Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby arnab » 30 Sep 2009 10:00

shiv wrote:
sanjaykumar wrote:India has a long tradition of brevity-it is said that changing the aa to a syllable in Sanskrit prosidy would be rejoiced as would the birth of a son.

But then what did the ancients know?


The ancients knew that in 1998 brevity in information released would no longer be accepted by Indic nationalist patriots. Long explanations are being demanded.


I think the ancients are in the heavens cheering Acharya ji (and Dorothy Parker - Brevity is the soul of lingeire)

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby negi » 30 Sep 2009 10:04

Bade ji I know you are gonna trap me but this is what I have understood.

The equation in question in the first place can be used only when the value of 'K' for the site in question has been established by appropriate means (previous tests ?) i.e. through a series of calibrated tests.

Now S-1 was emplaced in a site where India has never conducted a nuclear test the only previous test POK-1 was done in same region but a site with different composition .

hence K would be different , right ?

So BARC must have instead used the MEASURED YIELD (from other methods) to find 'K' for this site and not vice versa (and we know that there are relatively more accurate methods of estimating the YIELD than above equation, specially for a first test in the particular site)

Now k1/K2<>1 this is what I can vouch for , but perhaps my incompetence in such matters prevents me from articulating my pov that even if K1/K2=1 one cannot guarantee that ratio of cavity radius of two tests would be in proportion to the ratio of cube root of their YIELDS.

Simply because local anomalies around one of the sites may affect the cavity formation in unpredictable manner .

All in all I wish to emphasize that ratio of Cavity radius alone cannot be used to make an accurate estimation of S-1's YIELD it might be one of the methods employed just to tally against the readings from other methods.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Bade » 30 Sep 2009 10:13

If the model (analytical form) you use is outright fraudulent, then you are not going to get an answer anywhere near the truth.

However, with a little faith :eek: if you think the model is not all that wrong, and only the parameters need to be estimated exactly to model the data, then you proceed with what you started doing and do the error estimation.

All your concerns on the exact 'physical characteristics' of the site is encapsulated in the errors of the model parameters. So that is what I meant by estimating the systematic errors. Hope it is clear. The errors are so dominated by the systematic ones alone here that how many actual measurements you took is a moot point. You can increase the number of measurements for a given test, or do a hundred tests but your systematic errors are not going to go away. How about that ? :P

PS : To be more honest, by taking the ratio there you are reducing the large effects of the systematic errors in the value of K perhaps, but not a whole lot....since 'e' still remains to be fudged.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Bade » 30 Sep 2009 10:36

I am reminded of my UG prof a freshly minted StonyBrook researcher, who used to get amused with our error estimates in the lab, by solely increasing the number of measurements made. We had no clue then how to estimate the systematic errors for a given lab assignment and they usually required a lot of thinking and even more convincing to sell them as real estimates. The former is easy the statistical error part, but to get the systematic errors correct one almost need to know what each component is doing and how it can affect the result.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby svinayak » 30 Sep 2009 10:36

arnab wrote:
I think the ancients are in the heavens cheering Acharya ji (and Dorothy Parker - Brevity is the soul of lingeire)

Get serious in your discussion if you want to be heard (even in the heaven)
Last edited by svinayak on 30 Sep 2009 10:49, edited 1 time in total.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 437
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby aditp » 30 Sep 2009 10:43

Last edited by Rahul M on 30 Sep 2009 11:00, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: please be a little more circumspect. temper is already high on this thread, why add ghee to the fire ?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby negi » 30 Sep 2009 10:46

Most of the newspaper reports and press releases on POK-II issue are on PIB site.

Here http://pibmumbai.gov.in/English/PDF/E2009_MC13.PDF

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Sanku » 30 Sep 2009 11:05

negi wrote:Sanku saar

Reason why Admiral's comments are important is:

He chooses his words carefully and imho is trying to highlight the fact that India's current threat perceptions (which clearly singles out our gentle neighbors) are taken care of , debate over S-1's YIELD notwithstanding.

His reference to the FBF YIELD took me by surprise as he is not someone who would throw in numbers for the heck of it .


Negi Bhai, I completely agree, so far Adm Arun Prakash's statement is the most credible support to our nuclear force. I do not doubt it for a minute.

