- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 18,277
- Likes
- 56,182
Somebody is jealous because we're'nt creating such discussion about Israel.
Estimation of Indian Nuclear Arsenal.- Present and Future
- Thread starter Yusuf
- Start date
warrior monk
Regular Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 650
- Likes
- 1,114
Cross posting from my own post pertinent to this thread
India's ICF facility
Experiments both on direct drive and indirect-drive targets which includes random phase plate , spectral dispersion , induced spatial incoherence etc for direct drive and ion beams to X-ray conversion for uniform radiation conversion for indirect drive experiments.
The Laser matter interaction Group of BARC, has been involved in studies of extremely high temperature laser-produced plasmas and ultra-high pressure laser-driven shock waves.
Barc has developed LTE and non-LTE models for radiation hydrodynamics. Radiation opacities and emissivities are essential data for any high density high temperature plasma
simulations and have developed computational model for themwhich are used to investigate the opacities of composite targets . Barc Nd:Glass laser chain capable of producing laser pulses of 300-800 picoseconds duration and maximum single pulse energy the focused laser intensity on targets is in the range > 10 ^15 W/Cm2 which enebles us to study the hydrodynamic phenomena and diagnostics used to study such plasma .
Dr Santhanam's objection to India's POK1 test results
What Santhanam said was partly true and partly hyperbole . He was true when he said that 30 to 40 % of lithium 6 secondary was left which was true in fact I would be suprised if we had more than 40 % secondary burn . His claim of not giving a yield of 55kt for 11 th may was because the Shaft was not completely destroyed .
The Shaft will be destroyed when the nuclear explosive is shallowly buried and it happen by two ways the confinement of the soil above causes more energy to be directed downward enhancing the compaction process, and at the same time the confining soil is blown upwards and outwards by the expanding gas, most of it falling to earth some distance from the craters.
It all depends upon burial depth which is directly proportional to confinement effect and the amount of material lofted by the upwardly expanding gases. The average velocity of the material propelled upwards decreases as its mass increases but at high burial depth and fired near water table the destruction of shaft is not possible especially for a 43 kt device.
As scaled depths become greater the shock acceleration decreases and the spalling effect weakens and no retarc is formed or shafts destroyed.
Second the nuclear yield seismic results by sikka et al of regional Lg and Rayleigh wave.
The Mb , Ms and yield M=C1 +C2LogY where Y is yield where C1 and C2 are site specific and factoring in the destructive interference due to two devices being fired simultaneously suitable changes were have to be made in Mb calculation.
The second method post shot radioactivity using gamma-ray spectrometric measurements for the gamma-ray peaks due to fission and activation products. The measured radioactivities of fission products were used to arrive at the number of fission per gram of the sample using the appropriate fission yields , the activity of these 14 MeV neutron activation products and the isotopes were done and found to be 50 kt +-10 for POK1.
The fission to fusion products could not be provided as it would reveal bomb signature .
The CORRTEX result also used for yield calculation was also not reveled due to classified nature of it.
Now comming to Santhanam’s allegation of incomplete lithium 6 burn which is correct by the way which still dosen’t prove we don’t have a thermonuclear weapon . Even one percent secondary burn is thermonuclear but its not a clean device Santhanam says we had 30 % lithium 6 left over which means 70 % burnt and then he claims we don’t have staged radiation implosion device is outrageous.
With even 50 % lithium 6 burn and boosting it with fissile tamper ( which we probably didn’t use in 98) and improved radiation transport which our KALI flash X-ray system in our hydrodynamic test facility I don’t see why we can’t get 200 kt device hell even higher upto 500 kt but due to lack of testing it will consume large number of fissile material and will be heavier which Agni -5 may not be able to launch.
Complete testing of the complete warhead will always throw a nasty suprise but 95% of the work can be done in a laboratory . Most of the great powers like US haven't tested in nearly 30 years the half life of tritium for warhead boosting is 12.5 years which is used in primary by every country having thermonuclear weapons including India , US even might have brought tritium gas from India for its thermonuclear weapons as India is the largest producer of tritium gas in the world . That means every country will have ti dis assemble their thermonuclear weapons every weapons every 12.5 years otherwise they might fizzle. So all weapons created in 1970s and even 1980s which is 95 % of all the warheads by the p5 countries is in doubt if the warheads are not dis assembled and retested in laboratory condition.
As far as megatonne yield nuclear warhead is considered only 5 % or even less that of American warheads is more than one megatonne yield and its reliability reduces after 30 years or so as it is a multistage device Everyone has to find a way to component test their device in laboratory . .
We actually have two systems
1 ) Single burst KALI -5000 (No it is not a flying dildo or an imaginary laser to shoot down ICBMs which kids in defence forums talk about or defence journalist create make belief weapon out off)
Kali is a VIRCATOR which we started to build in 1980 or 1982 which gives rise to an oscillation of electrons between the cathode and virtual cathode it is used to generate flash X-Rays which your Chinese system seems to do albeit in a different way Power rating is nearly similar.
