Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

[svinayak]

Please read the two articles I have posted in the "deterrence thread, where the US was scared of a puny NoKo threat - both during the Clinton and Bush II era. This is proof enough that deterrence is not based on what we think of as parity - that is I have a total of 500 Kt and he has a total of 100 MTs so he is stronger, no he is not. Deterrence is never a ratio of what you have vs, what the opponent has. It is the unacceptable pain you can inflict upon him which prevents him from starting a nuclear war.

Level of development makes this difference - There is no point of taking NoKo to stone age. - It already is in that stage.

[SaiK]

If we are talking yields, then we should think of our doctrine, rather see deterrance values established by other nations. We are not even close to what the two big cold-war P5 members have established and are capable of sending salvos. Its a disaster in waiting, should that really happen.. hence a nice deterrence is established by their clear large mega tonners.

Now, bringing noko and pakis into our thoughts, makes our better side of egos, into trash can. Make no mistakes, the clubing can bring down our deterrance values too, rather increase. IMHO.

Unkil playing politics, and keeping tabs is a different game and can't be accounted as anything for crossing nuclear thresholds. NoKo or Iran are nothing.. they can't or they would be perishing even before they press the button.. they are under constant watch... unkil balistic defences can destroy them in boost phase, or at least midcourse which is safe for all of us.

Even chinese mirv ridden decoys are useless for that matter in real deterrence... since, alaska would be sending salvos that china can't think of counting themselves in millions rather billions.. and we all at desh will be mutated as well from those radiations.

The power speaks.. nothing can stand against that kind of detterence.. unless, you start thinking like pakis, who would send pathetic idiots to blow up new york, or warships or akshardam. No sane nation, will use nukes to strike against a terror strike. Pakis enjoying this freedom right now, against our NFU..

If we show the world we have a much bigger neutron, nothing beats that.. and perhaps, we need to tell pakis, we have kiloton neutrons as city killers.. or for area cleansing ops on terror joints in deeper wazirstan..

We can stop that., and we need to push for that Neutrons.

[NRao]

Please read the two articles I have posted in the "deterrence thread, where the US was scared of a puny NoKo threat - both during the Clinton and Bush II era. This is proof enough that deterrence is not based on what we think of as parity - that is I have a total of 500 Kt and he has a total of 100 MTs so he is stronger, no he is not. Deterrence is never a ratio of what you have vs, what the opponent has. It is the unacceptable pain you can inflict upon him which prevents him from starting a nuclear war.

Level of development makes this difference - There is no point of taking NoKo to stone age. - It already is in that stage.

With that response I would not worry about India either.

[Kanson]

The interesting things about all these news items is the number and identities of people who have expressed some doubt about the S1 test. But apart from Iyengar and to an extent Santhanam - nobody has actually brought any data to the table and have tended to quote a limited set of seismo reports (not even all of them)

The group are:

Homi Sethna
PK Iyengar
K.Santhanam
A.Gopalakrishann
Subba Rao (? not a real insider?)

I am not adding Bharat Karnad here because he is an "outsider" of sorts not actually having worked in the labyrinths of the establishment.

I just wonder if there is a clear rivalry between the team that got a chance to test their designs versus the people who did not. Ramanna is the exception.

Another point to note is that Chidambaram himself says that the future of weapons in India is closely linked with the "minimum" in CMD. If that changes testing will be needed.

Thats a coup. It proves all those, who like to paint him in a bad light as a kind of person shivering to test, as senstational idiots.

You missed A.N. Prasad. A.Gopalakrishann was from AERB. When he was at the helm of AERB, AEC Chairman removed BARC & other (related & sensitive) inst. from the purview of AERB.

Going by K.Santhanam, there are another 500 "senior scientist" from the "establishment" in the waiting list to the join the team. Given the numbers, i guess, they could form some union.

[Amber G.]

Sorry, do not want to offend any one but some posts are becoming very Err ...strange (at least in my opinion)
Will just give an example:

I would like to ask this from some experts who know seismology.

How much difference on the richter scale would a 75 Kt test made from a 45 Kt test? I am talking about the professed control of yield done in order to reduce the damage to khetolai....

The difference between a 200Kt and a 45 Kt is alright understandable. But I don't think a 75 Kt is any different than a 45Kt in terms of seismic upheaval to the neighbouring villages. ...

