Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Sep 2009 20:37

I see no reason why the GOI or BARC/DAE/RC cant come out and say that the TN was less than successful and we are sorry for not communicating to the nation for security reason.

There is no shame in accepting the fact that they did wrong in the past and they were sorry about it , every one comits mistake in life intentionally or unknowingly.

But what is shamful is not accepting that one has commited mistakes and continue to persists with it.

The GOI can say that TN was a test device which was not that sucessful and great progress has been made since then , and that its not required for CMD and they will test it if need be in the future.

Sarma · Post by **Sarma** » 18 Sep 2009 20:41

Much currency is being given in the media, needlessly, to whether Brajesh Mishra took a voice vote or not. This is not the crux of the matter. What is far more important is that Mishra concedes there was a dispute regarding the yields and that he accepted what RC, Kalam and other big guns have said. It is entirely natural for BM to accept their word and not Santhanam's, for Santhanam was a small fry compared to these giants (I don't know if inflated). One cannot also expect BM to figure out the relative scientific merit of one argument against another.

BM should've ordered a comprehensive review of the entire yield measurement process that rose to the level of a peer review Instead, he satisfied himself with a chai biscuit session? Saying that RC and Kalam are satisifed, hence I am satisfied reminds me of a crude joke that I won't spell out here. At least in this sense, BM has done a great disservice to India. As ramana garu says, BM took the expedient and convenient route, as he was fazed by the world coming down like a ton of bricks on us.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Sep 2009 20:48

Gagan wrote:Again the mere possession of a bomb is not where the story ends. Now you are in the game.

# So you need to test the bomb in various atmospheric conditions.
# You need to test if the bomb will actually survive the journey by a ballistic missile.
# You have to ensure that the bomb is safe, will not go off even if the storage bunker it is stored at catches fire or is targeted by the enemy.
# As the bomb ages is it still reliable? an older bomb needs to be tested for reliability.
# TN weapons have LiD or Tritium, which reportedly degrades. The canister needs to be replaced periodically. Our faujis or scientists will be doing that. There is a need to ensure the bomb will go off as planned after the servicing.
# The bombs need to be PAL-ed to ensure only the leadership can allow their use.

So it is a long haul. And here we are talking about testing to have one perfected.

Finally, if our netas don't have the cajons to even test, do you think they will have the cajons to retaliate with N-weapons should India suffer a first strike?

All these can be and are tested with out active explosions. None of these are reasons to test. Some things have to happen:

- GOI has to decide whether it needs TN or not
* If it needs, then the new design has to have a through review of all its aspects- concept, design, mfg and qa with user participation. Knowing that there are limitations on testing, all the components have to have
adequate/excess design margin. S-I lessons have to be incorporated. Once this happens and is transparent there wont be doubts in the minds of adversaries. Recall even if POK I underperformed in 1974, the real one didnt and it was ready per NPA by 1977 ie three years later. And it was weaponized in 1988 and tested ten years later. So Indian scientists can and will deliver. Same thing will be with the TN.

-Keep the option to test and work to eliminate pressure points where ever they are.

Comment on a side matter. Its clear that there was a politico-strategic aspect to the voluntary moratorium and not just the technical aspect. Its doesn't help to browbeat RC alone. Recall he did come up with a TN design and due to the external pressure it had to be under extreme secrecy and hence had its short comings. If this was such an important thing, then why didnt the govt give the authorization soon after the Mumbai blasts in 1992 and waited till much later per Chengappa? Such an enterprise needs time.

Even current govt must have come to terms with the issues when it changed the doctrine to Credible Minimum Deterrent (MCD) and then proceeded with the deal. It was the enabling/operationalization of the doctrine that led to the IUCNA deal. We need to come to terms that what was done was done in the best interests at that time. The angst is due to the cognitive dissonance and a feeling of being let down. Its not about our feelings but about the country and its interests.

Why dont the game theory experts try to figure out what is needed to deter whom? Maybe it will give us a better prespective.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Sep 2009 20:59

What is needed to deter an adversary is a display of intent to use it, not a mere possession of it.

India projects the image of a wimp. Change that and even an FBF will deter everyone's mother.

Test and deploy the ability to deliver peace to every corner of the world. Show the world the middle finger a few times, and the world will be convinced.