Even when SBM posted his classified info, I frankly still had reservations, however what SBM said is backed by Adm APs article to a great extent.

So yes we have some deterrence, probably a FBF which BARC has promised (note its not a knock) that will work at 200 KTs, Adm AP seems to be also convinced that BARCs promises will hold.

However I will say that yet again, we are still reading way to much into Adm APs statement. SBM said the same, and we did talk about the inherent difficulty in scaling FBF and how it needed testing to be sure.

So reliability of Fission (completely solid) > reliability of FBF @ 200 KT+ >> TN reliability.

Then there are questions of weight, material etc. So all in all I would still say that we are reading too much into the "one line" in the article.

In fact the real thrust of the article is not about yields at all. It is about a organizational culture for nuclear weapon development, here he is solidly with others who are in KS camp so to say.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby arnab » 30 Sep 2009 11:26

Sanku wrote:Negi Bhai, I completely agree, so far Adm Arun Prakash's statement is the most credible support to our nuclear force. I do not doubt it for a minute.

Even when SBM posted his classified info, I frankly still had reservations, however what SBM said is backed by Adm APs article to a great extent.

So yes we have some deterrence, probably a FBF which BARC has promised (note its not a knock) that will work at 200 KTs, Adm AP seems to be also convinced that BARCs promises will hold.

However I will say that yet again, we are still reading way to much into Adm APs statement. SBM said the same, and we did talk about the inherent difficulty in scaling FBF and how it needed testing to be sure.

So reliability of Fission (completely solid) > reliability of FBF @ 200 KT+ >> TN reliability.

Then there are questions of weight, material etc. So all in all I would still say that we are reading too much into the "one line" in the article.

In fact the real thrust of the article is not about yields at all. It is about a organizational culture for nuclear weapon development, here he is solidly with others who are in KS camp so to say.


Umm - I thought this entire 120 odd pages on BRF (POK not fully successful) was entirely about questioning the yields. Irrespective of the fact that one did not have access to data. Re 'organisational culture' I'm not sure there are any camps here (unless organisational culture means organising blue ribbon peer review by international experts)

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2974
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby vera_k » 30 Sep 2009 12:16

ldev wrote:In India various GOIs have an eye on the next election and their perception appears to have been that Indians will not be prepared to make the kinds of sacrifices that are necessary. Otherwise IMO the NDA government would have persisted with testing and formal deployment of TNs irrespective of military, technological and financial sanctions imposed and to be imposed and orchestrated by the US. Why did they not persist? Precisely because IMO they felt that the people of India would vote them out of power if the pain level exceeded a certain threshold. What if a program of testing involved intermittent testing over a 3 year period? What would have been the impact of sanctions on the life of the average Indian and in his willingness to vote for the GOI that put him through that pain?


I don't think this assertion is valid. The Americans made a point about imposing only those sanctions that influence the policies of the decision makers in the government without hurting ordinary citizens (ref Talbott's Engaging India). Further, many of the things that get governments elected in India are basic bijli, sadak, pani issues where the performance is dependent solely on internal variables. IMO, if an Indian government bases its nuclear policy on American reaction, it will be due to the direct impact it will have on the elite that make up the government rather than any electoral consequences.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Sanku » 30 Sep 2009 12:37

arnab wrote:Umm - I thought this entire 120 odd pages on BRF (POK not fully successful) was entirely about questioning the yields. Irrespective of the fact that one did not have access to data. Re 'organisational culture' I'm not sure there are any camps here (unless organisational culture means organising blue ribbon peer review by international experts)


I think you thought wrong -- knowing the yield was only a part of the puzzle to try and understand where we are -- the bigger point has always been the basic issues of how things are done in this space in India.

Even whether S1 worked exactly or not is somewhat irrelevant.

The real issues are how do we carry out a robust working deterrence in future and what steps are needed (testing, different facilities, Service interaction, peer reviews, funding and creation of LIF etc etc)

In short strategic vision -- please dont miss the woods for the trees.

