Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-2

[NRao]

I also vaguely recall that the topic of local geology being misunderstood in the West had come up, WRT to the nuclear tests, just after the Gujarat earthquake. This earthquake had also produced a very large difference between Indian readings and those in the US.

[RamaY]

• Shakti I TN with Boosted Fission Primary 45KT
  Shakti II Fission Device 15KT
  Shakti III Boosted Fission 0.3KT

They all tested together. Total desired output = 45+15+0.3 KT = 60.3 KT

Worst case output = ~43KT = 15 from Shakti II + ~30 from Shakti I (includes another Boosted Fission). If Boosted Fission is ~25KT that leaves the Fusion output to be ~5 KT only instead of ~20KT.

Please help me understand. Is this what Santanam is saying?

[shiv]

• Shakti I TN with Boosted Fission Primary 45KT
  Shakti II Fission Device 15KT
  Shakti III Boosted Fission 0.3KT

They all tested together. Total desired output = 45+15+0.3 KT = 60.3 KT

Worst case output = ~43KT = 15 from Shakti II + ~30 from Shakti I (includes another Boosted Fission). If Boosted Fission is ~25KT that leaves the Fusion output to be ~5 KT only instead of ~20KT.

Please help me understand. Is this what Santanam is saying?

RamaY -this "yield" game for may 11 1998 is a never ending game. You are only the latest entrant. it will only tie you up in knots - I promise you.

And I promise to make sure that you get tied up in knots if you try and give any explanation

Did India get a 150 kt thermonuclear yield on May 11 1998? (never mind what was tested)

No

So has India tested and proven a 150 kt TN warhead or "device'?

No

Nobody - neither Santhanam, nor RC nor Naryananan nor anyone else can disagree with that.

So what does it mean for deterrence?

[Gagan]

After discussing yields ad-nauseum, let us look into monitoring the tests themselves.

I remember reading that DRDO had High speed cameras in the test area. I know that massa's N tests had cameras which could look inside the bomb casing.
If DRDO / BARC had cameras around the weapon, and inside utilizing fiberoptics (Just like a laparoscopic camera Shiv-ji) and using very high speed cameras, would that would give some indication about the behaviour of the engineering model?

For example if the casing cracked and the point where it gave way would help designers a lot.

Is it possible to do a chemical / radiological sampling at the time of the explosion itself? Since the explosive shock wave will progress @ speed of sound while the data via the fibreoptics will travel @ speed of light?

What sort of sensors would one have in a nuclear test? Off hand I can think of:
1. Seismic monitoring
2. High speed cameras
These two we know from newspaper reports were used at POK-2.
3. Chemical / radiological samplers? Mass spectrometry?
4. Temperature measurement? Any benefit at all?
5. Any other monitoring equipment?

[Kanson]

PKI/Sethna comes as accuser/petitioner. And tell me will the accuser be made jury ?

PKI and Sethna are not ordinary abdul on the road raising political slogans or hogging limelight in their fag end of life to make it to 24x7 news channel , these are esteemed people who have held the same position as some of the POK 2 folks at some point in their career.

So in this case , yes PKI/Sethna along with RC/Sikka should be part of scientific peer review to balance it out , and so should be the military , please involve them as they need to have the confidence in what the scientist say about Nukes as they are the ultimate user of these weapon.

The present GOI position seems to be

"I know I am right , coz I have the data and you don't . You need not know what I have and you better believe me coz I am speaking the truth , if you don't believe me well balls to you coz I know I am right"

Austin, i think you might be knowing the fact that the same PKI/HS was part of the POK-I team along with the POK-2 team. You know what happened. And why you think this time it will be different than the previous episode. Nobody going to concede that "I'm wrong, you are right".

I too believe MKN could have handled this situtation little better and could have avoided certain comments. Afterall Santhanam was part of the POK-2 team. Having said, i must also add that i feel Santhanam must have acted little more sensibly than he was. I dont know what purpose is solves by disclosing the 25 kt yield of S2 or talking about ARC data.

In this very same thread, i wrote MKN should have avoided "Maverick" comment on Santhanam. But, the seeing the drama the way it has unfolded, i'm having a different view.