IMHO

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Sep 2009 21:05

Gagan, Please dont get upset at my post.

India has built up this image of wimp very carefully over many decades. Its not just a habit or lack of this and that. There was an urgent need after states integration to create this image for there was active fear being stoked in the neighborhood that India was going to swallow them all up and become new Imperial Japan. So this other image was built as a delibrate policy. As all images its only an image.

Every time a wimpy image was unveiled there were many policy confabulations only after which it was done.

Its with this image some of the largest military forces built-up and an economic revival have been launched.

The will is there and will be used. Let there be no doubt about it.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 18 Sep 2009 21:06

After reading Santanam's article in the Chindian publication "The Hundi" it is quite clear that the motivation behind the whole tamasha is to demand 1MT testing and thus trash India's access to nuclear technology and fuel for the next 30 years. The phrase "150-300kT" is just a small concession to common sense, the real intent comes through elsewhere.

Fortunately for Chindia, this fedayeen course of action finds resonance in the politically-frustrated high-frequency vertical oscillations of the "nationalist" lobby.

shiv: you bring up an interesting point:

Thermonuclear bombs are best not because they are big, but because they save a lot of fissile material and make a little go a long way.

Thermonuclear bombs were also designed to convey MAD: such total and all-covering destruction as to eliminate the possibility of any rebirth or resurrection of the population or civilization so destroyed. They were clearly intended as the ultimate endgame of implacable foes who believed each other of being bent on destruction even at the cost of 99% self-destruction.

So thermonukes of 1MT and above were designed, to hit ANYWHERE on the earth's surface and even under it.

Perhaps Arun_S could post the payload fraction and size comparison of missiles intended to
(a) reach ANYWHERE in the world
(b) reach Chinese cities from India.

Unfortunately for me, in reading the HUNDI article and its numerous offshoots, I see that Santanam and his lobby have only sunk deeper into the quicksand. So now we know from posts and pictures on this thread:

1. A nuke buried deep enough will cause little visible disturbance on the surface. The U-tube video of trailers jumping up and down, the vodka glass claim (rather Russian vodka-soaked in credibility, IMO), and several other deep analyses admit that a thermonuke buried sufficiently deep, need not leave any trace on the surface.

2. The shaft in which a nuke is buried for testing is not a straight-down hole, but takes 2 or 3 90-degree bends. Thus there is no reason why the vertical rise of superheated vapor etc, should cause any damage to the actual exit of the shaft at the surface, which may be several to several hundred meters away from the plumb-line to the center of the blast. So there is no information contained in the sensational revelation that the "A-frame was not damaged!!"

Santanam cites "several hundred" tests with explosives etc. to calibrate the sensors. This confirms what I was arguing with Samuel about - they had tons of data on the effects to be expected at Khetolai, and so, the first announcement from Santanam - while he was still a technical person and not a politician / Director of an Institute on Strategic Analyses - still rings true. They designed S1 and S2 very carefully to avoid damage to Khetolai. S1 was buried so deep that they were totally confident, with a very large margin of safety, that no 12,000 foot radioactive plume etc. would occur, and in fact nothing would be seen at the surface. IOW, that the "A-Frame" would not suffer any damage. AT FULL TEST YIELD.

But Khetolai was still damaged. Q.E.D. Either that, or Santanam is an attempted mass-murderer who callously had the schoolchildren of Khetolai standing out in the playground, to be irradiated to death if S1 "succeeded". Wonder why?

More such self-contradictions in Santanam's claims become clear if one looks carefully. So many political tamashas, so little time to waste on BRF!

So this still leaves all the fundamental questions, and most importantly the Khetolai question, completely unanswered.

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 18 Sep 2009 21:32

Sarmaji,

It is not clear that the issue was settled in a Chai-Biskoot session. We also don't know what are the motivations for various players in this game to say what they are saying. What I do know is that at least the bureaucrats in GoI are a hard-nosed bunch and won't blindlly believe what the scientists are saying. What is also clear from looking at history is a high degree of consistency between the various PMOs (excluding only one) in terms of nuclear policy. On the surface, there appears to be a lot of dissonance. Under the surface, a remarkable level of consistency, and I suspect the bureaucracy has a large role to play in that. In any case, I doubt that RC/Kalam's word was accepted at face value and the matter was closed there

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Sep 2009 21:43

what do big5s do to refurb old thermos to atleast extend life by some x years. is there a limit to such refurb without testing? I am trying to see if we have the right to tamasha till then.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 18 Sep 2009 21:44

Santhanam says:

The sensors and instrumentation were calibrated several hundred times and perfected. They fully met international standards and were acknowledged to be so by BARC.

