Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 20 Sep 2009 17:47

Trying to Equate current Chinese posturing to the TN fizzle or sizzle is not right in any sense. An enemy wouldn't worry whether whats going to fall on their head is a Thermo nuclear or a pure fission bomb. But what is at present in our inventory to get the bum above their heads is the question I believe is more relevant.

Do we have operationalized (I mean in service already) the Agni 3 or K-15 & Arihant combo already and that too in numbers or will we have to start assembling it when the war starts? I must say that I am ignorant on these facts as I am a pure itty witty guy. And I believe it is this which gives the Chinese a window of opportunity not whether our TN is working or not. Even if our nuclear capability is a bluff its our enemy's call to take the bite or not.

So including my this post, all post trying to bring Chinese window of opportunity is an OT. JMT

And am still enjoying this thread though I belong to the 100

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 20 Sep 2009 18:12

Prithvi, AGni-1/2 are operational, Agni-3 will undergo one more test then its production will be scaled up, Agni-2 itself have been inducted, some of them with added stages, High altitude motors and RVs which can hit targets over 4500km away. Agni-3 will be inducted in phases because many variants exist. Sagarika or K-15 has been tested many a time can hit as far as 1800km, the final test will be done once ATV is ready for sea launch. Wonder when Nirbhay begins testing, it will be the primary sub sonic cruise missile in our inventory and can carry 24 warheads.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Sep 2009 18:19

abhiti wrote:
You are missing forests for trees. Clearly what India has today is not sufficient. When we have 1000 TN weapons deployed with ATV carrying SLBMs we may enter the difficult arena of defining sufficient. Today this debate is irrelevant.

As per the table of radius of destruction (regarding which you corrected my error) you find that 1000 bombs of 200 kiloton yield will destroy 50 x 1000 = 50,000 sq km of "moderate destruction" {Larger for mild destruction)

China's land area is 9.5 million square kilometers

Assuming that you want to get 1% of that in the form of urban settlements an area of nearly 100,000 square km must be hit. Assuming 1000 X 50 kt nukes you can decimate 50% of the area of cities - taking cities as occupying 1% of China's land area.

Again assuming that 1% of China is cities, does one need to decimate 50% of city area to destroy urban life in a nation?

I suggest that 10% of city area destruction is sufficient - i.e. 0.1% of China's total area - or 10,000 square km. For that you will need only 200 x 200 kt warheads. Even that is likely to cause heavy casualties. If you use NSA adviser Narayanan's figure - 1 billion deaths from bombing 10,000 sq km of cities only. That cannot be right - I would suggest 200 million deaths.

As per the chart you can do the same using 625 X 50 kt warheads

I do not believe a threat that scale of damage is needed to make China "respect" India. The ability to cause 25 million deaths is sufficient in my view - because that would be accompanied by 50 million horrific injuries.

Reduce that number to 80 x 50 kt warheads. Does not necessarily have to be TN, though preferable.

And destroying the whole country? Forget about it.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 20 Sep 2009 18:23

NSA dismisses DRDO scientist's claims on Pokhran II as 'horrific'

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 033464.cms

National Security Adviser M K Narayanan has termed a former DRDO scientist's claims on Pokhran II nuclear tests as "horrific" and
asserted that India has thermonuclear capabilities which have been verified by a peer group of researchers.

http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/ ... =EDITORIAL
India has thermonuclear capabilities: NSA

"We have thermonuclear capabilities. I am absolutely sure. Even if we are hit, we will have enough to be able to deliver something," said Narayanan.

Former senior DRDO official K. Santhanam had raised doubts that India's thermonuclear test in 1998 had not worked.

"I have chosen my words very carefully - (the yield was) 45 kilotons... And nobody... including Santhanam, who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about... knows, for that matter any one else can contest what is a proven fact by the data which is there," said the NSA.

I think this is enough and we should stop discussing this further. There is no reason that we should not believe NSA and this should put a complete stop on Santhanam fuss.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Sep 2009 18:27

SanjibGhosh wrote:NSA dismisses DRDO scientist's claims on Pokhran II as 'horrific'

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 033464.cms

I think this is enough and we should stop discussing this further. There is no reason that we should not believe NSA and this should put a complete stop on Santhanam fuss.