For a second, lets believe that KS is wrong in his calculation. Does he know the gravity of the mistake he has commited and ensuing fallout on our defence posture. He is talking about absence of deterrence against China. Sorry, this is not about CTBT

[SSridhar]

This thread started with the proposed speech by Dr. Sikka in IDSA. I understand that got cancelled. Now, Dr. Sikka has spoken through Frontline.

[vera_k]

For a second, lets believe that KS is wrong in his calculation. Does he know the gravity of the mistake he has commited and ensuing fallout on our defence posture. He is talking about absence of deterrence against China. Sorry, this is not about CTBT

Why would it matter? All public source information points to the fact that neither the Pakistanis or Chinese have ever believed that the TN test was successful. And if as you say the Pakistanis and Chinese have information from their intelligence assets that the TN is credible, then nothing KS does or says will change that.

[Kanson]

K Santhanam says he got calls from 500 scientists from atomic energy establishment congratulating him for coming out in the open about the H bomb thing. They said this was overdue.

The issue is that if GoI agrees to Santhanam's point of view it cannot sign CTBT or will have to test before it sign CTBT.

http://www.ndtv.com/news/videos/video_p ... id=1159157

He says on the very same day when his material was published, he got calls from 500 scientist. OMG! if we take 1 min for every call without any break that is arond 9 hrs

[enqyoob]

Allooo! Where is Sikka's article pls? I am living in terror, with no Deterrent and no Second Strike Capability against Samuel, because I have not seen that, and apparently he has.

[ramana]

Manish, Another way of saying is its the 40% that wasn't achieved that is important, for fusion releases high energy neutrons which are used to fission the reactive tamper and increase the total yield. So if the secy failed to ignite it causes difficulty in credibility of scaling. The hopeful thing is the pry worked and as per the press conf it was a boosted one. This can be scaled reasonably say by same ratio as was done in S-I.

Still this debate has been very Chanakian in that esteemed experts were forced to reveal their bottomline positions. the surprise is those who were considered hawks turned to be sparrows and those who were doves turned to be eagles. And the sarkari types (Brajesh Mishra etc for pointing fingers at APJK) were vultures as usual.

Raj Malhotra give me time to respond to your questions.

[Kanson]

For a second, lets believe that KS is wrong in his calculation. Does he know the gravity of the mistake he has commited and ensuing fallout on our defence posture. He is talking about absence of deterrence against China. Sorry, this is not about CTBT

Why would it matter? All public source information points to the fact that neither the Pakistanis or Chinese have ever believed that the TN test was successful. And if as you say the Pakistanis and Chinese have information from their intelligence assets that the TN is credible, then nothing KS does or says will change that.

Exactly! that is what intelligence agencies will look for. Dont think that Pak/China will send spyplane to collect air sample. Intelligence is not technical alone.

[Satya_anveshi]

Allooo! Where is Sikka's article pls? I am living in terror, with no Deterrent and no Second Strike Capability against Samuel, because I have not seen that, and apparently he has.

Spectral defence
R. RAMACHANDRAN

S.K. Sikka, a scientist involved in Pokhran-II, shows how the U.S. calculations of yield of the thermonuclear device were way off the mark.

[enqyoob]

And my take on what ramana said is that I don't see how they could have PLANNED to have the remaining 40% yield, because that would have been the end of Khetolai. At minimum, it would have been criminally dangerous and irresponsible test planning, and I am sure they would not have done that.

So I agree with ramana that the "remaining 40%" may not have gone off. My take is that it could not have been INTENDED to go off.

Maybe they didn't know how, so they did not try. Maybe they knew how, and used the bare minimum just to get some "trace" data and decided that trying any more would be too risky.

But either way, what they planned, they got. Any more and it would have been a disaster.
As shiv says, we all agree that no big 150kT or 200kT or 1MT device has been live-tested by India.
Whether there is a fair amount of confidence that any such devices, if built , will work, is somewhat open to question. Big question, I would agree. Maybe the GOI has decided that Indian Credible Minimum Deterrent will stick to 25-40kT devices,and focus all the R&D on delivery systems. I would agree with that choice for other reasons, because I firmly believe that 1MT ICBMs are liabilities.

