Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 02 Sep 2009 10:43

Raja Ram garu, you are one of the saner voices here, dont keep your thoughts to yourself...

Suppose if MMS signs away CTBT and NPT what can India(ns) do? Both BJP and CPM are now out of the picture?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Sep 2009 10:48

Why pot-shot R^2? You can make your case and make it effectively too. And does the messenger get tired of delivering the message? Isn't the strength in the message and not the messenger?

Arun_S has been railing alone about this since two years. And what did he get till KS broke the silence last week. Even now he is being constantly questioned by inquiring minds unmindful of their stance.
________
No Gagan. It failed because it leaped over many generations. We should commend RC for his audacity in that regard. Not Neroayanan's surrender at the gate.
______________
Next it has to be Sikka to express his displeasure at the under performance. He is the designer.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Sep 2009 10:52

Arun_S wrote:DRDO did submit a report to the government towards November that year after a proper analysis was done for the various parameters that was unavailable when Chidambaram & Co claimed an instant and miraculous hundred and ten per cent success soon after the Pokhran blasts. This report clearly stated that the measurements did not match the claims made by the weapon designers. If the then government chose to ignore the report then how can Santhanam be blamed for keeping quiet for ten years?

What report is this?

With respect this item says Chidambaram claimed "one hundred and ten percent success" - which is an inteersting figure given all the percentages being thrown around. I am not saying it is wrong - but where is this DRDO report?

Does anyone have the original or the reference to the report from expressbuzz.com

I suspect that the author of this report is not the executive editor himself - but he has signed his name after a piece by someone else - the piece is full of emotion and sarcasm which a person who is not stung by all the criticism should not have - and there is no reason why the editor of experssbuzz should be stung by any criticism - being an outsider

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Sep 2009 10:56

There is a coterie of unelected and unelectable folks who are misusing the Westminster model to negotiate their way to their advantage and not keeping national interests. They avoid speaking in Lok Sabha (its a crime to lie there) and speak to their minions in the press.
What they are saying in essence is who are these scientists/vientists who stand in our way of seeking glory.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 02 Sep 2009 10:58

Shiv ji you are asking directly classified information. Its like me asking the details of implants of Sophia Loren from her surgeon. I can see that at her age she is defying gravity so its cant be that the operation was fizzle no?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Sep 2009 11:06

Raja Ram wrote: Sorry for being a broken record. But I am not alone in that am I? Only that this broken record is singing a different and lonely tune and not in harmony with the cacophony here

No Raja Ram, you may not be in harmony with the cacophony here, but rest assured that you are being heard, and a lot of us have the same thinking as you do. Some are more lucid some less, some say it with more physics and some less.

No I think there is emerging a consensus now.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 02 Sep 2009 11:07

John Snow wrote: Suppose if MMS signs away CTBT and NPT what can India(ns) do? Both BJP and CPM are now out of the picture?

Then India has two options sir:

1. Settle for a second rung nuclear power stature in the company of North Korea and Pakistan - still better then the status of say a Germany or Japan and be satisfied with what I call as a " Japan Model" as a destiny of India. IOW, like I said earlier, India will be a Karna. With all the knowledge and skill to rival Arjuna but never have the acceptance as an equal and also burdened with curses and self imposed chains.

2. Wait for the time when Indian leadership breaks its shackles in the mind and act as India should CTBT, FMCT or any other unequal nonsense be damned. We need for that an Arjuna and a Krishna to do the "geethopedsa". One should be an optimist for "if winter comes can spring be far behind?...." India and Indians in this case will have to wait for a renaissance of the Indian mind.

Point to note about option 2, as a general track record, India has never reneged on its international commitments, too many data points to support that. So will we do it in this case? Past performance is not a guarantee for future performance and there is always a first time.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Sep 2009 11:08

Raja Ram wrote:That is why I keep saying that the most difficult shackle to break is the one in the mind of some who are in positions of determining India's destiny. Freedom of thinking as an independent Indian is still work in progress after 62 years.

Lesser shackles of building better TN bombs or testing the same can be handled once the shackle on the mind is broken.

Sorry for being a broken record. But I am not alone in that am I? Only that this broken record is singing a different and lonely tune and not in harmony with the cacophony here

Raja Ram - I find the entire issue deeply fascinating - even if I leave out all opinions expressed on BRF. The data available is the same as before - but all the players making statements in the media are taking personal shots at others.

If you look at Santhanam, PKI and Sethna's statements - you find that their words are very carefully chosen. I am certain that they have national security in mind and that they are not trying to protect individual personalities or groups. To my mind - they are protecting some design and yield information even as they doubt and take pot shots at others.

It is still not clear whether the issue is "establishment generated" or not.

What really fascinates me is that no one has breathed a word about actual design or actual yield. Their most scathing words are reserved for the credentials of someone else - be it Chidambaram, Kalam or the NSA - and they skirt around data. Unless I am mistaken - none of the people have said that a deterrent does not exist or has failed.

There is absolutely no need to disbelieve Santanam. PKI or Sethna - but the exact nature of the game is obscure. I doubt if Santhanam started this in 2009 just because he hates Chidambaram.

