India Nuclear News And Discussion

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Dec 2009 00:33

Implications for credible minimum deterrence

SOON after the Pokhran-II tests on 11 May 1998, the scientists of the two organisations concerned _ the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and the Defense R&D Organisation (DRDO) _ had jointly evaluated the success of the two tests _ the fission device (A – bomb) and the fusion device (H - bomb).

While former device performed perfectly, including creating a crater of the expected size, the fusion device failed on many counts _ very low yield, no crater etc.

International monitoring centres also recorded low intensity of shock waves, resulting in low yield estimates _ estimates that were more in consonance with the DRDO numbers. This was discussed among the BARC and DRDO scientists involved _ and resulted in a dispute between them.

A detailed report submitted by DRDO to the Government fully corroborated its original assessment ,viz. ,that, while the fission device worked successfully as expected, the fusion device did not.

The recent revelations by K Santhanam, who was in charge of all of DRDO’s activities at the site, testifies to this. By all accounts _ geological, radiochemical as well as seismic - it is now quite clear that the fusion device yielded a very low value of explosive power.

The articles by K Santhanam and Ashok Parthasarathi in `The Hindu’ (September 17 , 2009) and P K Iyengar in `Outlook’ (October 26, 2009) go into considerable technical detail and present a credible case, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the H – bomb tested on May 11, 1998 failed.

These findings are extremely serious for the security of the nation, particularly in the context of our pronouncement of being a nuclear weapon power, along with our enunciated doctrine of ‘no first use’ and our ‘unilateral voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing’. They strike at the root of our weaponisation capability and compromise our strategy of Credible Minimum Nuclear Deterrence.

``Soon after the Pokhran-II tests, the then government almost succumbed to the western pressure to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) backing off only at the last moment due to an outcry in the country against doing so. The refusal of the US Senate to ratify the CTBT then released the pressure on the government. The renewed pressure from Obama on us in recent months to sign the CTBT is causing the issue of our signing the CTBT to be raised again. We strongly urge the present government to remain firm in its opposition to our doing so as the Prime Minister has publicly assured the nation more than once in recent months.’’ Obama has actually gone further than trying to secure universal adherence to the CTBT, and secured a UN Security Council Resolution urging such adherence to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) also. Not signing the highly discriminatory NPT has been an article of faith of all our governments – irrespective of hues – since the Treaty was drawn up in 1968. The present government, we strongly urge again, should continue that policy steadfastly, despite whatever threats and blandishments are applied to it. Even the slightest succumbing would convert our ‘voluntary moratorium’ into an involuntary, permanent, cessation of nuclear weapon testing and so forever deny us our legitimate place in the great powers’ league.

The international political and diplomatic aspects as set out in the previous para apart, the grave situation we are in regarding our Thermonuclear (H-bomb) Capability.

It demands resolute, speedy and comprehensive corrective action.

We are well aware of the nature, sources and scales of nuclear threats the nation faces. To meet that threat effectively, an indepth analysis of our real capabilities in terms of: Command & control systems, nuclear weapon delivery systems and the types, character and numbers of nuclear weapons needing to constitute our nuclear arsenal and the keeping of that arsenal up-to-date, is essential - indeed acutely pressing.

To address these issues and take well informed competent and speedy decisions instead of depending entirely on the existing bureaucracy, administrative, military and scientific, it is essential to have the involvement, on a continuing basis, of a wide variety of opinions and assessments from scientists, strategic analysts and defense & diplomatic personnel with a deep understanding of the many complex issues involved, including the technologies needed to be developed, and the minimum timescale in which this can be achieved.

While secrecy is crucial, an open mind and willingness to learn are equally important. We therefore, strongly urge the government to immediately set up a high-level, independent, broad- Based Panel of Experts to define and monitor the implementation, on a continuing b sis, of an effective course of action, in the realm of thermonuclear weapons, so central to our national security.

All of us have worked on different aspects of this problem with a sound understanding of the harsh ground realities and the immense magnitude of what is at stake. It is now for the government to take the call – and without losing a minute more – as its counterparts in our adversaries have and are continuing to do so.

Signatories to the statement

P K Iyengar, former Chairman Atomic Energy Commission, Director BARC and a key architect of the Pokhran I nuclear test of May 18, 1974 and internationally acknowledged as India’s top nuclear weapons expert; A N Prasad, former Director, BARC and Member (R&D) of the Atomic Energy Commission, a Senior Adviser on nuclear weapons to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna for many years and a key member of our original weapons grade plutonium extraction technology development dating back to 1960; A Gopalakrishnan, former key expert in our Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV) project, which developed the nuclear submarine Arihant and former Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, C K Mathew, former head, Radio Chemistry Division, BARC and Director Chemistry Group, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam; Jaipal Mittal, Raja Ramana Fellow and former Director, Chemistry Group, BARC, A D Damodaran, former Director, Special Materials Plant, Nuclear Fuel Complex and former Director, Regional Research Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, S R Valluri, former Director, National Aerospace Laboratory and first Director General of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the organisation specially set up to design and develop the Light Combat Aircraft – Tejas; Capt S Prabhala, Indian Navy former Chairman & Managing Director Bharat Electronics Ltd.; Rear Admiral J J Baxi, former Director, Weapons and Electronics Systems Organisation, Ministry of Defense and Chairman & Managing Director Bharat Electronics Ltd., and Brigadier M R Narayanan former Director, Army Radio Engineering Network, Ministry of Defense; K S Jayaraman, formerly Nuclear Physics Division, BARC, Science Correspondent of the PTI for many years, Science Correspondent for South Asia for leading international journal ‘Nature’ and President Indian Science Writers Association.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 20 Dec 2009 02:17

shiv wrote:
PKI's language is much more decent than Santhanam and could therefore be accused of being weak and not forceful enough I guess.

Did not view PKI's language as soft and weak, but view KS having more first hand information on the matter and hence more peeked at the establishment for being called a maverick, how does he know, etc.

However the question I would like to ask Dr. Iyengar is:

If an 8 kiloton bomb (PKI's latest claim) tested in 1974 at 107 meters depth produced a 47 meter radius crater (Sublette - using satellite estimates) how would a 25 kiloton fission device in 1998 (Dr. Santhanam's statement) produce a 25 meter crater (as per Dr. Santhanam) at 100 meters depth ((Dr Santhanam's claim) ?

