Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Sep 2009 00:02

Excellent write up on ATV and its future by ex Admiral Arun Prakash , Subtly hints the SLBM warhead needs hot testing {lighter TN }

Admiral Prakash on ATV

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 06 Sep 2009 00:23

Kanson wrote:Unless something of that is available, why would anyone whats to talk abt that ...

Wishful thinking.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 06 Sep 2009 00:36

csharma wrote:
Gerard wrote:Former Dy NSA wants India to sign CTBT
India must sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and push other nations to sign and ratify it said former deputy national securtity advisor and chairman of the joint intelligence committee Satish Chandra, on Friday.

Lt Gen V R Raghavan, advisor and research consultant to the international commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, dismissed the controversy surrounding Pokharan II and said India has a weapon and it is more than enough to safeguard our national interest.

“Tests alone don’t solve security problems. We have a weapon and a delivery mechanism. And it is more than enough to safeguard our interests,” said Raghavan.

Again looks like what I predicted few days ago has started to roll. Very bad and unfortunate self inflicted wound.

And on CTBT roll not for self interest but to show the world at large the correct way forward is to sign CTBT and forget about verifiable universal nuclear disarmament. An obvious oxymoranic thinking that is empty on substance.

God please save India.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 06 Sep 2009 00:45

ShauryaT wrote:It will be interesting to learn, where is this idea that small fission weapons are enough for deterrence for India coming from. It will be interesting to know, what do they actually mean by deterrence. A cold hard headed analysis of the doctrine of deterrence as it applies to India, needs to be understood.

The minimum in MCD is not just rhetorical. All indications are it is a word that guides our capacities. Especially in the context of China does the MCD work?

Also, for those who feel CTBT will not be signed by any government. I would like them to weigh in the weight of the world on India, in context of the our known commitments on a test ban against the NSG exemption, our ideas of a minimum deterrence along with our rhetoric of universal disarmament and see if India can seriously afford to ignore world opinion on this matter.

There are two issues rolled into one on this.
It is not just CTBT (and Indian credible deterrence), but giving acceptance/legitimacy to what is attempted here whereby a sovereign country "CAN'T" act like sovereign by choosing to stay away from a treaty (fundamental violation of international law) and allow weight of the world be applied to make sovereign nation yield, by putting in the "Entry into Force" clause in CTBT.

Even one of the two items above are re-pungent. And here India is swallowing both in one go.

Wah wah, Jai Ho .... . . .

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 06 Sep 2009 00:57

V_Raman wrote:CTBT did not come into force then. indians now can make other kind of warheads. this is in essence a second lease of life for india and it is trying to take advantage of it. the preparations this time around is not that covert as we are now an accepted non-P5 NWS.

non-P5 NWS !!!

Who gave that title to India, and which council bestows any benifit to a nation with that fictional titile. Words are cheap.

BTW how many people are awed by business cards floating around with 'C' titles: CEO, COO, President; and wondered if they are any higher then the bodyguard or chaprassi in Rastrapati Bhavan?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 06 Sep 2009 01:02

Kanson wrote: And I do remember Adm. Menon talking abt 12 MIRV for K-15.

Pls no serious jokes on this thread, some one can die from it.

Per GoI K15 is Sagarika (Shourya) the middle missile in this diagram:

clickyyy ...

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 06 Sep 2009 01:32

Austin wrote:Excellent write up on ATV and its future by ex Admiral Arun Prakash , Subtly hints the SLBM warhead needs hot testing {lighter TN }

Admiral Prakash on ATV

Whow a straight talk in the face article:

India must be unique amongst nations that undertake major expenditure on defence R&D in that both timelines and cost ceilings are infinitely flexible and neither accountability nor responsibility for delays, or even failure, are ever affixed. Subjective in-house ‘peer reviews’ can never be a substitute for hardnosed audits and progress-checks by independent experts, as well as end-users. The dismal story of projects like the Kaveri turbo-jet engine, the Light Combat Aircraft, the Arjun battle tank and the Trishul surface-to-air missile could have been very different, had they not been wrapped in furtive secrecy and been subjected, instead, to periodic scrutiny and oversight.

