Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 11 Sep 2009 07:18

shiv wrote:
sudeepj wrote: The personal attack notes injected in the debate were undesirable but to an extent unavoidable. On the other hand, so is getting distracted by these attacks from the nature of the debate! Who cares what self important folks have to say.

Let me also add, that a lot of 'proof' that has been extended has been by way of 'He said so, I respect the gent a lot, so it must be true'. I understand that people need to have their heroes on pedestals, but will the enemy accord the same respect to these heroes? You might be able to stop an argument by appeal to authority but a war? All said and done, RC et al are not Oppenheim or Teller.
The same arguments hold true for "heroes" of each side. It is inevitable that when one side of a debate brings in a personal angle the other side will do that too. It is certainly avoidable - if the temptation to bring in a personal angle is tempered by the maturity that you can be tarred by the same tar that you are using on others.

Rhetoric is a beautiful tool in debate and while it is clear that RC et al are not Oppenheimer or Teller, Abdul Qadeer Khan certainly stands on par with Oppenheimer. I say this because I know damn well that I am steering the debate away from the topic (as you have done above) and my intention is to make others bite bait that I can then manipulate successfully. And some sucker or the other will bite the bait.

My saying that was not to be contemptuous of RC etc. at all, When you blow up bikini atoll and leave a huge crater behind, your word carries some weight, simply because the evidence at hand is over whelming. An enemy would be deterred by the such scientific depth of capabilities, if not the weapon itself. This is not the case with the six Indian tests.

When you are talking about data and science, better to keep personalities out of it because for every asshole who is born there is a bigger asshole waiting to latch on to him and bait him

I hope people read this over and over. I am essentially in agreement with you.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 11 Sep 2009 07:39

sudeepj wrote: My saying that was not to be contemptuous of RC etc. at all, When you blow up bikini atoll and leave a huge crater behind, your word carries some weight, simply because the evidence at hand is over whelming. An enemy would be deterred by the such scientific depth of capabilities, if not the weapon itself. This is not the case with the six Indian tests.

I hope people read this over and over. I am essentially in agreement with you.

Ah but saar, going by the trend in this thread - blowing up an atoll would fall under the problem of being 'too small a sample size' to provide conclusive evidence - will it be enough to inspire confidence? Won't we need to blow up many more atolls to prove conclusively that our TNs work?

After all data will always be hard to come by - so what confidence will we have in our second round tests (if it happens)?

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 11 Sep 2009 07:45

arnab wrote:
sudeepj wrote: My saying that was not to be contemptuous of RC etc. at all, When you blow up bikini atoll and leave a huge crater behind, your word carries some weight, simply because the evidence at hand is over whelming. An enemy would be deterred by the such scientific depth of capabilities, if not the weapon itself. This is not the case with the six Indian tests.

I hope people read this over and over. I am essentially in agreement with you.
Ah but saar, going by the trend in this thread - blowing up an atoll would fall under the problem of being 'too small a sample size' to provide conclusive evidence - will it be enough to inspire confidence? Won't we need to blow up many more atolls to prove conclusively that our TNs work?

After all data will always be hard to come by - so what confidence will we have in our second round tests (if it happens)?

The problem is not you and me doubting, the problem is that of insiders like Santhanam doubting. Secondly, confidence in the scientific establishment is built up by openness, not subterfuge. Why the hell should we be worried about giving away 'TN design info' when the powers that be have proliferated by the dozen?

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Sep 2009 07:51

arnab wrote:After all data will always be hard to come by - so what confidence will we have in our second round tests (if it happens)?

Arnab Guru,

That is the crux of the problem. With data hard to come by how will folks who don't have confidence in the scientists who will conduct the second round, if any, believe that this time it's a sizzle and not yet again another fizzle?

Only way out can be IMVHO is either:

a) Find an entirely new group of nuclear scientists and bomb designers with suitable experience to work on the second round; or
b) Give full access to all data to the doubters (however, the question would arise, certainly, if these folks have the technical competence to correctly interpret this data).

Now I don't think point (a) is feasible as I'm not sure we have such bench strength in nuclear bomb design and science in India. US has it with two design facilities but India?

