Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Sep 2009 08:28

John Snow is right. No more revelations or countering arguments. Its looking more and more silly.
No to CTBT.
Will test if there is any more breakout.
Will test is we feel threatened by direct or indirect means.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2009 08:28

I do not want to attribute Chankianness or intelligence to a bunch of scientists who are currently questioning each others credentials and credibility - not least because I have myself got attacked in this thread for seeming to suggest that.

However that does not stop me from blowing my own trumpet. No humility for me.

Regarding the 1998 tests only one (a 1974 style fission device) was apparently a weapon. Now we have all learned that deterrence comes only from megabooms and not fractional centi-pharts. So why on earth would any morons want to conduct tests of 0.3 and 0.6 kt bombs 50 meters down in a sand dune? Any fourth rate terrorist organization should be able to organise a dig to place 300 tons (60 truckloads) of TNT and explode it. Heck the May 13 tests were not even weapons.

As far as I am concerned, I would lie about the tests. I would lie about the depth and I would lie about the yield. It might not be 50 meters. It might only be 0.2 kt or it even 2 kt. But I would announce a test.

Why would I announce a test?

Because if I did not announce a test and the CTBT seismometers picked up the test - I would get blamed for lying. But after announcing the test of a 0.3 and 0.6 kt "nuke" (?

?) I would wait to see what the Shittybitty monitors have picked up.

As it turned out they picked up nothing on May 13th. Another fizzle. Ho hum. Bloody incompetent Indians. But only I know what I tested and where I tested it, and of course, ewhen I tested it. Unfortunately DRDO does not employ intelligent people like me.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2009 08:29

Arun_S wrote:
shiv wrote:2) They were deliberately trying to mask yields and test above the water table in sandy soil just to see what information the CTBT monitoring apparatus could get. That of course would automatically have forced a low yield test
One life time opportunity to test and serve Indian security interest v.s. play cat and mouse with CTBT monitoring apparatus !!

What do you say were the orders to the team? And finally what was the purpose of the test series, some abstract and irrelevant experiment?

If latter is true, then they are truly the best laughing stock and deserving beings holding high the Indian flag.

You opinion versus mine. I think we can agree to disagree politely without mocking anyone.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2009 08:31

John Snow wrote:I think its time for all current scientists BARC or BARC to just shut up not give any more inofrmation. It is better that we preserve the very litlle crdibility that we have..

Too late now.

I m not going to stop. People have come up with such wild theories that I have not even started to come up with my own theories.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Sep 2009 08:36

My humble attempt in a thread dominated by strategic heavy weights. reconciling the seemingly contradictory viewpoints presented by N3 garu and Arun Sir:

Did the lack of terrain inhibit testing an all out TN weapon - in all probability, YES.

Did the 2nd stage in a highly advanced design fizzle? - in all probability, YES.

Are they capable of producing a full sizzle based on what they have? - in all probability, YES.

Is further testing required? Ideally, YES

Is further testing possible/preferable? Practically, NO.

Is deterrent naked? For all practical purposes, NO.

Should CTBT be signed? Absolutely NOT.

This whole thing is probably to make sure the last does not occur with a not so strong willed PM vs Ombaba. If it results in another test, all the better. JMT

CM.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 03 Sep 2009 08:45

shiv wrote: Regarding the 1998 tests only one (a 1974 style fission device) was apparently a weapon. Now we have all learned that deterrence comes only from megabooms and not fractional centi-pharts. So why on earth would any morons want to conduct tests of 0.3 and 0.6 kt bombs 50 meters down in a sand dune? Any fourth rate terrorist organization should be able to organise a dig to place 300 tons (60 truckloads) of TNT and explode it. Heck the May 13 tests were not even weapons.

As far as I am concerned, I would lie about the tests. I would lie about the depth and I would lie about the yield. It might not be 50 meters. It might only be 0.2 kt or it even 2 kt. But I would announce a test.

Why would I announce a test?

Because if I did not announce a test and the CTBT seismometers picked up the test - I would get blamed for lying. But after announcing the test of a 0.3 and 0.6 kt "nuke" (? ?) I would wait to see what the Shittybitty monitors have picked up.