The S-3 and S-4 are planned to be built on the same baseline design as S-2, in order to consolidate shipbuilding expertise and industrial capabilities. They will therefore incorporate only those capability enhancements which can be accommodated within the same hull-form and supported by the same nuclear power-plant. Therefore it is the fourth submarine in this series the S-5, still a few years ahead, which should be an object of sharp focus for not just the IN but even more so, the DAE and DRDO.

In a 50-60 year perspective, India should be looking at a standing force of four-six SSBNs; accompanied, if possible by a smaller force of nuclear attack submarines or SSNs. While we are well on the way to achieving mastery over many of the technologies involved, there are three key areas which would need special focus:

• The acquisition of propellant technology for producing underwater launched ballistic missiles of inter-continental range. The length and diameter of the missile will decide the dimensions of the SSBN. These SLBM’s should preferably be capable of carrying four-six multiple independently-targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRV).
• The indigenous design of a SSBN hull which will be able to accommodate a battery of 16-24 such SLBMs.
• The indigenous design of a nuclear propulsion plants of about 200 megawatt capacity, with a six-eight years refuelling cycle, to drive a SSBN of 10,000-12,000 tons at about 30 knots.

And teh final statement:

And the final thought; would a brand new nuclear war-head required to face the rigours of an underwater launch, not require a ‘hot’ test to prove its design?

I had figured out the need for this brand new warhead in the discussion in Arihant thread.

ajay_hk · Post by **ajay_hk** » 06 Sep 2009 01:36

Apologies if its a repost...

Atomic politics: Who needs the H-bomb?

Excerpts from the above article..

But for some Indian weapons boffins, nailing the TN bomb technology is a matter of pride; not to speak of the security angle of China having one (and therefore Pakistan inevitably getting the design). Of all nuclear weapons' states, China also made the fastest transition from fission-based atom bombs to H-bombs (less than two years) with its thermo-nuclear test measuring 3 megatons. Pakistan too has made known its intention to master TN technology. Can India bank on the knowledge gleaned from its sole TN test without an assured, working weapon? Will it be worse off against China is a confrontation if it does not have a H-bomb?

Not really, say US nuclear pundits, who are apprehensive that Santanam's bombshell presages some corrective tests by India. "There are people who say American nuclear bombs won't work because we have not tested for so long," says Gary Milholin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. "I don't think anyone would want to test that assumption."

Similarly, he says, it would be risky for any country to count on India's thermonuclear weapon to have a low yield. "There are now ways other than testing to increase confidence," Milholin added. "And I think India has enough computing power to do that." Milholin also cautions that "An Indian test would be very toxic to cooperation it has just gained under the nuclear deal."

Whether India attempts to certifiably nail a working H-bomb with more tests will mostly be political decision based on security perceptions. But there will also be important scientific inputs into this - and right now a majority of scientists seem to be saying they have mastered the big one even if the bang, as Santhanam says, wasn't big enough.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 06 Sep 2009 01:42

Once upon a time in India there was tabloid magazine published from Bombay in English, which most people read from the back page to front, and that was BLITZ of RK Karanjia ( I was too young to really grasp the picture of the semi nude lady, but still I used gaze at it).

In that Magazine there used to be a column called

"I told you Son"

Here is modern version ie 2009 of the same column.

