Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - Part-3

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 09 Oct 2009 11:11

>>>So assuming S1 was a success and went off like a charm like the test team would have the nation believe, and that they have been working for a decade hence.

>>>Do we infer that the BARC team =/> Chinese N weapons capability?
BARC = / > unkil's N weapons capability?

What does this symbols "= / >" mean? are you trying to compare the capabilities? what is the need for it, and how one can make these comparisons and what purpose it would serve? We should do things according to our requirements.

>>>I use the word 'capability', because the word is vaporware with no strict boundaries.

Your argument is convoluted, to say the least.

"US of A has the capability to land man on moon" means, they have the ability to do so, and demonstrated it.

"China has the capability to send man to space" means, they have the ability to do so, and demonstrated it.

"India has the capability to send a moon probe" means, they have the ability to do so, and demonsrated it.

"India has the capability to make TN weapons" means, they have the ability to do so, and demonstrated it by exploding a 45 KT TN weapon.

NOW,

"China has the capability to field TN weapons" means, they have the ability to do so......and the world believes it, WITHOUT ANY PEER REVIEW BY A BLUE RIBBON "INTERNATIONAL" TEAM. We all swallow it, as it is!

When the Pseudo Theory that "Man never landed on moon" is floated around with "proof", the GOTUS, NASA et.,al never bothered to give any press releases defending themselves or try to re-prove that Neil Amstrong was indeed there in July 1969.

SO,

When GOI says, "India has the capability to filed TN weapons", they just mean that - and only that - that they have the ability to do so. What is the "Takleef" in swallowing it? Are our people less trustworthy?

>>>If the answer is no, then testing is the only way forward.

IMO, testing is the only way, even if the answer is YES, if you want to go forward...beyond 200 KT in any case.

>>>BARC seems to be saying this too:
>>>1. They have been carrying the research forward. This itself implies that new things have been developed, old things rectified => Need for testing.

That is called "putting words into someone else's mouth". It only means that they have carried on further research from the point of exploding the TN device. It doesn't mean there were defects to be rectified, or new things were developed (Perhaps their research has not lead to anything new at all)

>>>2. No point hair splitting on what happened on 11th May 10 years ago, point is what is the country willing to do now.

A good beginning would be to stop finding new meanings to the word "Capability".

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 11:12

Gagan,
Maybe there's a scaling problem from the simulation data?
Or maybe we don't have the missiles which can carry the extra weight?
Or maybe there a cost benefit consideration. Do recall the diagrams which Shiv posted about the diminishing returns (in terms of area of damage) with increase in bomb power?

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 09 Oct 2009 11:13

merlin wrote:
Nope. Wont do. At best, a peer review can say that yes BARC was /was not lying, and again, they will not be able to say on what scientific basis /data did they come to that conclusion because they will have to sign up for the OSA.
Don't bring in OSA as an excuse. Do you seriously think that PKI/HS or any other person eligible to be included in a peer review panel haven't already signed the OSA?

Incidentally, OSA can be applied on anybody if GOI wants - If KS et al have not been booked, it is because GOI believes that they have not released any classified data and applying OSA will only lend credence to their claims.

THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1923

Year : 1923

Act : An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to official secrets.

Whereas it is expedient that the law relating to official secrets should be consolidated and amended;

It is hereby enacted as follows: —

1. Short title, extent and application. — (1) This Act may be called the Official Secrets Act, 1923.

(2) It extends to the whole of India and applies also to servants of the Government and to citizens of India outside India.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 11:16

citizens of India outside India.

Hmm

So the only group exempted is Indians who are no longer citizens of India?

Good data point.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Oct 2009 11:20

No the argument of asking if BARC =/> chinese in terms of capability is not disingenuous.

Tech development reaches a plateau after a while, unless a new breakthrough takes the tech forward. The chinese tested a decade ago (If we don't consider the N korean test as a chinese one). They signed CTBT when they were convinced they reached that plateau. Now the P-5 will all be more or less close to each other in terms of capability and sophistication.

Their capabilities will increase when say for example 4th gen TNs become a reality. Then there will be a capability difference.

India conducts ONE TN test, and its scientists and its government announce they have everything they need ! IOW BARC capability =/> Chinese capability.
I don't believe that.

I am glad BARC is saying they have capability for x and then keeping quiet. This means that they are also saying that they don't yet have the capability for a 1000x.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 11:35

Gagan wrote:Not responding to that amit.
No.