As it turned out they picked up nothing on May 13th. Another fizzle. Ho hum. Bloody incompetent Indians. But only I know what I tested and where I tested it, and of course, ewhen I tested it. Unfortunately DRDO does not employ intelligent people like me.

You are spot on. I know its bad form to quote your ownself, but I am going to do it. My earlier post:

If any criticism can be levelled, it is that the interaction between enumerating the geo political realities in which India as a rank outsider would have a fleeting opportunity to test on the one hand

and

the scientific preparations necessary to counter the prospect of even remote failures in some of the designs tested to give the maximum probability of achieveing scientific and political objectives associated with the tests

were not sufficiently thought through i.e. somebody within the Indian establishment who understood both the geopolitical realities as well as the scientific underpinnings of the tests. Logically speaking such a person is the National Security Advisor. But who knows what pressures various people including the NSA were at that point of time.

To elaborate:

Nuclear weapons are primarily political weapons... their purpose is to deter war. Other than the unique demonstration effect utilized by thre US on Japan in WW2 on the power of this new weapon to cause destruction, they have always been political weapons.

As such, any tests of nuclear weapons has a scientific as well as a political objective. If India's weapon designers are saying that they have achieved their scientific objectives whether its validation of an existing design or getting new data, I have no hesitation in believing them.

However what was clearly a fizzle was the non achievement of the political objective as you have so colorfully described in your post above. The blame if any for that must rest squarely with the political establishment who authorized the test but forget that they also had political objectives to meet with the test, namely, that the boom had better be a big bad boom so that everyone everywhere would have no doubt that India had the big bad bum. After all what good is it if all scientific objectives are met, but half the world does not believe you. And you are constrained from releasing scientific data for obvious reasons.

In the light of this, the attacks on the scientific establishment are in poor taste. Because the scientific establishment cannot respond without divulging data which can never be in the public domain.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2009 09:05

amit wrote:
I did a guess work..

Sorry to get personal - but are you a seismologist?

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Sep 2009 09:15

Cain Marko wrote:This whole thing is probably to make sure the last does not occur with a not so strong willed PM vs Ombaba. If it results in another test, all the better. JMT

CM.

I'm sorry this constant drumming that MMS is not strong willed and is likely to agree to CTBT due to Obama pressure needs some concrete proof, I'm afraid, to be credible.

As far as I know, the latest and last statement about India's stand on CTBT was given by Shyam Sharan at the Brookings Institute lecture. He's clearly and unambiguously stated India's position vis a vis CTBT.

It's been slightly more than five months since then. Is there any indication that Indian strategic thought on CTBT has undergone a 180 degree change in these intervening few month?

Sure there's probably internal brain stroming sessions on merits/demerits CTBT within the strategic community - in fact KS' original statement came from such a seminar. Every nation's strategic community undertake such discussions where every position is explored and it could well be that the Indian government is internally discussing different aspects of CTBT

However, until and unless someone from GoI, whose's authorised, makes a statement which is different from SS' statement in the US in March, we have to believe that India's position vis a vis CTBT remains the same.

To say that the PM of a party which has been democratically elected can change India's longstanding position on CTBT just because he was pressured is I'm afraid just casting aspersions.

I know some folks will rake up SeS here but one needs to note that a joint statement with the Paki PM - however badly drafted/crafted it may be - is not the same thing as guiding the country away from a long established policy which has consensus across the political milieu.

Just cast your mind back on how long it took to get the Nuclear deal going.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 03 Sep 2009 09:18

All fine and dandy with Shivji's conjecture.

Why be specific about 43 60 or 100 Kt.
Just say We farted one big time , one medium time and one very small time, let the international community apply grahms law of diffusion and Indian smelly conditions and scientists smell to seperate the real fart component.

The trouble comes when we say I farted 43 Kt, there was one small Indian smell which is about 20 Kt the rest is all from..

we could have farted really big time but the smell would have overwhelemed the villagers who are only used to Gobar gas and think of the perfume our own scietists had to use even if it Christain Doir kind...

