Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

[Sanku]

But even going by your statement, RC doesn't preclude future tests. While (again taking your line of reasoning further) RC may think we don't need further tests for a working deterrence that does not mean he's saying that we don't need to test in future to refine bomb designs, make new type of bombs, test for stewardship purposes etc.

Amit I have no interest in the pointless parsing of statement, "oh RC said this but actually he meant that"

What RC has said is in public domain, and available to me as a bookmarked link. The reason why I am so chary about posting it is that despite 100000000000 times a data point is posted, those who find it inconvenient to their POV happily ignore it and then start spinning their own versions of what would possibly be meant by RC when he did not say what was alluded to him being said.

I find it pointless -- I made a point saying simply as follows

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)

To take a simple statement and parse it infinitely to create new meanings from it is not an exercise I wish to participate in.

[amit]

Finally I would like to point out that KS has, to the best of my knowledge, has never personally attacked/vilified RC. This is beginning to look like a case of being more loyal than the King.

Irrespective of what I think of RCs role or not, let us stay away from discussing him personally, it can get quickly out of hand. The thread had to be Sanitized because of this.

This applies to Shiv looking at N.Krishan's comment and speculating on personalities as well, let us follow common standards.

Shiv is guilty of breaking his own code of conduct in my opinion.

Sanku,

Just for record, my post was not directed towards you.

As such you don't have to give me a caveat of what you think about RC or not and how you intend to carry on this debate.

However, if you have a self-imposed personal code of conduct, I can only say I really appreciate you balance,especially considering the kind of posting we've seen on this subject by erstwhile stalwarts.

Cheers!

[Sanku]

I have often wondered about this angle. Even managing a team of 10 people like engineers/scientists is not like running a dictatorship. There would be whole teams doing radio chemical analysis. I would presume it will be very difficult for RC to suppress all the evidences of failure in case there was one.

Csharma you first need to understand the test methods

There are various methods
1) Accelerometers for shock measurements, particularly tailored for the experiment.
2) Seismic signatures in regular pre existing centers for earthquake measurement and such
3) CORRTEX method

On top we have
4) Cavity estimation
5) Radio chemical analysis

The first 3 are instantaneous or nearly so. The other 2 are post shot measurements.

Each will have some error bounds for example 1 can give a figure of 100 +/- 10, 2 can give 100 +/- 20, 3 can give 100 +/- 5 (it is supposed to be accurate) and so on...

The reason many measurements are done is to
1) Confirm measurements of one vs other
2) Have first a rough estimate and then a more accurate one

So you first say that I know the measurement was at least between 80-120, the second one tell you it was actually 95-105.

What is not expected is one saying 50 and the other 500.

So not only data exists for radio chem, it exists for all the others too and by the same logic is available with lot of sources.

Can it be suppressed? Depends on what do you mean by suppression. This data was not for public consumption anyway and most of it is secret and on need to know basis alone. So the head honchos would know, Santy said 500 people came up to congratulate him, so 500 folks did know parts of it to agree with him.

Would they speak to the public? A very different question. How many have seen the Henderson-Brookes report on China and spoken about it publicly?

[amit]

I find it pointless -- I made a point saying simply as follows

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)

Oh yes Sanku good you brought this up again. I did see the original post of yours where you brought these two points up. I didn't have the time to post on this then.

However, my thoughts then and now is that I find it immensely interesting that you are making two camps.

One is the so-called RC camp and the other the Bharat Karnad camp.

Now I find this hugely interesting. RC could be whatever you many like to think of him being. But irrespective of that, he's the guy who designed (that is was part of the design team) the bomb, conducted the tests and is the person (again as part of the core team) who has access to all the relevant data including classified stuff. Finally whatever one may think of his actual abilities, he's a nuclear scientist who has around 20-30 years of experience in nuclear technology and bomb design.

On the other hand Bharat Karnad is a strategic thinker - a very good one at that. But he's not part of the nuclear establishment and as far as I know he's a humanities graduate and certainly has never been anywhere near things remotely connected with nuclear bomb design and such stuff. So whatever information he possesses and whatever opinions he has formed are based on second-hand (or maybe even third-hand) information.

Yet you pitch the two worthies against each other as representing the two camps.

A few questions on this:

1) Who is BK's source of information? I mean someone had to tell BK that look, POK2 was a dud as otherwise how would BK know?