But still, no "fizzle" occurred.

[Kanson]

It also brings into focus, when the Secretary of DST shoots his mouth off, the scary thought whether we have a strategic culture at all. It is one thing to refute Santhanam but quite another thing to say that the apprehension is only about 'yield' and not 'nuclear capability'. The whole issue has stemmed from that 'yield'. He is also implying that with the passage of time, it is not possible to investigate this any more, which is totally wrong.

Er..his words are "nuclear capacity". I think that would convey probably the meaning, we have resources ?

[enqyoob]

TruthSeekerji: Thx!!!

Heh-heh! Deterrent is in place. We can counter Any Eventuality and Give Befitting Reply Onlee now.

[NRao]

This thread started with the proposed speech by Dr. Sikka in IDSA. I understand that got cancelled. Now, Dr. Sikka has spoken through Frontline.

True.

And, for the first time, I think, we have the depth at which the device was placed: 230 meters.

From one of Santhanam related article he expected a crater of 72 meters in radius.

For that depth and that expected diameter, the yield should have been much, much more.

[Kanson]

Spectral defence
R. RAMACHANDRAN

S.K. Sikka, a scientist involved in Pokhran-II, shows how the U.S. calculations of yield of the thermonuclear device were way off the mark.

Apparently, he addressed all the concerns raised in this episode.

So, what next ?

[shiv]

high energy neutrons which are used to fission the reactive tamper .

There is no publicly available data to say whether a reactive tamper which would fission was used - such as U 238 or Thorium, or a non reactive tamper was used.

In order to be fully honest and up front any assertion on BRF that there was a fissionable tamper should either be acompanied by corroboration from a public source or an admission that it is guesswork - like the 150 Kt warheads on BRs missile pages.

After all - we do not want an lies to be propagated do we?

.

[ramana]

It also brings into focus, when the Secretary of DST shoots his mouth off, the scary thought whether we have a strategic culture at all. It is one thing to refute Santhanam but quite another thing to say that the apprehension is only about 'yield' and not 'nuclear capability'. The whole issue has stemmed from that 'yield'. He is also implying that with the passage of time, it is not possible to investigate this any more, which is totally wrong.

The entire post test process was taken over by babus for negotiation and the deal.
The change in the China, TSP and US relationship was to be handled. but looks like nothing has changed and the situation is worse. Unkil is reeling from econ crisis which has made it weaker than it was in 1998 with less influence on Chin. Chin was supposed to be also relatively weaker but seems to have stabilzed.

Desi strategic scenario and game planners had not envisoned this world situation and being naked in front of Chin
In 2006 2007 Desi elite had not figured that the world would be in this situation - with Unkil holding a global recession and unable to handle Chin if Chin flexes the muscle.

US plan to reconcil with Russia on missle defence may be to get support from Russia to tame Chin during these times.
Russia is the pivot between Chin and US at this time

..........

Also thinking about why there was inaction in Oct 1998 after the DRDO submitted its report, we should look at what was the situation in the neighborhood? If anyone recalls in Oct 1998, TSPA chief was changed. Gen Karamat, a moderate was replaced with Mushy supreceding six generals. So maybe GOI didnt want to rock the boat and see how things pan out. And they were on the Lahore bus initiative.

However the Santanam revelations make it clear to Indians what was already clear to the challengers that the deterrent wasn't upto snuff. As to why now maybe there are pressures to accede to CTBT or the US-PRC tango after the financial meltdown is causing heartburn. Shyam Saran had made the angst in inner circles public. This is another manifestation of the same by others.
---------
I read the Sikka article. Its the same old fitting new constants form world over to get the results they want. Earlier they used Nevada data, Now he wants to use Algerian data.
He was supposed to be the S-I designer. He could have given us confidence that the test confrimed his design parameters that he used. Instead of talking about his area of expertise he is frittering away his valuable time in areas which are not his ken. As its stated in the article seismic is most unreliable method. So why use that. Its over ten years after the tests and those methods don't matter.

