Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

[Kanson]

Brajesh Mishra should shut-up. He was the PM's point man on this tests and he could not force RC to address the peer review that was demanded by other BARC scientists. As the PM's secy on this front he did not perform as required.

Sir, why should Mishra should shut-up? He doesnt carry any political baggage. he can be viewed as neutral. Mishra not only co-ordinated as a point man during Skathi test but also after that for the weaponisation. He knows more than Santhanam. Santhanam is one of co-ordinator for the skathi test.

[uddu]

If there is doubt, let us test it again. Also if there is some new design that also can be tested. Let us also fire an armed missile to a far off island in the Indian ocean ensuring the credibility of Indian nuclear weapons systems.

[shiv]

Sorry to press my case. Just read the two following docs to see who is telling the whole truth and what parameters can be used to know the truth. Where is the maya and where is reality?

htp://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=r46q4681x704m231&size=largest
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fil ... 07_Hui.pdf

I will bite:

Wouldnt Santhanam as the chief of the team have access to measurements other than seismic ones?

Absolutely.

Now re read his statement

[Kanson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCMw4rBuolw


In all these dramas what is interesting is Mr. Santhanam choose to quote the claims of Western analysts for butting his claim. Point to note is Santhanam is telling the samething what NPA are telling so far to site that Indian should not sign CTBT. Thats actually very interesting. He doesnt dispute the claim BARC made on the yield. He actually questions the yield actually made. Thats render it very clear he is not talking abt tertiary and not abt the tested device as a full scale weapon aka 200KT yield.

Further in the interview, he also remarks that, classified Indian measurement on the yeild is avaialble to Govt. If what he says is true and infact yield is not as claimed then the whole Govt/PM is responsible for hiding the fact. That puts ABV in the line of fire. Then why target only RC and Kakodkar. You people should blame the NDA govt and those BJP leaders.

See the closing remarks, its very interesting.

[shiv]

shiv,
if you send me a mail .

done

[amit]

Kanson,

It could well be CTBT. Or it could be an Indian warning to the US not suck up too much to China. The North Korean test was disturbing. Everyone knows the Great Leader doesn't even fart without informing Beijing. And so the maal most likely was a Chini-Paki- N Korean effort.

With the Arihant launched and the US doing jackshit about the phataka it could be this is our way of telling Uncle not to take everything for granted.

Whatever may be I don't by BK's explanation (eventhough I consider him a team player). What kind of physicist is Santhanam that he took 10 years to realise that the data indicated a fizzle? What did he think he was doing supporting the N deal?

Sorry the more I think about this I'm convinced that this is a choreographed move.

JMT

[geeth]

Rajaram -Ji,

If you don't mind, pls send the mail to me too....

[Rahul M]

GOI seems to
be in damage control mode.

damage control or good cop bad cop ?

[ShauryaT]

Now re read his statement

The whole statement and not just parts of it.

[Kanson]

Amit, Santhanam rehashed his old stand in a different way. What is interesting to me is the way he rehashed it ( thats is citing the NPA's claim. if he wanted actually dscredit the govt position he could have used our own measurement data) and the timming. And you know he is not an ordinary guy.

What kind of physicist is Santhanam

In this forum When Kalam supported the N-deal he was dimissed as he is not a nuclear scientiest by our Webmaster Arun_S. Now we know Bharat Karnard has addressed Santhanam as nuclear scientist. So why dont we seek the help of the Webmaster in telling us for the benefit of this forum why he is called as nuclear scientist ?

[Tanaji]

Amit, Santhanam rehashed his old stand in a different way. What is interesting to me is the way he rehashed it ( thats is citing the NPA's claim. if he wanted actually dscredit the govt position he could have used our own measurement data) and the timming. And you know he is not an ordinary guy.

What kind of physicist is Santhanam

In this forum When Kalam supported the N-deal he was dimissed as he is not a nuclear scientiest by our Webmaster Arun_S. Now we know Bharat Karnard has addressed Santhanam as nuclear scientist. So why dont we seek the help of the Webmaster in telling us for the benefit of this forum why he is called as nuclear scientist ?

Would Santhanam have access to measurement data other than seismic measurements?

In other words, when he says less yield, is it based on seismic tests alone or other measurements as well?

