Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

[shiv]

Computing can never be a substitute for real test , much like simulator can never be a substitute for real flying.

No Austin. Nobody is saying that simulation can substitute a test completely. But some things can be simulated. You can simulate failure and you can simulate success.

Then if you get a chance to test you will test the designs based on simulation successes. If that test is a failure you will feed the data into your computer to try and analyse that and try and get a new simulation success.

But to go further you need to test again.

You can keep on waiting forever for a chance to test.

You can make noise like Santhanam hoping that someone will listen and allow you to test. But what if nobody listens?

If there is no war - that s fine and dandy

But if there is war and it threatens to turn nuclear what will you do?

Either you sit back and say "Oh I was not allowed to test my simulation"

Or you cross your fingers and fire off a few bombs that appear to work on simulation and hope for the best.

[shiv]

Shivji,

Actually what most people do not realize is that this entire topic of deterrence actually becomes a topic of stats at one level.

Stats - and rhetoric.

When the US desires that a power hostile to the US should not have nukes - is it because the US is a good and benevolent force that seeks to remove the evil of nuclear weapons, or is it because the US itself sees its own power threatened by even one nuke in the hands of a hostile power?

If you say "US is good and benevolent" then I have a domed white marble building to sell in Agra.

But what is the alternative? Are we able to force those words out of our mouths? The words that the US may actually fear nukes in an adversary's hands and is actually deterred? Oh how can that be? The US has done thousands of tests and has tens of thousands of proven working nukes. So the US cannot be deterred by a pipsqueak with nukes especially if he has not tested.

Therefore the US is a benevolent force seeking to reduce the evil of nukes.

There is a flawed argument that is being pushed on this forum that says that if you test and perfect thousands of bombs you will not yourself be deterred but will deter everyone else. I intend to push that argument to its logical limits to see how logical the conclusions turn out to be.

[NRao]

Computing can never be a substitute for real test , much like simulator can never be a substitute for real flying.

I am working on CTBT on flying air crafts (it is going now where, but that is besides the point). In some areas that is true. in other areas where testing is not a viable option they resort to simulations based on data they have and make do.

Point being that had there been no CTBT (and most, if not all these acronyms seem to have originated to box in India!!!!!), India would be testing today.

[enqyoob]

BTW, geeth, I wasn't going to post this becauze it would get the "UNSC" here up in arms, but having pondered it, I decided to do a totally PEACEFUL "Test".

WITHOUT anyone specific in mind, and NOT being specific to this thread at all, but yes, related to the 6+ series of threads, I want to say that you have captured the essence of what bothers me too:

How will it have, when people (deleted) are around making fun of your own people..? First you learn to respect your country and its men..THEN tell others to do so. using your own analogy, let me ask - how would a Chinese respond to a TN failure..or a Chandrayaan failure..? will it be the same way you respond? So, there lies the crux of the matter. Ridiculing someone for the sake of it will take your country thus far onlee..Don't crib if other follow you and ridicule your country and its work worldwide. Those countries haven't reached the position they are in now not by being honest and showing their work for peer review. Lot of posturing and bluffing is there as well, but none of their countrymen crib in public so much.

On top of that you want a peer review by the same goras who ridicule your country!

I agree 100% (no kidding) with that. The whole point of spending time on BRF is not to demonstrate one's technical acumen. Anyway that is not an issue with ppl like me whose only claim to Nuclear Physics Expertise is that I slept through a semester of "Nixon"'s class in the Ai-ai-Tee and got an "S" (no comment on what that was) because he was nice and I didn't make calculation errors in e=mc^3 (or was that ^4> Samuel may be able to help there).

The point is to do a little bit of common-sense, logical thinking to counter all the technobabble cra* being put out by the ArmsControl Donks, EnPeeTee snake-oil salesmen, and the sheer volume of stink from the DDM, and point out why everything done in India is not automatically 6-th rate and everything done in the "P-5" bully nations is somehow unquestionaly excellent.

And the main one-point moral I always want to convey is:

DON'T JOIN THE FOREIGNERS TO SCORE POINTS AGAINST THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT. This lesson should have been learned 1,700,000 years ago, but there are still too many who refuse to abide by it. I say, biss on them.

[NRao]

Shiv ji,

"rhetoric" is part of stats. Just that some are controllable all the time, some are not. But, the "rhetoric" is to manipulate the stats to favor you.

