Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

[shiv]

I think it is possible to classify this debate into one of several "positions". You can carry on extending the rhetoric in any single one of these positions an go around in circles. I will attempt to point out how we can avoid a rehash of that:

Dilemma: RC says the TN test worked in 1998; KS says it did not work.

Positions that can be taken:

1) RC is a liar and KS is correct
2) KS is a liar and RC is correct
3) Both are not lying and are trying to talk about something that can be speculated upon for an "academic discussion"

If we are to assume that neither RC nor KS is lying then we are left with trying to figure out what each person is trying to say.

The forum discussion were centered around position 1 where RC is a liar. That has been dismissed as wrong.

Nobody has alleged that KS is a liar (Position 2) and let us leave it that way.

What sort of academic discussion can be had about possibilities built around position 3 where every statement of RC and KS are accepted as truthful?

This is what I was trying to get at.

[shiv]

If this is the Indian way, this is a brand new method, waffling as a tactic to deterrence despite having the capablity. I hope to god we are substantially so ahead of the rest of the world in mind games that the above works.

Well it certainly makes a change from the usual Indian method of calling someone a liar to push one viewpoint.

[Sanku]

If this is the Indian way, this is a brand new method, waffling as a tactic to deterrence despite having the capablity. I hope to god we are substantially so ahead of the rest of the world in mind games that the above works.

Well it certainly makes a change from the usual Indian method of calling someone a liar to push one viewpoint.

Why get all India involved in the same Bhai?

What sort of academic discussion can be had about possibilities built around position 3 where every statement of RC and KS are accepted as truthful?

This is what I was trying to get at.

The sort I have been making already (context of statement whether a test and if so what or a working device)? Further RC can be wrong on a few counts without being a liar. Or GoI (note I am carefully taking a position which does not involve personalities) could have thought that lying was a good exercise in absence of real deterrence and could have forced a particular PoV to be taken by its people.

[shiv]

Further RC can be wrong on a few counts without being a liar. Or GoI (note I am carefully taking a position which does not involve personalities)

Er first you say that one personality may be wrong, and then proceed to pat yourself on the back and say how you are "carefully taking a position which does not involve personalities"

Perhaps this is the new Indian way?

[Sanku]

Further RC can be wrong on a few counts without being a liar. Or GoI (note I am carefully taking a position which does not involve personalities)

Er first you say that one personality may be wrong, and then proceed to pat yourself on the back and say how you are note "carefully taking a position which does not involve personalities"

Yes, a statement from a Human being occupying a certain post in GoI may be wrong without making that personality a liar or involving that "human beings" personal trait and HIS credibility an issue (note -- not applicable to elected politicians though)

I have been trying very hard to establish this difference for a while if you see.

[shiv]

I have been trying very hard to establish this difference for a while if you see.

]

That is not at all apparent despite what seems to be a boast from you. Please point me to earlier posts where you have done that and put me out of my misinformed misery. Unless "a while" means about 10 minutes.

[amit]

Ok I am lost whats the question again? Why is the reference to high KT weapons in the Chiefs statement not taken to mean that we have a credible deployed arsenal?

If you are lost Sanku, I suggest you do some light lifting by going to the previous page and having a look at the string of posts.

Given that Chiefs themselves are saying that they go with what they are told and bemoaning their lack of insight into the system -- we can not take these references are cardinal. In fact the chiefs themselves seem to be saying that they are confused and not sure what is what because of all the muck, hence in such a scenario one or two throw away statements are not very strong indications of what is.

I'm sorry Sanku, you cannot have the cake and eat it too. If you think the chiefs are ill-informed (by the scientists) about capability and they make "one or two throw away statements" which shouldn't be taken seriously and then you shouldn't present other parts of their "throw away" statements as proof that everything is wrong in the system. You either dismiss their statements as being not important or you take everything they say seriously. You shouldn't cherry pick only the portions that are close to your POV.

And this still does not answer where the 500kt and 1mt figures came from. The highest RC and his team has gone is 200kt. If the chiefs have such a lack of insight and are "confused" about our capability then why did they tout those figures? To sow more confusion? That would do injustice to these two folks who have held very high positions in the services. I would take anything they say about size of bombs seriously.

The net answer is that we may have something but it is such a mess that no one really can say what it is including the chiefs.

This is your own conclusion. You are entitled to have one but don't expect everyone to agree to it.

No major power or even a power with pretensions of being big makes that sort of statements.

Can you kindly show examples of what is the general fashion of statements in this subject by world powers? I'm sure it would be an educative experience.

Mostly the world has been working quite nicely on the concept of tit for tat, and making it clear that it was going to follow that approach.

