Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

[Arun_S]

Saar, any reason why they didn't plan to obtain enough simulation data during POK-2 knowing fully well the political outcome of testing?

You are not alone. Such common-sense and petty question apparently do not arise in the brain of no-clear scientists that were given the charge to design and test the TN Bum.

The worthy nuclear planners did not even think of a backup plan to explode a 200 kt FBF to protect credibility of Indian deterrence.

[munna]

Never felt this bad apart from Mumbai attacks! We should not drown ourselves in the flood of H&D tears but think about getting out of this hole, cause if nothing is done in next year or so then Dragon who is already breathing down our neck might be tempted to bite it too.

[Arun_S]

My fear is whether TN even reached 20kt and boosted fission worked on it or it fizzled below that yield also?

I answered that in my post many weeks ago.

Bottom line: Second stage "Fusion fuel yield" was few kt onleeee. And it was a fully loaded TN bum with fully loaded third stage. Go figure.
But then all I say is hearsay and I am no authority on this matter, Just a paan eating bhaiyya of UP.

===========Added later ==========

Boosted fission worked like a charm. Yielded ~17 kT.
But remember all I say is hearsay and I am no authority on this matter, Just a paan eating bhaiyya of uttar-pardesh giving ulta uttar to your prashn.

[Gagan]

- if the TN test failed, do the scientists clearly know what failed and how to fix it. Has it been fixed yet (pending confirmatory test)?

IIRC before the ABV government's tenure ended, there was a request from scientists for another round of tests. Apparently, some corrections were made then.

- do we have any reliable (non thermo) nuclear weapons that can be used today. If we do, are they sufficient to deter Pakistan? China?

The trio of scientists did say and most experts concur that India had mastered a weaponized version of FBF. So possibly a 200 KT moderately heavy FBF warhead is within our capabilities. This will however reduce the range of its delivery vehicle that carries it, weather a missile or an aircraft.

- if India tests, but doesn't announce to the world, does the world make a huge noise about it (even though they know it)

China would, and they being so sweet (Cheeni) will jump up and down like the pandas they are, and holler bloody murder. Further they will ensure that Pakistan too jumps up and down in unison and "tests" in response.

[bhart]

It has been 10 years since the Shakti tests. Surely some lessons would have been drawn from the failures. And I do think the people in charge knew that we had only one shot at this (I'm talking of the non technical lot, the kind who give the go-ahead). This was more of a coming out party, with more benefits politically than militarily. There was no option but to label it a success.
Look at it the other way round, what would have happened if the govt would have said, "We effed up!" ? Would international pressure resulting from the first round of tests have allowed them to go for a third round? It took 24 years for India to conduct a second round of tests.
Whatever the shortcomings technically or yield wise, in a geo-political sense, the tests achieved their purpose.
My question to Arun_S is, what now? Taking the continuation of the moratorium as a given, what options do the scientists realistically have?

[Gagan]

Shall we move all these discussions into the Indian nuclear news and discussions thread, or create a new thread

[pankajs]

Whatever the shortcomings technically or yield wise, in a geo-political sense, the tests achieved their purpose.

I disagree saar.
Deterrence works only when the potential aggressor is convinced of the unacceptable nature of the retaliation. With a doubtful bum, that assurance of unacceptable damage on an aggressor is taken away, hence needs to be re-established by further testing. Can there be any other option?

[John Snow]

to be honest IMVHO

"past performance do not Guarantee future results"
"Two data points aren’t conclusive"

and how were we so confident that few tests are good enough to generate data?
This is also very confusing saying 1 set of data from 6 different tests of capabilities is good enough for future design.
In any SQC or OR modeling or any simulation you need many more data points. Any whats theb point if the powers be dont tell the truth, or atleast never lie.

[vasu_ray]

Dragon who is already breathing down our neck might be tempted to bite it too

we should welcome a conventional conflict for political cover to test Round 3, though I would hate losing Indian blood, even
eyeball to eyeball positioning is helpful

[Arun_S]

My question to Arun_S is, what now? Taking the continuation of the moratorium as a given, what options do the scientists realistically have?