Unfortunately BRF has taken off on a tangent into what I consider are areas of pure speculation - which includes actual design details, actual yields and expected yields and on the structure of deterrent.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 02 Sep 2009 11:13

ramana wrote:We should commend RC for his audacity in that regard

.
On this I agree.
And respectfully commend R.Chidambram's audicty in not shooting for the fist gen or second gen, but the leading/bleeding generation.

Next it has to be Sikka to express his displeasure at the under performance. He is the designer.

Reminds me of someone recounting to me, how after the first day of test (less then impressive result of the S1 retarc instead of being a crater ) Sikka was in worried mood, and busy calculating, for two days and then after two days he had it figured out and now in less worried mood in ease with RC ready to sum up.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 Sep 2009 11:19

I wonder if the reason for all the noise now when the CTBT is in sight is because both the FBF and TN failed. Which would mean that substituting a FBF for a TN weapon is not an option without further testing. Ashley Tellis's book on page 514 states that the crater characteristics do not support a successful FBF trigger.

Also, since there was some discussion about what Pakistan and China think about the results of the test series, this is from page 515-

The Pakistani scientific community, however, has already publicly expressed its disbelief about the success of India's thermonuclear experiment, and while the Chinese strategic community has made no comparable public response, there is good reason to believe that its private estimates of New Delhi's achievements do not deviate substantially from the opinions expressed in Islamabad.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 02 Sep 2009 11:23

My concern is like this

"When Dubya came to know for sure Saddam did not have any WMD, he spun his way to the world that he indeed had WMD and needs to be eliminated"

Like wise

"When unkil came to know that Maha bum was not completely pregnant, he dangled the card of Nuke deal and tied up us in knots, that knot is going to be even more tightened"

Thats the crux.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Sep 2009 11:27

Recived in e-mail from a member and friend:

....
3. Now all this on BRF that there are no non-NPA people disagreeing etc is rubbish.
People dont know any of the literature of the seismic signature. The principal
organization for seismic studies in India is NGRI, National geophysical Research
Institute. Isnt it strange they never published a single article but one on POK-2.
They are CSIR, here is their web page

http://www.ngri.org.in

In fact Harsh Gupta of NGRI and Negi of NGRI dissented. This Harsh Gupta wrote the paper
in Current Science which I commented on. I suspect DAE came down on them like a ton
of bricks. It is strange NGRI has several seismic studies of the Pokharan region in peer
reviewed journals, they run seismic stations in India and dont comment at all on POK-2.
Harsh Gupta went on to become Secy. in the Oceans and atmosphere ministry.
He too exchanged mail with me. Here he complains that he does not agree with the BARC
analysis of POK-2:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99may12/nation.htm#4

Regarding coupling/masking

Beyond 8-9kt it is difficult to control coupling. Then there is the double edged sword.
If you decouple, then I will question how come you now say interference effects are so strong.
My take is the total yield is about 38kt a comment made by
PKI many years ago.

Regarding Evernden, I used to have his article as a PDF file. He basically says that POk-2
was about 40kt and he says that Rayleigh waves are a very good tool to make estimates
for yield and indeed he was correct. He used surface waves to deduce the yield for POK-2
That is what I remember of his letter to the editor.
He DOES NOT SAY 60kt.

.....
Lastly after 1998, there has been a huge amount of papers from BARC on the stuff
that went wrong. I have followed it. The articles are by Godwal and N.K.Gupta.(with inputs from Sikka)
Papers on rayleigh-Taylor instabilities, Meshkov instabilities and even an entire Founder's
day 2007 newsletter on computation to understand Radiation hydrodynamics. So
it is the team of Godwal and Gupta who probably were the lead in all this TN. You can google
and see the issues they are dealing with. However, it seems they are publishing
theoretical studies, so how does one know how close these studies are to reality,
one needs LIF or a real test.
....

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 02 Sep 2009 11:29

shiv,

Agree with you fully. I cannot be very explicit because I lack the data to support it. But I do believe that was attempted in 98 was a design that was to say the least path breaking. I believe that it was developed ab initio and it involved an approach that was not developed on the basis of any existing design. Simply because there was no access to it. It was developed from first principles. This is all my belief. Can and should have only the same value that other beliefs expressed here. The only data point that I can refer to is the statements made by the team that they have tried something that is the bleeding edge. The team claimed that they have delivered.

Now Messrs Sethna, PKI, Chidambaram, Kakodkar and Sikka all had a part in this. But remember the nuclear developments were managed with two basic core principles

1. Each team has a compartmental view only
2. Information access was always on a need to know basis only

So the team that tested would have known things that those who were there earlier but since retired would not have access. Yet they will have the knowledge till the point they were involved and being in the business can make some guesses about it. Hence their doubts have value and their choice of words as you indicated.

Santhanam was part of the team. He was part of the group that managed information flow to maintain secrecy, so his revelation is to be taken in that context. Yet his timing is important too and so too is the motivation.

Kalam may not be a nuclear scientist but DRDO had a part in this mission. Very important part at that. BARC is not the one that developed all the features of a weapon. At the time of the tests he was no longer just a scientist of DRDO. He was part of the inner circle, the policy group which probably had the most complete access to all aspects of the nuclear capability of India. Santhanam may not be in the inner circle in the policy group but he may have been part access to the final data and interpretation.

That is why the revelations are interesting. The timing of it and the intended targets. Sethna has made a statement against politicians interfering in scientific debate. Quickly media has assigned that to mean a dig on Kalam because the immediate context was the statement in which he questioned Kalam's credential to enter and take position on a technical debate between nuclear physicists.