(Santhanam does not say 100s of bombs etc. though I can see why one trying to make a point will infer that). Here is a short reference to standard calibration methods

http://www.geophys.uni-stuttgart.de/old ... ode36.html

Imagine you were a company making accelerometers, used later for crash testing. Would you need to put each accelerometer in hundreds of crashes to calibrate it across its spectral range? Obviously not. Would you put just one through these destructive tests and copy the values. That's possible sometimes, but is somewhat imprecise because calibrating is generally a per sensor thing, e.g. when you buy a thermistor, you might want to calibrate it to make sure, though you might have some idea from the catalog.

Calibration here, means, that X amount of vibration sensed by sensor is mapped to X using electric signal. Not X amount of vibration at distal source through nonlinear medium is sensed as X by sensor signal. That's a HARD problem and I am actually doing simple simulations to show why and will post on this thread in a little while. I think calibration says nothing about the deconvolution problem for source assuming medium is linear (which is practice but imprecise) or source-medium estimation problem (which is difficult, doubly so when medium is nonlinear). How do you know X(w) dropping bombs from aircraft or whatever (and this is not of the bombs but the vibration arising in the immediate medium in which the bomb is inserted). You could put a sensor near field (next to bomb) and sensor far field (near site) but you need to calibrate the near field sensor. And if you were doing that, and calibration was the objective, putting it on a shake table won't do?

Not sure I follow here.

S

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 18 Sep 2009 21:56

http://www.fas.org/news/india/1998/05/980500-conf.htm

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 18 Sep 2009 22:06

From Krishnan's citation:

Q: We hear that you now going to separate the civil and military aspects of the programme with DRDO taking care of the military part and secondly are you now going to put your civilian reactors under safeguards?

A: (K) - I do not know what you are talking about. We co-exist and co-operate. We do not have to take over each other's tasks.

A: (RC) - No.

This is interesting, they had this idea back then??
S

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 18 Sep 2009 22:27

hmm.. i saw you other post too. thats a design of experiments problem.
calibration is an identification problem. you are estimating an unknown gain by using known input-output pairs. ofcourse you can then ask which input-output pair to use to get the best estimate of the unknown gain.

samuel wrote:Santhanam says:

The sensors and instrumentation were calibrated several hundred times and perfected. They fully met international standards and were acknowledged to be so by BARC.
(Santhanam does not say 100s of bombs etc. though I can see why one trying to make a point will infer that). Here is a short reference to standard calibration methods

http://www.geophys.uni-stuttgart.de/old ... ode36.html

Imagine you were a company making accelerometers, used later for crash testing. Would you need to put each accelerometer in hundreds of crashes to calibrate it across its spectral range?
Obviously not.

Would you put just one through these destructive tests and copy the values. That's possible sometimes, but is somewhat imprecise because calibrating is generally a per sensor thing, e.g. when you buy a thermistor, you might want to calibrate it to make sure, though you might have some idea from the catalog.

Calibration here, means, that X amount of vibration sensed by sensor is mapped to X using electric signal. Not X amount of vibration at distal source through nonlinear medium is sensed as X by sensor signal. That's a HARD problem and I am actually doing simple simulations to show why and will post on this thread in a little while. I think calibration says nothing about the deconvolution problem for source assuming medium is linear (which is practice but imprecise) or source-medium estimation problem (which is difficult, doubly so when medium is nonlinear). How do you know X(w) dropping bombs from aircraft or whatever (and this is not of the bombs but the vibration arising in the immediate medium in which the bomb is inserted). You could put a sensor near field (next to bomb) and sensor far field (near site) but you need to calibrate the near field sensor. And if you were doing that, and calibration was the objective, putting it on a shake table won't do?

Not sure I follow here.