Saar, Why me? I only a paan eating bhayyia?

Let the people who threw India in this sh1t hole (and top it up with 123 bonanza) give answer to the Indian nation, and cleanup the sh1t.

Or charge them for suitable and exemplary punishment.

[Gagan]

Please continue discussions here:

Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

The 1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests might have been far from the success they have been claimed to be. The yield of the thermonuclear
explosions was actually much below expectations and the tests were perhaps more a fizzle rather than a big bang.

The controversy over the yield of the tests, previously questioned by foreign agencies, has been given a fresh lease of life with K Santhanam, senior scientist and DRDO representative at Pokhran II, admitting for the first time that the only thermonuclear device tested was a "fizzle". In nuclear parlance, a test is described as a fizzle when it fails to meet the desired yield.

Santhanam, who was director for 1998 test site preparations, told TOI on Monday that the yield for the thermonuclear test, or hydrogen bomb in popular usage, was much lower than what was claimed. Santhanam, who was DRDO's chief advisor, could well have opened up the debate on whether or not India should sign CTBT as claims that India has all the data required and can manage with simulations is bound to be called into question.

``Based upon the seismic measurements and expert opinion from world over, it is clear that the yield in the thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was claimed. I think it is well documented and that is why I assert that India should not rush into signing the CTBT,'' Santhanam told TOI on Wednesday.

He emphasised the need for India to conduct more tests to improve its nuclear weapon programme.

The test was said to have yielded 45 kilotons (KT) but was challenged by western experts who said it was not more than 20 KT.

US nuclear deal, it was strenuously argued by the government's top scientists that no more tests were required for the weapons programme. It was said the disincentives the nuclear deal imposed on testing would not really matter as further tests were not required.

According to security expert Bharat Karnad, Santhanam's admission is remarkable because this is the first time a nuclear scientist and one closely associated with the 1998 tests has disavowed the government line. ``He is not just saying that India should not sign the CTBT, which I believe is completely against India's interests, but also that the 1998 thermonuclear device test was inadequate.

His saying this means that the government has to do something. Either you don't have a thermonuclear deterrent or prove that you have it, if you claim to have it,'' said Karnad.

Sources said that Santhanam had admitted that the test was a fizzle during a discussion on CTBT organised by IDSA. Karnad also participated in the seminar. He told TOI that no country has succeeded in achieving targets with only its first test of a thermonuclear device.

``Two things are clear; that India should not sign CTBT and that it needs more thermonuclear device tests,'' said Santhanam.

The yield of the thermonuclear device test in 1998 has led to much debate and while western experts have stated that it was not as claimed, BARC has maintained that it stands by its assessment. Indian scientists had claimed after the test that the thermonuclear device gave a total yield of 45 KT, 15 KT from the fission trigger and 30 KT from the fusion process and that the theoretical yield of the device (200 KT) was reduced to 45 KT in order to minimise seismic damage to villages near the test range.
British experts, however, later challenged the claims saying that the actual combined yield for the fission device and thermonuclear bomb was not more than 20 KT.

Key Pokharan scientist R Chidambaram had described these reports as incorrect. He has also argued that computer simulations would be enough in future design.

[Gagan]

Please continue all discussions on Pokharan II here:

Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

[Gagan]

Please continue all discussions on Pokharan II here:

Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

[John Snow]

There is no way to prove or disprove what Santnam sar has said. But I am glad he stood up and we know what we dont know.Thanks to Santanam garu.

Otherwise we would have humiliating defeat like 1962 if we end up in war thinking we have brahmastra...

{remember how V. K. Menon told the whole country we can take on PRC easily and Nehru went on with his forward policy..}

Jeez forget even fictional liberation Of Tibet, if we can defend Ap thats more than a victory.

[bhart]

Continuing from the Missile Tech Thread...