And (b)? Well not really feasible is it?

So back to the same question, what if the second round, let's call it POKIII, is certified as fizzle by the NPAs yet again? Then what?

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Sep 2009 07:55

sudeepj wrote: Why the hell should we be worried about giving away 'TN design info' when the powers that be have proliferated by the dozen?

Sudeep,

It was never a proliferation issue. The whole idea of not giving the bomb design away is to not let the world know the extent of design capabilities that exist within India to make various designs specifically for various delivery platforms. Even a World War II Hiroshima type design would work (as in explode) just as well. But do you think anyone uses that vintage design for their bombs especially the ones mated to MRIVed missiles?

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 11 Sep 2009 07:56

sudeepj wrote:[
The problem is not you and me doubting, the problem is that of insiders like Santhanam doubting. Secondly, confidence in the scientific establishment is built up by openness, not subterfuge. Why the hell should we be worried about giving away 'TN design info' when the powers that be have proliferated by the dozen?

hmm - yes but then this begs the question whether KS's doubt is of a 'technical' nature or more politically driven or is he merely having a mid-life crisis. Stating that 'others' (NPAs) have published papers doubting our claim is nothing new - he could have come out in 2000 itself.

Re confidence in scientific establishment - it then essentially boils down to a choice between BARC and DRDO. Which institution gives you more confidence?

Whether we should be worried about giving out TN design info is something which I cannot really know on any definitive level till a TN lands on my country.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 11 Sep 2009 07:59

amit wrote:
arnab wrote:After all data will always be hard to come by - so what confidence will we have in our second round tests (if it happens)?
Arnab Guru,

That is the crux of the problem. With data hard to come by how will folks who don't have confidence in the scientists who will conduct the second round, if any, believe that this time it's a sizzle and not yet again another fizzle?

Only way out can be IMVHO is either:

a) Find an entirely new group of nuclear scientists and bomb designers with suitable experience to work on the second round; or
b) Give full access to all data to the doubters (however, the question would arise, certainly, if these folks have the technical competence to correctly interpret this data).

Now I don't think point (a) is feasible as I'm not sure we have such bench strength in nuclear bomb design and science in India. US has it with two design facilities but India?

And (b)? Well not really feasible is it?

So back to the same question, what if the second round, let's call it POKIII, is certified as fizzle by the NPAs yet again? Then what?

Although most of the 'data' at hand is of NPA provenance, its not right to say that all who are doubting want to test again just to convince NPAs. The NPAs have been saying this since 1998, but you heard the Indians raising their doubts, and having their doubts taken seriously only over the past few months or years. In fact, most of the Indians who are raising doubts want India to have bigger and better weapons, not lesser!

b) Give full access to all data to the doubters (however, the question would arise, certainly, if these folks have the technical competence to correctly interpret this data).

I am sure that in a country like India with its vast network of not half bad science departments, its possible to cobble together a committee of folks, who may not be competent in weapon design, but can verify results of any physics experiment.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 11 Sep 2009 08:03

amit wrote:
sudeepj wrote: Why the hell should we be worried about giving away 'TN design info' when the powers that be have proliferated by the dozen?
Sudeep,

It was never a proliferation issue. The whole idea of not giving the bomb design away is to not let the world know the extent of design capabilities that exist within India to make various designs specifically for various delivery platforms. Even a World War II Hiroshima type design would work (as in explode) just as well. But do you think anyone uses that vintage design for their bombs especially the ones mated to MRIVed missiles?

At a certain point in a countries weapon development, its counter productive to hide ones capabilities. Its ok if you have a bomb-in the basement approach, but we stepped out of that posture over 10 years ago. For e.g. take the case of the Chinese weapons design establishment.

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_arc ... illman.htm

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 11 Sep 2009 08:08

blowing up an atoll would fall under the problem of being 'too small a sample size'

No, not one island, the whole 'atoll', meaning hajaar islands. The way to National Glory, as France achieved by destroying the homeland of the Mururoa Atoll dwellers, or the US destroyed the Bikini Atoll, or UQ destroyed some parts of Australia. In fact, going by the arguments presented, I would not accept underground testing at all! Shouldn't we insist on seeing the mushroom clouds rising?

