Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 Sep 2009 13:10

Arun_S wrote:
vasu_ray wrote:Are these micro charges related to sub kt tests?
From what I recall these were fusion micro-charge, that would thus involve ~10 kT primary yield to generate the high energy regime to characterize the test environment to correlate NOVA laser.

So no these were not sub-kt test.

As I mentioned recently sub-kt test cant be used for fusion experiment/test.

I see, pls, before commiting to such intelligent observation, if you look at the literature you may find that fusion weapons were tested below 10 KT yield. Micro-fusion is a tactial weapon of yeild less than a KT. Def. sub-kt test can be done with that.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 06 Sep 2009 13:13

Subrahmanyam says:

>>>The government leadership is satisfied with the state of our deterrent posture and so also the armed forces. .... Fission weapons of 60-80 kilotons have been successfully fabricated and standard thermonuclear warheads of today are neither in megatons nor in hundreds of kilotons. Our fission weapon capabilities are not under question. So long as the adversary believes that the nuclear explosions in his cities will cause him unacceptable damage he will be deterred.

Ramana says

>>I took that to mean what I wrote.
>>- most deterrent weapons of 60-80kt fabricated
>>- most TN are in this range
>>- no one doubts India's fission weapons
>>- Ergo no need for other types

OK I see what you mean. My own interpretation is almost exactly the same:

- most deterrent weapons of 60-80kt fabricated
- most TN are in this range
- no one doubts India's fission weapons
- Ergo adversary will be deterred even without TN

But that statement by Subrahmanyam can clearly be seen as a hint that TN is not required. I hadn’t noticed it. It is surprising. I wonder what the game is given that there is no way we are going to sign the CTBT (as things stand) or the NPT (under pretty much any circumstances). It is not a slip by Subrahmanyam. I don’t think he believes India does not need TN. But there is a hint there which indicates a subtler game afoot. We are out of our depth – not enough information.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 06 Sep 2009 13:15

Welcome B(ihari) B(abu) BB in future

The son like Nichiketa had asked

...
Father, then it is better to develop few Hydorgen bombs and conserve resources than make many Fission devices.
You are correct again son.
So father with out Hydrogen bomb,and a NFU policy,what deterrent should we call it and against whom is this deterrent?
Now Son you are making me think thrice hmmm....

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 Sep 2009 13:22

Arun_S wrote:
Kanson wrote: And I do remember Adm. Menon talking abt 12 MIRV for K-15.
Pls no serious jokes on this thread, some one can die from it.

Hahaha, I dont know who is the joker here, the one who babble without seeing what was written in the article or the one who dabbled that out. Pls reserve such scarcasm for Adm. Menon and India Today reporter who reported that.

Per GoI K15 is Sagarika (Shourya) the middle missile in this diagram:
clickyyy ...

This is hilarious. Are you suggesting to the unwashed pan chewing dehatis from Uttar Kasi to Dhanukoti that you are the representative of GoI in publishing the diagram of the missile. Or, it is for bubblegum chewing friends of NPA. Pls, let me make it as kind request. Whatever you are showing in your diagram is your thinking, your assumption, your impression and your rendering of that. Dont give any impression, illusion or allusion that you are representing GoI. Pls reframe your statement.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 06 Sep 2009 13:29

Nowhere does K Subrahmanyam indicate that the TN did not work. In fact he points out that among all the bomb designers only PKI does not agree with the yield. Raja Ramanna had agreed with the yield.

My understanding is that K Subrahmanyam believes that TN bomb worked.

The only thing he concedes is that there is controversy around it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 13:35

csharma wrote:Nowhere does K Subrahmanyam indicate that the TN did not work. In fact he points out that among all the bomb designers only PKI does not agree with the yield. Raja Ramanna had agreed with the yield.

My understanding is that K Subrahmanyam believes that TN bomb worked.

The only thing he concedes is that there is controversy around it.