Just saw this.

Gagan Bro,

Chill out man, my post was made in jest!

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 09 Oct 2009 12:51

initially KS indeed used “Western Sesmic experts” to make his point..but leter in his Hindu article and Outlook interview he did assert that:
S1=25-27KT and S2=25KT; Total=50KT (+/-)
Where BARC has always claimed that
S1=35KT and S2=15KT (+/-); Total = 50 KT +/- 10

At the end of the day one thing is certain that Wallace et al’s analysis is flawed.. as far as total yield is concern..

Also to settle some doubts once and for all. KS had said that the primary was pure fission

This is the first time I am hearing this claim.. AFAIK KS has never spoken about the design of any of the devices tested during POK-II forget S1.. he has only challenged the yield and never uttered a word about primary design..in fact I had repeated posted (in Thred-2) about absence of discussions regarding Boosted designs..
I may be wrong but it, any pointers to it will be greatly appreciated.. (IMVVVHO)

Thus the carefully-planned series of tests carried out in May 1998 gave us the capability to build nuclear weapons from low yields up to around 200 kt.

I think use of “Capability” could also and simply mean that the “Capabilities to produce weaponized TN bomb was achieve in 1998” ... and they are silent about whether TN design has been weapnized or not.... In other words the capability was achieved on 11th May 998.. and status after that has not been disclosed.. that’s it..

Also absence of open source reference does not conclusively proves (that if indeed S1 was sizzle)that S1 has not been weaponized..

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 09 Oct 2009 13:06

What would be the need of santhanam to raise such a hue and cry now especially when he could have done it earlier. Its apparent that the yield didn't reach the desired results during 98 test but it would be difficult to categorized them as duds as well. I suspect since CTBT is heating up, goi is using santhanam to escape. This would be good for the govt since it would give them a reason to explain to the international audiences. There is definitely an hidden agenda. Its quite a possibility that Ravi CV is actually Santhanam or someone from the govt doing some propaganda war.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Oct 2009 13:14

geeth wrote:As I understand it, Capability means, ability to make - so, capability to make weapons means ability to make weapons. As you say, we may not be able to confirm weaponisation of TN devise from open source, but cannot conclude that it is not there. I for one believe that if ability is there, it will be put to use, unless some extraneous considerations like political interference etc come into play.

Well if Santy claim is to be believed we do not have a weaponised TN ~ 11 years after test.

Capability can mean any thing , its a smartly used word like lot of smoke to hide , if India is indeed weaponised RC could have easily and without ambiguity stated that we have weaponised TN.

Between capability and weaponised TN in our inventory there is a world of difference and a single test data by any standard is insufficient for a complex weapon like TN , much like a single Agni 3 test means nothing at all.

So, it is only refinement of the device, without touching the core design/technology. In the case of converting the TN device into a weapon, they have to approach the DRDO to get a shape which can withstand re-entry conditions, confining the dimensions to suit the delivery vehicle dimensions, plugs, fuses, sensors etc etc. But what is inside (core) remain same as what was tested.

It is not simple as mere refinement of device , from Agni-TD to Agni-2 the scientist had to do couple of test and make that missile military ruggedish and usable.

If Agni-TD was such a great success , then there was no need to test Agni-2 as a military worthy missile , they could just have refined it , but changing the bus , tweaking the RV a little and incorporating better guidance , why test at all ?

Similarly if Agni-3 is such a great success after the 2nd passed test , what is the need to test it third and now 4th time , being a fully weaponised system from the first test itself

GOI is living with this "Less & Less" credibility for more than a decade, and it cannot go any further down. They are still not yielding. No point in trying again...they won't open any further. Moreover, your suggested panel will createmore acrimony onlee, IMO

My argument is this is not a Scientist A versus Scientist B debate , the military is a major stake holder and they should be included in the peer review { if that ever happens }

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 13:28

Austin wrote:Capability can mean any thing , its a smartly used word like lot of smoke to hide , if India is indeed weaponised RC could have easily and without ambiguity stated that we have weaponised TN.

Austin,

If I'm not mistaken RC has not talked about any specific device in terms of size - whether 20kt,25kt or 200kt and above. He has only said we have the ability to build a range of weapons up to or around 200kt. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). So why should he state without ambiguity we have weaponised TN?

