Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 09 Oct 2009 00:12

Well I am probably going to move on from this thread unless something new and exciting comes up.

The thread now reminds me of a dunken man who was hanging from a live cable when something earthed him. He was fried in an instant and his body fell leaving his empty coat on the wire, flapping in a the wind. making a pale parody of the man's antics before he was shaheedized.

I hope I may quote you without running into strictures.

Post I was making this morning became shaheed either through the kindness of some mod or my own failure to hit "post".
But to summarize yet again:

S1 and S2 may have been at different depths, but were within about a km of each other. The village and the Logistics Base were about 4 km away. S1+S2 were triggered simultaneously. The shaking caused visible damage. Had the yields of either S1 or S2 been substantially greater than what occurred, the damage would have been extremely severe, and the shaking would very probably have reached levels where multiple deaths have occurred with earthquakes in Italy and Australia in recent times.

The POK-2 team had 24 years to figure out exactly what input at S1+S2 could be tolerated without major damage at Khetolai. They had data from 1974, simulations to match those data, ground instrumentation tests, and more modeling.

Children at Khetolai were outdoors at test time, in order to avoid even the minimal risk of a schoolhouse collapse (which occurred in Italy due to construction flaws in a comparable earthquake but killed some 30 kids just the same). Khetolai is not even over the horizon from S1-S2 because typically one can see some 4 miles to the horizon from the height of a tall person. So any radioactive venting at S1-S2 would have caused serious radiation injury to the kids. The designers were not going to risk that in any way.

So it is very clear that the tests were constrained by this very simple and visible criterion, as the test designers, the test coordinator K.S. Santanam, and all the BARC and DRDO ppl who spoke in May 1998 made very clear. Given the pictures and reality of some damage, it is beyond doubt then that

Yield from S1+S2 was NOT LESS THAN Design Yield from S1+S2.

No amount of guessed data however technically deep, can achieve the simple closed-form proof that the above achieves. It does not do any good for people to ignore it, call it a "red herring" (I guess there's a preponderence of those in the Thar desert, as much as camels in Britain), insist on Immunity From Posts Being Rebutted, etc. etc. etc.

The simple truth survives after some 1800 posts, like an A-Frame and Winch surviving the desert hot air, heaving ground and flying debris at Ground Zero. Satyam Eva Jayate.

Thanks, shiv, for patiently digging out the truth and batting back the endless waves of convoluted techno-babble based on 99% precise, 100% uncertain "data" with simple logic without losing your sense of humor. Hard act to follow!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Oct 2009 00:38

the village of khetolai population was mere 1200 for the year 1998, which is puny by ISI marks. If we had wanted, we could have relocated them, but it was not done for a purpose.

..the point is, the expense to reconstruct houses for 1200 is well within our range., and not national importance can hamper a new site for these honourable families. Or a jatra for these village folks would have lead lock, stock and barrel to a place of worship while bharath maatha shrugged to tell the p5 world, shut up and listen to us, else, we might have to exceed the power of p5 with only one-p button.

and guess what the school principal at khetolai said when our nuke engineers told him to keep his school kids out of the building for few hours everyday given a time window, he said: "Dont worry, we know you are going to do another test. WE ARE FULLY BEHIND YOU". The purpose is to keep the CIA at bay.

..the double point is, we beleive we can do it.., it is not to doubt on our capability. it is just to make sure, we don't need another one before completly and blindly sign the CTBT etc. Again, the perspective is entirely political onlee.

the triple point is, the discussions can't end by saying we did it., just because we at BR consider it is done., when the whole premise of discussions were outside BR, and most importantly, we lost a bunch of important jingoistic web pages to boast about. it is sad to note that the truth is not what is reflected here.

again, nothing is called for the truth.. but the projections matters.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Oct 2009 01:05

Tanaji wrote:
I am aware that it is bad fashion to ask for reference, but for old coots like me, can I trouble you for the link? Bing or google for your quote did not yield much.

Lot of references everywhere

http://www.indiaresearch.org/India_at_S ... _eBook.pdf
http://www.pdf-search-engine.com/islam- ... d-pdf.html

There is entire forum discussing these issues
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... topic=1080

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 09 Oct 2009 02:02

All OT posts moved out to Either Forum Feedback or Main site feedback. or to Nukkad Teyeece

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 09 Oct 2009 02:04

SaiK, you are completely right in why Khetolai wasn't moved, nor were S1/S2 moved. And the consequence of that decision was that the yield had to be very severely curtailed. But again, the point is that it wasn't a "fizzle" - it yielded almost too much for what was planned.

I am by no means saying that India should sign CTBT or any T on the basis of one marginal fusion demonstration. But by marginal I mean that very little fusion yield could be accomodated within the constraints of POK-2.