Something India is not good at while actually having some of the best brains and institution in the world!! For a while (cannot say currently) the US actually gave GC to such brains!!

My observation is that Indians do not have any collective urgency. Indians (at the national level) are reactive - and they are very comfortable in this position. They need to be at least active and preferably proactive. Which is why I love Kargils. They say that the only way to remember the Good Lord all the time is to have contact problems = Indians.

[NRao]

I am one of them, but, this thread has lived it life? It is morphing into a policy/deterrence/doctrine thread.

Where do we stand on the Santhanam "fizzle" statement?

[Austin]

Computing can never be a substitute for real test , much like simulator can never be a substitute for real flying.

No Austin. Nobody is saying that simulation can substitute a test completely. But some things can be simulated. You can simulate failure and you can simulate success.

Then if you get a chance to test you will test the designs based on simulation successes. If that test is a failure you will feed the data into your computer to try and analyse that and try and get a new simulation success.

But to go further you need to test again.

You can keep on waiting forever for a chance to test.

You can make noise like Santhanam hoping that someone will listen and allow you to test. But what if nobody listens?

If there is no war - that s fine and dandy

But if there is war and it threatens to turn nuclear what will you do?

Either you sit back and say "Oh I was not allowed to test my simulation"

Or you cross your fingers and fire off a few bombs that appear to work on simulation and hope for the best.

Shiv , for most part i agree with what you say.

Except for the last part where you say you will fire off a few bombs that appear to work on simulation , since our deterrent is overt now post 1998 , that will something the military will not accept and agree to.

They would rather be happy and plan according to the 20kT fission , which is 100 % proven to work and will take their strategy into account based on confirmed yeald.

In a nuclear deterrent there is no room for ambiguity , what works is what you have , what may probably work is good for nothing.

Santy did his part by sounding the alarm bell , some ex DAE guys have sounded similar alarm for quite some time before Santy, now we need to see if this falls on the deaf ears of GOI or will some one will do something about it is something time will tell

[shiv]

My observation is that Indians do not have any collective urgency. Indians (at the national level) are reactive - and they are very comfortable in this position. They need to be at least active and preferably proactive.

NRao unfortunately BRF and we the educated elite are also Indians and tend to blind ourselves to our own problems and the depth to which those problems affect us also. We go into collective denial and on BRF that means pointing out some problems and failing to acknowledge that. It goes OT and will need to be bounced to the pisko thread.

The same attitudes that affect this nuclear issue are the ones that lead to other uniquely India statistics like highest road accident deaths in the world. I could write an explanation of how they are related to Indian attitudes but it would be OT.

Elite Indians have a bruised psyche and are unwilling to listen to the whole truth about Indians. They go into denial and start stonewalling when they are exposed to reality. They want solutions for a few problems that they see with Indian attitudes towards nukes but do not seek solutions to the multitude of problems in India caused by the same Indian attitudes.

We have coined useful rhetorical terms like "chalta hai" and "chai biskoot" and "We are like that onlee" - but we tend to use these expressions to criticise some other Indians - placing ourselves on a high pedestal of a great seer of truth. We do not acknowledge that we too show the same chalta hai/chai biskoot attitude towards other things (without realising that we are doing that) and that sums up India and Indians.

Basic changes are being attempted - but those changes do not fit in with what most us want to see. For us the Westernised elite - what the West does , and Chinese copy of the West is the route for us to follow. By doing that we fail to understand that India is following its own unique route and will not follow any one else's route.

[John Snow]

India should not have indulged in automatic weapons, its a huge burden on pregnant women and unborn children.
Our story is
From Megaton to Mega What? is a question which will consume enternity.

(resonating with Aha and pisko moments of pisko gurus here )

[shiv]

Except for the last part where you say you will fire off a few bombs that appear to work on simulation , since our deterrent is overt now post 1998 , that will something the military will not accept and agree to.

If we get into a war situation and we are desperate - we will have to try the untried. The military are always doing that.

Someone used the expression "The more you sweat in peace the less you sweat in war" - but that expression was used as i nobody else knows it.

The reason that the miitary are so keen to base their deterrence only on tested nukes is because they have decided that if that is all that is reliable they have to make a good job of using it.

But the military are also flexible, and when the shooting starts there will be no time to be fussy and they may have to use untested TN bombs.

Now this is something that I believe the government understands - but still the government is "deterred" from allowing testing . I suspect that is because the pain that is inflicted on India by testing is thought to be higher than the likelihood of pain of nuclear war. It is a gamble. But if you don't like the stakes you have to be able to move political opinion.