It is KS who set the ball rolling by giving a size to our deterrence arsenal.

My argument is this is not a Scientist A versus Scientist B debate , the military is a major stake holder and they should be included in the peer review { if that ever happens }

It's true, it shouldn't be a Scientist A vs Scientist B debate as it has been portrayed so far. But if we call a peer review because Scientist B thinks Scientist A is not saying the truth when he says POK2 was a success, then it becomes a personality debate and folks will line up according to whom they believe.

However, if the end user feels a lack of confidence in the stuff they are given and ask for a review then certainly there should be review post haste. I haven't seen any indication that the end-users are unhappy. It is only being assumed that they are.

And we can't really say that the military won't protest if they don't have confidence in the equipment. Just look at the Arjun saga or the kind of loops the the LCA is having to go through before the armed forces accept these equipment.

Bottom line peer review should happen if the Armed forces through SFC asks for it and not because some scientists think that other scientists screwed up during the testing.

JMT

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 Oct 2009 14:11

amit wrote:
It's true, it shouldn't be a Scientist A vs Scientist B debate as it has been portrayed so far.

Only the sizzle camp is doing that. A lot of us have always maintained that it is GoI approach 1 vs approach 2

However, if the end user feels a lack of confidence in the stuff they are given and ask for a review then certainly there should be review post haste. I haven't seen any indication that the end-users are unhappy. It is only being assumed that they are

To use Shiv's phrase, you really have been bunking class. Go back and read pieces by Gen Malik, Adm Arun Prakash and Adm Sureesh Mehta (?) on what they think of forces involvement and their knowledge. (also AM Jayal and few others) there are at least 6 high power statements.

They have clearly claimed that Mil is pretty much out of the loop and told some things by scientist which they take on "belief" and have called for a far greater involvement.

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 14:38

Sanku wrote:Only the sizzle camp is doing that. A lot of us have always maintained that it is GoI approach 1 vs approach 2

OK, so if it is not KS' claim (fizzle) vs RC's claim (sizzle) then what is it all about can you tell me - why do we need a peer review? Please don't name drop saying so many other folks supported KS because an equal number of other folks have also supported RC.

And besides even if we line supporters on each side, it still becomes a scientist vs scientist spat, doesn't it?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 09 Oct 2009 14:58

Well if Santy claim is to be believed we do not have a weaponised TN ~ 11 years after test.

I do not believe Santy's claim.

>>>Capability can mean any thing , its a smartly used word like lot of smoke to hide , if India is indeed weaponised RC could have easily and without ambiguity stated that we have weaponised TN.

For what purpose? for the comfort of few people? He could have easily allowed the formation of a crater as well...those are the easy things to do, as you say. The difficult part is to hide things - like some folks saying that GOI could have easily published the picture of Arihant. What was the problem with publishing just one photo of the Nuclear Submarine

. After all one day our enemies are going to find out..so why hide from the public now

? These are the questions I can't answer. But I believe there must be sufficient reasons for it, and I don't cast aspersions on their motives to do so.

>>>Between capability and weaponised TN in our inventory there is a world of difference and a single test data by any standard is insufficient for a complex weapon like TN , much like a single Agni 3 test means nothing at all.

As it was mentioned before, test was conducted after a lot of simulation tests and cold tests and what not. These detonations were proof of concept, and they claim it succeeded. Now, nobody has the luxury of repeated nuclear tests in the present environment, unlike, say, a Missile test. Even here, if a single Agni 3 test succeeds, they repeat it only to test some other parameters - they don't repeat the test to check the same parameters. For eg., if they fire it in a low trajectory and it succeeds, then they won't repeat it. Instead, they would test it in some other trajectory to test aerodynamic forces, re-entry characteristics etc. If they are allowed only one test, then they would test it in the worst case scenario and prove it.

If we ask RC whether he would like to conduct more tests, he would gladly say YES!. But who is permitting him? Having denied permission, he is not

and saying "I want more tests" and says, yes, with one test, we have a working device - more variants, mega yields - wait for some sunny days when the chance arises.

>>>It is not simple as mere refinement of device , from Agni-TD to Agni-2 the scientist had to do couple of test and make that missile military ruggedish and usable.

If they (missile people) are given only one chance, won't they do as much as possible in one go? Here they have the luxury, so they conduct more tests. of course, if it fails in the first shot, then it will be tested again, before giving it to the user.