An old early1990s pic leaked about it it is much advanced now.
2) We also have a LIA project which works in pulse power mode mode as of 2007 it was 40% complete .
with satisfactory performance of all the sub-systems including solid state power modulator, amorphous core based pulsed transformers, magnetic switches, water capacitors, water pulse- forming line, induction adder and field-emission diode . Its development started in 1980s . currently it is not complete kudos to China for completing your project we will take another 6 to 8 years atleast to complete.
Don't worry we are planning to bridge even that gap as our hydrodynamic simulation is being done which is fairly advanced and databases on equation of state, particle interaction cross-sections , radiative opacity etc is going on . Once these we will be able to bridge the gap . The most important thing in a thermonuclear bomb is radiative transfer of power from primary to secondary which implodes the secondary by breaching the coulomb barrier without destroying it with the energy of primary which we can work in the lab we can create the radiation shock which compresses and pushes the tamper inward , this shock will be created in lab we will compress deuterium in lab without using primary this system will allowing the compression shock to converge in the center of the fuel, creating extremely high temperatures and in a very small volume of fuel. A combustion wave then spreads from the center to the remaining fuel in the near future completing the full 100 % don't worry.
Super computers with the help of the above equipment can and will generate data points which you can get from million tests in a few days that doesn't mean any country with super computers will be able to do that actually they require those high technology laborataries and mathematical and theoretical physics modelling groups to do that. Actually it is much much much easier to test a thermo nuclear weapon minus sanctions then build such top notch equipment and labs which only very very few countries can build .
Only two countries in Asia have such facilities and groups China and India . Japan and South Korea also are working on something like that but they have no military dimension so I am not including them.
India's ICF facility
Experiments both on direct drive and indirect-drive targets which includes random phase plate , spectral dispersion , induced spatial incoherence etc for direct drive and ion beams to X-ray conversion for uniform radiation conversion for indirect drive experiments.
The Laser matter interaction Group of BARC, has been involved in studies of extremely high temperature laser-produced plasmas and ultra-high pressure laser-driven shock waves.
Barc has developed LTE and non-LTE models for radiation hydrodynamics. Radiation opacities and emissivities are essential data for any high density high temperature plasma
simulations and have developed computational model for themwhich are used to investigate the opacities of composite targets . Barc Nd:Glass laser chain capable of producing laser pulses of 300-800 picoseconds duration and maximum single pulse energy the focused laser intensity on targets is in the range > 10 ^15 W/Cm2 which enebles us to study the hydrodynamic phenomena and diagnostics used to study such plasma .
Dr Santhanam's objection to India's POK1 test results
What Santhanam said was partly true and partly hyperbole . He was true when he said that 30 to 40 % of lithium 6 secondary was left which was true in fact I would be suprised if we had more than 40 % secondary burn . His claim of not giving a yield of 55kt for 11 th may was because the Shaft was not completely destroyed .
The Shaft will be destroyed when the nuclear explosive is shallowly buried and it happen by two ways the confinement of the soil above causes more energy to be directed downward enhancing the compaction process, and at the same time the confining soil is blown upwards and outwards by the expanding gas, most of it falling to earth some distance from the craters.
It all depends upon burial depth which is directly proportional to confinement effect and the amount of material lofted by the upwardly expanding gases. The average velocity of the material propelled upwards decreases as its mass increases but at high burial depth and fired near water table the destruction of shaft is not possible especially for a 43 kt device.
As scaled depths become greater the shock acceleration decreases and the spalling effect weakens and no retarc is formed or shafts destroyed.
Second the nuclear yield seismic results by sikka et al of regional Lg and Rayleigh wave.
The Mb , Ms and yield M=C1 +C2LogY where Y is yield where C1 and C2 are site specific and factoring in the destructive interference due to two devices being fired simultaneously suitable changes were have to be made in Mb calculation.
The second method post shot radioactivity using gamma-ray spectrometric measurements for the gamma-ray peaks due to fission and activation products. The measured radioactivities of fission products were used to arrive at the number of fission per gram of the sample using the appropriate fission yields , the activity of these 14 MeV neutron activation products and the isotopes were done and found to be 50 kt +-10 for POK1.
The fission to fusion products could not be provided as it would reveal bomb signature .
The CORRTEX result also used for yield calculation was also not reveled due to classified nature of it.
Now comming to Santhanam’s allegation of incomplete lithium 6 burn which is correct by the way which still dosen’t prove we don’t have a thermonuclear weapon . Even one percent secondary burn is thermonuclear but its not a clean device Santhanam says we had 30 % lithium 6 left over which means 70 % burnt and then he claims we don’t have staged radiation implosion device is outrageous.