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 11 Sep 2009 08:19

narayanan wrote:
blowing up an atoll would fall under the problem of being 'too small a sample size'
No, not one island, the whole 'atoll', meaning hajaar islands. The way to National Glory, as France achieved by destroying the homeland of the Mururoa Atoll dwellers, or the US destroyed the Bikini Atoll, or UQ destroyed some parts of Australia. In fact, going by the arguments presented, I would not accept underground testing at all! Shouldn't we insist on seeing the mushroom clouds rising?

Well if we are really going down this track - what confidence do we have that the nuke 'device' is actually a deliverable weapon? Shouldn't we actually mate our 'device' to an Agni and launch it into one of those pesky naxalite infested areas? That would give me confidence.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Sep 2009 08:19

amit wrote: So back to the same question, what if the second round, let's call it POKIII, is certified as fizzle by the NPAs yet again? Then what?

Actually there is no purely physics and engineering derived answer to the questions posed by you, arnab and sudeepj because you are now talking about fears, perceptions, faith or lack of faith. For all nations perceptions and faith have to be moulded around existing physics and engineering capability.

In my personal opinion - there are two views that seem to be current among the supporters and wielders of nuclear weapons. I am not offering answers - only attempting to point out differences of viewpoints. I currently subscribe to one of these viewpoints and I will state which one after I state my view. I am not forcing anyone to accept my view and do not intend to be critical of those who do not share my view and promise to viciously counter-attack anyone who attempts to mindlessly belittle those who share my view with mockery or sarcasm.

One view is the need to show a huge bomb. It is not enough to have a bomb but it is necessary to demonstrate the capability of completely decimating an adversary. Anything less than that will not cause fear and will not deter. I am talking glass parking lot here - nobody left alive for miles around. Entire cities flattened in one go.

The other view is my view. The ability to decimate anyone is unnecessary. What is needed is the ability to inflict massive suffering. Injuring large numbers of people and making them run for help which they will not get - and letting them die slowly over days or weeks is far more effective in extracting revenge than mercifully killing off everyone. This is because live people will demand action from their leadership to save them. Live but injured people without hope will exert a far greater effect on the morale of fighting forces. If people are dead and the leadership survives - the leadership has less of a burden. It is dealing with 25 million people with horrific burns and radiation sickness along with 5 million rotting dead bodies that is true suffering rather than the smooth blue jannat of total decimation. Heaven comes after death. Hell needs to be right here. For this, you do not need such big bombs, but you need larger numbers of smaller, dirtier bombs and delivery vehicles. However you also need one heck of a lot of fissile material to waste.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 11 Sep 2009 08:19

Its not national Glory that people are after, its national security and survival. If it was glory, people would have complained 10 years ago, its only when insiders have come out with statements doubting capabilities that the present controversy has begun.

Perhaps its not the arguments presented but your ability/willingness to comprehend?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Sep 2009 08:23

sudeepj wrote: Why the hell should we be worried about giving away 'TN design info' when the powers that be have proliferated by the dozen?

Because the powers who can put spokes in our wheels should not know exactly where we are because

1) They will impose hidden sanctions to retard further progress
2) will offer similar technology to adversaries to make sure we are "balanced" effectively

Better to let them think we are useless. And luckily most people agree that we are useless.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 11 Sep 2009 08:24

One can do equal-equal to the luminaries on both sides of the debate. However, only one side has a strong motive.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 11 Sep 2009 08:29

shiv wrote:
sudeepj wrote: Why the hell should we be worried about giving away 'TN design info' when the powers that be have proliferated by the dozen?
Because the powers who can put spokes in our wheels should not know exactly where we are because

1) They will impose hidden sanctions to retard further progress
2) will offer similar technology to adversaries to make sure we are "balanced" effectively

Better to let them think we are useless. And luckily most people agree that we are useless.

Shiv ji, thats some God level of Chanakian-ness..

