Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

[amit]

"As of now, I prefer to go with the official position that the claims of Dr Chidambaram and Kalam are valid," he said.

"This (point raised by Santhanam) has to be evaluated by people who have access to all the information to find out whether his reservations are genuine or not," Srinivasan said.

They are in start contradiction to each other, if RC and APJK are right and we have all the data etc, what is there to consider?

That can only mean although for now we trustthat RC is not lying, it needs to be verified.



Trust but verify.

--------------

Others say no need to verify even.

-------------

Conclusion is obvious.

I hope you note a few things.

One of them being that M R Srinivasan is not saying that he needs to be shown to data himself. Rather he's saying folks like RC, AK and Sikka who are in possession of all the data should have a look at what KS is saying. and then decide if there is any merit.

Now, how will M R Srinivasan know if they are lying or not, if he's not in the verification process itself? Could it be that he implicitly trusts the folks who have all the data to do justice to KS' comments and do a honest review? Then where does the question of lying or not come in?

The other point is do you have information which shows that AK and others have contradicted KS' concerns without verifying whether his concerns are valid or not? This point is important. If you can show this to be true I for one will totally reverse my position on this issue.

Indeed the conclusion is obvious and is getting clearer as more interesting nuggets of information comes out and is debated.

Added later: But wait you didn't get the most important point that M R Srinivasan made? And that is he wants KS' point evaluated by people who have access to all the information. Doesn't this implicitly imply that KS did not have access to all information?

And doesn't that also put a spanner to the early theory that KS was the tester and so had access to all information and his assessment was based on this level of access? Didn't RC or someone say precisely this thing quite early on?

Curious!

[Dileep]

OK, you didn't get the derivation part. Let me try.

From definition of Richter scale,
Magnitude ML = K + log10 (A) where A is the horizontal motion amplitude. K is a constant attenuation factor.

From shiv's formula:
Mb = K1 + 0.75 * log10(Y)

So, K + log10(A) = K1 + 0.75 * log10(Y)

log10(A) = K1-K + 0.75 * log10(Y)
= K2 + 0.75 * log10(Y)

That gives

log10(A1) = K2 + 0.75 * log10(Y1)
log10(A2) = K2 + 0.75 * log10(Y2)

ie log10(A1) - log10(A2) = 0.75 * (log10(Y1) - log10(Y2)

log10(A1/A2) = 0.75 * log10(Y1/Y2)
= log10(Y1/Y2 ^ 0.75)

Therefore A1/A2 = (Y1/Y2) ^ 0.75
and A1 = A2 * ( (Y1/Y2) ^ 0.75))

I missed the raise to 0.75 power part. Sorry about that. So the amplitude increses at the 0.75 power of the yield increase factor. A doubling of yield will increase the amplitude by 1.68 times.

If the design yield was 200KT, and the actual was 43KT, the amplitude will be 3.16 times. If the actual was 27KT, it will be 5 times.

does not kill the argument does it?

[Austin]

Why doesnt the GOI let BARC conduct a peer review , some of the scientist who raise credibility of TN test are ex DAE top bosses and one who was part of P2 team.

While people who stick to their guns and says it worked are also credible people APJ,AK,RC.

So why not the GOI form a team of Aye ( AK,RC ) and Nye sayers ( PKI,HS,KS ) and let them review the data and come to some conclusion ?

[Sanku]

OK, you didn't get the derivation part. Let me try.

Oh I independently did the derivation myself and added it to the post.

I derived
0.75(logY2 - logY1) = logA2 - logA1

Y2 = 2*Y1 does not imply A2 == 2*A1

and left it till that.

I missed the raise to 0.75 power part. Sorry about that. So the amplitude increses at the 0.75 power of the yield increase factor. A doubling of yield will increase the amplitude by 1.68 times.

Yes, that is what I meant. In this equation we are talking of the power 0.75 However Why not 0.5? Why not 0.1?