>>>If Agni-TD was such a great success , then there was no need to test Agni-2 as a military worthy missile , they could just have refined it , but changing the bus , tweaking the RV a little and incorporating better guidance , why test at all ?

Boss, my understanding is different from that of yours, which I have explained before briefly.

>>>Similarly if Agni-3 is such a great success after the 2nd passed test , what is the need to test it third and now 4th time , being a fully weaponised system from the first test itself

What makes you think each test is Ditto and repeatition of the previous one?

>>>My argument is this is not a Scientist A versus Scientist B debate , the military is a major stake holder and they should be included in the peer review { if that ever happens }

Yes, we can include all kinds of 'stake holders' and have regular chai-biscoot sessions for the next 11 years, like the National Security Board.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Oct 2009 15:59

The TN fizzle controversy reminds me of the fampous quote by an Indian general,who said that whenever he was reassured about our strategic deterrent by our boffins,he pointedly looked for it in his pocket!

Keeping the services out of the N-loop is simply disastrous,as they have to plan for N-attacks from the enemy that could be either tactical N-weapons,or strategic.Their counter-strike capability must be based upon sound conviction.Ultimately in the worst case scenario,they are going to be the users of the deterrent.The GOI might not want to test at this juncture in time for certain reasons best known to itself,but given the dispute between the nuclear scientists themselves,future tests are imperative if confidence in our deterrent is not misplaced.Furthermore,any apparent dilution of our N-capability only excites and encourages our mortal enemies to create further mischief in their belief,mistaken or correct,that we lack the kind of strategic deterrent that is possessed by the superpowers.The sooner we plan for conducting a wide range of tests that involve several TN designs to suit our various delivery systems,that could be tested at short notice, the better.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 Oct 2009 16:08

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:Only the sizzle camp is doing that. A lot of us have always maintained that it is GoI approach 1 vs approach 2
OK, so if it is not KS' claim (fizzle) vs RC's claim (sizzle) then what is it all about can you tell me - why do we need a peer review? Please don't name drop saying so many other folks supported KS because an equal number of other folks have also supported RC.

And besides even if we line supporters on each side, it still becomes a scientist vs scientist spat, doesn't it?

I dont understand, on one hand you are saying it should not be portrayed as Sci 1 vs Sci 2 debate, and then you argue that it is indeed one.

I have already mentioned what it is about, two competing approaches for what is good for the nation. I called one BK camp on which too you seemed to have some issues.

Do make up your mind on what your stand is.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 Oct 2009 16:10

Philip wrote: Keeping the services out of the N-loop is simply disastrous,as they have to plan for N-attacks from the enemy that could be either tactical N-weapons,or strategic.Their counter-strike capability must be based upon sound conviction.Ultimately in the worst case scenario,they are going to be the users of the deterrent.

Absolutely, and they should come up with their own metrics which they understand, not trust because some one said so.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 09 Oct 2009 16:34

So as of Sep. 15 they said this very very clearly:

We tested our thermonuclear device at a controlled yield of 45 kt because of the proximity of the Khetolai village at about 5 km, to ensure that the houses in this village would suffer negligible damage. All the design specifications of this device were validated by the test. Thermonuclear weapons of various yields up to around 200 kt can be confidently designed on the basis of this test.

And the proof is that more than "negligible damage" actually occured. It's as simple as that.

But I see that now the goalposts have been shifted. From the previous

S1 was a fizzle, yaar! We need tests because we have no fusion capability at all!

Now the goalposts have shifted to:

Does India have as many operational nuclear weapons and as much maximum explosive yield as the PRC and USA? If not the ONLY way forward is more TESTS!!

That is properly a topic under "Deterrence" or under a brand-new thread. Of course this topic was thoroughly discussed during the Civilian Nuclear Deal "discussions" but its proponents no doubt hope that this is all forgotten with the limited attention span of participants. This Khetolai proof also was discussed there, but even I had forgotten about it.

Whether India should match the PRC and USA in nuclear bombs is really a subject for the Indian voter to decide. I suspect that the vote would be about 5% FOR, 50% AGAINST and 45% WHO CARES? If the vote were:

Should India match PRC in functioning roads, and USA in Roti-Kapda Makaan (RKM) and the PRC in tactical weapons to stop invasion, before trying to match them in Fusion Yield?

