Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 04 Sep 2009 08:06

The issue really is not about India signing on to CTBT or NPT.

It is IF others do not adhere to them (after signing + ratification + etc) IF India will do what is the best interest of India at THAT point in time.

I do not think India will. There is just too much inertia to over come even today, there will be a lot more in the future.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 04 Sep 2009 08:26

Do remember folks. KS (Pitamah) did not support the tests - before - they were done. His stance just like RC's was there was no need. KS supported 123 from the start. KS will likely support CTBT. KS's world view as an analyst is markedly different from BK or BC. KS seeks to build strength but with the intent of maintaining the status quo. If there is a conflict, then the status quo wins. BK and BC will do the opposite. It comes down to the policy makers, the ones with power to act and execute upon the strategy. Indian leadership instinctively is more comfortable with the KS view.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 04 Sep 2009 08:31

KS is pitamah certainly. No denying that. Also let us remember the lesson of history, the great pitamah ended up in the wrong side of the Mahabharata War.

Not saying that it is the same thing here. But just that let us not look at it from perspectives of these analysts. They have served India well. What is important is the action on the ground and the signals preceding such action. Hence my call for attention to these aspects.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 04 Sep 2009 08:39

Raja Ram Sir: nice summary. I agree with you. What in your opinion can we do to make our voices heard? We have analyzed, ranted & raved, learnt a bit from each other over 50 pages. Is there anything we can do going beyond this?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Sep 2009 09:13

Not going beyond

going back...

Ok - I will say some things - not meant to be insulting - but they could be taken to mean anything about anyone including me.

Indians are good at cheating. Cheating and "white lies" are normal in the Indian ethos - but I would have to jump to the psyche thread for examples. But the point I am trying make here is

1) Yes it may be true that Indians have "cheated" other Indians on the yield but
2) It is quite likely that Indians have attempted to cheat the entire world and the CTBT apparatus as well

In turn the CTBT folks as far as I can tell have been particularly anxious to prove that their monitoring is very sensitive and accurate and covers the entire globe - which is the only way any CTBT can get through. (It will not get through is my opinion but "what will happen" is astrology)

I draw your attention to a thread that I has started in 2002 which is in the archives (Sorry the old html formatting is difficult to read)

SEISMOLOGY FOR DUMMIES: GUESSTIMATING NUCLEAR TEST YIELDS

While I did a fair amount of reading of heavy papers to start that thread I will re post a few salient points here:

According to one dictionary Seismology is the science that studies earthquakes. It so happens that underground nuclear explosions also cause little squiggles in the instruments that are set up to study earthquakes (seismographs), putting seismologists in the unique position of talking about nuclear tests.

So how do people arrive at the yield of a nuclear test from squiggles on seismographs?

The "magic formula" is given below:

mb = attenuation constant + 0.75(Log of Yield)

or

mb = a + 0.75 Log Y

For this formula, "mb" is measured from the squiggle on the seismograph, and "Y" is the Yield of the nuclear test that the magic formula will reveal after you fill in the value of "a".

Now what the hell is "a"? "a" is a number that is supposed to indicate the amount by which the seismic signal of the explosion has petered out as is gets to you. The value can be anywhere from [url="http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geophysics/f ... e/ind.pak/"]3.9 to 4.5[url]

Now that is really really funny, and its called science. If some seismographs indicate a value of 5.2 for mb you apply the magic formula and get a nuclear yield of 53 kilotons if you use a value of "a" as 3.9, and the SAME NUCLEAR EXPLOSION will show a yield of only 8 kilotons if you use the value 4.5 for "a".

<snip>

in the value of a: Sikka et al use 4.04 on the assumption that the yield of the first Indian test (18 May 1974 referred to below as 740518) was 13 kt, Wallace uses 4.45 on the assumption that a for Pokhran is the same as that of eastern Kazakhstan

It should be clear to anyone that the value of "a" depends on the local geology.

To quote a non Indian source (linked in the original post in the archives)

the nature of the relationship between mb BRV and yield is tied to the considerable effect by the depth of a charge on seismic efficiency. This is because higher yield explosions are carried out at greater depths. The relationship is also linked to any change, based on depth, in the physical, mechanical and gas-forming properties of the enclosing rocks, which determine the
action of an explosion on the surrounding environment. It is obvious that the depth of an explosion influences not only the lithostatic pressure, but also the stability, density, porosity and wave velocity of elastic waves and the moisture content of rocks. All of these properties have an integral effect on the transfer of the energy from an explosion to the creation of seismic wave

And an Indian source

An underground nuclear explosion sets up a shock wave near the point of detonation which interacts with the surrounding geological medium. This shock wave vaporizes, melts, plastically deforms and fractures the surrounding rocks and then degenerates into elastic waves. Only a
small portion of the total energy released by an under-ground explosion is converted into seismic waves. The ratio of the elastic wave energy to the total energy is known as seismic efficiency. The seismic efficiency depends on the physical characteristics of the surrounding medium and the source parameters.