I agree with this. In my view - Subrahmanyam is skirting around the argument because if he commits - he gets branded as taking one side.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 06 Sep 2009 13:36

The government leadership is satisfied with the state of our deterrent posture and so also the armed forces. .... Fission weapons of 60-80 kilotons have been successfully fabricated and standard thermonuclear warheads of today are neither in megatons nor in hundreds of kilotons. Our fission weapon capabilities are not under question. So long as the adversary believes that the nuclear explosions in his cities will cause him unacceptable damage he will be deterred

I am confused by this statement from Indias top strategic analyst

interpret as '
- we have a number of 60-80 kt fission /booseted weapons
- we do not have anything having yield more than 100 kilo ton
-world today do not have any or does not want any thermo nuclear warhead in more than 200 kt/megaton range
- we depend on the fact that our adversaries think we have massive TN capability

in short we do not have proven thermo nuclear capability that is why we are not thinking of anything in the range of hundreds of kilotons ony possible with a fusion device and we are happy with our limited nuclear arsnel and hope our adversaries are not bold enough to challange our deterance with a coupl of mega ton blast over Delhi

This is the silliest wimp I have ever heard - normally I am proud to be an Indian -this is not one such time

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 06 Sep 2009 13:38

>>I feel India is sometimes too chanakiyan for its own good.

A very pertinent and true to life statement... Don't be surprised if our chankiyans say so themselves with wry humour, amidst all that chai and biskoot...

Look, generally speaking, we are in a very tough environment, dealing with a crapload of stuff on a constant basis. Everybody's human. There will be successes, there will be f*uck ups. The only thing we can hope for is that the screw ups are not massive. So far, indications are that they have not been. Successes of course will not be known or tom-tommed - then we may not be able to repeat it. Don't expect some grand all knowing all considering all surpassing planning and implementation mechanism at work behind the scenes. We are not as chankiyan as we might like to be

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 06 Sep 2009 13:42

38 nos 3.3 MT WARHEADS
20 NOS 4.5 MT warheads
100+ 300 KT warheads

and our top strategic analyst and political establishment says we are happy with 60-80 kt devices and hope our adversaries will respect our capability -how crappy can anyone get

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 06 Sep 2009 13:45

Historically the following countries have threatened Indian sovereignty

1) USA in 1971 during Bangladesh war actually 1974 POK 1 was a test to say please don't push us, we have the capacity to make it too, but we wont.

2) PRC has threatened many a time

3) TSP was made a Nuclear power to contain India by USA and PRC and also supplied the means to deliver the bomb. PRC by missiles and USA by aircraft etc.

4) TSP has waged wars and has often mentioned it will use bomb against India and US analysts have taken a sympathetic view of TSP utterances as India is too big a conventional power for TSP to withstand.

I am not aware if Britain France or Russia have at anytime overtly or covertly indicated to India that they may use Nuke against India.

Go figure who we need deter

case closed.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 06 Sep 2009 13:47

One fact to consider would be the absolute weight difference between a 60-80 KT fission and TN bomb.

In PKI's article he was talking about a big difference in the weight of a fission bomb and a TN bomb.

K Subrahmanyam responded to that by saying that these days countries are moving to yields of below 100KT even for TN(not in 100s of KT he says).

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 06 Sep 2009 13:49

This is what will happen -unless Russia issues a stern warning -next sino indian conflict will be 100 times worse than 62 - when they move in to arunachal and we stop them they will use tactical nukes in assam -we retaliate they will take out each and every big city of ours without thinking twice in one giant salvo and that will be the end of so called minimum deterrence theory

Nothing will happen o our exalted leaders and their exalted advisers -safe inside the bunkers -thinking what went wrong -may be they will move over to switzerland or get US citizenship for the services rendered

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 Sep 2009 13:50

Admiral Prakash on ATV

The ministry of defence (MoD) and Naval HQ have been content to maintain stoic silence about the ATV in the face of this tell-tale evidence and using, as a last resort, the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ line to fend off the inquisitive media. Perhaps, there was a method in all this secrecy and we did manage to befuddle everyone who tried to garner the truth from the heap of disinformation and half-truths available in the public domain on the ATV.

Ah!, he sees himself patting for maintaing such secrecy.