If you look at it from a longer perspective, even during the nuclear deal debate, Kakodkar came out and spoke his mind when scientific positions were being taken by others in the PMO. Sethna may have fired his salvo against politicians taking positions on technical matters related to signing CTBT.

Again, this all conjectures and interpretations of a normal thinking sadak chap rambler only. So take it for what it is worth

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Sep 2009 11:32

The Tribune report linked above on May 11 1999:

Doubts over Pokhran blasts

NEW DELHI, May 11 (PTI) — While the government is today celebrating the first anniversary of the Pokhran-II nuclear blasts, scientists outside the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) have for the first time openly raised doubts about the DAE’s claims that the nuclear explosion had a total strength of 60 kilotonnes.

A fresh analysis of the seismic signatures by these scientists has also revealed that the Indian and Pakistani tests (conducted on May 28, 1998) were “intrinsically different” in the manner in which the energy of the two explosions was distributed among different frequencies of the seismic waves generated by the blasts.

The latest study reported in Current Science was carried out by Mr Harsh Gupta, Mr M. Ravi Kumar and Mr D. Sarkar of the National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI) Hyderabad, and Mr S.N. Bhattacharya of the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) here.

Both earthquakes and nuclear explosions generate seismic waves in different frequencies and the scientists said they compared the energy content of the Indian and Pakistani explosions in various frequency ranges.

They found that the “energy from the Pokhran event peaked in the frequency range of 3.5 to 6 hertz compared to a range of 1 to 3 hertz for the Chaghai (Pakistani) explosion”.

The NGRI-IMD team says the method used by DAE scientists to calculate the strength of the explosions on the basis of magnitude estimates is questionable.

Such estimates are usually made for seismic waves of frequencies around one hertz or lower. But in the case of the Pokhran blast the energy was found to be concentrated in frequencies up to 7 hertz, the scientists said.

Hence they said the yield of 60 kilotonne estimated by DAE scientists only on the basis of the magnitude of the seismic waves — without considering their spectral characteristics — is “uncertain to a great extent”.

The NGRI-IMD team further said yield estimation from seismic magnitudes in the Indian subcontinent as followed by DAE “is not a correct approach” because such relations between magnitude of seismic waves and yield of explosions were developed by the Americans and the Russians on the basis of numerous tests they had conducted in Nevada (USA) and Novaya Zemlya (Russia).

In contrast, India had carried out just one test in 1974 at the Pokhran, and hence “we do not have such data base to make a similar calibration applicable for our subcontinent”, the Current Science Report said.

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Sep 2009 11:36

The NGRI-IMD team further said yield estimation from seismic magnitudes in the Indian subcontinent as followed by DAE “is not a correct approach” because such relations between magnitude of seismic waves and yield of explosions were developed by the Americans and the Russians on the basis of numerous tests they had conducted in Nevada (USA) and Novaya Zemlya (Russia).

In contrast, India had carried out just one test in 1974 at the Pokhran, and hence “we do not have such data base to make a similar calibration applicable for our subcontinent”, the Current Science Report said.

Interesting...so that means unless a site is calibrated , yield estimation via Seismic signature technique/s is unreliable/not accurate; which again implies that no one outside of BARC has access to the actual data or even the yield estimates.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 02 Sep 2009 12:28

Apologies if this has been posted before
-----------------------------------------
India's nuke delivery system flawed, show scandals

Read this with former defence scientist Dr K Santhanam's assertion last week that the 1998 hydrogen test was a dud, the conclusion is inescapable. It means the Indian claim to nuclear weapon status is hollow. It also means that personal likes and dislikes may have even undermined the scientists' overall efforts.

Dr Kalam refused to comment on his former colleague's criticism but on the other issue, it's important to note that India declared itself a nuclear weapons power on the basis of six tests: one in 1974 and five in 1998.

Comparatively the US conducted 1054 tests, France has conducted 192 tests. Compare that with Russia's 715 tests with including the world's biggest 50 megaton device and China's 45 tests.

The doubts extend to delivery systems. India's Agni II missile was declared operational after two tests. The Agni III missile has been tested three times as it failed the first time.

China, on the other hand tested its DF-31 missile 18 times in 16 years and it is only now that reports of deployment are being heard.

The revelations are a blow to the atomic energy establishment. Its credibility stands severely undermined. More than that, it increases the pressure on Manmohan Singh not to make any commitment on signing the CTBT when he calls on President Obama in November in Washington.

Looks like KS has really stirred the pot. Many more article have started appearing in the media exploring the whole issue. Issues like delivery system, not part of the original discussion have come in. From the above, it would appear that it is not KS but the others who are caught in the full glare of the headlight.

Apart from the immediate issue of November and CTBT, if this can start a genuine debate on all aspects of India’s nuclear deterrence, Shri Santhanam’s revelation would have achieved its purpose.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 02 Sep 2009 12:53

negi wrote:
The NGRI-IMD team further said yield estimation from seismic magnitudes in the Indian subcontinent as followed by DAE “is not a correct approach” because such relations between magnitude of seismic waves and yield of explosions were developed by the Americans and the Russians on the basis of numerous tests they had conducted in Nevada (USA) and Novaya Zemlya (Russia).