What? Where is your sense of responsibility? The thread has not even reached 30 pages and you want to destroy India's ability to retaliate?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 20 Sep 2009 18:36

IF the Chinese had suspicions of the TN deterrent - they've known since 1998.

The new posturing has to do with the fact that India is bolstering conventional forces and more importantly infrastructure in the operational area vs them.

In addition the 2 MTN divs being raised are offensive formations and not defensive ones.

Add to that the 2008 trouble in Tibet and you have a China that while very strong is nervous.

General Sundarji at page 67 of Blind Men of Hindoostan writes that for minimum deterrence against a small country, 1 MTE (megaton equivalent) is sufficient, while for deterring a large country more than 4 MTE is unlikely to be required.

At page 79 he goes on to say that:
"For a strategic deterrent with emphasis on value targets and area type of counterforce targets, weapons yields from about 20KT to 150KT should do. Hence fission and enhanced fission weapons would do. There ought to me no need to develop fusion weapons, or in popular terminology, hydrogen bombs. The day of the megaton monster is certainly over. The order of accuracies available today for ballistic missiles even in the third world is adequate for a deterrence strategy that does not emphasize attack on point targets."

Sundarji's writings remain very influential in the armed forces as - compared to the civilian academics such as Karnad - he combines both an operational knowledge with an understanding of the technical-politico-strategic aspects of nuclear weapons.

Nothing has fundamentally changed from his threat perception to today - China's nuclear threat is very much considered.

His views cannot be taken at lesser value than Chellaney's, Karnad's, Iyengar's or anyone else's.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 20 Sep 2009 18:45

shiv wrote: What? Where is your sense of responsibility? The thread has not even reached 30 pages and you want to destroy India's ability to retaliate?

... not at all ... what I wanted to say we should stop doubting the success of Pokhran II.

RameshC · Post by **RameshC** » 20 Sep 2009 18:54

shiv wrote:
SanjibGhosh wrote:NSA dismisses DRDO scientist's claims on Pokhran II as 'horrific'

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 033464.cms

I think this is enough and we should stop discussing this further. There is no reason that we should not believe NSA and this should put a complete stop on Santhanam fuss.

What? Where is your sense of responsibility? The thread has not even reached 30 pages and you want to destroy India's ability to retaliate?

sense of responsibility?? well you mentioned 25 million chinese deaths, now is that a sense of being responsible?? The fact remains small deployable nukes will be used from platforms like Brahmos1/2, Nirbhay, Sagarika, in order to take out critical air, army and naval bases, key landmarks and intelligence assets in cities will be targetted with conventional weapons, i seriously doubt that anyone in the Indian strategic command is insane enough to deploy nukes on any enemy city. Land launher and silo based ICBMs are useless because we will target them first with weapons like Brahmos-2 and Sagarika, the remaining threat comes from enemy air and ship/sub deployable nukes, brahmos-1 will wipe out most of PLAN's pawns while su-30mki, PAKFA, mig-29, LCAmk-2 will mop out incoming aerial threats. while AAD, PAD and the next gen hypersonic interceptors and porbably AEGIS will keep our skies very safe.

i for one dont doubt out H-bomb abilities and niether should anyone here, not needed. when we could develope our own reactors, our own BMD, etc. i am pretty sure our scienists never had any trouble making a few particles fuse.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 20 Sep 2009 18:59

Whaat?

A man prone and known to drafting error shri MKN's word is going to deter any one, Its one more Shame Shake all over again.

Let him get busy with Chai paani biscoot as the first memorial service of 26/11 approaches.

Some joker

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Sep 2009 19:00

RameshC wrote: i seriously doubt that anyone in the Indian strategic command is insane enough to deploy nukes on any enemy city.

No Ramesh. I believe that you have not been following this issue seriously.

I will make only 3 points to add to the volumes I have already typed:

1) I believe India has no warheads small enough to mount on Brahmos, which in any case is useless against China
2) India nuclear doctrine is not to mount nuclear attacks on enemy naval/air bases
3) India's nuclear doctrine calls for massive retaliation against enemy population centers if India is attacked with nukes.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 20 Sep 2009 19:02

Shiv, if the 15 kt was actually scaled down to 170kg or 200kg as Perkovich suggests, it is not impossible to mount one on Brahmos.