But the trouble with excessive secrecy is that while it may or may not deceive the enemy, it can certainly obfuscate the truth and lead you to the wrong conclusions; often with deleterious consequences.

Only his problem seems to excessive secrecy and not secrecy as such.

India must be unique amongst nations that undertake major expenditure on defence R&D in that both timelines and cost ceilings are infinitely flexible and neither accountability nor responsibility for delays, or even failure, are ever affixed. Subjective in-house ‘peer reviews’ can never be a substitute for hardnosed audits and progress-checks by independent experts, as well as end-users. The dismal story of projects like the Kaveri turbo-jet engine, the Light Combat Aircraft, the Arjun battle tank and the Trishul surface-to-air missile could have been very different, had they not been wrapped in furtive secrecy and been subjected, instead, to periodic scrutiny and oversight.

All the projects he listed are not secret or excessively secret like ATV so what is he saying ? Answer to that in the next para.

Of all the DRDO projects, to date, perhaps it is only the ATV which has forged ahead steadily, and, even after allowing for time and cost overruns as well as other shortcoming, can be called an outstanding success story. While we will dwell on some of the issues later, it can be stated up-front that this major achievement is mainly attributable to three factors, which should provide salutary lessons for the other two Services.

Oh! that was directed towards other two services, of how good their project management is.

The weapon slated for fitment on the S-2 is understood to be a SLBM whose range is currently limited to 700-1,000 km. The successful underwater launch and flight trials of this missile (variously named by the media as Dhanush or K-15) is certainly a big feather in the DRDO’s cap, but its limited range constitutes a handicap for S-2. Moreover, this achievement needs to be assessed against the background that the DRDO’s 25 year old guided missile programme has yet to deliver an inter-continental ballistic missile.

Oops thats actually a dig. For DRDO to develop something, Gov must sanction the project and funds to be allocated. What is there for 25 yrs of existence. Its akin to saying, IN being there for several decades not having true blue water capabilities.

Every aspect of the project has been discussed threadbare in cyber-space by self-appointed experts, amateur security analysts and plain nuts; sprinkled with inputs from retired.scientists and an occasional press release by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

It think he is having a message too.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 13:51

^^
tsk tsk John Snow and Shankar.

We will soon have to respect the opinion of the world community re CTBT. As you know - most countries in the world have accepted that the P5 are allowed to have nukes and nobody else.

In this world only India, Pakistan and No Ko have not joined the community of nations. They are the renegades.

Do we or do we not want to join and work with the world for a better tomorrow?

If not there should be no surprise in being counted with Pakistan and NoKo while the P5 oppose us. There is no "other way". There is no "third path" There is no such thing as a unique Indian stand. If there is such a viewpoint it is only causing ROTFL in the world and ROTFL to Indians also. In this sense India and the world are one. One signature will set everything right, whine or no whine.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 06 Sep 2009 13:52

or for that matter some day US does not like our nuke weapon program and just orders the 7th fleet to blow to hell barc/kalpakam/mapa/raps
with nucke equipped tomahawks -our leaders will sit in their gaddis and with thier exalted knowledgeable advisers discuss the wisdom of limited deterrence which never worked against a nuclear juggernaut

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 13:55

csharma wrote:One fact to consider would be the absolute weight difference between a 60-80 KT fission and TN bomb.

In PKI's article he was talking about a big difference in the weight of a fission bomb and a TN bomb.

K Subrahmanyam responded to that by saying that these days countries are moving to yields of below 100KT even for TN(not in 100s of KT he says).

Sharma - the reading and timepass that I do tell me that weight is not much of a problem. You can have 5 kt and 100 kt for practically the same weight.

If I were in the nuke business and I had to make thermonuclear bombs without testing - I would not avoid making them. I would make them to give a guaranteed fission yield of say 50 kt and hope that the LiD burns and gives 2-50 kt extra yield. But GOI has not accepted my application to be adviser in the weapon program.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 13:56

Shankar wrote:or for that matter some day US does not like our nuke weapon program and just orders the 7th fleet to blow to hell barc/kalpakam/mapa/raps
with nucke equipped tomahawks -our leaders will sit in their gaddis and with thier exalted knowledgeable advisers discuss the wisdom of limited deterrence which never worked against a nuclear juggernaut

So we should know our rank on earth no?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 06 Sep 2009 13:58

I really dont understand what a whine is , I do what is wine because I am compulsive winer!