Having said that, our adversary is China, which already has all the TNs it wants, and our TN (now probably rectified if any rectification was reqd.) did not come about from cooperation with external powers..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Sep 2009 08:40

It may be China's nukes that scare us - but it is the US's ability to defeat us without nukes and without war even when we have no intention of fighting the US that is more scary. At least to me.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 11 Sep 2009 09:45

Was POKII an engineering event/experiment or a high level physics event/experiment

It was high level expectations experiment event(HLEEE) whose results are engineered to excellence to boost confidence intervals.

{yields once declared will not be taken back even if you are taken aback}

On further reflection in the muddy waters

Our H bum is like my buying Mega Million lottery ticket, statistically the odds of winning is one in {substitute the grand prize winning amount}, but still I hear that some bum in the great Nation of Texas or Georgia wins the prize. So, If we drop the H bum on somebody and it does not explode then its their paper weight for free on the other hand it just leaks then its their bad karma. Just make sure to mention on the bum "Some components of this device might have origins in China but most parts are made in Bark"

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Sep 2009 10:16

John Snow wrote:
Was POKII an engineering event/experiment or a high level physics event/experiment
It was high level expectations experiment event(HLEEE) whose results are engineered to excellence to boost confidence intervals.

{yields once declared will not be taken back even if you are taken aback}

On further reflection in the muddy waters

Our H bum is like my buying Mega Million lottery ticket, statistically the odds of winning is one in {substitute the grand prize winning amount}, but still I hear that some bum in the great Nation of Texas or Georgia wins the prize. So, If we drop the H bum on somebody and it does not explode then its their paper weight for free on the other hand it just leaks then its their bad karma. Just make sure to mention on the bum "Some components of this device might have origins in China but most parts are made in Bark"

As usual John Snow ji, you have made the most perceptive Bark - er I mean comment.

But what to do we are SDRE Indians onlee. So let's be happy and merry, no need of peer review no need for PoK3, 4, 5...1000000000. All of them would be a waste because they would only be HLEEE Barks and there's only so much the ear drums can take.

I vote that we turn the wonderful piece of real estate on which Bark stands be truned into a theme park with lots of HLEEE rides and shows and be renamed HLEEE (P)ark.

Good idea nah?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Sep 2009 10:23

John Snow wrote: Was POKII an engineering event/experiment or a high level physics event/experiment
It was high level expectations experiment event(HLEEE) whose results are engineered to excellence to boost confidence intervals.

This kind of thing can be done by a country only if it already has tested weapon and design and data

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 11 Sep 2009 10:37

Dang in BR everybody take themselves very seriousl

Acharya look up on the meaning of Enginnering/Engineered hint like Mushy engineered a coup

Amit thanks for your {left handed} right comment. Note Bark also means the outer layer of the trunk of a tree. so dont you bark around bark but bank on bark!
You are the guru, I am chota chotu onleee

Really speaking we dont need new bums we have plenty in delhi and it will turn out at the day of reckoning we wont even be seeing second strike, as the subs will be used for amma and aiyahs or in the north as call memsahib and sahibs for cruises around Andaman and Nicobar Islands of China.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 11 Sep 2009 10:39

Sanku wrote: 200 KT tests with 5 Richter scale signatures are known.

Irrelevant. We are talking about the actual damage that has happend, and the effect of a higher yield than what happened.

the damage does not depend upon the yield alone but the depth too

No. The effect of the depth is insignificant as the distance is >> depth. Here distance is 6km, and depth is 200m.

The depth of s1 shaft != depth of s2 shaft, possible that s2 caused the damage by over yielding and s1 still went phut

As shown above, depth don't have much effect on seismic damage at a distance.

The damage does not depend on the yield and the depth but on the frequency of vibration too and the duration

Only if the frequency and duration varies with the yield., which is not the case. The frequency is a function of the soil right around the shaft.

No models for the above exist and have been posted.

Oh, like the rest of every piece of data is posted!! Models are not necessary, unless you think there will be a drastic non linearity in the relationship.

I posted four options. Let me repeat them.