Karnad says yes but I don't know.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Sep 2009 19:07

Sanjay wrote:Shiv, if the 15 kt was actually scaled down to 170kg or 200kg as Perkovich suggests, it is not impossible to mount one on Brahmos.

Karnad says yes but I don't know.

Yoo hoooo! Hello Pakistan!

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 20 Sep 2009 19:49

i didnot know this, everything on google.

little boy on hiroshima --> flat terrain.
13 and 18 kilotons of TNT.
~140,000 people (~ 0.2 - 0.15% of bangalore's current population, blr is third largest urban agglomeration in india).
direct destruction area ~8 sq. kms -> 3.2 kms diameter. within this radius anything that could not hold 5 psi of pressure was destroyed. i.e, if india gate is the epicenter, anything west of yamuna and east of pusa and between asif ali rd and pragati maidan is destroyed. in vidhan soudha is target, all of old petes to the west and a good chunk of dandu aka cant(home to sappers) on the east is destroyed.

this weapon was not tested before hand.

in kashmir(distributed destruction), it is estimated that 47,000 people have been killed in ~20 years, i.e., ~1/3rd of what is possible in one bang.

~ 1.5 lakh people can die with one weapon. i dont know what it means. but we must consider the calculus of the other guy too. i think when decisions are actually made they will be made on differential measures. they will not use absolute measures. the number 1.5 lakh people will not be used, for example. if it boils down to give-and-take it does appear that bigger the better. one of the the things about having to use 10 weapons to do equal equal, is that you are that much more vulnerable, you have increased your logistic costs by that much and so on. and at the decision making level, you have to sustain the will and ferocity to command 10 blows. that increases the threshold of decision making. then variables like is 8 enough or should i use 9, 10 or 7 comes into play.

Jonathan Allen · Post by **Jonathan Allen** » 20 Sep 2009 19:50

shiv wrote:The NSA is a funny man - and may be as "vaaazha-vaazha- kozha-kozha" as Santhanam

Just read his words.

"The thermonuclear device had a yield of 45 kilotons. I have chosen my words carefully 45 kilotons and nobody, including Mr Santhanam who has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, can contest what is proven fact by the data which is there," Narayanan said.
He says "The thermonuclear device had a yield of 45 kilotons.". He does not say design yield or actual yield.

He is certainly telling the truth and has chosen his words very carefully.

Mr. Narayanan has indeed chosen his words carefully. By deliberately leaving out designed yield and the actual yield, he is techinically not lying.

In this matter of such profound national importance, there are enough reasons to NOT take as gospel, the words of either a GOI official or any one from Santhanam's + group.

Sadly, all the concerns being raised (before and now ) about the actual yield has diluted India's claimed nuclear capability (actual or exaggerated). When it is next to impractical for India to support the claim with a large number of tests, it becomes all the more important for our establishment to prove beyond anyone's doubt the TN device's yield (designed and actual ) in the one test that was done. They owe it to the nation. Mere statements or dismissals are not enough.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 20 Sep 2009 19:58

^^^ Santhanam disputed the 45 kt figure of TN. So i guess MKN talked abt the 45 kt mark. From memory, the design specification as per official release is 43+12 = 55kt and this resulted in total of 60 kt. May be one can say design yield is 55 kt and actual yield is 60 kt.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Sep 2009 20:31

Jonathan Allen wrote:
Sadly, all the concerns being raised (before and now ) about the actual yield has diluted India's claimed nuclear capability (actual or exaggerated).

I am less sure about this for the following reason.

Every "leadership" in every nation knows that public opinion can be swayed one way or another by carefully timed statements made by someone or other. In some instances statements can be made to deliberately mislead someone or the other - so no foreign government will rely entirely on the public spat created by loud public statements on this issue as "proof" that anything is bad or good. They will have to rely on other means as well

There is yet another layer - but one that I have mentioned before. Once you have fissile material (Enriched Uranium, weapons grade Pu) - you need only 1960s level engineering tech to make an atom bomb. Nobody doubts that India has enough to make at least a 100. A 100 fission bombs are not a happy thing for any opponent of yours to possess. So regardless of whether the TN worked or not it will be small consolation to anyone as India's fissile material stocks build up and the numbers of delivery systems increase.