On the other hand, the govt scientists are quite right to be proud that the yield was very close to their predictions. So they know that at least in that range, they know they can produce fusion yield. So I will believe that some more scale-up will occur with no problem. But order-of-magnitude scale-up always involves new things that may mess up predictions, and there it is right that Santanam et al raise national consciousness by pointing out that 27KT or 40KT is not the same as 400KT or 1MT.

Does India need 1MT? My OPINION is no, but that is strictly only opinion based on technology / countermeasures forecasting. Does India need 300KT? Some people made impassioned arguments for that level, but when pressed were not really able to defend that demand. It gets into a tradeoff between CEP and weapon size and weapon numbers. So that is better left to a chai-biskoot between the missile CEP experts, the ABM experts (for numbers needed to survive), fissile material supply experts, and bomb designers and intelligence experts. Way too many variables, and high possibility of failure in every choice.

*: On this point, there is a big debate going on at some western forum, with a "I WAS a NUCLEAR SUBMARINE SIGNAL PRINTOUT SENTRY SEPOY AND THEREFORE EXPERT ON ALL THINGS NUCLEAR" arguing that Arihant with 17kT nukes and 16m CEP is vastly more destabilizing and constitutes a blatant First Strike threat from India, vs. the 450KT, 1 km CEP nukes carried by US Trident subs, which are purely defensive and totally benign.

Where he got the 16m CEP I do not know. But since he was mainly arguing with another Western Expert who was counseling India to love Pakistan and fear the Al Qaeda (" have you forgotten Mumbai already?") this was all very compatible with the general level of intelligence typical of western nuclear/ security policy forum discussions.

Can a SDRE nation with puny 43KT bombs frighten a TFTA Power with 4MT rockets? I think yes. The real question is whether the SDRE has enough really puny 1KT missiles to stop any invasion plans by the 4MT-carrying giant, since the 4MT is irrelevant through MAD, ABM and numbers of 43KT scattered on Arihants etc.

Anyway, I have no very strong opinions on any of these, except that simple fact. Actual Yield of S1+S2 . NLT. Design yield. So talk of "fizzle" is not viable.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Oct 2009 02:23

triple n guru, there are experts to counter fizzle or part burn, but thats entirely technical where i have no clue what it is. w.r.t to the need of a requirement of second strike, depends on our nfu doctrine I guess. what did our doctrine said few years ago, ( have not read it lately for any changes) I am still thinking it is still against "any country that attacks us"... thats a scary doctrine in itself to be so abstract on our nfu doctrine.

clearly means, we are talking big! else, we need revisit our wordings and say, its only country specific defence doctrine.. and that is precisely we are avoiding to avoid disturbing bilaterals and panchasheel agreements., but it gives different values to our preparedness if we think only p5 in the "any".

imho, we are caught on our nfu doctrine tail and we can't let go off it. we may be poised to answer some of these questions.

E & OE.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 09 Oct 2009 02:57

Deterrent: Is political will. Not 20 Kt or 50 Mt. Makes no difference. Why?

The more rationally one argues on deterrence, the lesser the value of the deterrent.

I like Krishna Uvacha in BG to Arjun. Wipe them out. So if an ideology seeks India's destruction, wipe out the people associated with that ideology. Every one who swears and sweats by it. Every one. Where ever they exist. We fight against a doctrine. Not individuals.

Till one does'nt understand doctrine at core, one will never know what we are supposed to wipe out. So hitting cities with innocents is no deterrent. Even with mT bombs.

Idea is to make sure your doctrine and core values succeed. Even if there is not a single SDRE left.

Doctrine is core. To defend and eliminate. Color, Caste, Race is immaterial.

With Nuclear weapons use, one must be clear what doctrine one is defending or in offensive against.

Period.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Oct 2009 03:20

^^^ Thank you Harbans-ji!

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 09 Oct 2009 05:07

Ramayji, the world won a fine victory in WW1 and then WW2 over fascists and totalitarians. But did the victors wipe out the fascists/ fascism? No. After 60 million people killed during that period, the world did'nt care to wipe out that doctrine from the face of the planet. Innocents sufered again. Under Mao, Stalin, Yahya Khan, Pol Pot. They wiped out another 100 million amongst them after the world claimed victory.

Pakistan and China are products of the same totalitarian ideology. Pakistan wants parity with India on the nuke deal, but cries out loud when the KL Bill for aid, sermonizing civilian mandate on the military is put as a condition.

We like the WW2 victors, are more interested in achieving H&D type victory and arming ourselves to that ideal, rather than wiping the source of misery, that can be done much easier.

Identify these sources of misery and the ideology that espouses that misery. Attack that. Relentlessly. Attack that doctrine every forum. Kill it without nukes. Kill the sources that prevent us attacking ideology/ doctrine. Prevent free speech being censored to protect doctrine. Doctrines MUST be subject to criticism. That ONLY will prevent use of nuclear weapons.

