiary.

As we know for S-I the boosted primary is ~15kt. This is not doubted, the sparkplug is 2kt, the tertiary is ~ 150 kt, and the fusion is quite small ~ 33kt. Now if the thing didnt go off the total without the tertiary is ~ (15+2+33) 43kt. In S-I the total result was 20 to 25 kt ie fusion was about ~ 3 to 8 kt. Now why do I say it was fudge? How did they announce only 43 kt and not 50 or 60 or some round figure? Off course the supporters can come around and say it was the TN without the tertiary! But that was never the claim. The claim was and is the S-I test article can get further weaponised to 200kt. I say it can go further if enriched.

And recall the tests were simultaneous for they thought the seismic wave from S-I would collapse the S-2 shaft. That would be only if the S-I was an order of magnitude greater than S-2. And recall the disappoiintment of the scientists when the saw the S-I crater (Ref. WOP). RC told them it was over-buried and resulted in shallow crater. IOW the device was much smaller than the shaft capability. If so why the simultanoeus tests for fear of getting S-2 shaft crushed?

Someone was asking why S-6 was same as S-1? Well in statistics if you can get three successful tests the confidence liimits are 90%. So most likely they were trying to show the confidence levels with S-6.

BTW, the third test which no one mutters anything is the most important one. Its the core of the boosted primary. And it uses refined material.

So my assertion is they did say they tested a 43 kt device and not a 200kt device. And after analysis it turned out to be < 27kt device. Hence all this heartburn. If they truly gave 43 kt no problems.

RC should never have stated the S-I yield in the Press Conference after knowing the subsidence crater for S-I and the pulling back of the S-6.

As its fashionable to quote Lincoln, "You can fool some people all the time, you can fool all the people sometime but you cant fool all the people all the time!"

He was too clever and didnt know when to stop.

[Gerard]

From the article Gerard posted, a signature on the CTBT is a mere formality.

But KS himself supports the US-India deal

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/why-the-nucl ... 846-3.html

Dr Santhanam replied with an emphatic ‘no’ when he was asked whether India was compromising on its national security

Dr Santhanam said he thought it was going to be a win-win deal for India... “A kind of a bilateral dispensation has occurred which will enable our access to more nuclear electricity and the obstacles and the hurdles which have occurred in the past will be removed in one sweep," he says. India needs these nuclear power reactors as the nation is facing a serious energy deficit, he points out.

[Arun_S]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuk ... 0-barc.htm

POST SHOT RADIOACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS ON SAMPLES EXTRACTED FROM THERMONUCLEAR TEST SITE
S.B.Manohar, B.S.Tomar, S.S.Rattan, V.K.Shukla, V.V.Kulkarni and Anil Kakodkar

So radius of crush zone was ~ 60m and minimum radius of cavity was 32m. They are using average radius of cavity at 40m+/-4m ie 10%. So average Radius of cavity is 36m minimum and 44m maximum.

When volume is a function of 3rd power of radius, why would one use averaging radius and not instead use the differential gradient?

The volume difference between radius of 60 and 32 is 6.6 times, and does not scale linearly. 25% increase in radius doubles the volume. So +/- 10% translates to +/- 33% tolerance. To get +/- 10% tolerance they need to drill enough holes with average accuracy of 3%.

BARC should use better geometry in its nuclear papers.

[ramana]

The deal should be supported for it lifts the NSG sanction on India. It still retains the rights to test for India. Yes costs will be quite severe but can still be traded.

CTBT accession forecloses the option to test if required.

All right thinking pople will support the deal.

Tests would not be required if SI was not ambigous. This debate is a direct result of the ambiguity of S-I test.

-------------------
Arun what is the +/-33 % of 50kt figure result in at the minimum? If that tolerance band is taken it comes closer to PKI's charge. So thats the logic fallacy in BARC paper.

Then Radio chem is also in doubt. For that is the last leg.

[vera_k]

But KS himself supports the US-India deal

Only reason I can think of for the discrepancy is if India will not be allowed to test in the national interest under the CTBT. In the interview Dr. KS was very firm on his support for the deal provided there was a way to test in case the security situation changed.

[Arun_S]

BTW, the third test which no one mutters anything is the most important one. Its the core of the boosted primary. And it uses refined material.

EoS of the material is very mercurial depending on its refinement

[Gerard]

Only reason I can think of for the discrepancy is if India will not be allowed to test in the national interest under the CTBT.