In contrast, India had carried out just one test in 1974 at the Pokhran, and hence “we do not have such data base to make a similar calibration applicable for our subcontinent”, the Current Science Report said.
Interesting...so that means unless a site is calibrated , yield estimation via Seismic signature technique/s is unreliable/not accurate; which again implies that no one outside of BARC has access to the actual data or even the yield estimates.

Gurus please comment for the understanding of the general public.

The closest recording station is in Nilore, Pakistan.
With earthquakes and all, it would be possible to calibrate, no? Maybe. Maybe not.

So as far as I understand these are the factors into how:
a. a difference is made between explosion and earhtquake
b. the yield is estimated.

1. The type of wave P and S . ( P waves longitudinal , S transverse )
2. P:S ratio ( higher P:S ratio for explosions)
3. The coupling factor ( how efficiently is the seismic wave transferred to the medium around and reaching recording station )
4. How much of the explosion energy went into seismic waves
5. And to top all that , simultaneous explosions.

With 1 and 2 you can say it was a explosion.

But getting to the yield :

You need to know the characteristics of the soil
You need to know the cavity details.
You need to know the details of the device for 4 ( or use rock sample measurements and residue testing )
FInally you can screw everything up for others with 5.
Oh my!

But one elementary question:
The discrepancy reported is too large ~25kT. This is think is too large . Which brings a doubt to my untrained mind .

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 02 Sep 2009 13:27

ramana wrote:Recived in e-mail from a member and friend:

....
3. Now all this on BRF that there are no non-NPA people disagreeing etc is rubbish. People dont know any of the literature of the seismic signature. The principal organization for seismic studies in India is NGRI, National geophysical Research Institute. Isnt it strange they never published a single article but one on POK-2. They are CSIR, here is their web page

http://www.ngri.org.in

In fact Harsh Gupta of NGRI and Negi of NGRI dissented. This Harsh Gupta wrote the paper in Current Science which I commented on. I suspect DAE came down on them like a ton of bricks. It is strange NGRI has several seismic studies of the Pokharan region in peer reviewed journals, they run seismic stations in India and dont comment at all on POK-2. Harsh Gupta went on to become Secy. in the Oceans and atmosphere ministry. He too exchanged mail with me. Here he complains that he does not agree with the BARC analysis of POK-2:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99may12/nation.htm#4

Regarding coupling/masking

Beyond 8-9kt it is difficult to control coupling. Then there is the double edged sword. If you decouple, then I will question how come you now say interference effects are so strong. My take is the total yield is about 38kt a comment made by PKI many years ago.

Regarding Evernden, I used to have his article as a PDF file. He basically says that POk-2 was about 40kt and he says that Rayleigh waves are a very good tool to make estimates for yield and indeed he was correct. He used surface waves to deduce the yield for POK-2 That is what I remember of his letter to the editor.
He DOES NOT SAY 60kt.

.....
Lastly after 1998, there has been a huge amount of papers from BARC on the stuff that went wrong. I have followed it. The articles are by Godwal and N.K.Gupta.(with inputs from Sikka) Papers on rayleigh-Taylor instabilities, Meshkov instabilities and even an entire Founder's day 2007 newsletter on computation to understand Radiation hydrodynamics. So it is the team of Godwal and Gupta who probably were the lead in all this TN. You can google and see the issues they are dealing with. However, it seems they are publishing theoretical studies, so how does one know how close these studies are to reality, one needs LIF or a real test.
....

Wow, that is very very insightful for those probing this elephant.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 02 Sep 2009 13:36

pankajs wrote:Looks like KS has really stirred the pot. Many more article have started appearing in the media exploring the whole issue. Issues like delivery system, not part of the original discussion have come in. From the above, it would appear that it is not KS but the others who are caught in the full glare of the headlight.

Apart from the immediate issue of November and CTBT, if this can start a genuine debate on all aspects of India’s nuclear deterrence, Shri Santhanam’s revelation would have achieved its purpose.

Indian history is replete with people/kingdoms who have fallen on their sword on the threshold of victory. Purpose will be achieved when India does not sign CTBT come hail or hell, not now not ever, till India conducts next nuclear test series.

Obama wants India to humour him with Indian commitment to CTBT and/or FMTC (on paper or otherwise) to earn brownie point as non-proliferation Emperor, irrespective US Senate signs its or not.

Its clear that MMS and crew must not be allowed to humour the new regime in Capitol Hill at the expense of Indian security and future, with (Sharm el Sheikh) ^3.

Depending on timing Indian interest will also be met if India conducts the test series now to proof and re-test as many time till proof test succeeded. After that if world wants to live at peace with India (free of sanctions) then India can consider CTBT commitments, but no FMTC.

It is imperative that Russia and France be courted to solidly be behind India, with preferential access to commercial market and military orders.

sugriva · Post by **sugriva** » 02 Sep 2009 13:54

Arun_S wrote:Many people have fallen on their sword on the threshold of victory. Purpose will be achieved when India does not sign CTBT come hail or hell, not now not ever, till India conducts next nuclear test series.

Obama wants India to humour him with Indian commitment to CTBT (on paper or otherwise) to earn brownie point as non-proliferation Emperor, irrespective US Senate signs its or not.

Its clear that MMS and crew must not be allowed to humour the new regime in Capitol Hill at the expense of Indian security and future.