Wherever shallow people want to limit free speech whether against Hindu's, Xians, Sikhs, Muslims it must be resisted. If China resists it must be resisted. Whatever way. We are failing in our doctrinal initiative.

But then whats our doctrine we want to defend anyways? Can we be clear on that? Can members on this forum have a consensus on what doctrine we seek to defend. Or what doctrine we must develop the political will to stand up completely against?

Using nuclear weapons is murdering people. Innocents too. That brings the burden of Karma of murder on who uses or authorizes the weapons use. MMS is incapable of use of such weapons. Modi maybe. All or most of our politicians will BLINK/ not use weapons even if we are hit first, whether we possess KT or MT weapons. Fact. Consensus will always be built on doctrinal defense. It must exist on that to have tooth. Even if you're armed withe MT weapons and don't possess the motivation to use them..it's lost.

Nukes will be used only for doctrinal domination, not small time land grabs. Small time land grabs will be deterred with even conventional forces. China's animosity with India is really not AP, it's doctrinal dominance over Asia, and hence the world. Historically it has lost. Again it's on the wrong side of history, logic, reason having backed the horse that Mao rode. See how easy it is for the devil to ridicule SDRE Gandhi and praise ruthless Mao. Yet that's where the battle lines draw clear..not on the Indo Tibetan borders.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 09 Oct 2009 06:06

imho, we are caught on our nfu doctrine tail and we can't let go off it. we may be poised to answer some of these questions.

SaiK, the line taken by the Submarine Sepoy was that once the 16m CEP 17kT (or higher) missile was deployed, esp. on a nuclear submarine, the NFU has zero credibility. That everyone MUST assume that this is a First Strike weapon system, and hence they will react accordingly.

Deterrent: Is political will. Not 20 Kt or 50 Mt. Makes no difference. Why? The more rationally one argues on deterrence, the lesser the value of the deterrent. I like Krishna Uvacha in BG to Arjun. ..

The advice AFAIK was to Get Off Musharraf and Do What Needs 2 B Done, don't sit around scratching said Mush... and

and making all sorts of liberal procrastinatory terminological rationalizations for inaction.

Harbans, I have been trying to impress upon my dear co-mods in this fine Military / Strategic forum exactly that same wisdom about the value of unpredictability and demonstrated willingness to act at (seemingly) arbitrary levels of escalation, in an effective deterrent, for a robust and productive environment of peaceful, friendly dynamic co-existence.

But will they listen?

But I digress and any discussion of Deterrence is likely to get deleted or yanked to that wonderful thread on Deterrence where they are chai-biskooting about which cities to turn to ashes and how great it is to keep a place radioactive for 10000 years.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 09 Oct 2009 07:36

wasnt there a news report about china asking for a direct line to NewDelhi on the launch of arihant? means that china is already thinking that NFU is gone.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Oct 2009 08:06

I am not sure if this has been posted (it says GoI released this on Sept 24, 2009), it does seem to contain pretty much everythign we have discussed of had issues with:

THE PERFECTLY SUCCESSFUL POKHRAN II THERMONUCLEAR TEST

Topic covered (in brief):

* Shaft depths for containment of radioactivity
* Self-reliance in the nuclear weapons development programme
* Nuclear weaponisation
* The yield of the May 1974 PNE experiment
* Seismic and other data on May 11, 1998 tests
** Nature of seismic magnitudes
* International analysis of the 11 May 1998 seismic data
* Analysis by Indian seismologists
* The main conclusions are summarised below:
* Confirmatory evidence
* The Thermonuclear device
* Conclusion

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 09 Oct 2009 08:25

Good catch NRao!! I am just posting the conclusions here from the press release you linked.

Conclusion
* The May 1998 tests were fully successful in terms of achieving their scientific objectives and the capability to build fission and thermonuclear weapons with yields upto 200 kt.

* Computer simulation capability to predict the yields of nuclear weapons-fission, boosted fission and two-stage thermonuclear – of designs related to the designs of the devices tested by us has now been established.

* A great deal of further scientific and technical development work has taken place since May, 1998.

We have published as much data as is possible without releasing proliferation-sensitive information

vina · Post by **vina** » 09 Oct 2009 09:06

After two threads and around 180 pages of Pinglish, let me summarize in Inglees

.

1. The BARC team says that the test was 100% successful as DESIGNED . They kept the yield to 45kt to prevent venting , restrict damage to Keotelai .

2. The BARC team says that the fission /fusion yield ration and everything that is proliferation sensitive is confidential. In the absence of such info , no one outside the design team can get those kind of sensitive details as it would mean exposing materials, bomb design etc

3. Post shot drill hole radiological measurements prove that fusion happened exactly as designed.

4. The bum was a "dial a yield" type and the same design can be scaled to 200KTs. BARC says that since the single test proved that their computer models worked perfectly on the low end, it would scale to the 200KT limit on the higher side.