I just stated facts, I have not said test, I have not said dont sign, where does whine , ROTFL come into picture. I can understand only simple piskology not advanced pisskology please.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Sep 2009 14:02

vera_k wrote: Or are you implying that the no-test camp exists because such money has changed hands?

Dont you see it all around the govt

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 Sep 2009 14:03

vera_k wrote:
Kanson wrote:Unless something of that is available, why would anyone whats to talk abt that ...
Wishful thinking.

You and me can have that but not Raju.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 14:07

John Snow wrote:I really dont understand what a whine is , I do what is wine because I am compulsive winer!

I just stated facts, I have not said test, I have not said dont sign, where does whine , ROTFL come into picture. I can understand only simple piskology not advanced pisskology please.

Snow garu - your earlier post was right. There is a fizzle whine and a sizzle whine. There is a pro CTBT whine and an anti-CTBT whine. There is a "India is a superpower but why does nobody respect us?" whine and there is a "India is not a superpower so nobody respects us" whine. There is a "Only 5 kilotons?" whine and there is an "only 80 kilotons" whine. The explanation for this should be left to the piskolgists who are the eck-spurts who will ejaculate the truth in a few jerks.

All I am saying is that we must celebrate the yield of 5 kt as much as we would celebrate 60 kt. God gives. We must accept. Hain?

Anyway - none of my last few posts are referring to you, or for that matter any single particular person.. Just a piskological point that I must make.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 Sep 2009 14:08

shiv wrote:I believe this argument is addressed by the words "minimum credible" - which seems to say "Oh we will not build that big an arsenal - but will build enough to do a lot of damage that we believe will be unacceptable to our current adversaries" Can this be interpreted as an admission that we are incapable of building "maximum deterrence" against all comers? Yes indeed it can be interpreted in that way (IMO)

I suspect the words "minimum credible" were used at a time when the declared arsenal had not yet reached that level. It is clear that it has still not reached that level and will not reach that level until India's declared intent to have a submarine based deterrent is working credibly. In other words the "minimum" that we are looking at in future is bigger than the minimum that we have now.

Just my views.

All you are saying is it not maximum deterrence but more towards maximum deterrence. Not out of line.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 14:35

One question that comes to mind is that if India is not equal to P5, does it mean that India is equal to Pakistan, Somalia etc? One answer (that I have myself suggested) is "Yes of course!"

But being Indian we must split hairs and ask "Is there really no difference between us and Pakistan, Somalia and NoKo?" If you say "Yes we are different" then clearly we are not P5, and we are not Pakistan, Somalia, NoKo.

We are neither here nor there. We are different. We are unique and we believe we have a unique place in the world for ourselves. If we are different, should we really try desperately to join one or the other group? And which group should we join?

Many people have indicated that India should strive to emulate the P5 and join their group and be recognized as "One of the big boys". But that group is not letting India in. And the world does not accept India in that poistion. Does that mean that we should join the Pakistan and NoKo group?

No, in my opinion. Our situation is tough. We may seek to join the P5 but they will not let us in. The world will be happy to relegate us to some other position. If we have to do chart our own course it necessarily means that we must do things in our own unique way without expecting any help, or welcome or guarantee from anyone.

But notice that when India does things in its own way it will not be behaving like P5. It is absurd to ask that India should behave like p5 when it serves no purpose. It will not get us into one or other club. India will have to define a new club. But not everyone wants India to do that. There are constant demands that we should behave like the first class club when our capability and history put us near the third class club. That IMO will not work.

JMT

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 06 Sep 2009 14:58

Just rehashing posts made earlier and making my own simple 1st standard maths out of it.

A)

1. Pakistan is detrimental to our interests in the immediate neighbourhood.
Damage in kT must be more than what they can inflict.