With even 50 % lithium 6 burn and boosting it with fissile tamper ( which we probably didn’t use in 98) and improved radiation transport which our KALI flash X-ray system in our hydrodynamic test facility I don’t see why we can’t get 200 kt device hell even higher upto 500 kt but due to lack of testing it will consume large number of fissile material and will be heavier which Agni -5 may not be able to launch.
Complete testing of the complete warhead will always throw a nasty suprise but 95% of the work can be done in a laboratory . Most of the great powers like US haven't tested in nearly 30 years the half life of tritium for warhead boosting is 12.5 years which is used in primary by every country having thermonuclear weapons including India , US even might have brought tritium gas from India for its thermonuclear weapons as India is the largest producer of tritium gas in the world . That means every country will have ti dis assemble their thermonuclear weapons every weapons every 12.5 years otherwise they might fizzle. So all weapons created in 1970s and even 1980s which is 95 % of all the warheads by the p5 countries is in doubt if the warheads are not dis assembled and retested in laboratory condition.
As far as megatonne yield nuclear warhead is considered only 5 % or even less that of American warheads is more than one megatonne yield and its reliability reduces after 30 years or so as it is a multistage device Everyone has to find a way to component test their device in laboratory . .
We actually have two systems
1 ) Single burst KALI -5000 (No it is not a flying dildo or an imaginary laser to shoot down ICBMs which kids in defence forums talk about or defence journalist create make belief weapon out off)
Kali is a VIRCATOR which we started to build in 1980 or 1982 which gives rise to an oscillation of electrons between the cathode and virtual cathode it is used to generate flash X-Rays which your Chinese system seems to do albeit in a different way Power rating is nearly similar.
An old early1990s pic leaked about it it is much advanced now.
2) We also have a LIA project which works in pulse power mode mode as of 2007 it was 40% complete .
with satisfactory performance of all the sub-systems including solid state power modulator, amorphous core based pulsed transformers, magnetic switches, water capacitors, water pulse- forming line, induction adder and field-emission diode . Its development started in 1980s . currently it is not complete kudos to China for completing your project we will take another 6 to 8 years atleast to complete.
Don't worry we are planning to bridge even that gap as our hydrodynamic simulation is being done which is fairly advanced and databases on equation of state, particle interaction cross-sections , radiative opacity etc is going on . Once these we will be able to bridge the gap . The most important thing in a thermonuclear bomb is radiative transfer of power from primary to secondary which implodes the secondary by breaching the coulomb barrier without destroying it with the energy of primary which we can work in the lab we can create the radiation shock which compresses and pushes the tamper inward , this shock will be created in lab we will compress deuterium in lab without using primary this system will allowing the compression shock to converge in the center of the fuel, creating extremely high temperatures and in a very small volume of fuel. A combustion wave then spreads from the center to the remaining fuel in the near future completing the full 100 % don't worry.
Super computers with the help of the above equipment can and will generate data points which you can get from million tests in a few days that doesn't mean any country with super computers will be able to do that actually they require those high technology laborataries and mathematical and theoretical physics modelling groups to do that. Actually it is much much much easier to test a thermo nuclear weapon minus sanctions then build such top notch equipment and labs which only very very few countries can build .
Only two countries in Asia have such facilities and groups China and India . Japan and South Korea also are working on something like that but they have no military dimension so I am not including them.
warrior monk
Regular Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 650
- Likes
- 1,114
This is as far 200 kt warhead is concerned
Actual test has been done what is currently being done is maintaining the plutonium pit in primary , testing of spark plugs in secondary , radiative transfer to the imploding capsule through the hohlraum also secondary , Checking the radiation shield , the tamper (Both fissile and non fissile ) , thermodynamics of radiation inside hohlraum and what kind of material it should be made up off so that it is perfectly opaque etc
Except the secondary problem of ignition all can be tested even without supercomputers in specialised labs . The secondary problem of ignition is highly calculation intensive like fissile core compression , implosion of the fusion fuel increases the density of the fuel mass as measured by neutron collision mean free paths. The neutrons released by the fusion reactions will thus undergo more collisions before they can reach the tamper , the starting of the reaction , the maintenance of radiative energy and shock waves from the primary as radiative energy needs to reach earlier, once the fuel start getting consumed energy is released then this is where the hydrodynamic phenomena begins , the most important part. All of these and more will be completely simulated in the lab and are being done except the hydrodynamic phenomena of implosion of secondary due to ablation heating and compression of tamper which will be done in 5 to 6 years when this ICF facility attains full power .
The only thing which India cannot do without testing is to change the design of warheads for say a megatonne yield weapon without consuming outrageous amount of of fissile material which will make it very very heavy which India cannot deploy .
From the POK1 design 200 kt warheads have already being designed many in number and many more will be made . Our 200 kt warhead will probably weigh 1 tonne or more while US W-88 475 kt warhead weighs 225 kgs only . That is the difference of testing between US and Indian warheads , though US has even larger warheads with increase in staging it will make it even difficult to maintain as simulations go more complicated.