The points I am trying to make are as follows:

1) In the absence of specific data a seismological guess of yields is terribly imprecise. It can only be made precise by trial and error. By trial and error I mean that people have to set off explosions of known yields (measured by accelerometers and other methods) in the same area and the geological constants are calculated for that area by this retrograde method. After this value is calculated it is easy to calculate the yields of al further tests in that area with accuracy.

2) Despite these inaccuracies the CTBT apparatus has been set up by the "haves" creating Non Prolif Ayatollahs who "dictate" what a yield is. That means that these jokers when the acquire power can choose to ignore a test in Pakistan or China or the US while punishing countries like India. They decide the yields and they decide if there has been a test or not. This is exactly how the CTBT monitoring apparatus is structured.

In order to fob off these b@stards it is essential to be cagey about what is being done and keep our cards close to our chests. It does not matter what they say as long as we can do our own thing.

India has been very careful not to release any real data about the actual yields of any tests sizzle or fizzle. Even people like Santhanam and PKI are playing by Indian rules. They voice their criticism using foreign/CTBT/NPA data to cite sizzle or fizzle they are not letting out any real secrets about design capability or incapability. It is clear that a lot of design information can be gleaned from details of fission/fusion products and the percentage of fission or fusion. Geological information comes from exact yields. I am certain that PKI and Santhanam have a lot more information than they are revealing. They are hardly traitors. But I am sure the same holds true for PC, Kalam and others.

I believe we are missing something in our yield arguments

So in my view the "truth" about Indian nuke tests is:

1974: 8 to 12 kt
POK 1: 5 to 60 kt
POK 2 : ?? less than 1 kt

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Sep 2009 09:29

Please put up with me for a bit folks - I want to show you some more bnchodgiri by the CTBT folks

Here is some data from a CTBT site
http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/bsv/nuclear_e ... india.html

1974 blast: mb value=5, yield = 12 kt

Now please use the equation

mb = attenuation constant + 0.75(Log to base 10 of Yield)

or

mb = a + 0.75 Log Y

and tell me what you get?

And here is the data for 1998:

1998 blast mb value=5.2, yield = 5 to 20 kt

What is the value for "a" in 1974? What is the value in 1998?

What are the discrepancies if any?

I would do this myself - but I really must go to work and will return to do this later.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Sep 2009 09:33

Cratering and spall simulation of Pokhran-1 event with three-dimensional transient finite element analysis
Rajeev Ranjan, R. K. Singh*, S. K. Sikka and Anil Kakodkar

Mathematical model for Pokhran-1974 event
Figure 1 shows the three-dimensional finite element model used in the present study. This model represents the three-layered geological system of shale, sandstone and degraded sandstone. In Figure 1, an enlarged view of the fluid ele-ment representing the emplacement cavity located at a depth of 107 m from the top is also shown. Above this cavity,the shale stratum is up to an elevation of 55 m, which is overlaid with a sandstone cover of 40 m thickness, extending up to an elevation of 95 m. The topmost layer above this is a degraded sandstone stratum of 12 m thickness.

BARC's understanding of the geology of the area of the Pokhran-1974 event. Gives you and idea of what the Pokhran-1998 area might have been.

Again, here is the link Shiv saar had posted earlier. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper451.html
Here is what RC had to say about the geology of 1998 test site.

Apart from concerns that have been expressed about evasion through decoupling by carrying out the test in an underground cavity, the nature of the emplacement medium is also important. The threshold limit for seismic detection is much higher in, say, a sand medium than in hard rock; the Pokhran geological medium comes somewhere in between.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 04 Sep 2009 09:37

Does someone have figures on he impact of Khan's sanctions on India if we were to test ?

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 04 Sep 2009 10:08

If even those who doubt the thermonuke yield agree that India has enough deterrence now, it would be pointless to test now.

The most optimal scenario for India would be to retain the ability to test.

It appears that India will not be the first to test but if any of the major powers breaks out and tests, then India may use the opportunity to test. I believe K Subrahmanyam had written something to that effect when the debate on testing had heated up during the nuke deal period.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Sep 2009 10:28

Under a nuclear cloud

Given the public slanging match between India’s top scientists over the success of Pokhran II, the confusion itself calls for keeping our options open for future nuclear testing. In fact, quick and firm responses from the prime minister and a former president have only bolstered the credentials of this controversy, with various other voices joining the polemics. Even the foreign media is widely discussing, if not gloating, over the recent volley of remarks.