But I also question the 0.75 factor. In fact I question both the constants in the equation
ml = k1 + k2.logY


How do we know k1 and k2? Arent they dependent on shaft design? Do we know that the Richter value was from TN or from FBF?

Further, given that Amplitude of earth movement != force on structure != damage as far as I know. (Please correct) From SOM times.

In short yield --> damage goes through too many factors which unless not know exactly, no conjecture can be made about.

-----------

So we can NOT settle it amongst ourselves by technical information since we dont have all the needed information and hence need to rely on other evidence.

[Sanku]

That can only mean although for now we trustthat RC is not lying, it needs to be verified.
.

Look boss, when A1 and A2 say different things, neither A1 can verify nor A2, basic conflict of intrest argument.

The correct answer can only come from a third part which has all the info that a1 and a2 put together, this is called a peer review.

In this case it could consist of a board from retired members of GoI technical branches.

This is basic.

Anything else is called trust, RC verifying RC is a tautology.

[amit]

Anything else is called trust, RC verifying RC is a tautology.

Maybe the solution is to tell that (the bolded part) to M R Srinivasan?

Do note this whole discussion started when you tried to use M R Srinivasan's words to show that he was "trusting" the folks who have all the data "for now pending review of KS' POV".

Constructing an abstract from that position doesn't serve any purpose IMO since M R Srinivasan himself has said he'd be satisfied if "people who have all the data" look into KS' viewpoints.

Where did peer review come into this, may I ask, in the context of what MRS said?

And besides is their unequivocal proof that a peer review hasn't occurred since 1998 in DAE and/or BARC on this? Just because (I'm assuming here), KS and PKI were not part of the peer review doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't one does it?

Anyway I guess we'll both stick to our POVs no point in taking this further.

Cheers!

[Dileep]

Yes, that is what I meant. In this equation we are talking of the power 0.75 However Why not 0.5? Why not 0.1?

But I also question the 0.75 factor. In fact I question both the constants in the equation
ml = k1 + k2.logY

The formula is used to estimate the yield, and is the result of international scientific research. It had been used for yield estimation from beginning. No need to doubt that.

If you doubt that, you doubt the basic premise of yield measurement.

How do we know k1 and k2? Arent they dependent on shaft design? Do we know that the Richter value was from TN or from FBF?

I have no idea. I just used the available formulae.

Further, given that Amplitude of earth movement != force on structure != damage as far as I know. (Please correct) From SOM times.

Amplitude on earth directly translates to force on the structure. Damage depends upon the structure itself. The point is, the village sustained damage with the blast, and a higher yield is expected to make higher damage.

In short yield --> damage goes through too many factors which unless not know exactly, no conjecture can be made about.

Still, more the yield --> more damage for sure.

[ShauryaT]

Still, more the yield --> more damage for sure.

A question, I was seeking an answer for. What is the likely damage from a 5.9 magnitude shaking of ground (not from an earthquake but from a nuclear blast underground) at a 5 KM distance?

I understand that if there is an actual earthquake at that magnitude and at that distance, there is a distinct possibility of damage. However is it the same for a blast also?

[shiv]

My observation, how can attenuation change to a high value of 4.67?

Thanks for working that out and you are absolutely right.

Now if you go back and see the values that various people use - it appears that every man and his uncle have their own favorite number for the attenuation caused by the rocks at Pokhran. Wallace thinks it is the same as Kazakhstan.

As I pointed out earlier Wallace uses 4.45, Sikka uses 4.04. And you have found values ranging from 4.19 to 4.67.

I have tried to keep repeating that the value can only be "fixed" definitely by a series of tests of a known yield in the same area. If you do 2 or 3 tests simultaneously you are obfuscating the details of individual tests, so you can hide their real values (and any design information that can be surmised from that). However if you "fix" the total yield - you are giving the NPA a data point to work on you and screw you tomorrow because they decide when an explosion has occurred. They are supposed to be looking for cheats so they can call you a cheat - but who is to guarantee that they are themselves not cheats? And the CTBT is all about cheating some people.