I would also appreciate it if you could tell which part of the Indian nuclear doctrine does not talk about tit for tat in case of a nuclear attack? Doesn't our doctrine say that even if there's a tactical nuclear strike on our armed forces the response will be bombing the aggressor's cities?

As an aside IFF the test had worked, the GoI and all its arms would not be waffling on the capability with all sorts of numbers up in the air.

If this is the Indian way, this is a brand new method, waffling as a tactic to deterrence despite having the capablity. I hope to god we are substantially so ahead of the rest of the world in mind games that the above works.

Where do you see the waffle if I may ask? The prognosis from BARC after POK2 was that we have "successfully" tested a TN of 45 kt design yield and this can be scaled up to 200kt. There were several other tests.

And subsequently various sources say we have 20-25kt devices (note I'm not going into fission-fusion devices as they matter little to the recipients of these "flowers"), 60-80kt (K Subramaniam) and RC's 200kt.

Added to the mix has been the CNS' 500kt and the COAS' 1mt.

So a arsenal extending from chotus 20-25kt all the way to 1mt. Where do you see the "waffle" here?

To the question as to where the 500kt and 1mt came from? Who knows may be the two gentlemen did not know what they were talking about being "confused" and all that.

Or, it could be this is the result of the "further research" point which RC made and which Gagan pointed out? Could they be untested but fabricated bombs made from the data and computer simulation? Who knows?

[Sanku]

I have been trying very hard to establish this difference for a while if you see.

]

That is not at all apparent despite what seems to be a boast from you. Please point me to earlier posts where you have done that and put me out of my misinformed misery. Unless "a while" means about 10 minutes.

You have a choice to not believe me, I have no probs with that. I do not know what good that will do though.

You have two options like you said in the case of RC et al.
1) Understand where the person is coming from and try and work with that
2) Take a hostile position and not understand that and reject what the person is saying.

Meanwhile please note that words like "boast" etc are those you are applying to my statements. I have only said that I am very careful to draw the distinction. No doubt there have been times when I am less than successful.

Meanwhile this discussion becomes about me rather than the topic, a waste I think, since my personal credibility is not germane to the discussion and I stake no value on it myself, feel free to ignore me as a vain boastful person if you think that the content is consistently pointless.

I agree with the old BRF adage, that the post should be useful and not the poster.

[shiv]

Meanwhile this discussion becomes about me rather than the topic, a waste I think, since my personal credibility is not germane to the discussion

Indeed - I would agree that your personal credibility is certainly not germane to the topic on hand.

The reason it has been brought up is that in the first post that you made today, the 13th of Oct 2009 you stated

Nit pick strictly speaking, what has been tested is known to work ONLY till the point it was tested IFF it worked as expected.

Now R.Chidambaram says that the tests worked as expected.

What grounds do you have to question the credibility of that by saying "IFF it worked as expected"

Are you now saying that your credibility is not germane to the issue and that your statements should be ignored even as you go around questioning R.Chidambaram's statements and saying he might be wrong on a few counts?

In other words. are you saying that you do not believe R.chidambaram's words and that he could be wrong but your credibility is out of bounds?

if that is the case I think many of us know that. But how about allowing us to live in our own fantasy world and talk about what might possibly be the situation if we choose to believe R.Chidambaram without interjecting time and again to tell us that you don't believe him?

[Sanku]

I'm sorry Sanku, you cannot have the cake and eat it too. If you think the chiefs are ill-informed (by the scientists) about capability and they make "one or two throw away statements" which shouldn't be taken seriously and then you shouldn't present other parts of their "throw away" statements as proof that everything is wrong in the system. You either dismiss their statements as being not important or you take everything they say seriously. You shouldn't cherry pick only the portions that are close to your POV.

You have not understood me at all -- once again I totally reject your contention that I must either take the statement to be fully true or not at all true.

All the chiefs are the unanimous on the future needs, however their yeild numbers are all over the place.

I take the stand that the above means that we can take their word for how system works since they known that and say that they know and not place too much emphasis on the yield figures.

Yet despite that some folks want to use that to speculate. It is their prerogative, if that speculation can eventually come up with a consistent answer, I would be happy to know that and for that purpose I will also engage in speculation.

The net answer is that we may have something but it is such a mess that no one really can say what it is including the chiefs.

This is your own conclusion. You are entitled to have one but don't expect everyone to agree to it.

But of course that is a tautology, I speak only of myself, all the time, and I am under no illusions that it is otherwise.

However I will emphasis that the mess is clearly out there for all to see and I am not the only poster to have said that. Many have.