2) RC on the other hand would not need anyone to tell him whether POK2 was a dud or a success.

3) Given the above two how can you put BK in the same level as RC (not in terms of prestige or jingoism or such) in this debate? One is using second hand information when he is saying POK2 was a dud and the other is using firsthand information when he is saying POK2 is a thud. (Let's keep assumption of lying or otherwise out of this).

So as a lay observer who would you tend to believe has more accurate information?

Finally back to the most important question: Who is BK's source?

[csharma]

Sanku, I get what you are saying. Didn't the point by point rebuttal say that DRDO measurements had some anomaly and BARC data was picked as the right one. It is a question of whom to believe.

Maybe we should wait for Santhanam to come up with more evidence as he has promised to do after three weeks. If some more scientists who were involved in the measurements or design from the BARC side corroborate what Santhanam is saying, it will add more weight to his arguments.

[amit]

Csharma you first need to understand the test methods

There are various methods
1) Accelerometers for shock measurements, particularly tailored for the experiment.
2) Seismic signatures in regular pre existing centers for earthquake measurement and such
3) CORRTEX method

Sanku,

A few points. I pointed out in the previous avatar of this thread KS has never claimed that the Cortex measurement which is supposed to be the second most accurate measure after the radiochem was under DRDO.

In fact BARC/DAE has categorically said Cortex was measured by DAE. You did point out to a KS article where he said various fibre optic cables were used. But Cortex does not need to be fibre optic and is just one cable not several. Accelerometres however, have several cables fitted on them to send the information at the speed of light before they are destroyed and being fibre optic helps as they can send much more information in the milliseconds before they are destroyed by the explosion.

So the head honchos would know, Santy said 500 people came up to congratulate him, so 500 folks did know parts of it to agree with him.

Good you brought up this KS claim of 500 BARC folks had phoned him to congratulate him. (It must be over phone as otherwise there would have been a traffic jam in front of his residence). I remember when this information first came up I did a hugely entertaining bit of calculation. I suggest you try in in your spare time also.

You see KS said all the 500 folks rang him up in one day. Now calculate at what intervals each call has to come in to fit in a 24 hour cycle (let's not even take into consideration that folks are unlikely to call after 12 midnight)? And then how long does that leave for each call? The folks who called him must have said something like: "Hey KS good show". Bang put the phone down and then next call.

Seriously please don't use the 500 calls data point. I think even KS got a bit carried away with that one.

[dipak]

This is third part of POK -II not fully successful: Scientist thread.

In the due course, the discussion has been consistently changed from 'Not fully successful tests' (S-1) to 'Do We Need TN at all?'

This has branched out to a new thread, 'Deterrence'.

If the current trend suggests something, it appears that it will not be long before the debate would change to 'do we need nukes at all?'

Probably, a new thread in future, like 'Why India need deterrent - return to Panchsheel'

Gandhi still rules. Japan model not far away, thanks MMS.

[Sanku]

However, my thoughts then and now is that I find it immensely interesting that you are making two camps.

One is the so-called RC camp and the other the Bharat Karnad camp.

Look when I made camps, I added so to say, which means it is not about personalities etc but thoughts that have been associated with known people.

This classification is merely an illustrative device to show two points of views and some main proponents.

That's it. There is no reason to dissect my classification, I would not say its more than an illustrative example myself and least of all it is not based on appeal to those two personalities.

So I will stay away from that one debate.

[Sanku]

In fact BARC/DAE has categorically said Cortex was measured by DAE. You did point out to a KS article where he said various fibre optic cables were used. But Cortex does not need to be fibre optic and is just one cable not several.

Corrtex does not need fiber optic but can be done by fiber optic. We also know from as far back as 1998 that CORRTEX was done. We also know that KS said that he handled ALL on site instrumentation (whether DRDO or BARC is not my debate as far as I am concerned KS is a man of both)

Given all that, I am confident that CORRTEX was done and KS knew of its data.

Good you brought up this KS claim of 500 BARC folks had phoned him to congratulate him. (It must be over phone as otherwise there would have been a traffic jam in front of his residence). I remember when this information first came up I did a hugely entertaining bit of calculation. I suggest you try in in your spare time also.