One does not have to be an expert in seismology. Ratio of Energy released by 75 Kt vs 45 Kt is 5:3.
Does not matter if you measure that in Richter, foot-pound of BTU. If you wish, you can preform a seismic experiment by measuring a ratio fairly easily - (By say let 75 kg person vs a 45 Kg person jump on you (or on your furniture from the same height.

As Bade said, if one is really interested, energy released in an earthquake of magnitude 8 on Richter scale is 1 million times the energy released from a magnitude 4 earthquake... destructive power wrt what happens to "neighboring village" really does not depend on what unit you use... ... houses get damaged even if the houses never heard of Richter scale.

And as some one pointed out, those who are planning the test, have to be very careful, to make sure that no radioactivity is released by venting etc.. It is beyond pale that one would go on and on mocking the scientist who did all that careful calculations by asking questions ...like ... "how much that is in Richter scale?" or pulling out numbers like "200KT vs 45 Kt ?
(Please read or re-read N^3 analysis.. he has very expertly and convincingly argued the point)

How do you do dial a yield on a TN? More boosting gas in the primary? AFAIK you can't exactly alter t ....

To put it mildly, I don't think too many people who could answer "how" of wepeon's design .. even those wiki experts, IMO.
and what one "knows" as in AFAIK.. may not amount to much..

P.S . Another suggestion: Check out "sonoluminescence" from some one knowledgeable in physics, or from internet/ wiki search for this or things like "Cassimir effct" or "cold fusion" etc before one start taking those cavity designs too seriously.

Sorry, if the tone sounds a little harsh ... no offense intended. Just that give some credits to those scientists who really worked the best they could... it is, IMO, really insulting, to keep implying as if the reputable scientists are that clueless that they could not calculate most simple ofthings.

[Kanson]

While waiting... waiting... waiting... for the cracker from Santhanam, Diwali has arrived. Still no cracker, sorry shoe droping from Santhanam. In the meantime something to chew.

Pokhran II : Why the US missed India's nuclear tests

Submitted by Mr. S.S. Vasan (May 13, 1998)


WASHINGTON, May 12 - Despite a $27 billion budget and a galaxy of spy satellites, U.S. Intelligence agencies failed to detect India's preparation for Monday's nuclear blast. Why? U.S. officials are blaming it on a leak to The New York Times. Senior Intelligence and military officials tell NBC News that India put its nuclear testing equipment underground in 1996 following a leak to The New York Times that U.S. spy satellites were monitoring that nation's nuclear test site.

"There was a leak that we knew would have a reaction and it did," said one senior intelligence official. "We watched as they put it underground... We warned back then that India now had the capability to test very quickly and predicted that we wouldn't be able to tell."

The Times report ran Dec. 14, 1995, and quoted unnamed government officials as saying satellites had recorded activity in western India that suggested a test might be imminent. No tests occurred and an Indian government spokesman said the Times report was "highly speculative." As a result, said officials, India was able to very "quickly and subtly" make preparations for the test of three nuclear devices Monday.

In fact, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger told reporters the United States still had no confirmation of the test nearly 12 hours after the blast occurred. India calculated the orbits of spy satellites and then moved equipment at times when they believed nothing was overhead. India, several officials noted, has long had a space program and is capable of determining what satellites are in which orbit. "They were in our blind spot," said a senior military official. Moreover, intelligence officials note that the Indian nuclear weapons program is the "most secretive" of all Third World programs. "We know more about the North Korean program than we do about the Indian program."

Satellite Imaging Capability

The reasons, say officials in both Washington and New Delhi, are varied. India has its own satellite-imaging capability, which gives it an understanding of what can and can't be seen from space. It's nuclear program is kept separate from its military, which like many militaries is prone to boasting and leaking. And unlike many programs, India's is not as dependent on outside help. India has a large pool of trained nuclear scientists and electrical engineers and an industrial infrastructure capable of producing key equipment. Much U.S. intelligence on other nations' nuclear programs is derived from electronic eavesdropping on sales of equipment related to weapons development. India has prevented Western intelligence from recruiting spies in India by an aggressive program of counterintelligence that includes surveillance and even attempted recruitment of diplomats and suspected agents. "They are very, very good," said one official. "Remember, this is the same country that produced the scientists who designed the Pentium chips," added an official. "They don't need a lot of outside help. They can do it on their own."