Nobody gets to test in the national interest under the CTBT.
There are no nuclear explosive tests allowed under the CTBT. By anyone.

There is withdrawal clause. ANY state party may withdraw under national interest. They are then free to test, no longer being signatory to the CTBT.

[vera_k]

^^^

Yes, so this is about not signing the CTBT then.

[Gerard]

Off course the supporters can come around and say it was the TN without the tertiary! But that was never the claim.

This is the assumption of Gsponer and Hurni
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0401110

On the other hand, if the pusher/tamper is made of a lead or bismuth, the yield will be significantly lower, on the order of 50kt. This is most probably what the Indian scientists have done in 1998 in order to be able to detonate the device at a relatively low depth into the ground, and to minimize the background signals which may overload the measuring instrumentation

RC himself says
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper451.html

As mentioned earlier, we have not given the fusion-fission breakup and, since we have not given the composition of the materials used nor their quantitites, for reasons of proliferation sensitivity as mentioned earlier, no one outside the design team has data to calculate this fission-fusion yield breakup or any other significant parameter related to fusion burn.

[Arun_S]

Another thing I can say is that he is NOT a nuclear design "man". And, I have no problem saying that Kalam is not in the know. But I have a huge problem bending the same rule for KS.

Who the heck is he? A worthless guy who should have opened his mouth long back. (Sorry for the language. Just trying to get a point across on the web.)

As I understand it that is ok for you to call names "Santhanam is a worthless guy", so others can take potshot at RC and MMS with similar terms?

IMVHO his worth and contributions to India is much more then armchair warriors on this forum.

[Arun_S]

IF true, THAT is very dangerous. And, unacceptable. Specially in the current offer from Sikka for peer review.

IMVVVHO, Sikka has checkmated KS. (I cannot say how such a review would be conducted, but that currently is a different issue.)

The problem I have is his half statement. It is a fizzle. When he should be giving more details - IF he has more details. THAT I would consider a valid whistle blower.

Please read this paper from Current Science and check if there has been a rebuttal to their claims. I believe this is the British report that KS based his statement on.

Seismic magnitude and yield for the Indian nuclear test of 11 May 1998

The main conclusions are: (1) There is no justification for assuming that interference between P from the two
largest yield explosions of 980511 reduces the average mb by more than a few hundredths of a magnitude unit. (2) All Ms observations published in bulletins have been measured on earthquake signals that were mistakenly assumed to be from 980511. (3) The Ms of 980511 estimated from ten highest-quality observations is 3.32 ± 0.04, which implies a yield of around 25 kt.

Our H-Bomb is not a fizzle and we are not afraid of peer review

As far as I can make out, the peer review ended without a convincing answer in 2002.

NRao says that Sikka has checkmated Santhnam. But Sikka's offer for peer review was made in October 1998. Santhnam made his disclsure in August 2009. There is nearly a 11 year gap. And who will specify how the peer review is done? RC (I will bypass printing his complicatedly spelled name that worksup some people) of course along with the missile/nuclear scientist APJ Kalam. Just test again to a minimum of 500 KT. That is peer-review enough.

[Arun_S]

Giving fake reasons that the tests yields had to be made small so that the village was not affected does not impress anybody (especially in the realist western and eastern world). People will correctly ask that if India is so concerned about the villagers then why does it keep them in such horrible poverty and dirt? Why use the "villagers welfare" as a bull crap excuse to put the rest of the Indian population at risk with lies and fraud? Build them a 5-star deluxe colony anywhere they want in India and relocate them, and then test at least 500KT. Indians and world will believe.

Arun_S,

The correlation between missiles and our friend's penchant to intrude is not a worthy one. BOTH Pakistan and China have a genetic anomaly and will continue to do so. And, Indians have a genetic anomaly to accept that as status quo. ChiPak are like my neighbors dog that keeps barking no matter what. Just a bad habit that they cannot shake off.

Even if India had a proven 10GT TNs-grandfather that situation will not change.

TSP and PRC are not dogs that just bark. They can bite pretty hard too. Remember 1962, 26/11, Parliament attack, Kaluchuk, Dilhi, Lucknow, Jaipur, Hydarabad, Surat, Ahmadabad, Bangaluru .. .. . . . .............?

The new uber-fashion of foreigners attacking and killing Indian citizens on Indian soil will stop when India has the wherewithal and mental tenacity to administer ruthless punishment on any organization or country that is not yet afraid of treading on Indian toe.