IMVHO Irrelevant, the main point is that there are a lot of folks in BARC who share this (unless you are calling Santy a liar) this is not yield calculation, and does not matter if 473 people called him over a period of 24.5 hours or not.

The point stays.

[Gagan]

From the above list of monitoring of the tests, Santhanam had access to all but the radiochem analysis. That is like 4 out of 5 data sources.

IIRC there were also high speed cameras being mentioned in a India Today article right after the tests. Could they also not provide info about the behaviour of the device?

[Gagan]

OK 500 people couldn't have called him. But what if a group which represents 500 people calls him up assuring him of unanimous support for his stand.

I will still give KS the benefit of the doubt and not criticize him over this obvious exaggeration.

[amit]

Given all that, I am confident that CORRTEX was done and KS knew of its data.

You may have all the confidence in the world Sanku, I have no quarrel with that.

But since we are dealing with facts, the fact is BARC/DAE has said that Cortex was done by DAE and not by DRDO. KS and his camp has not categorically denied the BARC/DAE claim, neither has he and his supporters claimed categorically (or otherwise) that Cortex was done by DRDO. In fact as far as I know KS has not even brought up Cortex when he talked about instrumentation under DRDO, he has only said that his instruments worked perfectly, something which BARC/DAE has contested.

Given that, I hope you will forgive me if I don't put too much weightage to your confidence.

(unless you are calling Santy a liar)

Another Strawman?

[amit]

From the above list of monitoring of the tests, Santhanam had access to all but the radiochem analysis. That is like 4 out of 5 data sources.

Sorry but not correct Gagan. All public information so far says that DRDO did not conduct or have access to Cortex data. KS has certainly not claimed he has access to Cortex, Sanku is just making an assumption based on the claim that KS was in charge of all instrumentation. (Incidentally if we take this line of thinking then he should have been in charge of radochem measurements also, nah?)

Given that Radiochem and Cortex are the top two most accurate measurements, it seems that DRDO did not have access to them both.

This not to say that KS is not right, he may well right and POK TN was a dud but fact are as they are. Beyond that at this point of time the rest is speculation.

[amit]

OK 500 people couldn't have called him. But what if a group which represents 500 people calls him up assuring him of unanimous support for his stand.

I will still give KS the benefit of the doubt and not criticize him over this obvious exaggeration.

Gagan,

My intention is not to cast aspersions on KS. It could well be as you said. But my point is we cannot use KS' off the cuff remark of 500 BRAC folks calling him in one day to support him as some sort of irrefutable data point - a clinching argument that BARC as an institution was unhappy with POK2.

I mean if that's a strong data point then I must say everything else must be really weak in the case for dud TN explosion.

JMT

[geeth]

>>>OK 500 people couldn't have called him. But what if a group which represents 500 people calls him up assuring him of unanimous support for his stand.

Yeah! And this gang of 500 HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE /ACCESS TO THE TEST DATA. AND THEY KNEW FROM THE DATA THAT S1 FAILED. HENCE THEY CALLED UP SANTANAM AND ASSURED THEIR FULL SUPPORT FOR HIS STAND!!!

Flight of imagination, I must say.

[Gagan]

Bhaiyon aur behenon,
What we are discussing here in BRF with open source info that is in bits and pieces does not provide the complete picture, also includes misinformation.

The insiders at BARC, the nuclear scientific community know what is the real status of the tests and the subsequent state of the deterrence. Within an organization news always flows.

So if KS says that several people called him up to express support, and these people belong to the nuclear scientific community, I think that info itself has some value, don't dismiss it. Though I agree, it doesn't contribute to the technical aspects of the discussions here.

[Sanku]

Given all that, I am confident that CORRTEX was done and KS knew of its data.

You may have all the confidence in the world Sanku, I have no quarrel with that.

But since we are dealing with facts, the fact is BARC/DAE has said that Cortex was done by DAE and not by DRDO.

You are wrong, and you will not be able to google up links to support your claim either.

In fact many of your data points are plain wrong but you refuse to look at that.

[shiv]

This is third part of POK -II not fully successful: Scientist thread.

In the due course, the discussion has been consistently changed from 'Not fully successful tests' (S-1) to 'Do We Need TN at all?'

This has branched out to a new thread, 'Deterrence'.