The vote may be 52% FOR, 1% AGAINST and 47% "What's a Road?"

As for the Armed Forces having the final say in these things, we already have the fine example of Pakistan. They even have good roads so the Army can zoom around feeling like USA because everything down to their brown undies is Cashmerican (bought with American cash), copyright N3 Propaganda Pvt. Ltd. Are these postors saying that we should emulate Pakistan? (If so why object to Pingreji, I wonder..

)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Oct 2009 17:31

geeth wrote:Well if Santy claim is to be believed we do not have a weaponised TN ~ 11 years after test.

I do not believe Santy's claim.

I do see credibility in his claim , when he being an important member of POK 2 team and backed by eminent scientist and ex BARC/DAE chief like PKI and Sethna.

>>>Capability can mean any thing , its a smartly used word like lot of smoke to hide , if India is indeed weaponised RC could have easily and without ambiguity stated that we have weaponised TN.

For what purpose? for the comfort of few people? He could have easily allowed the formation of a crater as well...those are the easy things to do, as you say. The difficult part is to hide things - like some folks saying that GOI could have easily published the picture of Arihant. What was the problem with publishing just one photo of the Nuclear Submarine . After all one day our enemies are going to find out..so why hide from the public now ? These are the questions I can't answer. But I believe there must be sufficient reasons for it, and I don't cast aspersions on their motives to do so.

Sure these are weak arguments like he could have easily got a crater for S1 but did not since he wanted to hide , if he got a crater for S2 and didn't want to fool some one then S1 is not a issue at all.

The GOI is just acting foolish by not publishing pics of Arihant , its not that we are first in the world to do it or something extraordinary that we are developing that the world has yet to see , they are just paranoid to the point of being naieve

Ofcourse they have to hide it initially coz they got much of it from somewhere

>>>Between capability and weaponised TN in our inventory there is a world of difference and a single test data by any standard is insufficient for a complex weapon like TN , much like a single Agni 3 test means nothing at all.

As it was mentioned before, test was conducted after a lot of simulation tests and cold tests and what not. These detonations were proof of concept, and they claim it succeeded. Now, nobody has the luxury of repeated nuclear tests in the present environment, unlike, say, a Missile test. Even here, if a single Agni 3 test succeeds, they repeat it only to test some other parameters - they don't repeat the test to check the same parameters. For eg., if they fire it in a low trajectory and it succeeds, then they won't repeat it. Instead, they would test it in some other trajectory to test aerodynamic forces, re-entry characteristics etc. If they are allowed only one test, then they would test it in the worst case scenario and prove it.

Simulation based on what , what kind of data we had to simulate a TN that too a advanced TN as they claim they had done , they do test to check the consistency of the test and the paramaters evaluated , a lot of time in world and even in India the first test would succeed and second failed , had they been happy with only one test only it would be disaster in waiting.

So the one test for TN is enough argument may not be good even if it is sucessful as a TD , for a military weaponised weapon they would need to do more than one test ( and perhaps 2 bare minimum as Santy says to qualify TN as a weapons for that specific design )

If we ask RC whether he would like to conduct more tests, he would gladly say YES!. But who is permitting him? Having denied permission, he is not and saying "I want more tests" and says, yes, with one test, we have a working device - more variants, mega yields - wait for some sunny days when the chance arises.

Sure , he may even say computer simulation is enough no more test needed.

But right now even the S-1 credibility is at stake.

>>>It is not simple as mere refinement of device , from Agni-TD to Agni-2 the scientist had to do couple of test and make that missile military ruggedish and usable.

If they (missile people) are given only one chance, won't they do as much as possible in one go? Here they have the luxury, so they conduct more tests. of course, if it fails in the first shot, then it will be tested again, before giving it to the user.

Even the missile people know 1 test is not good enough even if 100 % successful ( they do bare minimum 3 test ) ,that too as recent Agni-2 test showed once batch production is tested things may not be as great as 3 successful test would indicate they do.

Similary the nuclear weapon designer in the world do more than one test for a weaponised design ( not a capable one but a weaponised one )

RC has been claiming from day one S-1 is successful no more test needed , so asking for more test is something did not arise.

>

>>If Agni-TD was such a great success , then there was no need to test Agni-2 as a military worthy missile , they could just have refined it , but changing the bus , tweaking the RV a little and incorporating better guidance , why test at all ?

Boss, my understanding is different from that of yours, which I have explained before briefly.

