Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

[sugriva]

The evidence so far indicates that if S1 was a partial failure, there was absolutely no reason not to test S6, and every reason to see how partial S6 would be.

And exactly what would a partial S6 success indicate? That S1 also partially failed. . How wiser would the testers be after S6 failure. My guess is that no wiser than what they were after S1 partial success. Sorry 12th failed yevil yindoo bania here. Me only knows arithmetic among the sciences. Not even mathematic. Blijj to humour me...

[Kanson]

And that was the other issue: Why S6 was not tested. The evidence so far indicates that if S1 was a partial failure, there was absolutely no reason not to test S6, and every reason to see how partial S6 would be. So the only reason is that S1 was a success, and there was no point in letting the spies see more of its design by setting off S6.

The probably stencilled "Beijing" on S6 and put it in storage.

, In my opinion S1 is NOT a failure. Simple. I do know what you are trying to drive in. Thats why i stopped at P/GSLV thing.

To symontk: Is there a spare for satellite too ? Answer to this will answer what i'm trying to say.

[Kanson]

The evidence so far indicates that if S1 was a partial failure, there was absolutely no reason not to test S6, and every reason to see how partial S6 would be.

And exactly what would a partial S6 success indicate? That S1 also partially failed. . How wiser would the testers be after S6 failure. My guess is that no wiser than what they were after S1 partial success. Sorry 12th failed yevil yindoo bania here. Me only knows arithmetic among the sciences. Not even mathematic. Blijj to humour me...

First of all, success or failure is nothing to do with what they are trying to do. All those desginers and planners put a lot of thought behind these test and lot of planning went behind these test[mere words cant explain how much planning was done for the test; it has take care of all the consequences]. Even if there is a failure, the test was designed in such a way to exactly improve the understanding of the device/subject, i.e. is the real objective of the test. Pls pardon me for saying this, It appears me that all those claims of failure looks childish to me. In effect there is only success for the test conducted.

[sugriva]

Pls pardon me for saying this, It appears me that all those claims of failure looks childish to me. In effect there is only success for the test conducted.

I am not the one claiming success or failure. In none of my previous posts have I claimed such a thing. Since I am 12th fail yevil yindoo bania I am taking N^3 saab's statements of "partial" at face value. If there is a more sophisticated explanation it is beyond this dehati's understanding

[munna]

^^ As someone who has no goat in the fight apart form the fact I too am a red blooded jingo I have been following Arun_S' reasoning and was till very recently a firm believer of the fizzle and not sizzle. However none of the jingos on the fizzle side have convincingly answered the mulla from the fake Cambridge and Kansnonji! I am swinging back to sizzle theory now .

[Sanku]

In effect there is only success for the test conducted.

Kanson, you miswrote, I think you wanted to say -- In effect there could only be success for test conducted.

You are right actually, if you set the bar low enough the fact some people turned up at Pokharan is also a success.

Obviously the definition of success is paramount. Some people used it to think it meant a working TN which will guaranteed give a 200+ KT yield.

So that why AK was 400% correct when he said the test met all desired parameters. Its just that no one knows what they desired.

This is a very Yindoo bum only, you can visualize it in any way you want. Its all in the mind.

[Sanku]

However none of the jingos on the fizzle side have convincingly answered the mulla from the fake Cambridge and Kansnonji!.

There is nothing to answer, RC has said it and its gospel. What argument do you have against that.

[juvva]

Why can't we test without announcing it to the world every time? Smaller yields can easily be tested without outside detection as long as we use the simple precaution of not using the same site over and over. And for the thermonuclear type yields!.... Well we can simply deny just like everyone else does. We don't always have to be holier than thou. Western countries would turn a blind eye, because they want us to be a counter balance to China. It is only after they are put on the spot via their public opinion that they are forced to act. So in conclusion as nation do what you must, but be discrete about it. Even if we do sign the CTBT, we can still test. After all there is no international police to enforce any of these agreements, they are all voluntary and nations choose to abide by or ignore depending upon their best interest. Sanctions? What sanctions...Ex Iran, Venezuela, Libya...and on and on
Thanks to our old socialist economic model, the Indian economy is very resilient and not impacted hugely by the external economic forces. Sanctions be dammed. World needs India a lot more today and cannot afford to isolate it. And if done we will go on along our marry way..

Sounds viable idea, SA and Israel are suspected to have tested on the sly:
ex:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Afri ... estruction

Though surveillance ( Satellite and Seismic) may be much more sophisticated now compared to those times...