If the current trend suggests something, it appears that it will not be long before the debate would change to 'do we need nukes at all?'

Probably, a new thread in future, like 'Why India need deterrent - return to Panchsheel'

Gandhi still rules. Japan model not far away, thanks MMS.

With respect - I have heard others (apart from you) express what seems to be "concern" that people may ask "Do we need nukes at all?".

Could you nuke a good case for nukes yourself? Suppose I say - the world actually does not need nuclear weapons - which as I am sure you know is a "very civilized and desirable viewpoint"? The world really does not need nukes does it - we must try to rid the world of nukes no? That is what much of the world seems to be saying.

What is the case for more and bigger nukes? What is the case for nukes?

[Sanku]

OK 500 people couldn't have called him. But what if a group which represents 500 people calls him up assuring him of unanimous support for his stand.

I will still give KS the benefit of the doubt and not criticize him over this obvious exaggeration.

Gagan,

My intention is not to cast aspersions on KS. It could well be as you said. But my point is we cannot use KS' off the cuff remark of 500 BRAC folks calling him in one day to support him as some sort of irrefutable data point - a clinching argument that BARC as an institution was unhappy with POK2.

I mean if that's a strong data point then I must say everything else must be really weak in the case for dud TN explosion.

JMT

Its unnecessary parsing, unless people are saying Santy is lying, the main point is that enough people in BARC knew and they support Santy.

No need for polemics.

[amit]

Bhaiyon aur behenon,
What we are discussing here in BRF with open source info that is in bits and pieces does not provide the complete picture, also includes misinformation.

The insiders at BARC, the nuclear scientific community know what is the real status of the tests and the subsequent state of the deterrence. Within an organization news always flows.

So if KS says that several people called him up to express support, and these people belong to the nuclear scientific community, I think that info itself has some value, don't dismiss it. Though I agree, it doesn't contribute to the technical aspects of the discussions here.

Gagan,

On the face of it your logic is very sound. But if we take that to its logical conclusion you have on the one hand RC claiming the tests were a success, you have AK and Sikka, who are no lightweights concurring. Then you have various other folks doing the same. If BK can be brought as a witness for the prosecution I see no reason why K Subramaniam saab can't be a witness for the defendants?

This can go on, this person supports this group and hence this lends credibility. That person supports the opposing group and that lend that group credibility etc.

I guess we shouldn't go up that path. Rather we should concentrate on the data that is coming in drips and dribs. For example Radio chem and Cortex was done by DAE and DRDO.

JMT

[amit]

You are wrong, and you will not be able to google up links to support your claim either.

In fact many of your data points are plain wrong but you refuse to look at that.

This point was discussed in the previous thread and Ramana even gave a long and detailed post on this. Now if you haven't read them that's your problem.

I don't really care if you think I'm wrong - I've stopped worrying about such minor things a long a time ago.

However, instead of preaching from the pulpit why don't you post some links which show that DRDO conducted the Cortex measurements?

[Sanku]

From the above list of monitoring of the tests, Santhanam had access to all but the radiochem analysis. That is like 4 out of 5 data sources.

(Incidentally if we take this line of thinking then he should have been in charge of radochem measurements also, nah?)

No online measurements at test site and post shot perparation are two very obvious different things. No such extrapolation has been made by me and would obviously not be made by me.

Ascribing your extrapolation as coming from others thinking is the favorite sport on BRF these days, but one which riles me no end.

Meanwhile Santy has said that DRDO HAS the wherewithal to conduct it independently IF needed. He has also said that he does not have data for Radiochem

He has explicity said he has access to all online measurements.

I dont understand whats so difficult about these things.

And all the above assertions have been corroborated by links.

I see this as plain refusal to see the writing on the wall since it goes against some manufactured theories that people love to have. Just after data is posted folks disappear into hiding, then after some time thinking that it has been forgotten and thread moved on, come back and post the discredited theories once more.

[Sanku]

You are wrong, and you will not be able to google up links to support your claim either.

In fact many of your data points are plain wrong but you refuse to look at that.

This point was discussed in the previous thread and Ramana even gave a long and detailed post on this. Now if you haven't read them that's your problem.

I don't really care if you think I'm wrong - I've stopped worrying about such minor things a long a time ago.

However, instead of preaching from the pulpit why don't you post some links which show that DRDO conducted the Cortex measurements?