Three moot questions seeking answers are: (a) how quickly and easily might the Senate agree to ratify the CTBT; (b) whether India has the required scientific data from its six tests to confidently move on to laboratory testing; and (c) whether in popular opinion, answers to (a) and (b) are clear, confusing or in the negative? By most estimates, the answers were always going to be confusing, except there now seems to be a perceptible tilt towards the negative, making public perceptions on nuclear issues pivotal to India’s security.

amit · Post by **amit** » 04 Sep 2009 10:30

shiv wrote:Please put up with me for a bit folks ...

Shiv,

On related note, I'm sure you read that KS has written the the shaft was designed to take a 60kt bomb and not 200kt as some folks said.

Now I know it's KS' word against anyone who give a different design yield for the shaft. However the difference is, KS has written this on a National Newspaper. Now if his value is not challenged with a letters to the editor or some such way, I think it would be fair to assume that he knows what he's talking about.

JMT

amit · Post by **amit** » 04 Sep 2009 10:39

Raja Ram wrote:Some have argued here that the GOI has never officially stated that it going to sign this treaty or that. So there is no need to ascribe motives now. Doing that now is a sign of political bias. Fair enough. Let us not rush to judgement. In the interim it would be foolhardy to ignore signals. The NSA has talked about big ideas. The PM has spoken about the primacy of growth over anything else in multiple occassions. The PM has also said that we must make bold moves and be a contributor to international efforts in important areas like disarmament and climate control and not be seen as an irritant and obstacle creators. He has also announced that we will talk to neighbours despite actions that are clearly unfriendly because avoidance of war is a must for keeping the GDP growing.

In addition to all this, the track record of this PM when it comes to nuclear capabilities is there. It has been recounted well in the past and I wont do it once again. Even if the past actions are not a guide to future actions, if you look at some of the present actions and views expressed and take that into account, it does not inspire confidence that the present administration will preserve India's sovereign optiions in the area of nuclear capability and deterrence. This will be a departure from a national consensus.

Raja Ram,

As usual a very informative post.

However a few small points.

It is true that the PM has spoken of bold moves and being a contributor in international efforts in areas like disarmament and climate control – and this as it should be if India is to take its rightful place in the comity of nations.

But I’m not too sure how that transforms itself into India signing the CTBT or giving a commitment to sign the CTBT? I mean is there a linear correlation between the two?

Why is it the assumption is that India can contribute only by signing on to CTBT? Is it a zero sum game?

Remember India’s longstanding goal is universal, verifiable disarmament and abolition of nuclear weapons.

Couldn’t it also be interpreted that the PM is implying that India will vigorously try to move the debate towards that point?

The other link to this is Shyam Saran’s speech in March. Now I’m sure there are few things on which everyone here can agree. They are:

a) India is not a banana Republic, which says one thing and then goes and does exactly opposite like the Pakistanis.
b) While it’s fashionable to call MMS and his advisors colorful names, there’s no reason to assume they are stupid is there?
c) No elected Govt can hope to ram down a CTBT signing or a commitment to signing without a proper debate and still hope to survive especially given the fact that doubts have been raised by very respectable people on our deterrence.

Given the three points above, why did SS make such categorical noises at Brookings? Surely five months ago the contours of what path the government was going to take on this issue had been discussed and thought out? He could have made a much more ambiguous and toned down speech.

IMHO, if MMS now goes and gives a direct commitment on CTBT without something major happening (I wouldn’t want to speculate on what) wouldn’t it make the government look a bit ridiculous?

The other point is – I know this is akin to blasphemy on BRF – climate control and an unfair treaty on this which goes beyond the Kyoto Protocol could perhaps be as damaging if not more for India as CTBT in the long run. And then there’s the 2010 deadline for the Doha Round, whose acceptance hinges very much on India.

So there are more issues that could be part of the bold initiatives than just the single point agenda of CTBT. God knows there certainly are many things on Obama’s wish list apart from CTBT.

One final comment about the comparison between KS, BK and BC as analysts.

Like you I think all three have done and continue to do a yeoman’s job for India and are assets. However, in my humble opinion I think KS is the only one among the three who gives a more broad perspective picture.

Strength of a country does not just rest on how many big bombs it has or how far its missiles can fly. It also rests on a strong economy. The only true strength is a strong military, which is supported by a strong economy.

I think history has taught us that a strong military usually comes after a strong economy and not vis versa.