Check the planned/existing locations of International Seismic monitoring stations. They have the globe covered. Look at India



http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/bsv/ctbto/ims/seismic.html

[Philip]

Dr.M.R.Srinivasan,for whom one has the highest respect, has made a key point.That those who have accesss to all the data should examine it in true scientific fashion and not like political entities,who may wish to score a debating point or two.The country's security is paramount,as several other N-experts of ours have pointed out.A closed door investigation must be carried out in a totally transparent manner,not to nitpick at each other but to decide whether we need to test again or not.

I can only liken this situ to that of a jury in a murder trial,where the judge asks them that if they have the slightest shadow of doubt about the accused's guilt,then they should acquit him.In like manner,if there is even the slightest shadow of doubt about the success of our TN device,then we must test again! There cannot be any other option for India in the light of Pak's relentless putsuit of the N-first strike option (even leaving China's N-threat aside ),to assault India with dozens of N-tipped missiles without warning.

[shiv]

Dr.M.R.Srinivasan,for whom one has the highest respect, has made a key point.That those who have accesss to all the data should examine it in true scientific fashion and not like political entities,who may wish to score a debating point or two.The country's security is paramount,as several other N-experts of ours have pointed out.A closed door investigation must be carried out in a totally transparent manner,not to nitpick at each other but to decide whether we need to test again or not.

I can only liken this situ to that of a jury in a murder trial,where the judge asks them that if they have the slightest shadow of doubt about the accused's guilt,then they should acquit him.In like manner,if there is even the slightest shadow of doubt about the success of our TN device,then we must test again! There cannot be any other option for India in the light of Pak's relentless putsuit of the N-first strike option (even leaving China's N-threat aside ),to assault India with dozens of N-tipped missiles without warning.

Philip I think the meaning that seems to be emerging from the voices of all the dissenters is clear

1) More testing is essential
2) No CTBT

I think they are absolutely right. Particularly because the world that is keen to see India's signature on the CTBT is the same world that turned a blind eye to Chinese proliferation to Pakistan.

I hope the politicos are listening and learn that they could well be lynched if the screw this. That is a promise. Not a threat.

[SaiK]

Perhaps we need to keep engaging the world.

1. install an IMS monitoring inside India (the yellow triangle).. give them a special deployment zone that is totally controlled by our own counter monitoring site. Place this IMS somewhere near a military test site that keeps generating signals from conventional bombings and exercise/tests.

2. Start well contained testing.. with sub-kilotons such that these IMS don't receive them at all... or its all mixed messages.

3. Get a well contained test done for about 50KT... and

4. send one with a remote trigger to space, and test a 200KT-1MG one.

5. tell the world, we honor all testing and non-testing doctrine. we are true democracy.

do we need to vote on these?

[Satya_anveshi]

talking about earthquakes (might be OT):

Fourth quake strikes NE in 3 weeks

Guwahati: Fourth earthquake in the past three weeks on Friday, measuring 5.9 on Richter scale, created panic among the residents of the Northeastern states including Assam.
The official at the regional seismological centre Shillong, in Meghalaya, said that the tremor took place at 1.21 am which had its epicentre along Manipur and Nagaland states, bordering Burma.

[ShauryaT]

OK bottomline regardless of POKII how many want India to sign CTBT?

When there is a basic disagreement on who are are and where we want to go and what we should be or what we were, then there will also be disagreement on these treaties as well.

I agree with your assessment. The game is over.

[ShauryaT]

That is a promise. Not a threat.

Yes, just like in the aftermath of 26/11?

[Satya_anveshi]

Hey ShauryaTji,

As you are one of the eloquent postors, can you elaborate on:

1. What is the cost of India not signing the 3-4 letter treaties / tissue papers?
2. What is the benefit of any country signing these papers?
3. What is the potential premium we may be getting for signing this now when we are stronger and west is weaker. Apparently we said all of them STFU when they are much much stronger and we were much much weaker.