Actual test has been done what is currently being done is maintaining the plutonium pit in primary , testing of spark plugs in secondary , radiative transfer to the imploding capsule through the hohlraum also secondary , Checking the radiation shield , the tamper (Both fissile and non fissile ) , thermodynamics of radiation inside hohlraum and what kind of material it should be made up off so that it is perfectly opaque etc
Except the secondary problem of ignition all can be tested even without supercomputers in specialised labs . The secondary problem of ignition is highly calculation intensive like fissile core compression , implosion of the fusion fuel increases the density of the fuel mass as measured by neutron collision mean free paths. The neutrons released by the fusion reactions will thus undergo more collisions before they can reach the tamper , the starting of the reaction , the maintenance of radiative energy and shock waves from the primary as radiative energy needs to reach earlier, once the fuel start getting consumed energy is released then this is where the hydrodynamic phenomena begins , the most important part. All of these and more will be completely simulated in the lab and are being done except the hydrodynamic phenomena of implosion of secondary due to ablation heating and compression of tamper which will be done in 5 to 6 years when this ICF facility attains full power .
The only thing which India cannot do without testing is to change the design of warheads for say a megatonne yield weapon without consuming outrageous amount of of fissile material which will make it very very heavy which India cannot deploy .
From the POK1 design 200 kt warheads have already being designed many in number and many more will be made . Our 200 kt warhead will probably weigh 1 tonne or more while US W-88 475 kt warhead weighs 225 kgs only . That is the difference of testing between US and Indian warheads , though US has even larger warheads with increase in staging it will make it even difficult to maintain as simulations go more complicated.
warrior monk
Regular Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 650
- Likes
- 1,114
@HariPrasad-1 Here is why we cannot make 700 warheads a year
700 warheads is not possible as it would require nearly 3.5 tonnes of WG plutonium per year which will require 3000 MT Uranium which would be tough , plus we are going slow on our breeder reactors as liquid metal cooled reactors are tough to make only two countries have success in this reactor one is Russia and another India .Continuously chopping the radial and axial blankets would would have to be topped off by MOX fuel to not to hamper the reactor working which will consume our reactor grade plutonium , doing that with one to two reactors is possible but anymore than that will not be possible so there will be inherent trade off between military and civilian usage.
Running partial core plutonium breeding cycle will give us 100 to 190 warheads annually which will be better and less taxing than processing the radial and axial blankets and than topping them off .
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...er-2-000-nuclear-warheads.70264/#post-1076559
700 warheads is not possible as it would require nearly 3.5 tonnes of WG plutonium per year which will require 3000 MT Uranium which would be tough , plus we are going slow on our breeder reactors as liquid metal cooled reactors are tough to make only two countries have success in this reactor one is Russia and another India .Continuously chopping the radial and axial blankets would would have to be topped off by MOX fuel to not to hamper the reactor working which will consume our reactor grade plutonium , doing that with one to two reactors is possible but anymore than that will not be possible so there will be inherent trade off between military and civilian usage.
Running partial core plutonium breeding cycle will give us 100 to 190 warheads annually which will be better and less taxing than processing the radial and axial blankets and than topping them off .
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...er-2-000-nuclear-warheads.70264/#post-1076559
warrior monk
Regular Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 650
- Likes
- 1,114
And why the 2000 bomb fissile material is crap peddled by Pak and my rebuttal
Pu-240 contributes 360 neutrons per second per g of Reactor grade plutonium compared to about about 66 neutrons per second per g of Weapons grade Pu which makes it a significant risk of pre detonation plus weapons grade plutonium are tough to machine it into a pit due to high neutron content , these fools don't even understand how an implosion device operates.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...er-2-000-nuclear-warheads.70264/#post-1076559
Which was also rebutted today in the article posted in IDRW which was posted earlier.
Pu-240 contributes 360 neutrons per second per g of Reactor grade plutonium compared to about about 66 neutrons per second per g of Weapons grade Pu which makes it a significant risk of pre detonation plus weapons grade plutonium are tough to machine it into a pit due to high neutron content , these fools don't even understand how an implosion device operates.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...er-2-000-nuclear-warheads.70264/#post-1076559
Which was also rebutted today in the article posted in IDRW which was posted earlier.