No you are wrong, you dont understand what ramana wrote, you probably cant understand what he wrote but that is my guess. I have posted links -- and your reply is "it doesnt say the word corrtex" that is the extent of your understanding unfortunately.

Meanwhile you claimed

the fact is BARC/DAE has said that Cortex was done by DAE and not by DRDO

Prove!!

Mean while you seem to not understand the meaning of accurate either.

Accurate means lower error bounds so if test 1 which is less accurate give 80-120, the more accurate will give 95-105 range.

Your definition of accurate seems to be test 1 will give 50 and test 2 will give 100.

That is not accuracy, that is correctness.

Accuracy can only bring you closer in a margin not take you outside.

[Gagan]

DRDO did prepare a separate report on the tests and submitted it to GoI. Not only would KS have had access, he would have contributed majorly to any such report.

The difference between the two claimed yields is HUGE. it is 45 vs 25 KT.

The latter figure blends in very nicely with the fizzle argument.

[Sanku]

The difference between the two claimed yields is HUGE. it is 45 vs 25 KT.

The latter figure blends in very nicely with the fizzle argument.

Precisely this is not a accuracy argument -- it is correctness argument.

[amit]

No you are wrong, you dont understand what ramana wrote, you probably cant understand what he wrote but that is my guess. I have posted links -- and your reply is "it doesnt say the word corrtex" that is the extent of your understanding unfortunately.

So you resort to personal attacks?

Meanwhile you claimed

the fact is BARC/DAE has said that Cortex was done by DAE and not by DRDO

Prove!!

I like this holier than thou tone. Usually folks with very little evidence use that.

Well M'Lord, here's the proof:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=742883#p742883

[Added later: Please read the items in blue Sanku ji, I know you have a tendency to speed read and hence my advice.]

Mean while you seem to not understand the meaning of accurate either.

Again a personal attack?

Bah!

Meanwhile can we again have a look at the links which you were supposed to have provided which showed that Cortex was done by DRDO?

Thanks in advance Sanku ji

[amit]

DRDO did prepare a separate report on the tests and submitted it to GoI. Not only would KS have had access, he would have contributed majorly to any such report.

The difference between the two claimed yields is HUGE. it is 45 vs 25 KT.

The latter figure blends in very nicely with the fizzle argument.

It sure does Gagan. It also blends in very nicely to what "international experts" claimed was the yield. Perhaps we should follow A P Gopalakrishnan's advice and call in the "international experts" to find out the truth.

[geeth]

>>>Its unnecessary parsing, unless people are saying Santy is lying, the main point is that enough people in BARC knew and they support Santy.

Support to Santanam need not be from THE KNOWLEDGE OF TEST DATA. People could support Santanam for a variety of reasons like :

1. Oh! he is a jolly good fella! he can't be wrong, So let me express my support.
2. KS has helped me so much in my career..let me take this opportunity to show my gratitude.
3. He was part of the team, so he must be knowing what he talks. Let me show my solidarity with him.
4. I am a friend of PKI. Since PKI is supporting KS, let me also support him.
5. I hate that 'bugger' RC. I care a damn whether KS is right or wrong. Just to scr*w RC let me support KS.
6. This guy RC is holding the office for so long...he must have something to hide. No wonder KS is singing now. Let me support KS..that would be a safer bet.
7. ................
8. ................
9. ................
.
.
.

[Sanku]

Proof

This

Splitting atoms, not hairs
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Splitting ... 56942.aspx

As per this report DRDO was not responsible for CORRTEX and hence KS is relying only on ‘so claimed’ faulty accelerometer readings...

is proof?

K Sanathanan director of test site preparation has come out before and after these articles in the press and said openly that he has all the online data meausrement and the report by ONE journalist raising points which has been publicly refuted by KS later (after the objections were published) becomes proof?

Well MKN already said that KS was out of loop and has no idea anyway, so if we take that as proof what are we discussing.

Meanwhile please feel free to link any statement by RC or BARC saying that they had CORRTEX which KS did not see, because hey KS is on record saying he saw all onsite online data.

Meanwhile my statement that "I think you havent understood and probably cant understand what Ramana said" is NOT a personal attack, please sir.

Ramana explained the fiber optic test a hydrodynamic method, with the same article you post as proof says

c) hydrodynamic-CORRTEX.