Televised Announcement

CIA officials say the United States did not know anything about the tests until Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee announced the tests on television Monday morning, four hours after they had taken place. The announcement even preceded analysis of the seismic data on the tests. "A lot of people had their hair on fire," said one intelligence official. Intelligence officials say policy officials deserve some of the blame for the tests, noting that intelligence officials have repeatedly warned that India's Hindu Nationalist BJP party was serious about "going nuclear." Bill Richardson, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told the Pakistani government last month that he was impressed with BJP "restraint" when he met with party officials prior to his visit to Islamabad. "The U.S. charge d'affaires got his butt chewed by the Pakistanis last night," an official noted, saying that the United States should have known of the Indian plan and that the tests proved there was little restraint in New Delhi.

[svinayak]

With that response I would not worry about India either.

If this is the deterrence God bless India.

[Sanku]

The interesting things about all these news items is the number and identities of people who have expressed some doubt about the S1 test. But apart from Iyengar and to an extent Santhanam - nobody has actually brought any data to the table and have tended to quote a limited set of seismo reports (not even all of them)

The group are:

Homi Sethna
PK Iyengar
K.Santhanam
A.Gopalakrishann
Subba Rao (? not a real insider?)

I am not adding Bharat Karnad here because he is an "outsider" of sorts not actually having worked in the labyrinths of the establishment.

I just wonder if there is a clear rivalry between the team that got a chance to test their designs versus the people who did not. Ramanna is the exception.

Another point to note is that Chidambaram himself says that the future of weapons in India is closely linked with the "minimum" in CMD. If that changes testing will be needed.

Thats a coup. It proves all those, who like to paint him in a bad light as a kind of person shivering to test, as senstational idiots.

You missed A.N. Prasad. A.Gopalakrishann was from AERB. When he was at the helm of AERB, AEC Chairman removed BARC & other (related & sensitive) inst. from the purview of AERB.

Going by K.Santhanam, there are another 500 "senior scientist" from the "establishment" in the waiting list to the join the team. Given the numbers, i guess, they could form some union.

Ah good examples of fair balanced discussion without involving any personality assassinations.

And very technical too.

Goody.
---------

Actually the "fair play" is not new, but only some folks get the claps for being good boys.

[SaiK]

perhaps the question is directed towards : was it that 45KT the max they could have done, given structural knowledge of the khetolai village? Of course, the point is not about destruction but more about testing..

why bother, if GoI is well shaped to help resettle and redo the village? then we can go even higher on the richter? I don't think any emphatic reasoning can be obtained or logical enough to say, we did it so, 'cause the villages would have been destroyed otherwise.. this is silly reasoning.

[abhiti]

Going by K.Santhanam, there are another 500 "senior scientist" from the "establishment" in the waiting list to the join the team. Given the numbers, i guess, they could form some union.

What good is union in face of plain stupidity? Is it all that preposterous to raise doubts about an equipment which has been tested exactly ONE time? Could someone explain how one test is enough?

[svinayak]

Is it all that preposterous to raise doubts about an equipment which has been tested exactly ONE time? Could someone explain how one test is enough?

American bunnies have the answer for this

[NRao]

Is it all that preposterous to raise doubts about an equipment which has been tested exactly ONE time? Could someone explain how one test is enough?

What can be explained in open source has been explained.

We will just have to wait for the other shoe to drop to see if any more technical details are released to make a better determination.

[shiv]

Here's a data point from Karnad speaking of 1995
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/ ... _2887.html

Early 1995
Differences emerge within India's Atomic Energy Commission on the merits of signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in the absence of further Indian nuclear tests. A group of scientists led by the Director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) Dr. Anil Kakodkar and the Director of the Solid State & Spectroscopy Group and head of the nuclear weapons program, Dr. S. K. Sikka, oppose the CTBT on grounds that it would effectively block further Indian nuclear weaponization efforts. The scientists are supported in their efforts by the defense ministry.
—Bharat Karnad, "Hesitant Nuclear Realpolitik: 1966-To Date," Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security: The Realist Foundations of Strategy (New Delhi: Macmillan, 2002), p. 379.