[Kanson]

If there is doubt, let us test it again. Also if there is some new design that also can be tested. Let us also fire an armed missile to a far off island in the Indian ocean ensuring the credibility of Indian nuclear weapons systems.

Sir, the point is no one is telling when the opportunity presents itself we will not test.(Pls see what Kalam said on this) and we are opposing the CTBT in numerous ways becoz we dont have faith in the international system.

[Kanson]

Would Santhanam have access to measurement data other than seismic measurements?

In other words, when he says less yield, is it based on seismic tests alone or other measurements as well?

Based on seismic data alone.

[Tanaji]

Then how is his utterance different from what has been said previously?

[Kanson]

I'm sorry, could you elaborate on it ...

[pankajs]

In the November meeting between MMS and Obama, there might have been a possibility of some firm commitment from India on CTBT that would have adversely affected out nuke posture. Agendas for such meeting are setup and discussed much in advance and the possibility of such a deal would definitely be known to the inner circle in Delhi.

This may be an attempt to disrupt such a possibility or at least deny MMS (or for that matter any future PM) the cover of claiming later that he was mislead by the babudom and did not know about the fizzle of the TN bum.
JMT

[Tanaji]

Well if what you say is true i.e. Santhanam is basing his current statement of reduced yield purely on seismic measurements alone and he does not have access to other non-seismic based measurements, then this is the same as what other "western" experts are saying i.e. there is a difference between Indian official claim and what they measured at their siesmic monitoring stations.

[milindc]

In all these dramas what is interesting is Mr. Santhanam choose to quote the claims of Western analysts for butting his claim. Point to note is Santhanam is telling the samething what NPA are telling so far to site that Indian should not sign CTBT. Thats actually very interesting.

He is being smart by using the Western claims and avoiding getting tangled in Official secrets act. What do you expect him say, according to measurements available to test site team, the yield was off ?

[shiv]

There is the possibility of a jingo fraction in the US who completely resent all the rising India news and do not want the US to be Bangalored in globocop power.

This constituency will do its utmost to oppose that.

India cannot rise by opposing both the US and China.

Take your pick.


JMT

[Kanson]

Well if what you say is true i.e. Santhanam is basing his current statement of reduced yield purely on seismic measurements alone and he does not have access to other non-seismic based measurements, then this is the same as what other "western" experts are saying i.e. there is a difference between Indian official claim and what they measured at their siesmic monitoring stations.

Tanaji Sir, I'm not telling anything. Pls watch the yotube video sir, he made it clear there. Yes he is butting the western experts claim.

[PratikDas]

In all these dramas what is interesting is Mr. Santhanam choose to quote the claims of Western analysts for butting his claim. Point to note is Santhanam is telling the samething what NPA are telling so far to site that Indian should not sign CTBT. Thats actually very interesting.

He is being smart by using the Western claims and avoiding getting tangled in Official secrets act. What do you expect him say, according to measurements available to test site team, the yield was off ?

I agree with you. Santhanam can't simply call Chidambaram and Kalam liars. He is, instead, choosing to give the western claims the benefit of the doubt to make his statement:

1) we shouldn't sign CTBT
2) we need to test again
3) we are prepared to test again
4) we need the govt to permit the test

[Kanson]

In all these dramas what is interesting is Mr. Santhanam choose to quote the claims of Western analysts for butting his claim. Point to note is Santhanam is telling the samething what NPA are telling so far to site that Indian should not sign CTBT. Thats actually very interesting.

He is being smart by using the Western claims and avoiding getting tangled in Official secrets act. What do you expect him say, according to measurements available to test site team, the yield was off ?

Sir, everyone here knows the credibility of western analyst. Hmm, he could very well used the PKI claim instead. Or, he could have simple state that the yield is less. whose is asking the proof ? he is part of the team, isnt it?

[milindc]

Well if what you say is true i.e. Santhanam is basing his current statement of reduced yield purely on seismic measurements alone and he does not have access to other non-seismic based measurements, then this is the same as what other "western" experts are saying i.e. there is a difference between Indian official claim and what they measured at their siesmic monitoring stations.

Guys, this is not some random Indian official. He was part of the very select few who knows what went on and pulled off one of most secret endeavours in Indian history. So please lets give credence to what he is saying.
Basically, he wants to convey that we can't sign CTBT without additional tests. The mystery is whether GoI is using him to state its position, or he as a patriot is uncomfortable with the political direction on CTBT.