Well said, but what is being done this time thats different from what was attempted last time during the N-deal time frame. If we looking at the bi$$ing contest in the media than the anti-CTBT team is not doing anything thats different from last time. I don't see this as a winning strategy. Remember that MMS and co won the battle last time, courtesy Ahmed Patel, from a much weaker position. Much as I am against India signing the CTBT and giving up its strategic options, I don't see the results being any different this time. And this time MMS does not even need Ahmed Patel.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 02 Sep 2009 14:17

PKI provides more insights

Now, if one goes by the number for the total nuclear yield put out by the Department of Atomic Energy following the 1998 nuclear tests, the thermonuclear device alone was around 50 kilotons. To know how successful the fusion was, we must know how much of this came from the boosted-fission and spark-plug, which are fission reactions, and how much from the actual fusion of tritium to form helium. In earlier designs the booster has been designed for as much as 45 kt yield, so if we take the booster yield as even 30 kt, a reasonable assumption, then the fusion yield must have been 20 kt. One can then calculate that the amount of LiD that must have burnt to achieve this yield would be 400 grams or only around 500 ml. This is small volume, and typically one puts in a lot more of the fusion material in the core — in kilograms. Therefore, if only 400 gm burnt, then the fraction the total fuel that burnt must have been small — perhaps as little as 20 per cent. Clearly, this is not a very efficient thermonuclear device. Now, the unburned LiD fuel would still have been converted to tritium by the capture of neutrons. If most of this tritium did not ‘burn’, i.e. fuse to form helium, then a lot of tritium should have been detected in the soil samples from the test site. This is what seems to have happened, even though it is not confirmed.

Because of these considerations, I have held the view that we should repeat this experiment, especially the thermonuclear part, to have full confidence that the secondary has been ignited and not simply triggered. In a fusion device the burn, if properly ignited, is continuous in the volume of the secondary and therefore the efficiency of the fusion system should be higher. Since that is not well established, logically and scientifically it is better to conduct more such tests to establish the results and to achieve greater efficiency.

And finally he lays it bare. Low-cut, thongs are all nice but we want full vision!

When we go from testing a device to weaponising it, there will be a lot of changes in the hardware configuration, because it has to match with the delivery system – either a missile or an independent bomb. Weaponisation also means certifying to the user the yield and reliability. More gravely, we must be able to convince not just ourselves but the entire world that we have mastered the thermonuclear weapon, and are fully capable of deploying it.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 02 Sep 2009 14:49

Neela wrote:PKI provides more insights

From the above post by Neela, some more key points. These are tied to our debate but not w.r.t sizzle ya fizzle.

But, once we have decided on a policy of nuclear deterrence, which will require weaponisation, then, scientifically, we have no option but to continue testing. It is the scientific case that I wish to make here.

It is unscientific to embark on a long programme of weaponisation, and develop elaborate plans for maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent, all based on just one, low yield, thermonuclear test. When we do not do this for the Agni or Prithvi missiles, or even the Nano car!, why would we want to take this risk for nuclear weapons?

One is an alarmingly small number. In any case fusion (and, for that matter, fission) devices are extremely complex systems with a large number of variable parameters. It is unwise to benchmark a computer simulation of a full-scale explosion using data from just one test. Sub-critical tests are no substitute for full-scale tests, especially when we talk of weaponising.

I would like to emphasise that thermonuclear devices are better for weaponisation and deployment, because they are compact, light, use less sensitive material, and offer better safety features. For example, a boosted-fission thermonuclear device can be as light as 200 kg, compared to a pure-fission device that can weigh as much as 800 kg for the same yield.

It is for this reason that most of America’s nuclear weapons are fusion weapons.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 02 Sep 2009 15:01

Arun_S wrote:Indian history is replete with people/kingdoms who have fallen on their sword on the threshold of victory. Purpose will be achieved when India does not sign CTBT come hail or hell, not now not ever, till India conducts next nuclear test series.

Obama wants India to humour him with Indian commitment to CTBT and/or FMTC (on paper or otherwise) to earn brownie point as non-proliferation Emperor, irrespective US Senate signs its or not.

Its clear that MMS and crew must not be allowed to humour the new regime in Capitol Hill at the expense of Indian security and future, with (Sharm el Sheikh) ^3.

Depending on timing Indian interest will also be met if India conducts the test series now to proof and re-test as many time till proof test succeeded. After that if world wants to live at peace with India (free of sanctions) then India can consider CTBT commitments, but no FMTC.

It is imperative that Russia and France be courted to solidly be behind India, with preferential access to commercial market and military orders.

Arun_S saar, I totally agree with you. We also need to collect sufficient data for our simulation even if we achieve success in the very next attempt.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 02 Sep 2009 15:41

Its clear that MMS and crew must not be allowed to humour the new regime in Capitol Hill at the expense of Indian security and future, with (Sharm el Sheikh) ^3.

Depending on timing Indian interest will also be met if India conducts the test series now to proof and re-test as many time till proof test succeeded. After that if world wants to live at peace with India (free of sanctions) then India can consider CTBT commitments, but no FMTC.

