Operation Sindoor - Post Conflict Analysis

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5123
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Operation Sindoor - Post Conflict Analysis

Post by Tanaji »

Thanks AmberG.

It is interesting that they have managed to keep those centrifuges running all this time. I am told the ball bearings for those are not easily available. Clearly they have managed to keep them operational…
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11565
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Operation Sindoor - Post Conflict Analysis

Post by Amber G. »

Tanaji wrote: 14 Oct 2025 23:04 Thanks AmberG.

It is interesting that they have managed to keep those centrifuges running all this time. I am told the ball bearings for those are not easily available. Clearly they have managed to keep them operational…
Very good point (I have thought and done research too. about this) - YES, the bearing problem is real and nontrivial...

- My Take (qualified assessment - ):

So yes — But if a state prioritizes the program, accumulates spares, invests in repair and machine shops, and uses smart cascade design and maintenance practices.

I'll put some, some reputable evidence and expert analysis showing how Pakistan kept centrifuges running (spares, procurement, in-house machining, and technical fixes) for others to analyze - give me some time)

But my take is there is credible evidence that Pakistan (via the A.Q. Khan network and state procurement) obtained and manufactured the hard-to-get parts (including bearing preforms, specialist machine tools and spares) and developed local repair/fabrication capacity. That’s how centrifuges were kept operational for years — not magic, but supply networks + local engineering.

Expand it later but from what I know in plain language -

-Bearings and other precision parts are hard to buy openly — which is why this enrichment program used a mix of covert procurement, stockpiling, and local machining.

- The A.Q. Khan network provided the procurement channels and know-how to get started; Pakistan then developed domestic means (shops, trained machinists, and repair procedures) to keep things going.

- So when people marvel “how do they keep the centrifuges running?” the answer is: a pragmatic combination of imported parts early on, replication and repair work later, and smart engineering practices (redundancy, vibration control, cascade isolation).

-Added later ..
Some links (All from reputable sources)
-MIT/RS Kemp analysis argues that constructing basic centrifuges has never required a superpower industrial base —just intermediate industrial capability, pressure, and procurement networks.

Reporting and technical summaries on Khan’s procurement (Sanger / investigative pieces describing bearing-groove papers, Malaysian factory, etc.)

also Not a ‘Wal-Mart’, but an ‘Imports-Exports Enterprise’:
Understanding the Nature of the A.Q. Khan Network


Amber G. (quoting from MIT source):
This history argues that, contrary to popular understanding, constructing basic centrifuges has never been cutting-edge or resource-intensive. This breaks with the Manhattan Project mythology that nuclear weapons require techno-industrial greatness. Consequently, technology-based nonproliferation policies flowing from such thinking were arguably misinformed; it is likely that nuclear proliferation has been, or will be, controlled more by motivations than by technological constraints.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11565
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Operation Sindoor - Post Conflict Analysis

Post by Amber G. »

bala wrote: 14 Oct 2025 01:08
...Sir/Madam, please understand that i provided a transcript of what Aadi was saying. If you have issues please take it up with him. ...
Zero interest in “taking it up with Aadi.” My goal here, as I said, is simply to share a few technical and historical reality checks on claims in a high-stakes post. Aadi packs in a lot of sensationalism; a few points deserve a quick reality check.
bala
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3254
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: Operation Sindoor - Post Conflict Analysis

Post by bala »

Amber G. wrote: 15 Oct 2025 02:05 Zero interest in “taking it up with Aadi.” My goal here, as I said, is simply to share a few technical and historical reality checks on claims in a high-stakes post. Aadi packs in a lot of sensationalism; a few points deserve a quick reality check.
Just read what you posted .. reproduced here ..
Amber G. wrote: 13 Oct 2025 23:00
Bala — please read my post in full. The main issue I pointed out was the incorrect use of the term “cold test.” A “cold test” by definition uses a non-fissile core, precisely because there is no nuclear yield. Using the term as if HEU were involved is not only wrong — and lends ZERO credibility to anything that follow..it’s like saying :
“a dry swim in the ocean.” :eek:
Also, just to be clear — I never said or implied that Pakistan didn’t have its own device in 1998. What I said was that by 1984, they were likely testing the implosion mechanism they obtained from China — that’s a very different point.


....

Let’s keep the discussion grounded in facts and correct terminology — otherwise, we’re just building castles on sand.

Amber G.
(And truth, as ever, prefers clarity over echo..)
No saarey, this is what you said in a previous post and implored me to read in full of "what". The cold test is the term used by Aadi in his YT. You can argue with him not me.

And later on you keep harping about "clarity, echo, truth". Please go argue with him not me, leave me out of your lecture series, tis boring for me and useless. You don't need to respond to anything I write. thank you.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11565
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Operation Sindoor - Post Conflict Analysis

Post by Amber G. »

Balaji - Zero interest in arguing with you — just dropping a few technical reality checks. No need to read if it bores or annoys you.

But for others here who aren’t allergic to science and facts: remember, a “cold test” is like a dry swim in the ocean — no nuclear yield, no magic, just physics. A good reminder before digesting some of the more sensational claims in that post.

Amber G. - Not here for debates, just facts — feel free to ignore if you prefer stories.
RCase
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2633
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 22:50
Location: Awaiting the sabbath of Fry djinns

Re: Operation Sindoor - Post Conflict Analysis

Post by RCase »

Amber G. wrote: 14 Oct 2025 23:45
But my take is there is credible evidence that Pakistan (via the A.Q. Khan network and state procurement) obtained and manufactured the hard-to-get parts (including bearing preforms, specialist machine tools and spares) and developed local repair/fabrication capacity. That’s how centrifuges were kept operational for years — not magic, but supply networks + local engineering.

- So when people marvel “how do they keep the centrifuges running?” the answer is: a pragmatic combination of imported parts early on, replication and repair work later, and smart engineering practices (redundancy, vibration control, cascade isolation).
Pakistan Has Talent! :D
Awaiting the next manufacturing superpower!
Post Reply