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?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 11 Sep 2009 10:43

BARC never errs remember that it only updates.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 11 Sep 2009 10:46

amit wrote:
arnab wrote:After all data will always be hard to come by - so what confidence will we have in our second round tests (if it happens)?
Arnab Guru,

That is the crux of the problem. With data hard to come by how will folks who don't have confidence in the scientists who will conduct the second round, if any, believe that this time it's a sizzle and not yet again another fizzle?

Only way out can be IMVHO is either:

a) Find an entirely new group of nuclear scientists and bomb designers with suitable experience to work on the second round; or
b) Give full access to all data to the doubters (however, the question would arise, certainly, if these folks have the technical competence to correctly interpret this data).

Now I don't think point (a) is feasible as I'm not sure we have such bench strength in nuclear bomb design and science in India. US has it with two design facilities but India?

And (b)? Well not really feasible is it?

So back to the same question, what if the second round, let's call it POKIII, is certified as fizzle by the NPAs yet again? Then what?

Few observations:

1.) Who cares about what NPA think or do.
2.) Successful bomb of 150kT and above will speak for itself. In fact it will be useful to do many 150kt+ test and not disclose which one of those were fission or TN. That obfuscation is a better for deterrence.
3) For Indian users I.e. Military, SFC & strategic policy makers, India just needs to break the singular {designer, maker, validator} nexus into two; that will be enough. The Validation function should be ideally done by:
- A) IISc, or
  B.) TIFR. For that it must be split from DAE and report directly to PMO.
4) As I mentioned before in earlier avatar of the thread, there should two parallel and autonomous teams of designer (including simulation/modeling physicist teams) to keep the system honest & true.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 11 Sep 2009 11:17

I agree on the part that the yield verification by seismic data should be done by an unrelated organization.

If we do a 150kt phataka, the following would happen:

1. NPA will claim it is only 30KT, hence fizzle.
2. Hawks will claim it is FBF, too heavy to put on the tip of the missile etc, hence no deterrent
3. SuperHawks will

demanding 1MT bum onlee.

And the political leadership will still be patting their own musharraff, seeing if the backbone is being grown yet.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Sep 2009 11:18

John Snow wrote:
Acharya look up on the meaning of Enginnering/Engineered hint like Mushy engineered a coup

I was serious in the post

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 11 Sep 2009 11:19

That Da-n St-illman piece has got all the hallmarks of NPA's defensive propaganda. The khan establishment are trying to distance themselves from accusations that they leaked stuff to the PLA in the mid-60s, by claiming the chinese were hyper-advanced and had deployed multi-phasic photon torpedoes by late 80s. All this stuff did not come out till that famous venn diagram started floating around. A tad accusatory, that diagram.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 11 Sep 2009 11:51

^^^^^
The same thoughts were running through my mind. 2 independent organizations developing their own devices and each once cross checking the other. Both reporting independently to the PMO.

While pondering over this whole issue and Indian reticence, I gave a little thought to the big picture.

New Delhi seems to be more or less united with the current status. Rao and ABV took the big step, called a moratorium and then the sanctions were imposed anyway. Intelligence inputs about ensuing Pakisstani tests may have triggered this but at that time, breaking a 25 year shackle was a message that India was ready to make big decisions when needed.
No nuclear deal then, saved by inward remittances and the economy continued to grow.

Fast forward to today. The economy seems to be far more important. Again , this is how different personalities see it. Rao and ABV saw strategic interests as being critical at that time. MMS and co seem to think the economy is vital now. Blunders at Egypt aside, his vision seems to be to make India a economic power. And the nuclear deal , per MMS and co , is a vital part of achieving the goal. Nothing wrong with that.

Is Indian CMD complete? RC and co say so. Others disagree. MMS just said it is a needless controversy. Read as much as you can with it but the Indian position continues to be "complete disarmament" or "don't preach".. And he has made NO concrete mention of signing the CTBT. Basically that , according to me , at the moment,is either
a) a statement that supports our "dont preach" stance
b) He is not ready to make that decision.

So, again, the nothing should come in the way of the economy.

What I see as changing the current stance is the following:

Anytime now or some time down the line, a bolder aggressive move from Pak-China would push us into taking the TN far more seriously.
Some time down the line, a realisation will set in that Britain and France have a punch way above their league.
When we have enough economic muscle, a test will at most result in a wail. If little can be done to force India into a knot now, I doubt if things would be easier when we are far more resilient.