There are two camps (roughly)
1) Things are fine, need to test is ambiguous, its time frame is even more ambiguous, all is well, not having TNs is not a big deal. -- The RC camp (so to say)

2) Things may be okay at the moment but a lot more needs to be done, TNs need to be proofed and deployed very soon, proofing should involve services, time to take the next step, yada yada yada. -- Bharat Karnad camp (so to say)

Of course individual posters dont neatly fit in camp 1 or 2, most have PoV which take some from each, however those are the basic two thought divisions
fine vs not enough

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby geeth » 30 Sep 2009 13:01

Santanam Camp (so to say) fijjled or what? :P
We must justify the existence (ours and this thread as well) to Santanam Garu

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Austin » 30 Sep 2009 13:07

Well Adm Prakash may claim BARC told him 200 - 500 Kt works and perhaps Ad Prakash may choose to believe BARC ( other ex chief have their own POV ), but where is the proof ?

Did we explode a device of such high yeald ?

Tomorrow Paki may claim they can make device of 500 Kt , why shouldnt we believe them as well , surely physics works the same for all.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Sanku » 30 Sep 2009 13:20

geeth wrote:Santanam Camp (so to say) fijjled or what? :P
We must justify the existence (ours and this thread as well) to Santanam Garu


Well he has restarted the debate, but it has been happening for a while, BK is one of the most prominent thinkers to whom this can be attributed to originally, I couldnt think of any other decent person than RC to attribute the other camp too some others in public space who are now in that camp (pigy backing) come from either jholawalla or "mein bhee japan" camp

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1587
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby ldev » 30 Sep 2009 18:06

vera_k wrote:
ldev wrote:In India various GOIs have an eye on the next election and their perception appears to have been that Indians will not be prepared to make the kinds of sacrifices that are necessary. Otherwise IMO the NDA government would have persisted with testing and formal deployment of TNs irrespective of military, technological and financial sanctions imposed and to be imposed and orchestrated by the US. Why did they not persist? Precisely because IMO they felt that the people of India would vote them out of power if the pain level exceeded a certain threshold. What if a program of testing involved intermittent testing over a 3 year period? What would have been the impact of sanctions on the life of the average Indian and in his willingness to vote for the GOI that put him through that pain?


I don't think this assertion is valid. The Americans made a point about imposing only those sanctions that influence the policies of the decision makers in the government without hurting ordinary citizens (ref Talbott's Engaging India). Further, many of the things that get governments elected in India are basic bijli, sadak, pani issues where the performance is dependent solely on internal variables. IMO, if an Indian government bases its nuclear policy on American reaction, it will be due to the direct impact it will have on the elite that make up the government rather than any electoral consequences.


Look, India never went far enough to test US sanctions on other fronts besides military and hitech which were already in place. One of the reasons for the unilateral test moratorium was to head off US sanctions in other areas such as banking/finance. You may say that it will hurt the US as well if it imposes such sanctions. But consider the gradual tightening of US financial sanctions:

1. No US bank can help raise/market money via shares or debt in international markets. (What will Indian companies do for dollar denominated borrowings) Suppose Reliance decides as a result to shelve and/or delay expansion projects. Will not employment in India be affected?

further tightening...

2. US decides to cancel banking licences for existing Indian banks in the US.

3. A year later India conducts yet more tests and the US passes a UNSC resolution getting the G8 to follow the US in point 2 above.

4. A few months later India does yet more tests and as a result, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran also conduct tests and the G7 advise their banks pull out of India.

I dont know where you live but if you live in the West, pretty soon it will become impossible for you to even send money to India through legal channels even from the Gulf where millions of Indians support their families. All Indian corporate expansion will be in reverse mode by a massive impact on company profitbility which will result in unemployment. India's foreign exchange reseves will fall. It could even lead to difficulty in import of crude oil and shortages could result in petrol, diesel, kerosene, LPG which will result in inflation and shortages of food items which require transportation. You think this will not affect the common man? (besides ofcourse the elite). You think any governments wants to test the limits of its citizens to accept this pain when the next elections are always around the corner?