Can’t call this a ramble as my posts are not worthy of that nomenclature. Rather just my humble thoughts.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Sep 2009 10:41

OK bottomline regardless of POKII how many want India to sign CTBT?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 04 Sep 2009 10:49

>>>Now if his value is not challenged with a letters to the editor or some such way, I think it would be fair to assume that he knows what he's talking about.

This is the problem most of the folks who had been posting in the last 50 pages or so..(or else the whole discussion would have been confined to less than 5 pages) - Everybody wants to believe themselves and 'their men' onlee, and don't even want to look at any counter point.

Now let me ask you, since when the credibility of a write-up is linked to the letters to editor?

According to you, after reading your post, if I shoot off a letter to the editor, it loses its credibility, or else it is Gospel truth.

Everybody know where KS stands. And to an extend many people knows where your heart is...nothing wrong in either of the positions. But for No-clear bum, we must dig little harder and deeper to avoid venting (frustations)

amit · Post by **amit** » 04 Sep 2009 10:57

geeth wrote:>>>Now if his value is not challenged with a letters to the editor or some such way, I think it would be fair to assume that he knows what he's talking about.

This is the problem most of the folks who had been posting in the last 50 pages or so..(or else the whole discussion would have been confined to less than 5 pages) - Everybody wants to believe themselves and 'their men' onlee, and don't even want to look at any counter point.

Now let me ask you, since when the credibility of a write-up is linked to the letters to editor?

According to you, after reading your post, if I shoot off a letter to the editor, it loses its credibility, or else it is Gospel truth.

Everybody know where KS stands. And to an extend many people knows where your heart is...nothing wrong in either of the positions. But for No-clear bum, we must dig little harder and deeper to avoid venting (frustations)

Ok Geeth,

Let's put it this way. I suppose you think (apologies if its not you but certainly some posters here think so) that the shaft was meant for a 200kt device while KS thinks it's maximum capacity was for a 60kt device.

Now how do you, by digging deeper, find which contention is right?

It's not a question of believing oneself or anyone else. As far as I know none of the folks who post on BRF and have posted in the past 50 pages were anywhere within 100 mile of POK II in 1998. Now if that's the case if someone says 200kt and someone else says 60kt, both pieces of information is second hand, third hand or even further down the food chain.

In such a situation which piece of information has more credibility and visibility? Something that appears on BRF on something that appears in a national newspaper written by someone who is acknowledged to be the doyen of the Indian strategic community who has been a part of the inner circle for several decades?

Of course I know we could go on debating this for another 50 pages.

Added later: And for the record, I would love another round of tests which sends a loud and unambiguous message to the Lizard.

amit · Post by **amit** » 04 Sep 2009 10:59

ramana wrote:OK bottomline regardless of POKII how many want India to sign CTBT?

Ramana,

I don't think anyone wants to. My reading of the issue is that some folks think India is going to sign on to CTBT while another group think that's not the case and the present revelations and "fight" within the scientific community was orchestrated to give MMS a convenient wiggle room during talks on CTBT.

Why does it have to be a zero sum game?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 04 Sep 2009 11:02

ramana wrote:OK bottomline regardless of POKII how many want India to sign CTBT?

Poll: Pokhran II not fully successful - The way ahead
The poll results:

Poll: Pokhran II not fully successful - The way ahead
Poll ended at 03 Sep 2009 12:17 am
1. Test immediately, and keep testing, as the economic impacts are not going to be longlasting. ................... 36% [ 34 ]
2. Test immediately, No signing upto CTBT ................................................................................................ 8% [ 8 ]
3. Test immediately, agree to signing CTBT without ratifying it .................................................................... 7% [ 7 ]
4. Test immediately, sign and ratify CTBT ...................................... .......................................................... 2% [ 2 ]
5. Don’t test immediately, the waters have been tested internationally. ........................................................ 5% [ 5 ]
6. Chip away at international opposition to complete acceptance as NWS with subcritical testing
and occasional overt testing, gradually advance nuclear tech and try to minimize the effect
to economic development. ..................................................................................................................... 36% [ 34 ]
7. Don’t test, Sign the CTBT as the data gathered is adequate for future simulations ..................................... 2% [ 2 ]

Total votes : 92

I think we can see what the majority BRFites want. They diverge only on the approach to reach that goal.
While the majority want an immediate round of tests, and believe that economic sanctions will not be long lasting, I think it is telling that a huge majority are just fine with a more 'chanakiyan' approach of a step by step end to the pressures mounted on India on this issue, while continuing to test when required. This is the approach the various GoI's have followed uptil now, it seems

AFAIK, Shiv-ji was one of the dissenters, per his confession vide:

Shiv wrote:I vote for sign immediately and forgo all testing and let Pakistan and China give us a nuclear umbrella.

disha · Post by **disha** » 04 Sep 2009 11:09

shiv wrote:Please put up with me for a bit folks - I want to show you some more bnchodgiri by the CTBT folks

Here is some data from a CTBT site
http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/bsv/nuclear_e ... india.html

1974 blast: mb value=5, yield = 12 kt

Now please use the equation

mb = attenuation constant + 0.75(Log to base 10 of Yield)

or

mb = a + 0.75 Log Y

and tell me what you get?