Can you kindly show examples of what is the general fashion of statements in this subject by world powers? I'm sure it would be an educative experience.

MAD for one and other statement would involve work by googling to show which I will later.

I would also appreciate it if you could tell which part of the Indian nuclear doctrine does not talk about tit for tat in case of a nuclear attack? Doesn't our doctrine say that even if there's a tactical nuclear strike on our armed forces the response will be bombing the aggressor's cities?

Specifcially the statement by NSA that we have something.

Where do you see the waffle if I may ask? The prognosis from BARC after POK2 was that we have "successfully" tested a TN of 45 kt design yield and this can be scaled up to 200kt. There were several other tests.

No need to then say words like "something" and the "test was fully successful" etc.

Just let the Govt come out and say that we have an existing deterrence based on XYZ range yeild and not "we can", "something" etc etc.

A couple of these statements would go a long long way.

And subsequently various sources say we have 20-25kt devices (note I'm not going into fission-fusion devices as they matter little to the recipients of these "flowers"), 60-80kt (K Subramaniam) and RC's 200kt.

Indeed which K Subramaniam then whittled down to "why 20KTs are enough" recently

You make point for me.

Added to the mix has been the CNS' 500kt and the COAS' 1mt.

So a arsenal extending from chotus 20-25kt all the way to 1mt. Where do you see the "waffle" here?\

Different people talking of different yields needed for deterrence all disconnected from each other and the nature of tests carried out coupled with them also saying that they dont really know along with statements of something along etc etc.

Or, it could be this is the result of the "further research" point which RC made and which Gagan pointed out? Could they be untested but fabricated bombs made from the data and computer simulation? Who knows?

Sure, this is what I have said too, however as I said before those will have any credibility if and only if S1 is credible.

Which at the moment is not (refer to posts by SBM even)

[Sanku]

Meanwhile this discussion becomes about me rather than the topic, a waste I think, since my personal credibility is not germane to the discussion

Indeed - I would agree that your personal credibility is certainly not germane to the topic on hand.

The reason it has been brought up is that in the first post that you made today, the 13th of Oct 2009 you stated

Nit pick strictly speaking, what has been tested is known to work ONLY till the point it was tested IFF it worked as expected.

Now R.Chidambaram says that the tests worked as expected.

What grounds do you have to question the credibility of that by saying "IFF it worked as expected"

Are you now saying that your credibility is not germane to the issue and that your statements should be ignored even as you go around questioning R.Chidambaram's statements and saying he might be wrong on a few counts?

In other words. are you saying that you do not believe R.chidambaram's words and that he could be wrong?

if that is the case I think many of us know that. But how about allowing us to live in our own fantasy world and talk about what might possibly be the situation if we choose to believe R.Chidambaram without interjecting time and again to tell us that you don't believe him?

All true, and this is what I have to say

1) You have omitted to take into account where I said that the personal credibility is not an issue. Shri RC is speaking on behalf of a system and no I do not take everything GoI says as Brahmsatya. I reserve my right to question. In fact I have maintained that there is no K Sanathanan the person but KS the spokesman of GoI faction 1. Meanwhile people are free to question their statements and that has been done (ego clash and what not) both on the forum and by GoI.

2) You do me a great honor by comparing the importance of my credibility with that of GoI. I thought that we were all enthusiasts here of common credibility trying to discuss and debate.

3)

But how about allowing us to live in our own fantasy world and talk about what might possibly be the situation if we choose to believe R.Chidambaram without interjecting time and again to tell us that you don't believe him?

I do not understand, why should I not? The same has been done by others who chose to believe in GoI position and they have constantly interjected in discussions based on "what if things were right"

I do have the right to inject and yes, the same point is made many times in different contexts in different discussions. I fail to see how that becomes a repetition (any more than what the entire thread is)

I believe I have a right to interject and I will use it carefully as I can.

This debate seems to be more on "whether sanku has a right to interject" than otherwise. Can we please refrain -- you always have the option of ignoring me?

[amit]

All the chiefs are the unanimous on the future needs, however their yeild numbers are all over the place.

So two numbers 500kt and 1mt means that the numbers are all over the place?

I've yet to see any other number bandied about by the chiefs. Two is a small number to use as a prural in all over the place assertion.

MAD for one and other statement would involve work by googling to show which I will later.

Goodness gracious! What does MAD have to do with the tit for tat comment. MAD was a cold war relic. Do you suppose US and China, for example, practice MAD?

Just let the Govt come out and say that we have an existing deterrence based on XYZ range yeild and not "we can", "something" etc etc.

A couple of these statements would go a long long way.