Father
Yes son
I heard India has launched a Nuclear Submarine is it true.
It is true son, our PMs wife did the cermonial coconut breaking.
Father, but now I hear that India's nukes are not that powerful?
No son, they are powerful but ours is Minimum Credible Nuclear deterrent.
But father how can we have minimum Credible Nuclear deterrent if we dont have proven Hydrogen bomb?
Why son we have Fission bombs which can be bunched together and give the same effect.
But Father then we have to bunch many of them so then it wont be minimal but be maximal numbers no? and then it can only be minimally credible Nuclear deterrent?
Hmm son you are making me think hard.
Father...
Yes son, go on I am still thinking
We have now Arihant which needs to be effective second strike platform because of our no first use policy.
That is correct son.
Father, if it is correct then the space for weapons and missiles is limited in submarines no?
That is again correct son
Father, then is it correct to say India can not efford many subs and many fission bombs and many missiles, because of economics and few resources?
Yes son that is also correct
Father...
Yes go on son you are making me think twice already
Father, then it is better to develop few Hydorgen bombs and conserve resources than make many Fission devices.
You are correct again son.
So father with out Hydrogen bomb,and a NFU policy,what deterrent should we call it and against whom is this deterrent?
Now Son you are making me think thrice hmmm....
Father,
yes son go on
Is it then Arihant is just a Nuclear powered submarine but not a Nuclear Armed submarine for Second and decisive strike against enemy?
I DONT KNOW SON!
Thank you father

{ Thanks Arun Guru, I made the same blunder RC did, but he is more renouned than I am}

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Sep 2009 01:42

Austin wrote:Excellent write up on ATV and its future by ex Admiral Arun Prakash , Subtly hints the SLBM warhead needs hot testing {lighter TN }

Admiral Prakash on ATV

But the trouble with excessive secrecy is that while it may or may not deceive the enemy, it can certainly obfuscate the truth and lead you to the wrong conclusions; often with deleterious consequences.

This is stated w.r.t the ATV project but seems to be equally valid for our nuclear weapons program. Well said Admiral!

Jonathan Allen · Post by **Jonathan Allen** » 06 Sep 2009 02:11

Army Chief Gen. Deepak Kapoor says:

'Kapoor's implied suggestion that India could have to revisit its no-first use policy in case the strength of Pakistan’s nuclear was close to what had been claimed, will challenge a long held position. The need to think afresh is also linked to Pakistan deliberately blurring its red lines to maintain a nebulous doctrine. '

Link to Times Of India Article

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 06 Sep 2009 02:15

{No need to quote entire posts and waste bandwidth}

That increases my longing for the good ol BLITZ, always picked it on railway station platforms.
BTW there used to be reporter by the moniker: Vox Populi and another crazy name that I am not able to recall.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Sep 2009 02:19

dcs wrote:Link to Times Of India Article

A number of eminent scientists in the past few weeks have made a case for India strengthening its nuclear capabilities and Kapoor’s remark that ‘‘India shall take a look at its stance’’ has added to the growing perception that the Indian nuclear arsenal needs refurbishing, if not the need to carry out more tests, to maintain its nuclear programme’s cutting edge.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 06 Sep 2009 02:23

yes Vox Populi later defected to Magna Vox.
I do remember Knock Out by AFS Tlayaar Khan {He was also a good cricket comentrator occasionally on AIR}

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Sep 2009 03:10

dcs wrote:Link to Times Of India Article

The FAS claim is further buttressed by a report of the US Congressional Research Services, an independent bipartisan research wing of Congress, which has now said that Pakistan is not just making ‘‘qualitative and quantitative’’ improvement to its nuclear arsenal but has also added to the list of circumstances under which it would be willing to use them against India.

I have to wonder how much of this is related to Af-Pak policy.

Also, how could this be related to the progress in Balouch news item?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 06 Sep 2009 05:18

{Enough. Please don't waste forum bandwidth with brainless garbage. The PakDef'nDumb awaits your astute observations. Thx}.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 06:36

I think the ATV topic by itself can generate enough whines to fill an entire thread - but it really is a time-pass digression from this thread where, after 54 pages we know that S1 yielded 5 to 60 kt depending on whom you want to believe.

1) The ATV does not exist as a working nuclear submarine.
2) India has never fired a missile from a submarine
3) India does not have any missiles that can be launched from a sub and travel over 1000 km
4) India probably has a working fission type nuclear warhead of 8 to 12 kt yield

Ignoring points 1, 2 and 3 to complain that 4 is not good enough is a hilarious act of semantic gymnastics.