[symontk]

And that was the other issue: Why S6 was not tested. The evidence so far indicates that if S1 was a partial failure, there was absolutely no reason not to test S6, and every reason to see how partial S6 would be. So the only reason is that S1 was a success, and there was no point in letting the spies see more of its design by setting off S6.

The probably stencilled "Beijing" on S6 and put it in storage.

, In my opinion S1 is NOT a failure. Simple. I do know what you are trying to drive in. Thats why i stopped at P/GSLV thing.

To symontk: Is there a spare for satellite too ? Answer to this will answer what i'm trying to say.

yes there is a spare satellite too. I heard that they reuse the satellite bus again for the next one. Same for launch vehicle unless there is a drastic design change.

Coming to the Shakthi discussion, I checked the Google link, S4 and S5 is far away from S1 / S2 & S3 and particularly away from S1. So that explains the simultaneous explosions. However we dont know where the is S6

Even if S1 is a failure, (although scientists are kind of harishchandras), scientists can very well say that it is a fission device, why did they claim that it was a TN. Also the press meet was not done the same day, it was done some time afterwards. So they should have checked and rechecked by the time.

This is one hay straw I believe that test is successful.

[munna]

However none of the jingos on the fizzle side have convincingly answered the mulla from the fake Cambridge and Kansnonji!.

There is nothing to answer, RC has said it and its gospel. What argument do you have against that.

Sankuji I am a believer onlee and will believe your gospel too should the Mulla from fake Cambridge's arguments stand demolished. I am neutral between Fizzle ya sizzle and only interested in our security interests in cool headed and deliberate manner. I am NOT predilected towards any standpoint and if I was it was more towards Arun_S' and yours but now my faith is shaking.

[Gerard]

Sounds viable idea, SA and Israel are suspected to have tested on the sly:

Notice that, if true, this was a low yield device.

Israel's strategic nukes are untested. Do we assume they have no credible deterrent?

[symontk]

And that was the other issue: Why S6 was not tested. The evidence so far indicates that if S1 was a partial failure, there was absolutely no reason not to test S6, and every reason to see how partial S6 would be. So the only reason is that S1 was a success, and there was no point in letting the spies see more of its design by setting off S6.

The probably stencilled "Beijing" on S6 and put it in storage.

Not only that, if S1 / S2 / S3 explosions was not simultaneoulsy as desired by scientists, then there is a need to test S6 to make sure that TN would work in silo. Say if S1 was damaged by S2 and/or S3 when S1 didnt explode in right time.

[Tanaji]

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?

By this logic, all the judges of the Supreme Court that acquitted Subbarao are utter fools. Only Dean is the sole guardian of truth that we should believe. In fact, Subba rao is such a great US agent, and so happy is Dean, that his son is languishing in a US jail without trial for over a year.

Frankly I care little whether we have a bum or not, let alone a H bum. So I have no interest in the debate of this thread. But as a moderator who has repeatedly spoken out against character assassination of personalities (as rightly you should), shouldn't you uphold the same standards? Isn't it hypocrisy to repeatedly claim that Subbarao is a spy even when he hasbeen cleared of the charge and then turn around and ask others not to call MMS a traitor (and i would support you on the latter)?

Again, I care little about what Subbarao's claims, what gets my goat is your repeated character assassination of him.

[shiv]

There is nothing to answer, RC has said it and its gospel. What argument do you have against that.

This in fact is the crux of the problem - but the problem is of those who disagree. Those who agree with RC's take might be living in lala land - but that is no a problem for them. Proving to this group that they are living in lala land by believing RC is the problem and that proof has not yet come. (simply because no one has data to show - only opinions)

Being scathing about RC does not help the case. In fact I suspect it has hardened the viewpoints of RC's supporters.

As for me personally - having followed the yield debate since 1998 (check the archives) - I believe a far better option would have been to say that there is some doubt about the yield rather than desperately offering (London Seismograph?) evidence to "prove" a fizzle. But now too many people have taken polar sides and there are huge huuu--uuge egos working here and off teh forum to claim that supporters of one or other side are essentially twits.

So this will continue to be another tamasha thread until the two poles can come to accept that there are two views and that neither can "prove" anything to the other given the available data.

[Kanson]

In effect there is only success for the test conducted.

Kanson, you miswrote, I think you wanted to say -- In effect there could only be success for test conducted.