@pankajs
OTOH, western intelligence agencies would have know for a whole decade what actually happened. If you remember, the Americans specifically wanted to improve their surveillance of the Indian nuclear program. And yet, the way the west has dealt with India in the recent past has changed.
You're looking at it in the context of our immediate threats. I would delink China-Pak from what Indian nukes mean to the west. For that matter, I think the Indian diplomacy was effective during Kargil because the west viewed Kargil in the context of May 1998.
That we need to sort out the military angle is beyond doubt.

@Arun_S
Saar, because you have a good grasp of what is happening. But seriously, do you have any idea of the kind of simulation facilities available to the scientists?

[pankajs]

Indian hydrogen bomb was a dud

However, after reports of his remarks appeared in a section of the media, he said on Wednesday that his recollection of his statements was slightly more nuanced. His view was that India should not sign the CTBT and that it needed to conduct more thermonuclear tests.

Santhanam's doubts about the hydrogen bomb after the Pokhran tests were first featured, on an unattributable basis, in security analyst Bharat Karnad's book India's Nuclear Policy ( 2008) where he pointed out that " a senior DRDO official involved in the testing" had, some six months after the tests, " recommended resumption of testing to the government because he was convinced that the test of the hydrogen bomb was inadequate". Karnad, a professor at the Centre for Policy Research, felt that the Indian need to test again " is less a matter of opinion than of fact." In his view, Santhanam's " extremely courageous stand" had struck a fatal blow at the foundation of the Indo- US nuclear deal " predicated on India's never testing again and at any accommodationist policies the Manmohan Singh regime may be considering visa- vis the CTBT and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty". At a press conference following the test in May 1998, DAE chief Chidambaram claimed that they had deliberately kept the secondary of the thermonuclear Shakti- I explosion low so as not to damage a nearby village. But this claim was met with scepticism.

But the lack of a weapon of adequate explosive yield undermines Indian claims of possessing world- class strategic capability and damages its nuclear force posture.

[Gagan]

1. First Indira Gandhi compromised and called it a PNE
2. Then ABV compromised and called it a day when the test series was not complete
3. Then ABV compromised and announced NFU and MCD.
4. Now MMS has decided to compromise and given up ICBMs and true blue SSBNs. (Capping the N sub fleet at 3 means that they will be restricted to the IOR and South china sea. There will be none left to prowl the waters beyond).

All these compromises will in the end retard the acceptance of India as a power.

IG's fault was that she stopped weaponization thereafter. This is the problem with having all the powers vested at a single point wrt national leadership. The leader can be strong, but the leader if compromised can also be the undoing of the nation as a whole.
There is a reason why the US has two presidential terms only, why the chinese have new leaders from a pool. This ensures that like a hydra a new head will sprout if there is a decapitation. No wonder these two nations continue on with their development, brushing aside all impediments.
Not so in our case unfortunately.

[bhart]

And so far as the CTBT is concerned, this is what Shyam Saran said some time ago.

India links CTBT signing to nuclear disarmament

Signing the CTBT will be very difficult in the current context anyway, now that parts of the Nuclear Deal have started unraveling.

[pankajs]

Saar,
Agreed that the west has changed in its dealings with us post 1998. Can it be becuase flattery can achieve what a stick cannot achieve with us Indians and the Americans have realized that? All the talk of making India a world power (sans the power ofcourse).

I can only add that security of our nation can not be left to the benevolence of the west or for that matter any other nation.

[Arun_S]

Considering this came from some one who was part of the test team , this gives more credibility to the already known fact that TN was a fizzle.

Delayed but K Santhanam did a great service to the country by reveling the truth, hopefully he does not get charged under OSA for reveling state secrets

Shri K Santhanam has a plaque in his drawing room, which states that he was the "Leader of the Shakti Campaign"; I have a 'photouaa' (sic) of that.

So he was not just part of the test team, he headed that team.

But I may have heard from another paanwalla what he has (or does not have) in his drawing room.