S

actually yes. but if you have some models (validated extensively) of the behavior then you only need to "calibrate" by sampling the parameter space, so that you can reliably fix the values of the model parameters. the issue is whether you are "testing" in the function space or the model parameter space. in both cases you have to fill space (for stationary models). even within the parameter space, testing to minimize parameter uncertainty is different from testing to minimize prediction uncertainty , but for most purposes that is just details.

so i think, what is happening is when he says equipment was calibrated he is saying the equipment is sane. sanity of equipment, and sanity of inferences based on measurements from equipment are two different things. weren't you guys dabbling in some models? it didn't give me any confidence.

i am not saying anything about fizzle or sizzle. just making a scientific point.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 18 Sep 2009 22:35

Sarma wrote:Much currency is being given in the media, needlessly, to whether Brajesh Mishra took a voice vote or not. This is not the crux of the matter. What is far more important is that Mishra concedes there was a dispute regarding the yields and that he accepted what RC, Kalam and other big guns have said. It is entirely natural for BM to accept their word and not Santhanam's, for Santhanam was a small fry compared to these giants (I don't know if inflated). One cannot also expect BM to figure out the relative scientific merit of one argument against another.

BM should've ordered a comprehensive review of the entire yield measurement process that rose to the level of a peer review Instead, he satisfied himself with a chai biscuit session? Saying that RC and Kalam are satisifed, hence I am satisfied reminds me of a crude joke that I won't spell out here. At least in this sense, BM has done a great disservice to India. As ramana garu says, BM took the expedient and convenient route, as he was fazed by the world coming down like a ton of bricks on us.

If I build a tree of people who are responsible for this monumental failure of the nation, the sequence is as following:

1.) R.Chidambram (is the root)
2.) APJ Kalam
3.) Brijesh Mishra
4.) Vajpayee

Each had a role which when properly done could have saved India.

However there is no doubt in my mind that the root of the evil was R.Chidambram, who successfully managed to get APJ Kalam off guard to get into his fold of lies (providence or RC's skill I do not know), who in turn again managed to hoodwink NSA Brijesh Mishra who had his own compulsions.

OTOH the responsibility is inversely related, and Brijesh Mishra failed big time in unmasking RC versus extremely strategic National imperative. That however does not absolve the cardinal role of the Snake who taught Eve to bite the Apple, and Adam carried on, and result is the mess India is in now.

IMVHO ABV will regret not doing what was right in 2003 and canceling the tests, and that is a day in infamy.

If I have to pull out this tree of "Jahalat" (Darkness) I will start with the root, and figure out how to fix the problem and get back into game.

JMVHO.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 18 Sep 2009 22:38

Austin wrote:I see no reason why the GOI or BARC/DAE/RC cant come out and say that the TN was less than successful and we are sorry for not communicating to the nation for security reason.

There is no shame in accepting the fact that they did wrong in the past and they were sorry about it , every one comits mistake in life intentionally or unknowingly.

But what is shamful is not accepting that one has commited mistakes and continue to persists with it.

The GOI can say that TN was a test device which was not that sucessful and great progress has been made since then , and that its not required for CMD and they will test it if need be in the future.

A very straight forward path to move on.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 18 Sep 2009 22:41

Shaardula...thanks...Calibration, model state estimation, system identification, parameter estimation, model reference control,or even simple feedback control, inverse filtering, deconvolution, source separation, yada yada... many names for solving what typically turn out to be different flavors of inverse problems. Just write down what is being estimated and what the model is and the weaknesses start to show... in three broad ways: (a) process is nonlinear and your model may or may not be appropriately nonlinear. (b) the dimensions are large and (c) there is uncertainty in detection, measurement, knowledge of medium or parameters, or boundaries and ics. The devil is in the details the confusion is in the jargon.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 18 Sep 2009 22:45

Gagan wrote:MMS should ensure that before he demits office, India has CMD, a weaponized proofed TN, K-xx SLBM with TN MIRVs, the third Arihant class is in the waters.

Wishful thinking. If wishes had wings, Pigs will fly first.

Only unbearable pressure will move MMSingh to right action.

munna · Post by **munna** » 18 Sep 2009 23:01

Arun_S wrote:Only unbearable pressure will move MMSingh to right action.

His man friday in MOEA is being gunned after by a lieutenant of yuvraaj and by all indications Darji will lose a lot of decision making power in terms of Indian external and strategic policy making. Lets hope for the best.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 18 Sep 2009 23:07

From Santanam's article:

The seismic sensors were placed at many points in the device shafts and out to a radius of 2.5 km. The sensors and instrumentation were calibrated several hundred times and perfected. They fully met international standards and were acknowledged to be so by BARC.