On the other hand:

4. Why is the question of signing these now or never? Why not that we need 20 or 25 years time to do it? Why not talk about options we may have? How about suggesting incremental modifications to the treaties? They are no many reasons we can gain time on while in principle agreeing on treaties like these?

BTW: I am in disagreement with your earlier post about India's principle stand of global nuclear (verifyable) disarmament being hypocritical for the global community can see thru our intentions. I say why the F we care? If they can be hypocritical, why not us?

Now,

5. Why should we dilute our current stand of "No CTBT now and never" ( as said by Arundhati Ghose)? To me this is still the best stand. We should continue the same unless #3 add significantly to India's benefit.

[shiv]

I would archive the "game is over" statements to be brought out from time to time to ask if the game is over or not.

[Sanku]

The formula is used to estimate the yield, and is the result of international scientific research. It had been used for yield estimation from beginning. No need to doubt that.

Yes I am a little confused, I expected this to depend on the shaft, since we have data for US tests and 200 KT gives any where between 5 to 5.9.

We already agree that the attenuation constant can vary a lot.

I would also like to understand how the number 0.75 is calculated and what is its sanctity if any.

Amplitude on earth directly translates to force on the structure. Damage depends upon the structure itself. The point is, the village sustained damage with the blast, and a higher yield is expected to make higher damage.

Still, more the yield --> more damage for sure.

Yes, it does, but in this case it is not enough to say higher damage, (say 4 cracks instead of 2), when we make a statement saying that the test was limited by Khetolai we have to clearly demonstrate the linkage between yield, seismic signature, and then the resultant damage.

As we don't know many of the above, we are not in a position to claim that it indeed was so limited.

So far I don't see any conclusive evidence that a 200 KT explosion could not be contained in a well built shaft in that area.

As you have yourself said, the damage depends both on the depth of epicenter as well as the magnitude.

What if the damage comes from the FBF which was buried at 200 m and the TN at 600+ m went phuss...

In that case, the seismic readings would still correspond to total shock, but the damage would be mostly from the FBF, and even if the TN went boom, the seismic signature may go up without affecting the net damage.

[Sanku]

Anything else is called trust, RC verifying RC is a tautology.

Maybe the solution is to tell that (the bolded part) to M R Srinivasan?

I don't see MRS saying that RC should verify, that's purely your understanding (if I may add severely flawed) of it.

According to you MRS is saying, "RC should verify what KS said, although I know that RC has already said it works and he has verified it"

I would think that MRS would have no wish to be labeled as daft for saying something which would lead people to ask "so why don't you just say that you agree with RC? Whats the KS angle, why bring that in?"

Obviously he is asking for third party verification while not claiming to distrust RC -- so trust but verify.

[shiv]

So far I don't see any conclusive evidence that a 200 KT explosion could not be contained in a well built shaft in that area.

In fact there is no evidence that a 1 megaton blast could not have been contained in that shaft. I have heard from someone that a 1 megaton blast had been planned. But only my credibility is low in this subject so nobody believes me when I say this.

[ShauryaT]

BTW: I am in disagreement with your earlier post about India's principle stand of global nuclear (verifyable) disarmament being hypocritical for the global community can see thru our intentions. I say why the F we care? If they can be hypocritical, why not us?

Just a quick one. Everyone is hypocritical. The difference is being hypocritical, with or without hard power.

[Satya_anveshi]

Sanku ji,

If scientist are apparently going public with statement and are looking (if I may say) a little frustrated...then what is the next step in their escalation?

Keeping the nation's interest in mind, can't one or more of them come out in the open and call spade a spade? What is that time or point at which this may happen?

[ramana]

What if RC and his group did the radio-chem analysis, the traditional way, counting neutrons and decided it was OK but to add to the confusion(or for proliferation concerns) came up with that spurious version of integrating in one dimension for the 3-D problem?

[pankajs]

Santy's Bombshell will have an impact beyond our borders

Dr Santhanam's crossing over to the side of the sceptics will be a serious challenge to the scientific establishment, says T P Sreenivasan.