8 kt......107 meter depth...47 meter crater...1974
25 kt ...100 meter depth...25 meter crater...1998

See Sublette "What are the real yields of India's nuclear tests"
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/I ... ields.html
The Yield of Pokhran I (Smiling Buddha)
The wide shallow crater produced (reportedly it had a 47 m radius and was 10 m deep; recent high resolution commercial satellite imagery indicates a crater radius of 60 m)

The highlighted part, could explain it somewhat. Also, there actually maybe more rocks than sand stone between POK 1 and 2, which could account for it partially. Also, do not know if the L shape shaft design was used in POK I and would that make a difference.

I recall, PKI estimates for POK1 at 8-10KT.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 Dec 2009 06:16

‘Resist U.S. pressure to sign CTBT’

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 Dec 2009 06:21

India firm on right to nuclear fuel reprocessing

Advanced systems key to self-reliance in nuke power: AEC chief

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Dec 2009 06:40

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote:The Santhanam and now PKI efforts will be for naught - unfortunate as they may seem to be.
PKI's language is much more decent than Santhanam and could therefore be accused of being weak and not forceful enough I guess.

That is their nature.

However the question I would like to ask Dr. Iyengar is:

If an 8 kiloton bomb (PKI's latest claim) tested in 1974 at 107 meters depth produced a 47 meter radius crater (Sublette - using satellite estimates) how would a 25 kiloton fission device in 1998 (Dr. Santhanam's statement) produce a 25 meter crater (as per Dr. Santhanam) at 100 meters depth ((Dr Santhanam's claim) ?

8 kt......107 meter depth...47 meter crater...1974
25 kt ...100 meter depth...25 meter crater...1998

See Sublette "What are the real yields of India's nuclear tests"
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/I ... ields.html
The Yield of Pokhran I (Smiling Buddha)
The wide shallow crater produced (reportedly it had a 47 m radius and was 10 m deep; recent high resolution commercial satellite imagery indicates a crater radius of 60 m)

It is still on my mind. Cannot explain these variances, in a rather exacting science.

My guess is that the soil composition there is very, very different.

On PKI's statement that the depth (of 120 M) is not denied, that cannot stand for the simple reason:
1) BARC never denied the 200+ M depth, and
2) The RR article was claimed to be the mouth piece of BARC and RR had it at 230ish M.

IF BARC agrees with the 120 M, then TN was total fizzle - no 20K from the trigger either (as claimed by Santhanam).

Dunno.

120 vs, 200whatever is a mystery.

However, the signatories to that article are a motley bunch, eh? Very interesting group.

I would be most interested in what Mr./Dr. Mathew has to say in this matter. It looks like he was there are BARC during this test.

Let us see.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Dec 2009 07:24

NRao wrote: My guess is that the soil composition there is very, very different.

So soil composition in Pokhran is very different from the 107 meters of 1974 and 100 meters of 1998.

However when it comes to soil composition between 130 meters and 100 meters PKI writes:

, it is simply not credible to say that such a small difference in the depth (only 30m) made such a huge difference in the geology or in the crater size.

And about lack of any further statement re 200 meters there is another rhetorical trick that is being used here.

I call Dr X, a scientist is a liar, has raped 2 women and that his scientific papers have been falsified.. Mr X only makes a rebuttal about the scientific paper and makes no comment about being called a liar and a cheat and having raped someone. So observers can conclude that since Mr X made no comment on the liar, cheat and rape issue, I am correct and that he is a liar, cheat and rapist.

This is an exact parallel of what Santhanam has done. PK Iyengar is an even more intelligent man, using Santhanam's words to write his opinions - which is, frankly a sneaky trick because PKI can come out squeaky clean if Santhanam is found to be bluffing and PKI comes out squeaky clean even if Kakodkar, RC and co are bluffing. PKI did a downhill ski on his earlier statements and has, in an earlier article credited Santhanam's "new facts" for his downhill skiing - virtually admitting that he has no first hand information. In this article he goes further down that downhill skiing route by admitting that he is an outsider and offers the following lament:

I am also disappointed about the implications regarding statements from people not directly associated with Pokhran-II. This suggests that no experts, anywhere in the world, are competent to comment on Pokhran-II! This is unscientific.

Unscientific indeed. PKI is debasing himself by talking what is basically crap. What is unscientific about saying that PKI was not involved in 1998 and what is scientific about calling RC a liar and saying Kakodkar has bluffed and that Kalam is an outsider? It's one standard for Santhanam and another for others. PKI is doing nothing to show that he is any better or made of superior stuff than anyone else.

He admits that he is an outsider passing comments. Why is he disappointed if Kakodkar calls him an outsider? He admits to being one and Kakdokar said that PKI was not involved. If that is true why the disappointment? I think some of these old men are forgetting that times have changed with the Internet and a highly educated science aware bunch of people who are also outsiders are as free to judge him as outsiders.

The hole that Santhanam is digging for himself and PKI will soon be deeper than 130 meters. IMO.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Dec 2009 08:11

It HAS to be Shiv.

S2: 100 meters
S1 (Santhanam, via BK (twice?) and then EBuzz): 120 meters
S1 (PKI, via I thought Santhanam, but who knows): 130 meters

Outside of a guess, what else can I do?

Now add to that POK-I 47 meters R via BARC(?). Same via Satellite: 60 meters estimated.

IF I go by 100-120-130, then I should a) HAVE a crater (S2 had a crater, S1 none what so ever), AND b) the diff (of radius) at those depths (for a given yield) will not be that big.

IF I were to take the 47-60, for a given yield, then the depth will vary by a substantial margin. OR at 107 meters depth was the yield greater than 8 Kt (to give 60 meters dia)?

I mean 120 to 130 meters is a measurable error - forget 200+ meters.

Then 47 to 60 is another measurable error.

Like I said I just got off my BP medication. I have no intentions of getting back on it - none.

Sooooo.................... I have resorted to guessing. Keeps my humor up, you know .....................

Is Chengappa around?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Dec 2009 09:23

NRao wrote: Is Chengappa around?

How difficult is it to say that 130 meters is a lie? Exactly who is lying? And about what? This is where it comes full circle - and this is a statement that I made at the very beginning of the fizzle tamasha.