2.China is detrimental in the immediate neighbourhood.
Damage in kT must be more than what they can inflict.

3. Arrive at a figure for rest of the world. Loss of ideas from my part. Don't know how to quantify this.

B )
What are the issues ( again simple math ) -> How can I inflict damage in the most efficient way? )
This is an ordered list based on importance

1. Foremost : Reliability
2. Efficiency ( input Vs output )
3. Delivery platforms
4. Maintenance
5. Cost

Inferences:
Although fission weapons are reliable (B1) , they are not there for B2. Since it is an ordered list based on importance, if I can ensure that with a TN weapon both, B1 and B2 are satisfied ( keeping in mind A1, A2, A3) I satisfy my primary goals.

Doubts exist on TN. Clear those doubts => Test, test and test many times over.

Of course, Ganesh Nadar and Sons, my local grocery store owner will hunt his customer down, if he plays mischief with his dues. That why he employs big boys at his shop. Ganesh Nadar has b@lls and A1, A2 and A3 , when applied to his world, in inherently ingrained in him because he knows his neighbourhood all too well.

And "China will not attack. Oh , China has attacked. Bah,barren wasteland we dont need it ".
If these can be remembered, then the path to take is quite simple.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 06 Sep 2009 15:22

shiv wrote:
csharma wrote:One fact to consider would be the absolute weight difference between a 60-80 KT fission and TN bomb.

In PKI's article he was talking about a big difference in the weight of a fission bomb and a TN bomb.

K Subrahmanyam responded to that by saying that these days countries are moving to yields of below 100KT even for TN(not in 100s of KT he says).
Sharma - the reading and timepass that I do tell me that weight is not much of a problem. You can have 5 kt and 100 kt for practically the same weight.

If I were in the nuke business and I had to make thermonuclear bombs without testing - I would not avoid making them. I would make them to give a guaranteed fission yield of say 50 kt and hope that the LiD burns and gives 2-50 kt extra yield. But GOI has not accepted my application to be adviser in the weapon program.

I get your point.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Sep 2009 15:34

Ajatshatru wrote: Bhailog

Just a wild thought....

What if India starts a parallel body to UN and in this new body, there are Permanent five (P5) members with veto powers i.e. India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and South Africa. The head quarters of such a body could be in New Delhi.

How many countries from the world would come forward to become a member of such a body? And what would be the repercussions of such a move?

Bhutan and maldives will join, and that will be it.
India is a geopolitical minor, I'm afraid.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 06 Sep 2009 15:40

Scientists need to reassure Army on hydrogen bomb yield: Former Army chief V P Malik
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 978251.cms

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Sep 2009 15:47

Scientists need to reassure Army on hydrogen bomb yield: Malik

former Army chief V P Malik
has said the armed forces need to be "reassured" by the nuclear establishment on the exact yield of the weapons developed by them.

"They need to be reassured about the weapon system they use and about the planning of what kind of the yield they have when they hit the target," Malik, the Chief of the Armed Forces during the Pokhran-II nuclear tests, told a private news channel.

Malik also dubbed as "unconvincing" former President A P J Abdul Kalam's remarks virtually rubbishing Santhanm's claims on the yield of the thermonuclear device tested in 1998.

"Let us not forget that Dr Santhanam was part of his (Kalam's) team. And it came as quite a shock with Dr Santhanam himself mentioning that it was a fizzle. Of course, again he was referring to the thermonuclear weapon. So, Dr Kalam's statement was not quite convincing," he said.

Hajaar saal jiyen V P Malik ji.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Sep 2009 16:23

Ajatshatru wrote:2. And, my friend, you are also, perhaps, grossly underestimating the goodwill India enjoys in a lot of countries around the world.

Goodwill, soft power, Bollywood, curry,etc are not going to take you anywhere in this world of hard power play. It will not solve our boundary problem with China, nor persuade Pakistan to give up its anti-India activities. In spite of the so called Goodwill, why is our relation with most of our neighbor not good, be it Bangladesh, Nepal or Sri Lanka.
JMT

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Sep 2009 16:48

All I am saying is that if anyone joins us it will not be because of goodwill or soft power, it will be because of hard calculations.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Sep 2009 16:49

Gagan wrote:Scientists need to reassure Army on hydrogen bomb yield: Malik

The part I liked the best was this:

“You can convince people only through the scientists, particularly those who participated in this exercise. I am referring to Dr Chidambaram and his whole team from the Atomic Energy Commission.