Many be lives of other Indians citizens do not count in the eyes of average Indians. To me it does, even one life.

[Prem]

BTW, the third test which no one mutters anything is the most important one. Its the core of the boosted primary. And it uses refined material.

EoS of the material is very mercurial depending on its refinement

Not techincial guy, but does this refinement traslate into chatur naar "arihanta bhshana atti sundar" Swaha .

[Arun_S]

We already have an example of the Navy man who dared to question BARC designs for ATV reactor and spent a good deal behind the bars on false accusations.

And why would US ambassador John Dean falsely accuse this Navy Man of being a traitor and a "double agent"? Why would a CIA case officer be hurried out of the country? Why would ambassador Dean have to placate the Indian PM?
Did Dean moonlight at BARC designing submarine reactors? And took offense?

If you consider US Ambassador (John Dean) as an authority and modern version of Harischandra. Then why does do you not believe Ayatollah Perkovich and his crowd? How do you know that the "handler" was not rushed out for something else. Does you have direct proof that what John Dean said was true?

Till today, nobody really knows the truth Subba Rao. Why did the SC acquit him?

Off course the supporters can come around and say it was the TN without the tertiary! But that was never the claim.

This is the assumption of Gsponer and Hurni
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0401110

On the other hand, if the pusher/tamper is made of a lead or bismuth, the yield will be significantly lower, on the order of 50kt. This is most probably what the Indian scientists have done in 1998 in order to be able to detonate the device at a relatively low depth into the ground, and to minimize the background signals which may overload the measuring instrumentation

Gsponer and Hurni are widely regraded (or disregarded) in the physics community as quacks and cranks. See their work on antimatter weapons and its reviews:
http://cui.unige.ch/isi/sscr/phys/antim-Thee.html

I do not trust your proposed "Panch-pyaray" of modern-day Harischandras :

• 1. Gsponer
  2. Hurni
  3. John Dean
  4. RC
  5. Sikka

[Arun_S]

EoS of the material is very mercurial depending on its refinement

Not techincial guy, but does this refinement traslate into chatur naar "arihanta bhshana atti sundar" Swaha .

Takes care of the next TN test, not ari-mardan.

[vasu_ray]

when new nuke plants are established in the next few years and atleast 10 years (based on usual sanctions time) worth of uranium fuel is stocked, potentially seeding our 3 stage power infra plan, we will be in a better shape to test, anybody who doesn't like this will give us a reason to test

hopefully MMS doesn't commit to CTBT before these things happen and CTBT by force is a race against time


Narayanji, would a open discussion followed by a secret ballot in parliament help? ratification then can take time, MMS would
have a gentleman's excuse

[ShauryaT]

ramana, Arun_S: Do you see a difference between what KS has said as opposed what PKI said?

[NRao]

Wow. Plenty of water flowed while making and eating dinner.

Gerard,

No. I did not miss that gem, but certainly did not read it in the light you portrait it in. Thx.

ramana,

Thx. Will need some to digest that. But appreciate your effort, will read/digest it ASAP. Till then bear with me.

As I understand it that is ok for you to call names "Santhanam is a worthless guy", so others can take potshot at RC and MMS with similar terms?

IMVHO his worth and contributions to India is much more then armchair warriors on this forum.

Absolutely. On both accounts.

However, I did post that I am not saying it in anger or to challenge. For what that is worth.

NRao says that Sikka has checkmated Santhnam. But Sikka's offer for peer review was made in October 1998. Santhnam made his disclsure in August 2009. There is nearly a 11 year gap. And who will specify how the peer review is done? RC (I will bypass printing his complicatedly spelled name that worksup some people) of course along with the missile/nuclear scientist APJ Kalam. Just test again to a minimum of 500 KT. That is peer-review enough.

Apologies. I came across Sikka's offer as one made in the recent (days) past.

However, that does not absolve anyone else who has kept quite for 11 years. All the more reason that person should have either opened his mouth far earlier or kept is shut. CTBT signing has been an issue from 1998. To think it suddenly became an issue 11 years after that is silly.

Obama, the current Ravana of this matter, stated CTBT eons ago. So, where is the problem on that count?

Furthermore, no one has responded to why KS is credible source.

I am not trying to pin KS down. But to say that he is right and others are wrong is not right either.