In the list above - we only have one type of working warhead. Nothing else exists. The discussion is only to see if that working warhead can be made from its twice proven 8-12 kilotons to at least 200 kilotons.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 06:59

Kanson wrote:Minimum credible deterrence is a funny coining of words. Minimum and Credible guard against each other..so that neither it is minimum nor it goes to extreme case. .

Yes this is an excellent description of the semantics of MCD. Ultimately they are just words - although they are words of great importance . Their meaning is likely to be debated and that is why they have been carefully chosen.

India could have said just "deterrence" and the meaning would be the same - the debate would be only about what is deterrence. The fact that the words "minimum credible" were added does tell us something about the mindset of the people who coined that terminology - and thanks for sparking off the thought that the two words are designed to "balance" each other (and cancel each other out IMO)

Imagine if India had said "maximum" deterrence. I believe that India exerting "maximum deterrence" against anyone would require an arsenal at least the size of the US arsenal. That would then have to be "maximum incredible deterrence" for India

On the other hand they could just have said "credible deterrence". This is a perfectly good construct. The only argument against the words "credible deterrence" (without any minimum or maximum added to it) is that the words "credible deterrence" divides up the concept of deterrence into just "deterrence" and "credible deterrence". In other words - what is the level of deterrence that India seeks to achieve that India calls "credible"? At what level does India believe that its deterrent is credible (as opposed to laughable or incredible?)

I believe this argument is addressed by the words "minimum credible" - which seems to say "Oh we will not build that big an arsenal - but will build enough to do a lot of damage that we believe will be unacceptable to our current adversaries" Can this be interpreted as an admission that we are incapable of building "maximum deterrence" against all comers? Yes indeed it can be interpreted in that way (IMO)

I suspect the words "minimum credible" were used at a time when the declared arsenal had not yet reached that level. It is clear that it has still not reached that level and will not reach that level until India's declared intent to have a submarine based deterrent is working credibly. In other words the "minimum" that we are looking at in future is bigger than the minimum that we have now.

Just my views.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 06 Sep 2009 07:41

Found this post on the India Army Discussion thread. Seems relevant to this thread.

VikB wrote:1. Teams from Israel training one of our top hotel chain employees. As per one senior person in the company - they are mossad or ex mossad. Regular trainings going on at all hotel properties. According to them - over 100 female bombers have entered the country from our friendly neighbourhood and fear of 'spectacular strikes' by year end very high .

2. Top people in the IA see a war with China by 2010. Good thing - they have started working on it. All recent news - Arihant, Mountain divisions, Jt training were in this direction. US sees it as an opportunity. They know war with China is inevitable in next few years. They would want that to happen away from their homeland. Indian setting is perfect for them. Chillingly reminds me of the time pre 9/11 when the threat of the combined 'Islamic countries' was pretty high. In less than a decade, US has whittled the threat to a whimper.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 06 Sep 2009 07:46

pankajs wrote:
dcs wrote:Link to Times Of India Article

A number of eminent scientists in the past few weeks have made a case for India strengthening its nuclear capabilities and Kapoor’s remark that ‘‘India shall take a look at its stance’’ has added to the growing perception that the Indian nuclear arsenal needs refurbishing, if not the need to carry out more tests, to maintain its nuclear programme’s cutting edge.

Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor's view (in?)tends to rubbish the claims of Mr K Subrahmanyam expressed in his article in The Tribune that:

The government leadership is satisfied with the state of our deterrent posture and so also the armed forces.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 06 Sep 2009 07:58

Sanatanan wrote: Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor's view (in?)tends to rubbish the claims of Mr K Subrahmanyam expressed in his article in The Tribune that:

The government leadership is satisfied with the state of our deterrent posture and so also the armed forces.