And here is the data for 1998:

1998 blast mb value=5.2, yield = 5 to 20 kt

What is the value for "a" in 1974? What is the value in 1998?

What are the discrepancies if any?

I would do this myself - but I really must go to work and will return to do this later.

Here is the table:

Year.............Mb...........y..............a=mb - 0.75 Log y
-----------------------------------------------------

1974..............5............12............4.190614065

1998.............5.2...........5.............4.675772497
1998.............5.2...........20...........4.224227503

...................5.2..........22.174.......4.190616968

-------------------------------------------------------

My observation, how can attenuation change to a high value of 4.67?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 04 Sep 2009 11:13

>>>Ok Geeth,

>>>>Let's put it this way. I suppose you think (apologies if its not you but certainly some posters here think so) that the shaft was meant for a 200kt device while KS thinks it's maximum capacity was for a 60kt device.

Oh Dear! you have taken things completely out of context! I am not surprised..it is the heart, not brain ruling our thoughts.

>>>Now how do you, by digging deeper, find which contention is right?

When I said 'DIG", I meant dig for information

>>>It's not a question of believing oneself or anyone else. As far as I know none of the folks who post on BRF and have posted in the past 50 pages were anywhere within 100 mile of POK II in 1998. Now if that's the case if someone says 200kt and someone else says 60kt, both pieces of information is second hand, third hand or even further down the food chain.

So why harp on someone's statement? I for one can't believe anybody's statement..Those whom I thought I could trust has also been placed in 'grey area' because of the statement of others. IMO, things can be read as black and white only when hard proof is available (which is not the case) or atleast come to a conclusion that the other point of view can be treated as absurd due to reasons 1..2..3 etc. This also has not happened..yet

>>>>In such a situation which piece of information has more credibility and visibility? Something that appears on BRF on something that appears in a national newspaper written by someone who is acknowledged to be the doyen of the Indian strategic community who has been a part of the inner circle for several decades?

There are contrary views about him as well...that he screwed us royally with his stated position and influence. So it is just a perception. And regarding 'National Newspaper", every news paper is a "National News Paper" onlee. Ask, Hindu..express TOI, or EE-NAADU..Allwill vouch for them selves to be National News paper. By the way, what is circulation of this "National Newspaper" in errr..South India?

>>>Of course I know we could go on debating this for another 50 pages.

I know. So, to begin with, let two us desist from doing that.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 04 Sep 2009 11:17

ramana wrote:OK bottomline regardless of POKII how many want India to sign CTBT?

Why would you ask that question? Who said anything about signing CTBT?

amit · Post by **amit** » 04 Sep 2009 11:22

geeth wrote:I know. So, to begin with, let two us desist from doing that.

That's fair enough, I can live with that.

All is Maya onlee...

amit · Post by **amit** » 04 Sep 2009 11:23

Katare wrote:
OK bottomline regardless of POKII how many want India to sign CTBT?
Why would you ask that question? Who said anything about signing CTBT?

Good question. I'm at a loss to understand when the debate turned into a for or against (CTBT) issue.

milindc · Post by **milindc** » 04 Sep 2009 11:32

ramana wrote:OK bottomline regardless of POKII how many want India to sign CTBT?

How are our interests served by signing CTBT? What's in it for us?

Potential returns compiled by me
Fake promises from Unkle on sharing high-end tech
More pressure to sign the WTO agreements
Clear path to signing NPT as a non-NWS
Path towards global nuclear disarmament

milindc · Post by **milindc** » 04 Sep 2009 11:33

amit wrote:
Katare wrote:
Why would you ask that question? Who said anything about signing CTBT?
Good question. I'm at a loss to understand when the debate turned into a for or against (CTBT) issue.

Per KS, isn't this all about signing CTBT. His prime rationale for coming out now is that he doesn't want MMS to sign CTBT without more testing...

amit · Post by **amit** » 04 Sep 2009 11:40

milindc wrote:Per KS, isn't this all about signing CTBT. His prime rationale for coming out now is that he doesn't want MMS to sign CTBT without more testing...