And why exactly does the govt need to do that? So that a few uber jingos can sleep easy at night? Isn't it sufficient that current serving chief (and including the just retired CNS) have stated on many occasions that India has "adequate" deterrence? Why do you need numbers? Do the other P5 give out detailed statements on what they have in their inventory?

Indeed which K Subramaniam then whittled down to "why 20KTs are enough" recently

I'm sorry this just goes to show that you either did not understand KS' article or you are misinterpreting it. KS' article was in the context of the 20-25 kt point made by the other KS. His article pointed out that even with 20-25kt the deterrence was intact.

You make point for me.

You just made your own point.

Which at the moment is not (refer to posts by SBM even)

Excuse me but who is this SBM?

[shiv]

There are two lines of thought that can be followed "for academic purposes only" which have not been given a fair airing and cannot be given a fair airing as long as it is pointed out that R Chidambaram is either a liar or is wrong without being a liar on some counts or more than some counts.

Those two lines of thought (fro academic purposes only) are

1) What if RC is right (and K Santhanam wrong on some counts or more than some counts)?
2) What if both RC and Santhanam are right?

I will try and go forward on this.

[shiv]

This debate seems to be more on "whether sanku has a right to interject" than otherwise. Can we please refrain -- you always have the option of ignoring me?

If this is a debate on the subject that you have stated you seem to be the only one taking part in it. Go right ahead and continue the debate that you feel is being conducted.

I have no right to stop you since your "right to interject" is supreme.

You could ignore me too perhaps - since it was you that started this round with a nitpick? Or am I transgressing your right to interject?

[Kanson]

I have no idea. I am not a physicist - certainly not a nuclear physicist. But surely even for fusion and the release of fusion neutrons there must be a probability of numbers produced under certain conditions of pressure and temperature. After all it has been stated right here in this thread that fusion has been produced even from conventional explosive with the Russkies causing a yield of 57 milligrams of TNT using conventional explosive alone.

Isn't that what "equations of state" are all about?

Can someone enlighten moderately?

Thats an interesting question you asked.

[Sanku]

Amit let me consolidate

1) What is waffling

On the question of "what is needed for deterrence" we have numbers ranging from
Something -- NSA
20 KT -- K Subramaniam
200-300 KT -- Vasundhara Raje statement to Parliament -- so far the ONLY official GoI position.
500 KT -- CoNS
1 MT -- CoAS

To this add the known numbers of -- official GoI
45 KT -- tested
200 KT -- max claimed by RC.

Now the above numbers are based on either pure working fission, or FBF or TN (and some times even for the same yield all three are possible)

Now reconcile all the above with change of CMD to MCD.

This is very different from saying "we posses in service ability to inflict on the enemy a massive and disporportiante damage based on deterrence in the range of XYZ"

And be done with it?

-----------

2) What do others claim

As I said the statements on MAD (the final step of tit for tat) which despite all protestation are still alive (there is a MAD working TODAY) That takes care of two declared powers. Britain is in the nuclear umbrella with US so three are already done with.

French
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_frappe

In 2006, French President Jacques Chirac, noted that France would be willing to use nuclear weapons against a state attacking France via terrorist means. He noted that the French nuclear forces had been configured for this option.[19]

They also have a clearly advertised capability, a set of full yield tests and a large number of tested and deployed subs.
look at present state in the above article.

That leaves? China which is as follows
http://www.nti.org/db/China/doctrine.htm

* China must own strategic nuclear weapons of a definite quality and quantity in order to ensure national security;
* China must guarantee the safety of strategic nuclear bases and prevent against the loss of combat effectiveness from attacks and destruction by hostile countries;
* China must ensure that its strategic nuclear weapons are at a high degree of war preparedness;
* When an aggressor launches a nuclear attack against China, China must be able to launch nuclear counterattack and nuclear re-attack against the aggressor;
* China must pay attention to the global situation of strategic balance and stability and, when there are changes in the situation, adjust its strategic nuclear weapon development strategy in a timely manner.

Note -- all the major world powers have a clearly advertised capability shown by full yield tests as well as tests of delivery system and deployment.

Compare it to the current Indian situation.

[Sanku]

This debate seems to be more on "whether sanku has a right to interject" than otherwise. Can we please refrain -- you always have the option of ignoring me?

I have no right to stop you since your "right to interject" is supreme.

You could ignore me too perhaps - since it was you that started this round with a nitpick? Or am I transgressing your right to interject?

Thank you, this is all that I hope for.

Meanwhile I have no intention of ignoring you that would be my loss, I only request to be allowed to nitpick as I seem to have been granted.