It is one thing to have a rational debate in which people express doubt and skepticism about published or announced statements. That debate can be taken to a completely different level when one person calls another person a liar. Once that escalatory step is taken, it is only a small step forward for the party that has been accused of lying to counter accuse the first party of being liars themselves.

At this stage there is no more debate but an exchange of accusations between two vested interests who cannot keep the debate free from ad hominem. For us to "join" that debate is laughable and meaningless - there is no debate. If so called scientists call each other liars our discussion on here is "Which liar do I support". That is not science or rationality as I know it. And Santhanam cannot be accused of being either scientific or rational having started the process of calling people liars, of bluffing and of saying that people such as Kalam are outsiders who know nothing of the subject.

I have upset people on this forum in the past for speaking of things that NRIs do not know that makes them take a rosy view. But the truth is that in India, when a real or false police complaint is made against you, you have to make a (real or false) counter complaint against the other party otherwise the police in India reach exactly the conclusion reached by esteemed members of this forum that is as follows:

"If party A accuses party B of lying/cheating/murder and party B does not refute that, then party A is right. Party B is a lying, cheating murderer". Kasab is innocent by the same argument, because it cannot be proved that there was no double.

If Santhanam says that RC is a liar and that the depth was 130 meters and RC makes no comment on either issue, then Santhanam is right. What we are seeing played out in front of our eyes in the media and BRF is a very very Indian drama with very Indian accusations and conclusions.

Whatever this may be it is not science and does not constitute proof of any sort, scientific or logical. But we are not going to get over it soon, because all of us support one liar or the other.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 20 Dec 2009 10:01

Shiv,

Seems like the Pokhran, CTBT thread was shaheed'ized - I was about to post some responses there. I have similar conclusions as NRao. The smaller crater in Pok2 compared to Pok1 seems to point to a different strata. However, at 120 or 130 metres, a 45KT device must have had a crater (most likely bigger than the Pok2 A-bomb one). "If" the depth was 120/130m, then the TN was undoubtedly a fizzle, IMHO.

So, we have moved towards the goal post a little bit here. Million dollar question now is - was the depth 120m?? The depth issue has become like the OJ Simpson trial - "if the glove doesnt fit, you must acquit

". And this is where I believe BARC/DAE owes Indians the truth. What was the real depth? This cannot be brushed aside under OSA or some such thing.

KS has thrown the gauntlet by stating a value. If its wrong, let RC or whoever come out and refute it. By not doing so, the suspicions of people do get raised and quite justifiably so.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Dec 2009 10:47

Prem Kumar wrote:
KS has thrown the gauntlet by stating a value. If its wrong, let RC or whoever come out and refute it. By not doing so, the suspicions of people do get raised and quite justifiably so.

Prem - I am not sure why people's "suspicions are raised" by the 130 meter figure. Many months ago Santhanam called Chiambaram a liar. Surely that should have settled the issue. No further argument needed. AEC/BARC are lying

The problem IMO has nothing to do with either 130 meters or shifting goal post. Everything is related to anxiety felt by "patriotic Indians that RC/Kakodkar may really be liars and that Santhanam is correct and then this long drawn out anxious, nail biting suspense about shoes dropping etc - hoping that RC et al come up with some new data that will make us all feel very very confident about the arsenal. In short, whether we like it or not this so called "debate" is about piskology where our fears are raised by santhanam and we are looking to others to set those fears at rest and goad the BARC team to so things like "pick up the gauntlet thrown by santhanm" or "come out and refute it"

Ask yourself why anybody should refute it? Why not accept the disappointment that santhanam is correct and the bombs don't work? Surely that is the correct thing to do. What really surprises me is that even the fizzle side are hoping against hope that some magical proof will be offered. Neither RC nor Santhanam have anything new to say.

India's TN bombs are duds. We have working 25 kt bombs - period. Santhanam is right. RC and Kakodkar are liars. Why is it so difficult to swallow that? What is there to argue? We need to move on knowing that India has working 15-25 kt bombs (tested all of 2 times) with semi-proven Agni missiles. That is what passes for a deterrent. Santhanam is unhappy. Kakodkar is asking the armed forces to be happy but he is a liar. Are you happy or unhappy? What has 130 meters got to do with it?

To me it's not clear what is being pushed as "debate" on here by the linking of repeat accusations by various "scientific experts" like KS, PKI, Kakodkar et al. Isn't the issue settled?

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 20 Dec 2009 11:15

IMO, both parties to the dispute (KS/PKI, BARC) know that more testing is required before fielding a TN. That is not the issue at all. Where the two groups diverge is that the intention to sign up for the CTBT without completing the development program is not supported by the KS/PKI group. Showing that the TN test in 1998 was not quite what is claimed is an effective way of putting paid to the claims that a TN-based deterrent can be fielded based on available simulations. If the device in 1998 did not perform according to the model, then the simulations have to be updated and verified using another round of tests.

One can say that all this does not matter since K Subramanyam has stated that an effective deterrent can be fabricated using fission based weapons. But it builds awareness in the constituency that wants more so they can press their point of view.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 20 Dec 2009 12:51

Shiv - this is not about "patriotic Indians' fears" being assuaged. The GOI owes its citizens security and nuclear deterrence is one aspect of it. So, the public deserves to know the truth (at least on paper!!). Which is what makes this whole debate frustrating - we are all groping in the dark, with information being trickle-fed. And our scientists and others responsible for our nuclear deterrence are fighting like schoolboys.

However, we at BRF are no different. Whenever a person makes a statement in support of sizzle or fizzle camp, he is branded. All sorts of motives and assumptions are made about him. For every 2 pages of data/logic based analysis, there are 70 pages of flame-baiting.

The sarcasm in your note is fairly evident. However, what I am trying to do is to see if there is sufficient data to help me make some conclusions for myself. I dont care whether RC or KS or both are liars. Almost none of us know these gentlemen personally. So, I'd prefer it if the discussions remain factual.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Dec 2009 13:46

Prem Kumar wrote: Which is what makes this whole debate frustrating - we are all groping in the dark, with information being trickle-fed. And our scientists and others responsible for our nuclear deterrence are fighting like schoolboys.
<snip>
So, I'd prefer it if the discussions remain factual.

