Gerard wrote:The W88 and W87 are similar in design.
Design traces its origin to the LASL device tested in the 250 Kt Almendro shot (Operation Toggle), 6 June 1973 (13:00:00.08 UCT).
The W87 was tested 10 times (including one test at full yield).
Let me submit the following:
1. There is much literature available to understand the issue/non-issue and relate it to the Indian design, test and experience.
E.g.
http://www.lasg.org/archive/1995/noprob.htm
2. As regarding Shakti-1, Even if its secondary burn was only 10% of the fuel (irrespective if it was designed for 10% burn or not; as no one will know for sure, except the design and fabrication team; the rest of world can only guess and my guess is as good as anyone else for neither has any proof/basis for the claim). The approximately 25Kt pure fusion stage yield is considered by people in the know, to correspond to final weapon yield of 200-350Kt when the passive tamper & case is replaced with a fissionable tertiary stage material that is fissile for high energy neutron spectrum. And this physical process is not related to pressure mechanics. Third stage of TN weapon is the simplest to design and prove.
3. The process to make Indian TN weapon from the Shakti-1
weaponizable design (that was the term BARC & DRDO team used) is no different from what was used for W88 weapon quoted above.
So why does Indian design process has to go through a process (with target bar set very high) any different from W88 design? Is there a basis for Indian TN weapon to go through the proverbial "Agni Pareeksha"?
Simply because:
- A) Everything Indian is suspect? or
- B.) Everything Indian must be proved 10 times more rigorously to show to the world that we are potent? {Having just 1 child is NOT proof enough to potency, rather than insisting on having 10 children to prove potency }
- C) Everything done by DRDO is not above board, so they must jump 10 times higher to make sure there is no hidden hand below to cheat?
Which one of the above forces you to think that Indian TN weapons should be designed different from W88?
4. Proof testing of components (as the US design team now does, as against what they used to do in early 50's) is based on critical design review and FMEA (Failure Modes Effects Analysis). And they are largely related to Primary Stage components (in descending order of sensitivity and pareto):
. a) Safety, arming and electronics,
. b) Implosion assembly
. c) Pit
. d) Packaging
. e) Radiation channel and case
. f) Secondary (fuel and tamper driver)
. g) Spark plug (if any)
. h) Tertiary stage material
Proofing need be done on items identified in FMEA. And sub-system & system proofing done by cold test.
I do not understand why people are mesmerized by the idea that India has go through the same motion/steps that US did through its 50 years of nuclear weapon development history, and that path is sacred and the only way to confidently know that Indian stuff is half as good as US/Chinese/Russian weapons?
No effort is spent to understand:
a) What historical experience the US team critically need and carry forward when they designed the last 2 nuclear weapons in mid 1980?
b) What tools and process US team use to design the new weapon? Think of instrumentation, material science (including hi-energy physics), simulation and experimentation process? And relate it to what was available to BARC/DRDO?
And see what they did not have? (Including if any, the test data from all US /Rusian test from 1945 to 1975)
Hopefully this will lead to better and hopefully correct understanding
5. The weaponizing from a weaponizable design and proving (by experimentation) that S1 test design construct is unchanged and incremental changes are validated. Is full system testing absolutely necessary?
If Indian military is not confident of the Indian nuclear weapons, unless they see the full yield for themselves, it is their competence problem. They need to see what does US/Chinese/Russian military do today to pose confidence in their weapons? some of them were made 30 years ago and have aged and changed significantly?
Again either Indian military is as competent as others, OR thick-skinned to not trust BARC/DRDO (mafia playing a trick). They are of course free to float a global tender and specify and buy imported strategic weapon, and try their luck to get a bid (apart from one from remanent of AQK Inc) and the chance to verify full yield before they buy