Far fetched? Maybe, but possible if India decides to follow through. Will the west actually retaliate to the extent I have written in just the one area I have highlighted. Maybe. No one has tested the issue yet. Even the nationalist BJP government caved in much before that.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby harbans » 30 Sep 2009 18:17

We know one thing. Pakistans Chagai tests were not high yield fission ones. So how effective are the weapons in their inventory presently? If we test again we may be confirming our designs. But if Pakistan does too, it will surely then improve upon it's last design yields or maybe test new ones? Can that be a good reason to avoid testing presently? I think we should've tested in the 70's and 80's. That was the window where sanctions wold not have made much impact.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby negi » 30 Sep 2009 18:32

Idev are you serious ? If what you say is indeed true then I have to admit Acharya garu has been right on dot since the day one with his pov. Btw what ever happened to NoKo and IRAN. :)

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17254
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby RamaY » 30 Sep 2009 19:18

Idev-ji

Your scenarios are farfetched. US can definitely do 1 and perhaps 2 as well but not forever. At best We are looking at a 1-3 year period and at worst 5-10 years. Getting all the other industrial nations to follow its line US will have to offer enough financial incentives to withstand a ~$3T (PPP) economic pull.

India has conducted 2 rounds of nuke tests already and the third time will not receive the same attention as the first and send series. Moreover, US itself invited India into the nuke-group a few years ago. A design validation test, if managed well, will not be seen in bad light.

Of course US and other NATO members will want to punish India to satisfy their national-egos and more importantly to gain concessions in other fields. GOI must identify these bargains and keep them prepared to barter the sanctions as needed.

Indian economy crossed a certain critical point IMO. The current >$1T economy will generate nearly $100-150B tax revenues and should provide enough cushion to run business as usual. I concede that the economy may not grow at 6-9% rate but it can definitely cover the inflationary rate. First our honorable economic dream team must set their houses right and present a deficit free budget. Right now no one knows how much it costs to run the nation meeting its security, energy, food-security, health-security, educational-security, and civil services needs. And our dream team has been struggling to get their act right for the past 20 years.

Our leadership justifying their inaction and incapability behind the poverty (which it is trying to solve for the past 60 years and yet to present a time-based roadmap), energy security (again I am yet to see a comprehensive plan), employment opportunities (what is GOI’s road map?), caste system (any solution?), satti etc…

My point is – it is all “special nonsense” (“Dancing Wu-li masters” – Gary Zukov) when someone brings economy, poverty, caste system etc justifications into a nuke-test scenario. IF a weaponized TN design is yet to be tested successfully, and IF BARC has a design ready after fixing whatever issues they found during past test, then GOI should prepare the ground for another test. I do not see it any different from someone arguing between building public toilets Vs MRCA contract.

That is the cost of national security.

ss_roy
BRFite
Posts: 286
Joined: 15 Nov 2008 21:48

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby ss_roy » 30 Sep 2009 19:19

ldev,

The west needs countries like India more than we need them. Their economic system is a ponzi scheme based on an ever increasing consumer base. Have you been following the events of the last two (really last 30) years?. I would not worry about prolonged US sanctions.

Push comes to shove- make it clear that you WILL sell nukes (including TN and gold/cobalt sheathed) nukes to every terrorist group and hostile country in the world.

The real issue: Indian politicians and decision makers have no self-respect or spine. I don't think it can be corrected by anything short of a new generation and source of leadership.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Raj Malhotra » 30 Sep 2009 19:21

Dr A Gopalakrishnanji has given an interview on CNBC to Karan Thapar where is has given zhor ka jhatka dheere se to RCji, Sikkaji, Kakodharji, Kalamji & NSAji. He said:-

1. Evidence leans in favor of Santhanam and PKI.
2. Instrumentation at site was checked by both BARC & DRDO together and “signed” as accurate.
3. RCji may have encouraged PM through BM to state within 3 hours of the test that it was successful even though the full measurements came way later.
4. BM asked RCji if we needs more tests but he said no.
5. BM confirmed to Gk that BM could not persuade RCji to meet PKI
5. If more tests had been carried out at that time it would not have made much difference as sanctions were already in place.
6. The only solution is for PM to intervene.


Note:- There is no Sanathanam camp,there is only One India camp for ALL BRites here except some with special H&D.
Last edited by Raj Malhotra on 30 Sep 2009 20:52, edited 1 time in total.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Raj Malhotra » 30 Sep 2009 19:25

Idevji


If USA goes too far then India will start hawking Nukes to Saudi Arabia and Iran. Wonder why USA keeps quiet over China & NK??