[Raj Malhotra]

>>>It is my view and I want to harp on it. You can harp on your view point. And the whole thread is to question RC & Sikka.

Point noted. So, come what may, you will question, question and question only, without any botheration about the answers. You are doing a good job, I must say.

Thanks

[Sanjay]

Shiv, here's the real thing - nobody knows what SFC is thinking.

If Karnad's book is anything to go by, they are much more flexible with untested designs that we are giving them credit for.

Remember - FBF isn't strictly speaking untested. The tech has been demonstrated. We are now into the realms of reliable scalability.

One other thing - it is India's elites who drive the worst (even compared to the truck drivers).

[shiv]

India should not have indulged in automatic weapons, its a huge burden on pregnant women and unborn children.

And in fact India has one soldier for 1000 citizens

Pakistan has 1 soldier for 250 citizens

China has one soldier for 400 citizens

US too has a ratio better than 1:1000

I am saying that India is trying to pay less attention to automatic weapons and nukes and more attention to its lousy human stats. Why is anyone surprised at the truth? Indian officials themselves say so time and time again. We are a peace seeking nation but also a high table seeking nation via Gandhi-ism. Why deny India's nature?

[Raj Malhotra]

Thanks for your answer. As I said, am glad to be proved wrong. I will re-read the article, the issue is what is the effect of "hard rock pink granite"?

Not trying to prove you wrong. With THAT goal I would reach no where - absolutely no where. Egos totally corrupt anything and everything.

On the topic, at 500 Kt, it really does not matter what the soil composition is.

Having said that the BR article MAY require some revision - based on what we know now. Not big deal, but just for FYI in the future.

I understand. But who-so-ever may be doing the revision "must" approach it with an open mind keeping note of 1MT also. Note that I have already pointed out that I have not pulled it out of my hat. Also to repeat (today) on CNBC a Nuclear expert trying to rubbish Santhanam said that his article would only be correct if S1 was 825kt (if i heard it correctly).

[Austin]

Shiv , I am not certain that the military would have something called "desperate untested bomb" to be used when all chips are down.The nuclear war planning would rather rely on what we have and plan accordingly for all situations , rather then get into desperate situation and go for desperate untested bomb.

The military are level headed practical folks and wont get fooled by scientist tall promises and probabilities ( one must have seen this in DRDO vs Defence forces battle )

But thats my way of thinking on how the Nuclear War plan should be , and I could be wrong.

[Raj Malhotra]

I wonder why don't they simulate the Kaveri, Arjun, LCA, GSLV etc on computer.

They do. They have all failed no? That is proof of computer simulation.

PSLV on the other hand was never simulated on computer. If anyone denies this you have to give solid proof.

That is exactly my point !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Computer Simulation only goes this far and no further!

[shiv]

Shiv, here's the real thing - nobody knows what SFC is thinking.

If Karnad's book is anything to go by, they are much more flexible with untested designs that we are giving them credit for.

Remember - FBF isn't strictly speaking untested. The tech has been demonstrated. We are now into the realms of reliable scalability.

Sanjay - it's nice to have a level headed post once in a while. I am sure you are right, but I am also capable of making ten thousand arguments to say how this is bad and how we are screwed. If I do that first maybe it will save someone else trouble.

[shiv]

That is exactly my point !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Computer Simulation only goes this far and no further!

I am sure you are a real tech expert. You should know exactly how far.

[shiv]

Shiv , I am not certain that the military would have something called "desperate untested bomb" to be used when all chips are down.

Please re read Sanjay's post.

[shiv]

How do you look at the relationship between India's military and industry/scientists?

What would India's military be doing if they had zero trust in Indian industry/science?

What would the military do if they had partial trust in industry/science?

What would the India military do if they had total unconditional trust in Indian industry/science

What would the Indian military do if they had total trust in foreign industry science?

Assuming that only one holds true will not give the complete picture. Every one of these questions holds true fro some things at some times. S it is highly complex.

But if we assume just one for simplicity - we can get answers that we all love or we get answers that we all hate. Reality is always a mixture of all of above and more.

[Sanjay]

Shiv, as to your question - I think the forces are much more receptive to Indian strategic weapons than others and there is a better relationship between the scientists and the forces than existed in the 1980s and 1990s. Much changed after 2002.

On your other point, is it an Indian characteristic to bray about how bad things are and ignore efforts of those trying to fix things and to ignore their own role in the mess ?