Well look at the irony here. Everyone was quite happy with the deterrent for 11 years until Santhanam blurted what he did.

If he had not said anything our deterrence would not have been any better but everyone would have been happy.

Now that he has had his rant our deterrent is still no better but everyone is unhappy.

In other words this "debate" has nothing to do with deterrence or facts, which are unknown. It is all about emotions and feelings. Happiness versus frustration, Despite that people are intent on trying to dig out clues, like reading tea leaves.

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 20 Dec 2009 18:33

Advanced systems key to self-reliance in nuke power: AEC chief Srikumar Banerjee
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 357229.cms

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 20 Dec 2009 19:17

From Economic Times 20 Dec 2009:
N-operator liability capped at $64 mn in draft bill

NEW DELHI: In a controversial move, India has capped the legal responsibility for an operator of a nuclear installation to settle damages for any accident at just Rs.300 crore ($64.2 million) in a draft legislation that is likely to get a stormy reception in parliament.

. . .

A copy of the draft Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2009 bill, which is yet to be made public, is with IANS.

It stipulates in Chapter 2, section 6, that while the "maximum amount of liability in respect of each nuclear incident" shall be Rs.2,208 crore (300 million special drawing rights or $471.38 million), the operator's legal responsibility for damages is capped Rs.300 crore. If the operator liability exceeds Rs.300 crore, then the central government will have to pay the rest of it, noted the subsequent section in the bill. {This effectively means the tax paying public, who may in no way be responsible for the accident, having to bear the burden of compensation}

It added that while the government could increase or decrease this operator liability by notification "having regard to the extent of risk involved in a nuclear installation", the amount of liability could not be less than Rs.100 crore.

The exceptions listed for an operator not to be liable was when a 'nuclear incident' was caused by grave national disaster of "exceptional character", armed conflict or act of terrorism and suffered by person on account of his own negligence.

. . .

The draft bill states that operator of a nuclear installation will be liable for 'nuclear damage', which could be injury, damage to property and also economic loss due to impaired environment.

Further, within 30 days of a 'nuclear incident', the central government has to issue notification depending on the gravity of the event. The government will also appoint one or more claims commissioner for settling compensation applications - who has to be at least a district judge or a director rank official, with "knowledge of nuclear liability law".

If the government decides that compensation could be more than Rs.300 crore for a 'nuclear incident', a Nuclear Damage Claims Commission could be constituted.

After award of compensation, the operator has the right to appeal in three cases, one of which is when the operator argues that the incident resulted from the "wilful act or gross negligence" of a supplier of material, equipment or services.

The right to claim compensation has a limit of 10 years from the date of incident. The exception is of stolen, lost, jettisoned or abandoned nuclear material, where the period is increased to 20 years.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 20 Dec 2009 20:35

Sanatanan wrote:It stipulates in Chapter 2, section 6, that while the "maximum amount of liability in respect of each nuclear incident" shall be Rs.2,208 crore (300 million special drawing rights or $471.38 million), the operator's legal responsibility for damages is capped Rs.300 crore. If the operator liability exceeds Rs.300 crore, then the central government will have to pay the rest of it, noted the subsequent section in the bill. {This effectively means the tax paying public, who may in no way be responsible for the accident, having to bear the burden of compensation}

I think there should be a trade-off in the regulation of how said operators operate. If the taxpayer is being saddled with liability over 300cr, then they have a right to impose restrictions on how the plants are operated in order to avert said liabilities.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 20 Dec 2009 20:42

Sanatanan wrote:From Economic Times 20 Dec 2009:
N-operator liability capped at $64 mn in draft bill

This wont stand the first PIL in court. The SC has ruled in the Bhopal case that liability in industrial accidents cannot be limited by agreements as it violates and places a price on the fundamental right to life

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 21 Dec 2009 01:35

Shiv - this is about facts & transparency first and feelings second. Santhanam blurting out what he did was an "emperor has no clothes" moment. It made people wonder whether they have been under a mistaken impression all along regarding our TN deterrence. Since he was an "insider", it makes everyone sit up and take notice. So, this debate is about the extent/strength of our deterrence.

So, when you say

our deterrent is still no better but everyone is unhappy

, I would prefer to use less sure. Our arsenal hasnt changed, but our confidence in it has. The GOI has a problem in its hands that it needs to address. That's why this debate needs to go to its logical conclusion - with either KS or RC being proved wrong (if at all some such thing will be allowed to happen). This can only happen with further disclosure of data.

Speaking for myself, I am a maximalist. Even if the TN device was a success, I think MT sized tests and their weaponization are needed. So, this current debate is only part of a bigger one in my view (in the context of CTBT ityadi).

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 21 Dec 2009 02:04

Many a milestone

Interview with Anil Kakodkar, who recently retired as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Dec 2009 05:37

Signatories to the statement

P K Iyengar, former Chairman Atomic Energy Commission, Director BARC and a key architect of the Pokhran I nuclear test of May 18, 1974 and internationally acknowledged as India’s top nuclear weapons expert; A N Prasad, former Director, BARC and Member (R&D) of the Atomic Energy Commission, a Senior Adviser on nuclear weapons to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna for many years and a key member of our original weapons grade plutonium extraction technology development dating back to 1960; A Gopalakrishnan, former key expert in our Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV) project, which developed the nuclear submarine Arihant and former Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, C K Mathew, former head, Radio Chemistry Division, BARC and Director Chemistry Group, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam; Jaipal Mittal, Raja Ramana Fellow and former Director, Chemistry Group, BARC, A D Damodaran, former Director, Special Materials Plant, Nuclear Fuel Complex and former Director, Regional Research Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, S R Valluri, former Director, National Aerospace Laboratory and first Director General of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the organisation specially set up to design and develop the Light Combat Aircraft – Tejas; Capt S Prabhala, Indian Navy former Chairman & Managing Director Bharat Electronics Ltd.; Rear Admiral J J Baxi, former Director, Weapons and Electronics Systems Organisation, Ministry of Defense and Chairman & Managing Director Bharat Electronics Ltd., and Brigadier M R Narayanan former Director, Army Radio Engineering Network, Ministry of Defense; K S Jayaraman, formerly Nuclear Physics Division, BARC, Science Correspondent of the PTI for many years, Science Correspondent for South Asia for leading international journal ‘Nature’ and President Indian Science Writers Association.