@warrior monk .As far as I remember, all these statements were made against some statement passed by someone named no smoking. Am I right?
warrior monk
Regular Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 650
- Likes
- 1,114
Yup , He had lots of doubts and still has about our POK1 test and our strategic missiles and our capability for stockpile stewardship.
warrior monk
Regular Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 650
- Likes
- 1,114
POK1 test seismic results
Falguni Roy†, G. J. Nair†, T. K. Basu†,
S. K. Sikka†,‡, Anil Kakodkar†,
R. Chidambaram†, S. N. Bhattacharya* and
V. S. Ramamurthy
This paper presents the analysis of regional Lg and Rayleigh wave data pertaining to the Indian explosions of 11 May 1998 (POK2). Strong Lg and Rayleigh waves have been recorded at several in-country stations. A comparison of Lg waves at Gauribidanur array (GBA), India corresponding to POK2 and that of the Indian explosion of May 1974 (POK1) shows an amplitude ratio of 3.7 between these events. This leads to a yield ratio of 4.83 between the two events. Analysis of Rayleigh waves revealed that Nuttli’s relation for estimation of surface wave magnitude (Ms) in the period range 3.0–12.0 s based on eastern North American data is also applicable for the Indian region. The average Ms value of POK2 from regional data is obtained as 3.56. The yield estimate of POK2 as obtained from the regional data analysis is found consistent with our earlier findings and the post shot radiochemical measurements.
THREE nuclear explosives were detonated by India on 11 May 1998 at the Pokhran test site in Rajasthan. These explosions, comprising a thermonuclear device, a fission device and a subkiloton device emplaced in spatially separated shafts1, were triggered simultaneously. The seismic waves generated by these explosions were recorded at a large number of regional and teleseismic stations. The combined yield of the two large explosions (POK2) was estimated earlier1–3 using the following methods:
(1) By selecting the global bodywave magnitude (mb) estimates corresponding to the constructively interfered signals from the simultaneous explosions of POK2 and using a mb versus yield relation appropriate for the
Pokhran test site2; (2) By comparing the global mb estimates of 18 May 1974 explosion (POK1, used as a calibration event) with those of POK2 as recorded at eight common stations3; (3) By using the surface wave magnitude (Ms) estimates3 and Murphy’s relation4 for Ms‡For correspondence (e-mail: [email protected])
versus yield; (4) By comparing the acceleration values corresponding to POK2 with those of the explosions conducted in similar geological conditions3.
All the above methods consistently gave yield estimates of 58 ± 5 kt (refs 2, 3). This estimate is in agreement with the yield of the thermonuclear device of POK2 obtained as 50 ± 10 kt from the post shot radio-chemical analysis5.
In this paper we report the analysis of regional Lg and Rayleigh wave data corresponding to the POK2 explosions. The inference drawn on the combined yield of the POK2 explosions based on various magnitude estimates is also summarized.
The seismic Lg wave is one of the many regional phases that propagates in the continental lithosphere. The Lg or the surface shear wave is a wave-train observed on all three components of ground motion and propagates in a crustal wave guide. The initial periods of these waves are about 0.5–6.0 s with a sharp commencement. In general, the amplitude of Lg phase at regional distances is larger than any other conventional phases for the continental paths. The group velocity of Lg waves near its onset is about 3.5 km/s. Due to the isotropic nature of Lg wave radiation pattern, reliable magnitude determination can be made from the data of only a small number of stations6,7. A single station with good signal to noise ratio (SNR) can provide mb (Lg) measurements with an accuracy (one standard deviation) of about 0.03 magnitude units8. Therefore, Lg signals appear to provide an excellent basis for supplying
estimates of the yields of nuclear explosions even down to below 1 kt, when such signals are recorded at high quality digital, in-country seismic stations, and when calibrated by access to independent yield information for a few nuclear explosions at the test sites of interest.
Nuttli6 proposed that, since Lg represents a higher mode wave travelling with minimum group velocity, it would be appropriate to relate Lg wave amplitude (A) and distance (D ) by the following equation:
A = K× D –1/3(sin(D ))–1/2exp(–g D ), (1)
which is also the expression for the amplitude of dispersed surface waves measured in the time domain corresponding to the Airy phase9. In eq. (1), K is a constant governed by the source strength and g is the anelastic attenuation coefficient which is related to specific quality factor Q by Q = p /UTg , where U is the group velocity and T is the period of the wave. In order to obtain the value of mb (Lg) it will be necessary to estimate g for a particular source–receiver path. There are several methods for estimating g , however, we have followed the one used by Nuttli6. Having estimated g , mb (Lg) can be obtained from the relation10,
mb(Lg) = 3.81 + 0.831 log10D +
g (D – 0.09)log10e + log10A, (2)
where D is in degrees and A corresponds to amplitude in microns at signal periods close to 1 second.