5. Santhanam challenges this assertion about scaling to 200KT high yield. He basically says, test it and prove it!. Futher point being , if you want to scale to 1MT, you need another bomb. So maybe what he is saying is test the OTHER bomb which scales from 200KT to maybe 2 MT or so. If you sign CTBT, the Ultra Mega Bum capability is closed forever!.

6. Also Santhanam says that the seismic recordings DO NOT show they yield as BARC says it was. So prove it!.

7. However, "proving" it will mean BARC actually showing radiochemical data and the bomb design, which will never happen. So really Santhanam's "proof" can never come about. At best , an explanation can be given on why Seismic recordings possibly don't reflect the actual situation. That will be contentious at best and total guess work at worst.

8. The NPAs and other "interested" parties were goading BARC to release the radiochemical data with the taunts of "fizzle". So if they did not do that back then, they are not going to do so again.

9. The final point is with Obama pushing CTBT , we will lose the Ultra Mega Bum capability and caps India's weapons capability.

10. Unkil, Russies, Chinis, Frogs, Uk Stanis etc have the required data in place to build bombs of any capability level (ultra mega booms and tiny whimpers). India will be locked out that piece of the cake.

There really is NO way out of this conundrum. You can't be public with this kind of data, and unless you are fully public, you can always accuse the Govt / BARC etc of "cover up". Heads I win, Tails you lose!.

As far as Ultra Mega Boom capability goes, probably the country made the decision that it is really not worth it , no point in going for it,and that what capability we have is fine. The point is such a thing will be never communicated out openly and efforts will be made to keep that option open if that capability ever becomes an imperative in the future.

So does all the KS and in BRF's Arun_S impassion histrionics and advocacy only on the Ultra Boom, I wonder?. It is all fine and dandy to call BARC a liar and the test a fizzle, but there is no way the other side can respond without seriously outing some core state secrets, so that is a total cop out!

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 09 Oct 2009 09:08

harbans wrote:Ramayji, the world won a fine victory in WW1 and then WW2 over fascists and totalitarians. But did the victors wipe out the fascists/ fascism? No. After 60 million people killed during that period, the world did'nt care to wipe out that doctrine from the face of the planet. Innocents sufered again. Under Mao, Stalin, Yahya Khan, Pol Pot. They wiped out another 100 million amongst them after the world claimed victory.

Pakistan and China are products of the same totalitarian ideology. Pakistan wants parity with India on the nuke deal, but cries out loud when the KL Bill for aid, sermonizing civilian mandate on the military is put as a condition.

We like the WW2 victors, are more interested in achieving H&D type victory and arming ourselves to that ideal, rather than wiping the source of misery, that can be done much easier.

Identify these sources of misery and the ideology that espouses that misery. Attack that. Relentlessly. Attack that doctrine every forum. Kill it without nukes. Kill the sources that prevent us attacking ideology/ doctrine. Prevent free speech being censored to protect doctrine. Doctrines MUST be subject to criticism. That ONLY will prevent use of nuclear weapons.

Wherever shallow people want to limit free speech whether against Hindu's, Xians, Sikhs, Muslims it must be resisted. If China resists it must be resisted. Whatever way. We are failing in our doctrinal initiative.

But then whats our doctrine we want to defend anyways? Can we be clear on that? Can members on this forum have a consensus on what doctrine we seek to defend. Or what doctrine we must develop the political will to stand up completely against?

Using nuclear weapons is murdering people. Innocents too. That brings the burden of Karma of murder on who uses or authorizes the weapons use. MMS is incapable of use of such weapons. Modi maybe. All or most of our politicians will BLINK/ not use weapons even if we are hit first, whether we possess KT or MT weapons. Fact. Consensus will always be built on doctrinal defense. It must exist on that to have tooth. Even if you're armed withe MT weapons and don't possess the motivation to use them..it's lost.

Nukes will be used only for doctrinal domination, not small time land grabs. Small time land grabs will be deterred with even conventional forces. China's animosity with India is really not AP, it's doctrinal dominance over Asia, and hence the world. Historically it has lost. Again it's on the wrong side of history, logic, reason having backed the horse that Mao rode. See how easy it is for the devil to ridicule SDRE Gandhi and praise ruthless Mao. Yet that's where the battle lines draw clear..not on the Indo Tibetan borders.

Beautiful post Harbans, just one thing I feel that China has been moving away from its totalitarian ideology more and more. The present rulers of the country are surely not in the same league of Mao and Stalin. Even on ideological level they have not shown any fanaticism. I mean the Communist party of China has embraced the capitalism whole heartedly for the betterment of the country.

In today's world I see only one ideology/religon befitting your description of totalitarian ideology. Whatever progress the world has made materially or in ideas. This religon stays in medival times.