You are right actually, if you set the bar low enough the fact some people turned up at Pokharan is also a success.

Ok, i will say it differently.There is student who always score above 90+ in all term exam. Considering the exemplary performance(I'm talking abt the situation in 60's and 70's where getting 80 out of 100 is a big issue) the school management wanted to give the student double promotion. Since by chance that become public exam they still let that the student take the exam. All they wanted to see is whether he score above 95 or below 95. Anyway he is pass and double promoted. The test is more or less similar to the situation i described.

I'm not setting the bar low. I guess you misunderstood me and the nature of the test.

[Sanku]

Even if S1 is a failure, (although scientists are kind of harishchandras), scientists can very well say that it is a fission device, why did they claim that it was a TN.

No they wanted to say its a success, lot of prestige and power rides on TN, to say that we tested and only fission would have looked very foolish in front of the NDA cabinet with JS, George Uncle and ABV looking down on these worthies.

The Govt too wanted a success.

So they just redefined success -- much easier that way. As we have seen people passionately arguging on the forum "but it HAD to be a success" all other options were closed.

Which actually is OK, a lot of tech gets done in India this way (or else where) and there would be other chances to perfect it, its just that the Nuclear deal happened and the rest is history.

[Singha]

once israel cross the test threshold , khan might well have slipped a couple of proven TN designs to its proven munna - to control the technical path instead of letting the israelis test bigger weapons or tying up with various free agents on the market for the expertise to add to their own talents in dimona.

[Tanaji]

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?

Again your example is misplaced. Subbarao WAS tried. The government failed inspite of having the OSA in its corner. So your analogy of counter intelligence not wishing to divulge information is incorrect.

Why the propensity to trust a half baked statement from a US ambassador (hardly a neutral source) over others? Again, isnt it more double standards that say we should trust US ambassadors over Indian judges but not trust the NPAs but should trust Indian scientists.

[Kanson]

, In my opinion S1 is NOT a failure. Simple. I do know what you are trying to drive in. Thats why i stopped at P/GSLV thing.

To symontk: Is there a spare for satellite too ? Answer to this will answer what i'm trying to say.

yes there is a spare satellite too. I heard that they reuse the satellite bus again for the next one. Same for launch vehicle unless there is a drastic design change.

When the Guys are not even paying the insurance for the satellite, you are saying, they are having a spare one for every satellite. Pls provide any link to state that if you thinkg so

[symontk]

Even if S1 is a failure, (although scientists are kind of harishchandras), scientists can very well say that it is a fission device, why did they claim that it was a TN.

No they wanted to say its a success, lot of prestige and power rides on TN, to say that we tested and only fission would have looked very foolish in front of the NDA cabinet with JS, George Uncle and ABV looking down on these worthies.

The above will never happen with NDA or congress govts. Indian politicians are better than that.

However here is one consipracy theory that I have. Did the TN explosion details were out before the May 11 itself which forced the scientists to go into arguments for not having a partial failure. You need not give the yields values earlier, but once you have the boosted fission values, you can guesstimate the secondary values for a TN.

See that no one questioned PNE of 1974 in terms of yield because they didnt know what was the expected/desired yield?

[Gerard]

By this logic, all the judges of the Supreme Court that acquitted Subbarao are utter fools.

How so?
They uphold the law. If the prosecution does not present enough evidence what are they to do? Lynch the accused from the nearest tree?

his son is languishing in a US jail without trial for over a year.

He has had a trial. He has been found guilty. He will be sentenced soon.

turn around and ask others not to call MMS a traitor (and i would support you on the latter)?

Has MMS been arrested by Indian security agencies? Has a former US ambassador also accused him of being a "double agent"? Did a CIA agent flee the country? Was the ambassador summoned to explain?

By contrast, does the above not apply to the good captain, that darling of the NPAs?

Are these not all facts? Are they not part of the public record? How is mentioning these facts "character assassination"?

I am merely pointing out these facts to those inclined to put him on a pedestal. Those who think that he was framed because he challenged a reactor design at BARC should consider the other events that don't get mention in the press.

If someone brings up the accusation that the DAE engaged in illegal activity and framed him, I will simply refer to the accusations of the Sahar Police/IB and Ambassador Dean. They can make of it what they will.

The government failed inspite of having the OSA in its corner. So your analogy of counter intelligence not wishing to divulge information is incorrect..