Point 1:
India's elite bemoans illiteracy.
All told 10 million literacy volunteers were involved in the NLM.
How many in the elite volunteered or praised or supported the volunteers ?

Point 2:
India's elite bemoans lack of sanitation.
Both the Govt and organizations like Shulabh are trying to ameliorate things
Does the elite support the efforts by not littering themselves ?

Point 3:
India's elite bemoans road deaths
The Government has a set of traffic rules
Do the elite follow the rules ? Forget everyone else - do the elite do it ?

Point 4:
India's elite bemoans caste discrimination.
Almost all the NRIs in the US - are members of the educated class or business classes(note NRIs not PIOs)
Indians from Guyana and Trinidad face condescension and insults from those same NRIs who have called us "coolies" to our faces.

[shiv]

PSLV on the other hand was never simulated on computer. If anyone denies this you have to give solid proof.

Knocking down my own straw man

http://www.tifr.res.in/~aset/talk061909.html

PSLV provided a quantum jump in the development of critical technologies like large solid motor, earth storable liquid engines composite motor case, strapdown navigation system etc. During the first flight of PSLV in 1993 all the systems functioned well, but still the mission could not succeed in injecting the satellite into orbit due to a software implementation error. This led to strengthening the ground simulations, detailed testing of the vehicle hardware and software systems to its fullest capability prior to launch. From then onwards all the PSLV flights till date have been successful.

[NRao]

unfortunately BRF and we the educated elite are also Indians and tend to blind ourselves to our own problems and the depth to which those problems affect us also. We go into collective denial and on BRF that means pointing out some problems and failing to acknowledge that. It goes OT and will need to be bounced to the pisko thread.

Very true. And, apologies for not being more explicit.

here's the real thing - nobody knows what SFC is thinking.

And, it should not matter AT ALL.

Will revisit this point down the line, in another post.

I understand. But who-so-ever may be doing the revision "must" approach it with an open mind keeping note of 1MT also. Note that I have already pointed out that I have not pulled it out of my hat. Also to repeat (today) on CNBC a Nuclear expert trying to rubbish Santhanam said that his article would only be correct if S1 was 825kt (if i heard it correctly).

Not a knock on you, but, I do not think you do.

The revision is only WRT the equations. Since the input (depth) has been narrowed down (from >200 meters, to around 230 meter), the outputS in that article change. That is all there is to it.

Since the article assumed (or thought) the S1 yield was 45 Kt, that does not change.

CNBC US or India?

That is exactly my point !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Computer Simulation only goes this far and no further!

Very true, BUT, they have their uses and sometimes they are misused and abused.

BTW, we may not use computers on a daily basis to simulate, but we ALL do simulate pretty much everything. Computers have been used (I used to be in transportation planning where we did 25 year plans, for one of the biggest cities in the world!!!!!!) mostly to tackle complex situations and when the funding is very large. It is mainly used to minimize the risks taken AND to keep tags on the "plan" - project management. They are very useful and reliable when people who build them are trust worthy.

[NRao]

India to US: Don’t tell us to sign NPT

iddharth Varadarajan

Nuclear weapons are an integral part of national security

Letter calls for Global No First Use Agreement

Pittsburgh: India’s response to the U.S.-sponsored resolution on non-proliferation may be worded diplomatically but there is no disguising the sharp differences between Washington and New Delhi that have opened up on a host of nuclear issues. These range from the role of the Security Council and the right of countries not to sign treaties to the emphasis on non-proliferation at the expense of disarmament.

At the heart of the Indian stance is a zealous attempt to guard the gains from last year’s granting of special status by the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the International Atomic Energy Agency, something the Obama resolution is totally silent on.

The UNSC resolution — passed at a Summit level meeting convened by President Barack Obama on September 24 — calling for tightening international controls on the proliferation of nuclear weapons, including universalising membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the immediate adherence to its norms by non-parties. The principal target of the resolution may be Iran, North Korea and those non-nuclear weapon states opposed to greater policing of their activities. But the resolution also effectively calls on India to place all its nuclear facilities under international safeguards, a demand that flies in the face of its de facto nuclear weapons status. A last-minute U.S. addition also reaffirms the outcomes of the 1995 and 2000 NPT review conferences which, inter alia, sought to introduce comprehensive safeguards as a condition for nuclear supply, the very requirement the NSG waived for India last September.