It is imperative that Russia and France be courted to solidly be behind India, with preferential access to commercial market and military ord

Arun could not agree more

We would all be very very assured if a statement comes out of PMO that India is not going to sign CTBT in present form ever

And to perfect our nukes we reserve the right to test anytime soon

But then that will be too much to expect from a PM who equated Baluchistan with Kashmir

amit · Post by **amit** » 02 Sep 2009 16:09

Shankar wrote:Arun could not agree more

We would all be very very assured if a statement comes out of PMO that India is not going to sign CTBT in present form ever

And to perfect our nukes we reserve the right to test anytime soon

But then that will be too much to expect from a PM who equated Baluchistan with Kashmir

India links CTBT signing to nuclear disarmament (SS' speech at the The Brookings Institution in March this year)

WASHINGTON: India has asserted it would not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - a top non-proliferation priority of the Obama administration
- unless the world moves "categorically towards nuclear disarmament in a credible time-frame."

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Special Envoy for Nuclear Issues and Climate Change, Shyam Saran, Monday acknowledged that the CTBT is "an issue that has been seen as potentially, a contentious one in our relations with the new US administration."

"President (Barack) Obama has made clear that he will seek Senate ratification of, which the US has signed, and India has not", he said in a keynote speech at The Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank on "The US-India Nuclear Agreement: Expectations and Consequences,"

"He has also promised to launch a 'diplomatic effort to bring on board other states whose ratifications are required for the treaty to enter into force,'" Saran noted citing from Obama's letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in September.

"India has been a consistent votary of a CTBT but did not sign the CTBT as it eventually emerged because it was not explicitly linked to the goal of nuclear disarmament," the former foreign secretary said.

"For India, this was crucial since it was not acceptable to legitimise, in any way, a permanent division between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states," he said.

He said that the "other reason was the manner in which the CTBT was pushed through, bypassing the Conference on Disarmament, which works by consensus, and bringing the issue before the UN General Assembly. This was done to over-ride Indian objections and was justifiably seen in India as a not too subtle attempt to foreclose India's options."

"Additionally," Saran noted, "India was included in a category of states whose signature and ratification was deemed necessary in order for the Treaty to come into force, again an unusual provision, directed at putting international pressure on India to join a Treaty whose provisions it did not agree with."

And:

"It was against this background that India did not sign the CTBT," but said however, that since the Pokhran tests in May 1998, "India has observed a unilateral and voluntary moratorium and is committed to its continuance," he explained.

But if "the world moves categorically towards nuclear disarmament in a credible time-frame, the Indo-US differences over the CTBT would probably recede into the background," Saran said.

All is Maya onlee and one can choose what to believe and not believe.

But one belief is that all this present tamasha is to deflect any pressure that Obama could bring to bear regarding CTBT during MMS' November visit.

However all this was discussed on BRF and so folks are free to interpret any way they choose to.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 02 Sep 2009 16:28

Neshant wrote:We got to thank the scientist who risked being fired for revealing what most already suspected (H-bomb test was a dud). He put national security ahead of his own job security and for that all patriotic Indians cannot thank him enough.

Great idea! Let's start a new thread to do that, please. No sense in cluttering up that valuable public service with factual discussions or logic. Besides, time may be running out, if they are going to enforce the Official Secrets Act and hang this patriot for removing any lingering doubt that the Pakistanis and Chinese may have had before they send their tanks across.

We need more such public servants from the Air Force, the Navy (when I posted the very credible report about the Arihant, the admins just cruelly deleted the thread) and the Army. Tell it like it is - where the weapons are, their exact range, weight, yield and detailed effects - fugacity, temperature, radiation, CEP, launch signature, thermal signature, acoustic signature.

Satyam Eva Jayate! Inquilab Zindabad!

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 02 Sep 2009 17:59

I sooner trust the patriotic scientist than the feeble minded prime minister to safe guard national security.

Most already suspected the H bomb test was a dud. Better to face up to reality than fooling one's self which is never a good idea.

The damage control after the admission was totally futile with both the PM and President rushing to deny it. If anything it confirmed the admission had validity for it required 2 high level people to get involved in the act of destroying their own credibillity.

Best thing that ever happened! Hats off to the scientist.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Sep 2009 18:02

PKIyengar has a pdf book on the net dated May 2009

http://pkiyengar.in/yahoo_site_admin/as ... 232514.pdf

On May 11, 1998, India conducted simultaneously three nuclear explosions
underground. One was of very low yield, less than a kiloton and did not matter for
the estimation of the yield. The two larger explosions, it was claimed one was of an
improved fission bomb and the other was a thermonuclear device. The improved
fission bomb could have at a minimum yielded 10 Kilotons. The total yield of these
two together was estimated by international arrays to be of the order of 30 Kilotons
whereas the Indian estimate was about 43 kilotons. Granting that the Indian
estimate is correct the thermonuclear device could have yielded only 43 minus 10
i.e. roughly 33 kilotons. It was reported that the thermonuclear device consisted of a
boosted fission bomb to trigger a secondary which was the true thermonuclear
device. It is not known what the yield of the boosted fission could be. International
experts claim that we can boost the fission trigger upto a factor of 10. Therefore, the
total yield of 33 kilotons which includes the boosted fission can only account for a
few kilotons for the secondary. A thermonuclear device using the secondary is
meant to be detonated when you want the yield to be several hundred kilotons going
upto several megatons. The simultaneous triggering of both the devices make the
seismic signals overlap and may not get an independent evaluation of the yield of
each. Thus an uncertainty in the estimation of the yield of the thermonuclear device
was introduced and has been debated in the international circles. If we have to
claim full control over the design of a thermonuclear device in the sense that we
have established a burn process in the secondary then it is necessary to test a
higher yield device so that this uncertainty could be put at rest. It is of course true
that India could make boosted thermonuclear devices upto 100 Kilotons or more,
even by restricting oneself to the booster principle.