These are the opposing scientist strategists.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Dec 2009 07:00

Prem Kumar wrote: I would prefer to use less sure. Our arsenal hasnt changed, but our confidence in it has. The GOI has a problem in its hands that it needs to address.

I think the GoI would have had a problem if Santhanam had not botched it badly. He has just shot himself in the foot and he is actually the naked emperor because not one of his 500 plus claimed supporters has actually backed up his statements about lies and deception. Everyone who has written anything has hidden behind the Santhanam burqa (Santhanam has said this, Santhnam has said that). Even PKI did a downhill ski on his own statements and is now saying "..according to Santhanam.."

Santhanam has made himself look like a bad odor that is to be ignored while it passes and that is exactly what is happening everywhere except BRF as far as I can tell. In other words if Santhanam is right he has not done himself or the nation a favor. Creating doubt is one thing. But messing things up so that your credibility can be questioned by anyone is a ridiculous mistake. He will have his supporters - but gradually the yields, type and numbers in our nuclear arsenal are being pushed up with "make it plural" type statements by AK and co - neutralizing all the nasty verbiage and cursing through gnashed teeth being done by an increasingly frustrated sounding Santhanam.

So who actually has any doubts other than the same old doubters? Who has Santhanam won over by his sem-antics? If he thought he was making a great patriotic appeal to the nation via the press he has done no more than make a little blip that is being systematically covered over. He has achieved nothing other than creating bad blood and doubts while whittling away at his own credibility. How does that impact on deterrence? Or on the arsenal?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Dec 2009 08:19

Shiv-ji,
How else can you expect Santhanam to say his side of the story? The other side is hiding behind the OSA and taunting him.
I don't think Santhanam is a fool to miss something as simple as the correlation between depth and crater diameter. He has exposure to BARC, and the fact that he was test site incharge itself conveys that this he would know like the back of his hand.
I would take Santhanam's 'moral of the story' as credible, not the convoluted way in which he has been forced to present it.

My stand point is as follows:
1. RC and AK's contribution to India and Indian nuclear science including weapons tech is indisputable and worthy of our respect eternally.
2. Pok 1 likely fizzled, because immediately after the tests there were Indian voices calling for the TN to be retested. Years later, there was also news that the scientists were ready again and had applied to ABV for a retest.
3. What was GoI to do on the 11th of may? The scientists had been given that one opportunity and things went wrong. ABV said that a TN was tested, results were in line with expected results and that india had a big one. See what he said and what he did not.

Now this is speculation so bear with me.
4. The BARC team has indeed found out what went wrong and a corrected refined series of TN designs do exist (AK's Plural statement). Basically a TN is entirely within the capabilities of Indian Nuclear Science, the impediment is the testing part where refinement of the design is not possible for our scientists. India does have TN's deployed as is clear from the megaton weapons (twice) and 500Kt weapons statements.

Hugely speculative
5. Now these are untested designs. How BARC can assuredly say these will work suggests something diabolical, I am not prepared to spell it out. It is possible that India has agreed to not test again in return for xyz. Except that now K Santhanam says we need two tests and the ex army and a recently retired navy chief ask how can we be sure of what the scientists have given us?

6. I read santhanam's writings as wanting more tests. The saga of the status of S1 is just hair splitting. Basically KS's message is that we need to Test, he is couching it in the language of an S1 fizzle. GoI's mumblings on this suggest that the government is distressed, but is not taking action against KS because he is correct. But such is the majboori at this point of time, that GoI can't test.

7. The arihant in the water changed a lot of things. This means that two years from now, India will have to mate a bum with a K-15 and keep it inside that hull. Also that is the time when the Agni-3 will be deployed. What will that bum be? Today India has mostly fighter dropped nukes, very few are on the Prithvis and the Agnis. With the K-15s and Agni's coming on line a lot of things change.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Dec 2009 09:01

Gagan wrote:Shiv-ji,
How else can you expect Santhanam to say his side of the story? The other side is hiding behind the OSA and taunting him.

No Gagan. This is like Pakis saying India is attacking Pakistan. The GoI and its spokespersons were always hiding behind OSA. It was Santhanam who tried to change that and he botched it. A person who claims to be an insider in RAW and DRDO and in the nuclear tests should be able to show much greater finesse and capability if he wants to change anything.

How naive to imagine that if he fiddles with some figures, questions other figures and calls someone a liar or an outsider the GoI will suddenly bend and spill some new beans? That is as ham handed an expose as I have ever seen in my life. Whether he is right or wrong hardly matters when he has successfully neutralised himself and has allowed the GoI to inflate its yield, reliability and numbers claims. And they have done that through another retired official. Kakodkar too is retired and need not hold back from saying things. After all that is what was claimed as Santhanam's big plus point wasn't it? Santhanam could say things others couldn't say. That is true for Kakodkar also no?

If you read the reports serially it is Santhnam who has gradually done downhill skiing with none of his supporters being able to offer independent corroboration and the GoI side has not only stuck to their statements they have gradually inched up their claims from 25 kt fission, to 80 kt to multiple TN upto 200 kt.

So what has Santhanam achieved? Nothing. Asking "What else can he do?" after everything is botched and done is no use. Surely a greatly experienced retired scientist of DRDO, RAW should know what he is taking on. Is this the level of anticipation and planning shown by our top scientists and intelligence offcials in getting a message across? If it is then Santhanam is no better than the people he is accusing, and we are no closer to the truth. The country will know no more about the arsenal than the GoI chooses to release, Santhanam notwithstanding.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Dec 2009 09:34

Austin wrote:Implications for credible minimum deterrence

I wonder what prevented this group of people from taking this mature approach to make their case before it was botched by a loose cannon. The letter is a good one except for a couple of statements that are laughable. Three months ago - a letter like this - with some technical details signed by all these people would have been able to win a lot more support than the tamasha has done so far.