Santanan garu,

How is one to know whether that particular statement by a serving COAS is not GoI scripted? In fact, the odds are overwhelming that the COAS did not speak out of turn.Wondering if GOI itself is considering abandoning NFU then? Certainly, I can see how PRC benefits by gifting TSP a 1000 200kt bums, nay warheads, for different platforms. Cheapest way to checkmate yindia is to have a disposable TSP and unpredictable yindia nuke each other to kingdom come. Can't see which member of the G7+PRC would object to that, actually. Maybe that was the plan all along.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 06 Sep 2009 08:27

Applying Shiv ji 's Piskological Exactitude, we have positve whines and negtive whines.

There are eminent scientists who have expressed "negative whines" and then are some "eminent scientists" who have expressed positive whines and bring in faith based assertions.

Further more Shivji himself dissected the semantics, from explosions and explosive statements to yield a valuable lesson on how determental it is to understand deterrent, and that in itself should deter any further excavations of shafts, holes, ventings, erruptions, spillage, contamination, quakers, quacks etc.

So believe me, it is better to believe Shiv ji or Nataraja of Chidambaram whose dance is cosmic and the experiment was also involved in creating (Dark) Sun like cosmological event.

All in all we have created a positive hole and a negative whole, which is like in semi conductor, therefore Semi success has been achivied some assert.
Shiv ji as usual has made everything Crystal Clear, through solicitation, agumentation, argumenation in conclusion.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 09:32

Google uncle gives lists of warheads and yields of various nations. The list for the US is interesting and as usual I am going to post my own conclusions and my own take based on general reading and timepassing.

In general it appears that multimegaton warheads are being retired in favor of multi-kiloton warheads, with "low yield" weapons being added to the mix. General reading and timepassing inform me that the biggest warheads are no longer considered practical (for whatever the nuclear doctrine the US has). The US arsenal consists mostly of a range of warheads from 1 Megaton to fractions of kilotons. There are warheads in the 400-500 kt range and many classified as scalable from "5 to 200 kt" ( I wonder if the same seismologists were monitoring S1?

)

I don't think there is a list of Chinese warheads - but the largest number of Chinese tests IIRC were conducted for the yield 20-80 kt (recalling from memory of a table I saw a week ago - I am willing to be corrected). China has also tested delivery of weapons from aircraft and missiles. Of course I am a cynical guy and we know only when Chinese warheads succeeded in exploding. We will not know how many failed - only India publicises its failures loudly. But I digress yet again..

The point I am trying to make is my personal observations that multimegaton warheads are being discarded in favor of warheads ranging from hundreds of kt to tens of kt. Now why would anyone want to do that? My guess is as good as yours and since I am doing the typing you will see my guess here.

When you explode a nuke - most of the energy is released into the atmosphere and only a part hits your target. Targets (for example a city) tend to occupy two dimensional areas of land so the area that your nuke covers is the most important determinant for its ability to damage a city (or a mass of attacking tanks). The yield of a nuke is distributed across the volume of the fireball but its destructive power is distributed across a two dimensional area occupied by a target.

If you have a fizzle of X kilotons and you want to hit four times the area that your fizzle can destroy, you have to make your bomb 8 times as powerful. In other words if your 20 kt fizzle needs to be used against a target four times bigger, your yield will have to be 160 kt. While this is my guesstimate - it is illustrated below by the following pic from the link: http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm

The graph at bottom shows how a 1 megaton bomb whose yield is 50 times that of a 20kt bomb affects an area only 16 times as big as that covered by the 20 kt bomb (and not 50 times as large as intuition may say). What this means is that double the yield does not mean double the destructive power.

I think it is for this reason that most experienced wielders of nuclear weapons are downsizing their yields to lower than megaton values. I am not a weapons designer although I give free advice - but this 'downsizing" surely has bearing on weapon design.