The same facts hold true for Pakistan vis a vis India and Korea vis a vis the US

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 20 Sep 2009 20:47

shiv wrote:
abhiti wrote:
You are missing forests for trees. Clearly what India has today is not sufficient. When we have 1000 TN weapons deployed with ATV carrying SLBMs we may enter the difficult arena of defining sufficient. Today this debate is irrelevant.
As per the table of radius of destruction (regarding which you corrected my error) you find that 1000 bombs of 200 kiloton yield will destroy 50 x 1000 = 50,000 sq km of "moderate destruction" {Larger for mild destruction)

China's land area is 9.5 million square kilometers. Assuming that you want to get 1% of that in the form of urban settlements an area of nearly 100,000 square km must be hit.

Saar your table of relative destruction is incomplete. A complete table will include weapon, its weight, area destroyed (burn/ radiological/ shock wave), amount of material required, cost of weapon and its delivery platform (missile), as well as operational cost and reliability. Even at the minimum you need to include area shock wave heavy destruction, weight, and cost.

Please substantiate your assumption wrt 1% being urban area. Just so that you know Shanghai alone has land area of 6300 sq. km so 10000 sq km translates to just two metro areas like Shanghai.

Then adjust your numbers for following factors: China+Pakistan, loss due to first strike or interception, and that in case of nuke strike you would want to keep some active in case of threat from another source.

Also any asymmetry in nuclear holding will foreclose first strike i.e. if China can destroy 100% of Indian urban area then it makes no sense for India to threaten a nuke strike on 10% of Chinese urban area. If India threatens nuke strike on Shanghai and Beijiing according to your 10000km calculation, it is very likely that Chinese will call the bluff as then can not just demolish Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madrass, Bangalore, but many more. Asymmetry just means China can use its superior conventional force on India without ever having to worry about a nuke strike.

shaardula · Post by **shaardula** » 20 Sep 2009 20:54

i dont know if there exists any city anywhere in the the world that has civic amenities to take manage death of 1.5 lakh people AND its fallout. if they create multiple such crisis zones, as is likely in any real new clear war, i would imagine a whole lot of countries would be subject to real duress. i would imagine if india were to take out the 3 gorges and even a part of guangzhou, it would stretch even the uber efficient systems of the red army and possibly create internal tensions.

in any case, in absolute numbers, we are no where close to matching chinese numbers and in from what i understand not likely to get there any time soon.

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 20 Sep 2009 20:58

NSA says "Even if we are hit, we will have enough to be able to deliver something," said Narayanan.

Is he not confirming that it was a fizzle...the key word is SOMETHING. Even Santy is saying that we can deliver SOMETHING (very small).

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Sep 2009 21:00

abhiti wrote:
Saar your table of relative destruction is incomplete. A complete table will include weapon, its weight, area destroyed (burn/ radiological/ shock wave), amount of material required, cost of weapon and its delivery platform (missile), as well as operational cost and reliability. Even at the minimum you need to include area shock wave heavy destruction, weight, and cost.

Saar you are unable to do that yourself - having first asserted that you need 1000 weapons. It is my fault that I walked into your trap. I am leaving my post as take it or leave it . My statements are no less credible than yours, probably more - but no proof will be provided. If you want to disprove them - fine - I am not going to bother supporting them only because of my experience with people who ask for excruciating detail only to trash them You IMO are certain to do exactly that.

Won't fall for that one again My fault this time. I am going to back out of this.

abhiti wrote:Also please substantiate your assumption wrt 1% being urban area. Also adjust your numbers for following factors: China+Pakistan, loss due to first strike or interception etc, and that you wouldn't after a nuclear strike want to be left with no nuclear weapons.

No such substantiation will occur saar. Take it or leave it. This is a forum for opinions. You want me to prove my opinion - you won't get it. You can try proving your own views - but I'm not really interested

Thanks

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Sep 2009 21:02

sanjay, Thanks for direct quotes of Gen Sunderji's words. He says fusion in not needed to achieve the capability required. And thats true. Scalability of pure fission to achieve that capability has weight and consequent range penalties. Enhanced fission provides a way out to achieve the capability. The crux of the matter is that BARC said the S-I primary was of that nature. And till Santhanam's article pointing out the undamaged winch and shaft and the lack of sufficient crater put doubts on this path. If it didn't achieve direct damage at the shaft how can it be scaled? The seismic data is subject to azimuthal variation due to simultaneity of the explosions. So lets not worry about that. Out of country and even in country data is corrupted. One way the S-I primary could do little surface damage and yet work would be if it were over-buried.