In a letter to the President of the Council on September 23, India’s Permanent Representative, Hardeep Puri, said that while New Delhi welcomed the U.S. initiative to convene a summit to consider matters relating to non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, it believes “an excessive focus on non-proliferation does a disservice to the essential principle of the mutually reinforcing linkage between disarmament and non-proliferation”.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice currently holds the rotating UNSC presidency.

The letter says global efforts at preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery were in India’s interest “as the infirmities of the non-proliferation regime have had an adverse impact on our security.” After outlining Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s 2008 proposal for a ban on such weapons, the Indian letter calls for intermediate steps like a Global No First Use Agreement and negotiation of a Convention on the Prohibition of the use of Nuclear weapons. It also reiterates India’s moratorium on nuclear testing and its own unilateral no first use commitment.

In a direct answer to the resolution’s call to sign the non-proliferation treaty, the letter says, “[There] is no question of India joining the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. Nuclear weapons are an integral part of India’s national security and will remain so, pending non-discriminatory and global nuclear disarmament.”

[ramana]

Sanjay, In systems engineering objects are verified for use by:

1) Analysis
2) Test
3) Similarity
4) Demonstration

after a through design review.

When the subject matter is throughly understood and follows known scientific principles and there are sufficient design margins (decided by designer and user), analysis is adequate.

When the subject matter is fairly understood and there is insufficient design margins, test is required.

When an object is designed based on an existing tested/verified object and extrapolations are within science based limits its qualified by similarity.

Some times all the above are unavailable then in extreme rare cases its qualified by demostration.

So the real debate is between those who think analysis is sufficient and those who want more confirmation.

I think its time to move beyond S-I worked or not as the matter has moved already beyond that.

The key messages yesterday(9/24/09) were:
- not going to sign NPT (at UN)
- capability of a range of weapons upto 200kt (at BARC press conference)

The word 'capability' means the option for verification is being retained.

[Arun_S]

Thanks Ramana for so precisely stating the basis of "systems engineering". A discipline unknown to most people who grew up with syllabus of rote.

[Arun_S]

Good psy Op, IMHO

Experts say yes to CTBT, no to NPT: DNA
Seema Guha / DNA, Friday, September 25, 2009 12:10 IST

... . . . . "India should take a principled position and not sign the NPT even if by chance it is accommodated. It will be hypocrisy. We should not go on board whatever the circumstance," a senior government official said.

Analyst G Parthasarathy had a different take on the UNSC resolution adopted in New York on Thursday. "UN resolutions which are non-biding and do not come under chapter 7 of the UNSC regulations, may sound great on paper but are of little value. These cannot be enforced."

External affairs minister SM Krishna said in New York on Friday that India had taken a "principled" stand on CTBT and there was no scope for a change, unless a number of other "developments" took place. He did not

Despite the government's stand that it will not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), chances are it may change its view in the long run. Much will depend on how the Obama administration's efforts to get it ratified in the US Congress pan out. Once the US Congress ratifies it, China will follow suit and the pressure on India will increase.

"If the rest of the world does so, India will also have to come around. India cannot be seen to defy the spirit of the age," analyst Salman Haider said.

[Arun_S]

Santhanam's views on nuke test are a clincher: ex-AEC chairman, P K Iyengar

[ramana]

Good psy Op, IMHO

Experts say yes to CTBT, no to NPT: DNA
Seema Guha / DNA, Friday, September 25, 2009 12:10 IST

... . . . . "India should take a principled position and not sign the NPT even if by chance it is accommodated. It will be hypocrisy. We should not go on board whatever the circumstance," a senior government official said. {Bravo. I hope he gives that advice to the GOI officially. All these are discrimiantory regimes which act against India and should be brought down.}

Analyst G Parthasarathy had a different take on the UNSC resolution adopted in New York on Thursday. "UN resolutions which are non-biding and do not come under chapter 7 of the UNSC regulations, may sound great on paper but are of little value. These cannot be enforced."

External affairs minister SM Krishna said in New York on Friday that India had taken a "principled" stand on CTBT and there was no scope for a change, unless a number of other "developments" took place. He did not

Despite the government's stand that it will not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), chances are it may change its view in the long run. Much will depend on how the Obama administration's efforts to get it ratified in the US Congress pan out. Once the US Congress ratifies it, China will follow suit and the pressure on India will increase.

"If the rest of the world does so, India will also have to come around. India cannot be seen to defy the spirit of the age," analyst Salman Haider said.