The DRDO was thus deeply involved in all the seismic measurements and was fully aware of the BARC-projected readings vis-À-vis its own measurements. ....

The DRDO also designed and conducted numerous tests of the High Explosive (HE) Trigger of the TN test. BARC scientists witnessed these tests, took copies of test records, and expressed satisfaction with the DRDO’s work.

Over May-October 1998, DRDO produced a comprehensive report of actual seismic readings vis-À-vis values predicted by BARC, mentioning why the former showed considerably lower yields than the latter.

I interpreted that concisely as

Santanam cites "several hundred" tests with explosives etc. to calibrate the sensors. This confirms what I was arguing with Samuel about - they had tons of data on the effects to be expected at Khetolai,

Samuel says:

(Santhanam does not say 100s of bombs etc. though I can see why one trying to make a point will infer that).

Ah! Maybe because that someone actually reads with brain turned to "ON" position? So DRDO set up sensors and calibrated them, careful not to let them sense any explosions, then conducted tests of High Explosive trigger (how, other than by setting them off?) without the sensor?

I see that Samuel describes his post as "making a scientific point". By citing procedures for testing automobile crash dummies as the "standard procedure" for nuclear test seismographic sensor calibration. Hey, a sensor is a sensor is sensor, what yaar? Automobile crash dummy tests are surely more relevant than tests with "high explosive triggers for fusion weapons" in this context, no? Again, NO rolling eyes smiley, per ramana's ban.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Sep 2009 23:08

After reading Santanam's article in the Chindian publication "The Hundi" it is quite clear that the motivation behind the whole tamasha is to demand 1MT testing and thus trash India's access to nuclear technology and fuel for the next 30 years. The phrase "150-300kT" is just a small concession to common sense, the real intent comes through elsewhere.

But KS supported the nuclear deal. He wrote articles supporting it. He appeared on TV supporting it.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 18 Sep 2009 23:15

True Gerard. Which makes one wonder why he didn't come out at that time and say, "Wait a minute! Why are we rushing into this deal without establishing our Credible Minimum Fusion Deterrent?" Surely Arun_S here could have used his help at that time when he was fighting a lone battle to save India from the Cap Rollback Eliminate dangers of the Nuke Deal?

Inside one year, he suddenly remembered that a 1MT test is the be-all and end-all of CMD? Sudden attack of honesty? Was he lying in 1998 when he said the tests succeeded, yield was limited by need to protect Khetolai, was he lying when he supported the nuclear deal, or is he lying now? Or does he lie as a matter of habit, or has he had a sudden attack of honesty after all these years? Was he LESS honest when he was a technical person, than he is now as a political figure/ director of a Strategic Affairs Institute?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Sep 2009 23:16

Thursday, Nov 15, 2007
MPs urged to appreciate ‘significance’ of nuclear deal

On the eve of the winter session of Parliament, which is scheduled to discuss the nuclear deal, former government security managers have appealed to parliamentarians to understand the “significance” of the India-U.S. agreement. Seeking to allay the apprehensions related to the deal, they disputed the notion that it binds India not to test and ‘caps’ the country’s nuclear arsenal.

On the likelihood of India’s nuclear weapon making capability being capped, they said the country had resolved to acquire only a credible minimum deterrence. India is free under the agreement, as it is without it, to change that doctrine and produce more weapons. “The Prime Minister has clearly stated that we cannot agree to fissile-material cut-off unless they allow for our security concerns,” they felt.

Among the signatories are Marshal of the Air Force Arjan Singh; the former service chiefs, Air Chief Marshal O.P. Mehra, Gen. V.N. Sharma, Gen. V.P. Malik, Admiral Ram Tahliani and Admiral Madhvendra Singh; scientists M.R. Srinivasan, Kasturirangan, Roddam Narsimha, R. Rajaraman and K. Santhanam; former bureaucrats B.G. Deshmukh, K. Subrahmanyam, Abid Hussain, N.N.Vohra, Naresh Chandra and Narendra Sisodia, and former diplomats M. K. Rasgotra, K.S. Bajpai, K. Raghunath, Lalit Mansingh, S.K. Lambah and Arundhati Ghose.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Sep 2009 23:24

“International relationships are shaped by strength; the stronger you are the greater the freedom of action. This agreement should be viewed as an instrument for making us [realise] that [the] stronger power counts more and more in the world and can do more for its people,” observes the open letter to Members of Parliament signed by former scientists, former military chiefs, civil servants and diplomats, all of whom were directly involved in security management.