No qunatity should have been given, just the quality, we wanted to be1/2 chanikyana and then .... we have this great thread...

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Sep 2009 09:19

shiv wrote:
amit wrote:
I did a guess work..
Sorry to get personal - but are you a seismologist?

Don't know where you got that quote from Doctor. But hey isn't everyone guessing her?

PS: Now I don't know if giving the feminine gender to the sizzle yah fizzle that taken so many pages here is the right thing to do! But if its a lady then all this attention is worth the effort I guess.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2009 09:22

amit wrote:
Don't know where you got that quote from Doctor. But hey isn't everyone guessing her?

Ah. We are all seismologists then

amit · Post by **amit** » 03 Sep 2009 09:24

shiv wrote:
amit wrote:
Don't know where you got that quote from Doctor. But hey isn't everyone guessing her?
Ah. We are all seismologists then

Now are you suggesting the lady farted and were all trying to understand the yield?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Sep 2009 09:26

Hi Doc,
U mean SesmeStreetologist.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2009 09:30

Can subkiloton centipharts be used to validate various things in the line of business that we are talking about?

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 03 Sep 2009 09:43

As it turned out they picked up nothing on May 13th. Another fizzle. Ho hum. Bloody incompetent Indians. But only I know what I tested and where I tested it, and of course, ewhen I tested it. Unfortunately DRDO does not employ intelligent people like me.

How do you know they picked up nothing? Seismology is nuclear epistemology-how do we know we know?

They did not pick up the blasts that India did not make, is all one can conclude. But we cannot conclude the truth from untruths.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2009 09:54

sanjaykumar wrote:As it turned out they picked up nothing on May 13th. Another fizzle. Ho hum. Bloody incompetent Indians. But only I know what I tested and where I tested it, and of course, ewhen I tested it. Unfortunately DRDO does not employ intelligent people like me.

How do you know they picked up nothing? Seismology is nuclear epistemology-how do we know we know?

They did not pick up the blasts that India did not make, is all one can conclude. But we cannot conclude the truth from untruths.

You may be right. Everyone must reach his own conclusion here and not be prompted by me to reach any conclusions. But the data available to me is the same as the data available to you or to most other people.

In the absence of the data we lack no conclusion can be taken as final.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Sep 2009 09:55

shiv wrote:Can subkiloton centipharts be used to validate various things in the line of business that we are talking about?

Yes, very much. More that what LIF could do.

Since everyone is riding on their speculating horse..very well what you said could be true.

Shiv wrote:2) They were deliberately trying to mask yields and test above the water table in sandy soil just to see what information the CTBT monitoring apparatus could get. That of course would automatically have forced a low yield test

Simple way to say is, if Indian scientists decided to cheat US satellites, why they have to stop cheating the US/Int monitoring systems. Or, why Indians has to stop cheating satellites alone. Second, (again speculation) India agreed to Vol. moratorium. It means anytime it can cancel that conduct sub-kt test and and revert back the moratorium status. simple no ? Of course w/o declaring that officially.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Sep 2009 09:56

sanjaykumar wrote:As it turned out they picked up nothing on May 13th. Another fizzle. Ho hum. Bloody incompetent Indians. But only I know what I tested and where I tested it, and of course, ewhen I tested it. Unfortunately DRDO does not employ intelligent people like me.

How do you know they picked up nothing? Seismology is nuclear epistemology-how do we know we know?

They did not pick up the blasts that India did not make, is all one can conclude. But we cannot conclude the truth from untruths.

Hi...check what RC said on this. Ofcourse if you develop the habit not to believe anything official and what officials say...its upto your call.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2009 09:56

Kanson wrote:
Simple way to say is, if Indian scientists decided to cheat US satellites, why they have to stop cheating the US/Int monitoring systems. Or, why Indians has to stop cheating satellites alone.

When I suggested this earlier in this thread I was attacked for saying so.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2009 10:00

Kanson wrote:
Hi...check what RC said on this. Ofcourse if you develop the habit not to believe anything official and what officials say...its upto your call.