[shiv]

I find it interesting that the information that has appeared while going through the news archives from 1995 onwards - it looks like (the alleged liars and traitors) Chidambaram, Sikka and Kakodkar have been strong proponents of testing and opponents of the CTBT.

Goes to show how much one can skew viewpoints by going on a pointless witch hunt. That saddens me, and when I am sad I get angry and when I get angry I fight.

[NRao]

Here's a data point from Karnad speaking of 1995

Just one data point?

[shiv]

Here's a data point from Karnad speaking of 1995

Just one data point?

To paraphrase K.Santhanam "Everyone has a level of blindness of his choice and size"

[shiv]

why bother, if GoI is well shaped to help resettle and redo the village? then we can go even higher on the richter? I don't think any emphatic reasoning can be obtained or logical enough to say, we did it so, 'cause the villages would have been destroyed otherwise.. this is silly reasoning.

Do you think the intelligent thing to have done given the available shafts would have been to test 2 x 1 megaton in the 200 meter shaft and adjacent 150 meter shaft and have a massive blowout, fallout as well as structural damage in Khetolai and then announce to the world:

"See? I told ya I had bum. We really do have big bum but oops we also have big fallout and big damage to our own people's houses. But we don't care for our own people - so just think how we might feel about you friggin' mlecchas?"

That way every dushman would have browned his pants and every patriot would have felt reassured. Would that classify as non silly reasoning?

[Umrao Das]

"Man by nature is a political animal"

Proven by recent events even on BRF (not to talk about egos of the size of PSLV).

And often we play tunes to the taste of boss in charge, 1995 was a different boss, 1998 different and sine 2003 even more different one.

[Bade]

Is it all that preposterous to raise doubts about an equipment which has been tested exactly ONE time? Could someone explain how one test is enough?

American bunnies have the answer for this

How many tests did the Yankee bunnies do before they dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?

Unless, one were to consider the last two as live testing and hold usa for war crimes.

[Gagan]

The reason I brought up the 45 Kt vs the 75Kt argument to know the difference in richter scale each explosion would have is to test how valid the assertion is that the shaft would have taken x only and that a larger explosion would have damaged khetolai.

Venting has not been mentioned in the argument that the scientists had put forward when they mentioned the controlled yield. They mentioned damage to kehtolai as the reason why the blast yield was controlled.

AFAIK, on the richter scale, the difference of a 45 kt vs a 75 Kt would be marginal, amounting to about ~0.01 difference. Meaning that at those differences khetolai or the 13 -16 odd villages within a 10km radius would not be any worse off with the higher yield.

Now as to weather a full 200Kt yield would have resulted in more damage, yes of course. Would it have vented, we don't know enough about the shaft to know weather this would have.

As it is pokharan is not an ideal site for nuclear testing, there are numerous villages around, I once used google earth to count villages, temporary shelters, fields etc and noticed ~ 13-16 villages in a 10km radius at least.

If India ever has to test overtly, India has to find another test site.

[NRao]

Venting has not been mentioned in the argument that the scientists had put forward when they mentioned the controlled yield. They mentioned damage to kehtolai as the reason why the blast yield was controlled.

They did. The depth was computed. In fact recall they claimed to have done modeling based on the Branberry test in the US.

Now as to weather a full 200Kt yield would have resulted in more damage, yes of course. Would it have vented, we don't know enough about the shaft to know weather this would have.

There is enough to get into this topic. Example: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... crater.pdf page 2:

The cratering curves in [2] achieve a maximum at Ds = 40 and for this value of Ds
the corresponding Rs value in hard rock is 45 and 50 for alluvium. This means that for a
shaft like S-1 with depth of emplacement D = 200 metres or thereabouts, the maximum
crater size will be obtained by a device whose yield is
(200=40)3:4 = 237 kilotons
and this will produce a crater of radius 250 metres.

(Please read that entire article.)

All that apart, what are you trying to say?

[NRao]

WRT the khetolai village, do we have any idea what kind of shaking will the structures there can withstand?

[Umrao Das]

How many tests did the Yankee bunnies do before they dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?

Unless, one were to consider the last two as live testing and hold usa for war crimes.

Failure was an option and luxury for Amrikhans then,

Once SU had it they had it too, to test.

Thats the subtle difference

[sivab]

They did. The depth was computed. In fact recall they claimed to have done modeling based on the Branberry test in the US.