This article heading does not match the content. only one person Salman Haidar proposed that India sign the CTBT. How did the plural experts emerge?

Also when di he become a mere analyst? He was and will always be remembered for being a Foreign Secretary. And G. Parthasarathy was former Ambassador. The reporter is downgrading them to analyst status which is reserved for op-ed writers.

BTW, the firestorm after the KSanty's revelations showed the common people the inclinations of the "experts" was. Similarly we are going to see another division on this accession to three and four letter treaties.
As the song goes

"kaun, kaun kitna pani!"

[Gerard]

There is a need for a clear articulation in the press that there should be no signing of the CTBT without a final test series (just as China and France did). Surely the price of an Indian signature is not so cheap.

[ramana]

Raj Malhotra the curves in Toman paper give the expected retarc radius for a given the depth of burial. They do not give what should be the subsidence crater radius for a given scaled depth of burial. So those curves dont help.

However we know the scaled depth of burial between S-I and other global sites (122 at Nevada versus ~ half that for S-I. BTW this is from RC's talk transcribed by Dr Shiv and not from any new organization). So one way of estimating what could give 72m crater radius at 230m in S-I shaft try to see other crater info on the web. And then it can be adjusted for the site specifics. However this only an estimate and is better than nothing.

[Amit Singh]

Sanajy, In systems engineering objects are verified for use by:

1) Analysis
2) Test
3) Similarity
4) Demonstration

after a through design review.

When the subject matter is throughly understood and follows known scientific principles and there are sufficient design margins (decided by designer and user), analysis is adequate.

When the subject matter is fairly understood and there is insufficient design margins, test is required.

When an object is designed based on an existing tested/verified object and extrapolations are within science based limits its qualified by similarity.

Some times all the above are unavailable then in extreme rare cases its qualified by demostration.

So the real debate is between those who think analysis is sufficient and those who want more confirmation.

I think its time to move beyond S-I worked or not as the matter has moved already beyond that.

The key messages yesterday(9/24/09) were:
- not going to sign NPT (at UN)
- capability of a range of weapons upto 200kt (at BARC press conference)

The word 'capability' means the option for verification is being retained.

I think you meant

1) Analysis
2) Test
3) Simulation
4) Demonstration

I agree with you though, that even if the yield was low, it can be corrected by simulation of the tests and additional fissile materials be added based on the test results obtained at Pokhran. And yes, India should reserve the right to test further by not signing the NPT, if it feels additional verification is required.

[ramana]

No similarity not simulation which is same as analysis.

Similarity is that the design is same as something already verified.


BTW its the CTBT that closes the option to test.

India cant sign NPT as it acknolwedges only those countries that tested before Jan., 1968 which happen to be US, SU, UK, France and PRC. There was loophole for PNE and India tested using that in 1974. That loophole is not there anymore.

Raj Malhotra and others might want to see this link:

LINK on craters


I have this hunch that KS was expecting even the 43 kt one to produce the 72 m crater as thats around ~225 feet. Instead there was this hardly disturbed surface. He doesnt want to claim more than what was tested. His arguement is even that didnt happen. One can pursue if thats valid but will lead to more acrimony.

[NRao]

Good psy Op, IMHO

Experts say yes to CTBT, no to NPT: DNA
Seema Guha / DNA, Friday, September 25, 2009 12:10 IST

... . . . .
"If the rest of the world does so, India will also have to come around. India cannot be seen to defy the spirit of the age," analyst Salman Haider said.

Cheap. What is this "spirit of the age"? Analysts should have some self respect.

[ramana]

"Arun_S"]
Good psy Op, IMHO

Experts say yes to CTBT, no to NPT: DNA
Seema Guha / DNA, Friday, September 25, 2009 12:10 IST

... . . . .
"If the rest of the world does so, India will also have to come around. India cannot be seen to defy the spirit of the age," analyst Salman Haider said

Cheap. What is this "spirit of the age"? Analysts should have some self respect.

I think there is bunch of caterpillars, who wormed their way to the top of the chatterati table masquerading as pillars of society, and will do anything to self conqueor India again. You will see more of them.

[Amit Singh]

No similarity not simulation which is same as analysis.

Similarity is that the design is same as something already verified.


BTW its the CTBT that closes the option to test.

India cant sign NPT as it acknolwedges only those countries that tested before Jan., 1968 which happen to be US, SU, UK, France and PRC. There was loophole for PNE and India tested using that in 1974. That loophole is not there anymore.