[Neela]

Boy....the basic facts about the TN test are stunning

a) It it failed!
b) It was not even a warhead!

I pissed in my toilet and now I have a water-gun for crowd control!

[pankajs]

Reaction from Defence Ministry
N-strength sufficient: Defence Ministry

[Sanatanan]

do we have any reliable (non thermo) nuclear weapons that can be used today. If we do, are they sufficient to deter Pakistan? China?

The trio of scientists did say and most experts concur that India had mastered a weaponized version of FBF. So possibly a 200 KT moderately heavy FBF warhead is within our capabilities. This will however reduce the range of its delivery vehicle that carries it, weather a missile or an aircraft.

Does India's capability to use Reactor Grade Pu in explosive devices come into question now in any way?

[Arun_S]

Boy....the basic facts about the TN test are stunning

a) It it failed!
b) It was not even a warhead!

I pissed in my toilet and now I have a water-gun for crowd control!

A very precise and accurate no-clear development by Dr R.Chidambrum. And he wants Army and DRDO to have faith, "read my lips", and jump to war in insanity.

[Dilbu]

Dont worry people MMS is only being chankian. He will sign the CTBT document using a fake signature 'harveender chennaswamy ganguli'. Problem solved onlee.

On a serious note BR proved to be ahead of the curve, again.

[krishnan]

Reaction from Defence Ministry
N-strength sufficient: Defence Ministry

India conducted 5 nuclear tests at the Pokhran test range. Three of which were conducted on May 11 and two on May 13, 1998. The team which conducted tests was headed by Rajagopala Chidambaram and the Device was developed at the Defence Research and Development Organisation or DRDO's Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory.

[parshuram]

well .. well.. Few questions ?

1.) Why would Governemnet of india deny if the test was a failure, I mean in past few years the process has been transparent for the public for GSLV, A-3 and brahoms etc etc failures ..
Why not accept the fact . It was way back in 1998 , india was not signing Nuclear deal then , Had acheived the objective to drag TSP in self dug economic ditch . We could have well continued with devolpments and would counducted another test down the line say 5 years... ? what actually make GOI to lie ...?

2.) what are the impications if Sr. DRDO scientist is true , With US nuclear deal on i don't see india testing a bomb for atleast 10 years no matter it signs CTBT or not ..?Does that mean end of road... what is santham trying to say here ... i mean it has already been 11 years . if he really meant to take further the project why now ? why no then ..? was he woried the DRDO would stop his pension ?

[ramana]

I based my article on the radius of cavity that was printed in the BARC radiography paper which gives a second check of ~ 37kt. So its around the ballpark of what they stated. Looks like even that was fudged to keep the facade.

My doubts began in 2007 when someone posted what the ratio of the different stages are in an all up weapon. For a 200kt weapon the pry+secy works ~ 45kt. I thought it was too coincidental and had commented on that XLS spreadsheet. What I figured was that a ~200kt weapon was tested and the tertiary didn't work. Hence RC said they tested 45kt. Another nagging doubt was the shaft capability. In 1995 PVNR was ready to test but didn't so these folks could proof the TN version when ready. So that means the shaft is capable for an all up weapon and only a newbie would waste it to set off a smaller version. Later googling indicated the sixth test was for the same one and wisely it was scrubbed for it would have been a fizzle too and cant be masked with dual explosions as was done earlier.

However in 2003 India was ready to test and reports did say that. So what it means is they fixed it. Meantime the US dangled the NSSP and then the Deal to prevent testing.
Now BO doesn't want to carry the deal forth and is saying sing up. Its very courageous of the govt to let K Santhanam come out with this. Its courageous because its not just the TN but what else. So credibility is at stake. the US pressure must be tremendous to come clean like this.And then we don't know what Shyam Saran's take is on the US-PRC relationship aka G-2.

K Santhanam is babu first and last. He is revealing this probably under guidance. Even as late as June 2009 he was at IDSA talking about this and that.

So MMS/DBs are throwing a glove/gauntlet to BO.