Google for Indian interest in setting up nuclear reactor in Iran with end of terrorism is Punjab during Narsimharaoji's era!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby NRao » 30 Sep 2009 19:26

Raj Malhotra wrote:Dr A Gopalakrishnanji has given an interview on CNBC to Karan Thapar where is has given zhor ka jhatka dheere se to PCji, Sikkaji, Kakodharji, Kalamji & NSAji. He said:-

1. Evidence leans in favor of Santhanam and PKI.
2. Instrumentation at site was checked by both BARC & DRDO together and “signed” as accurate.
3. PCji may have encouraged PM through BM to state within 3 hours of the test that it was successful even though the full measurements came way later.
4. BM asked PCji if we needs more tests but he said no.
5. BM confirmed to Gk that BM could not persuade PCji to meet PKI
5. If more tests had been carried out at that time it would not have made much difference as sanctions were already in place.
6. The only solution is for PM to intervene.


Note:- There is no Sanathanam camp,there is only One India camp for ALL BRites here except some with special H&D.


Cool.

One more data point for us to consider.

Did Karan Thapar ask him about deterrence at all?

Also, PC = RC?

ss_roy
BRFite
Posts: 286
Joined: 15 Nov 2008 21:48

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby ss_roy » 30 Sep 2009 19:32

The sad truth is that Indian leaders want to keep the people poor and miserable, so that they can be reelected.

It is unlikely that the present setup of leaders and decision makers will do anything to improve the situation. In fact, they are trying to do everything, directly and indirectly, to hinder India's progress. I know that this concept is somewhat hard to accept, but it is the only reasonable explanation for such sustained incompetence.

It takes conscious effort to be more incompetent than chance alone would allow.

Take our nuke weapon program for example. Why did we make half-hearted efforts, all along? It was beyond simple incompetence or the lack of vision (our first generation of leaders were more 'educated' and less insular than their chinese counterparts). Surely, they saw nuke deterrence working, and we had the minds to speed up progress in that area. It was beyond simple indecisiveness or peaceful visions of the world, it was active negligence and purposeful maladministration.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby NRao » 30 Sep 2009 19:51

ss_roy wrote:The sad truth is that Indian leaders want to keep the people poor and miserable, so that they can be reelected.

It is unlikely that the present setup of leaders and decision makers will do anything to improve the situation. In fact, they are trying to do everything, directly and indirectly, to hinder India's progress. I know that this concept is somewhat hard to accept, but it is the only reasonable explanation for such sustained incompetence.


IF you said that the sanctions that follow a nuclear test would impact voting I can understand. But strategic thinking or decisions and voting in India? I think not.

Take our nuke weapon program for example. Why did we make half-hearted efforts, all along? It was beyond simple incompetence or the lack of vision (our first generation of leaders were more 'educated' and less insular than their chinese counterparts). Surely, they saw nuke deterrence working, and we had the minds to speed up progress in that area. It was beyond simple indecisiveness or peaceful visions of the world, it was active negligence and purposeful maladministration.


"Morality" seems to be the driving factor. Universal disarmament.

Just that IMHO India did not chase either one with heart or seriousness. Chai-biscoot has its value, but it more than often shoots India in the foot. It will continue to do so. The pain will ONLY be great because of the internet. Else Indians were always in either Moksha or Nidra.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby NRao » 30 Sep 2009 20:07

Raj,

Gopalkrishnan had his 15 minutes of fame (IF I may :) ) a few days ago:

More scientists back Santhanam on Pokhran II

First Published : 20 Sep 2009 02:10:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 20 Sep 2009 09:41:16 AM IST

NEW DELHI: If the views of certain experts are any indication, disquiet is simmering within the country’s top nuclear scientists as there is an apparent bid to “hush up facts” following the sensational disclosure by fellow professional K Santhanam that the thermonuclear weapon tested in Pokhran 2 was a failure.

A Gopalakrishnan, a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, told Express that BARC ex-director R Chidambaram, who is now Principal Scientific Adv iser to the Government of India, was “obviously indulging in a total misrepresentation of facts” in 1998 when he “encouraged” the then NDA government to tell the country that the blasts in the Rajasthan desert were a success.