[munna]

I would archive the "game is over" statements to be brought out from time to time to ask if the game is over or not.

This particular comment and Raja Ram Bhaiji's comments made my heart skip a beat and it will be really interesting to watch how this pans out. Tense but exciting moments in the journey of our nation towards its destiny.

[ShauryaT]

>>"Satya_anveshi"
>>1. What is the cost of India not signing the 3-4 letter treaties / tissue papers?

The same as what being outside of NPT and NSG has cost us. If India would have acted at the right time in its own geopolitical interests, it could have been avoided.

>>2. What is the benefit of any country signing these papers?

They get to be hypocrites of the first order and claim to be a leading member of the world security architecture and why others are better off not building and being as mad and how outside of the select group no one else should wield those capabilities. BTW: CTBT has been signed by most countries except of Israel, India, TSP.

>>3. What is the potential premium we may be getting for signing this now when we are stronger and west is weaker. Apparently we said all of them STFU when they are much much stronger and we were much much weaker.

According to some eyes, economic progress without worrying too much about security, a closer relationship with the west which has the the potential of a hedge against PRC, if there is a conflict. It is also a message to PRC that India does not seek to challenge PRC in Asia.

>>4. Why is the question of signing these now or never? Why not that we need 20 or 25 years time to do it? Why not talk about options we may have? How about suggesting incremental modifications to the treaties? They are no many reasons we can gain time on while in principle agreeing on treaties like these?

CTBT is a done deal. Only a US ratification stops it, which will likely come in an Obama admin with 60 seats on the democratic side. Once done, the world will come heavily down on India. India's signature is needed for CTBT to come into effect. India does not have the strength by itself to stop the world.

>>5. Why should we dilute our current stand of "No CTBT now and never" ( as said by Arundhati Ghose)? To me this is still the best stand. We should continue the same unless #3 add significantly to India's benefit.

When Ms Ghose said this it was pre POK2 and pre voluntary moratorium and pre NSG exemption, for which the moratorium is the basis. We have already moved far beyond that statement made in 1996. We effectively are in a defacto CTBT and converting that to a dejure one, without very strong resistance from our armed forces and/or other key parts of the security establishment is a forgone conclusion, especially under a PM pre-disposed to doing so to serve the larger goals of the national interest, as our PM sees them.

[ShauryaT]

I would archive the "game is over" statements to be brought out from time to time to ask if the game is over or not.

Please do but in context of CTBT. Do you have a different view?

[Sanatanan]

After going through these 51 pages of discussions, I understand that at the Pokhran test site, for various reasons, there is a limitation posed on the maximum safe yield (design as well as actual) of the device to be tested. This yield limitation is such that a representative-sized TN weapon / device cannot be tested there and therefore stratagems such as masking the blast, computer-modeling, scaling the designs etc need to be resorted to in order to develop a deployable weapon of the required size / configuration. Apparently, amongst all the specialised Indian agencies involved in the development and deployment of the nuclear deterrent, not all find these strategems / methodologies sufficiently convincing.

Now my query is this: Is it not possible, (and, in fact, is it not desirable) for our country to develop alternative test site(s), which, among other features, has/(have) appropriate ground charecteristics, and nil or low density population in the surrounding areas? In our large country, are there not suitable sites, other than Pokhran, where tests could be carried out, while at the same time being away from unwelcome and intrusive eyes, as was successfully done at Pokhran? I very vaguely recollect reading some time ago that the foot hills at Nilgiris mountain range were once considered for this purpose (I could, of course, be quite wrong in this).

[Sanku]

So far I don't see any conclusive evidence that a 200 KT explosion could not be contained in a well built shaft in that area.

In fact there is no evidence that a 1 megaton blast could not have been contained in that shaft. I have heard from someone that a 1 megaton blast had been planned. But only my credibility is low in this subject so nobody believes me when I say this.