Looks like they are teaching to school children

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 18 Sep 2009 23:26

Of course he said that they conducted numerous tests of the trigger. As here:

The DRDO also designed and conducted numerous tests of the High Explosive (HE) Trigger of the TN test. BARC scientists witnessed these tests, took copies of test records, and expressed satisfaction with the DRDO’s work.

But what does that have to do with calibration of sensors and instrumentation I don't know or what tests of the trigger have to do with source-medium problem is even less clear. Could it be that the trigger was being tested to make sure the trigger works? (like the sensors were being calibrated to make sure they measure properly).

Your contention was that 100s of bombs were dropped (or some other analogy) to fully estimate the input and medium, which would make only a tad bit more sense than using them to calibrate sensors. Here is what you wrote:

narayanan wrote: Santanam cites "several hundred" tests with explosives etc. to calibrate the sensors.

That is not what Santhanam said, as in the article here
http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article21311.ece

And are you confusing Shaardula's claim of making a scientific statement (in quotes) with what I wrote...though I certainly hope what I wrote is scientific!

S

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 18 Sep 2009 23:30

Gerard, one should look REALLY closely at Dr. Santanam's statements. He is (deliberately at this point, I would say) making statements that are INTEPRETED a certain way. You take each point he makes, and if you analyze deep enough, he is not giving away any Classified Info, and he is not allowing himself to be tied to anything he cannot back out of. Very deep game.

Otherwise, along the lines of argument that I point out above, one could easily destroy his credibility and ask why he is not in jail as an attempted mass murderer, liar, etc. etc. But I am not actually saying that he is anything of the sort - he has left fire escapes open from each of his statements.

For instance, he says that the "A-Frame was not damaged". This shattered even ramana here. But if one thinks carefully about it, there is no reason why the A-frame should have been damaged, since the A-frame and winch were not anywhere directly above the device location. In the picture that Gagan posted (assuming it is real), you can see massive shattering of the ground immediately away from the hole and the A-frame, but smooth strata on this side. Looks like the A-frame and hole were located at the far edge of where they expected any damage to the strata.

This is one example of Santanam's deep game. It was when I saw his current designation as Director of the Strategic / Defense analyses think tank that I realized that his priorities have changed a whole lot. Now he represents people who argue for more tests.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Sep 2009 23:34

NRao wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:

Arun_S said
---------
Dont be confused by the 25 kT fission number to belong to S2. It belongs to S1 which was almost entirely fission and with barely 7% fusion yield
My understanding of the KS article is the same. I think ramana posted something on the lines of S2 being 25Kt and S1 completely fizzled. ramana?
------------

I think ramana is referring to:

The fission bomb {S2} yield from the DRDO’s seismic instrumentation was 25 +2 kiloton and left a crater 25 metres in diameter. If the TN device {S1} had really worked with a yield of 50 +2 kt, it should have left a crater almost 70 metres in diameter. Instead, all that happened was that sand and mud from the shaft were thrown several metres into the air and then fell back, forming a small depression in the shaft mouth. There was no crater. {related to S1}
Which was my question in my last post.

IF there was no crater, the shaft was in tact and the A-frame was in tact too, then there could not have been much of an explosion. The question is how large of an explosion could it have been for even the A-frame to be in tact. Forget the shaft and crater (assuming the A-frame is the weakest link among these three).

Sorry for the delayed response. Yes my reading of his article was its a piffle. I too read that S2 was the 25kt one and S-I at a charitable level could be termed sub-kt as some fission did happen.

So even the BF wasn't there. That is why I keep asking Arun what BF?

Anyway to me the CMD is based on the fission weapon and now its question of numbers.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 18 Sep 2009 23:45

narayanan wrote:True Gerard. Which makes one wonder why he didn't come out at that time and say, "Wait a minute! Why are we rushing into this deal without establishing our Credible Minimum Fusion Deterrent?" Surely Arun_S here could have used his help at that time when he was fighting a lone battle to save India from the Cap Rollback Eliminate dangers of the Nuke Deal?