Mumbai High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Dr. B.K. Subbarao And Another on 12/10/1991

21. I need to mention at this juncture that the entire prosecution hinges on
a certain set of documents, all of which have been confined to a sealed envelope
which for some mysterious reasons has never been opened. It has also come on
record that because of the nature of those documents, no copies of those
documents were prepared. Once again, we have the unfortunate situation of having
to examine an authorisation order issued by the Under Secretary of the Home
Department, who has authorised the filing of a complaint without so much as
looking at the documents which from the gravamen of the prosecution charge. When
I use the term "documents", it includes copies thereof which in this case were
never made. Again, it is at the highest on the basis of reports or submissions
put up or on the basis of the descriptive nature of the documents that the
authorisation has been granted. I do not think such a procedure can be condoned
when it comes to the extent of a serious prosecution of a citizen of this
country and that too a senior retired Naval Officer on charges of such gravity.

[symontk]

When the Guys are not even paying the insurance for the satellite, you are saying, they are having a spare one for every satellite. Pls provide any link to state that if you thinkg so

Oops, I dont have one. Its all chaiwalla info. Sorry about that

[Sanatanan]

It has to be clear to Indians that they have a right as much as the US or Russia. That India is a contributing country - not a recipient - in the nuclear field. Just that by importing India can save on time and cost. {I beg to differ, specially with respect to the field of nuclear electricity generation}

But, as long as India is in a bind - economically or other wise, she will always be manipulated. Bad rains, import food - good enough for political manipulation.

India cannot remain a third world nation in some respects and expected to be treated like a first world nation in others. It cannot happen.

[ramana]

N^3, from the BARC paper the distance between S-I (White House) and S-2 (Taj Mahal) is 1 mile. S-2 was needed to be tested as its a fisson weapon already in IAF inventory. Its S-3 that I was talking about.

Maybe the seismic wave from S-2 interfered with the S-I shaft? Not! The seismic wave travels at velocity of sound in soil while the TN functions at velocity of light. So no chance of that happeneing. And S-3 was a sub-kiloton and couldnt have effected anything. The masking was between S-I and S-2.
-
Munna who is fake Cambridge mulla? And what was his argument?
-------
Vina, yes they did say it was a 45 kt one. However note the three points:
- the S-I shaft is designed for a 200kt.
- the fear of the seismic wave from S-I damaging S-2 shaft led to the simultaneous firing. Couldnt have been if it was smaller yield one.
- the percieved wisdom in the Indian strat community is that Indian needs require a 200kt weapon. That is why the S-I shaft was sized for that from 1980s.


BTW anyone recall how the news was conveyed to ABV?

My thinking is like this

S-I was a 200kt TN weapon. When they say the small crater RC figured that only the pry+secy must have woked. So he said dont worry its a 45 kt weaponisble device. S-6 which was to be a confidence test was pulled for it would show the same issues if S-I was not diagonised and corrective action taken. Hence the dialog" Lets not waste it!".
And this was the held view of the group when they when to press conference. It was important to say what was tested for India was claiming NWS status.

Slowly the picture started unravelling with siesmic records being anamalous. The Radio Chem is in their hands and there are error estimates which in retrospect dont look right.

Most likely RC has fixed the issues. The delayed Padma awards to SK Sikka mean something was done later. So long as the right to test is preserved it was not a problem for the scientists and the jingo chatterati. When the UPA govt was thinking "Yes we can" on CTBT recall the seminar title, all alarm bells went off.

Again I say MMS and MKN can sign any four letter treaty they want as the people elected their party and alliance to power. But do not say it is because of science evidence. For it is not.

-----

[Kanson]

^^ As someone who has no goat in the fight apart form the fact I too am a red blooded jingo I have been following Arun_S' reasoning and was till very recently a firm believer of the fizzle and not sizzle. However none of the jingos on the fizzle side have convincingly answered the mulla from the fake Cambridge and Kansnonji! I am swinging back to sizzle theory now .

I always maintained even before this discussion that if any discussion to be fruitfull one needed to start from the objectivity of the test, which was hinted by RC et al, in various interviews and presentations. AFAIK, what they trying to test is NOT whether what they know is true or not. it is more towards what they know is actually translates to 100% knowledge or 95%. If people started realizing that, then the variance in the dicussion comes down.

[munna]

Munna who is fake Cambridge mulla? And what was his argument?