“He might have several compulsions that made him say this when he knew the true facts. He must have been motivated partly by personal glory,” claimed Gopalakrishnan.

Chidambaram went on to receive the Padma Vibhushan after the May 11 tests.

“All this shows the DAE has been misleading the public and lying on issues. Not only in this instance, but in matters of nuclear safety and independence of safety regulations,” the 72-year-old expert maintained, adding “there are many other instances where an organisation like the AERB has been under pressure from both the PMO and the DAE to distort safety-related investigations.” He said A P J Abdul Kalam, oper ational in-charge of the blasts who later became the country’s president, possessed “very little knowledge” of nuclear weapons or the designs and physics behind them. “Also, he had only a peripheral role in the tests. But the public has since been led to believe Kalam is an expert.” The basic question in any scientist’s mind, Gopalakrishnan says, was “how one can extrapolate or modify a weapon design from the data on one single test — even if it were successful, which in this case was not”. He endorsed the setting up of a peer review for determining the efficacy of the Pokhran 2 thermonuclear device, which Dr Santhanam, a senior DRDO scientist, said failed to perform.

Dr Gopalakrishnan called for a technological committee comprising of international experts to review the “methodology used by Chidambaram and his colleagues to establish their claims”. Dr Chidambaram and S K Sikka — both weapon designers for the thermonuclear device — should “present their methodology to a technical committee involving international experts too. After that you should have a national peer review”.Another former BARC scientist, with intimate knowledge of weapons designing, expressed the doubt whether anybody in BARC had a fullscale understanding of a thermonuclear device.

“The service chiefs should put their foot down and not accept the thermonuclear weapon even if it has been weaponised,” he noted, pointing out that repeated tests for assurance was normal in any scientific endeavour.

BARC ex-head P K Iyengar, a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Board, had argued in an Express article on September 2 that there was need to conduct further tests. Dr Santhanam’s disclosure showed that there was no big explosion of the kind the government claimed, he added.

Another former BARC scientist declared that everybody involved in Pokhran 2 “ought to be cross-examined under oath by a retired Supreme Court judge to get to the bottom of the matter”.

Earlier, Dr Santhanam had pointed out that shaft in which the device was detonated in Pokhran remained undisturbed and “totally intact” after the explosion. And the A Frame, which had a winch to lower personnel and equipment into the shaft for the experiment also escaped the allegedly 45 kilotonne explosion completely unscathed.

Whereas in the case of the smaller fission device, which was tested the same day, the shaft was destroyed and the explosion left a crater 25 metres in diameter. Santhanam argues that if the TN weapon functioned, the crater would have been about 70 meters in diameter.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby NRao » 30 Sep 2009 20:11

The point being IF India has deterrence with some non-TN means, why all these gyrations.

Whether RC lied or not should be on a different track, which should have nothing to do with CURRENT and perhaps future status of Indian deterrence.

I would like ALL those (scientists?) supporting Santhanam's view (for that is what it is - nothing personal about Santhanam I hope) should FIRST state IF they have ANY concerns about Indian deterrence and then talk about TN issues.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby shiv » 30 Sep 2009 20:17

NRao wrote:Raj,

Gopalkrishnan had his 15 minutes of fame (IF I may :) ) a few days ago:

More scientists back Santhanam on Pokhran II



:D It would be interesting to speculate if Gopalkrishnan is the same as one "n.krishna" who has left some kind and affectionate comments about RC and Kakodkar in the feedback to another expressbuzz article linked earlier. G's age and K's claim that he was at Pokhran I seem to match as well as the respect and awe displayed.

Chidambaram's dud blows up strategic deterrence :lol:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby NRao » 30 Sep 2009 20:38

A few days back I read an article (IIRC by Prof Nalapat(sp?) from Manipal Univ) stating that Indian leaders have squirreled away some $1.5 TRIllion in Swiss banks!!!!

even if 10% of it is true, then what the heck are we discussing about MRCA/FGFA/TN?

Failed society thus a failed country.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52590
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby ramana » 30 Sep 2009 20:46

Our own R Vaidya wrote the same in many newspaper articles on this subject and was to head a task force to recover them if NDA was elected.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby NRao » 30 Sep 2009 20:49

Paging JCage, to see what he drank.