Sethna said we were lucky with POK-I, the whole thing collapsed instead of venting. Seems they made a miscalculation of burial depth for POK-I.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 960385.cms

When we did the test... the first test there was no politician. It was a raw one. We were lucky that the whole thing collapsed

Kakodkar mentioned Baneberry modeling for POK-II in response to that. Reports from 1998 mention modeling to calculate burial depth as well.

[Amber G.]

AFAIK, on the richter scale, the difference of a 45 kt vs a 75 Kt would be marginal, amounting to about ~0.01 difference. Meaning that at those differences khetolai or the 13 -16 odd villages within a 10km radius would not be any worse off with the higher yield.

Not only that, specially if you used 'fermis' in the scale, the Khetolai village was soooo far .. ( about 8000000000000000000 Fermis away from the shaft) and not to mention that a single brick of area is more than TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of barns (choosing the "scientific" unit for area you know) could be any worse by mere ~."01 difference" in Ritcher scale . (BTW the difference would be about .15 and not .01))


Why! even with 200KT ... than energy difference (from 45KT) would be less than ~.00002 (If you measure the yield in Gigaton of TNT)

I hope you forgive, if some think that, that kind of "calculation"/argument is some what ridiculous!

As said before the ratio is 5:3 (in the amount of energy released) and what you call it (marginal or not) does not depend on if you use Ritcher scale or not. (also as said before .. BTW the difference would be about .15 and not .01 : )

Pointing out the obvious: I for one is very glad that the scientists took the whole thing into account (Including calculations on venting and other things) to set (and conservatively) what are the safe values... May be at 75Kt would have been safe but that is not the point. (Though I may not call a ratio 5:3 "marginal") ... The argument that that difference is *only* such and such if you *only* measure is such and such unit is absurd.

Other types of "arguments" I am hearing wrt to N^3 very convincing post such as "photographs were taken by "jhola wala's" or "the residents were all supporting one political party are strange too...( I would not have believed it but these types of arguments have been made more than once in these 100+ pages.

If one can show that photographs taken were photo shopped, or some one leaks documents/memos where on shows that those in charge knowingly made up those numbers etc.. the story may have some legs.. but what we have above is an example of unbelievably strange arguments.

Now as to weather a full 200Kt yield would have resulted in more damage, yes of course. Would it have vented, we don't know enough about the shaft to know weather this would have.

Again pointing out the obvious, of course, and I agree you (and I) don't know, but I am glad that those who were responsible made it a point to know as much as they can. It is beyond pale to argue, on points which, in your own words, you simply do not know.

Hope this helps. Again no offense meant to anyone.

[SaiK]

Shivji, the silly reasoning is not from the pokhran perspective, but from the test perspective. In my thoughts, (non political) am considering a place that is suitable for a larger yield test. I am not confining test location to be only pokhran.

All these CIA and satellite evading chest beats makes me not a jingo rather the tests that is required.. if we have the technology, intelligence, brains to do it, I would rather call khan president, and invite him for the tests.

I am pretty sure, that we can find a place in India, to test a mega tonner.

[abhiti]

Is it all that preposterous to raise doubts about an equipment which has been tested exactly ONE time? Could someone explain how one test is enough?

American bunnies have the answer for this

??

How many tests did the Yankee bunnies do before they dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?

And it is still 1945, you anyway will use nukes on a nation which doesn't have them, and if it fails so what you are anyway gonna win the war, it just a matter of time and cost...right?

Unless, one were to consider the last two as live testing and hold usa for war crimes.

Why don't you try starting one? Let me give you something even simpler - hold war crimes against Pakistan for Kargil or 26/11? Oh I forget to even start a war crimes trial you need to be a world power.

[Bade]

^^^^
So why don't you provide convincing evidence that more than one test is required ? By how much are you going to improve your confidence level by doing say 2 or 3 tests as KS mentioned to begin with. Seems like you do have the answer. So do provide us and enlighten us.

[shiv]

Venting has not been mentioned in the argument that the scientists had put forward when they mentioned the controlled yield.

Not true Gagan. I will dig the statements out and post here

added later - oh Nrao has already pointed that out.

