Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 28 Sep 2009 21:53

I think the focus of analysis should equally be “Boosted” weapons.. because this is second line of defence wrt high yield deterrence..
What are our actual capabilities.. how do we accept the claim that designing Higher yield FBF device requires different and higher sets of technical capabilities..and if so we do not have these capabilities...

The questions is (as I posted some page back) why did not BARC conduct standalone High yield FBF test? We should not buy the argument that BARC scientists were fools or BARC did not have the technical capabilities? BARC has to had worked on designing these devices before jumping on to TN weapons? Further it cannot also be claimed that establishments did not want a Boosted device because of discussed penalties .. as all the experts have claimed here that designing “Boosted” is lot “SIMPLER” then designing “TN”.. everybody wants to achieve the easier ones before moving to tougher.. I guess that is the law of choice..

Only thing I can think of is as posted and quoted (and Partially acknowledged by SBM) in previous page that “ BARC scientists were 100% confident about the FBF design capability (by whatever means) for various yield that they thought S1 Primary was enough to validate the boosting efficiency and same or higher efficiency can be achieved for other “Boosted” device.”

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Sep 2009 21:55

Dr. Chidambaram's comments about 200-300KT TN weapon need to be discussed in the right context; apparently his claims about 'capability' to design a TN device of 300Kt just after POK-II and were based on data available until that point in time the talk about the 200Kt TN design which is being aired over the MEDIA and even acknowledged by BARC is something which might be the YIELD of the actual weapon meant to be mated with one of our delivery platforms (Agni series).

Point being there is little sense in splitting hairs over this 200/300Kt figure once the success of S-1 as a device is established and agreed upon by one and all on this fora, but if people believe that S-1 did fizzle then there is no point in even discussing about Dr. Chidambaram claims in this area.

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Sep 2009 21:59

S.K. Sikka, as head of the thermonuclear weapons project was asked to change the size parameters of a weapon

Sanjay ji

Can you please clarify the above for benefit of all on the forum ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Sep 2009 22:16

negi wrote:Point being there is little sense in splitting hairs over this 200/300Kt figure once the success of S-1 as a device is established and agreed upon by one and all on this fora, but if people believe that S-1 did fizzle then there is no point in even discussing about Dr. Chidambaram claims in this area.

Exactly , only an independent scientific peer review with military on board can do justice here.

If RC indeed managed to do what he says he did , then he is a genius , else we must do justice to India and its people and try to get this capability with another round of test.

For a nation with ancient history which first spoke about a weapon with a power of thousand sun ( Brahmastra ) , we should not give up this option and the technology leap in achieving this , does not matter who does it ( RC/Sikka or some one else , individuals are not bigger than a nation ) as long as we attain those capabilities in a weaponised form.

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Sep 2009 22:38

Austin wrote: Exactly , only an independent scientific peer review with military on board can do justice here.

Well to be honest I am all for it and I am sure even the test team will not have any objections to it but the tricky thing is who will undertake this peer review ? Remember we are talking about a highly classified trade and there won't be many such folks in India Scientific establishment who have the competency to do the review but not be involved in the TEST programme itself.

If RC indeed managed to do what he says he did , then he is a genius , else we must do justice to India and its people and try to get this capability with another round of test.

Dr. Chidambaram is a genius and he does not need a certification on this aspect at least not from us. And yes no one has said 'NO' to tests that is why we have not yet signed the CTBT I presume we all are on same page as far as option to test is concerned.

For a nation with ancient history which first spoke about a weapon with a power of thousand sun ( Brahmastra ) , we should not give up this option and the technology leap in achieving this , does not matter who does it ( RC/Sikka or some one else , individuals are not bigger than a nation ) as long as we attain those capabilities in a weaponised form.

I can appreciate your concerns and that is why I say that YIELD of S-1 notwithstanding as long as we do not ratify the CTBT there is little to worry about as far as nukes are concerned.
Weaponisation and mating the warheads with delivery platforms is a question of political will which is completely outside BARC's mandate.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Sep 2009 22:42

dinesha,

There is another angle to all this: what have all those at BARC (involved with nukes) been doing all these years since 1998?

IF at all there WAS a fizzle in 1998, then it must be still fizzling?