The way things are layed everyone there seems to be wrong. Without exception. But, what else is new in India. Kaveri syndrome.

Giving fake reasons that the tests yields had to be made small so that the village was not affected does not impress anybody (especially in the realist western and eastern world). People will correctly ask that if India is so concerned about the villagers then why does it keep them in such horrible poverty and dirt?

No two ways about that.

TSP and PRC are not dogs that just bark. They can bite pretty hard too. Remember 1962, 26/11, Parliament attack, Kaluchuk, Dilhi, Lucknow, Jaipur, Hydarabad, Surat, Ahmadabad, Bangaluru .. .. . . . .............?

Thx for the list. But, that is my point - it is genetically coded in them. Even IF India had a gazzilion missiles with 10 MT TN++ in them ChiPak will continue doing that. And, of course, India will continue with a Kargil type response - declare another Vijay Divas, etc. The barking example was to state that as some dags cannot help barking, so also ChiPak cannot help doing stupid things - just genetic.

[NRao]

OK. Reboot. Once more:

Is KS "credible"? And, if so, what makes KS credible?

[Gerard]

Does you have direct proof that what John Dean said was true?
Till today, nobody really knows the truth Subba Rao. Why did the SC acquit him?

Many spies are not brought to court or convicted for lesser crimes because the counter-intelligence agencies do not wish to divulge their sources and methods.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... tions.html

Why would John Dean ask if he was a "double agent" if he was not an agent in the first place?

Why would Ambassador Dean be summoned and have to explain US actions to an Indian PM?

Subbarao is implicated by both the IB and a former US ambassador? That doesn't set off alarm bells?

[Gerard]

I do not trust your proposed "Panch-pyaray" of modern-day Harischandras :
4. RC
5. Sikka

The Government of India trusts them. That is all that really matters.
They've been working on nuclear bomb design for decades. They have actually built bombs.
That gives them credibility and a reason for trust.

Suppose GOI fired them. Who will design India's bombs then?

BK Subbarao? Lalu Yadav? Won't he use the wrong sort of Pu?

[NRao]

The more I think about it the more I am convinced that Indians have tied themselves in knots - for nothing at all.

MMS made it very clear during the 123 discussion that 'my scientists tell me we do not need to test'. To me it is clear as day light that it really does not matter what is fudged and what is not. MMS - as PM of India today, cannot back out - without testing. He can however make other excuses not to sign on, but IMHO he is in a very weak position if he takes the testing route.

I feel India's stated position should be ANY type of testing (computer sims too), by any one, will open doors for India to consider testing.

This debate about 98 tests really does not help anyone. Should be buried for good.

[enqyoob]

ramana: Two points in your analysis raise questions in what passes for my mind.

1.

That would be only if the S-I was an order of magnitude greater than S-2.

I don't understand. A good reason to keep the blasts simultaneous would be that they were expected to be comparable in size, not that one is >> the other. Otherwise, why not fire S2 before S1?

2. Why pull back S6 if S1 gave less than expected? On the theory of "in 4 a paise, in for a Rupee" they would have gone ahead and tested S6 to see if the flaw was systemic or due to some production glitch etc. (maybe it was a problem with the assumption of simultaneity, maybe S2 damaged S1... so many uncertainties). Why not go ahead and blow up S6 as well?

Of course that raises the question: Why pull back S6 is S1 DID succeed? Why not go for the 95% confidence demonstration etc? Answer: Because it would have been very dangerous, given what happened with S1. Lots of fractures, the structures up top were "incinerated" (The HINDU report) - chances of a large atmospheric release may have been very scary.

So the best explanation for S6 withdrawal is that S1 DID work considerably more than predicted - and the seismic waves were stronger than expected, so it caused a lot of worries. They were happy about the yield, and didn't want to push their luck by perhaps triggering a big atmospheric release.

BTW, Arun_S, the bombast and cusswords about eliminating poverty, putting villagers in $500 hotel rooms etc. are all very impressive, but what WOULD have happened to the village if the yield had been 16KT higher on S1?

[ramana]

OK. Reboot. Once more:

Is KS "credible"? And, if so, what makes KS credible?

Isnt that the crux of the matter.

[shiv]

BTW why you misspell "wocking" ?

Good point especially when a forum word search through the archives shows that his spelling was perfectly good in earlier discussions of similar subjects.

Maybe he had a sudden loss of memory like pujya Advani-ji?