Amit and samuel,

Do you guys know how to do Monte Carlo analysis? What I have in mind is to take shiv data on damage potential for given yield as a distribution, an assumption on number available (K Subramanyam, Brig, Nair et al) and potential challengers and use Gen. Sunderji's deterrent damage capability and run a Monte Carlo. This should tell us whats needed for the variety of challenges and whats needed to deter. We need to temper this with the evolving econo-political milieu of the challengers.

My hunch is its only the very extreme cases that require those high yield and high range capability. And based on that to protect that black swan event the right to test has to be retained.
Thanks, ramana

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Sep 2009 21:03

Guddu wrote: Is he not confirming that it was a fizzle...the key word is SOMETHING. Even Santy is saying that we can deliver SOMETHING (very small).

Out of curiosity can I ask the rationale behind describing the explosive power of 12,000 tons of TNT as small.

It is small only in a "Yours is bigger than mine

" way. But not small in terms of utility. So please tell me what is small about a bomb that delivers 12,000 tons of TNT in one go.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Sep 2009 21:16

This is a note regarding the posts on this thread by postor "abhiti". I have reported the post where s(he) made the following abusive comments:

Is it a joke or what? We have kids as board moderators! And other moderators like Archan protecting him. Where is archan editing the above post? It is easy to talk ideals like narayanan was doing in lca discussion and others. But I know when I see emotional unstable folks running around reality is different.

That is sheer, hateful personal attack. Please note that
1. I am NOT "moderating" this topic. If I were, it would have been cleared of idiots long ago and the discussion would have been kept sane, and people would have to respond to questions that refute their positions - or exit. But, I am NOT moderating any posts here, as should have been very obvious even to kids with normal intelligence.

2. I am not arguing with abhiti's declaration that "we have kids as moderators". That would be entirely in line with the standard of posting here by postors like abiti.

3. Abhiti attacked me gratuitously, interrupting a decent debate between me and Arun_S, for asking whether Saeed would be extradited (or something like that) if India sets off a 4MT blast, with some sneering OT abuse like "Oh! narayanan is going to tell us how to get Saeed extradited". This was blatantly dishonest of "abhiti", because I was merely responding to Arun_S' question on why Pakistan was not extraditing the terrorist today (presumably arguing that it is is lack of fear of India). This showed that his/her intent was to provoke me, because s(he) clearly (from his/her postings here) did not have either the courtesy, intelligence or the civility to answer my point logically.

My response - which abhiti has now taken as success in provoking me, but is are entirely wrong in believing that - is a proper, succinct response to ALL of the relevant points raised in his/her post.

4. The above reference to "emotional unstable people running around" appears directed at me. If so, I think "abhiti"'s IP should be banned from BRF per the forum guidelines. If not, the post is still clearly OT and flamebait, and that is the 4th or 5th such on this thread. Sufficient grounds to be kicked out, as postor "Sukhdeo" was kicked out by one of the mods (after considerable discussion among mods).

They can decide.

There are many postors who come here with false names, who have got themselves kicked out of BRF (or laughed off BRF) in the decade past for their abusive / hate-filled postings. I have no idea which new avatar corresponds to which shaheed terrorist coward. I don't waste my time checking IPs, email addresses, etc. So it is entirely understandable that these folks come in with grudges because, sure, I do, and will continue to, cause them to be laughed out.

I have not declared any "unilateral moratorium". I am just being patient and letting Law Enforcement have a decent chance before doing what needs to be done.

Thank you.

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 20 Sep 2009 21:19

shiv wrote:Out of curiosity can I ask the rationale behind describing the explosive power of 12,000 tons of TNT as small. It is small only in a "Yours is bigger than mine " way. But not small in terms of utility. So please tell me what is small about a bomb that delivers 12,000 tons of TNT in one go.