[dinesha]

Ever since Santhanam has made the statement it has become major coverage by the Media. Notice how the headlines is changing over this issue. The current and latest headline is ‘No CTBT, India needs more nuclear tests: Pokhran II coordinator’ Amongst many thing this has ensured the negative public opinion towards CTBT and hence strengthen the hands of govt. while dealing with the BO.

[Kanson]

Guys, this is not some random Indian official. He was part of the very select few who knows what went on and pulled off one of most secret endeavours in Indian history. So please lets give credence to what he is saying.

so are others...

[pankajs]

Further in the interview, he also remarks that, classified Indian measurement on the yield is available to Govt.

Even when he does not site classified Indian measurement, he does point out that it exists for the Gov. to verify. Now that is interesting.
1. If the data does not support his pov, he would be fool to indicate that such data exists.
2. The Gov. will ultimately have to rely on nuke scientist to make sense of the data. Could you or me read the data and verify the yield claim? So back to BARC.

[Kanson]

arre bhai saab, he actually said, classied measurement which state the actual yeild should be available to the govt. Pls watch the video.

[Sanku]

Absolutely.

Now re read his statement

He is not going to do any more than profess an opinion, does he want the full force of NSA (national security act) on him?

For such a scientist to even hint that our deterrence is broken breaks the deterrence -- I thought it was much agreed that deterrence is about state of the mind.

So Sananthan breaking the Indian deterrence just to give GoI a prop to not sign CTBT (which they should have the balls to do independently) is a good thing?

[Singha]

either way it cannot be denied we need half a dozen TN tests to gather test data,
fix issues and finalize on a couple of reliable weapon designs.

the chinese/gotus would have known the real truth all along./

[PratikDas]

are babha, he actually said, classied measurement which state the actual yeild should be available to the govt. Pls watch the video.

Whatever measurements the govt got would be from Chidambaram:

Govt dismisses scientist's claims over Pokhran

The scientist's version was contested by Brajesh Mishra, National Security Advisor in the Vajpayee government, who said R. Chidambaram, then chief of the Department of Atomic Enerygy, had reported to him on May 13 that year that all parameters had been met in the five tests carried out and there was no need to undertake a sixth one.

Chidambaram told the govt. what he govt. wanted to hear.

[shiv]

Would Santhanam have access to measurement data other than seismic measurements?

In other words, when he says less yield, is it based on seismic tests alone or other measurements as well?

As per this paper:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fil ... 07_Hui.pdf

North Korea’s Oct. 9 Nuclear Test: Successful or Failed?

Moreover, there is uncertainty in converting seismic magnitude to explosive yield.
Even the same seismic magnitude value can correspond to yields that range over a factor of
about 10

<snip>

Finally, beyond the seismic approach, can off-site air sampling be used to estimate
the test yield for North Korea case? If we could collect and estimate the total inventory of
one specific or some of the released gaseous fission products, then we could narrow the
yield estimation. In practice, it is impossible, however. In addition, the explosive yield
would not be estimated by the ratios of those fission products. To further narrow the yield
estimate, it would depend on on-site approaches, such as CORRTEX (Continuous
Reflectometry for Radius versus Time Experiments)7 and Radiochemical analysis.
CORRTEX measurements could be accurate within a factor-of-1.3 uncertainty.
Radiochemical analysis is believed to be the most accurate means of yield determination.
E.g. estimating the total inventory of some fission products (e.g. the non-volatile products
contained in the collapsed blast cavity which would need on-site drill, etc.) However, both
CORRTEX and Radiochemical analysis would require the host country’s cooperation. It is
not possible for North Korean current case.

< snip >

Consequently, a fizzle yield could be defined as a few percent of the design yield
for an assembly system similar to Nasasagi type bomb. Thus, whether North Korean test
was a failure would depend on its design yield. For example, if North Korea design yield
was 20 kt as others usually did for their first tests, then a 0.5 kt could be a fizzle yield
(because the ratio of the test yield to the design yield is 2.5% (0.5kt/20kt), which is less
than the defined fizzle yield (say around 3%). However, if North Korea planned a yield of
4kt, even a test yield of 0.5 kt (12.5% of designed yield) would be not a fizzle yield.
Indeed, Chinese officials have told American nuclear experts and diplomatic officials that
Pyongyang had informed Beijing in advance an estimated explosion yield of
approximately 4 kilotons.12

Now someone tell me please: What was the planned yield?