Thank you.

[shiv]

I only request to be allowed to nitpick as I seem to have been granted.

Thank you.

Oh Sanku that is not for me to grant so no need to thank me. You have awarded that right to yourself, but I did try. I am not going to ignore you either until I am absolutely sure of what your views are.

[amit]

This is very different from saying "we posses in service ability to inflict on the enemy a massive and disporportiante damage based on deterrence in the range of XYZ"

And be done with it?

Sanku,

No offense but I find it quite amusing that you would be willing to accept a GoI statement saying: ""we posses in service ability to inflict on the enemy a massive and disporportiante damage based on deterrence in the range of XYZ"


Yet you don't want to believe the same GoI where the PM, RM, NSA, the main Opposition Party spokesmen and establishment scientists have said time and again that POK2 was a success and we have "adequate deterrence".

Strange isn't it? You'd settle for a particular statement from GoI but not on other statements. Again kind of cherry picking isn't it?

2) What do others claim

As I said the statements on MAD (the final step of tit for tat) which despite all protestation are still alive (there is a MAD working TODAY) That takes care of two declared powers. Britain is in the nuclear umbrella with US so three are already done with.

French
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_frappe

In 2006, French President Jacques Chirac, noted that France would be willing to use nuclear weapons against a state attacking France via terrorist means. He noted that the French nuclear forces had been configured for this option.[19]

They also have a clearly advertised capability, a set of full yield tests and a large number of tested and deployed subs.
look at present state in the above article.

That leaves? China which is as follows...

I really fail to understand how Chirac's statement on response in case of terrorist attack or the reiteration of China's strategic posture has to do with MAD? I would humbly suggest you read up a bit on this now defunct doctrine. May I suggest two MAD101 links?

Link 1

Link 2

A quote from Link 1:

Proponents of MAD as part of U.S. and USSR strategic doctrine believed that nuclear war could best be prevented if neither side could expect to survive a full scale nuclear exchange as a functioning state. Since the credibility of the threat is critical to such assurance, each side had to invest substantial capital in their nuclear arsenals even if they were not intended for use. In addition, neither side could be expected or allowed to adequately defend itself against the other's nuclear missiles. This led both to the hardening and diversification of nuclear delivery systems (such as nuclear missile silos, ballistic missile submarines and nuclear bombers kept at fail-safe points) and to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

You'll find that almost the entire doctrine of MAD involves the US and the USSR/Russia. They are the only two nations in the world which have enough nuclear bombs to assure each other of Mutual Destruction.

Note -- all the major world powers have a clearly advertised capability shown by full yield tests as well as tests of delivery system and deployment.

Compare it to the current Indian situation.

I think you are missing an important point here. All the P5 are NPT signatories and became so after they had completed their testing and generation of enough data needed for bombs. As such they are overt powers and can advertise exactly what they have.

Whether you like it or not India is a break away nuclear power and as such has taken a conscious decision to keep a "recessed deterrence" posture. (You can Google for more information).

The "recessed deterrence" doctrine works on keeping ambiguity and is premised on the assessment that India's security is not only dependent on the number of bombs and missiles we have ready and pointing at folks we don't like. Rather it assumes a combination of military and economic power provides full security. And hence we keep demated war head etc.

I know a jingo's hear pines for a TFTA response where the whole world would be awed by the giga bombs of India. Unfortunately the real world is a bit more prosaic.

[Umrao Das]

SS+AN+SSS -----> BRF- AS

Left side is fusion, right side is fission rest all is RC (right to confusion)

[shiv]

I know a jingo's hear pines for a TFTA response where the whole world would be awed by the giga bombs of India. Unfortunately the real world is a bit more prosaic.

Well this is very true. There is a pining for the "high table". But that high table does not come merely from gigabooms or - either real or imagined ones on the internet as long as an Indian infants or mothers have a greater chance of dying at childbirth than those compared to any of the P5. The quality of our bombs is reflected in the quality of life of our people.

How can we deter anyone? Well who would actually want to come and occupy such a screwed up nation? The invaders in the past took the wealth and now we are left with third world- third rate and memories and are trying to close the door after the horse has bolted by demanding gigabombs "to deter even more" As if the squalor itself is not a deterrent. But you have to feel the squalor no? Not possible if you are living in lala land.

[shiv]

SS+AN+SSS -----> BRF- AS

Left side is fusion, right side is fission rest all is RC (right to confusion)

(S+JU+JS) ---> UD

Left side is history, right side is present, rest all is KS (Klaimed Satya, mostly spin)

[shiv]

Cross post from the deterrence thread

http://www.zopag.com/news/india-must-im ... /8331.html

Instead of lecturing IN, Mr. Clinton should..