What were all these worthies doing then? It sounds like none of them had the guts to say anything until Santhanam put his own credibility and reputation on the chopping block by having a public rant. Now that he has done that - these people are all coming forward and saying that they represent the nation's interests, riding on Santhanam's back. This is more pitiable than laughable and it pains me to see the delayed patriotism here. What a bunch. It is probably true that all the brains in India went abroad leaving only this squabbling bunch of late Latifs here. What a pity for India.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 21 Dec 2009 10:36

OK. I'd like to take a break from the current topic and bring something else up. The current issue of Scientific American has brought up an issue regarding nuclear war in South Asia and how it would impact the whole world if 100 bums went off. I think the underlying idea is to convey to the public that "==" nonsense and how all of it is bad. However its worth a read.

South Asian Threat? Local Nuclear War = Global Suffering

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Dec 2009 11:51

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote:Implications for credible minimum deterrence
What were all these worthies doing then? It sounds like none of them had the guts to say anything until Santhanam put his own credibility and reputation on the chopping block by having a public rant. Now that he has done that - these people are all coming forward and saying that they represent the nation's interests, riding on Santhanam's back. This is more pitiable than laughable and it pains me to see the delayed patriotism here. What a bunch. It is probably true that all the brains in India went abroad leaving only this squabbling bunch of late Latifs here. What a pity for India.

That is right , some one had to take on the establishment on this issue ( irrespective of merits ) and no body wants to take on the establishment.

Though in private circle post 98 people had doubts but no one was vocal about it and atleast no one dared to go public about it , some one like PKI did raised some questions but the were tactfully buried in the guise of you do not know coz you were not involved and we know better than you old chap.

Now some one from the team took the courage to go public ( delayed but better delayed than never ) and every ones conscious seems to have come alive.

But it really does not matter what people of repute says but what the GOI does about it , generally the path to least resistance is the default option for GOI and I am afraid this will be the same here , but would be glad to be proven wrong.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Dec 2009 15:06

Now this is speculation so bear with me.
4. The BARC team has indeed found out what went wrong and a corrected refined series of TN designs do exist (AK's Plural statement). Basically a TN is entirely within the capabilities of Indian Nuclear Science, the impediment is the testing part where refinement of the design is not possible for our scientists. India does have TN's deployed as is clear from the megaton weapons (twice) and 500Kt weapons statements.

There is no impediment to testing. India has other means. I dont want to go further and spell it out. If you agree that BARC has found out what went wrong, if something went wrong in the first place, rest assured, as they know what they are doing, they know how to fix it.

Hugely speculative
5. Now these are untested designs. How BARC can assuredly say these will work suggests something diabolical, I am not prepared to spell it out

Sameway when ISRO commands Indian astronauts to fly in the spaceship for the first time. Same way when LCA team asked the test pilot to fly the plane for the first time. Like you, ofcourse, the pilot did asked the Q, whether it would fall apart. You know the answer what happened. Thats how BARC too can assuredly say what it want to say.

6. I read santhanam's writings as wanting more tests. The saga of the status of S1 is just hair splitting. Basically KS's message is that we need to Test, he is couching it in the language of an S1 fizzle. GoI's mumblings on this suggest that the government is distressed, but is not taking action against KS because he is correct. But such is the majboori at this point of time, that GoI can't test.

Even PKI talked out of turn. Does GoI punished him. So by your logic PKI should be correct, right? Let we keep our focus on 1998. If you watched the whole drama, though PKI like to toe the line of Santhanam wrt to TN part, never ever, PKI accepted Santhanam yield of S2( fission device) as 20-25kt, despite Santhanam describing that one "went line a song"[quoting exact words]. Not even once. S2 device is a derivative of POK-I (1974). PKI was indeed the Team leader of POK-I. So tell me who is correct. You want to say both of them are correct ? So if everyone is correct, why BARC alone is wrong ?

7. The arihant in the water changed a lot of things. This means that two years from now, India will have to mate a bum with a K-15 and keep it inside that hull. Also that is the time when the Agni-3 will be deployed. What will that bum be? Today India has mostly fighter dropped nukes, very few are on the Prithvis and the Agnis. With the K-15s and Agni's coming on line a lot of things change.

Dhanush is also a Naval weapon like K-15. Dhanush is a strategic system. So why worry have curry. When you have more than 150 Prithvis marked as strategic, plus Agni-i, plus Agni-II, plus Dhaunush, plus gravity bombs - you want to call that "very few". Do the maths.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 21 Dec 2009 15:47

N-operator liability capped at $64 mn in draft bill

64 million is peanuts.

Anyone see a chernobyl documentary about how much resources, money, lives and land Soviets expended to contain the reactxor? There was literally footage of a whole army of military helicopters, transports, trucks..etc that had to be ditched because they were used in the cleanup operation and were contaminated. Hundreds and hundreds of vehicles.

If a chernobyl like disaster unfoleded in India, it would be a disaster of biblical proportions in which millions could be affected for decades.

64 million will just about cover the security cost of the foreign ceo flying in to tour the scale of the disaster and nothing more.

In my opinion, nuke reactors are a disaster waiting to happen. That aside, they are perhaps the most expensive way of generating a kw of power which is why the US has not built a single nuke reactor in 25 years. Let us stick to safer hydro electric and coal power and to heck with the climate change bullshitters.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Dec 2009 16:41

ramana wrote:
Signatories to the statement

P K Iyengar, former Chairman Atomic Energy Commission, Director BARC and a key architect of the Pokhran I nuclear test of May 18, 1974 and internationally acknowledged as India’s top nuclear weapons expert; A N Prasad, former Director, BARC and Member (R&D) of the Atomic Energy Commission, a Senior Adviser on nuclear weapons to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna for many years and a key member of our original weapons grade plutonium extraction technology development dating back to 1960; A Gopalakrishnan, former key expert in our Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV) project, which developed the nuclear submarine Arihant and former Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, C K Mathew, former head, Radio Chemistry Division, BARC and Director Chemistry Group, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam; Jaipal Mittal, Raja Ramana Fellow and former Director, Chemistry Group, BARC, A D Damodaran, former Director, Special Materials Plant, Nuclear Fuel Complex and former Director, Regional Research Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, S R Valluri, former Director, National Aerospace Laboratory and first Director General of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the organisation specially set up to design and develop the Light Combat Aircraft – Tejas; Capt S Prabhala, Indian Navy former Chairman & Managing Director Bharat Electronics Ltd.; Rear Admiral J J Baxi, former Director, Weapons and Electronics Systems Organisation, Ministry of Defense and Chairman & Managing Director Bharat Electronics Ltd., and Brigadier M R Narayanan former Director, Army Radio Engineering Network, Ministry of Defense; K S Jayaraman, formerly Nuclear Physics Division, BARC, Science Correspondent of the PTI for many years, Science Correspondent for South Asia for leading international journal ‘Nature’ and President Indian Science Writers Association.
These are the opposing scientist strategists.