Yes geostrata of Pokhran is like a layered cake of different soil/rock formation. The graphic picture is in the paper. He shows that in his 3-D simulation of POKI. He still has one card. The cavity radius and that would clinch the matter along with the radio-chem. If he is convinced of the results, he should say here is the all up configuration weapon based on the S-I test. Its upto the politicial leaders to decide to deploy it or not. This would remove BARC from the sizzle/fizzle debate. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. When BARC lets itself into rebutting lame excuses it doesnt serve the primary focus of the organization.

[ramana]

high energy neutrons which are used to fission the reactive tamper .

There is no publicly available data to say whether a reactive tamper which would fission was used - such as U 238 or Thorium, or a non reactive tamper was used.

In order to be fully honest and up front any assertion on BRF that there was a fissionable tamper should either be acompanied by corroboration from a public source or an admission that it is guesswork - like the 150 Kt warheads on BRs missile pages.

After all - we do not want an lies to be propagated do we?

.

Where did I say the tamper was reactive? Please show it.

Thanks, ramana

[Austin]

And, for the first time, I think, we have the depth at which the device was placed: 230 meters.

From one of Santhanam related article he expected a crater of 72 meters in radius.

For that depth and that expected diameter, the yield should have been much, much more.

It is possible that both S-1 and S-2 were placed at the same depth of ~ 230 m , while S-2 sizzled at ~ 25 kT and the desired crater was formed , but S-1 fizzled at ~ 17 kT and nothing much than sand blew over.

[shiv]

Where did I say the tamper was reactive? Please show it.

Thanks, ramana

I re read your post ramana and you have not said it. My apologies for an error on my part.

Earlier today ArunS had stated categorically that the S1 device had a fissionable tamper and I pointed out that he was the only one saying that and I misunderstood your post as implying the same thing. The mistake was mine.

There is no publicly available statement to say that the S1 device had a fissionable tamper.

[rajeshks]

I would prefer to believe indian government when they say that we have CMD. CMD doesn't mean ONLY Credible Minimum Nuclear Deterrence. The single biggest thing that can cause maximum damage to China is not built by india but by chinese themselves. I am against the very thought of killing millions of innocent women and children, its a crime against humanity, so dont want to elaborate on what I meant. the very thought of india taking out that particular structure if we are attacked using nuclear weapons will stop the chinese leadership from launching an attack on india. afterall they may not wish to helplessly watch their cities being washed away. Thanks to china and what they have built we may not see a war in our eastern border. So we may not need to develop deadlier weapons and that means no more tests needed. I sincerely wish to see both countries happily and peacefully coexist in this part of the world.

[Arun_S]

Bharat Karnad in his book refer to 150-200 kT fbf and I asked him for the basis of that. Was he extrapolating S1 primary for this scale up? Or a new design?

Just got this reply:

I took at face value what R Chidambaram has been saying over the past decade to senior most Indian govt officials and military officers. It is the basis on which the Strategic Forces Command has been doing its nuclear warplanning. But now that Santhanam has disclosed that none of the thermonuclear designs in the 100-300 KT range have actually been weaponized, it hugely undermines the deterrent. Any way, look out for my op/ed in 'The New Indian Express' accessible at expressbuzz.com to be published on Thursday, Sept 24, in which I have dealt with some of these issues.

[shiv]

There is an old ref here that was posted don BRF long ago. I post it as a data point. There is no reason for anyone to actually believe it and be led up the garden path to imagine that India has a successful working thermonuclear weapon

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0401110.pdf
page 27

This is why the pusher/tamper is sometimes called the “third-stage” of a
thermonuclear weapon. For example, assuming as in Fig.4 that the yield is 150kt
if the pusher/tamper is made of U 238 , the yield will be 300kt if the pusher/tamper is
made of U 235 . On the other hand, if the pusher/tamper is made of a lead or bismuth,
the yield will be significantly lower, on the order of 50kt. This is most probably
what the Indian scientists have done in 1998 in order to be able to detonate the
device at a relatively low depth into the ground, and to minimize the background
signals which may overload the measuring instrumentation.
27

-but unlike Santhanam - these people (the authors)were not in Pokhran

However a footnote on page 27 reads:

12
This is why there is no doubt that any technologically advanced country can build a militarily
usable hydrogen bomb without nuclear testing [21, p.27].