Our ambitions are at best regional. This is reflected in the nuclear and missile stance.
If our sphere of influence grows, so will our stance. And things will follow.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Sep 2009 12:34

Shiv et al, on the topic of hiding the current capablity this is what ex CNS has to say

http://www.forceindia.net/guestcolumn1next.aspx

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. Now that the submarine is out of the closet, we need to discuss some aspects of this project which has a vital bearing on national security.

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.

Compare the above two for what is the current status on the TN device.

This is the common oft repeated view of most Mil top brasses -- very very divergent from what is claimed here by some.

Those claiming that need for test are done for either of the following
world leadership
H&D
Proving it to the NPA
Uber hawks

are all completely baseless, this is asked for because it felt to be the basic engineering need for the credible minimum deterrence doctrine.

Simple. I would request that motives other than these not be imputed -- since this has been what has been said my many retired Chiefs of all forces, as well as the posters here.

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Sep 2009 12:35

Arun_S wrote:Few observations:
1.) Who cares about what NPA think or do.
2.) Successful bomb of 150kT and above will speak for itself. In fact it will be useful to do many 150kt+ test and not disclose which one of those were fission or TN. That obfuscation is a better for deterrence.
3) For Indian users I.e. Military, SFC & strategic policy makers, India just needs to break the singular {designer, maker, validator} nexus into two; that will be enough. The Validation function should be ideally done by:
A) IISc, or
B.) TIFR. For that it must be split from DAE and report directly to PMO.
4) As I mentioned before in earlier avatar of the thread, there should two parallel and autonomous teams of designer (including simulation/modeling physicist teams) to keep the system honest & true.

Arun_S,

I agree with you that is the way to go.

And that's the way forward, something which we should be looking at/suggesting instead of trying to find out who was right and who was wrong 11 years ago in the desert sands of Rajasthan.

IMVHO.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 11 Sep 2009 12:50

to keep the system honest & true

Come on guys we kept satyam in Jail and unleashed maytas not even maytag, remember our Buddha smiled twice in May, hence we need new Maytag.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Sep 2009 12:53

Dileep wrote:
Sanku wrote: 200 KT tests with 5 Richter scale signatures are known.
Irrelevant. We are talking about the actual damage that has happend, and the effect of a higher yield than what happened.

Relevant -- The idea is to show there is no fixed rule between a yield and seismic signature, same yield results in different signatures depending on the test structure.

So this is step 1

the damage does not depend upon the yield alone but the depth too
No. The effect of the depth is insignificant as the distance is >> depth. Here distance is 6km, and depth is 200m.

No please refer to previous posted literature from the web. The depth is crucial to the damage, even right at the epicenter.

The damage does not depend on the yield and the depth but on the frequency of vibration too and the duration
Only if the frequency and duration varies with the yield., which is not the case. The frequency is a function of the soil right around the shaft.

No compare it with an earthquake, the damage is caused primarily by the duration rather than magnitude, pulses do not cause damage, one large pulse and other larger pulse may cause the same damage.

So we can not make any such claim of linear scaling.

No models for the above exist and have been posted.
Oh, like the rest of every piece of data is posted!! Models are not necessary, unless you think there will be a drastic non linearity in the relationship.

Yes so without data there is no basis to claim that higher yield of S1 would definitely mean more damage.

All real world systems are drastically non linear. Even in the trivial model we did we already got a power (exponential) function. And we don't know the correct coefficient either.

I posted four options. Let me repeat them.

No those are not the options that we have to be restricted by -- my option is as follows

S2 worked as expected and caused minor damage to village -- as expected

S1 if it was to work would also not do any further damage -- may be 1" crack instead of 1/2"

S1 may or may not have worked but we can absolutely not use Khetolai to make that call.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 11 Sep 2009 13:06

Truth is a moving target...

You say, there is rebirth for those who believe in it and there is no rebirth for those who don't believe in it.? Isn't that a diplomatic answer? said Major. UG apparently smiled in reply and said, Isn't your existence, that you think you are, a belief?