To be fair he was asked a completely idiotic question by a person who really does not know India.

asked by an audience member what India must do to become a superpower and gain more influence at the UN and G-20.

And Clinton pointed out what a lot of Indians either do not know or do not want to face.

"It depends mostly what you do and if you can continue to plough money into the development of the poor and reduce inequalities in India."

India is in deeper doodoo than a lot of people imagine. Pulling it out of that is going to be a big struggle - and that requires far more priority than attempting to display to the world that we have bigger bum.

[NRao]

How other nations define their doctrine should not reflect on the Indian doctrine. Same with deterrence too.

However, it may help if someone can explain what a 1 Mt weapon brings to the table that a 200 kt does/does not from a deterrence capability.

[NRao]

India is in deeper doodoo than a lot of people imagine. Pulling it out of that is going to be a big struggle - and that requires far more priority than attempting to display to the world that we have bigger bum.

I pretty much made a similar statement WRT Pakistan. Today it is true of India. I really do not think China has to invest anything to contain India. India will contain herself.

However, the chances of India pulling herself out are rather high - only because that is the way the tide is headed, nothing to do with Indian efforts (which seem to be very lopsided).

[shiv]

However, the chances of India pulling herself out are rather high - only because that is the way the tide is headed, nothing to do with Indian efforts (which seem to be very lopsided).

Nrao in my more optimistic moments I tend to agree. But when I see the size of the problems we have to solve yet - the idea of testing a huge nuke now just for a small section of people to feel less nervous seems completely ridiculous to me.

It is the desperate state of 250 or more million people and the difficulty of pulling them up that should cause nervousness. Not the lack of demonstrable megabooms.

[NRao]

Shiv,

I agree.

My point is EVEN IF India tests, and the rest of the world does NOT sanction, what I am saying is that there will be a long period of complacency that will pretty much equal a sanction.

Point being what is India going to do with a 1 MT nuke? IF Indians were more interested in cleaning up India I can understand. I can compare India with China in some respects, but there are a ton of others where India is so minuscule (proposed reactors(some 15 to 200), rail infrastructure (by 2020 China will replace India as #2 in rail - that too with FAR better systems), general planning (in which India was #1/2 in 1950s!!!!!!), distribution of wealth (JUST BTW, FT today has a blurb that some segments in China are seriously considering autonomy for Tibet!!!!!!!))

[Amber G.]

Purely innocent question from one who does not know:

If measuring yield is indeed so difficult with error bars of magnitude 100 or 1000 being considered acceptable (as Amber G said), how do other nations quantify their yields? Supposedly the W-88 are variable yield warheads, so someone must have quantified this somehow. How was that done?

On a related note, if yield determination is so difficult, how is the output controlled in a nuclear reactor? My childish understanding is output is controlled by graphite rods or other moderators that control how many neutrons are available for the chain reaction. But if output is indeterminate, how do they know how much moderator is required?

It depends, obviously, what data is available. For example in a car crash, if one wants to know the speed before the impact and happen to have a radar (or speedometer ) data you have one level of precession --- If you have only sesmic data (how a house 20 yards away shook - or how loud the car crash sounded ..) .. there is less precession if you want to estimate the speed of the car prior to impact.

The yield estimates from data from accelerometers, and other devices nicely planted, are, obviously much more accurate (also more precession) than yield estimates from passive (Eg mb waves, size of crater etc) measurements. In theory, if I knew the design, for arguments sake say a pure fission device, and have data about, say ratio of certain daughter nuclei ( post event), I could (within a few percentage) calculate the amount of fission and calculate the yield.

In reactors, everything is controlled -- you have counters which counts the activity very precisely
(BTW for the first reactor in Chicago, when people were not that sure, . there were volunteers with Cd solution, standing by... just in case something went wrong ... to douse it with (and were willing to even endanger their lives in that process))

[NRao]

So, how many Kt is this pup?

Pentagon Wants 'Massive' Bomb Sooner

[shiv]

http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pI ... 50634.html
May 18 1998

Chidambaram also pointed out that the thermonuclear device or the hydrogen bomb used an advanced fission device to trigger the thermonuclear core.The fission trigger produced about 12 kilotonnes to activate the thermonuclear core to ultimately yield 45 kilotonnes.