As far as a blue-ribbon panel, it cannot just look at the S1 data, it will ALSO have to look at and validate everything that has happened since then to the event where RC claims that a TN has been either build, or that the capability exists.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Sep 2009 22:44

I think the FT article is based on new info. It closes the issues by saying that they have developed the high yield weapons. Would like some more corroboration from other news sources.
-----------

NRao, in the press conf on 9/24 they said that BARC has been working for 11 years after the tests.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Sep 2009 22:47

negi ,I doubt competency is limited to RC/Sikka to prevent a peer review , there are ex distinguised scientist like PKI , Sethna or any one the GOI thinks is capable who can do a peer review , with appropriate person from military representing the armed forces.

The GOI some how is not coming forward on peer review and BARC says we have done it already ( twice ) and it works

why would one/politician object to weaponisation of TN on x ground , while will not have problems weaponising Fission Bomb , some how it escapes me.

The fact we went overt with Nuclear Weapons means we just weaponise with what we tested ,TN , FBF or Fission.

The only reason why some one would not weaponise the TN will be its not weapon ready yet

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Sep 2009 22:48

ramana wrote:NRao, in the press conf on 9/24 they said that BARC has been working for 11 years after the tests.

They said the same some time in early 2000 that they were working for 4 years and may be next year they will make it 12 logically speaking.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Sep 2009 22:54

Austin wrote:negi ,I doubt competency is limited to RC/Sikka to prevent a peer review , there are ex distinguised scientist like PKI , Sethna or any one the GOI thinks is capable who can do a peer review , with appropriate person from military representing the armed forces.

The GOI some how is not coming forward on peer review and BARC says we have done it already ( twice ) and it works

why would one/politician object to weaponisation of TN on x ground , while will not have problems weaponising Fission Bomb , some how it escapes me.

The fact we went overt with Nuclear Weapons means we just weaponise with what we tested ,TN , FBF or Fission.

The only reason why some one would not weaponise the TN will be its not weapon ready yet

Not necessary. It could be purely political decision not to rock the boat -arms control wise. Weaponizing the TN has its own escalatory ladder of capabilities.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Sep 2009 22:58

ramana wrote:I think the FT article is based on new info. It closes the issues by saying that they have developed the high yield weapons. Would like some more corroboration from other news sources.

New info as far as we are concerned. I have to suspect that the GoI has more. And, RC left the facility some time back and AK is now in charge there.

Yield -> capability -> have built.

NRao, in the press conf on 9/24 they said that BARC has been working for 11 years after the tests.

[/quote]

OK. Thought I read it but was not sure. Thx.
________________________________________

Since CTBT was one of Santhanam's major concerns, I wonder what he has to say about GoI stand.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Sep 2009 23:01

Austin wrote: The only reason why some one would not weaponise the TN will be its not weapon ready yet

FT this morning:

India had built weapons with yields of up to 200 kilotons

Question I have for you, do you feel that they are still fizzling?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Sep 2009 23:02

If BRadmins think a projection based on various oped reports, with a caveat sign that it was obtained from ddmites, then there lies the truth.

If BRadmins think of an agenda that is solely based on chai-biskoot wala, and my neighbour said so.. or the driver to nuke sahib did hear about that.. then, there lies the projections.

If BRadmins think of any anti-thesis for the above, then there lies the false.

I don't blame the bradmins, but blame the source.

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Sep 2009 23:03

Austin wrote:negi ,I doubt competency is limited to RC/Sikka to prevent a peer review , there are ex distinguised scientist like PKI , Sethna or any one the GOI thinks is capable who can do a peer review , with appropriate person from military representing the armed forces.
The GOI some how is not coming forward on peer review and BARC says we have done it already ( twice ) and it works.

Well if I be allowed to speculate

PKI ji, Sethna ji are the one's who are asking for an Independent review so how can they be a part of it ?

My point about the folks of desired caliber inside the establishment and yet which are not at all involved in the programme still holds .

why would one/politician object to weaponisation of TN on x ground , while will not have problems weaponising Fission Bomb , some how it escapes me.

The fact we went overt with Nuclear Weapons means we just weaponise with what we tested ,TN , FBF or Fission.

The only reason why some one would not weaponise the TN will be its not weapon ready yet

Ah Indian politicians, no one can understand them

The last I heard the 1974 PNE team was dissolved after the tests (how does one explain that

). These idiots were twiddling their thumbs when it came to deciding whether to use a chopper or a fighter AC in Kargil .

You see GOI can be as unpredictable/chanakyan as one can imagine.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 28 Sep 2009 23:11

I remember thinking about the Nuke deal and why west agreed to some stuff they never did before: maybe we traded some things. eg: their sense of security for our freedom and equality amongst world powers.