[shiv]

Shivji, the silly reasoning is not from the pokhran perspective, but from the test perspective. In my thoughts, (non political) am considering a place that is suitable for a larger yield test. I am not confining test location to be only pokhran.

All these CIA and satellite evading chest beats makes me not a jingo rather the tests that is required.. if we have the technology, intelligence, brains to do it, I would rather call khan president, and invite him for the tests.

I am pretty sure, that we can find a place in India, to test a mega tonner.

The Carey Sublette paper mentions other places in central India but he is looking at it from the perspective of testing in strata that will mask yield. I am certain there are other areas.

OTOH Pokhran is probably good enough it you drill down to 600 meters

[shiv]

Some info from RC about dial-a-yield

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper451.html

Thermonuclear Devices can be of different Types
Thermonuclear devices can be designed in many ways. In devices designed specially for PNE excavation applications, the fission trigger yield is minimised and the same is done in the low yield (in the region of one kiloton) battlefield weapon called the Enhanced Radiation Weapon or, in popular parlance, the neutron bomb. In a conventional themonuclear weapon like the W-87 of USA, there is a high enriched Uranium ring around the fusion secondary, in which further fissions are caused by the 14 MeV fusion neutrons. In fact, it appears that the yield from the tertiary fission stage can be varied between 0 and 175 kt as the total yield varies between 300 and 475 kt for this weapon which is said to be phased out under the START negotiations and replaced by the W-88. The latter has a fixed yield of 475 kt and is perhaps the most favoured weapon in the US arsenal; it may be recalled that this weapon was in the news recently in the context of alleged spying in a U.S weapons laboratory. There are other thermonuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile where the warhead yield is reported to be widely variable, while the dimensions and the weight are said to be the same. Engineering wise, this is desirable.

[shiv]

Anyone interested in a great article about nuclear weapons design - please read this. Nrao that means you

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0401110v3

[Umrao Das]

In the end is Sita Safe or are we still searching in the south?

[NRao]

XPosting:

NPT and Obama: How long can India hold out?

[dinesha]

Anyone interested in a great article about nuclear weapons design - please read this. Nrao that means you

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0401110v3

Thanks Shiv for excellent link.. this paper helps in understanding the role of ICF facility to further the nuclear weapon design.. some interesting quotes..

In 1977, ICF was at its beginning. It was important to show that it would be a
powerful substitute for atmospheric tests and an effective simulator for weapons
effects studies. This substitution has progressively been done over the past twenty
years (with the help of ICF and a number of pulsedpower technologies) and will
be complete when large ICF facilities such as NIF will yield the very intense bursts
of neutrons that only underground nuclear explosions could provide.

In fact, despite more than 50 years of research and development, and after almost
two thousand test explosions, the scientific understanding of the details of the secondary
system is still incomplete......
A major problem with full-scale testing is that the secondary of an actual bomb
is buried deep inside the weapon, surrounded by a thick ablator and the radiation
case. Therefore, most experimental data on the thermonuclear part of the explosion
is indirect. In comparison, an ICF pellet is an almost naked secondary, and many
configurations can be tested at will, with much better diagnostic capabilities than
with underground nuclear tests. The promise of ICF is a complete description of
thermonuclear weapons physics from first principles.

Table in page 72 mentions presence of Laser driven Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) facility in Indore in India..
Bharat Karnad and Arun_S (IDR article: Way to a Cred. Detter.) were categorical about the absence of ICF facility in India. Further they had always argued lack of ICF and 2-axis radiographic hydrodynamic facilities in India for absence of advanced fission and fusion weapon design (in absence of dynamic testing)... Looks like we have both (Hydrodynamic facility-confirmed by SBM)...

Seems everyone have their own agenda(s) ..even former member of NSAB.. why downplay own country’s capabilities?
.. following is the link to profile of CAT, Indore.. seems this ICF facility predates Feb, 2005..