I say this on the following data points
1) US has conducted 200 KT tests with seismic signature of 5.
2) There has been talk of 200 KT device ready shaft at various points of time.
3) The figure of 200 KT also has been bandied about by RC when he said that they were trying to verify a 200 KT device by scaling it down.

So there is some merit in considering 200 KT as a figure of some real backing.

If you can show occurrences where 1 MT tests are similarly discussed I shall actually tend to believe you.

I do my trusting based on logic and not merely whom it comes from (unless that person is like Arun_S -- uncannily correct in his predictions at all times)

[Sanku]

After going through these 51 pages of discussions, I understand that at the Pokhran test site, for various reasons, there is a limitation posed on the maximum safe yield (design as well as actual) of the device to be tested.

I disagree, can you please say why do you think that is the case?

[shiv]

2) There has been talk of 200 KT device ready shaft at various points of time.
3) The figure of 200 KT also has been bandied about by RC when he said that they were trying to verify a 200 KT device by scaling it down.

What talk? You say "there has been talk"? Where has the talk been? I haven't heard it.

RC said 200 kT scaled down to 45 kt. To me that sounds like he meant 45 kt not 200 kt and there is no evidence that he got anywhere near 45 kt leave alone 200 kt and there is no evidence that the shaft would withstand 200 kt.

It is your belief that the shaft could have taken 200 kt. It is your prerogative to believe that. I don't believe it though. The absence of evidence that it cannot take 200 kt is not evidence that it can. But personal belief is OK I guess - you are entitled to it.

[geeth]

>>>I disagree, can you please say why do you think that is the case?

Dear Saar..!

Sacred River Saraswathi is flowing under the Thar Desert. When Vajpaee authorised the Pokharan blasts after saraswathi Vandan, RC thought it fit to dig a shaft just above the banks of the river...If he had not done so, the byproducts of the whole bum would have vented out due to steam pressure like a SLBM coming out of a no-clear submarine.

That is rocket Science..I am somewhat more familiar with it. You wanna discuss it further?

[shiv]

After going through these 51 pages of discussions, I understand that at the Pokhran test site, for various reasons, there is a limitation posed on the maximum safe yield (design as well as actual) of the device to be tested.

I don't think this is the case. I think that the existing shafts were used. Those existing shafts had been dug years ago and maintained. I personally believe that even if they had a 100 kt bomb to test they would have had to make the shaft deeper which would have required more time than was given by the government and it could also have given the game away to US satellites.

I will post some references regarding shaft depth and yield of nukes soon.

I don't think there is any reason why it should not be possible to drill a 1000 meter hole and test a huge bomb if there is political will AND technical ability.

[Kanson]

About the damage to Khetolai, what I wonder is:

The test caused cracks on the buildings. That is an undisputed fact.

The amplitude of the motion of the ground is directly proportional to the KT of the explosion. Why? Richter is log10 of amplitude, and the formula for yield shows that Richter is log10 of Yield.

So, if the explosion was twice the strength, the ground movement anywhere would have been twice the amplitude. That will be twice the force on the structures. I am sure that would have made many of the buildings fall apart. So, let me take twice the yield would pose danger to the inhabitants (and their property) that would require evacuation of the village.

Was Khetolai evacuated? AFAIK, it wasn't. It would have been a tragedy if the blast was twice of what happened.

Now, the options are:

1. BARC erred in estimating the damage potential for a given yield, and designed the yield accordingly. The actual yield was lower than expected, so the village was saved.

2. BARC correctly estimated the damage potential, and designed the yield accordingly. The actual yield was a bit higher than designed.

3. BARC correctly estimated the damage potential, but thought that the village is expendable and designed a high yield. The actual yield was lower than expected, so the village was saved.

4. BARC correctly estimated the damage potential, informed the higher ups the need to evacuate the village and designed a high yield. The higher ups thought that the village is expendable (or, just forgot to tell them). And the actual yield was lower than expected, so the village was saved.

Which one would you take?