The POK2 test site and the stations used in the present study are shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 a shows the broad-band seismogram as recorded at Bhopal observatory (BHPL), a station run by the India Meteorological Department (IMD), India. Clear Lg and Rayleigh waves with high SNR are seen in the seismogram. It may be interesting to point out here that though the Nilore station in Pakistan (NIL, an international monitoring station) is situated at a similar distance (D = 6.68° ) from the POK2 site when compared to BHPL (D = 6.34° ), the Lg wave on NIL record is highly attenuated (SNR = 3.8, see Figure 2 b) in comparison to that on BHPL record (SNR = 78). This shows that Lg wave attenuation along the path between NIL and POK2 site is much higher than that along the path between BHPL and POK2 site. The large variations in the amplitudes of the Lg waves at BHPL and NIL which is located in Himalayas, may be attributed to the different geologic and tectonic settings of these locations. The mb (Lg) estimates as obtained from three IMD stations, viz. BHPL (Bhopal), POO (Pune), BLSP (Bilaspur), and GBA (Gauribidanur array) are listed in Table 1. The average mb (Lg) estimate from these stations is obtained as 5.47 with a standard deviation of 0.06. The low value of standard deviation
Figure 1. Map showing the POK2 site and the stations used in the present study.
implies that the average value of Q0 (Q at 1 Hz) is approximately constant over an area containing the epicenter and the stations lying in the azimuth range of 115.7° to 167.4° . It may be noted (Figure 3) that the Trivandrum observatory (TRVM, D = 19.12° ) of the IMD recorded strong Lg waves of ~4 s period on LP seismograms. As the short period data from TRVM is not available, estimation of mb (Lg) using 1 s period Lg wave could not be done. Nevertheless, the amplitude of 4 s period Lg wave is apparently consistent with the average mb (Lg) estimate as obtained from data at the other four stations. However, the Ajmer observatory (AJM, D = 2.57° ) of the IMD recorded much attenuated Lg waves compared to the other five stations. This could be due to its proximity to the Aravali ranges. Thus, the path between the POK2 site and AJM is characterized by a higher g value than that of the other five stations. This is not surprising due to the fact that a similar phenomenon related to the Lg wave attenuation has been observed in North America6 and Middle East11. In view of the above, we feel that the data of AJM should be analysed separately by using the coda of the Lg wave12.
Figure 4 shows the short period seismogram of GBA. The GBA seismogram, like that of BHPL, also has very strong Lg wave. From GBA data the amplitude ratio of Lg waves between POK2 and POK1 (ref. 13) at 1 s period is obtained as 3.7 which gives the difference in magnitudes (D mb(Lg)) between these two events as 0.57.
For POK2, very few stations at teleseismic distances have reported Ms estimates based on the amplitude around 20 s period. To be precise, there were only four teleseismic Ms observations when compared to 160 observations corresponding to mb as reported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the International Data Center (IDC), USA and the Kyrgyz network (KNET). However, at the regional distances (D < 20° )
Rayleigh waves in the period range 3.5–7.0 s with high SNR have been observed at several stations. The Rayleigh wave detection capability is sensitive to rapidly changing noise levels and signal interference.
Nuttli6 in his study with central US earthquakes noted that though the Rayleigh waves of 3–12 s periods at regional distances yielded Ms value as high as 4.08 no teleseismic surface waves of 20 s period were detectable for a given event. Nuttli concluded that 20 s period waves for this event were too small to be observed at large distances and the microseismic level was also too high.
The average surface wave magnitude for POK2 using the four teleseismic observations of the USGS is obtained as 3.57 based on the formula adopted by the International Association for Seismology and the Physics of the Earth’s Interior (IASPEI)14. Using the value of Ms = 3.57 and the regional data from six stations corresponding to POK2 having signal periods between 3.5 and 7.0 s, a relation for Ms (authors) is obtained as
Ms = 2.75 + 1.51 log (D ) + log(A/T)max. (3)
For regional distances between 2° and 20° . Nuttli6 has proposed the formula
Ms = 2.6 + 1.66 log(D ) + log(A/T)max, (4)
where D is in degrees and (A/T)max is the maximum value of A/T in microns per second (A is zero to peak value) for vertical component of Rayleigh waves having periods between 3 and 12 s. Nuttli has used eastern North American data for arriving at the above relation. The Ms estimates obtained using these two relations are listed in Table 2. It may be seen that both the estimates are extremely close to each other. Nuttli’s relation gives an average Ms value of 3.56. The estimates of standard deviations for Ms (authors) and Ms (Nuttli) are obtained as 0.259 and 0.263, respectively. As the difference between these standard deviations is very small, we conclude that Nuttli’s relation, which has been derived from the data of some independent events, is applicable for the Indian region as well.
The amount of energy transmitted as seismic energy due to an underground explosion is only a small fraction of the total energy. Further, the strength of the seismic signals generated also depends on the host medium. Moreover, the signals recorded at a seismic station depend not only on the above factors but also on the wave transmission characteristics of the path which varies from region to region. Therefore, in order to remove these uncertainties the strength of an explosion from seismic signals should be estimated in relation to a nearby calibration explosion, the yield of which is already known15. The ratio of yields between two explosions can be evaluated by using the difference in their magnitudes, D M, expressed as
D M = C log(Y/YC), (5)
where Y and YC are the yields of the given explosion and the calibration explosion, respectively and C is a constant.