You are challenging only nuclear deterrance theory which stood the test of cold war based on what? Ever nuclear power including America, Russia, China, and others depend on TN weapons for deterrance. I hope it is not just because of "yours is bigger than mine" as you so crudely make it. I mean if you have come up with some brilliant idea why not educate established nuclear powers like America, Russia, and China.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Sep 2009 21:26

abhiti wrote:why not educate established nuclear powers like America, Russia, and China.

You do the education boss - you do it. I will do what I want to do. Thanks

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 20 Sep 2009 21:29

narayanan wrote:This is a note regarding the posts on this thread by postor "abhiti". I have reported the post where s(he) made the following abusive comments:

Is it a joke or what? We have kids as board moderators! And other moderators like Archan protecting him. Where is archan editing the above post? It is easy to talk ideals like narayanan was doing in lca discussion and others. But I know when I see emotional unstable folks running around reality is different.
That is sheer, hateful personal attack. Please note that
1. I am NOT "moderating" this topic. If I were, it would have been cleared of idiots long ago and the discussion would have been kept sane, and people would have to respond to questions that refute their positions - or exit. But, I am NOT moderating any posts here, as should have been very obvious even to kids with normal intelligence.

My response - which abhit has now taken as success in provoking me, but is are entirely wrong in believing that - is a proper, succinct response to ALL of the relevant points raised in his/her post.

Look who is complaining...aren't you the one who posted: "Do let us know if you grow other organs". Now explain what organs are you talking about? You using downright filthy language and then complaining just when other people call you a kid. May be you found out that I complained about your post many hours back.

I know the cabal mentality and sooner or later you or one of your friends will get me for one reason or another. As to be banned, oh I am so afraid, I am shaking in my boots.

But I have seen your posts for over a month on various threads most of which I never participated in or responded. I stand by my judgement that some recent moderators on the forum are technically brilliant but emotionally unstable.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 20 Sep 2009 21:32

Kanson wrote:
Raj Malhotra wrote: Yes Pak officially declared it by Kargill war!
they why they didnt used the Nukes against us when they were beaten back.

Raj Malhotra wrote: Hence Pak, China & USA don't believe we have TN only Indian public should rest (get killed) in peace
So why USA surge ahead to stop the 2 countries kargil war into Nuclear war. It did the same during Op. Parakaram.

A nation 1/10th our size attached us across a 200km front and we just tried to remove them without any retaliation. Even Shastri was better in 1965. Kargil will always be saga of bravery of soldiers, corruption & incompetence of brass and cowardice of politicians. Pakistan still holds 6 posts/mountain tops.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 20 Sep 2009 21:45

X posting from "Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc..." thread

AQ Khan blows the whistle on Pakistan
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 034825.cms

Henderson’s 3000-word expose also reveals a couple of intriguing tid-bits that should interest the world’s strategic community, including New Delhi. Besides details of the Pakistan-China nexus, he says Pakistan tested only two devices in its 1998 tit-for-tat nuclear tests that followed India.

While Pakistan claims it conducted six tests to be one-up on India’s five tests, Western experts and seismologists have long said they recorded only two signals for devices that measured between two and four kilotons. Khan also states clearly that China gave Pakistan designs for the nuclear bombs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Sep 2009 21:55

Google uncle tells me that the B 52 was able to carry nearly 30,000 kg of conventional bums.

One "Smiling Buddha"= 12 kt = 12 million kg of TNT

In other words what we get out of 12 kt is 400 B 52 bombers worth of bomb in one bomb.

This is not small. Of course it is miniscule compared to 1 megaton, but it still isn't small,

In an earlier era - "Thousand bomber raids" would drop 1.5 kilotons of bombs on Germany. One Smiling Buddha is an 8000 bomber raid.

What is small about the promise of delivering 100 "thousand bomber raids" or 40,000 B52 bombloads on civilian targets in nuclear retaliation.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Sep 2009 21:56

SanjibGhosh wrote:X posting from "Pakistan arms sales, ops, doctrine, etc..." thread

AQ Khan blows the whistle on Pakistan
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 034825.cms

Henderson’s 3000-word expose also reveals a couple of intriguing tid-bits that should interest the world’s strategic community, including New Delhi. Besides details of the Pakistan-China nexus, he says Pakistan tested only two devices in its 1998 tit-for-tat nuclear tests that followed India.

While Pakistan claims it conducted six tests to be one-up on India’s five tests, Western experts and seismologists have long said they recorded only two signals for devices that measured between two and four kilotons. Khan also states clearly that China gave Pakistan designs for the nuclear bombs.

Interestingly Sanjib Ghosh "Western experts and seismologists" have recorded only ONE signal from India in 1998

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 20 Sep 2009 21:59

Ramana,
Is this what you had in mind. P == probability, hopefully other terms are explanatory.
Many factors missing here, of course, but this can be a start.

Distribution to quantify:
ZZ = P(deterremce, #bombs, total_damage, #competitors, #bombs_competitor, damage_comp)

Question to ask
MAP, mode, or mean of ZZ.

Simpilify
ZZ = P(deterrence|#bombs, total_damage, #competitors, #bombs_competitor, total_damage_comp)
* P(total_damage| #bombs) * P(#bombs) * P(#competitors, #bombs_competitor, damage_comp)

= P(det|#b, td, #c, #b_c, d_c) * P(t_d|#b) * P(#b) * P(d_c | #c, #b_c) * P(#b_c|#c)* P(#c)
= P(det |td, d_c) * P(t_d|#b) * P(#b) * P(d_c | #c, #b_c) * P(#b_c|#c)* P(#c)
Six terms:

1. From sundarji etc.
2. From shiv
3. Some distribution representing knowledge of our arsenal.
4. From shiv etc.
5. Needs intelligence.
6. How many will go simultaneously is not known.

So, in principle, yes, sample from this distribution. All distributions are low dimensional and we may use direct sampling from them. If the observations to construct them are sparse, I'll put a suitable kernel on them to make them samplable.

Just off top of my head, needs more thought.

S

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 20 Sep 2009 22:04

Re Arun_S

Now to discuss this from another angle. PKI earlier articles talked about possibility of bigger FBF to trigger a TN. Is it possible that in PKI era, he designed a much bigger TN, say 500kt-IMT, using a fbf derived from S2 as primary? and Chidambaram went for a sophisticated much lighter design of 200-350kt which failed? This 500kt-1mt off course was never tested.

I think that 200kt FBF has always been a red herring and BARC has always worked on TN. It does not stand to reason that BARC will be working only on FBF and then not test it. It does not stand to reason that TN work was started in 1996 by PC or the work only started after PKI retired. The only logical conclusion which I can think of is that PKI team worked on much bigger TN with bigger safety margins which was heavier, say 500-1000kg compared to PC's TN design which was 200-350kt but lighter say 150kg.

I am still not able to bend my mind to the fact that they tested only one TN, no alternative designs, no FBF, no FBF of TN also etc etc.

Now what was the size of nuke S-1 shaft was intended to take? 10-50KT PF, 50kt FBF, 80kt FBF, 200KT FBF, 500-IMT???

Can one back calculate from the figure of 70m crater Santhanam talked about? considering that we have two figures now. We know that 25kt produced no crater (neither a retarc) and x yield would have got us 70m crater. X yield can be 50kt or 200kt.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2009 22:09

OT:

they why they didnt used the Nukes against us when they were beaten back.

Because it was agreed between India, the US and Pakistan that India can act within her border. Pakistan (Mush) has stated that Pakistan was not willing to give an inch.

They were beaten back from Indian territories. India did not cross the border. The agreement between India, the US and Pakistan was at the core. Mus/Pak stated that they would not allow India to take an inch ............. do not know what the consequences of that would have been, but no one want to see what would happen I guess.

But, I think AT THAT time the US must have felt that India had a deterrence. I am not sure if the US felt that India had a TN.

Jonathan Allen · Post by **Jonathan Allen** » 20 Sep 2009 22:22

shiv wrote:
I am less sure about this for the following reason.

Every "leadership" in every nation knows that public opinion can be swayed one way or another by carefully timed statements made by someone or other. In some instances statements can be made to deliberately mislead someone or the other - so no foreign government will rely entirely on the public spat created by loud public statements on this issue as "proof" that anything is bad or good. They will have to rely on other means as well

There is yet another layer - but one that I have mentioned before. Once you have fissile material (Enriched Uranium, weapons grade Pu) - you need only 1960s level engineering tech to make an atom bomb. Nobody doubts that India has enough to make at least a 100. A 100 fission bombs are not a happy thing for any opponent of yours to possess. So regardless of whether the TN worked or not it will be small consolation to anyone as India's fissile material stocks build up and the numbers of delivery systems increase.

The same facts hold true for Pakistan vis a vis India and Korea vis a vis the US

The point I am trying to make is that India is claiming to have 'demonstrated' capability rather than 'claimed' capability. This position is diluted when concerns are raised by people no less than those who were involved in conducting the tests.

Understandably, 100 devices is a good number. India should only claim to have what it has; rather then what it doesn't have. If not, what is the difference TSP and India? which exaggerates its capability as it doesn't have the capacity to match India.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2009 22:25

Can one back calculate from the figure of 70m crater Santhanam talked about?

At what yield?

Assuming the accepted depth at >200 Meters, so even the depth is not certain. At the press conf after these tests, when asked at what depth, RC/Kalam stated 'no comments'.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Sep 2009 22:26

This thread is a mess, it is not clear at all who is saying what and whats the contention any more. Seems like we have degenerated into a bunch of personal fight, where are the front lines, the HQs the command and control?

Total trench warfare. Seems like the attacking forces have overrun the defenses.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 20 Sep 2009 22:28

Raj Malhotra wrote:Pakistan still holds 6 posts/mountain tops.

Can you write more about this in the Kargil thread? Thanks.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Sep 2009 22:29

abhiti continues his/her OT abuse:

Look who is complaining...aren't you the one who posted: "Do let us know if you grow other organs". Now explain what organs are you talking about? You using downright filthy language and then complaining just when other people call you a kid. May be you found out that I complained about your post many hours back.

I know the cabal mentality and sooner or later you or one of your friends will get me for one reason or another. As to be banned, oh I am so afraid, I am shaking in my boots.

But I have seen your posts for over a month on various threads most of which I never participated in or responded. I stand by my judgement that some recent moderators on the forum are technically brilliant but emotionally unstable.

er... hello, dear, you declared on an internet forum that

I am all ears

coming in and stinking up a perfectly civil, thoughtful discussion with a totally OT, gratuitous ****.

As best I can reason, that cannot refer to anything on the forum - because posts on the internet are not absorbed through the ears if one has other organs like eyes, brain, fingers (to help eyes read - some people have to do it letter by letter). Perhaps your mode of participation is by putting your ear to the screen and letting the electrons zip through space? In that case, my deepest apologies for not understanding that you have some very serious handicaps, but all I was doing was CONGRATULATING you on being "All Ears" and still being able to READ stuff. It's really unique for humans, at least.

Now regarding the notion that saying "organs" is

You using downright filthy language

(sorry I do have to pause to

here)
my response is that same as that of the medical college instructor whose student got deeply offended and refused on grounds of Honor and Dignity to answer the question:

What human organ grows in size by an order of magnitude when excited?

Please ask someone to explain that response slowly to you. Through the ears, of course!!

In other words, I was NOT referring to your brain or where it might be stored, certainly not anything offensive like that!!

If your advisors don't know the answer, please get them to ask someone else to read it to them in the small print below, and why the instructor proceeded to inform the student of the conclusions that he had reached regarding her preparation and state of mind.

various threads most of which I never participated in or responded

That explains why those threads continued undisturbed. Thank you for that past consideration!

I stand by my judgement that some recent moderators on the forum are technically brilliant but emotionally unstable.

I'll leave that to those administering this thread, as direct, deliberate, repeated personal abuse with very specific hate-filled intent.

Pupils of the eyes

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Sep 2009 22:30

NRao wrote:
Can one back calculate from the figure of 70m crater Santhanam talked about?
At what yield?

Assuming the accepted depth at >200 Meters, so even the depth is not certain. At the press conf after these tests, when asked at what depth, RC/Kalam stated 'no comments'.

Please check page 2: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... crater.pdf

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 20 Sep 2009 22:32

Sanku-ji

You stole the words out of my mouth. I had just decided against "submit"ting a message just like yours.

But, I'll second now. The thread's turning into a mess.

Please pause and go back to questions.
1. State of test.
2. State of deterrence. Do we have TN or not, is it needed, if not what?
3. Need for tests for effective deterrence.
4. The tradeoff between trade and test.

S