In fact the signals in many monitoring stations are freely available to the public online. Googleshwara should throw up some results. "Did you actually look?" is a question that is rarely asked and almost never answered.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Sep 2009 10:01

^^^ true.

shiv wrote:
Kanson wrote:
Simple way to say is, if Indian scientists decided to cheat US satellites, why they have to stop cheating the US/Int monitoring systems. Or, why Indians has to stop cheating satellites alone.
When I suggested this earlier in this thread I was attacked for saying so.

If specualtion is the order of the day, why only one side has to reign in.... if every side started doing that lets see where it ends...

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 03 Sep 2009 10:07

You mean unadultered raw data, pristinely unfiltered? That confirm the absence of a signal?

I am not sure how to answer your query. I have also seen evidence of Elvis cohabiting with little green men in Arkansas.

negi · Post by **negi** » 03 Sep 2009 10:07

I am seeing a pattern here every 5 or so pages the activity on this thread subsides somebody or the other comes with a nice little pin and again scratches the sizzle-ya-fizzle debate and then again starts a series of posts of tu-tu main-main.

Problem is no one is able to take this to a logical conclusion for obvious reasons (i.e. no data)...so gurujano what shall we do ?

Honestly at times I have also given in to the khujli.

(--added later)

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Sep 2009 10:08

ldev wrote:However what was clearly a fizzle was the non achievement of the political objective as you have so colorfully described in your post above. The blame if any for that must rest squarely with the political establishment who authorized the test but forget that they also had political objectives to meet with the test, namely, that the boom had better be a big bad boom so that everyone everywhere would have no doubt that India had the big bad bum. After all what good is it if all scientific objectives are met, but half the world does not believe you. And you are constrained from releasing scientific data for obvious reasons.

Considering what Home Sethna say one non-political intereference at POK-I they might followed the tradition. Or, as the gov. changed hands between parties, it must have missed.

(again speculation)

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 03 Sep 2009 10:08

amit wrote:I'm sorry this constant drumming that MMS is not strong willed and is likely to agree to CTBT due to Obama pressure needs some concrete proof, I'm afraid, to be credible.

To be fair, I won't say that MMS is the only indian leader to give off the weak kneed image. I daresay the last one to show some cajonies was a woman PM! (no, no not Sonia). As far as proof is concerned, apart from the SeS fiasco, what steps have been taken since all the wunderbar soosai attacks (to borrow a funny from N3) on india? Not to mention chini ghooskhori! But like I said, this PM isn't the only one to give off a "soft" image.

CM.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 03 Sep 2009 10:10

negi wrote:I am seeing a pattern here every 5 or so pages the activity on this thread subsides somebody or the other comes with a nice little pin and again scratches the sizzle-ya-fizzle debate and then again starts a series of posts of tu-tu main-main.

Problem is no one is able to take this to a logical conclusion for obvious reasons (i.e. no data)...so gurujano what shall we do ?

Ah! a true man of thinking... convert the thread to only NEWs thread.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2009 10:15

CTBT has a monitoring system of seismic monitors across the globe designed to look for cheats. Pakistan has one (maybe more?) such monitoring station/s. They can detect Indian tests anytime. India has no such CTBT monitoring stations. The downside of having a CTBT monitoring station on your soil is that the geology of the area has to be mapped out well and known to the NPA.

The May 13 tests were not detected in any of the publicly acknowledged stations.

But claiming that signals were picked up in secret non public stations makes seismic monitoring questionable. It confirms to me that seismology and phrenology are related disciplines. The same arguments applied to the uncertainty of the May 13 signals can be applied to May 11. Why doubt one and accept the other as The Gospel? If some seismographs have no signal at all and others register a weak signal at another time, it means that he same jolt causes variable signals. Now isn't that true of May 11th?

Even better if these is NO signal on a CTBT monitor, it means that no test has been conducted.
Yes? No?