Wherever it is in minority it talks about the greatness of secularism. Wherever it is in majority, then.............. well you know! There were more than 10% hindus in Porkistan at the time of partition, and now only 2% are left. There were 10% muslims in india at the time of partition while now they are 20%. Still the human rights groups from Unkil come here to inspect the treatment given to minorities. They don't go to Saudi Arabia even after their openly destroying a hindu temple somebody made in their own home.

No I don't think China fits the description of totalitarian ideology.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Oct 2009 09:19

Also to settle some doubts once and for all. KS had said that the primary was pure fission.

The 15 kt fission nuclear weapon had evolved from the PNE device tested in 1974, with substantial changes that were needed to make it smaller in size and weight from the point of view of weaponisation. The two-stage thermonuclear device, with a fusion-boosted fission trigger as the first stage and with the features needed for integration with delivery vehicles, was tested at the controlled yield of 45 kt and had the purpose of developing nuclear weapons with yields up to around 200 kt. The sub-kiloton devices tested again had all the features needed for integration with delivery vehicles and were tested from the point of view of developing low-yield weapons and of validating new weapon-related ideas and sub-systems.

But again that capability word.

It was gratifying that all the devices functioned perfectly in all aspects certifying the quality and robustness of the designs. Thus the carefully-planned series of tests carried out in May 1998 gave us the capability to build nuclear weapons from low yields up to around 200 kt. A great deal of further scientific and technical development work has taken place since then.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Oct 2009 09:34

Yes the key word "capability" has been used by RC and team , but there is no weaponisation of TN yet from open info we have and as Santy claimed , so capability exists for 11 years but no weaponisation of capability has been demonstrated.

So capability to develop and a developed military weaponised TN are two different thing ( much like Agni TD showed we had capability we have IRBM technology but it Agni 2 that weaponised Agni TD )

As I have repeated , unless GOI is open to a peer review done by the weapon creator (RC/AK ), emminent scientist like PKI/Sethna and Military the end user of the weapon , there is less and less credibility for GOI claims that S-1 is a success.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Oct 2009 09:40

A great deal of further scientific and technical development work has taken place since May, 1998.

And what does everyone infer by this statement? Suggestions:

1. The initial was a fizzle, but has been rectified
2. The initial was a partial fizzle, but has been rectified
3. The initial was a success, but was a proof of concept, we now have a weaponized design ready.
4. We can now use exotic materials in our weapons. (Reactor grade Pu, maybe even Thorium!!!)
5. We now have computer simulation models where we can predict the materials + Design = x yield, with a fair degree of accuracy.
6. We have developed the 4th gen TNs.

Opinions please.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 09:41

Couldn't it also be that the capability word is meant to confuse the genteel folks who will be at the receiving end of this capability? Once you say this is what we have, then things get easier for the adversary doesn't it?
Common sense would suggest that it is best to keep everyone guessing, nah?

Our genteel neighbours have been told that the fakir Indian has the ability to build chotus all the way to motus. Now they can keep guessing what flowers are on top of the missiles? And it's their choice to decide what they believe.

Why do we (meaning BRF) have this urge to have every thing being spelt out to us in black and white, everything in open source?

Haven't you wondered why there have been fleeting references to bigger bombs in various writing by ex-defence forces types?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Oct 2009 09:42

vina wrote:5. Santhanam challenges this assertion about scaling to 200KT high yield. He basically says, test it and prove it!. Futher point being , if you want to scale to 1MT, you need another bomb. So maybe what he is saying is test the OTHER bomb which scales from 200KT to maybe 2 MT or so. If you sign CTBT, the Ultra Mega Bum capability is closed forever!.

Not really , Santy does not talk about Ultra bomb or something like that , he says the basic bomb did not work forget ultra bomb, we are talking of S-1 failure not some 2 MT ultra bomb

7. However, "proving" it will mean BARC actually showing radiochemical data and the bomb design, which will never happen. So really Santhanam's "proof" can never come about. At best , an explanation can be given on why Seismic recordings possibly don't reflect the actual situation. That will be contentious at best and total guess work at worst.

Again not really , you can have a Blue Ribbon panel review the datum of S-1 and keep the result confidential , so no need to put the radiochemical data on the cover page of TOI.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 09:44

Gagan wrote:
A great deal of further scientific and technical development work has taken place since May, 1998.
And what does everyone infer by this statement? Suggestions:

1. The initial was a fizzle, but has been rectified
2. The initial was a partial fizzle, but has been rectified
3. The initial was a success, but was a proof of concept, we now have a weaponized design ready.
4. We can now use exotic materials in our weapons. (Reactor grade Pu, maybe even Thorium!!!)
5. We now have computer simulation models where we can predict the materials + Design = x yield, with a fair degree of accuracy.
6. We have developed the 4th gen TNs.
Opinions please.

If you believe in points 1 and 2 then it's best to throw away the article because it is bull shit.