Overt signals about weaponizing and operationilising an advanced TN (read light weight third-gen) means we are saying the light weight flower petals can reach far shores, courtsey the Fat Lady. A message that will be used to whip up hysteria in country clubs. Cheque books will be opened and new stuff will be approved to point at us. And not all of them are weapons, but still would cause suffering to Indians. But then again, I dont think we will have to wait long for that to happen - Iran will trigger a revamp of lethal stuff sooner or later.

So It does not necessarily mean things do not exist inside India. Like in the earlier days, might be in recessed form etc. But Arihant will need an answer and the SDRE K15 is again to assuage the far shores that we might mate warheads, but petals wont come visiting anytime soon, due to heavy warhead, smaller missile etc.

IIRC, Shree R Chidambaram mentioned 200 kt in a DD interview back in '98. I remember this because I was wondering at that time about why not 350-500kt , and thought later that maybe the MX type things had counter-force requirements, which we dont see in our future. And I vaguely remember 300 kt was said by some other prominent person (maybe head of a think-tank out of Delhi?)

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Sep 2009 23:14

^ Yep makes sense specially in the light of the over emphasis by the GOI on the fact that India does not need an ICBM or any missile which can reach any farther than Beijing .

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Sep 2009 23:15

In US there is something called a "greybeard" review as opposed to a "blue ribbon" review. The former is a review by retired technical experts on single topics. A blue ribbon review is a all encompassing review with different stakeholders to ensure all aspects are addressed.

Negi, the delay in using IAFwas to ensure there is capability in place to manage any escalation or retaliation. The IAF in that timeframe had just completed an air exercise. All this is in the KRC report.
-------

A couple of years ago in context of the ATV there was mention of the higher value.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 28 Sep 2009 23:31

Negi Garu is a genius.

Dr. Chidambaram is a genius and he does not need a certification on this aspect at least not from us

Yet he certifies!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Sep 2009 23:36

I looked for corroboration of the FT report. Looks like its in isolation at this time.
Either its an FT exclusive or a misperception of the press conference.
However the story is updated at 3:00 AM 9/28.

Must be a new item.

OS it gives new twist to the whole episode. Some sections suggest this weapon has to be proofed while the official line is no as it is based on tests conducted in 1998. The other side says that was a fizzle and imlies how can one induct such devices?

The crucial assumption is that it was based on the test without any lessons learned. And we know they have been workign for 11 years.

I guess the via media is to induct these and keep th option to proof as needed. This could be a remote chance looking at the way things are working out.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 29 Sep 2009 00:16

I think we should concentrate more on the way ahead.

I think both camps (Except GoI) agree on:
1. The need to stay away from CTBT
2. NPT is possible if India is accepted as a NWS as per the NPT.
3. There is a need for further testing of all nuclear weapons developed by BARC and then to deploy them as deemed by the SFC.

GoI is responsible in a big part for the various statements by the naysayers, those who are protecting PoK-2 tests as successful and adequate, and further say that no further testing is needed.
This position adopted by some people about there being no need for further testing is untenable

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Sep 2009 00:24

Gagan, What if lessons were truly learned and implemented. Why not deploy knowing it will work due to analysis -scaling within physical laws, conventional piece part testing, and test by other means, the parts that need active testing. And stay away from CTBT to preserve the means to proof. If push comes to shove it retains the option to proof.

I am saying complete all the parts except active testing with the provision that they will be proofed in use or by test.

Keeping them in abeyance doesnt do any good.
----

The close option to test is the johlawala brigade and business lobbies that fear there could be trade disruptions.

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Sep 2009 00:28

ramana wrote: Negi, the delay in using IAFwas to ensure there is capability in place to manage any escalation or retaliation. The IAF in that timeframe had just completed an air exercise. All this is in the KRC report.

Well sir I fail to understand as to how does it matter unless the LOC is violated (there is no question of escalation unless LOC is violated ) and I don't think that later when Mirages and Floggers were pressed into action they crossed the LOC apart from the one Mig-27 which crashed into the TSP side after its engine flamed out.

And this talk about exercises causing the delay is even more alarming are we to believe that an AF as big as IAF cannot mobilize its couple of combat squadrons when in midst of an exercise ?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 29 Sep 2009 00:53

Ramana, this is why "weaponization" has to be defined. It could very well be the designs have been converted to working devices and the devices ready for hand over. Whether the SFC would accept them is another story but one for which I do not have a definitive answer. As an impression though, reading Karnad's book, they did.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Sep 2009 01:04

X-post....

negi wrote:I wish to discuss the subject of 'Minimum Credible Deterrence' and its significance.