To me it appears that PKI believes that it is useless to make piffling 45kT Thermonuclear bombs and that small bombs can come from mere boosted fission. TN beans big bang. That is why he speaks (I assume) of many kilograms of LiD in his paper linked above

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Sep 2009 18:08

^^
In connection with what PKI says. Wikipedia makes the following comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

The initial impetus behind the two-stage weapon was President Truman's 1950 promise to build a 10-megaton hydrogen superbomb as the U.S. response to the 1949 test of the first Soviet fission bomb. But the resulting invention turned out to be the cheapest and most compact way to build small nuclear bombs as well as large ones, erasing any meaningful distinction between A-bombs and H-bombs, and between boosters and supers. All the best techniques for fission and fusion explosions are incorporated into one all-encompassing, fully-scalable design principle. Even six-inch (152 mm) diameter nuclear artillery shells can be two-stage thermonuclears.

Wiki also says

Pure fission or fusion-boosted fission weapons can be made to yield hundreds of kilotons, at great expense in fissile material and tritium, but by far the most efficient way to increase nuclear weapon yield beyond ten or so kilotons is to tack on a second independent stage, called a secondary.

So thermonuclear bombs are the most efficient way to make bombs small or big. Period.

In other words a small bomb does not necessarily mean that it cannot be thermonuclear provided you have mastered the technology

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 02 Sep 2009 18:39

shiv wrote:Wiki also says

Pure fission or fusion-boosted fission weapons can be made to yield hundreds of kilotons, at great expense in fissile material and tritium, but by far the most efficient way to increase nuclear weapon yield beyond ten or so kilotons is to tack on a second independent stage, called a secondary.
So thermonuclear bombs are the most efficient way to make bombs small or big. Period.

In other words a small bomb does not necessarily mean that it cannot be thermonuclear provided you have mastered the technology

Small correction saar, your primary would in any case be around 10 kt. So what you have stated is true beyond your primary size, as per the wiki quote.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 02 Sep 2009 18:43

Very interesting point in PKI's article

The simultaneous triggering of both the devices make the seismic signals overlap and may not get an independent evaluation of the yield of each. Thus an uncertainty in the estimation of the yield of the thermonuclear device was introduced and has been debated in the international circles. If we have toclaim full control over the design of a thermonuclear device in the sense that we have established a burn process in the secondary then it is necessary to test a higher yield device so that this uncertainty could be put at rest.

I assume that PKI was out of the loop for top secret need-2-know before this event? Very carefully chosen words, though, that pass straight through the ears at speed of a seismic wave without any obstruction, until one has read through 35 pages of Rho-Dho of the Nuclear Deal and 35 pages here.

So what he is saying is that India should test a higher yield device to remove the uncertainty in the minds of those who do not have access to the yield data. Because as surely as the duniya is centered at Islamabad, the desi scientists, dummies as they have been certified to be here, would not have neglected to place sensors and speed-of-light transmission BETWEEN the shaft locations of S1 and S2. All these sensors may have become shaheed, but only after sending their soosai messages on the yield that they saw, and when they saw it.

These data will probably cost a heck more than a bottle of Chateau L-Etif to obtain for us mere mortals for chai-biskoot discussions. In fact these data are the WHOLE REASON for all the clamor from the NPAs etc. etc. to goad Indian scientists into revealing the "PROOF". The answer must always be in the immortal words of Harbhajan, "terimaki".

So there is absolutely no basis to claim that there is "uncertainty" in the minds of those who ran the tests. In fact PKI is not saying that there is, either. He is saying: "If we have to claim" and "in international circles".

The only thing that this proves to me, is that the Indian tests of 1998 were beautifully designed SCIENTIFIC and TECHNOLOGICAL experimental proofs.

They were not dumb bum tests as done in Chagai with off-the-shelf Xerox copies. Of course, it would be nice to see India run a series of tests just to "watch the buildings fall" and dance around the mushroom cloud or the Subsistence Crater, but I hope those are done at the Islamabad Test Range, not on precious Indian land.

Now if we go back and look at the Thar desert, we see that options are fairly limited. If India were to test a 200kT device, the same EB population would be jumping around claiming "Traitorous Prime Minister" because India did not test a 1MT device (remember - this was the main complaint during the NewClear Deal Rho-Dho?) So if India tests a 1MT device, the same will point out that China has tested 5MT and yell "Traitorour Prime Minister!" So if India tests a 10MT, the same will point out that the US and USSR tested 10MT long ago and have passed 15MT and even 50MT. ...

I can see where the Google maps of Rajasthan will show this smooth, shiny glass surface nicely shaped like a conical Martini Glass. We can go and mark the Pokhran Glass Bubble and the Khetolai Char Mark and the Jaisalmer Ruins there, as well as the Delhi Refugee Camp City.