However, if you don't then it could mean all of the other points from 3-6.

IMHO

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Oct 2009 09:49

Amit-ji
Obfuscate from whom. The chinese? They likely have very good intel within India, and know more than us BRFites.
The khans? They know too.
The pakis don't matter.

The only ones who don't know are ordinary folks. Those whose job it is to know, probably know a lot.

If you've got the maal, why not flaunt it with arrogance, and say, we have this

My opinion: SFC / GoI haven't allowed BARC to weaponize the TN for the forces, because it is uncertified. That is, if the story of there being no TNs deployed and the TN being a fizzle are true.

amit wrote:If you believe in points 1 and 2 then it's best to throw away the article because it is bull shit.

However, if you don't then it could mean all of the other points from 3-6.

IMHO

I would love to hear any additions to this list.

vina · Post by **vina** » 09 Oct 2009 09:55

Austin wrote:As I have repeated , unless GOI is open to a peer review done by the weapon creator (RC/AK ), emminent scientist like PKI/Sethna and Military the end user of the weapon , there is less and less credibility for GOI claims that S-1 is a success.

Nope. Wont do. At best, a peer review can say that yes BARC was /was not lying, and again, they will not be able to say on what scientific basis /data did they come to that conclusion because they will have to sign up for the OSA.

And that Peer review or "Pir" review

, will still not be able to say will 100% certainty that just because 45KT worked 200 KT will work as well with 100% success . That can be "proven" with full certainty only with a test.

I think that is where KS is right. It is the proverbial statistics and confidence levels. Gosh. Back to statis tix again. Lies, damn lies and statistics! . But then so what if you prove the design works 100% . You still need to prove that it will work after you keep it in storage for 3 yrs, 5 yrs, 10 yrs! . So you need to take out some random sample out of existing inventory and test.

See, this is where CTBT hurts Unkil and others lot more than us. So if some says okay.. W -88 (1988 warhead), how do you know they work in 2008 ? . Unkil cant test. So back to simulations again and the statistics and confidence levels!. If Unkil and others are giving away that, we trade in the capabilty to develop Ultra Mega Bums in return if we sign the CTBT . Note : I am not advocating we sign it. If we do , it should be after hard bargaining and making sure India's interests are fully protected and there are no loop holes for Unkil, Chini, Roos, Frog and UK Stan to wiggle out of , leaving us behind. Oh , best case, sign CTBT , but do it as a DE FACTO recognized power. Make the P5 to a FORMAL P6 and then possibly sign NPT as well as a nuclear state. Unkil and others have to armtwist Chinis on this if they come in the way of that. Even throw the lolipop of Nook Weapon import for Unkil like the Uk Poodle / Polaris if we sign up!

PakiLand of course will want to sign up as a New-Clear state. That is easily handled.. After all it can be hanged for past crimes.

Paki Land's defense will be on the lines of Jiang Qing, Mao's last wife and the leader of the Gang of Four.

I was Chairman Mao's dog. I bit whomever he asked me to bite.

That of course can apply to the CPI-M as well (historically , after the 1962 war and Karat and Yechury currently).

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 09:57

Austin wrote:Again not really , you can have a Blue Ribbon panel review the datum of S-1 and keep the result confidential , so no need to put the radiochemical data on the cover page of TOI.

Austin,

This suggestion has been floating around for quite some time now. Can you suggest where you'll get the folks to constitute this committee? Naturally they can't be folks connected to BARC and AEC because these two bodies have already said that all's well. And it cannot also be KS, PKI, Shetna and others who have already made up their minds that POK2 was a fizzle.

(Imagine what a hit their credibility as scientists would take if after seeing the real data they admit they were wrong. This would imply that they are irresponsible in jumping to conclusions without rigorous scientific investigation. I don't think any of these worthies would accept a position on this hypothetical panel even if they were offered one).

Also do keep in mind that anyone who sits on that committee becomes a marked person for life, from both Indian intelligence as well as foreign intelligence who are keen to gather information. And they and their family members will have to go into 24x7 surveillance for the rest of their lives and if they are academics they will have to forgo normal interaction with foreign academia. This is not a normal academic peer review.

And moreover, I suggest you re-read Kanwar Sibal's article posted a few pages ago. Even if it was a fizzle how can you expect the government (any government in the world, for the matter) to publicly own up and publicly constitute this blue ribbon panel? If at all a review is done it will be done behind closed doors and you and me will never get to know about it.

Let's get real of what can be done and what cannot be done.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 10:01

Gagan wrote:The only ones who don't know are ordinary folks. Those whose job it is to know, probably know a lot.

I think these two sentences say it all boss.

I don't see why ordinary folks would want to know. I certainly don't have any interest in knowing. If various govt heads and heads of armed forces say that what we have is adequate then that's peace of mind for an ordinary Abdul like me.