Very true Milind.

In fact if you go back to the early pages of this thread, that was the line which the debate was taking before it veered off to the old question - raised during the nuclear debate - about yield of the TN bomb.

The point is whether KS' comments were a warning to MMS and others or was it a orchestrated outburst to give MMS some maneuvering during the talks later this year.

I personally think, given that the last official comment on CTBT was Shyam Sharan's at Brookings lecture, the Govt's position on CTBT hasn't changed and hence KS' was just executing a well-planned move.

But whichever way you look at it how can that be turned around into a question of how many people support signing of CTBT and how many don't?

JMT of course

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Sep 2009 11:51

amit wrote:I personally think, given that the last official comment on CTBT was Shyam Sharan's at Brookings lecture, the Govt's position on CTBT hasn't changed and hence KS' was just executing a well-planned move.

But whichever way you look at it how can that be turned around into a question of how many people support signing of CTBT and how many don't?

JMT of course

Saar, while there is a stated position of the gov, during negotiations/meetings/joint statements you would expect the outcome to be within the stated framework or it may in extreme case move a little beyond to a slightly new position.
At Ses, not only was the often stated position ignored, but the new position was way beyond the stated position. This is evident from the reaction from within the congress party.

KS has explicitly issued a warning on CTBT and given that MMS moved way beyond the stated position at Ses, the jingos (me included) are not convinced by Sharan's statements or the framework defined by him.

I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

amit · Post by **amit** » 04 Sep 2009 11:57

Pankaj,

At the end of the day we are all outside the circle and we can only try to guess what's going on within. Let's hope for the best. And I'm sure that my best case is your base case and in fact the base case of every poster who takes the time and effort to post on BRF.

All of us wish to see a strong, powerful and confident India. The only discussion point is which is the best and shortest route to that.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 04 Sep 2009 11:58

Completely agree with you on that saar!

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 04 Sep 2009 12:06

I think GOI should appoint a committee made up of following doctorates i.e PeeHdees to review POK II yields

1) A Dr. of English Language (from Bhagalpur) aka D. Litt ( for Ignition purpose)
2) A Dr. of Physio therapy (from Dhanbad university, his opinion will be muscular to add to the strength of their argument)
3) A Dr. of Para Normal Piskology ( from Sagar University) the topic involves the perception of the event, time space

4) Miss Nimbu Pani for Stenography and modeling of curves.

5) Peon Balraj Balram for cahi Biscoot Samosa arrangements and to high speed videography of how these things melt and vapourize in the hands and mouths of the committee.

These people will be totally unbiased and fearless, they should have the power to issue summons to anyone anywhere including Uneven Cohen, Wallace, Red Wills, Navy cuts, and Dunhills too.

Please no time pressure, but one condition till such time the committee interim report comes out no Shitty Bitty, No F#$% No testing either.

Jai Hind

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 04 Sep 2009 12:27

From Google Earth.

Kanson wrote:
The Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) responded to the preliminary objections by publishing a series of papers arguing that the yields were in accordance with the design objectives. The first paper (13, 13 a) argues in favor of the necessity of accounting for the interference in seismic waves caused by the simultaneous S-1 and S-2 detonations. As the devices were aligned in an E-W direction, they determined, from physical considerations, that interference of the seismic waves of the twin explosions could only be neglected in a narrow azimuthal window. This window was determined to be +/- 20 degrees off the North South axis. They also updated the seismic constants used for mB wave magnitude for Pokhran site.

disha wrote:
Here is the table:

Year.............Mb...........y..............a=mb - 0.75 Log y
-----------------------------------------------------

1974..............5............12............4.190614065

1998.............5.2...........5.............4.675772497
1998.............5.2...........20...........4.224227503

...................5.2..........22.174.......4.190616968

-------------------------------------------------------

My observation, how can attenuation change to a high value of 4.67?

Nilore must lie close to 20 degrees NE of Pokhran from this pic.
Very difficult to tell.

What we need is a point by point rebuttal from NPAs to what Sikka et al have submitted.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 04 Sep 2009 12:32

I personally think, given that the last official comment on CTBT was Shyam Sharan's at Brookings lecture, the Govt's position on CTBT hasn't changed and hence KS' was just executing a well-planned move.

Shouldn't Sri MK Narayanan's carefully constructed casual comment that India will talk about the CTBT be considered the last official comment from GOI?

amit · Post by **amit** » 04 Sep 2009 12:36

Hari Seldon wrote:
I personally think, given that the last official comment on CTBT was Shyam Sharan's at Brookings lecture, the Govt's position on CTBT hasn't changed and hence KS' was just executing a well-planned move.
Shouldn't Sri MK Narayanan's carefully constructed casual comment that India will talk about the CTBT be considered the last official comment from GOI?