The value of D mb (Lg) = 0.57 at GBA together with a value of C = 0.833 corresponding to unsaturated
material7 gives the yield ratio between POK2 and POK1 as 4.83 based on Lg waves. This is almost close to the yield ratio of 4.46 obtained earlier from P wave data of eight global stations which were common to both the 1974 and 1998 events3. Using the reported yield of POK1 as 12 to 13 kt (refs 13, 16), the yield of POK2 based on D mb and D mb (Lg) values (Yp and Ylg, respectively) is obtained as 54 kt < Yp < 58 kt and 58 kt < Ylg < 63 kt, respectively. Combining these two estimates we get the yield, Y, of POK2 as 54 kt < Y < 63 kt. It may be added that the rock mechanics phenomenology calculations based on the reported yield of POK1 reproduced the measured cavity radius, spall velocity and the extent of the rock fracturing17. The reported yield of POK1 was also found consistent with the analysis of global data carried out by Marshall et al.18 and Bache19.
The average Ms value from six regional stations has been estimated as 3.56. Using Murphy’s relation between Ms and yield4 Ys, for less than 100 kt explosions,
Ms = 2.14 + 0.84 log (Ys), (6)
Ys for POK2 is obtained as 49 kt. However, relation of Evernden and Marsh20,
log (Ys) = 0.762 Ms – 1 (7)
which is applicable to explosions in hard rock anywhere, gives Ys as 52 kt.
The above yield estimates which are found consistent with the yield obtained from post shot radio-chemical analysis of rock samples show that the yield estimates of Barker et al.21 and Wallace22 are too low. The low yield values may be attributed to the fact that these authors have used only teleseismic P wave data and not taken into account the source geometry of POK2, source parameters and the site-specific geophysical parameters. Moreover, they have not used the global Ms observations for estimating the yield of POK2, as done by Evernden23, which lead to a value closer to our estimates.
After going through a detailed analysis of the data corresponding to POK2, the following conclusions are arrived at.
(1) At the regional distances, Lg waves having high SNR were observed at several stations. Average mb (Lg) obtained from such data was 5.47. Though the NIL station in Pakistan and BHPL in India are situated at similar distances from the POK2 site, the observed Lg wave amplitude at BHPL was much higher than that observed at NIL. It may be further emphasized that not only BHPL, but several other in-country stations including GBA have recorded Lg waves with high SNR. This suggests that the attenuation of Lg waves in the peninsular Indian region is, in general, lower than that along the path between NIL and POK2 site. The amplitude ratio of Lg waves at GBA between POK2 and POK1 at 1 s period was obtained as 3.7, resulting in an yield ratio of 4.83 between these events.
(2) Rayleigh waves observed at regional distances gave an average Ms = 3.56. For Indian region, Nuttli’s relation6 for estimating Ms based on 3–12 s period Rayleigh waves was found applicable.
(3) From D mb and D mb (Lg) values between POK2 and POK1, the yield of POK2 is estimated as 54 kt < Y < 63 kt in comparison to that of POK1 as 12 kt < Y < 13 kt.
In short, the yield estimates obtained from both teleseismic as well as regional data are consistent with each other and the estimates are in agreement with the radio-chemical analysis of rock samples recovered by post shot drillings.
Falguni Roy†, G. J. Nair†, T. K. Basu†,
S. K. Sikka†,‡, Anil Kakodkar†,
R. Chidambaram†, S. N. Bhattacharya* and
V. S. Ramamurthy
This paper presents the analysis of regional Lg and Rayleigh wave data pertaining to the Indian explosions of 11 May 1998 (POK2). Strong Lg and Rayleigh waves have been recorded at several in-country stations. A comparison of Lg waves at Gauribidanur array (GBA), India corresponding to POK2 and that of the Indian explosion of May 1974 (POK1) shows an amplitude ratio of 3.7 between these events. This leads to a yield ratio of 4.83 between the two events. Analysis of Rayleigh waves revealed that Nuttli’s relation for estimation of surface wave magnitude (Ms) in the period range 3.0–12.0 s based on eastern North American data is also applicable for the Indian region. The average Ms value of POK2 from regional data is obtained as 3.56. The yield estimate of POK2 as obtained from the regional data analysis is found consistent with our earlier findings and the post shot radiochemical measurements.
THREE nuclear explosives were detonated by India on 11 May 1998 at the Pokhran test site in Rajasthan. These explosions, comprising a thermonuclear device, a fission device and a subkiloton device emplaced in spatially separated shafts1, were triggered simultaneously. The seismic waves generated by these explosions were recorded at a large number of regional and teleseismic stations. The combined yield of the two large explosions (POK2) was estimated earlier1–3 using the following methods:
(1) By selecting the global bodywave magnitude (mb) estimates corresponding to the constructively interfered signals from the simultaneous explosions of POK2 and using a mb versus yield relation appropriate for the
Pokhran test site2; (2) By comparing the global mb estimates of 18 May 1974 explosion (POK1, used as a calibration event) with those of POK2 as recorded at eight common stations3; (3) By using the surface wave magnitude (Ms) estimates3 and Murphy’s relation4 for Ms‡For correspondence (e-mail: [email protected])
versus yield; (4) By comparing the acceleration values corresponding to POK2 with those of the explosions conducted in similar geological conditions3.