Once again - this information is given free in an as-is-where-is condition. Use at your own risk

Babu Bihari · Post by **Babu Bihari** » 06 Sep 2009 10:25

My first post on BRF. Good discussion is going on here. Great contribution by Narayanan, Arun_S, Sanku, Shiv amongst many others. I want to make a few general points.

First, what is with Indians on focussuing on personalities instead of institutions and governance of institutions. I have highest regards for APJ Kalam. People tend to believe him instantly, instead of looking at this arguments. Same for other scientists and analysts. Even if God comes himself comes and say something, we need to question His arguments. It is high time, we look at the governance of BARC, DRDO etc.

Second, regarding this debate on big bum, we first need some introspection. Whether we want to club ourselves with Pakistan/Israel/NoKo or with big five. In Wash DC circles, India is clubbed with Pakistan. And China evokes awe, respect and sometimes fear. All this talk of soft power of bollywood and curry is nonsense without raw hard power. If we want to be mentioned along big 5, then we need demonstrated, credible TN bums and delivery vehicles of inter-continental reach. Once, that happends, we will see the difference in their posture towards India. So, without going into the debates of whether S-1 was a fizzle/sizzle, I say, we need to look at where we want ourselves. If the answer is, along big 5, then military/economic parity with China is a MUST.

Third, regarding CTBT. As we all know, these are multilateral instruments devised by big 5 to protect their N-advantages. Threat of sanctions, NPT, etc again are instruments to deter the new entrant in their exclusive club. So, what can the new entrant do? Force her way in. Once that is done, it becomes costly for the incumbents to compete, instead they will seek accomodation. It is in the interests of the incumbets to deter and compete with a possible new entrant but once a possible new entrant succeeds, it is also in the interests of incumbents to engage new entrant, since benefits of engagement outweighs the cost of competition. This will be particularly true in case of India, since China is going to surpass US in a couple of decades. That is why, you see many big companies having implicit cooperation to deter new entrants.

Fourth, regarding simulation. Anil Kakodkar says, we have comprehensive data for simulation. That is a huge statement. We had one TN test for which there are sufficient doubts. The link below mentions that between 1980 and 1989 US conducted 10 tests in which some 100 micro-charges were fired. It says on P64 - "These tests of TN micro-charges had as their purpose to achieve a 'correlation' with experiments simulated with the laser NOVA at Livermore and to design a future laser of very high power for fusion experiments and, in the same vein, the definition of new TN stages". On P65, it says, regarding French tests of 90s - "Without tests....the warhead for the envisioned M5 missile would necessarily be larger and system as a whole less than optimal." On P66, it says - "...if tests were continued and authorization given for twenty-some tests, half would be committed to PALEN (the French simulation program) and half to enhancing warheads for the envisioned M5 misssile or ASLP long-range stand-off missile."

Google book

The sense I get from above is that US and France needed more than 1 test for simulation. If the above is true, we need more tests for simulation and SLBM nuclear warheads. Of course, these are views of bihari dude

. High and mighty in dilli may have a different vision for India.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Sep 2009 10:58

Babu Bihari wrote:
Second, regarding this debate on big bum, we first need some introspection. Whether we want to club ourselves with Pakistan/Israel/NoKo or with big five. In Wash DC circles, India is clubbed with Pakistan. And China evokes awe, respect and sometimes fear. All this talk of soft power of bollywood and curry is nonsense without raw hard power. If we want to be mentioned along big 5, then we need demonstrated, credible TN bums and delivery vehicles of inter-continental reach. Once, that happends, we will see the difference in their posture towards India. So, without going into the debates of whether S-1 was a fizzle/sizzle, I say, we need to look at where we want ourselves. If the answer is, along big 5, then military/economic parity with China is a MUST.

Clearly India, and Indian opinion is in two minds and is opting for doing less rather than more.

Shaurya asked "How long can India ignore world opinion" regarding nukes. India is clearly acting like it respects world opinion in every way except signing the document. And in doing so India has maintained only a sham independence while it has successfully provided an alibi for Pakistan to develop nukes citing India as an excuse.