I dont know whether any option could be selected, but as per this link

they stated that they reduced the yield because the village of Khetolai was only five kilometers away. It was later reported that more than 40 percent of the structures in the village had sustained some damage

Can the magnitude represented by Richter scale be equated directly to mb ( body wave magnitude) ? Not in every case i guess..dont know..

[ramana]

I would archive the "game is over" statements to be brought out from time to time to ask if the game is over or not.

Please do but in context of CTBT. Do you have a different view?

No-No let him be. Its free country and free to pursue any tack.


Munna once in a while one has to realize when the argument is over. R^2 can read MEA like a book and doesn't need the footnotes.

Some of the sizzle supporters are also supporters of accessing the treaty. So do try to read them.

[Sanku]

2) There has been talk of 200 KT device ready shaft at various points of time.
3) The figure of 200 KT also has been bandied about by RC when he said that they were trying to verify a 200 KT device by scaling it down.

What talk? You say "there has been talk"? Where has the talk been? I haven't heard it.
.

On this forum and else where, and it was "talk" not an official proclamation.

Yes, it indeed is my prerogative to believe what I think is right.But at least I have some many data points which indicate a possiblity of a 200 KT figure.

OTOH I have seen no data point which even remotely indicates a 1MT figure. Since you say you believe in possibility of a 1MT test too, either you have some data points to support it in which it would be nice if you would share it with us, or I wouldn't know what to make of it.

[Sanku]

Sacred River Saraswathi is flowing under the Thar Desert. When Vajpaee authorised the Pokharan blasts after saraswathi Vandan, RC thought it fit to dig a shaft just above the banks of the river...If he had not done so, the byproducts of the whole bum would have vented out due to steam pressure like a SLBM coming out of a no-clear submarine.

You are kidding right! On this thread these days you never know who is being serious and who is being sarcastic since they are mixed so freely.

[Sanku]

I am very amateur in my understanding of National Security. I would really appreciate if someone can briefly clear these doubts of mine!

nukavarapu, the 50 pages are a debate on these very questions. There are two groups one that say yes and the other no.

I think yes mostly for your questions BTW.

[Raveen]

no-clear submarine.

You are kidding right! On this thread these days you never know who is being serious and who is being sarcastic since they are mixed so freely.

I believe he is kidding onlee saar

[ramana]

After 50 pages, thnx to my ignorance, I m still unable to understand the reasoning behind the timing of KS. A very controversial statement coming out from him after 10 years. I have a very humble request for adminullahs! Can ne one plz post a summary of the reason behind KS coming out of the hole, after 10 years! What shud be going on in his mind?

1.) Is it a concern for the authenticity of so called Minimum Credible Deterent?

{NO. Its not based on TN. There is credibility over the TN that was stated to be tested.}

2.) Is the motivation pure patriotic and national pride or is there any manipulation involved?

{Its the former. However the sarkari types say its the later.}

3.) If he is furious about evident signs that MMS might budge to CTBT pressure, why was he calm during the NSG deal? I personally feel that NSG was a precursor to CTBT.

{The IUCNA deal was manythings. Most importantly it was civilian nuke reactor deal. However it had linkages in case India tests. So there are connections. But not iron clad bindings. India could test and the US might determine its policies based on the situation. CTBT on other hand is a iron-clad treaty that locks the right to test. The supreme national interest clause applies only to the powers recognised by NPT ie. the P-5. In other words IUCNA can be lived with. CTBT is not at this time. If the TN was successful it can be lived with. Unfortunately it didnt.}

4.) Is there any kind of Psy-Ops involved or bcoz of the corrupt babuism, the genuine man has found a new friend in Media?

{Everything is maya. KS went public in order to exert pressure on accession to CTBT. The media wants waht sells. They are nobody's friends. To put it simply KS thinks India needs TN for its deterrent. Others like KS the pitamaha and govt think otherwise for the challengers are just like Indians.}

I am very amateur in my understanding of National Security. I would really appreciate if someone can briefly clear these doubts of mine!

Hope it didnt add to the confusion.