“I don’t think we can be convinced easily by people who are not scientists. This is a matter of technology and these are the people who can discuss and reassure you,” Mr. Malik said.

He said the reassurance by nuclear scientists need not be in the form of a public debate but can be done privately.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 17:26

Gagan wrote:Scientists need to reassure Army on hydrogen bomb yield: Malik

Interesting. Malik retired in 2000. According to various news items there was some sort of deterrent ready in the mid-90s - and unless I am mistaken some sort of preparation was done during the Kargil war when Malik was army chief. I recall some Prithvi and Agni I movement discussions on here. I am guessing that the controversy over thermonuclear capability did not exist at that time. But Shakti 1 was only 1 year old in 1999.

Ten years later (I am guessing) - if the GoI/DAE has continued only with the fission warheads - there would be no real reason for Malik to question anything any more than he would have been able to do 10 years ago. I wonder if some things have been done since then that are the source of controversy. Has the DAE been taking my advice even without asking me?

Now that frightens me.

Just guessing.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 17:48

Ajatshatru wrote: Bhailog

Just a wild thought....

What if India starts a parallel body to UN and in this new body, there are Permanent five (P5) members with veto powers i.e. India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and South Africa. The head quarters of such a body could be in New Delhi.

How many countries from the world would come forward to become a member of such a body? And what would be the repercussions of such a move?

This is not a wild thought at all IMO. The "non aligned movement" was exactly this. Despite all the years India has still not joined either camp although everyone feels that India is now set to join the US camp.

Ultimately only banana republics in which the biggest banana planter is head of state can sell out a nation to another. Indian policy has continuously shown that India will join the world order only so long as "respect" is shown to India. Mostly - nobody gives a damn about India and give no respect although some nations fear India and a few admire India. India's admirers are not generally nations with clout.

Nations ally with others or admire other nations based on a common perception of interests and threats. India's unique attitudes are reflected in the list of countries who are opposed to India and the few who do not. I believe that India cannot have many allies in this world until it forces a change in the current world order. The new world with the new world order will have to be completely different - for example with African nations having real clout - along with India.

India's behavior with regard to nuclear weapons and the CTBT again has been a view in which India is ploughing a lonely path. Sadly for India - the same options that India exercised have been useful for China and the US to proliferate to Pakistan and allow Pakistan to hide behind the India excuse.

My worry is that India will be tempted to sign the CTBT with the lame excuse that Pakistan will be isolated. This sounds tempting until you realize that Pakistan was given nuclear arms (China/US nexus under Nixon/Reagan) specifically to address its anti-India fears. I fear that if India signs it will be business as usual with Pakistan - with F-16s today and something else tomorrow.

I guess we have to see how much pressure is put on India regarding CTBT. If the pressure gets too high we will have to ditch the nuclear deal and test. Note that we may not even figure out the ways in which pressure can be applied. For example - could there be some US pressure related reason why LSP 3 has not flown yet?

JMT

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 18:08

Excuse me folks -I need a favor - i.e please spoon feed me.

I did not read 99% of the posts about the nuclear deal. Now can someone educate me on the clauses of the NSG waiver and 123 about what happens if and when India tests.

I need to look at the wording of CTBT because I am certain India is not going to be included among the "special five" in CTBT. Nobody s going to change CTBT for India.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 Sep 2009 18:09

shiv wrote:
Interesting. Malik retired in 2000. According to various news items there was some sort of deterrent ready in the mid-90s - and unless I am mistaken some sort of preparation was done during the Kargil war when Malik was army chief. I recall some Prithvi and Agni I movement discussions on here. I am guessing that the controversy over thermonuclear capability did not exist at that time. But Shakti 1 was only 1 year old in 1999.