Thank you for honoring me with that glowing title, but I was not alone fighting on this forum.

As for the former, perhaps you have too many of those forum settings to ignore many forum posters. It was pointed out few times earlier that 123 did not foreclose possibility to test, albeit it set basis for a very high price to be paid if India tests. With Obama chairing UNSC to push his agenda, Indian option to test even by payign a high price is being evaporated, and the bean counters are merry counting the beans.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 18 Sep 2009 23:55

I wonder if 25KT is our default credible minimum deterrent?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Sep 2009 23:58

DRDO's chandigarh labs do conduct several hundred tests of various explosive mixtures for the N program. They test the best combo of fast and slow explosives which are best suited as triggers for the weapon.
This fact is well known from the smiling buddha articles.
It is possible to calibrate the sensors with conventional explosives too.

I also suspect that India could have carried out several unannounced subkiloton tests. So then why does K santhanam say what he's saying today?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 19 Sep 2009 00:01

Well well now people are attributing motives to Santanam garu where none exits. Deep thinking folks are now working overtime.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 19 Sep 2009 00:11

All these drama can be (also be) directed to the question: Should we test or not?
Testing has scientific and political implications. From the scientific perspective it means we will have more data. The the political implications is what concerns the most. The political component is what drives some to say "enough testing already!". I don't think anyone @ BRF is opposed to getting more scientific data; and there is no "save the environment" or "save tax payers money" angles running in BRF. Eventually the political component wins the battle.

If there were no political ramifications not many would be opposed to testing. So what are the political ramifications that we are so worried or concerned about? From a political point what exactly will happen if we test?

ps: The political component is closely tied to Indian Economy. It is just that I don't explicitly mention it above.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 19 Sep 2009 00:15

Well, Snow-ji, generally speaking it is difficult to figure out what motivations one has to do something. Santhanam may or may not have motivations, but if his statements can be backed up, then no need to hound the messenger, I would agree. Similarly, people here write with all sorts of motivations too. For example, imagine that one is now a citizen of US and then has to get involved with talking about India on the forum. I don't know if they'd not want to be careful about appearing to get too anti-US, especially after hanging on here for a bit and getting a sense for how things play out (you've been around much longer!). I really think it's difficult to figure these things out, very easy to chuck mud.

But this man has been reputable and we do use some of his statements as fact and while ordinary shmoe like me won't get a response, I think he is senior enough to draw one. If none comes that counters his statements (as opposed to countering him), then that says something, I think.

S

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Sep 2009 00:26

samuel wrote:I wonder if 25KT is our default credible minimum deterrent?

Is there an alternative/option?

John Snow wrote:Well well now people are attributing motives to Santanam garu where none exits. Deep thinking folks are now working overtime.

Could he have been without motive? +/-ve?

I doubt it. Besides he still has some more info I bet. He has to have a motive.

And, at this point in time it is more damaging than anything else. He should have acted in the early 2000s - perhaps just after he retired. Or at least while the 123 deal was going on.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 19 Sep 2009 00:42

That I wonder about too...why did he not come out during 123? Irrespectively, is what he saying make sense. Prima facie it appears to and needs a response because he was central to the test.
S

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Sep 2009 00:50

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... crater.pdf

Depth of emplacement

It is seen the curves for NE in hard rock decay sharply and cut the x-axis at the
parameter value 60 where the depth of emplacement D is now measured in meters and
where the scaled depth of emplacement Ds was plotted along the x-axis. The plots show
that for NE when Ds = 60 in hard, dry rock there will be no crater but a retarc ( a
reversed crater, a mound of rubble). This cut-off point is determined by the event Sulky.
The mechanism of crater formation is explained in Toman's paper. For a device buried at
a shallow depth, first a small crater is formed since the bulk of the content escapes into the
atmosphere or as ejecta. As the device is emplaced at deeper depths, the crater diameter
increases to a maximum, then again starts to decrease and then at a certain stage instead
of a crater a retarc is formed. Emplacing it deeper produces then no visible disturbance
on the surface. Thus from the Sulky event depths of emplacement D given by:
D = 60(Y )1/3:4 meters (3)
will produce a retarc in hard, dry rock. D is clearly larger in softer alluvium. Now for the
event S-1(Indian thermo-nuclear explosion of May 11, 1998), Y = 45. In hard, dry rock
using (3) we compute easily that the critical depth for producing a retarc is 194 metres,
which is close to the shaft depth for S-1 stated by Chengappa in [3], pg. 427. In fact the
medium for S-1 was wet [3], and somewhat softer and since Chengappa says [3] that the
S-1 shaft was over 200 metres, the S-1 event did produce a small sand mound, consistent
with our equation (3).