Raj Malhotra and others might want to see this link:

LINK on craters


I have this hunch that KS was expecting even the 43 kt one to produce the 72 m crater as thats around ~225 feet. Instead there was this hardly disturbed surface. He doesnt want to claim more than what was tested. His arguement is even that didnt happen. One can pursue if thats valid but will lead to more acrimony.

Got it. Thanks.

According to the document though, subsistence craters should exist and you are saying that the surface was hardly disturbed at the test site, which is why Santhanatham says that the test was not successful?

What about the cables that are connected to the shaft of the test canister? The scientists must have measured the data transferred through the cables connected to the shaft during the explosion!

[Prem]

[quote="ramana"If the rest of the world does so, India will also have to come around. India cannot be seen to defy the spirit of the age," analyst Salman Haider said

Cheap. What is this "spirit of the age"? Analysts should have some self respect
I think there is bunch of caterpillars, who wormed their way to the top of the chatterati table masquerading as pillars of society, and will do anything to self conqueor India again. You will see more of them.[/quote]

If any doubt , read about his views on J&K issue , softness for Pukes as well work for think tank in Massaland to promote Chittas interests.

[ramana]

Tribune, 25 Sep 2009
India cannot sign NPT

A Tribune Special
India cannot sign NPT since it is discriminatory
K. Subrahmanyam

The UN Security Council presided over by President Obama has adopted unanimously resolution 1887 on nonproliferation which among various measures calls on states not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to join it. There are only three countries outside the NPT --India, Pakistan and Israel.

India and Pakistan have declared themselves nuclear weapon states while Israel, though a possessor of nuclear weapons even before the NPT was signed, has chosen to adopt an ambiguous stand of neither declaring nor denying its possession of nuclear weapons. Israel’s stand is that it will neither be the first to introduce nuclear weapons nor will it be the second. The world, however, accepts Israel as a nuclear weapon state.

India has reacted to the resolution by saying that there is no question of India joining the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state as nuclear weapons are an integral part of India’s security. The NPT only recognises five nuclear weapon powers and other countries can be a party to the NPT only as a non-nuclear weapon state. Therefore the question of India joining the treaty does not arise.

President Obama talks of a world without nuclear weapons. But the NPT was not intended to lead towards a world without nuclear weapons. Initially when it was drafted, it was meant as a bargain between the nuclear weapon powers and non-nuclear weapon states for 25 years. The nuclear weapon powers were meant to not expand their arsenals and had to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament while the non-nuclear weapon states were meant to not acquire nuclear weapons.

The nuclear weapon states did not keep their side of the bargain. Then, in 1995 at the end of 25-year period, they got the NPT extended indefinitely and unconditionally thereby legitimising the nuclear weapons in the hands of the five nuclear powers. If the nuclear weapons were legitimate for five powers, they would also be for all other powers who have not bound themselves not to acquire them. India, Israel and Pakistan did not break any international law when they acquired nuclear weapons.

The supporters of the NPT do not seem to appreciate that the NPT is the main hurdle in advancing towards nuclear disarmament. The term non-proliferation implies that there will be some possessors of weapons and it is meant to stop the new states from acquiring the weapons. It is essentially a discriminatory treaty. Over and above this discrimination, the weapons have been legitimised.

No weapon considered legitimate is ever going to be eliminated.

President Obama will not see the world without nuclear weapons so long as the nuclear weapons are deemed legitimate. If he is keen on advancing towards the world without nuclear weapons, he should progress towards delegitimisation of nuclear weapons. India cannot sign a discriminatory treaty which legitimises nuclear weapons.

India has proposed steps to delegitimise the nuclear weapons. It has called for the nuclear weapon powers to adopt ‘no first use’ policy as a first step towards delegitimisation as happened in the case of chemical weapons in the Geneva Protocol of 1925. That led to the treaty to eliminate chemical weapons in 1993. The nuclear weapons have been used only once against a country which was negotiating its surrender terms. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Mikhail Secretary Gorbachev had jointly declared that a nuclear war could not be won. The delegitimisation path is more likely to lead towards disarmament, as the precedence of the chemical weapons shows rather than the non-proliferation path which surrounds the nuclear weapons with a mystique and endows them legitimacy.

India has been a consistent advocate of nuclear disarmament since the inception of the United Nations. India became a reluctant nuclear weapon state faced with two nuclear neighbours with an ongoing proliferation relationship going back to 1976, with one of them declaring its nuclear arsenal as India-specific.