But the question is, why should Indians feel bad about being listed with NoKo and Pakistan while we crave and cringe to be included among the big boys. That is exactly how we are behaving. We are behaving like Pakis while coveting the big boys' position. Does anyone seriously think that if S1 had been one megaton India's situation would have been any different?

We want the world to look at us and say "Ah USA, China, INDIA, Russia etc." We cry like spoilt kids when our true value is called by the "world community". The fact that the world community has mostly signed CTBT is an indicator of the rankings of the P5 versus wannabes. And we are the wannabes.

Why do we find it so difficult to see ourselves at our real level?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Sep 2009 11:09

Babu Bihari wrote:
The sense I get from above is that US and France needed more than 1 test for simulation. If the above is true, we need more tests for simulation and SLBM nuclear warheads. Of course, these are views of bihari dude . High and mighty in dilli may have a different vision for India.

What if US and France have given us data so that India can do the simulation and avoid the testing

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 06 Sep 2009 11:12

^^^

You would need to test to check if the simulation data received from other countries is any good.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 06 Sep 2009 11:12

I am told Mulayam Singh, and of course Communists have said they will bring pressure on govt if they anymore sign any treaty with USA.

Efforts are also afoot to introduce changes necessary to make sure 2/3rd parliaments approval is required for any major foriegn agreement/treaty.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 06 Sep 2009 11:16

ah the 2/3rd vote requirement! we are setting up to become a big power!! maybe this is scripted as well. just in time when CTBT ratification is required. MMS commit to CTBT subject to parliament approval.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Sep 2009 11:19

The French already possessed data from about 200 tests to help them check out the quality of data being provided by the US.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 06 Sep 2009 11:20

Acharya wrote:
Babu Bihari wrote:
The sense I get from above is that US and France needed more than 1 test for simulation. If the above is true, we need more tests for simulation and SLBM nuclear warheads. Of course, these are views of bihari dude . High and mighty in dilli may have a different vision for India.
What if US and France have given us data so that India can do the simulation and avoid the testing

To protect against Trojon horse in the code, it needs to validated against multitude of tests that you trust (i.e. you have done those tests yourself), both for Type-1 and Type-2 variations.

India with 6 tests of one-Z and two-Z for certain types, thus has tool little a reference test population to be useful touchstone for validation.

So IMHO even if France and US give India the code, it means nothing to Indian requirement to test. India has to clean crap off its own ar*e.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Sep 2009 11:20

vera_k wrote:^^^

You would need to test to check if the simulation data received from other countries is any good.

What if the designs are from other country(ies)

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Sep 2009 11:22

Acharya wrote:
vera_k wrote:^^^

You would need to test to check if the simulation data received from other countries is any good.
What if the designs are from other country(ies)

You would still need to test and more than once to ensure reliability. When we do not accept the words of Bofors (A recognized quality producer) on its Gun, how can we trust anyone with strategic weapons.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Sep 2009 11:27

pankajs wrote:
you would still need to test and more than once to ensure reliability. When we do not accept the words of Bofors (A recognized quality producer) on a Gun, how can we trust someone with strategic weapons.

If enough money can be given the political leadership can say that all tests are valid and ready for deployment

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 06 Sep 2009 11:28

Parliament voting is needed to avoid our position to downgrade to the style of Musharraf rule, meaning Musharraf was threatened to elicit a desired outcome by Uncle, while MMS needs support to avoid playing out a similar desired outcome (again from Uncle's viewpoint)

Babu Bihari wrote:Fourth, regarding simulation. Anil Kakodkar says, we have comprehensive data for simulation. That is a huge statement. We had one TN test for which there are sufficient doubts. The link below mentions that between 1980 and 1989 US conducted 10 tests in which some 100 micro-charges were fired. It says on P64 - "These tests of TN micro-charges had as their purpose to achieve a 'correlation' with experiments simulated with the laser NOVA at Livermore and to design a future laser of very high power for fusion experiments and, in the same vein, the definition of new TN stages".