Impressive, the key issue to note here is that every day the list goes longer.

So clearly, the worthies, in the manner of GoI operatives, worked slowly, sometimes painfully and excruciatingly, and in a particular manner, first trying the official routes, and when all else failed started coming out.

All the takleef at them not coming out earlier is well and fine, but better late than never eh. Anyway all the hand wringing at denying the obvious aside, the obvious is now, well pretty obvious.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 21 Dec 2009 20:18

Kanson wrote:There is no impediment to testing. India has other means. I dont want to go further and spell it out. If you agree that BARC has found out what went wrong, if something went wrong in the first place, rest assured, as they know what they are doing, they know how to fix it.

Yes there is. And I don't see India's self imposed moratorium to be that impediment. I don't believe that the moratorium was resorted to so lightly either, and it certainly wasn't taken up because India's weapons development was complete.
If India tests, it will stand accused of breaking more than that self imposed moratorium.

Kanson wrote:Sameway when ISRO commands Indian astronauts to fly in the spaceship for the first time. Same way when LCA team asked the test pilot to fly the plane for the first time. Like you, ofcourse, the pilot did asked the Q, whether it would fall apart. You know the answer what happened. Thats how BARC too can assuredly say what it want to say.

Oh saar, that analogy is close, but not quite it isn't it. With the agni-2 themselves we are witnessing quality control issues. There are issues related to field deployment. Stockpile management. Just testing once and then saying we are a N power is like projecting H&D. This goes beyond testing once and saying we are an N power - that was the first step only. The next steps are needed to be taken. This means end user testing, end user conducting minor repairs etc. N-weapons don't have long shelf lives, at least the triggers don't. These need to be replaced periodically. The boosting gas needs to be changed regularly. The levitated core with a surrounding vacuum (all this from open literature) appears to be a very sensitive structure in itself. Imagine a N weapon that has been mated to a missile and been lugged cross country for a month, its performance needs to be validated.

Kanson wrote:Even PKI talked out of turn. Does GoI punished him. So by your logic PKI should be correct, right? Let we keep our focus on 1998. If you watched the whole drama, though PKI like to toe the line of Santhanam wrt to TN part, never ever, PKI accepted Santhanam yield of S2( fission device) as 20-25kt, despite Santhanam describing that one "went line a song"[quoting exact words]. Not even once. PKI was indeed the Team leader of POK-I. So tell me who is correct. You want to say both of them are correct ? So if everyone is correct, why BARC alone is wrong ?

The problem here is people saying BARC is responsible or even RC/AK are hiding things. No, the reality is that these gentlemen and BARC is a GoI arm. It is GoI which has taken a certain stand based on wide considerations, that go beyond the mere success or failure of S1. When RC / AK /BARC say that S1 was x yield and S2 was y yield, that is GoI saying it. PKI and Santhanam's main issue (Apart from a clash of personalities) is that GoI's stand that everything is hunky dory is OK upto a point, but now is the time to test. I don't agree that they feared that MMS would sign upto something at washington either. MMS won't, he is also one of the cogs of what is GoI. The real issue is testing and verifying what has been developed.

Kanson wrote:S2 device is a derivative of POK-I (1974).

Only if you say that the LCA is a derivative of the HF-24 Marut. Pok-1 was a 1.5m cube, a nuclear test. S2 was likely the size of a domestic gas cylinder, with EMP proofed electronics, and safety measures, this was a nuclear weapon test.

Kanson wrote:Dhanush is also a Naval weapon like K-15. Dhanush is a strategic system. So why worry have curry. When you have more than 150 Prithvis marked as strategic, plus Agni-i, plus Agni-II, plus Dhaunush, plus gravity bombs - you want to call that "very few". Do the maths.

Inspite of all the Brahmos tests and the having been inducted into the army, today in Dec 2009, the armed forces will still be depending on conventional prithvis for hitting targets at 200-300 km. Ideally it should be Cruise missile-conventional, Ballistic missiles-nuclear, but it is not the case, yet. You are right on the Agni-1 and 2s, but where are the numbers of these two? Are there enough for a second strike wrt China? AFAIK, only ONE sukanya class ship carries ONE dhanush, I wouldn't say that that is a deployed weapon yet.

Kamal_raj · Post by **Kamal_raj** » 21 Dec 2009 20:27

Neshant wrote:
N-operator liability capped at $64 mn in draft bill
In my opinion, nuke reactors are a disaster waiting to happen. That aside, they are perhaps the most expensive way of generating a kw of power which is why the US has not built a single nuke reactor in 25 years. Let us stick to safer hydro electric and coal power and to heck with the climate change bullshitters.

Coal import target for 2009-10 rises to 35 m tonne
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/co ... e/437066/0

Thermal stations continue to battle coal shortages
http://www.blonnet.com/2009/04/16/stori ... 511500.htm

Coal is not a solution for India as the quality of Indian coal is poor at times. We have been importing coal from Indonesia and Australia for some of our new power plants. How can this be a scalable solution for our power needs?

Nuclear power is the only hope for India, our back is again the wall and our scientist will have to deliver cheap, simple nuclear power using thorium reactors. US has enough Nuclear power stations, they are not as desperate as we are for nuclear power as they have many alternative source other than nuclear which they have been using.

One of the reasons why China is able to grow rapidly is because of cheap and good quality coal avaiable in China, they are able to create as many coal fired power stations which provide cheap electricity.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Dec 2009 22:21

Oh please not that coal argument again. It has been trashed to the extent that it is no longer even a remotely credible data point. Its even less that S1 for gods sake.

Lets not get to the Western centered POVs which seek to pull wool over Indian eyes.

India has only one shortage -- of combined national will, caused directly by mindset issues.