Time has come I think.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby svinayak » 30 Sep 2009 20:58

negi wrote:Idev are you serious ? If what you say is indeed true then I have to admit Acharya garu has been right on dot since the day one with his pov. Btw what ever happened to NoKo and IRAN. :)

Absurdity has no end.
Fear mongering seems to be new tactic to keep India from taking decisions.
Lot of people still think BR members are stupid.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Raj Malhotra » 30 Sep 2009 21:02

Note the differene this time is that Dr G has come to give interveiw on TV. He also added that RC giving interview to media and refusing to meet PKI was indulging in propaganda to (my comments-avoid peer review)
Last edited by Raj Malhotra on 30 Sep 2009 21:04, edited 1 time in total.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Raj Malhotra » 30 Sep 2009 21:02

NRao


I did not catch the full interview but he generally said that weaponization was a political decision. Imp:- He said that 1974 just gave us general idea of nukes but only 1998 gave us info about weaponization which "may" be used to make weapons.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52590
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby ramana » 30 Sep 2009 21:03




The real title of the article is "Figures will not lie"

Why is aditp distorting the title to add fuel to the fire here?
-----------

BTW its interesting the RAW was tasked to assess the TSP nuke quest in 1973 itself. Recall the Multan tent/shamiana shindig was in 1972 where ZAB tasked his minions to acquire the nukes.
Its significant when KS left that group: 1984 and where he went.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby Raj Malhotra » 30 Sep 2009 21:15

More scientists back Santhanam on Pokhran II


Chidambaram's dud blows up strategic deterrence


PLEASE READ THE COMMENTS SECTION OF THIS ARTICLE WITH SHIV COMMENTS ABOVE. I WOULD HAVE POSTED THE COMMENTS HERE BUT ****************

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby shiv » 30 Sep 2009 21:22



Two interesting comments

Dr Chidambaram and S K Sikka — both weapon designers for the thermonuclear device — should “present their methodology to a technical committee involving international experts too. After that you should have a national peer review”


Exeprts are classified as "international" and "national". Of course the "International group" may well be Indians, but I just wonder what criteria this man has in his mind to differentiate between "International experts" and "national peers"

“The service chiefs should put their foot down and not accept the thermonuclear weapon even if it has been weaponised,” he noted, pointing out that repeated tests for assurance was normal in any scientific endeavour.


Don't accept a "the" TN weapon even if it has been weaponized is a comment that seems to reveal that "been weaponized" TN "weapons" (whatever that means) may exist.

I picture Air Marshal Naik stamping his feet and shaking his head saying "Is that a TN device. No. I won't take it"

Another point from this article and another which I don't recall is that "Weapons designing experts" from BARC are quoted as saying that RC and others do not know how to design weapons.

Who are these weapons experts? What have they been doing? How did these weapons experts get expertise in designing TN weapons?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby shiv » 30 Sep 2009 21:23

Raj Malhotra wrote:More scientists back Santhanam on Pokhran II



PLEASE READ THE COMMENTS SECTION OF THIS ARTICLE WITH SHIV COMMENTS ABOVE. I WOULD HAVE POSTED THE COMMENTS HERE BUT ****************


ALREADY POSTED BY ME SAAR SEVERAL PAGES BACK IN THIS THREAD*************


Link to my post on page 58
viewtopic.php?p=746509#p746509

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby NRao » 30 Sep 2009 21:36

Raj Malhotra wrote:NRao


I did not catch the full interview but he generally said that weaponization was a political decision. Imp:- He said that 1974 just gave us general idea of nukes but only 1998 gave us info about weaponization which "may" be used to make weapons.


I think we need to clear the table for a second.

We need to keep the political stuff out of this discussion, if and when to weaponize is a political decision. True.

However, there are TWO BIG issues: the TN as a dud AND deterrence. Santhanam made BOTH these as issues.

Now, this interview, from what I can see, has not added anything of value to either of those two issues.

My point being that ANY article/interview/op-ed/etc either stating that the TN was a dud or was not one adds nothing to the discussion, as we post.