If yes, why did India announce a test on may 13? To attract mockery? I suggest that it is a blow in the balls to CTBT monitoring.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 03 Sep 2009 10:20

That is why this thread is akin to the medieval Christian theological question (possibly apocryphal) of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. In the absence of agreed upon data, science gives way to theology. In my humble opinion this topic is best reserved for the argumentative Indian until such time as more facts come to light.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 03 Sep 2009 10:21

Encourage India and Pak to sign CTBT: Markey

Washington, Sept 3 (PTI) Expressing concern over nuclear arms race in South Asia, a senior Democratic lawmaker, who opposed the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, has asked the Obama administration to "encourage" India and Pakistan to sign CTBT and halt production of nuclear-weapon fissile material.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 03 Sep 2009 10:35

US wants results from Obama nuclear meeting at UN

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said Wednesday that "the session will focus on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any particular countries."

Rice said the United States chose nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament as the topic for the council meeting because it views these issues "as one of the principal and most pressing challenges of our time."

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 03 Sep 2009 10:36

Dr. Kakodkar says we have enough data and simulation capability; no further test required.

On the other hand:

One of his Gurus (Dr Iyengar) and some others opine that readings from one test (failed or otherwise) do not constitute "enough data".

I think both seemingly contrary propositions above can be reconciled by the postulation that proliferation of "data" to India (as it was done for France, I believe) has already taken place or has been promised if India acquiesces to the "back door entry to CTBT" (also known as "Nuclear Deal"). Probably India has been asked to believe that the "data" is good / trustworthy, for otherwise, India may not be in a position to "calibrate" it with the results from its only test (failed or otherwise).

This idea would tend to "nuke" and "vent" Dr Chidambaram's "Venn Digram of Nuclear Proliferation"

!

(I think a similar thought has already been posted at page 45 by Acharya ji. So I do not claim originality here, only indicate my agreement with the postulate.)

Edited: Penultimate para added and some other corrections made.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 03 Sep 2009 10:48

I think both seemingly contrary propositions above can be reconciled by the postulation that proliferation of "data" to India (as it was done for France, I believe) has already taken place or has been promised if India acquiesces to the "back door entry" to CTBT. Probably India has been asked to believe that the "data" is good / trustworthy, for otherwise, India may not be in a position to "calibrate" it with the results from its only test (failed or otherwise).

And the emerging possibility that sub-kiloton tests could be frequently conducted w/o upsetting any int'l applecarts while yielding useful data for calibrating simulations only (thoughts gathered from kanson and shiv above). Heck, for all we know, we might as well be having a sub-kt test every week since 1998 to refine and revise the simulation models.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 03 Sep 2009 10:57

If these sub-kiloton tests are undetectable, then it is logical to assume they were being conducted prior to 1998 as well to build the simulation model used for designing the TN device. And yet there are doubts about the credibility of the TN tested in 1998. Which leads back to the conclusion that simulation alone can not assure credibility of the deterrent.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 03 Sep 2009 11:03

They came to know that CTBT monitors couldn't detect the sub kt tests after the 1998 tests

if RAW possibly figured that MMS could be signing the CTBT, however they couldn't figure sharing of test data?

From US POV, are we still not in Russian/non-NATO camp? or is it Russian data that we trust with acquiescence of US?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 03 Sep 2009 11:04

sorry Indians are not white, Chinese and Japanese were are considered white even during aparthaid.

So we wont get any freebees, if some ones says contrary to that

"If there were dreams to sell
what would you buy?
Merry and sad to tell
what would you buy? "

disha · Post by **disha** » 03 Sep 2009 11:43

John Snow wrote:sorry Indians are not white, Chinese and Japanese were are considered white even during aparthaid.

Precisely. So any talk of data sharing should be put to rest.

What are we discussing? Fizzle or Sizzle? Since the camps are evenly divided and watching over 46 pages of posts, here are my small SDRE observations:

1. It is both a fizzle and sizzle. That is, we attempted a staged TN and some parts of Staged TN did *not* work and could be simulated. That is, a failure in some aspect generated data which pointed to a variable and upon tweaking the variable, one could simulate both the failure (validating the data) and also a simulated success. Hence the confidence by the scientists that their design works. And also the underconfidence by the scientists that the new simulation needs to be tested.