[shiv]

http://www.indiatogether.org/manushi/is ... kharan.htm

"The blast (May 11,1998) registered clearly in Pakistan, Canada, Russia, Australia and here (Oslo). All the traces show it was at most 25 kilotons. Conventional wisdom states that 10 to 25 kilotons would be too small a yield to have been a full test of a thermonuclear weapon. In addition, in the present case, according to the claim by Dr. Chidambaram, there were two other nuclear explosions at the site on that date - a fission device produced an explosive yield of 15 kilotons and a fission trigger produced another 12 kilotons. Thus, the sum of the yields from these two reported fission sources is 27 kilotons, which is close to the yield indicated in the seismological readings. This similarity suggests strongly the fusion device (hydrogen bomb) failed to give any distinctive additional yield of sufficient magnitude to demonstrate a successful hydrogen bomb explosion. It is therefore possible to conclude that the hydrogen bomb test failed."

[shiv]

http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/may/18bomb7.htm

"One of the laboratories of DRDO had the task of 'weaponising' proven design. This activity involved design, testing and production of advanced detonators, ruggedised high volt trigger systems, interface engineering, systems engineering and systems integration to military specifications. Three other laboratories have made contributions in aerodynamics, arming, fusing, safety interlocks, flight trials etc. DRDO has, further, conducted a series of trials and achieved the necessary operations clearances.

"Additonally, DRDO shouldered the burden of field engineering associated with the conduct of the five tests along with DAE.

"DRDO and DAE have effectively and efficiently co-ordinated and integrated their respective technological strengths in a national mission to confer the country with a capability to vacate nuclear threats.

"The three tests conducted on May 11, 1998 were with a fission device with a yield of about 12 kt, a thermonuclear device with yield of about 43 kt and a sub-kilo tonne device. All the three devices were detonated simultaneously. It may be noted that the yield of the thermonuclear device tested on May 11 was designed to meet stringent criteria like containment of the explosion and least possible damage to buildings and structures in neighbouring villages.

[shiv]

Frontline Jun 1998
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1512/15120290.htm

We had planned the tests with an objective. Our objective was to prove a standard fission device and a thermonuclear device. The objective was also to prove the capability of our computer codes to predict with accuracy. Then it was to generate data on the basis of which further work can be carried out. That is how the devices consisted of one standard fission device, one thermonuclear device and three sub-kiloton devices of different configurations. Our Chairman (Dr. Chidambaram) has already told you about the yield of these devices. Now, the total yield of these devices had to be limited in such a way that the seismic damage to the buildings in the nearby village, 5 to 5.5 km away, is kept to a minimum. We did not want any damage to occur. So that put a limitation on the maximum yield.

<snip>

You spoke about the yield of our tests. There is a lot of scepticism in Western countries about the yield, particularly that of the thermonuclear device. International seismic stations reported picking up a faint rumble on May 11, and have estimated the yield to be 25 kilotons, not even 45 kilotons as claimed for the thermonuclear device by India. But the power or yield of a thermonuclear device or the hydrogen bomb is always in megatons, not in kilotons. Western experts say that there is no evidence to back up India's claim that it was a genuine hydrogen bomb. They say that "big claims require big evidence." What evidence do you have to prove that it was a hydrogen bomb?

We go by our measurements. In international (seismic) measurements, I have seen all kinds of numbers, some low, and some, in fact, higher than what we have predicted.

Some higher than what we had predicted?

Yes. Also some of them had classified them as an earthquake. For example, the International Data Centre which puts out information based on a large number of centres, initially classified it as an earthquake some 47 km deep (in the earth). Afterwards, they revised it and also revised the magnitude upwards."

The second thing is that they feel that the yield of a thermonuclear device should be in the megaton range. This is not true. As I said earlier, we were limited in the yield because we did not want any significant seismic damage to the buildings in the nearby village. So we designed the systems to suit that. Totally, we wanted to have a yield of around 60 kilotons. Of the three tests done together (on May 11), the yield of one (the standard fission device) was between 12 and 15 kilotons. The yield of the thermonuclear device was around 45 kilotons. The other was small, less than one kiloton.

So what is important is the right design configuration. It had the configuration of a regular thermonuclear device. You can always adjust it to whatever yield you want. There was no way we could have gone for a higher yield at that location. With the same design, by altering the dimensions and the quantity (of the fuel), we can take the yield to a much higher value. There is no problem in that. But the principle and the design remain the same. What more evidence do you want now?

[shiv]

July 19 1998
http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pI ... 50764.html

Sunday, July 19, 1998

N-blasts yield wrongly assessed -- Ramanna

The yields of the Indian tests had been confirmed by theUnited States Geological Survey which stated a combined yield of between 30 and 60 kilotonnes which was consistent with the announced yield of 56 kt.The US agency had arrived at this conclusion after putting together the results of 125 seismic stations.