Now, we need to keep in mind that there are TWO issues:
1) TN as a dud - the proposed way out seems to be to assemble a blue-ribbon/graybeard/whatever group to assess and go from there. This is an open item
2) Deterrence. Is that an issue? WRT TN as a deterrence it will remain an open item AS LONG AS #1 is not resolved. BUT, deterrence does not have to come from TN alone.

#1 will never get resolved even with a blue ribbon panel. The panel will pass judgment on the methodology used, then the data obtained remains, etc, etc, etc.

While #1 can take 10 years to get resolved - IF it does, #2 can be resolved. And, in fact if there is deterrence why even bother with a TN?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby shiv » 30 Sep 2009 21:41



n.krishna's comments deserve to be recorded for posterity.

The yields was about 12 kt and not 55 kt as claimed by traitors Vajpayee or Kalam. The second stage of the two-stage fusion assembly failed to ignite as planned.



I have designed Thorium rods that are being tried for conversion to U233. This is an experimental fuel and not proven. This is to be done in fast breeder reactors. Our fast breeder reactor is coming up in Kalpakkam. Last time a tsunami flooded the plant as these things were not thought of during design. Every fast breeder reactor is unstable and danger to the population as there reactors are inherently unsafe because of its positive void coefficient. Only one small test fast reactor operates in India in Kalpakkam. The construction of a larger prototype fast breeder reactor (PFBR) at Kalpakkam that use mixed plutonium uranium oxide as fuel in its core, with a blanket of depleted uranium oxide that will absorb neutrons and transmute into plutonium 239 is expected by 2010. Liquid sodium will be used to cool the core, which will produce 1,200 megawatts of thermal power and 500 megawatts of electricity. Only low IQ Tamils will allow 80km away such a potential bomb near Chennai city.



The nuclear treaty is worse than signing NPT as per our retired AEC chairman Setna. The agreement was done using ISI CIA agent Manmohan Singh and ISI, CIA, OPUS DEI, KGB agent Sonia. Nuclear treaty is a trechery on India by the christian congress party of India.


Americans are not an intelligent community and never had brilliant fellows. They solved the problem by taking in even Nazi scientists to develop their rockets, and now taking all intelligent immigrants. like our Kerala, Tamil and Andhra Brahmins.


At the end of the day Hindus are more treacherous to India than christians or muslims. Vajpaee is a clear example of a Hindu traitor.Christians if they stop conversion and raiding our houses with fake christian religion,where Jesus was a creation of fiction in AD 325, are good people to associate with. Unfortunately they are brain damaged with blind belief. Muslims are also good persons but are genetically damaged permanently and are like animals who want to kills humans to go to hevean. They also believe the fake story of Mohd who never lived on earth and even the Arabic language was bot there when fake Mohd was created and his personality was given to some unknown orphan who lived some 150 years earlier.


When Sarabhai was killed by an apparant heart attack. The staff of the hotel told that two Christian ladies came out of his room after killing Sarabhai. USA had penetrated DAE in the form of Christians employed in the administration, long ago. Without any Indo US nuke agreement in we directly got from France enriched U fuel in 1974 when BNFL of UK refused supply as we did not sign NPT. Setna took the agreement to France and we got the fuel and no PM was involved in it.


He has described Chidambaram as a bas**tard in the other article and calls Kakodkar a ghati

Note that the man considers Tamil Brahmins inelligent but Tamils are low IQ.

This man is a genius. He may be my relative (all Indians are my brothers and sisters)

Someone invite hm to BRF please!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16240
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

Postby NRao » 30 Sep 2009 21:42

Raj Malhotra wrote:More scientists back Santhanam on Pokhran II


Chidambaram's dud blows up strategic deterrence


PLEASE READ THE COMMENTS SECTION OF THIS ARTICLE WITH SHIV COMMENTS ABOVE. I WOULD HAVE POSTED THE COMMENTS HERE BUT ****************


what I am suggesting is that ALL these things RIGHT now are a total waste of time.

The time to sway people is gone - everyone has formed their opinion. There can not be much change UNLESS it is based on some technical factors (crater size, this and that).

There are two sides (contrary to your statement) and they will use their own means to play this stupid drama in public.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests