Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 01 Sep 2009 00:35

If S6 was FBF of 150kT yield, it would have been game-over in 1998 and India would not have this "Fizz versus Fizzle" rona-dhona.

Indian credibility would have been firmly established with 150 kT test, doesn't matter it was FBF or TN. But in overconfidence BARC team forgot the basics to invest in insurance policy (a backup plan) (put a S7 hole with 150kT FBF, rather then all eggs in one TN design basket), to protect the back of India.

And it all history since then (S1 fizzled, and they had only another fizzle waiting in S6, if they wished for more).

With God's limitless mercy that history and rona-dhona will finally end in 2 months with CTBT in force (just hold your breath if India will have a credible TN or not for ever).

Jai Ho.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 Sep 2009 00:40

Arun_S wrote: Yes. That is my hard readline, and yet I see it breaching in Oct-2009.

China did its last round of proof testing (ignoring the hue and cry fo west/word) just before signign CTBT. India MUST do the same (a week before Oct-2009 conduct the tests and then sign).

I am willing to place a bet that India will do the needful prior to Oct 09. Based on the big statements made by bigwigs over the last 3-8 months regarding Chine.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Sep 2009 01:05

Also how credible is the Ombaba's pressure to sign CTBT with all his own problems: financial mess, healthcare reform in doldrums, mollycoddling chipanda, re-appoint Bernanke instead of firing him, two front war in Middle East, and Fak-Ap etc., etc.

Is this all self induced surrender in advance? Like those historical figures who used to throw open the fortress gates to invaders to prevent sacking afterwards and got massacred anyway.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 01 Sep 2009 01:07

ramana wrote:Is this all self induced surrender in advance? Like those historical figures who used to throw open the fortress gates to invaders to prevent sacking afterwards and got massacred anyway.

No different this time too.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Sep 2009 01:09

ramana wrote:Also how credible is the Ombaba's pressure to sign CTBT

Obama can hardly pressure India to sign CTBT when the US itself has not ratified it.

Ratification by the US Senate is far from assured.

North Korea must also sign for the CTBT to enter into force.

http://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/press ... y/?Fsize=a

The Foreign Ministers issued a joint statement, calling upon the nine countries who still have to ratify before the Treaty can enter into force to do so without delay. These countries are: China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, and the United States.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 01 Sep 2009 01:09

Gerard wrote:
How so?
They uphold the law. If the prosecution does not present enough evidence what are they to do? Lynch the accused from the nearest tree?

his son is languishing in a US jail without trial for over a year.
He has had a trial. He has been found guilty. He will be sentenced soon.

Oh, excellent. So, when a person is found guilty by a court, he is guilty. But when he is found innocent and cleared of all charges inspite of the GoI having OSA in its corner, it is due to him being lucky or GoI being unable to provide all the evidence due to national security compulsions. So, in your book the moment a person is accused, there is no way of him disproving his guilt.

Why have a legal and justice system in the first place then? If you dont want to uphold the basic principles of justice and the precept of innocent until guilty, why do you even bother arguing about bums and what not? In your world of guilty inspite of being cleared, there is nothing worth defending, you have already let go of whatever the Indian Constitution stands for anyway.

Has MMS been arrested by Indian security agencies? Has a former US ambassador also accused him of being a "double agent"? Did a CIA agent flee the country? Was the ambassador summoned to explain?

So are you saying everyone that is arrested is "guilty"? Everyone that US ambassadors accuse of are double agents? Here is an idea, lets disband the Supreme Courts, and have US Ambassadors sit there instead.... after all as per you they are the ultimate proof of guilt or innocence.

Are these not all facts? Are they not part of the public record? How is mentioning these facts "character assassination"?

Yes they are part of public record. But you are insinuating that just because someone said he is a double agent automatically means that they MUST be guilty, never mind the highest courts in land. You are deliberately bringing out someone to be a traitor (which to someone like Subbarao may be the highest form of insult) even though he has been cleared. In most cases, this is dangerously close to libel

21. I need to mention at this juncture that the entire prosecution hinges on
a certain set of documents, all of which have been confined to a sealed envelope
which for some mysterious reasons has never been opened. It has also come on
record that because of the nature of those documents, no copies of those
documents were prepared. Once again, we have the unfortunate situation of having
to examine an authorisation order issued by the Under Secretary of the Home
Department, who has authorised the filing of a complaint without so much as
looking at the documents which from the gravamen of the prosecution charge. When
I use the term "documents", it includes copies thereof which in this case were
never made. Again, it is at the highest on the basis of reports or submissions
put up or on the basis of the descriptive nature of the documents that the
authorisation has been granted. I do not think such a procedure can be condoned
when it comes to the extent of a serious prosecution of a citizen of this
country and that too a senior retired Naval Officer on charges of such gravity.

[/quote]

The State is well within its rights to have a complete in camera hearing and let the things fall as they may. The fact that they did not speaks volumes.

You may wonder why I am defending Subba rao... in fact I dont give a flying F*ck about him. He may have sold India down the river for all we know. What we do know, that the GoI had its day in court.... and it LOST. Legally, he has as blameless a character as you and me. For you to insinuate otherwise is and using the dangerous logic that you have promoted in your earlier posts is tantamount to repudiating the entire basis of the lndian justice system and one of the corner stones of the Constitution. That, coming from a moderator that has always promoted the same principles otherwise (and very rightly so), is even more strange.

On another note, this is an excellent example of how divisive the whole topic is. Either party (the pro and the against mega bums) are quick to paint the others as traitors and scum at the drop of a hat merely to get a leg up in the debate.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Sep 2009 01:26

Tanaji wrote: You are deliberately bringing out someone to be a traitor (which to someone like Subbarao may be the highest form of insult) even though he has been cleared. In most cases, this is dangerously close to libel

I have not accused him of anything. I was not there at the airport when he was arrested. I was not part of the IB team that had surveillance on him. I was not present in the room when Ambassador Dean and PM Rajiv Gandhi discussed this matter. I have no evidence to accuse him. I have no intention of calling him 'traitor'. Or misspelling his name. Or calling for his arrest. Or calling for 'exemplary punishment'.

I am however suspicious of him because of the allegations and have no hesitation in saying so.

I have simply quoted a portion of the oral history given by Ambassador Dean. I have pointed out (several times) what the Ambassador called him. I happen to find this information deeply disturbing. If someone of that stature said that about me, and recorded it for posterity in a US Presidential library, I would challenge him in court. Has Ambassador Dean been challenged? I find it interesting that the supporters of Subbarao such as Praful Bidwai have no problem accusing the DAE hierarchy of criminal offenses and that the NPAs refer to him as the 'Alexander Nikitin' of India.

I will however include a link to the Supreme Court judgment (and point out that he has been legally cleared) the next time I post the Dean excerpt.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 Sep 2009 02:00

ramana wrote:Also how credible is the Ombaba's pressure to sign CTBT with all his own problems: financial mess, healthcare reform in doldrums, mollycoddling chipanda, re-appoint Bernanke instead of firing him, two front war in Middle East, and Fak-Ap etc., etc.

As I said in my earlier post, they can't afford to put excess amounts of pressure on India.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 01 Sep 2009 02:04

Gerard wrote:
I will however include a link to the Supreme Court judgment (and point out that he has been legally cleared) the next time I post the Dean excerpt.

As much as those physics packages, I would consider the counter-intel operation that India ran as one of the crown jewels of the whole deal. Even if (underlined if) there were issues, better someone walks free than compromise that.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 01 Sep 2009 02:09

Arun_S wrote:
ramana wrote:Is this all self induced surrender in advance? Like those historical figures who used to throw open the fortress gates to invaders to prevent sacking afterwards and got massacred anyway.
No different this time too.

Testing this time might have heavy consequences.

1. Ombaba is no GWB, whose central theme was "we and our friends (the good "democracies") get to do anything. Ombaba's support base includes NPAs and amreeki WKKs, and inaction by his administration will alienate this base. Also factor in cheeni lovers. Desh testing will increase domestic lobby to impose sanctions.

2. Ombaba is under tremendous pressure from his own arms lobby to re-initiate and test RRW. In fact there are news of dissent in the ranks (with Robert Gates siding with the scientists/national labs). Desh testing will increase pressure from domestic lobby to test.

So its squeeze from both ends---hawks demanding more amreeki tests, doves demanding sanctions. Desh testing will bring the house of cards down. Desh test followed by cheeni/paki test, followed by russie test, followed by amreeki test, followed by france and britian, Noko and Iran. Ombaba probably recognizes the precarious situation and the squeeze has probably started.

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 Sep 2009 02:14

From Gerard's link

The Foreign Ministers issued a joint statement, calling upon the nine countries who still have to ratify before the Treaty can enter into force to do so without delay. These countries are: China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, and the United States.

Now guess which is the big fish which can be trapped most easily ?

1. Lets leave out Egypt,Israel and Indonesia their nuke credentials are not causing anyone takleef as of now.
2. TSP has a nice excuse...'India first' which obviously will be considered given Unkil's interest in Af-Pak or even the subcontinent.
3. Given the economic conditions and SYMBIOTIC relationship between Unkil and Lizard; PRC can buy some time on this..atleast until Unkil ratifies it.
4. India's case is as strong as anyone's in 2 and 3; however the major question is out of these which Government is the most easy to convince or arm twist into signing the agreement ?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Sep 2009 02:16

Sin of National Conscience by R. N. Kulkarni (pg 143)

The question that arose was, why could not the Bombay police, which was the most efficient among all the police forces in the country, secure the conviction. This was because, the police was only the front to launch the prosecution based on the version of IB and the evidence made available by it against the accused. The IB failed in its CE task because, basically it had no orientation and methodology of collection of meticulous evidence, good knowledge of law, relating evidence and crime, and trained manpower for this job. The IB operatives were never trained to collect evidence to co-relate with the charges of the prosecution in the court of law.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Sep 2009 02:20

Anujan wrote: Ombaba probably recognizes the precarious situation and the squeeze has probably started.

And if the price for an Indian CTBT signature is US acquiescence to a proof test series?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 01 Sep 2009 02:30

Gerard wrote:And if the price for an Indian CTBT signature is US acquiescence to a proof test series?

That will upset the balance. Indian proof tests (from amreeki perspective) will bring the house of cards down. Loss of leverage against Iran, NoKo, cheenis and pakis testing etc etc.

If Pakis test, what is Unkil going to do ? sanction them ? that means loss of leverage in Af-Pak. On the other hand, SDREs will raise rhetoric till the pakis test. If Pakis are intelligent, they will get their pound of flesh from Unkil by not testing, but by demanding goodies. But, SDREs know how ot play H&D game very well.

Methinks the quid-pro-quo would be, SDREs dont test, Ombaba does not pressurize us for CTBT.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Sep 2009 02:33

negi wrote:1. Lets leave out Egypt,Israel and Indonesia their nuke credentials are not causing anyone takleef as of now.

Actually there is extreme Egyptian/Arab takleef.

Israel is reportedly ready to sign in exchange for a civilian nuclear deal with the US.
Egypt, along with the NNWS, indefinitely extended the NPT. Yet Israel remains outside the NPT and any proposed Middle East NFWZ. An Egyptian signature will not be readily obtained.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Sep 2009 02:35

Anujan wrote:Methinks the quid-pro-quo would be, SDREs dont test, Ombaba does not pressurize us for CTBT.

Don't ask, Don't tell?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Sep 2009 02:35

MMS signing CTBT or even making a statement to that effect is premature.

Like Anujan mentioned even Obama does not have that support among the scicom in the US, forget the opposition party.

Also, with a new Japanese government in place, India should find it a lot more difficult to get to any techs that may originate in Japan. Japan now could become another Oz of sorts - sign NOT only then we will help, ...................

IF TN is imp to India then India has no option but to test: it does not matter what, but, to prove that India has IT.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 01 Sep 2009 02:36

3 more pages later:

So what's the answer to Q. 1, 2 and 3, again????

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Sep 2009 02:43

narayanan wrote:3 more pages later:

So what's the answer to Q. 1, 2 and 3, again????

You are still asking questions?

Have they responded to your observation regarding the damage to the Khelotai village and the likely prospect of killing the inhabitants in their beds with a larger blast?

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 Sep 2009 02:44

Gerard wrote: Actually there is extreme Egyptian/Arab takleef.

Not for US and not even for PRC both of which are member of UNSC and call the shots.In India's case a cap on India's nuclear arsenal obviously is a desirable development for China and even US.
Most importantly where is Egypt with its weapons development programme with respect to India and what are former's threat perceptions as compared to the latter (Does it face the same danger as India )?

An Egyptian signature will not be readily obtained.

I don't see world news dailies,NPAs ,peace groups and even GOTUS making as much fuss about Egypt's nuke programme as compared to India's.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Sep 2009 02:46

They are an NPT signatory.

Several Arab states have not signed the CWC (chemical weapons) because of the Israeli holdout on the NPT.

There will be no CTBT without all nine holdouts. Egypt's pound of flesh may be bargained down to additional military aid.
NoKo is another problem. What price for them?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 01 Sep 2009 02:47

1. Why were S1 and S2 simultaneous - IOW, why didn't S2 precede S1 (in which case it would have been called S1, yes I know..) What I mean is, why wasn't the most powerful blast done AFTER the other test that had to be done that day?

Shafts were close together. S2 could have collapsed S1. S1 would definitely have collapsed S2. The shafts being far apart would have been detected. Test-emplace-test would have invited international pressure.

IOW: (because of detection concerns) Shaft close together---> S2 can affect S1 and vice versa ----> Simultaneous detonation

2. Why was S6 not tested?

S6 was 150KT FBF. S1 fizzled. 150KT FBF would be embarrassing to test.

3. Why was the damage to the village not avoided?

Someone skipped a zero in calculating damage to village. Or didnt care due to national security considerations. The people were evacuated anyway.

Gerard wrote:Have they responded to your observation regarding the damage to the Khelotai village and the likely prospect of killing the inhabitants in their beds with a larger blast?

Why would anyone die in their beds ? They were sleeping far away !

[url=http://india_resource.tripod.com/nuclear.html]Challenging Nuclear Hegemony: India's Nuclear Policy - From Disarmament to Deterrance[/url]

Perhaps the most telling example of support for the tests comes from those that made the biggest sacrifices: the people of the Pokhran region. According to a Times of India report, the army personnel had taken precautions and apart from evacuating the villagers from Khetolai, they also evacuated the villagers of Dholiya, Loharki, Latmi and Bhadriyo. Some of the villagers, who were similarly evacuated in 1974, took no time to realise that another nuclear test was due in the next few hours. The armymen, who had gone to evacuate the villages, were surprised to hear from some of the elderly people of the villages that they had anticipated a nuclear test. Some of them even wished the army officers best of luck.!

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 Sep 2009 02:50

There is no point in drawing parallels between US ratification of CTBT and India doing the same.

The former has conducted,validated more number of nukes than rest of the world in total; now that NIF has been commissioned a lot of field tests can be done away with , its just the stockpile stewardship which has got the goat of some of the folks in US .India is no where close here we are talking about testing our TN device only for the second time.

And even if it indeed is the case as discussed earlier the way the Democratic process works in US vis a vis India is different; convincing the SENATE is different from convincing an INDIVIDUAL.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 01 Sep 2009 02:52

Gerard wrote:
narayanan wrote:3 more pages later:

So what's the answer to Q. 1, 2 and 3, again????
You are still asking questions?

Have they responded to your observation regarding the damage to the Khelotai village and the likely prospect of killing the inhabitants in their beds with a larger blast?

That question is beyond silly. The entire village was evacuated, people asked to come out of their homes, before the experiments.

Has my question been answered by you or Narayanan?

A certain issue has been raised by an insider. What will it take for you or the no-fizzle gang to agree that the TN experiment was a partial failure? If RC says so, will you then believe it, or will you find a way to do 20KT=200KT, only difference of 0?

munna · Post by **munna** » 01 Sep 2009 02:55

narayanan wrote:3 more pages later:

So what's the answer to Q. 1, 2 and 3, again????

N^3 not from fake Cambridgii your questions have been really hard to rebut even by established adminullahs however I ask of you, why is there a storm in the tea cup if Poke-n-ran 1998 was an exercise beyond all doubts? I am veering towards the view point that all is maya only and none knows the truth apart from the guys who, well know the truth. My only hunch is why so much hulla gulla if everything is fine and dandy?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Sep 2009 02:58

sudeepj wrote:A certain issue has been raised by an insider. What will it take for you or the no-fizzle gang to agree that the TN experiment was a partial failure?

Has the insider provided one bit of 'evidence' not known previously? How much inside was this insider?

Has any member of the design team publicly raised an issue with the yield?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Sep 2009 03:05

munna wrote: I am veering towards the view point that all is maya only and none knows the truth apart from the guys who, well know the truth.

And, of those in the know, what are they saying?

munna · Post by **munna** » 01 Sep 2009 03:15

-gone with the wind-

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 01 Sep 2009 03:20

Gerard wrote:
sudeepj wrote:A certain issue has been raised by an insider. What will it take for you or the no-fizzle gang to agree that the TN experiment was a partial failure?
Has the insider provided one bit of 'evidence' not known previously? How much inside was this insider?

Can he provide any data to the press? He cant, he can simply state his own analysis of the classified data and ask for a peer review. Also, has RC provided any data? And the nonsense about interfering seismic waves.. sheesh..

Why is BARC so scared of a peer review? Admittedly, design of TNs is complex, but review of expected and achieved yields?.. Are you telling me that there is not one institute in all of India that can review the radio isotopes sampled and state that what BARC claimed is accurate?

Has any member of the design team publicly raised an issue with the yield?

KS was a member of the team that conducted the experiments, he should/would have been aware of the experiment criteria. This is not only plausible its also probable! Now that he has come forward, you want a member of the design team. Going by your arguments so far, if tomorrow RC were to make the same statement, you would state that since he wasnt incharge of the TN design, Sikka was, its only Sikkas word that matters!

Bottomline is, there is a complete failure by one side in this debate to acknowledge that there is even a chance that what KS said is true! Even if there is a 10% chance that a fizzle happened, it deserves a better explanation by BARC, RC et al, in such a critical area of national security.

Instead of calling upon BARC to clear up all issues, we hear either Chanakian conspiracy theory nonsense or the OSA shoved in our face.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 01 Sep 2009 03:34

self deleted
-Arun

munna · Post by **munna** » 01 Sep 2009 03:34

sudeepj wrote:Bottomline is, there is a complete failure by one side in this debate to acknowledge that there is even a chance that what KS said is true!

No there is not! People are trying to out think each other in terms of logic and not fear mongering. Whatever KS said can only be true if facts outside the purview of OSA support him otherwise I think its an exercise in fear mongering and worse for some rakshaks it might be GOI maya only upon which some people are getting so worked up.

Even if there is a 10% chance that a fizzle happened, it deserves a better explanation by BARC, RC et al, in such a critical area of national security.

Yes to explanation but to whom? To BRF or to you or to me?

No sire from whatever I know of diplomacy and power speak such things are never disclosed or clarified to anyone apart from the guys wielding ze button. What you do not realize it might also be a method of gouging out information from our scientific community by challenging their mardanagi!

Instead of calling upon BARC to clear up all issues, we hear either Chanakian conspiracy theory nonsense or the OSA shoved in our face.

No body is going to clarify anything to you

. These things will only be known to those who should know why should you and me become worked up? Rest assured BARC and DAE won't even brief big time ministers, mango man and his rants are a long shot anyways.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Sep 2009 03:36

sudeepj wrote: Going by your arguments so far, if tomorrow RC were to make the same statement, you would state that since he wasnt incharge of the TN design, Sikka was, its only Sikkas word that matters!

No. As I said, it was not a one man show. If any member of the design team questions the yields there would be a problem. But none have.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 01 Sep 2009 03:43

Arun_S wrote:If S6 was FBF of 150kT yield, it would have been game-over in 1998 and India would not have this "Fizz versus Fizzle" rona-dhona.

Indian credibility would have been firmly established with 150 kT test, doesn't matter it was FBF or TN. But in overconfidence BARC team forgot the basics to invest in insurance policy (a backup plan) (put a S7 hole with 150kT FBF, rather then all eggs in one TN design basket), to protect the back of India.

And it all history since then (S1 fizzled, and they had only another fizzle waiting in S6, if they wished for more).

With God's limitless mercy that history and rona-dhona will finally end in 2 months with CTBT in force (just hold your breath if India will have a credible TN or not for ever).

Jai Ho.

The bolded part looks like the like natural line of thought for RC ( " 1974 test enough..no more tests needed" - this was stated in the previous pages ).

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 01 Sep 2009 03:43

munna wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Bottomline is, there is a complete failure by one side in this debate to acknowledge that there is even a chance that what KS said is true!
No there is not! People are trying to out think each other in terms of logic and not fear mongering. Whatever KS said can only be true if facts outside the purview of OSA support him otherwise I think its an exercise in fear mongering and worse for some rakshaks it might be GOI maya only upon which some people are getting so worked up.

Even if there is a 10% chance that a fizzle happened, it deserves a better explanation by BARC, RC et al, in such a critical area of national security.
Yes to explanation but to whom? To BRF or to you or to me? No sire from whatever I know of diplomacy and power speak such things are never disclosed or clarified to anyone apart from the guys wielding ze button. What you do not realize it might also be a method of gouging out information from our scientific community by challenging their mardanagi!

Instead of calling upon BARC to clear up all issues, we hear either Chanakian conspiracy theory nonsense or the OSA shoved in our face.
No body is going to clarify anything to you . These things will only be known to those who should know why should you and me become worked up? Rest assured BARC and DAE won't even brief big time ministers, mango man and his rants are a long shot anyways.

Munna, there is not point in me exchanging words with you, there are many ways of delivering the required explanation from BARC. Any reasonable person would assume that this is what is meant, instead you go in another tangent of ridicule. Rest assured sir, the joke is on you.

munna · Post by **munna** » 01 Sep 2009 03:43

Arun_S wrote:Then pls don't be divisive and remove that post. People on this thread know who is leaning to which PoV. That list is decisive, and does not help the discussion.

Done!

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 01 Sep 2009 03:47

munna: In the same spirit I have deleted relevant posts.
Thanks -Arun
============================

Gerard wrote:
sudeepj wrote: Going by your arguments so far, if tomorrow RC were to make the same statement, you would state that since he wasnt incharge of the TN design, Sikka was, its only Sikkas word that matters!
No. As I said, it was not a one man show. If any member of the design team questions the yields there would be a problem. But none have.

the above will be valid if it was a open group (liek in civilian/business setting). All those gents have OSA on their neck.

Santhnam also has OSA and that is the reason he would not put on record what he will tell me and others in private.

You get me waiver from OSA for some people and I will find you designers who will question the yields. Period !

munna · Post by **munna** » 01 Sep 2009 03:47

sudeepj wrote:Munna, there is not point in me exchanging words with you, there are many ways of delivering the required explanation from BARC. Any reasonable person would assume that this is what is meant, instead you go in another tangent of ridicule. Rest assured sir, the joke is on you.

No this not about joking or one upmaship cause I do not have an ego (literally). My point about this whole explanation business is that things that are to be done and have to be done will be done at the highest levels and we cannot ascertain what goes on at those levels! Unless and until you belong to those very levels of governance you would not know and if you do belong up there then I agree that yes the joke is on me!

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 01 Sep 2009 03:48

Gerard wrote:
sudeepj wrote: Going by your arguments so far, if tomorrow RC were to make the same statement, you would state that since he wasnt incharge of the TN design, Sikka was, its only Sikkas word that matters!
No. As I said, it was not a one man show. If any member of the design team questions the yields there would be a problem. But none have.

We will just have to disagree then. In my world, there is always a review, no matter what the reputation of the person who is in charge of the experiment.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 01 Sep 2009 03:51

munna wrote:
sudeepj wrote:Munna, there is not point in me exchanging words with you, there are many ways of delivering the required explanation from BARC. Any reasonable person would assume that this is what is meant, instead you go in another tangent of ridicule. Rest assured sir, the joke is on you.
No this not about joking or one upmaship cause I do not have an ego (literally). My point about this whole explanation business is that things that are to be done and have to be done will be done at the highest levels and we cannot ascertain what goes on at those levels! Unless and until you belong to those very levels of governance you would not know and if you do belong up there then I agree that yes the joke is on me!

Someone who does belong to those levels of governance has raised this question, not me. I am merely stating that it behooves us to take what he has said seriously and not be waiting for Godot.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Sep 2009 03:57

Unfortunately by engaging in debate the Radio Chem analysis will be the one that will get more attention. Folks as I said before no point in using out of country sources for they have their POV. And there are a number of sources and statements. We are not looking hard. I recall their was retired geologist who was quoted in Ind Exp about his surprise at the readings.

A sample of immediate reaction

LINK