That article on BR was from 2003. No cratering was expected?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Sep 2009 00:54

samuel wrote:That I wonder about too...why did he not come out during 123? Irrespectively, is what he saying make sense. Prima facie it appears to and needs a response because he was central to the test.
S

IMHO, not unless he comes out with more NUMBERS.

Even the article he authored is not up to par. IF he made a mistake between crater and cavity - and that mistake passed between him, Ashok P and the editor, that is a travesty.

THEN there are correction sections in print and one can always correct it on the web.

Also, on a matter of such importance that is a very poorly written article/commentary/op-ed, SPECIALLY for TWO people who were so well placed, to author it. At the very least he should re-write it.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Sep 2009 01:02

narayanan wrote:True Gerard. Which makes one wonder why he didn't come out at that time and say, "Wait a minute! Why are we rushing into this deal without establishing our Credible Minimum Fusion Deterrent?"

This was posted by Arun_S on 14 Apr 2008

Added later: 1.B. One comment on that BR Missile article by Shri Santhanam was "but America has capped Indian ability to realize and mount that small TN payload on its missiles with this India-US civil nuclear deal".

What explains the difference between his public statements in support of the deal and this private comment?

In the Hindu Op-Ed he implies that the S1 boosted primary failed. How do you reconcile this knowledge with public support for the nuke deal? Including signing a letter to Parliament?

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 19 Sep 2009 01:18

Arun_S wrote:If I build a tree of people who are responsible for this monumental failure of the nation, the sequence is as following:
1.) R.Chidambram (is the root) 2.) APJ Kalam 3.) Brijesh Mishra 4.) Vajpayee

Vajpayee's performance as a PM was indeed below average. He infact tried his best to match Congress govt in performance. His bus to Lahore, not crossing LOC during Kargil, and nuke test lies all show monumental failure in leadership. Just to be clear I still consider him better PM than MMS who is in the league of third front jokers like VP Singh, Deve Gowda, I K Gujral, etc.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Sep 2009 01:25

abhiti wrote:
Vajpayee's performance as a PM was indeed below average. He infact tried his best to match Congress govt in performance. His bus to Lahore, not crossing LOC during Kargil, and nuke test lies all show monumental failure in leadership. Just to be clear I still consider him better PM than MMS who is in the league of third front jokers like VP Singh, Deve Gowda, I K Gujral, etc.

You have to be more specific. Go back to to 30-40 years and see the policy which was laid.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Sep 2009 01:47

NRao, there are no mistakes in the Hindu article. Its the interpretation of some people that we see. He did not make the mistake of crater and cavity. He doesnt use the owrd cavity. Crater can be measured from surface while cavity needs drilling etc. All his remarks are about things that can be seen without recourse to BARC data. And that is his point. Till he pointed out the A frame, now being dismissed, its significance wasnt understood. All that was in the public record all this time. And those who know already know. Onlywe dont know.

Also think about this. That ARC monitoring center is supposed to be set up after 1964 with US assistance to look at PRC tests. Now PRC did not start underground testing till middle 1970s. Check the wiki sites. So who were they monitoring? Next point would the US not demand info from that site as a condition to install it? And what did it read in 1974? Also RAW was setup in 1968 by Mrs. Gandhi. So this is set-up pre-RAW and is during IB time. And there is a world of difference between an underground monitoring station and the seismic array at Gauribidnaur. And big question if the setup was ~ 30 years old was it refurbished or were those old instruments?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Sep 2009 02:04

ramana,

Confusion increased!!

However, we both seem to be on the same page.

BUT, if we are, then, I think it stands to reason that the 25 meter crater is the one from S2. {edited out this sentence - NR}

_____________________________________________________________________

The V. Sunder article curiously talks of (small) retarc for S1. That too at a depth of about 200 M and 45 Kt yield.

How does one reconcile this?