They are same !!! Different terminologies.

Santy said that Kalam can not understand what he is saying? Was that a "personal attack"? (Irrespective of whether he is right or wrong this does not qualify as personal attack)

Meanwhile can we again have a look at the links which you were supposed to have provided which showed that Cortex was done by DRDO?

No as I said, not answering who Sita was after 1000 readings of Ramayana. Please go back and look in thread you will find my posts there.

I have said the following
1) CORRTEX was done is known in 98 (link from 98 was posted)
2) Posted link to KS article in which he says that he was intimately involved with all tests on the site as well as wepon desgin
3) The same link talks of advanced fiber optic based measurements which WE KNOW is a technique for CORRTEX.

He does not use the word CORRTEX or Hydrodynamic.

However it passes the duck test for CORRTEX by flying colors.

But dont let that stop you -- you claimed twice after articles were posted that KS does not know the Weapon design. It had to be posted once again to show that was not the case.

I am not obliged to correct your understanding every time you feel the time is right to revisit "who is Sita" after 1001 rendition of Ramayana.

[Sanku]

>>>Its unnecessary parsing, unless people are saying Santy is lying, the main point is that enough people in BARC knew and they support Santy.

Support to Santanam need not be from THE KNOWLEDGE OF TEST DATA. People could support Santanam for a variety of reasons like :

.

Possible, I would not say that is conclusively means that all those who called him for support know the data for sure.

But then this is speculation clearly, to be seen in context of answering another speculation as to whether people knew but didn't say because the data shows RC is correct.

Countering speculation with speculation.

[geeth]

>>>Countering speculation with speculation.

yes, through 125 pages..and still counting.

[Sanku]

>>>Countering speculation with speculation.

yes, through 125 pages..and still counting.

Yes, given that any credibility of test is now in tatters we will have only speculation left.

However it is pretty clear that GoI has not said any thing more than "trust us it worked" to assuage any of the technical points that KS raised.

In fact now we have articles on how FBF is okay, followed by how even 25 Kt is okay.

A rapid downhill skiing of position on deterrence.

Meanwhile the clamor in the Military and other strategic space for a different approach to nuclear doctrine grows.

[amit]

K Sanathanan director of test site preparation has come out before and after these articles in the press and said openly that he has all the online data meausrement and the report by ONE journalist raising points which has been publicly refuted by KS becomes proof?

So you equate G. Balachandran with any DDM journalist?

I guess its par for the course for a person who would rather believe Manoj Joshi.

Meanwhile please feel free to link any statement by RC or BARC saying that they had CORRTEX which KS did not see, because hey KS is on record saying he saw all onsite online data.

So now you want to less a person than RC to state that Cortex was done by DAE and not DRDO?

Shifting of goalposts?

I tell you what, RC being the person he is ain't going to open his mouth. Why don't you take the trouble for old times sake and pull out the links which you claimed to have provided which shows KS said Cortex was under DRDO?

Actually that would be more credible than RC saying it because if you believe RC then you could make it much simpler and just believed him when he said POK was a success, nah?

Meanwhile my statement that "I think you havent understood and probably cant understand what Ramana said" is NOT a personal attack, please sir.

You know something? I think you don't know what you are talking about Sir and hence you are generating so much noise. This is NOT a personal attack on you, please note, Sir.

Just to refresh your memory and for records sake this is what G Balachandran worte:

There are a number of ways of estimating nuclear test yields. Some on-site, some off-site; some off-site estimates that require data on the geology of the test site, and some that do not. The on-site methods are a) radiochemical analysis; b) close-in ground motion; c) hydrodynamic-CORRTEX. The off-site methods are seismic estimates using a) surface wave characteristics; independent of test-site geology data; b) body wave characteristics requiring some on-site geological data and c) using Lg wave characteristics requiring some on-site geological data.

Each of the above methods has its own estimate error. In terms of accuracy, the radiochemical analysis offers the best estimates. This was the method used by the United States estimating the yield of their nuclear devices. The Hydrodynamic (CORRTEX) and ground-in motion estimates rank second in their accuracy.