... was silenced with that reply.

Yama Raj also said the same thing to Nachiketa

If you think it is there then it is there

Ardhath

If you think it worked, it worked
If you think not then think not.

We believe it exists (the deterance) the enemy doesn't
who is right is known when we use it
or blast it.

If we use it still the enemy may not know it for he is himself not existing to know. But the other know...

This is exactly Rajaram garu said which fell on def con ...

"Bum ki bateain Bum hi jane.... goes the song"

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 11 Sep 2009 14:34

Sanku wrote: Relevant -- The idea is to show there is no fixed rule between a yield and seismic signature, same yield results in different signatures depending on the test structure.

Do you imply that there is no reliable way to calculate the possible damage to Khetolai? Then why wasn't the village evacuated to be on the safer side?

No please refer to previous posted literature from the web. The depth is crucial to the damage, even right at the epicenter.

What matters is the distance from the target to the epicentre. Earthquakes happen at depths of tens of kilometres, so the depth and the radian distance become comparable. Nuke test happens at just hundreds of metres, so the distance from the explosion point to target doesn't change much as the depth increases.

Cosine rule applies.

No compare it with an earthquake, the damage is caused primarily by the duration rather than magnitude, pulses do not cause damage, one large pulse and other larger pulse may cause the same damage.

So we can not make any such claim of linear scaling.

We are comparing the damage of explosions of different yields, where the frequency and duration are practically the same.

You are trying to sidestep the problem here. We are just comparing the relative damage potential by varying the YIELD ALONE. All other parameters remain the same. Why are you bringing in earthquake damages here?

Explosion A cracked the buildings. A higher yield explosion (in the same shaft at the same depth) would damage it more.

Agree or not?

Yes so without data there is no basis to claim that higher yield of S1 would definitely mean more damage.

All real world systems are drastically non linear. Even in the trivial model we did we already got a power (exponential) function. And we don't know the correct coefficient either.

The systems could be non linear, but it will not be discontinuous. Your claim will need it to behave like a clipping circuit.

No those are not the options that we have to be restricted by -- my option is as follows

S2 worked as expected and caused minor damage to village -- as expected

S1 if it was to work would also not do any further damage -- may be 1" crack instead of 1/2"

S1 may or may not have worked but we can absolutely not use Khetolai to make that call.

I am just wondering. If the damage effect is trivial if you double the yield, then why double the yield when you make chinese fried rice?

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 11 Sep 2009 15:34

The issue is not belief but validation

Extracts

The thermonuclear test controversy has the government declaring its "belief" that the "scientists" are right. But scientists can lie, and in this case they have. The issue is scientific validation. Because of the sensitivity of the subject, it can be done through a review in which top scientists like P.K. Iyengar, Homi Sethna and others are involved.

The Prime Minister has declared, “we believe our scientists”, to counter the revelation by former DRDO nuclear weapons programme director K. Santhanam that our thermonuclear or hydrogen bomb test of May 11 1998 was a fizzle.

This sounds like an invocation to deity. But scientists are not gods, or infallible prophets. Like other human beings they can and do lie, or shade the truth, for an assortment of reasons, not the least, to protect their own reputations and further their careers.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 11 Sep 2009 15:53

^^^ Why does that article come off as a diatribe against APJ Kalam title not withstanding?

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 11 Sep 2009 16:34

^^ OT ... better to discuss in Missile Thread ... am not an expert but the facts speak for themselves dont they? Many (not all) of our missiles range, types (or are still in development) are worse than TSP, dont they?

bart · Post by **bart** » 11 Sep 2009 17:07

arunsrinivasan wrote:^^ OT ... better to discuss in Missile Thread ... am not an expert but the facts speak for themselves dont they? Many (not all) of our missiles range, types (or are still in development) are worse than TSP, dont they?

Yes, the green paint that the Pakis use to paint their North Korean/Chinese are vastly superior to poor SDRE offerings.