Did Shyam Sharan say India will not talk about CTBT at all? Then what's the fundamental difference in position between what MKN is supposed to have said and what SS said?

Unless of course you mean just by talking India will give in on CTBT?

I consider SS' comment as the last official comment because he clearly outlined India's position on CTBT and the clear red lines which are exactly what it's been over all these years. Did MKN do that and if he did was it any different from what SS said in March? I must have missed it if he did. Any links would be appreciated.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 04 Sep 2009 13:46

About the damage to Khetolai, what I wonder is:

The test caused cracks on the buildings. That is an undisputed fact.

The amplitude of the motion of the ground is directly proportional to the KT of the explosion. Why? Richter is log10 of amplitude, and the formula for yield shows that Richter is log10 of Yield.

So, if the explosion was twice the strength, the ground movement anywhere would have been twice the amplitude. That will be twice the force on the structures. I am sure that would have made many of the buildings fall apart. So, let me take twice the yield would pose danger to the inhabitants (and their property) that would require evacuation of the village.

Was Khetolai evacuated? AFAIK, it wasn't. It would have been a tragedy if the blast was twice of what happened.

Now, the options are:

1. BARC erred in estimating the damage potential for a given yield, and designed the yield accordingly. The actual yield was lower than expected, so the village was saved.

2. BARC correctly estimated the damage potential, and designed the yield accordingly. The actual yield was a bit higher than designed.

3. BARC correctly estimated the damage potential, but thought that the village is expendable and designed a high yield. The actual yield was lower than expected, so the village was saved.

4. BARC correctly estimated the damage potential, informed the higher ups the need to evacuate the village and designed a high yield. The higher ups thought that the village is expendable (or, just forgot to tell them). And the actual yield was lower than expected, so the village was saved.

Which one would you take?

arun · Post by **arun** » 04 Sep 2009 13:52

Former AEC Charirman M.R.Srinivasan on K.Santhanam’s “fizzle” allegations regarding our thermonuclear test:

"The point made by Dr Santhanam needs to be discussed by those who are in charge of the responsibility of ensuring the country's security,"

"Dr Santhanam has made this statement and he stands by it. Those who are currently responsible for the country's security and its reliability must take note of it and evaluate what Dr Santhanam's perceived objections are. It should be done,"

"This (point raised by Santhanam) has to be evaluated by people who have access to all the information to find out whether his reservations are genuine or not,"

From Zee News:

Santhanam claim should be taken note of: Ex-AEC chief

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Sep 2009 13:59

Dileep wrote:
Was Khetolai evacuated? AFAIK, it wasn't. It would have been a tragedy if the blast was twice of what happened.

Now, the options are:

1. BARC erred in estimating the damage potential for a given yield, and designed the yield accordingly. The actual yield was lower than expected, so the village was saved.

2. BARC correctly estimated the damage potential, and designed the yield accordingly. The actual yield was a bit higher than designed.

3. BARC correctly estimated the damage potential, but thought that the village is expendable and designed a high yield. The actual yield was lower than expected, so the village was saved.

4. BARC correctly estimated the damage potential, informed the higher ups the need to evacuate the village and designed a high yield. The higher ups thought that the village is expendable (or, just forgot to tell them). And the actual yield was lower than expected, so the village was saved.

Which one would you take?

I would take option no 5:

5) CYA *

*: Cover Your Ass: If yields are high or if some structures are weak and collapse despite low/normal yields - do not allow any injuries/deaths to occur.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Sep 2009 14:06

Dileep wrote:
The amplitude of the motion of the ground is directly proportional to the KT of the explosion. Why? Richter is log10 of amplitude, and the formula for yield shows that Richter is log10 of Yield.

I have an issue with the basic model

Even if directly proportional it does not have to be linear.

It does not even have to be linear in presence of decoupling.

Basically a lot of energy produced can be absorbed by rock melting etc and does not reflect in ground movement.

All the literature posted so far agrees with what I have said.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 04 Sep 2009 14:50

Sanku wrote: Even if directly proportional it does not have to be linear.

It does not even have to be linear in presence of decoupling.

Basically a lot of energy produced can be absorbed by rock melting etc and does not reflect in ground movement.

All the literature posted so far agrees with what I have said.

That is oxymoronic. Directly proportional means linear.

The fundamental assumption behind yield estimation is the notion that the aplitude of ground motion is proportional to the explosive power of the blast. Look at the formulae.