And respectfully , I do not agree with this and nor does any where in the world is that the norm , unless ofcourse India is on another planet.

>>>Similarly if Agni-3 is such a great success after the 2nd passed test , what is the need to test it third and now 4th time , being a fully weaponised system from the first test itself

What makes you think each test is Ditto and repeatition of the previous one?

The key is to validate the paramaters across different trajectory and test its consistency , missiles can work great in 1 or 2 or 3 test and then fail when checked for consistency , something the Russian Bulava SLBM experienced

>>>My argument is this is not a Scientist A versus Scientist B debate , the military is a major stake holder and they should be included in the peer review { if that ever happens }

Yes, we can include all kinds of 'stake holders' and have regular chai-biscoot sessions for the next 11 years, like the National Security Board

Depends how serious how the GOI is about National Security , but looking at the situation we are in we are in denial and usual chai biscooot

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Oct 2009 17:46

I have a query for those who know about transmission of signals of any kind. I mean any - We may be talking of sound in the air, sound in water, seismic signals, electricity, light, other electromagnetic signals - whatever.

If a signal of any energy is generated at a point and is measured at great distances arriving through varying paths of unknown or variable conductivity it is obvious that the signal gets degraded and weakened over distance.

On receiving such a signal, what methods are used for guessing or estimating the original signal strength?

If you were tasked with estimating the original strength of any signal from a point source very far away, and assume you had means to set up any apparatus anywhere as long as it is at a great distance (500 km or more) from the source, what would you do to arrive at a best possible estimate of the magnitude of signal?

I have no specific agenda in asking this question other than the science or creative art that may be involved but the obvious connection is with seismology and the fact that actual yields of tests are information that nobody shares with the civilian scientific seismological community and signals from tests (I am certain) are measured separately by the civilian set up and the military research set up. The latter can corroborate with the radiochem, but the former can only depend on what the latter claim publicly is the yield.

Hence the question.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Oct 2009 17:56

Gagan wrote:So assuming S1 was a success and went off like a charm like the test team would have the nation believe, and that they have been working for a decade hence.

Do we infer that the BARC team =/> Chinese N weapons capability?
BARC = / > unkil's N weapons capability?

I use the word 'capability', because the word is vaporware with no strict boundaries.

If the answer is no, then testing is the only way forward.

BARC seems to be saying this too:
1. They have been carrying the research forward. This itself implies that new things have been developed, old things rectified => Need for testing.
2. No point hair splitting on what happened on 11th May 10 years ago, point is what is the country willing to do now.

Sure. Anything goes. Assumptions are just for that purpose. Forget about arm chair people like me, even certified scientists - when they make assumptions - can go off on a tangent. In the case of Santhanam the jury is still out. I guess we will have to wait and see what he has to say after his hibernation.

But, WRT "assumption", just may be he (Santhanam) has ALSO assumed something (beyond what he knows)? At least that is my assumption as I post.

And, IF his assumptionS are wrong then =, =>, =<, etc do not matter.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Oct 2009 18:05

THE PRESSURE IS ON:

In a surprise, Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Even BEFORE MMS?

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Oct 2009 18:08

India's Nuclear Test 'Failure' Poses Threat To Obama's Nonproliferation Plans

Now, suddenly, we have a new Plan: "Obama's Nonproliferation Plan". Forget CTBT/NPT, we now have a combined ONP.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Oct 2009 18:25

FWIW check this out. Not posted in this series of thread AFAIK

Added to my archives.

http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl1601/16010840.htm

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 09 Oct 2009 18:57

^^ Nice read and very concisely he puts points. Certainly knows what he's talking about. BTW i liked the way he puts Puki tests in perspective:

Pakistan claims that it carried out five tests in the same horizontal shaft (on May 28), which is unusual because, after all, tests are intended for gathering data. And separating data from such closely spaced devices would be very difficult. So it is very unusual - their claim that they conducted five tests in a (single) shaft. It is much easier to dig a separate shaft for each device like India did and like everyone else usually does,

Just makes me wonder what the Porki's really weaponized..

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 09 Oct 2009 19:06

NRao wrote:THE PRESSURE IS ON:
In a surprise, Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Even BEFORE MMS?

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

Forget about MMS, even Gandhiji didn't qualify... he was a terrorist fighting against a major NATO ally.