[Raveen]

I sincerely wish to see both countries happily and peacefully coexist in this part of the world.

Other than that line I am not sure what the rest of the post is saying

[shiv]

Bharat Karnad in his book refer to 150-200 kT fbf and I asked him for the basis of that. Was he extrapolating S1 primary for this scale up? Or a new design?

Just got this reply:

I took at face value what R Chidambaram has been saying over the past decade to senior most Indian govt officials and military officers. It is the basis on which the Strategic Forces Command has been doing its nuclear warplanning. But now that Santhanam has disclosed that none of the thermonuclear designs in the 100-300 KT range have actually been weaponized, it hugely undermines the deterrent. Any way, look out for my op/ed in 'The New Indian Express' accessible at expressbuzz.com to be published on Thursday, Sept 24, in which I have dealt with some of these issues.

Interesting

This is what Bharat Karnad said in 2006 which contradicts this email. Please ask him.

http://www.india-seminar.com/2006/560/560 bharat karnad.htm

The ‘Shakti’ series of tests in 1998 proved only that the miniaturized 20 kiloton (KT) fission bomb design, first tested in 1974, is militarily serviceable. All the other weapon designs – the boosted fission and, especially, the thermonuclear – due to their ‘simultaneous triggering’ in Pokhran, produced confused multi-test explosion data sufficient to conclude that the fusion design, for instance, did not work because of partial thermonuclear burn – authoritatively established by crater morphology and excessive traces of lithium in the rock and soil samples extracted from the L-shaped tunnel deep underneath the Thar desert where the devices exploded. Moreover, data from just one, and that too failed, test involving the decisive thermonuclear device is simply insufficient to write a software package simulating fusion reaction, leave alone help in developing new and more innovative designs for thermonuclear warheads/weapons of different power-to-yield ratios to fit varying missile nose-cone geometries.

and

The Indian N-arsenal, according to public sources, of some 80 or so ready 20 KT nuclear weapons, have all used the weapon-grade plutonium (WgPu) obtained mostly from CIRUS and Dhruva.

[Raveen]

Bharat Karnad in his book refer to 150-200 kT fbf and I asked him for the basis of that. Was he extrapolating S1 primary for this scale up? Or a new design?

Just got this reply:

I took at face value what R Chidambaram has been saying over the past decade to senior most Indian govt officials and military officers. It is the basis on which the Strategic Forces Command has been doing its nuclear warplanning. But now that Santhanam has disclosed that none of the thermonuclear designs in the 100-300 KT range have actually been weaponized, it hugely undermines the deterrent. Any way, look out for my op/ed in 'The New Indian Express' accessible at expressbuzz.com to be published on Thursday, Sept 24, in which I have dealt with some of these issues.

Saar, so SFC was basing it war plan on RC's word and now that RC has a change of heart we are caught with our pants down and peeing against the wind? The SFC didn't know first hand that the 100-300kT designs were not weaponised? So were we planning on telling them when they asked for em? I is SOOOPER CONFUSED ONLEE NOW...n worried...n scared...Saar pls enlighten

[Kanson]

I read the Sikka article. Its the same old fitting new constants form world over to get the results they want. Earlier they used Nevada data, Now he wants to use Algerian data.

Ramana ji, In case you missed this..

Fortunately, says Sikka, in 2001 J.R. Murphy and B. Barker published the P-wave spectrum of the French 58 kt ‘Rubis’ explosion at HTS on October 20, 1963. The same paper also published the spectrum of the 62 kt ‘Pile Driver’ test of the U.S. at NTS. Further, Murphy and Barker also proved in their paper that the coupling of granite with the explosive source at the NTS was close to that of the HTS granite.
Simply plotting together the P-wave spectra of Pokhran-II, ‘Rubis’ and ‘Pile Driver’, as given by Barker himself, shows the striking similarity between them (Figure 2). This is what Sikka has done in his recent exercise to drive home why Western estimates of Pokhran-II yield were lower. From the plot one can directly infer that the Pokhran-II yield would be in the ballpark of the yields of ‘Rubis’ and ‘Pile Driver’, which is around 60 kt.