However, the caveat is I think I am more ordinary than some folks on this forum. For them the knowledge is necessary?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Oct 2009 10:02

Unkil know the design physics and engineering inside out. He can create fresh new Pu from the factory and make a new one every 10 - 15 - 20 years. Besides unkil already has data from numerous tests over a 50 year testing cycle to know how a 30 year old bum behaves.

Somewhat different from India's situation.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 10:06

Just to add to my post on this blue ribbon panel issue.

I think we need to realise that if at all such a panel is constituted it shouldn't be because there's a face-off between AK and RC on one side and KS and PKI on the other and we want to know who's telling lies.

That's because it then boils down to personalities which is a ridiculous reason to have a peer review or even a "pir" review. Rather let's have a WWF tag wrestling match! I'm all for it and would gladly help in organising it.

A review should only occur if the actual users of these flower petals demand one because they are worried about them. Frankly I have yet to see such worry.

vina · Post by **vina** » 09 Oct 2009 10:10

Unkil know the design physics and engineering inside out. He can create fresh new Pu from the factory and make a new one every 10 - 15 - 20 years. Besides unkil already has data from numerous tests over a 50 year testing cycle to know how a 30 year old bum behaves.

Somewhat different from India's situation.

Ah, but Unkil is stuck at Circa 1988 as well. And when was the last bum unkil tested ?.So Unkil has full "proof" of "30 year bum " only until then !. So what about bums 30 years hence ?. How do you know that a 60 year bum will "Phatega ?" like when it was shiny new ?. See, all those questions are model extrapolations from experience 15 years ago!.

As for new Pu and new bums and junking older bums, we can do that as well. Point is we will be stuck at 1998 Pok II, just like Unkil is stuck with 1988!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Oct 2009 10:10

amit wrote: I certainly don't have any interest in knowing.

well .
You don't but everyone who's posted in this thread seems to wants to. Including me.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 10:13

Gagan wrote:
amit wrote: I certainly don't have any interest in knowing.
well .
You don't but everyone who's posted in this thread seems to wants to. Including me.

Aha yes I've noticed that Gagan. That's why I added the caveat:

However, the caveat is I think I am more ordinary than some folks on this forum. For them the knowledge is necessary?

But then your point only proves my point about ordinariness. You see you did not include me in your everyone who's posted... remark because if you had then it would not have been everyone.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Oct 2009 10:17

Not responding to that amit.
No.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 09 Oct 2009 10:17

I think the 'extraordinary ones' on the forum can apply for a position in the Chinese Secret Service. Then they would know for sure

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 09 Oct 2009 10:23

>>>Yes the key word "capability" has been used by RC and team , but there is no weaponisation of TN yet from open info we have and as Santy claimed , so capability exists for 11 years but no weaponisation of capability has been demonstrated.

As I understand it, Capability means, ability to make - so, capability to make weapons means ability to make weapons. As you say, we may not be able to confirm weaponisation of TN devise from open source, but cannot conclude that it is not there. I for one believe that if ability is there, it will be put to use, unless some extraneous considerations like political interference etc come into play.

>>>So capability to develop and a developed military weaponised TN are two different thing ( much like Agni TD showed we had capability we have IRBM technology but it Agni 2 that weaponised Agni TD )

So, it is only refinement of the device, without touching the core design/technology. In the case of converting the TN device into a weapon, they have to approach the DRDO to get a shape which can withstand re-entry conditions, confining the dimensions to suit the delivery vehicle dimensions, plugs, fuses, sensors etc etc. But what is inside (core) remain same as what was tested.

>>>As I have repeated , unless GOI is open to a peer review done by the weapon creator (RC/AK ), emminent scientist like PKI/Sethna and Military the end user of the weapon , there is less and less credibility for GOI claims that S-1 is a success.

GOI is living with this "Less & Less" credibility for more than a decade, and it cannot go any further down. They are still not yielding. No point in trying again...they won't open any further. Moreover, your suggested panel will createmore acrimony onlee, IMO.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Oct 2009 10:38

Gagan wrote: Including me.

me too

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Oct 2009 10:39

So assuming S1 was a success and went off like a charm like the test team would have the nation believe, and that they have been working for a decade hence.

Do we infer that the BARC team =/> Chinese N weapons capability?
BARC = / > unkil's N weapons capability?

I use the word 'capability', because the word is vaporware with no strict boundaries.

If the answer is no, then testing is the only way forward.

BARC seems to be saying this too:
1. They have been carrying the research forward. This itself implies that new things have been developed, old things rectified => Need for testing.
2. No point hair splitting on what happened on 11th May 10 years ago, point is what is the country willing to do now.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 09 Oct 2009 10:55

Gagan wrote:So assuming S1 was a success and went off like a charm like the test team would have the nation believe, and that they have been working for a decade hence.