After this news I am a bit scared to post in BR. In Detterence thread I was suggesting to have lesser number of nuclear weapons. What will i do if the nobel committe catch hold of me and force a nobel peace prize? Who will protect me from theives?? shiva shiva..

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 09 Oct 2009 19:19

NRao wrote:India's Nuclear Test 'Failure' Poses Threat To Obama's Nonproliferation Plans

Apart from the paranoid, what developing nations hope to gain from their nuclear weapons is not so much security — though the contrasting treatment that the U.S. meted out to Iraq and Pakistan shows the value of deterrence in that realm — but a seat at the table. And that means Obama and the West have one big bargaining chip left to bring India into the nonproliferation fold: Sign the CTBT, get a seat on the U.N. Security Council.

and..Iran has deterred US without any test..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Oct 2009 19:36

and..Iran has deterred US without any test..

This assumes that the US has reasons to (immediately?) "invade" Iran.

China had deployed nukes in 71. Can we make an argument that India deterred China in any way till India acquired a deliverable nuke?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Oct 2009 19:48

dinesha wrote:
Apart from the paranoid, what developing nations hope to gain from their nuclear weapons is not so much security — though the contrasting treatment that the U.S. meted out to Iraq and Pakistan shows the value of deterrence in that realm — but a seat at the table. And that means Obama and the West have one big bargaining chip left to bring India into the nonproliferation fold: Sign the CTBT, get a seat on the U.N. Security Council.
and..Iran has deterred US without any test..

Iran is a special case because of ME and Israel.

So this consistent downgrading of India as trying to attain prestige with nuclear weapons is a psy ops which has been perfected. The seat is used as a prestige issue and all major countries such as Brazil are goaded to attain it and follow rules. Behavior modification is sought after by rulemakers

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 09 Oct 2009 19:59

Gagan:

The above is not secret, but no sense in explaining it that simply and completely to everyone. It's all in the textbook used in kindergarten:

"Abdul Goes to Pirate Yindoostani Rock Concert at Chagai" translated into ""Random Data Analysis" by Bendat & Piersol.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 09 Oct 2009 20:21

Shiv,
if you are into the subject, the best place to start looking for is "inverse problems." Nearly every branch of engineering studies it but if you are specifically interested in seismic signals, there is a community for that that google will easily get you to. The microphone example is great. Perhaps we should do a simulation and see what happens when you play music and listen to it with microphones at the other end of the house to estimate the properties of your crowded basement and then try to estimate the intensity of a jackhammer outside your house...
To understand the issues knowing fourier transform is not necessary. Y = MX will do and then its not MX but M(X).
S

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Oct 2009 20:22

rajeshks wrote:
NRao wrote:THE PRESSURE IS ON:
In a surprise, Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Even BEFORE MMS?
Forget about MMS, even Gandhiji didn't qualify... he was a terrorist fighting against a major NATO ally.
..

I cannot forget MMS .................................... for ................................ he really, no longer, has an incentive to sign CTBT!!!

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 09 Oct 2009 20:32

NRao wrote: I cannot forget MMS .................................... for ................................ he really, no longer, has an incentive to sign CTBT!!!

Very true... Nobel price was always a huge temptation for our leaders to betray national interests... West used the same tactics with Vajpayee + Mush.. luckily Vajpayee didnt fall on that trap, otherwise what would have happened with our Kashmir. Now they may use it to trap us on NPT & CTBT.

Anyway out of topic, no more posts from me on this here...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Oct 2009 20:33

Wow n3

That post is a keeper - not because I understood any of it but because there seems to be a different scale of knowledge in Upper Kindergarten as opposed to the LKG class that I am looking out of. Thanks for taking the trouble. I have it my HDD and you can RaviCV it any time.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 09 Oct 2009 20:37

Not to start this fun again, because I have a deadline to meet and I have left a painting job halfway and Supreme HQ's patience is not limitless...

then try to estimate the intensity of a jackhammer outside your house...

Actually, the Reciprocal Theorem says that it does not matter if your mike is outside and Jackhammer is inside, or vice versa. So I wrote the post thinking that the jackhammer is INSIDE your basement (trying to fix those minor cracks due to the fizzled blast

) and your microphone is outside. I'll keep it that way.

The relevant example then is that you have a good microphone outside the house, and you have previously compared what a similar good microphone in the basement does when a stereo rock concert is on full blast there, vs. what is measured at the same location outside the house, so you know the correction function, even if it had to be built up in 100 piecewise linear segments.