With a risk of sounding like an EB (something I take a great pride in ), I would say this entire concept of MCD reeks of Nehruvian (read compromise) decision making.I would not wish to indulge into 'naming one's enemies' but I am of the opinion that India should aim for a nuclear deterrent which can address future/hypothetical threats from ANY nation which our MCD policy in its current form is unable to address.

The reason why I harp on above is the fact that what separates or distinguishes the current members of P-5 from rest of the world is their ability to retaliate and hit any part of the globe with nukes ; imo it is this capability which is the reason for the P-5's current stature and not because some 3 or 4 letter treaty says so.

I am of the view that India's ambitions of being recognized as NWS are meaningless and of little use unless she too develops such a capability . UNSC membership and other forms of token consolation prizes will follow once we actually have the clout to wield the N stick.

As of now GOI has done very well to handle the global pressure as far as signing the NPT and the CTBT are concerned however this might not be the case in future , in fact preparing for a worst case scenario will be a prudent thing to do in matters of such significance.It is hence advisable to develop our strategic strike package based on whatever capability we have demonstrated and have claimed to achieve after POK-II.

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Sep 2009 01:12

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Sep 2009 02:08

dinesha wrote:later even capabilities of Neutron bombs were claimed

September 9, 1998
India capable of making Neutron Bomb: Santhanam

May 22, 1998
India can make 200 kt N-bomb: Chidambaram

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Sep 2009 02:16

Gerard wrote:
dinesha wrote:later even capabilities of Neutron bombs were claimed
India capable of making Neutron Bomb: Santhanam

Those were the halcyon days! Wish they came back and we didnt have these fizzle wars.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 29 Sep 2009 02:22

Please read this:

“In the midst of the current brouhaha, we need to retain clarity on one issue; given the deuterium-tritium boosted-fission weapons can generate yields of 200-500kts, the credibility of India’s nuclear deterrent is not in the slightest doubt,”

From Admiral Arun Prakash CNS 2004-2006 in:
http://www.maritimeindia.org/pdfs/STRAT ... MAKING.pdf

This is as close as we have from the user to date.

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 29 Sep 2009 02:31

Gerard wrote:May 22, 1998
India can make 200 kt N-bomb: Chidambaram

This article conclusively resolves the 300kT then vs. 200kT now confusion. It seems that the DAE claim all along has been for the capability to make a 200kT weapon.

Note also that in all these 200kT claims, there is no mention of the specific type of weapon.

Reposting a link to Kakodkar's recent claim of 200kT capability

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 050409.cms

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Sep 2009 02:43

Sanjay, There are two issues:

- Credibility of Indian deterrent
- S-I test

On the first there are no doubts. Even Santhanam's outlook interview "Myth Bomber" does not doubt that. He says that clearly.

The issue is the S-I test and how that impacts future capabilties.

Looks like the primary's success gives rise to optimism for that genre of weapons.

negi · Post by **negi** » 29 Sep 2009 02:46

Sanjay ji thanks for the article

Excellent write up by the former Naval Chief .

Yes I do realize the significance of the quoted lines and the emphasis on the FBF ; perhaps this also should answer the clarification I sought on the discussion between Austin and Kanson ji .

ss_roy · Post by **ss_roy** » 29 Sep 2009 03:06

There seems to be an unspoken assumption that tests will result in sanctions, and hurt poor indians etc..

Nothing could be further from the truth- The actions of indian politicians, babus and journalists have hurt indians far more than any external action ever could.

PS- The west is broke and aging, don't pay too much attention to their whims and posturing.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 29 Sep 2009 03:09

Ramana - yes I've been hinting at that - I think - from the start of things. Separate the need for testing from credibility of deterrent.

Both are correct.

Negi - my pleasure but Sanjay is sufficent. I don't think I deserve the suffix -ji ! I am neither expert, guru, sant nor dharmaraja.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Sep 2009 03:10

So Sanjay it was all a sorry mistake!

When the establishment talked of high yield weaponization, people thought it was based on TN, which is still a capability, when in reality it was on the primary only of that test. Thats why the folks repeatedly say "needless controversy" without adding clarity.

Sridhar is right there is no mention fo the path only the goal.

Maybe if this was clarified to some of the retired experts it might have resulted in less atmospherics.

So as in typical Indian theatre, all are equally right.