Well, at least you got the OT part right.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Sep 2009 17:10

Dileep wrote:
Sanku wrote: Relevant -- The idea is to show there is no fixed rule between a yield and seismic signature, same yield results in different signatures depending on the test structure.
Do you imply that there is no reliable way to calculate the possible damage to Khetolai? Then why wasn't the village evacuated to be on the safer side?

I am not implying that, I am saying explicitly that there is no known prefect model for computing damage, there are estimation methods which would have been used to the scientists satisfaction.

They still took precautions.

The village was evacuated, albeit locally and temporarily.

What matters is the distance from the target to the epicentre. Earthquakes happen at depths of tens of kilometres, so the depth and the radian distance become comparable. Nuke test happens at just hundreds of metres, so the distance from the explosion point to target doesn't change much as the depth increases.

Cosine rule applies.

I have not seen any information agreeing with this, though it may be just my ignorance.

Can you please post a reference stating conclusively that the depth of nuclear device does not have an impact on the damage?

We are comparing the damage of explosions of different yields, where the frequency and duration are practically the same.

You are trying to sidestep the problem here. We are just comparing the relative damage potential by varying the YIELD ALONE. All other parameters remain the same. Why are you bringing in earthquake damages here?

I am not trying to side step. An attempt has been made to use the model of natural earthquake to predict the damage by nuclear shock wave.

I am trying to point out the inherent differences in the two and thus how it can not be used.

Explosion A cracked the buildings. A higher yield explosion (in the same shaft at the same depth) would damage it more.

Agree or not?

In the same shaft and at the same depth would cause more damage agree. How much more disagree.

And note, if damage one has two components dt = d1 + d2 and d1 >> d2, even if d2' = 2* d2, dt' != 2*dt

The systems could be non linear, but it will not be discontinuous. Your claim will need it to behave like a clipping circuit.

No I am not saying its a clipping circuit, although Arun_S has claimed on the forum that TN would produce signatures in different frequencies were it to work.

So he has even called for a change in frequency.

I am only talking of the non-linear behavior and lack of knowledge which shaft did the damage component came from.

I am assuming (based on the previous lit) that shaft design would have a great impact on damage.

I am just wondering. If the damage effect is trivial if you double the yield, then why double the yield when you make chinese fried rice?

Because Chinese fried rice is made by holding the fire right next to the pan containing the rice

and its not the Indian high cuisine where you bury the food and the coal 2ft deep and wait overnight to cook.

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 11 Sep 2009 17:25

shiv wrote:I am not forcing anyone to accept my view and do not intend to be critical of those who do not share my view and promise to viciously counter-attack anyone who attempts to mindlessly belittle those who share my view with mockery or sarcasm.

And one is supposed to believe that your diatribe is just a "honest presentation of debate"? You have a view that India doesn't need to test not because it has TN but because you don't need one. And you have tried every trick in the book and done everything you are pretending you will not do. You were even attacking Arun for some weird name this and that. Come on, get real, who are you kidding?

I still see folks here who just based on "trust your scientists" paradigm think one test is enough. No matter what NPA say, how come people think one test is enough to productionize a weapon? What if scientists were to proclaim that one test is enough for Akash or PAD missile? Would you believe them? Doesn't military do its own verification (of not only weapon design but also manufacture) by regularly firing missiles in its arsenal? I know we cannot regularly fire nukes but then how come we don't even need to test the final product (100KT-150KT) ONCE (remember what we tested was under 50KT no matter who you ask)? The old saying goes "trust but verify".

amit · Post by **amit** » 11 Sep 2009 17:35

arunsrinivasan wrote:^^ OT ... better to discuss in Missile Thread ... am not an expert but the facts speak for themselves dont they? Many (not all) of our missiles range, types (or are still in development) are worse than TSP, dont they?

This what happens when it becomes open season for criticising every icon there is.

Some joker writes that Paki missiles are better than India's. Babur is indigenously developed by Paki genius and Bhramos is a Russian missile with Indian paint and a newbie member comes in and says Paki missile tech is better.

I would certainly like to read the opinion of Arun_S on Manoj Joshi's article either here or on the missile thread since it also questions his analysis of India's.a missile capabilities.

And I would request Arun Srinivasan to do a bit of reading before putting forth profound comments.

Sorry for OT