BTW noting is gained by tarring the scientists. They did what they had to do with the resources and capabilities. And the politicians had to announce the moratorium to prevent G-7 sanctions which were imposed anyway. LKA lalkaring TSP was a masterstroke for that made them reveal their purloined weapons and show they were not so innocent after all. So bash on regardless.
------------
What S-1 showed was
Fusion boosted fission primary worked.
The spark plug worked.
The secy didint stay together till it worked.
----------------------------------------

'Santhanam wrong on Pokhran II N-test'
27 Aug 2009, 1048 hrs IST
National Security Advisor under Vajpayee led NDA -- Brajesh Mishra on Thursday (August 27) rejected top nuclear scientist K Santhanam's charges that Pokhran II was unsuccessful. Speaking to TIMES NOW, the former NSA contradicts the senior scientist and DRDO representative's admission that the Pokhran II tests in 1998 might have been far from the success, they have been claimed to be.

He said, "Dr APJ Abdul Kalam who was scientific advisor to the Defence Minister in 1998 had openly said that the nuclear test in Pokharan in 1998 was enough and we could sign the Indo-US Nuclear deal. Dr Santhanam was working directly under Dr Kalam and both were present when Pokharan took place. That should answer any questions about the test."

However, Santhanam continues to stand by his remark on the nuclear test. In an exclusive conversation with TIMES NOW, K Santhanam has said that the yield of the thermonuclear explosions were actually much below expectations and the tests were perhaps more a fizzle rather than a big bang.

He said, "Based upon the seismic measurements and expert opinion from world over, it is clear that the yield in the thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was claimed. I think it is well documented and that is why I assert that India should not rush into signing the CTBT."

Sources claim that Santhanam had admitted that the test was a fizzle during a discussion on CTBT organised by IDSA.

K Santhanam has also emphasised the need for India to conduct more tests to improve its nuclear weapon programme. The test was said to have yielded 45 kilotons but was challenged by western experts who said it was not more than 20 KT.

Meanwhile, sources within the Defence Ministry said that India has a meaningful number of nuclear weapons and an effective delivery system to go with it. Sources also said that as a result, India has a nuclear deterrent that is adequate for its security.

The exact yield of the thermonuclear explosion is important as during the heated debate on the India-US nuclear deal, it was argued by the government's top scientists that no more tests were required for the weapons programme. It was said the disincentives the nuclear deal imposed on testing would not really matter as further tests were not required.

India conducted 5 nuclear tests at the Pokhran test range, three of which were conducted on May 11 and two on May 13, 1998. The team which conducted tests was headed by Rajagopala Chidambaram and the Device was developed at the Defence Research and Development Organisation or DRDO's Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory.

[svinayak]

Shri K Santhanam has a plaque in his drawing room, which states that he was the "Leader of the Shakti Campaign"; I have a 'photouaa' (sic) of that.

So he was not just part of the test team, he headed that team.

But I may have heard from another paanwalla what he has or does not have in his drawing room.

When I met him the discussion did not go this topic. But he has done great service to the country

[Gagan]

Why would Governemnet of india deny if the test was a failure, I mean in past few years the process has been transparent for the public for GSLV, A-3 and brahoms etc etc failures ..

Please note the difference between the above. A GSLV failure can't be hidden because it is a civilian program with the media around. GoI tries to hide Agni / Brahmos failure, until these are rectified and re-tested.
This is what GoI tried to do wrt Pok-II. Hide the failure until the retest. Problem is that the re-test is not happening. The senior scientists who failed on that day want to see this through, this blemish removed. Because even if you and I don't know about it, their peer group knows the truth, their conscience knows.

[ramana]

Brajesh Mishra should shut-up. He was the PM's point man on this tests and he could not force RC to address the peer review that was demanded by other BARC scientists. As the PM's secy on this front he did not perform as required.

[SSridhar]

Reaction from Defence Ministry
N-strength sufficient: Defence Ministry

The Defence Ministry's clarification in fact confirms the failure of the TN test.