-------

Whn the post KS maelstrom broke hinting is of little use. It needed forceful clarification when one had the information one is duty bound to interject. Even K Subramanyam garu was swept under and changed the reqmts for MND from 60-80kt to 25kt all in one week. So its quite understandable that all this fireworks were on the forum which is a reflection of India.

BTW, ji, garu, ullah are honorifics and par for the course.

Start worrying when ji is dropped.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 29 Sep 2009 03:12

So I guess there is a 500Kt Haathi atop the agnis? How much would a 500Kt FBF weigh? Does this answer the query raised by Sanjay-ji wrt the large payload attributed to the agni missiles?
Is it possible that the SFC is hedging its bets by having two warheads atop the missiles in a tandem fashion, one proven but small fission bomb, and the other larger unproven yet high confidence FBF warhead?

I assume that by now it is known and accepted that India does not have TN weapons in the hands of the SFC.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Sep 2009 03:18

Gagan wrote:So I guess there is a 500Kt Haathi atop the agnis? How much would a 500Kt FBF weigh? Does this answer the query raised by Sanjay-ji wrt the large payload attributed to the agni missiles?
Is it possible that the SFC is hedging its bets by having two warheads atop the missiles in a tandem fashion, one proven but small fission bomb, and the other larger unproven yet high confidence FBF warhead?

I assume that by now it is known and accepted that India does not have TN weapons in the hands of the SFC.

Dont start that again. Stick to what BARC said in the press conf on 9/24 upto 200kt. Otherwise you will unleash a new "kraken" of credible extrapolation or mota lota etc.

I still would like to hear one day they fixed the S-I and do have a few unproven heads to be used in case unlikely event of of general war.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 29 Sep 2009 03:25

>>As far as calling a public person a liar is concerned then we call politicians, judges, army brass corrupt & traiters every day on this forum, so nothing new here.

That is not the case. Many people have been banned for the same. Then, there is a difference between calling politicians (elected officials) liars and - especially if they have done exactly that, in public. They are elected officials, although there is a limit there too.

But calling senior bureaucrats and scientists traitors and liars - with NO evidence whatsoever - is a totally different ballgame. Politicians can respond. Bureaucrats, especially those in the security establishment, cannot - especially not to allegations on a site like BR which has a unique position.

And for a couple of years this has been going on here on BRF - despite repeated cautions, entreaties, private and public. And the tragedy is that it is totally unnecessary. Points can be made without resort to such churlishness.

Virtually ever senior bureaucrat in the foreign ministry, the security establishment and scientist in the nuclear enclave has been vilified here, while very few people know their backgrounds or what they have done for the country.

Santhanam can challenge the TN claims legitimately, MKN can call him something, and Santhanam can retort. They are two sides, hell not even two sides, probably the same damn side of the coin. Does anyone know what Santhanam did at RAW? He basically started TECHINT and credit has been given to him for tracking the Pak nuke development like none other. What about MKN, the man who is supposedly little more than a flunkey according to some of our members of BR. He was the chief of the Intelligence Bureau and his record there should make anyone cringe in shame before calling him names. And both these men are far more hardnosed about national security than most of us on BRF, including the so-called jingoes. It is a horrible embarrassment that we on BR are referring to people like Chidambaram and Kakodkar who have done so much for our country in the terms that they have been referred to here.

Think before you post. This is not some childish game.

archan · Post by **archan** » 29 Sep 2009 03:35

Jai ho Menon sa'ar. Completely agree.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 29 Sep 2009 03:37

GoI speaks up. Some for videshis some for the desis.
World nuclear order cannot be discriminatory: India

India on Sunday welcomed the renewed global push for achieving a world free of atomic weapons but underlined that the international nuclear order cannot be "discriminatory".

"India attaches the highest priority to the goal of nuclear disarmament and has an impeccable non-proliferation record. We welcome the renewed global debate on achieving a world free of nuclear weapons," External Affairs Minister S M Krishna said while addressing the 64th session of the United Nations

"The international nuclear order cannot be discriminatory. Further, States must fulfil the obligations they have undertaken,"

...

"We remained committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing," he said, adding that India will continue to engage with key countries to garner greater international understanding to achieve nuclear disarmament.

Jai Ho.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 29 Sep 2009 03:53

Ramana - I am not so sure. TN may be ready. Who knows ?

This is a brawl between pro-test and those who are more cautious about resuming testing(I don't think they are anti-test - if no consequences they would jump at the chance).

The 500kt is interesting and coming from Adm. Prakash - odd.

JE Menon - thank you, thank you, thank you.