Laser Plasma Interaction Studies
The advent of compact, table top terawatt ( called T3 ) laser systems
since the last decade has revolutionized the field of laser plasma
interaction with many potential applications ranging from table top
fusion reactions to development of compact plasma - based electron
accelerators. At CAT we have designed, built and commissioned a
table top one terawatt, 1 picosecond duration Nd:glass laser system
with focusable intensity exceeding 1017 W/cm2. The plasma produced
at these intensities acts like a miniaturized ultrafast x-ray source of
high energy photons ( up to MeV) and high energy charged particles
ranging from protons to highly charged ions of heavy elements. These
will have many applications in nuclear and material sciences.
A high intensity pulsed laser beam of gigawatt to terawatt peak power
can heat the matter to generate a high temperature plasma of
hundreds of million degrees at several tens of megabar pressure,
mimicking the conditions existing in the core o f sun. We have set up a
high power Nd:glass, 2-beam laser system which can provide 100
joule energy pulses of one nanosecond (10-9 s) duration. This is being
used to heat hollow micro-spheres of gold ( called hohlraum ) to
produce intense thermal x-ray radiation, and to study opacity
enhancement in mixed element targets, and the various processes
involved in laser driven inertial confinement fusion.

[NRao]

dinesha,

Please check the dates on all these publications. IIRC, some of them high slung labs were impacted by the reduction in funding (courtesy of MMS as PM - IF that really has any relations to te funding that is). I suspect someone has to sit and verify teh status of each and every lab in India.

[Guddu]

[quote="shiv] But seriously Guddu - that "serious question" was a joke meant to illustrate a point.[/quote]

duh!, dodgy question

[dinesha]

I did mentioned that RRCAT’s activity and facility profile is dated Feb, 2005.. even the ITER paper is recent Feb 2008

How do you assert that funding for ICF facility was curtailed? Any pointers/source please?
It is beyond imaginations that Indian nuclear bosses will allow such an act of treachery.. ICF research is critical in absence of dynamic testing...
No offence but are those your assumptions?

[rakall]

Shiv, Dinesha et.al.. -- Please Read page27 in that paper

It has some interesting assertions:

1. Any technologically advanced country can build a "militarily usable two-stage Hydrogen bomb" without nuclear testing.

2. The neutrons produced by Fusion are 14Mev high-energy type.. (which RC quoted in the press conference to say that Post-shot Radiochem analysis had 14Mev high-energy neutrons which are different to low-energy 2Mev neutrons seen in fission yield)

3. These 14Mev neutrons can fission any transuranic material (all isotopes of Uranium & Plutonium)

4. Above point3 means this :(as in last paragraph of page27)
If the tamper of the second-stage is made of Lead or Bismuth (which probablly absorb/contain neutrons) -- the yield will be "lower" & can be limited to 50Kt... This is what India has likely done..

For the same design - if the tamper is made of U238 (instead of lead/bismuth) the yield will be 150Kt.. if the tamper is U235 then the yield will be 300kt.. If the tamper is Pu, then yield becomes a little higher.. And if transuranic material is used for tamper -- then the design becomes a "three-stage design".. (Probably this is what Ak & RC refer to when they say no one outside the design team has an idea of the materials used.. )

So it is possible that we have tested a "three stage design with a non-yielding tamper" -- hence it is a two-stage design that was tested.. but simply by changing the tamper to U235/U238/Plutonium -- we can achieve a 200-300Kt yield..

[shiv]

rakall that link gives the picture (Figure 4) of a boosted fission device with just 10 kg conventional explosive and 4 kg Pu (if the figures are to be believed).

Although the paper is somewhat supercilious and treats India, Pakistan and NoKo on par, the lower half of page 24 and upper half of page 25 are significant

Note (from page 25)

3) The most important technical aspects of boosting (e.g., that during the implo-
sion of the pit by chemical explosives the fusion fuel gets sufficiently compressed
without mixing with the fissile material) can be tested without actually starting
fission or fusion reactions. This can be done outside of the scope of the CTBT, and
only requires conventional equipments that are available in most high-explosive
research laboratories.
4) Using boosting, it is straightforward to build highly efficient and reliable
fission weapons using reactor-grade plutonium. In particular, the possibility of
a preinitiation of the chain reaction, which creates difficulties in making a non-
boosted fission bomb [24, 25], is no longer a serious problem. In fact, two of
the five devices tested by India in May 1998 are believed to have used plutonium
that was not classified as weapons grade [26]. Moreover, independently of the
type of fissile material used, the construction of “simple” and “deliverable” tritium-
boosted nuclear weapons can be easier than the construction of primitive Hiroshima
or Nagasaki type atomic bombs: the main problem is to acquire the few grams of
tritium that are needed for every weapon (see Fig.1).