What was the real yield?

How was it measured.

There is so much uncertainty here that nobody will ever know except those who need to know.

Wrt POK 2- for a charade that was set up in great detail to hoodwink US satellites while bums were kept ready for testing for ten years does anyone really think that the statements to be made after the test - success or failure were all not preplanned to be made depending on what happened?

Every statement could be a preplanned lie - the only "truth" being the squiggles seen on worldwide seismographs and craters that appeared overnight. That's all.

What you make of th truth is just that. What you want to make of it. Nobody _really_ knows.

[Sanku]

either way it cannot be denied we need half a dozen TN tests to gather test data,
fix issues and finalize on a couple of reliable weapon designs.

the chinese/gotus would have known the real truth all along./

So basically what you are saying is that all along the only people being taken for a ride were BRFites and Indian public when GoI used similar arguments to chart a particular way.

And while BRFites were falling over each other to defend GoI, the Chinese were any way laughing at us?

Goody....

[pankajs]

So Sananthan breaking the Indian deterrence just to give GoI a prop to not sign CTBT (which they should have the balls to do independently) is a good thing?

or ensuring that come November and beyond we do not witness another new-clear deal type of fiasco.

[Sanku]

What you make of th truth is just that. What you want to make of it. Nobody _really_ knows.

\

And that is why when some one who should _REALLY_KNOW casts doubts it destroys the belief in our arsenal and hence the deterrence. (for the record I always believed in what Arun_S said, it was all very credible)

It would a pity that the Chinese inadvertently destroy 6 cities including where I live under the mistaken belief that we don't have TNs and then realize that hey they were wrong and we destroyed 10 of theirs.

That would not give my, by then departed, soul any solace.

[Sanku]

So Sananthan breaking the Indian deterrence just to give GoI a prop to not sign CTBT (which they should have the balls to do independently) is a good thing?

or ensuring that come November and beyond we do not witness another new-clear deal type of fiasco.

That is what I believe, this is a dissent in the ranks.

[shiv]

R. Chidambaram, then chief of the Department of Atomic Enerygy, had reported to him on May 13 that year that all parameters had been met[/b] in the five tests carried out and there was no need to undertake a sixth one.

Chidambaram told the govt. what he govt. wanted to hear.

Yes - but even Chidambaram, no matter what he said on that day- had access to the actual drilled samples of residual radioactive material to be retrieved from the collapsed explosion cavities for radiochemical analysis which is the best way to figure out the yields. The results of that remain a secret but they are available to the GoI.

And yes - the statement made on 13th May by Chidambaram is a lie by definition because he did not have the radiochemical analysis results, although he would have known the details of the rocks in the area and he would have known if something had been done for "deception" to hide yields. and he would have the results of the close-in seismographs.

Who you want to believe is entirely up to you.

[shiv]

What you make of th truth is just that. What you want to make of it. Nobody _really_ knows.

\

And that is why when some one who should _REALLY_KNOW casts doubts it destroys the belief in our arsenal and hence the deterrence. (for the record I always believed in what Arun_S said, it was all very credible)

It would a pity that the Chinese inadvertently destroy 6 cities including where I live under the mistaken belief that we don't have TNs and then realize that hey they were wrong and we destroyed 10 of theirs.

That would not give my, by then departed, soul any solace.

You have to live with your fears and your beliefs. That is the burden you must carry. It is your karma.

[Austin]

For such a scientist to even hint that our deterrence is broken breaks the deterrence -- I thought it was much agreed that deterrence is about state of the mind.

So Sananthan breaking the Indian deterrence just to give GoI a prop to not sign CTBT (which they should have the balls to do independently) is a good thing?

State of mind , what is the point of deterrence if it does not work at all , when you have the confidence that it works then it becomes a mind game to play.

Else some one may just call the bluff and you will have cupboard of skeleton to show.

[Hari Seldon]

That is what I believe, this is a dissent in the ranks.

Dissent? by who? Against who? I still doubt anyone has spoken out of line. PC and MoD rebutting KS's claims seems a tad scripted. or not. Who knows?

-edited-- pointless.

[shiv]

That is what I believe, this is a dissent in the ranks.

Planned or unplanned dissent?