Ramanaji for me there is only one Cambridge and that too in Queendom therefore me and my circle often refer to to all Harvardiis as guys from fake Cambridge. Hence the Mulla is not fake but the Cambridge is fake . Therefore I was refering to N-qubudin and his line of thought which has not been repudiated convincingly by "Fizzle" camp. Sizzle camp admittedly has the establishment on its side and hence I guess its doubly difficult for Fizzle camp to categorically debunk the arguments by N^3. Regards

[ramana]

N^3 is not at any fake Cambridge. He is graduate of IIT Madras.

[munna]

^^Oh apologies then I thought he was gurudev at fake Cambridge. Sorry

[ramana]

Kanson I agree. However to verify what they learned needs proofing and that will be closed with accession to CTBT.

[Hari Seldon]

Kanson I agree. However to verify what they learned needs proofing and that will be closed with accession to CTBT.

Ramana garu,

I distinctly recall that when Sandeep Unnithan first (with GOI blessings) unveiled the existence of the ATV project some months ago towards the end of the acrimonious nuke nukkad thread, you'd said that the entire discussion has been rendered irrelevant because now, with the ATV's existence, Delhi'll simply have no choice but to test again.

has that argument changed since?

[Kanson]

If there is anything like signing the CTBT, it would have happened during ABV times, after POK-II. AFAK, or i believe we will *NOT* sign CTBT, US knows very well for the simple reason that security situation around India are not conducive for such multilateral agreement when there is so many loopholes and discrimination.

[Gerard]

Kanson I agree. However to verify what they learned needs proofing and that will be closed with accession to CTBT.

After the shot across the bow by KS, accession seems unlikely.

[ramana]

BC uvacha...

http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/aug/ ... -power.htm

Its not uvacha. Its more like the lament to a cheated jingo.
----------
hari, The arihant payload needs proofing unless BARC certifies that it does not require that as they have verified by analysis or similarity. One way around they can say its the FBF which does not require such verification. As the S-I primary is boosted fission, if the Arihant payload is also same then its qualified by similarity.

I still think they should deploy the S-I in special vehicles(A-III) for special situations now that they knwo what went on.

[Gerard]

Could not a mix of tested and untested warheads be deployed on various platforms?

[ramana]

Kanson I agree. However to verify what they learned needs proofing and that will be closed with accession to CTBT.

After the shot across the bow by KS, accession seems unlikely.

Never say never till its really never.


My daily prayers to Rama are to take care of my family and India.

[NRao]

Could not a mix of tested and untested warheads be deployed on various platforms?

Two types of uncertainty remain:
1) Tested vs. untested, and
2) Uncertainty within the "tested"

IMHO, India NEEDS to sit down and sort this mess once and for all. Else the cost of "uncertainty" will escalate over time.

[ramana]

Gerard, I would throw away the word untested. Its verifed only. verified by one of the following : test, analysis, similarity.

As long as TN is not deployed there will be this divisive debate.

[sugriva]

It now occurs to this 12th pass dehati that KS's timing is almost perfect. Now with the Arihant about to be inducted the next step would be the mating of missiles with provable warheads so that the 3rd leg of our deterrence is completed. If we take a step back and look at MMS's reasoning, then there is no reason for MMS to stop the ATV programme. The ATV is merely a platform. Consider it akin to the analogy of a revolver and bullets. If there are no bullets a revolver is not very useful. Also it is MMS's decision whether the revolver should have any bullets or not. My hypothesis is that KS all along opposed the nuclear deal knowing that is castrated India's strategic options. However he played along so that the ATV came on board. Now that the ATV is in, it is showtime for MMS. KS has in fact challenged MMS to put in a real round into the revolver instead of a training round. But MMS says no no training round is good enough. It will also hurt and he is right .

[negi]

The lack of data and info on S-1 yields notwithstanding why is that we on board consider its maiden test affecting our deterrence capability ? Specially when it is known that S-1 was a TN device and not a WEAPON.

All in all the school of thought that advocates the need to re-test i.e. KS et al are pointing towards not signing the CTBT until the TN weapon is tested.And this imho is irrespective of whether S-1 was a sizzle or fizzle.

[Gerard]

All in all the school of thought that advocates the need to re-test i.e. KS et al are pointing towards not signing the CTBT until the TN weapon is tested.And this imho is irrespective of whether S-1 was a sizzle or fizzle.

And all of us agree with this (I think)

No CTBT until full yield proof tests.