[shiv]

http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pI ... 50574.html

Stating that the tremors caused by the tests could cause cracks in some pucca houses, an hour before the explosion jawans had approached the villagers and asked them to come out of their house saying that there was a bomb threat. However, one villager told them that they knew that a nuclear test was being conducted and asked them to go ahead without worrying about their houses.

[shiv]

Jun 20 2000
http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/2 ... 21024.html

New Delhi, June 20: Only one out of the five nuclear devices tested at Pokhran in May, 1998, was a weapon, the rest being devices with "weaponisable configuration", Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairman R Chidambaram has said.

"The 15 kiloton device was a weapon which had been in the stockpile for several years. Others were weaponisable configurations," Chidambaram said delivering a talk here last evening.

The fission device was evolved from India's peaceful nuclear experiment in May, 1974, he said.

Pointing out the difference between a weapon and a weaponisable configuration, Chidambaram said a host of other parameters, including the reaction of the device with the environment, has to be taken into account before a weaponisable configuration is converted into a weapon.

India conducted five nuclear tests in 1998 which included a 45 kiloton thermonuclear device, a fission device and three sub-kiloton devices.

Though the total yield of the two-stage thermo nuclear device was made available, AEC intentionally neither gave the fission-fusion break up nor declared the material of the device so that "nobody can calculate the fusion yield," he said, adding that it consisted of a "fusion-boosting fission device" as the primary stage followed by a fusion device.

He, however, said the fusion part worked perfectly.

Chidambaram said neutron bombs, considered the third generation nuclear weapons, are not a substitute for fission products.

[shiv]

August 2000
http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/2 ... 10044.html

Just days ago, Iyengar created a stir by demanding a peer review of the Indian nuclear weapons programme. At the end of his lecture responding to a question by The Indian Express whether he was indicating that Pokharan-II tests were a failure, Iyengar said: "I never disagreed with the yields published by the DAE. I agree they are the best people to judge and they have done what they can. But in the intricacy that I showed, how much offusion energy came out of that, how much of fission energy came out of that, there is a complication. It has got three devices inside: a fission device, a booster device and a thermonuclear part. How you apportioned the yieldbetween these three is something has not been done absolutely correctly or has not been publicly expressed. It's not that a fusion device cannot be partially burning. I can show you American references that it can be a partial burning; it need not be a full burning. Still it produces that energy. So under those circumstances, it is my conviction and the fact that it has to be weaponised requires further testing. So we should not say we don't need any more testing. This is what I challenge. That is not correct. If we have to weaponise, if we have to progress in R&D, then we need the option to test and therefore we should not sign the CTBT."

[shiv]

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/07/21/st ... 21000h.htm
2001

The thermonuclear bomb used a boosted fission device to start the fusion process. Dr. Chidambaram said the thermonuclear device had given the yield it was designed for. Steps had been taken in the design of the device to hold down its yield to just 45 kilo tons. This was done because two old tunnels dug in the 1980s had been used for Pokhran-II. Given the depth of these tunnels, a more powerful explosion would have resulted in radioactivity being released into the atmosphere. It was also necessary to minimise seismic damage to a village five km. away. Now that the device had been successfully tested, scientists were confident of building thermonuclear bombs of 200-kilo tons or even greater power, Dr. Chidambaram said.

[shiv]

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000 ... 052523.htm

``The 15 kiloton device was a weapon, which had been in the stockpile for several years. Others were weaponisable configurations''. The difference between a weapon and a ``weaponisable configuration'' lies in the fact that a host of other parameters, including the reaction of the device with the environment, has to be taken into account before a ``weaponisable configuration'' can be converted into a weapon. In other words, a ``weaponisable'' device could be designed or made into a weapon. The question now arises whether more tests are required to convert these ``weaponisable configurations'' into weapons.

The Joint Statement issued by the AEC Chairman and the Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister shortly after the nuclear tests had stated that: ``The three tests conducted on May 11, 1998, were with a fission device with a yield of about 12 kt, a thermonuclear device with a yield of about 43 kt and a sub-kilo tonne device. On May 13, 1998, two more sub-kilo tonne nuclear tests were carried out.'' It further informed that: ``The tests... have provided critical data for the validation of our capability in the design of nuclear weapons of different yields for different delivery systems. These tests have significantly enhanced our capability in computer simulation of new designs and taken us to the stage of sub-critical experiments in the future, if considered necessary.'' This carefully-worded phraseology does not clarify whether more field tests would be required to fashion the devices tested at Pokhran, with reasonable confidence, into deliverable nuclear weapons.

[Manish_Sharma]

Deleted