He was supposed to be the S-I designer. He could have given us confidence that the test confrimed his design parameters that he used. Instead of talking about his area of expertise he is frittering away his valuable time in areas which are not his ken.

As its stated in the article seismic is most unreliable method. So why use that. Its over ten years after the tests and those methods don't matter.

In case you missed this..the article was all about

S.K. Sikka, a scientist involved in Pokhran-II, shows how the U.S. calculations of yield of the thermonuclear device were way off the mark.

He still has one card. The cavity radius and that would clinch the matter along with the radio-chem. If he is convinced of the results, he should say here is the all up configuration weapon based on the S-I test.

I guess, unless the presented evidence could be disputed, there is no need.

Its upto the politicial leaders to decide to deploy it or not. This would remove BARC from the sizzle/fizzle debate.

Well said Ramana ji, I think there is no point in we discussing that in addition to BARC.

he proof of the pudding is in the eating. When BARC lets itself into rebutting lame excuses it doesnt serve the primary focus of the organization.

Err..ji are you saying Santhanam too is giving excuses ?

[Kanson]

Bharat Karnad in his book refer to 150-200 kT fbf and I asked him for the basis of that. Was he extrapolating S1 primary for this scale up? Or a new design?

Just got this reply:

I took at face value what R Chidambaram has been saying over the past decade to senior most Indian govt officials and military officers. It is the basis on which the Strategic Forces Command has been doing its nuclear warplanning. But now that Santhanam has disclosed that none of the thermonuclear designs in the 100-300 KT range have actually been weaponized, it hugely undermines the deterrent. Any way, look out for my op/ed in 'The New Indian Express' accessible at expressbuzz.com to be published on Thursday, Sept 24, in which I have dealt with some of these issues.

Sir, is Mr. Karnad is saying FBF and Thermonuclear is one and the same ? Your question is about FBF.

[Kanson]

Saar, so SFC was basing it war plan on RC's word and now that RC has a change of heart we are caught with our pants down and peeing against the wind? The SFC didn't know first hand that the 100-300kT designs were not weaponised? So were we planning on telling them when they asked for em? I is SOOOPER CONFUSED ONLEE NOW...n worried...n scared...Saar pls enlighten

only NOW ? you must be having great understanding then

[shiv]

I meet a lot of armed forces officers who admit to use BR as a reference for presentations and seminars. It is incumbent on BR to use publicly available information which can be substantiated.

BR's missile pages have misleading information about warheads that are not available from any public source and as such could be "planted' false information. Since BR information is used by armed forces officers the misinformation about warheads must be removed immediately if it has not already been done.

After all Arun S has been calling RC a liar for a couple of years - but if Arun had known - why do BR's pages still carry misinformation? Misinformation that some young armed forces officers believe in good faith - in the same way that it is claimed that India's strategic Forces Command was led up the garden path.

[NRao]

And, for the first time, I think, we have the depth at which the device was placed: 230 meters.

From one of Santhanam related article he expected a crater of 72 meters in radius.

For that depth and that expected diameter, the yield should have been much, much more.

It is possible that both S-1 and S-2 were placed at the same depth of ~ 230 m , while S-2 sizzled at ~ 25 kT and the desired crater was formed , but S-1 fizzled at ~ 17 kT and nothing much than sand blew over.

That is possible.

BUT, what do the equations say?

My humble calcs say that even a 45Kt at that depth cannot generate a crater. The BR paper certainly states the same, and now the "Sikka" paper states the same.

I think even a 60Kt yield will NOT generate a crater at 230 meter depth.

The BR paper has more details.

(I think the depth of S2 was much higher - closer to ground level.)

[NRao]

Bharat Karnad in his book refer to 150-200 kT fbf and I asked him for the basis of that. Was he extrapolating S1 primary for this scale up? Or a new design?