So it does not matter then whether the blast noise comes to the microphone outside your house reflected off the neighbor's wife or house, or the hill on the other side of the house. Or whether your walls are pucca concrete or wood or bamboo. You can still use the same correction function to figure out how loud the jackhammer in the basement is.

Now if you try it from the end of the street, the signal to noise ratio will be poorer (not for the jackhammer but for the stereo rock concert). But averaging spectra is a wonderful thing - very very stable results obtained if you average for long enough and enough number of samples. This is why it works so well in submarine detection, with all the random events such as sharks quarreling occurring all round.

Thx samuel.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 09 Oct 2009 20:41

Thanks n. Now all you have to realize is that you can keep doing piecewise linearisation and start to overfit very easily.
And all the walls that start to rattle and did not when vivaldi was playing make you think like that it was a little too louder than it was...yes, I know what they do with underwater acoustics and how submarine detection problems can be confounded with certain places they can hide etc. (but not an expert there). Either we get into specifics or talk of the general problem. Either way is fine. In particular, if we are going to do that, we should start by doing some simulations ourselves. I'll create a simple multipath and nonlinear medium and you send some signals (each being the little bomb they dropped practicing runs over pokhran). Then you blast a Pu inside and tell me what we recover. Never mind nearfield and far field sensors to produce BCs for the problem.

S

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 09 Oct 2009 20:45

Yes, samuel. But if I have 20 years and essentially one or 3 source points, all known, and only the initial wave amplitude is unknown, I will figure out how to correct for any overcorrection, hey? And over segments of the distance, I will actually do small tests at much smaller distances. The jackhammer has no hope against me in that problem.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 09 Oct 2009 20:49

Well, if you gave me some info on what kinds of tests went on (i re-edited my post there, sorry), we can carry on. What happened to the road and other villages and settlements approximately same distance away? do we have any evidence of bricks there. But even if we leave that, I am happy to do some simulations to figure this out. Otherwise, you can say 20 years (but in 20 years they only managed 1 another test, so what can we say about sys id then, sorry for pot shot) and something or the other, but I don't think it adds up.The problem is you don't know what your medium will do near the source intensity of the actual device. If you knew that then it doesn't matter if the medium is nonlinear, it is linearizable around the point you will be operating. However, if you did not know that, every bomb out of a Mirage will not add up.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Oct 2009 20:53

OK N3 - a question before SHQ gags you:

What if you are Lada P fan living in Norway and you have never had a chance of using mike A and B to get any correction function, and you get Mike A and start trying to pick up Lada P from Norway. How good is your recording going to be? (or should I say "How good is it going to B")

amit · Post by **amit** » 09 Oct 2009 20:57

Sanku wrote:I dont understand, on one hand you are saying it should not be portrayed as Sci 1 vs Sci 2 debate, and then you argue that it is indeed one.

I have already mentioned what it is about, two competing approaches for what is good for the nation. I called one BK camp on which too you seemed to have some issues.

Do make up your mind on what your stand is.

Sanku,

I don't buy your two competing approaches theory. Intially I did but after the antics of this so-called BK camp I've changed my mind competely.

The only thing the so-called BK camp is saying is KS is saying its fizzle so RC and others are not telling the truth and we must examine everything. And this we has not been specified. I don't see why or how KS, PKI and Shetna (who incidentally happens to be in his 80s and is pretty sick) can be part of a review team. They have already made up their minds. It's like asking the accuser to sit on judgment in the case against the accused. And if they are not there on the committee I haven't yet come across any suggestion on who can be, apart from of course "international" experts, a suggestion that has come from the BK camp.

My question is, why should I believe KS and not RC, is there any particular reason?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Oct 2009 21:09

one can never get the required answers (including from analysts and posters here).. one can only get to know where we may be.. ie. boxed along with the cat.. invisible for eons.. waiting for some other external event to open the box. till then, we have no clue.. btw, hope its a mr. chiranjeevi cat or that is in the process. the only good factor is we have the capability to keep inserting a new sperm in the box, so that we can always feel some cat is assumingly active in the box. and that shall be the deterrence in out minds till we sign the shitty bitty etc. and after that, we have no hope that we have something.

other than the cat, everything looks good for peace. sorry mms missed the nobel price.