At the time the NPT was under discussion, Indira Gandhi sent Indian emissary L.K.Jha and Dr Vikram Sarabhai to Moscow, Paris, London and Washington to seek nuclear security assurances for India if it were to sign the NPT. Those assurances were denied and therefore India did not sign the NPT faced with a Maoist China which proclaimed that all peace-loving nations had a right to nuclear weapons.

In Chinese view at that time Pakistan was a peace-loving nation and India was not. In 1971 when the Bangladesh massacre involved a million casualties and 10 million refugees pushed into India, Delhi found itself facing a Pakistan-China-US axis. Therefore India conducted the Pokhran-I nuclear test, but did not follow that up with a weaponisation programme.

In 1976 Z A Bhutto concluded an agreement for nuclear weapon development cooperation with China. The recent revelations from Dr A Q Khan’s letter written in December 2003 when he was detained and facing interrogation give some details of the Chinese proliferation to Pakistan in the eighties which included weapon grade-enriched uranium and nuclear weapon design. In turn, Pakistan helped China to set up an ulta-centrifuge plant with European technology purloined by Dr A Q Khan from Almelo centrifuge facility in Holland where he worked earlier.

Two American authors Thomas Reed of Livermore Laboratory and Danny Stillman of Los Alamos Laboratory in their book “The Nuclear Express” write that China’s late leader Deng Xiao Peng adopted a deliberate policy of proliferation in the eighties towards Pakistan, North Korea and Iran. According to the authors, China even conducted a nuclear test for Pakistan on May 28, 1990.

The Pakistanis conveyed nuclear threats to India during Operation Brasstacks (a military exercise undertaken by the Indian Army during November 1986 and March 1987) and at the beginning of Kashmir insurgency in February 1990. These are recorded in the report of the Kargil Review Committee. Rajiv Gandhi came up with his comprehensive and phased disarmament plan before the UN Special Session on Disarmament in June 1988. He offered that India would not go nuclear if his plan was accepted. When that plan was ignored by the Non-Proliferation Community, he had no choice but to order assembly of weapons in India to catch up with Pakistan, which according to Dr Khan had attained weapon capability in mid-eighties.

While China may have adopted a ‘no first use’ policy its surrogate Pakistan, which it had equipped with nuclear weapons and missiles, asserts its nuclear policy is India-specific and it has a policy of first use of nuclear weapons under certain circumstances. In 1998 Pakistan tested its Ghauri missile. Under those circumstances, India was compelled to test and declare itself a nuclear weapon state.

India found a compromise between its commitment to nuclear disarmament and its security imperatives faced with two nuclear adversaries in the strategy of ‘no first use’. The world has recognised the Indian record of restrained and responsible behaviour and consequently granted India waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines. The call for non-nuclear states to join the NPT is a ritual meant to satisfy other non-weapon states and there is no reason for India to be unduly perturbed by it.

[Gerard]

India to drive tough bargain as US pushes hard for CTBT

India will not be easily won over. It could use its indispensability to the CTBT regime to drive a hard bargain. Foreign minister S M Krishna indicated as much. Talking to reporters in Pittsburgh, he said, ``We have taken a principled stand and so the question of India revisiting it depends on a number of other developments that would address our concerns.''

Though the negotiating stance is yet to be crafted, sources said that access to simulation data with the US, which can add to the nuclear weapon knowhow, can be the starting point. Though India has maintained Pokhran II yielded enough data for computer simulation, data sharing with the US will help allay any concern that may arise if the right to test is signed away.

[ramana]

India to drive tough bargain as US pushes hard for CTBT

India will not be easily won over. It could use its indispensability to the CTBT regime to drive a hard bargain. Foreign minister S M Krishna indicated as much. Talking to reporters in Pittsburgh, he said, ``We have taken a principled stand and so the question of India revisiting it depends on a number of other developments that would address our concerns.''

Though the negotiating stance is yet to be crafted, sources said that access to simulation data with the US, which can add to the nuclear weapon knowhow, can be the starting point. Though India has maintained Pokhran II yielded enough data for computer simulation, data sharing with the US will help allay any concern that may arise if the right to test is signed away.

I dont know about that. It could be spurious data and might be real fizzles in use. There has to be several measures that add crediblity to the data simulation and removal of several sanctions to do that. And for starters and show of good faith get rid of Hyde Act.