However since both the coal and the mindset discussion is OT here, in other threads please.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Dec 2009 22:28

ramana wrote:
Signatories to the statement

P K Iyengar, former Chairman Atomic Energy Commission, Director BARC and a key architect of the Pokhran I nuclear test of May 18, 1974 and internationally acknowledged as India’s top nuclear weapons expert; A N Prasad, former Director, BARC and Member (R&D) of the Atomic Energy Commission, a Senior Adviser on nuclear weapons to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna for many years and a key member of our original weapons grade plutonium extraction technology development dating back to 1960; A Gopalakrishnan, former key expert in our Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV) project, which developed the nuclear submarine Arihant and former Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, C K Mathew, former head, Radio Chemistry Division, BARC and Director Chemistry Group, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam; Jaipal Mittal, Raja Ramana Fellow and former Director, Chemistry Group, BARC, A D Damodaran, former Director, Special Materials Plant, Nuclear Fuel Complex and former Director, Regional Research Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, S R Valluri, former Director, National Aerospace Laboratory and first Director General of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), the organisation specially set up to design and develop the Light Combat Aircraft – Tejas; Capt S Prabhala, Indian Navy former Chairman & Managing Director Bharat Electronics Ltd.; Rear Admiral J J Baxi, former Director, Weapons and Electronics Systems Organisation, Ministry of Defense and Chairman & Managing Director Bharat Electronics Ltd., and Brigadier M R Narayanan former Director, Army Radio Engineering Network, Ministry of Defense; K S Jayaraman, formerly Nuclear Physics Division, BARC, Science Correspondent of the PTI for many years, Science Correspondent for South Asia for leading international journal ‘Nature’ and President Indian Science Writers Association.
These are the opposing scientist strategists.

The one I called the Motley crew.

Let there be no doubt that these people have done yeoman service to the nation. The list is impressive.

However, there are few issues I have with ALL of them.

1) They have not be able to communicate what in "deterrence" is bugging them. (Santhanam's concerns - I have posted by view and as such are meaningless to me)
2) At least one of them I KNOW has changed his position (which is fine, no problem there), BUT I would be most interested to know WHY. The next time we meet ........................
3) ALL of them have contributed, but how many of them have been at the table to formulate "deterrence" - this is a genuine question I have, not a toss up for them
4) The article headline states "deterrence", but it appears only once in the article. Why? They move to CTBT, etc. Deterrence may or may not have to do with CTBT. So, why did they leave so many questions on the table? Or at least why did they leave so many read-in-between-the-lines? (Since all the articles posted by KS/PKI/AP are in the same realm my feel is that these brainy people expect others to either be well aware of ALL the issues or be excellent at reading in-between the lines or just accept what they say without questioning) There is great NEED for ALL these brains to be very, very clear about what they say. The articles they ALL have written so far are very sub par
5) Even if they were formulators of "deterrence", deterrence changes and they could not have kept up with it.

JMTs

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Dec 2009 22:36

With all due respects NRao, its crystal clear (at least to me) what they mean, the basics at least.

I just dont know why its not clear to others, frankly and honestly.

KS et al had a valid point, and any chances of his being off the mark were more than quashed in the manner of "rebuttal" (with neutral opinion deciding that KS didn't know anything and was only a GoI babu behaving truculently because pissed off at being passed over)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Dec 2009 23:02

Sanku,

Cool. I am glad that you understand what they are saying. Perhaps when you get a moment kindly explain it (please keep Santhanam's concerns out of the picture - since I know them and do not agree with them) to bring me to that level.

Also, if you could separate CTBT and deterrence - IF possible. If not that is ok too.

TIA.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 21 Dec 2009 23:12

Kamal_raj wrote:Coal is not a solution for India as the quality of Indian coal is poor at times. We have been importing coal from Indonesia and Australia for some of our new power plants. How can this be a scalable solution for our power needs?

But aren't the imports due to the same socialist gift that keeps on giving?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Dec 2009 23:14

NRao wrote:Sanku,

Cool. I am glad that you understand what they are saying. Perhaps when you get a moment kindly explain it (please keep Santhanam's concerns out of the picture - since I know them and do not agree with them) to bring me to that level.

Also, if you could separate CTBT and deterrence - IF possible. If not that is ok too.

TIA.

Sure NRao, I have a pretty simple picture from what they say.

India needs a credibly demonstrated weapon (note I have sidestepped the TN or otherwise) of 200 KT yield. Preferably using multiple technologies. In addition it must clearly indicate the minimum size of its stockpile (again in 200 weapon range) This needs to be coupled with clearly demonstrated delivery systems. We also need to operationalize our still draft nuclear doctrine and have a clearly mandated role for the armed forces and and well established chain of command post a nuclear decapitation and a dead mans hand.

Till we get to the above, we need to clearly chart a path where there is no danger of a fissile material cut off concern, a test ban (implicit or explicit), continuous and visible funding into multiple nuclear technology domain including LIF.

Basically in one line in 2003 we had a draft doctrine based on some assumptions, till date we are far away from making it real. That is unacceptable and must happen ASAP.

Massive demonstrated ability for a destructive second strike posture.

Pok II S1 yield (not a weapon anyway even if it worked which it probably did not fully) is only a partial picture.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 21 Dec 2009 23:19

Kanson wrote:There is no impediment to testing. India has other means. I dont want to go further and spell it out. If you agree that BARC has found out what went wrong, if something went wrong in the first place, rest assured, as they know what they are doing, they know how to fix it.

You may be right. But this hasn't changed the equation between the PKI/KS and BARC schools of thought. Therefore, the conclusion I draw from this is that the PKI/KS group is not satisfied with the BARC plan (whatever it is).

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Dec 2009 23:27

vera_k wrote:
Kanson wrote:There is no impediment to testing. India has other means. I dont want to go further and spell it out. If you agree that BARC has found out what went wrong, if something went wrong in the first place, rest assured, as they know what they are doing, they know how to fix it.
You may be right. But this hasn't changed the equation between the PKI/KS and BARC schools of thought. Therefore, the conclusion I draw from this is that the PKI/KS group is not satisfied with the BARC plan (whatever it is).

"Trust us we know" is hardly a argument any Indian living in India buys from GoI anyway.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 21 Dec 2009 23:37

Sanku wrote:"Trust us we know" is hardly a argument any Indian living in India buys from GoI anyway.

But the PKI/KS group is not a group of laymen. Given their background, they would have enough contacts to know the state of affairs.