Meanwhile, compact speed-of-light beam weapons on hypersonic F-45s will have been sold by the US State Dept to Pakistan, of course, purely to win the Global Offensive Against Terror by countering those high-speed Toyota pickups full of fertilizer and fuel oil.

munna · Post by **munna** » 02 Sep 2009 18:56

narayanan wrote:These data will probably cost a heck more than a bottle of Chateau L-Etif to obtain for us mere mortals for chai-biskoot discussions. In fact these data are the WHOLE REASON for all the clamor from the NPAs etc. etc. to goad Indian scientists into revealing the "PROOF". The answer must always be in the immortal words of Harbhajan, "terimaki"

Tour de force post! I have been suspecting that all this R&D is a challenge to Mardanagi of our scientists by asking them to prove their experiment or give away the geological data of their range. For cricket buffs this is "Geopolitical Sledging" that is beimng carried out to mentally disintegrate our stratejjic koommunity. They know we won't be testing anytime soon hence why not ask us to reveal what we know? Rank stupidity I would say if we fall for that.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 02 Sep 2009 19:14

Pokhran II row: Kakodkar says no more nuke tests required

MUMBAI: India does not need to carry any more nuclear tests, Atomic Energy commission chief Anil Kakodkar said on Wednesday in the backdrop of the
controversy over whether the 1998 Pokhran thermonuclear explosion was a fizzle.

Joining issue with an ex-DRDO scientist K Santanam who claimed that Pokhran-II was not a full success and that a few more nuclear tests were required, Kakodkar said the country has strong simulation capability and additional tests were not required.

"We have enough data. We have comprehensive simulation capability and therefore there is no need for any more tests," Kakodkar said here days after K Santhanam ignited a controversy that Pokhran-II was a fizzle since the thermonuclear explosion did not give the desired yield. "We are very confident about the simulation capability."

Indian nuclear scientists had already validated and bench marked the validated tool of the three dimensional simulation for earth motion and displacement data collected following Pokhran II tests in 1998, he said.

There is no need for series of tests to validate the yield since the tool and also observations are available, he said, adding that it was published in the international journal Nuclear Technology in 2006 four years after its communication from Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC).

Kakodkar said BARC scientists have done the measurements meticulously and large number of diverse instrumentations were used using four independent measurements -- seismic, large teleseismic, accurate measurements at Gauribidinur seismic measurement site; radiochemical samples estimation done by different groups; specific evidence of fusion reaction and 3-d simulation of motion of earth and displacement.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Sep 2009 19:26

pankajs wrote: Small correction saar, your primary would in any case be around 10 kt. So what you have stated is true beyond your primary size, as per the wiki quote.

Yes.

Incidentally Wiki (as you point out) says that anything above 10 kT is best boosted in some manner

OTOH PKI says that the boosted primary device itself should have been 45 kT. But again PKI's words are very carefully chosen - revealing nothing IMO - "has been designed" he says. Does not say "by whom?"

In earlier designs the booster has been designed for as much as 45 kt

Link

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Sep 2009 19:37

narayanan wrote:
I assume that PKI was out of the loop for top secret need-2-know before this event?

He retired in 1993 - if that means anything.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 02 Sep 2009 19:40

So, the problem is un-availability of data. For PKI, For KS, and for NPAs. Same reason onlee!!

Beeeeeeautiiiiifuuuul!!

munna · Post by **munna** » 02 Sep 2009 19:45

Dileep wrote:So, the problem is un-availability of data. For PKI, For KS, and for NPAs. Same reason onlee!!

Beeeeeeautiiiiifuuuul!!

And hence the sledging to prove the "Mardanagi" or in other words give away our secrets!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Sep 2009 19:49

munna wrote:
Dileep wrote:So, the problem is un-availability of data. For PKI, For KS, and for NPAs. Same reason onlee!!

Beeeeeeautiiiiifuuuul!!
And hence the sledging to prove the "Mardanagi" or in other words give away our secrets!

Personally I wouldn't be so unkind. It appears that PKI has been fairly consistent in his views that more testing is needed. Even the 400 grams LiD data has appeared on the forum before and will be found in the archives.

Santhanam is the loose cannon and his about turn is what set this off.

Why???

Why now?

munna · Post by **munna** » 02 Sep 2009 19:56

shiv wrote:Personally I wouldn't be so unkind. It appears that PKI has been fairly consistent in his views that more testing is needed. Even the 400 grams LiD data has appeared on the forum before and will be found in the archives.

Sorry my post came across as being against PKI, I actually wanted to disparage the NPA line of questioning. Regarding PKI perhaps (I believe) he is trying to muddy the waters so that NPAs are unable to gauge Indian capabilities or maybe he has an honest hunch due to the known unknown and unknown unknowns that he knows or maybe does not know.

Santhanam is the loose cannon and his about turn is what set this off.
Why???
Why now?

I called him a renegade in one of the post (in a good way) and I stand by it, he is muddying the waters further still, giving a vent to unsatisfied section of our stratejjic kommunity, telling Omi bhaiya to be beware and reducing the space of manouvre for Puja MMSji. All in all good strategy cause no one knows what he knows but due to his outburst everybody is on their guard and won't sell themselves short.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 02 Sep 2009 19:58

So gurus,
Still PKI has a point. Why be so reticent? Why not the maha one?
As someone else said on another thread, you cannot buy "b@lls" from the intl. market.

If anything, more tests would only enhance model accuracy, no?
And it makes it a level playing field.