2. Designing Fission/FBF tests are straightforward. The trinity test was designed, developed and tested in mere 11 months. Testing FBF tests minus their Pu pits can be done anytime and does not even constitute as sub-critical testing. Here is a link to images of lens test, the explosive lenses that compress a Pu pit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:X-Ray ... t-Shot.gif

3. Designing a TN is not difficult either. For eg. the Chinese 2 Stage TN test was the 6th test and was designed and developed within 4 years of exploding the first fission device. In fact, the Soviets were planning to test the Sloika type TN device before they decided to play it safe.

So do we have a detergent (deterrence)? Of course, we do. Even for all its bombastic, Mao would have balked at loosing say Shanghai and Beijing to 6 fission based warheads each of 20 kt. Imagine that those same warheads are 45 kt. And it can be less than <400 Kg. So quite deliverable. Yes, a Jingo can speculate that a megalomaniac Mao can gamble to loose 2 cities in order to destroy 20 SDRE citiies. If that is the speculation, there is no end to such scenarios. A 40 Kt can deter as much as a 300 Kt. Particularly if your goal is NFU and Credible Min. Deterrence with second strike capability. It is the ability to strike back that counts, not withstanding Jingo wet dreams of turning Pukistan into trinitite.

Then what is the reason we should not sign shitty-bitty? For technical reason or for reasons of equality? I do not think that there is a technical reasons in *not* to sign shitty-bitty, but than that is an unequal agreement and hence should not be signed. Trying to find a technical argument to not to sign shitty-bitty would be futile, since as we see in 47 pages we are twisting ourselves into a pretzel.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 Sep 2009 11:45

Cain Marko wrote:My humble attempt in a thread dominated by strategic heavy weights. reconciling the seemingly contradictory viewpoints presented by N3 garu and Arun Sir:

Did the lack of terrain inhibit testing an all out TN weapon - in all probability, YES.

Did the 2nd stage in a highly advanced design fizzle? - in all probability, YES.

Are they capable of producing a full sizzle based on what they have? - in all probability, YES.

Is further testing required? Ideally, YES

Is further testing possible/preferable? Practically, NO.

Is deterrent naked? For all practical purposes, NO.

Should CTBT be signed? Absolutely NOT.

This whole thing is probably to make sure the last does not occur with a not so strong willed PM vs Ombaba. If it results in another test, all the better. JMT

CM.

Actually, I think it is as simple as this. However I do disagree on a few counts
1) We could indeed test a 200 KT weapon, the initial shaft was designed for a 200 KT weapon (Ramana)
2) Is further testing preferable -- yes.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 Sep 2009 11:51

disha wrote: Then what is the reason we should not sign shitty-bitty? For technical reason or for reasons of equality? I do not think that there is a technical reasons in *not* to sign shitty-bitty, but than that is an unequal agreement and hence should not be signed. Trying to find a technical argument to not to sign shitty-bitty would be futile, since as we see in 47 pages we are twisting ourselves into a pretzel.

There is a technical reason, we yet don't have a proofed TN weapon that is must for establishing deterrence.

And while I do understand that some folks think we don't need TN for deterrence unfortunately the folks who came up with the nuclear doctrine for India disagree and substantially.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 03 Sep 2009 12:49

we should test once and for all a bigger TN weapon -say 300-500 KT as early as possible

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 03 Sep 2009 13:39

vera_k wrote:If these sub-kiloton tests are undetectable, then it is logical to assume they were being conducted prior to 1998 as well to build the simulation model used for designing the TN device. And yet there are doubts about the credibility of the TN tested in 1998. Which leads back to the conclusion that simulation alone can not assure credibility of the deterrent.

Saar. Pls dont be taken for a ride. No one on earth has a TN bum with sub-kt primary yield. And one cant measure fusion parameters without lighting fusion fuel. Without model parameters, no fusion simulation.

As for undetectable sub-kiloton tests, also ponder on the situation further with the same logic. India has been at will doing sub-Kt test before 1998; begs the question why do it during Shakti series? And of course India continues to do that after 1998 too no big deal.

When India can do undetectable sub-kiloton tests, why will it ever need sub-critical testing. Surely no has ever heard of India doing sub-critical testing.