It did from the very start, same culprits as today. BK, PKI, (someone at DRDO - we know who now) and the NPA.

Ten years later (I am guessing) - if the GoI/DAE has continued only with the fission warheads - there would be no real reason for Malik to question anything any more than he would have been able to do 10 years ago.

Au contraire. There is a a certain pace at which things move in the Indian government. One year is not fast enough for India to go from even a claimed successful test to a weapon that has been deployed, even if recessed. 10 years however is time enough to say, all this talk of a non working TN is BS. We have the maal and are fully confident. This talk of reassurance, is another indication that the TN has not been deployed/weaponized, yet. Shri Malik is very plugged into the ground as well as the "strategic experts".

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 18:53

ShauryaT wrote:This talk of reassurance, is another indication that the TN has not been deployed/weaponized, yet. .

No in fact what I am saying is that if it has not been weaponized there is no reason for controversy. The controversy is if they are weaponized without guaranteed yields.

But the fog may be more dense. The controversy may be something that only the scientists can understand - based on radiochemical analyses of exactly what happened and different sets of conclusions about design based on that. If weaponization occurs based on one set of conclusions - and someone disputes that and there are no tests - then you have sh1t hitting the fan. Nobody outside the inner circle will have a clue about what these buggers are talking about and the facts will not be made public either. In fact I suspect that this is the big difference of opinion between RC and PKI/Santhanam.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 Sep 2009 19:16

Its not first time we are having this type of controversy. Same happened in POK-I and the players are the same. The man who stirred the pot at that time flip-flopped on his stand. Isnt the weapon from POK-I with all the controversy surrounding it performed well during POK-II ? The same team was present for the POK-II. If they could make the weapon work from POK-I, it is natural to conclude that the weapon from the POK-II could work too, irrespective of the controversy. It only means that they know how to make the bomb work.
And important to note is, PKI who disputed the yield of POK-I didnt raise any doubts on the yield of weapon tested in POK-II which is derived from POK-I. And the tested yield is very much close to the official yield level of POK-I and not what PKI suggested at that time. That tells the story.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 06 Sep 2009 19:30

I did not read 99% of the posts about the nuclear deal. Now can someone educate me on the clauses of the NSG waiver and 123 about what happens if and when India tests.

IIRC, the "law" of the US kicks in and bans cooperation, not just in nuclear but in all things technical. It's 1974 and 1998 all over again. The IAEA deal is shown here, the US-India agreement is not there, sorry.

BUT.. POTUS can make a determination that the test was justified by the security environment that India faced - and then say

to the "law".

Otherwise, not only will the US not cooperate, but the US is "supposed to" use all its influence to get others to non-cooperate too, namely the NSG. Presumably will embargo all pending transactions/ exports to India of technical stuff including those made in India and just visiting US (remember the LCA augmented-stability actuators?), put all organizations involved in anything more technical than money-counting on the Entity List, cancel visas of visiting / desiring-2-visit Babus, probably cancel Space cooperation, demand return of any US-origin fuel/ equipment/instrumentation etc. Likewise pressure Poodles etc. to fall in line.

Generally a bissing match. So everything depends on the POTUS' mood. And no one is betting that BO will make any such enlightened "finding".

IOW, in all the above tamashas, if the main effect of the

is that the embargoers step on their own Little Cheneys, then there will be a magical "finding" by WHOTUS, citing "full consultation with our Strategic Partner". Or, Frogistan and Dera Vodka Khan will continue as if nothing happened, Helgastan will become very

, Kangaroostan will get huge shyness, Japan will

, UQ will cheat as always, but nothing else very special will occur.