And:

As in all experiments, the success of the effort depends much on the instruments used and the calibration of these instruments. While Santhanam is on record as stating that the DRDO’s calibrations “were acknowledged to [have met international standards] by the BARC [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre]”, it’s a matter of record that much before the tests, the DAE had strongly questioned both the sensitivity of the DRDO instruments and their calibration and these had not been agreed to by the DAE. So, it’s not surprising to find the DAE and DRDO estimates not matching each other.

However, notwithstanding the fact that the DAE had used all six methods of estimation of nuclear yields, and that the DRDO had used only one method and that too under circumstances that were questioned by the DAE before the tests, it should be possible to resolve the issue by placing all the pre-test and post-test data before a group of Indian scientists qualified to judge all elements involved — the pre-test instrumentation sensitivity and calibration methods and the post-test data and charts — to come to the relative correctness of the two estimates.

Now prove G Balachandran is factually in accurate. The rest is just noise.

[shiv]

After 127 pages of discussion on this subject I am presuming that a lot of people did a lot more Wiki-ing like I did.

So tell me your views folks

If India were to test again - in say the next 6 months and assume that India would not be able to test again for another 10 year or more and assuming you are responsible for the scientific goals and political "success" of the test

Since no one appears interested in the few hour these q have been online I will take a shot at them myself and hopefully make the answers provocative enough to see what others feel

1) What would the goals of the tests be?

• a)Scientific goals
  b)Political goals

I would base the scientific goals on the premise that the maximum amount of information should be gleaned from this limited series. There is no time for radical design changes. The focus will be on data that will be useful to measure the efficiency of fission and fusion in a few designs and the collection of data to build weapons in the absence of testing.

If the politicians (whose order I take and whose funds I depend on) ask for a large thermonuclear test I would plan for one test of approx 100-200 kt. initially

The political signal that a new series of tests would send out are that India is moving contrary to the stated intent of the P5 and most non nuclear (but nuclear capable) states in the world except a few such as Pakistan. North Korea and Iran. It would also mean that India is now convinced that its deterrent is insufficient or unworkable after the last series of tests and that its statements of credibility till 2009 are suspect.This round is being done to correct that. It also means that if this round of tests is declared successful - it will still take India several years to weaponise and build a credible deterrent which India is openly admitting as being insufficient - offering a great chance for concerned powers to squeeze India militarily or economically so that as many hurdles are put in the path of developing the deterrent as possible.

There is no political signal that I can think of that will work other than open and brazen threats/tests by China or some other state being used as an excuse for testing.

2) How many tests? Spread out over how many days?

Maybe 2 series of 2-4 tests each - spaced a week apart

3) Where would you do the tests?

• a)Underground
  b)Atmospheric
  c)Underwater

Ground di andar

4)if you design underground tests, would you use the knowledge you have gained from 1998 regarding how people view seismological data and crater sizes to dictate the depth at which you do your tests? If so what would you seek to achieve so that crater sizes (via satellite photos) are not used against your planned goals? And what specific measures would you use to ensure that seismological data is not used against your planned goals?

I would test them so deep that there would be no (or minimal) surface changes. I would not give a damn about seismology except to register what others say versus the readings I got. The tests are being done for MY data collection - not for "Log seismo dekh ke kya kahenge". The tests are being dome openly and not to send anyone any coded seismo messages.

5) Would you announce tests beforehand or not?

Yes announce

6) If you do not plan to announce, how would you ensure that preparations are kept secret?

N/A

7) In case of doubts being raised by someone or the other regarding your claims what measures would you institute beforehand to ensure that all doubts can be clarified? Where would you "draw the line" for doubters i.e which doubters would you exclude as unimportant or a security threat? What would constitute a security threat?

After having decided the team and the reviewers before hand I would not give a damn about any doubters.

8) How long would you expect the analysis of the series of tests to last until all doubts are cleared with all colors of ribbons and shades of beard expended in analysis? On what would you base this estimate of time - i.e what specific test analysis and data would take the longest time?

2-3 months - the radiochem boring would take time

9) If the tests are deemed a failure after all that what would you plan to do about it given that you have been warned beforehand that only one more series of tests is politically possible? What parameters based on initial planed goals would you use to decide honestly whether your tests were a success or a failure? What minimum goals to be met for planned tests?

Not a lot can be done. If I have been clever enough to plan my tests with fallbacks/alternatives - I would resolve t follow those routes and inform my bosses accordingly. This is a sensitive political topic. All public statements by me would be done only in consultation with my political bosses.