Are these micro charges related to sub kt tests?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Sep 2009 11:42

Arun_S wrote:I am told Mulayam Singh, and of course Communists have said they will bring pressure on govt if they anymore sign any treaty with USA.

Efforts are also afoot to introduce changes necessary to make sure 2/3rd parliaments approval is required for any major foriegn agreement/treaty.

Such pressure will not work unless the main opposition party like BJP and others also join it and insist on it or no further work in parliament.

The commie are no more a force reckon with and Mulayam/Amar can always be bought with money and wheel-deal that has been their reputation so far.

Ok back to the topic

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 06 Sep 2009 11:55

vasu_ray wrote:Parliament voting is needed to avoid our position to downgrade to the style of Musharraf rule, meaning Musharraf was threatened to elicit a desired outcome by Uncle, while MMS needs support to avoid playing out a similar desired outcome (again from Uncle's viewpoint)

Babu Bihari wrote:Fourth, regarding simulation. Anil Kakodkar says, we have comprehensive data for simulation. That is a huge statement. We had one TN test for which there are sufficient doubts. The link below mentions that between 1980 and 1989 US conducted 10 tests in which some 100 micro-charges were fired. It says on P64 - "These tests of TN micro-charges had as their purpose to achieve a 'correlation' with experiments simulated with the laser NOVA at Livermore and to design a future laser of very high power for fusion experiments and, in the same vein, the definition of new TN stages".
Are these micro charges related to sub kt tests?

From what I recall these were fusion micro-charge, that would thus involve ~10 kT primary yield to generate the high energy regime to characterize the test environment to correlate NOVA laser.

So no these were not sub-kt test.

As I mentioned recently sub-kt test cant be used for fusion experiment/test.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 06 Sep 2009 12:05

Acharya wrote:If enough money can be given the political leadership can say that all tests are valid and ready for deployment

It does not change the facts on the ground. Or are you implying that the no-test camp exists because such money has changed hands?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Sep 2009 12:54

I feel India is sometimes too chanakiyan for its own good. There are instances where it is not prudent to rock the boat so to say. But 35 years of not rocking the boat except for '98 hasn't exactly bought India the dividends it has bought our neighboul who has done nothing but rock the boat and muddy the waters.
Playing the good boy will lead us to second rung status only, will eventually stunt our growth, mold Indian foreign policy to that of a second rung power, running into the arms of the masters for protection, instead of standing upto the enemy and looking into its eye.
Ultimately a nation is only as strong and resurgent as the mind of its leader. Without mincing words, let me say that India's failing have sometimes been its leaders.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Sep 2009 13:05

Someone needs to educate me wrt the baneberry nuclear explosion computer simulation model.

How important is it to know about crater and shaft behaviour? OK it is important to know to be able to prevent venting of the shaft.

But how is it relevent to the functioning of the bomb design? IIRC we are debating the bomb design itself NOT the aftereffects of the crater here. The heartburn seems to be that the duo of Kakodkar (66 yrs old) and Chidambram (73 yrs old), (Forgive my words) who presided over POK-2 are now acting to be the masters of India's destiny by trying to 'cover up' their role in POK-2.

By now it is adequately clear, that all the mature nuclear powers, needed to keep on testing and proofing their designs by multiple explosions inspite of all of them having greater scientific resources (both manpower and finances) and computing power than India possesses currently. Someone is trying to make a "chutia" of the nation by saying that we are so brilliant that we can design every type of nuke there is on the basis of ONE fizzle, when the fact is that India only has a 20 KT FBF warhead.

We are still not in a position to know how good even that 20 KT warhead was, since even that explosion was masked by the TN.

If the fear is that pakistan may test and refine its stuff, please note that pakistan will get tested weapons and designs and extensive hand holding to manufacture its weapons, while this behaviour of the PM and his coitre desperately out to snuff out india's independence can only lead to India holding the lemon when the time comes.