Do we infer that the BARC team =/> Chinese N weapons capability?
BARC = / > unkil's N weapons capability?

I use the word 'capability', because the word is vaporware with no strict boundaries.

If the answer is no, then testing is the only way forward.

BARC seems to be saying this too:
1. They have been carrying the research forward. This itself implies that new things have been developed, old things rectified => Need for testing.
2. No point hair splitting on what happened on 11th May 10 years ago, point is what is the country willing to do now.

I agree with the broad thrust of this post. Though am unclear about some things.

What does 'capability' mean (wrt China and Unkil)

1. Are we building / built as many bums as they have?
2. Are we building bigger bums than they have?
3. Are we building more efficient bums than they are? (bigger bang from the same quantity of maal)

4. Are we to infer that while we have been 'refining' techniques for the past decade, the chinese and unkiil have been sitting on their butts?
5. Is it our objective to build bigger and bigger bums till we get a 'planet destroyer' (so to say)? IOW - how big a bum is big enough?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 09 Oct 2009 11:00

Nope. Wont do. At best, a peer review can say that yes BARC was /was not lying, and again, they will not be able to say on what scientific basis /data did they come to that conclusion because they will have to sign up for the OSA.

Don't bring in OSA as an excuse. Do you seriously think that PKI/HS or any other person eligible to be included in a peer review panel haven't already signed the OSA?

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 11:00

Gagan wrote:So assuming S1 was a success and went off like a charm like the test team would have the nation believe, and that they have been working for a decade hence.

Do we infer that the BARC team =/> Chinese N weapons capability?
BARC = / > unkil's N weapons capability?

I use the word 'capability', because the word is vaporware with no strict boundaries.

If the answer is no, then testing is the only way forward.

BARC seems to be saying this too:
1. They have been carrying the research forward. This itself implies that new things have been developed, old things rectified => Need for testing.
2. No point hair splitting on what happened on 11th May 10 years ago, point is what is the country willing to do now.

Gagan a few things.

1) Sure the only way forward is by testing, not because of this fizzle tamasha but because further testing is needed for refinement, stewardship etc.

Now the point is, apart from "experts" on BRF no one, especially from the GoI, has been saying we will be eschewing further testing. Early last month there were doomsday predictions that if India does not test within the next three weeks then all chances will be gone as India would be forced to sign CTBT.

Well we are into the second week of October and as far as I can see our position on CTBT, NPT and disarmament is exactly as it was since Arundhuti Ghosh made that drmatic speech in 1996. Sure there's pressure but a much weaker India has resisted the pressure and there's no reason to think there are not going to resist now.

Even the so-called weak PM MMS mumbled that India will continue with its voluntary moratorium indefinitely. And as usual there were wails and people tearing their hair. However, I did point out the "voluntary" part of the moratorium only applies when we stay away from CTBT not when you sign on. And indefinitely also applies to CTBT as it does to testing.

However, who likes to turn off their favourite soap opera?

My guess, and I've written this before, is that this recessed and apologetic stance which so incenses BRF jingos is going to continue till 2016-2017. By then the economy will reach a certain size (provided other things remain constant) and then the recessed thing will go away and we will have new tests.

2) Your comparison with the Chinese capability and/or Unkil's capability is disingenuous, I'm sorry to say. While we have been moving forward, they haven't been sitting idle either these past 11 years. And so they will always be ahead of us since they started before us.

However, the thing to look for is that have we generated sufficient capability to hurt them - I mean the Chinese - in the event of a war? They will cause more damage to us for sure, but can we cause them sufficient damage to make it an unproductive venture? That's IMO is the question to ask and not do a one-on-one capability comparison.

JMT

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 11:04

merlin wrote:Don't bring in OSA as an excuse. Do you seriously think that PKI/HS or any other person eligible to be included in a peer review panel haven't already signed the OSA?

But Merlin, how can PKI or HS be part of the review panel?

They have already made up their minds that the test was a fizzle, nah? (Remember all the articles and the definite tone and remarks against others who say it was a success).

What would it do their credibility as scientists if, after seeing the real data (afterall that's what the peer review would be about right?) they say that no it was actually a sizzle?

Wouldn't that imply that they have committed the cardinal scientific sin of rushing to a conclusion without examining all the scientific data?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Oct 2009 11:08

Refinement in bum design would mean:
1. More bang for the buck.
2. A more safer weapon. (Safety against EMP / Fire / Very low risk of sympathetic explosions)
3. A weapon that's been tested and is proven to work satisfactorily in all sorts of environments, deliverable by all types of delivery vehicles.

I agree with the 200 - 300 Kt range. How ever a MT weapon is a must to have.

When BARC says they have the capability to do a 200-300Kt. It simultaneously means that they don't have the capability for a MT stuff? If they had, they would have said so.
so what gives? Is the design of a MT maal any different? Two secondaries? more layers of tertiaries?
What.