10) What designs and concepts would you seek to test?

World ender
Universe blaster
Pakistan screwer
Chinese chucker

[Sanku]

Now prove G Balachandran is factually in accurate. The rest is just noise.

As I said, MKN has already said that KS was out of the loop. Now that if that is proof I have nothing else to say.

Meanwhile KS has contradicted them explicitly. since then we have clear rebuttals from him -- point by point

Those rebuttals are yet unanswered.

That is MY proof.

Meanwhile allow me to say that I have not personally
1) Seen the shaft
2) Seen the accelerometers
3) seen the DRDO reports

So I can not provide first hand report from that. However I have seen a public article by Santy saying how the points raised by MKN and in the media against him are wrong.

After his last assertion -- none of his points are refuted.

For proof on the BRF level of discussion I would expect

A clear pointwise statement by GoI establishment directly on how the points raised by KS are wrong.

If you see even GoI has stopped its character assassination and KS does not know tactic of brushing away KSs statement and moved on to "trust us we know"

So your claims that KS does not know when he has said that he does know are not old hat, not even used by RC et al.

[Sanku]

Since no one appears interested in the few hour these q have been online I will take a shot at them myself and hopefully make the answers provocative enough to see what others feel

No I wanted to answer, just that too many threads that I have choosen to get myself into and hence it slipped.

I would start by answering the last question first though -- on a different thread please?

[harbans]

PKI was'nt questioning the yield itself but the fusion: fission ratio or the efficiency of the fusion part itself. Anyway here's a link, apologies if posted earlier:

Irrespective of the unwarranted fallout of the controversy, it is important to know the exact situation with regard to the yield of the Pokhran-II tests even if the evidence is not enough to settle the issue. The only data pertaining to the tests that are globally available are the seismic signals. On the other hand, data from the other close-in measurements, namely, on-site accelerometer measurements of the ground acceleration, CORRTEX (Continuous Reflectometry for Radius vs Time Experiment) measurement of the two-way transit time (TWTT) of an electric pulse through a coaxial cable (which determines the strength of the advancing shock front from the explosion as a measure of the explosive yield), and the analysis of radioactivity in the explosion debris are available only to the agencies involved in the tests. In fact, the radiochemical data and the capacity to analyse them – considered the most accurate means to calculate the yield – exist with the DAE only. It is reliably learnt that though on May 11, 1998, the DRDO set up its own accelerometer to measure the ground acceleration, the instrument malfunctioned and did not record the associated waveform correctly. An independent internal check in this regard, outside the DAE, would have been possible if this had worked. Much of the controversy with respect to the test yields has, therefore, naturally arisen from the seismic data, which were the first to be recorded over the global seismic networks as signatures of an underground nuclear explosion.

http://www.partnershipforglobalsecurity ... AM.html#2C

Seems DAE and DRDO both set up accelerometers for measurement, and there is conflict based on Seismic and online accelerometer data collected by DAE and DRDO instruments. But if the DRDO Instrument calibration was doubted before the tests itself, then the DAE instruments along with the radiological data would or should be considered accurate..JMT/

[shiv]

Two young friends of mine were arguing in the school bus 40 years ago. Both were in Std 3.

Deepak: I'll bash you
Rohinton: No I'll bash you
Deepak: I'll call my father
Rohinton: I'll call my father
Deepak: My father can bash yours
Rohinton: My father can bash whole world
Deepak: My father will bring a sword
Rohinton: My father will bring a cannon
Deepak: My father will bring a tank
Rohinton: My father will bring a fire engine
Deepak: The tank will burst the fire engine
Rohinton: The fire engine will burn the tank
Fauja Singh: (bus driver) "Arre bahen di - baith ja saala - maar khana hai kya.."

Sadly Fauja's rant never settled the issue of whether Deepak would bash Rohinton or vice versa. The argument had veered to whose support who would get and what that supporter would bring.

Alas - for a time machine..

[amit]

<Self-deleted. Don't want to start another series of pointless posts>

[amit]

A clear pointwise statement by GoI establishment directly on how the points raised by KS are wrong.

Err pardon my asking Sanku ji but haven't you heard the AK and RC programme on NDTV and read it's transcript? I think you must have been away.