Are you claiming that the very premise of seismic measurement of blast yield is invalid? I ask because the notion that the relationship between yield and the siesmic amplitude deviates from the logarithmic relationship established by the formula does imply that.

Look, we are considering two fixed points on earth. A blast happens at one point, and the ground moves at the other. The established formulae says that the ground movement is directly proportional to the blast strength in KT. The entire nuclear blast business, and the associated stuff like CTBT are built on that relationship.

Are you saying that those formulae are incorrect?

amit · Post by **amit** » 04 Sep 2009 15:18

arun wrote:From Zee News:

Santhanam claim should be taken note of: Ex-AEC chief

There are some more interesting nuggets in this Zee News report, so Arun taking the liberty of re-posting.

Asked about former AEC Chief Homi Sethna backing Santhanam's claim, Srinivasan said he (Sethna) was his "boss and commands a great deal of respect from all of us. He has also expressed it. (One has to) take note of all these things, definitely."

While calling for examination, Srinivasan said he did not want the government to put all details of the test in the public domain as certain specific issues could be confidential.

But the government can get the point raised by Santhanam examined by "people who are in the business (nuclear and security apparatus), by experts who are in a position to understand this business."

Srinivasan said he had chaired the meeting last month where Santhanam made the claim that the thermonuclear device (hydrogen bomb) "underperformed" and the test was a "fizzle", which created a furore.

Srinivasan said that in his concluding remarks in that meeting he had stated that "I (Srinivasan) still preferred to go by the assessment made by Dr Chidambaram and Kalam that the test was successful and we (India) obtained necessary information to enable us to go ahead and design and build nuclear weaponry".

"As of now, I prefer to go with the official position that the claims of Dr Chidambaram and Kalam are valid," he said.

A couple of pages ago someone said that MR Srinivasan had also joined the naysayers camp and the issue has become serious. Well this report certainly doesn't seem to indicate that.

Regarding the need to take note of what KS, Sethna and PKI have indicated it should certainly happen. And I suppose that's why MRS said:

"This (point raised by Santhanam) has to be evaluated by people who have access to all the information to find out whether his reservations are genuine or not," Srinivasan said.

But wait I have a question. With this statement is M R Srinivasan saab indirectly saying that KS, PKI and others do not have access to all the information?

Things are taking an interesting turn I must say.

Could it be that after allowing the genie out of the bottle (regarding the viability of our deterrence) the govt is quietly putting it back in - after achieving an objective of causing sufficient confusion?

Questions, questions!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Sep 2009 15:19

Dileep wrote:
Sanku wrote: Even if directly proportional it does not have to be linear.

It does not even have to be linear in presence of decoupling.

Basically a lot of energy produced can be absorbed by rock melting etc and does not reflect in ground movement.

All the literature posted so far agrees with what I have said.
That is oxymoronic. Directly proportional means linear.

Pardon my phrasing what I meant by linear was

mb = c1 + c2*yield
where c2 == 1. I meant directly linear.
so yeild2 = 2* yeild1 does not imply mb2 = 2*mb1.

Further Shiv posted

mb = attenuation constant + 0.75(Log to base 10 of Yield)

Clearly that's a logarithmic relation and not linear one?

Added later -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale

Also the Richter formula says (A is local amplitude and A0 and delta are distance corrections)
ML = log10A − log10A0(delta),

So say yeilds are y1 and y2, so
mb2 - mb1 = 0.75(logY2 - logY1) = logA2 - logA1

No as far as I could understand, for the relation
0.75(logY2 - logY1) = logA2 - logA1

Y2 = 2*Y1 does not imply A2 == 2*A1

That was my point, basically.

-------------

In addition the first yield equation depends on various factors, and there is no reason to assume that a shaft can not be built to keep that factor in mind to reduce coupling.

So for different shafts different equations would hold.

-------------

In addition it is entirely possible that all the amplitude at Khetolai came from the FBF itself even without TN.

The TN shaft was so very damped that it would attenuate all the yield.

-------------

Please feel free to correct the calculations. Its been a while since I did this basic stuff, could be wrong

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Sep 2009 15:24

amit wrote:

"As of now, I prefer to go with the official position that the claims of Dr Chidambaram and Kalam are valid," he said.

"This (point raised by Santhanam) has to be evaluated by people who have access to all the information to find out whether his reservations are genuine or not," Srinivasan said.

They are in start contradiction to each other, if RC and APJK are right and we have all the data etc, what is there to consider?

That can only mean although for now we trustthat RC is not lying, it needs to be verified.

Trust but verify.

--------------

Others say no need to verify even.

-------------

Conclusion is obvious.