Just got this reply:

I took at face value what R Chidambaram has been saying over the past decade to senior most Indian govt officials and military officers. It is the basis on which the Strategic Forces Command has been doing its nuclear warplanning. But now that Santhanam has disclosed that none of the thermonuclear designs in the 100-300 KT range have actually been weaponized, it hugely undermines the deterrent. Any way, look out for my op/ed in 'The New Indian Express' accessible at expressbuzz.com to be published on Thursday, Sept 24, in which I have dealt with some of these issues.

What does "war planning" mean?

Just planning (doing nothing more) or executing the plan too?

IF it is the latter, then clearly they are placing something on top of these missiles, that someone claims or all others believe to be 100-300 Kt weapons.

IF it is the prior not much harm done, back to square zero. Reboot.

[Raveen]

Saar, so SFC was basing it war plan on RC's word and now that RC has a change of heart we are caught with our pants down and peeing against the wind? The SFC didn't know first hand that the 100-300kT designs were not weaponised? So were we planning on telling them when they asked for em? I is SOOOPER CONFUSED ONLEE NOW...n worried...n scared...Saar pls enlighten

only NOW ? you must be having great understanding then

Well I was ASS-U-ME-ING (assuming) that the SFC would be privy to the ground reality irrespective of how negative/complex it was and that our war plan would be based on real war heads not fictional ones...
To me this issue seemed to be that of a PR/public info domain till this post...or so was my understanding
GOI fooled the public... = OK...expected
Scientists fooled the public... = OK...possible
not surprising to a cynic like me at all

but GOI/scientists fooled SFC about what we have and can deploy in a real war situation...=
That is playing Russian Roulette with India and her people
not to mention with the tax payer's dime...

[shaardula]

And my take on what ramana said is that I don't see how they could have PLANNED to have the remaining 40% yield, because that would have been the end of Khetolai. At minimum, it would have been criminally dangerous and irresponsible test planning, and I am sure they would not have done that.

So I agree with ramana that the "remaining 40%" may not have gone off. My take is that it could not have been INTENDED to go off.

Maybe they didn't know how, so they did not try. Maybe they knew how, and used the bare minimum just to get some "trace" data and decided that trying any more would be too risky.

But either way, what they planned, they got. Any more and it would have been a disaster.
As shiv says, we all agree that no big 150kT or 200kT or 1MT device has been live-tested by India.
Whether there is a fair amount of confidence that any such devices, if built , will work, is somewhat open to question. Big question, I would agree. Maybe the GOI has decided that Indian Credible Minimum Deterrent will stick to 25-40kT devices,and focus all the R&D on delivery systems. I would agree with that choice for other reasons, because I firmly believe that 1MT ICBMs are liabilities.

But still, no "fizzle" occurred.

hang on n3 saar. it does not help understand and is confusing.
if youdont intend to blow 40%. why then add extra 40%? why take the risk?

also what do you think of the fact that, despite taking caution, the huts actually cracked. for those taking all this caution, how is a cracked hut acceptable?

[rajeshks]

Other than that line I am not sure what the rest of the post is saying

Raveen.. Please see the links below..
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editori ... 2003175282
and
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-139150390.html

Taiwan may not be capable but India is..

[Raveen]

Other than that line I am not sure what the rest of the post is saying

Raveen.. Please see the links below..
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editori ... 2003175282
and
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-139150390.html

Taiwan may not be capable but India is..

Ahh, now it makes perfect sense
interesting articles Rajesh...thanks for the links

[ramana]

So NRao what was the shaft capable of per your calcs?

Sikkaji was rebutting Western seismologists and not K Santhanam garu. I think despite the atmospehrics they all are one family (Could be unhappy).

I would like to get exact quotes of the Monday press review. .....

Edited...

[arunsrinivasan]

ramana re. rabbit ... it is a common tamil saying ... goes "na pudicha moyal ki mune kaal" i.e. the rabbit I caught has 3 legs .... dont see how you got a telugu poet into this

sorry ot ... but couldnt resist