BTW, not to derail the fine ro-dho here, but isn't the most likely situation that:
1. India weaponized as fast as possible after the 1990 tamashas. Including boosted-fission and even full Surya payloads.
2. The scientists kept pleading for SOME test, ANY test, because they were being forced to fly blind. Denied in 1990, denied in 1995.. so they scrambled the best they could to do simulations and analyses, and got very far ahead, digging wherever they could for data and the best in simulation/ subcritical testing ideas. The simulations accordingly became very sophisticated, because for once, the nation's survival depended on those, and the leaders were sympathetic to the scientists' predicament, and very scared, but powerless to order the testing.
3. So when the testing was authorized, it was done under extreme constraints, so the tests were designed to cause the absolute minimum detectable havoc. There was NO mandate to do a "Look How Big My Little Cheney Is!" demo. The opposite was true - they were asked to keep things as lo-lo-profile and SDRE as possible, consistent with THEIR being able to measure the data - and no one else.
4. They succeeded, and the nationalists of the day, through very careful analysis, confirmed that things had succeeded, in the face of worldwide yada-yada-yada.
5. Today , several of the same nationalists - AND former insiders - see some profit in going yada-yada-yada themselves. Different motives, 2 b sure. And probably, in the case of the insiders, with approval from the govt saying: "Look, if you can build enough of a case we'll be able to say " no CTBT without a series of hi-profile demo tests - will POTUS do the necessary finding? If so, u r looking at India enabling CTBT and FMCT and a "firm, written, time-bound" process towards Disarmament getting underway""

Are the NPAs smart enough to see that? Have the NoKo and Eyeran experiences taught them anything? Did the GeorgianMusharraf experience teach them anything? Is China finally beginning to scare them?

I find nonprollotullah Milhollin's comments to be quite surprising and enlightened, coming from a nonprollutullah.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 19:34

Kakodkar had said..

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

"We used the data of Beneberry nuclear tests of US of December 18,1970 to validate our 3-D simulation for earth motion and displacement and this validated tool was used for bench marking," Kakodkar 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).

An abstract from that paper is available online

http://www.new.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/a_3712

Phenomenology of Baneberry Nuclear Event Revisited with 3-D Finite Element Transient Simulation
Rajeev Ranjan, R. K. Singh, S. K. Sikka, Anil Kakodkar

This paper highlights a three-dimensional (3-D) transient numerical simulation of the Baneberry event of December 18, 1970, with a 10-kT yield and a 278-m source depth, conducted at the Nevada Test Site. This site has complex geological features with preexisting faults and layered geological strata characterized by a hard Paleozoic layer below the source, and saturated tuff on the west side of the source and clay-rich tuff toward the east side, both overlaid by top alluvial layers. In addition, a layer of 50% montmorillonite is sandwiched between two layers of 20% montmorillonite on the east end. This event is reported to have vented because of fault rupture and shock-wave reflections from a closer hard Paleozoic layer near the source. Here, the shock-induced slip along the preexisting fault plane has an important bearing on the containment efficiency of this event. None of the earlier reported simulation studies address the above slip phenomenon and the influence of variation in geological strata in the presence of the preexisting fault in a 3-D framework for underground nuclear events. The paper describes the capabilities of the SHOCK-3D finite element code for simulating short-time shock-wave propagation, fault rupture leading to sliding along the fault plane, and subsequent crater formation at ground zero with a long-duration transient computation to study the quasi-static behavior of the Baneberry event. Precise modeling schemes of the composite geological strata and fault system demonstrate that a dip-slip mechanism had developed for this event, leading to final venting. The present numerical computation results with SHOCK-3D are in excellent agreement with site observations. In addition, the limitations of earlier reported simulation results from the TENSOR two-dimensional axisymmetric code presented by Terhune et al. have also been overcome.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 06 Sep 2009 19:44

Shiv Sir, I read your advice. Oh so many thoughts come to my mind.

The famous five have deployed TN weapons. Why did all the five do the same thing. Why didn't one of them stop at FBF devices.

Let us say that 200 in total scientists worked on TN weapons in these five countries. And some of them were advisors to their respective governments. All of them seem to have pursed the the TN route.
Now that cannot be a coincidence can it?

Again, in these five countries, they have done so many tests. They have perfected the TN device in ways most suitable to their delivery platforms.

I do not also recall any scientist/defence personnel from the other countries question their TN device yields.

India somehow seems to have found a short-cut to the 4 points mentioned above.
Either the famous five have really bad advisors or Indian scientists are 5 times more intelligent.

I know where to place my bets!