[bhart]

To follow up on Ramana's post,

The US may have no nuclear trade with India - T P Sreenivasan

The new strategy in the US will mean the emergence of tough choices for India in the years ahead. Once the US is out of any obsession with the attractions of nuclear trade with India, it will be more direct in pursuing its non-proliferation objectives with India.

When the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) are mature for ratification by India, the pressure on us will be very great indeed.

[Gagan]

Old article from Arms control wonk:
The Bomb, Dmitry. The Hydrogen Bomb.

India claimed that it detonated three devices on 11 May 1998 at Pokhran (right)—a 43-kiloton thermonuclear explosion, a 12-kiloton fission explosion and a 0.2-kiloton fission explosion. (India then claims to have conducted low yield tests on 13 May 1998.)

Seismic analyses (particularly Wallace et al) conclude the cumulative yield for the 11 May tests was only 12-kilotons. A yield that low is probably “too small to have been a full test of a thermonuclear weapon”—suggesting the test fizzled.

The US intelligence community reportedly shares this conclusion. Govenment officials told Mark Hibbs of Nucleonics Week that analysts from Livermore’s Z Division “have now concluded that the second stage of a two-stage Indian hydrogen bomb device failed to ignite as planned.” Subsequently, “senior U.S. expert” confirmed to Hibbs that this account was correct.

Indian scientists have been quick to dispute these estimates, arguing that Western scientists have made inaccurate assumptions about the geography of the Indian test site. This argument has always struck me as unconvincing, in part because of data that has been presented from the 1974 test.

A former chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission, PK Iyengar, has used calculations similar to those of Wallace et al to suggest that the second stage of the two-stage thermonuclear weapon failed to ignite—“the fusion core burnt only partially, perhaps less than 10 per cent.” Iyengar, however, has an axe to grind—he wants India to resume nuclear testing.

“Because H-Bomb Fuel Didn’t Burn, Iyengar Pleads For Second Test,”

[John Snow]

on this count ramana garu has been consitent, his posting gives me some sleep as it is 2.00 am, even though my liquor rack full with SA wine, and BA inflight purchases, unlike surya garu I dont want hit the bottle but open the bottle when our Scientists deliver. First and foremost truth should not suppressed in sceince matters. The difference between us and TSporkis will diminsh. But BARC is lot more bluster these days. Even 1974 data was all inflated and later admited to be so.

Like wise IA generals also should prop up the spine and stand up to GOI on certain strateic matters. The world is very well connected and cheating is easily to be caught. The ordinary sepoy is well informed to pull fast ones.

[Arun_S]

Brajesh Mishra should shut-up. He was the PM's point man on this tests and he could not force RC to address the peer review that was demanded by other BARC scientists. As the PM's secy on this front he did not perform as required.

Every word said above is appropriate.

[SwamyG]

I remember we had a truly divided elite in those nuclear thread discussions. I also thought there were few gurus who had initially supported the deal and then later opposed the deal. We are the 21st century sons onlee, we don't take care of our matas - including Bharat Mata. Hopefully some daughters now step in.

[Gagan]

SwamyG,
Too much code - unable to decipher. Are you calling on Priyanka Gandhi to join politics as a 21st century avatar of IG?

Yay! I hit the 500 mark with this post!

[John Snow]

Shri K Santhanam has a plaque in his drawing room, which states that he was the "Leader of the Shakti Campaign"; I have a 'photouaa' (sic) of that.

So he was not just part of the test team, he headed that team.

But I may have heard from another paanwalla what he has or does not have in his drawing room.

When I met him the discussion did not go this topic. But he has done great service to the country

Unfortunately Santhanam garu never met me, to broach this subject, but I applaud his standing up, yes he has done great service to the nation.

[Gagan]

The only real solution to this is to proof test a reworked design.
I hope our scientists now don't back down and say that LIF will also do, or that given adequate computing power we can be 99.9999999999999% sure onlee.