All the above methods consistently gave yield estimates of 58 ± 5 kt (refs 2, 3). This estimate is in agreement with the yield of the thermonuclear device of POK2 obtained as 50 ± 10 kt from the post shot radio-chemical analysis5.
In this paper we report the analysis of regional Lg and Rayleigh wave data corresponding to the POK2 explosions. The inference drawn on the combined yield of the POK2 explosions based on various magnitude estimates is also summarized.
The seismic Lg wave is one of the many regional phases that propagates in the continental lithosphere. The Lg or the surface shear wave is a wave-train observed on all three components of ground motion and propagates in a crustal wave guide. The initial periods of these waves are about 0.5–6.0 s with a sharp commencement. In general, the amplitude of Lg phase at regional distances is larger than any other conventional phases for the continental paths. The group velocity of Lg waves near its onset is about 3.5 km/s. Due to the isotropic nature of Lg wave radiation pattern, reliable magnitude determination can be made from the data of only a small number of stations6,7. A single station with good signal to noise ratio (SNR) can provide mb (Lg) measurements with an accuracy (one standard deviation) of about 0.03 magnitude units8. Therefore, Lg signals appear to provide an excellent basis for supplying
estimates of the yields of nuclear explosions even down to below 1 kt, when such signals are recorded at high quality digital, in-country seismic stations, and when calibrated by access to independent yield information for a few nuclear explosions at the test sites of interest.
Nuttli6 proposed that, since Lg represents a higher mode wave travelling with minimum group velocity, it would be appropriate to relate Lg wave amplitude (A) and distance (D ) by the following equation:
A = K× D –1/3(sin(D ))–1/2exp(–g D ), (1)
which is also the expression for the amplitude of dispersed surface waves measured in the time domain corresponding to the Airy phase9. In eq. (1), K is a constant governed by the source strength and g is the anelastic attenuation coefficient which is related to specific quality factor Q by Q = p /UTg , where U is the group velocity and T is the period of the wave. In order to obtain the value of mb (Lg) it will be necessary to estimate g for a particular source–receiver path. There are several methods for estimating g , however, we have followed the one used by Nuttli6. Having estimated g , mb (Lg) can be obtained from the relation10,
mb(Lg) = 3.81 + 0.831 log10D +
g (D – 0.09)log10e + log10A, (2)
where D is in degrees and A corresponds to amplitude in microns at signal periods close to 1 second.
The POK2 test site and the stations used in the present study are shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 a shows the broad-band seismogram as recorded at Bhopal observatory (BHPL), a station run by the India Meteorological Department (IMD), India. Clear Lg and Rayleigh waves with high SNR are seen in the seismogram. It may be interesting to point out here that though the Nilore station in Pakistan (NIL, an international monitoring station) is situated at a similar distance (D = 6.68° ) from the POK2 site when compared to BHPL (D = 6.34° ), the Lg wave on NIL record is highly attenuated (SNR = 3.8, see Figure 2 b) in comparison to that on BHPL record (SNR = 78). This shows that Lg wave attenuation along the path between NIL and POK2 site is much higher than that along the path between BHPL and POK2 site. The large variations in the amplitudes of the Lg waves at BHPL and NIL which is located in Himalayas, may be attributed to the different geologic and tectonic settings of these locations. The mb (Lg) estimates as obtained from three IMD stations, viz. BHPL (Bhopal), POO (Pune), BLSP (Bilaspur), and GBA (Gauribidanur array) are listed in Table 1. The average mb (Lg) estimate from these stations is obtained as 5.47 with a standard deviation of 0.06. The low value of standard deviation
Figure 1. Map showing the POK2 site and the stations used in the present study.
implies that the average value of Q0 (Q at 1 Hz) is approximately constant over an area containing the epicenter and the stations lying in the azimuth range of 115.7° to 167.4° . It may be noted (Figure 3) that the Trivandrum observatory (TRVM, D = 19.12° ) of the IMD recorded strong Lg waves of ~4 s period on LP seismograms. As the short period data from TRVM is not available, estimation of mb (Lg) using 1 s period Lg wave could not be done. Nevertheless, the amplitude of 4 s period Lg wave is apparently consistent with the average mb (Lg) estimate as obtained from data at the other four stations. However, the Ajmer observatory (AJM, D = 2.57° ) of the IMD recorded much attenuated Lg waves compared to the other five stations. This could be due to its proximity to the Aravali ranges. Thus, the path between the POK2 site and AJM is characterized by a higher g value than that of the other five stations. This is not surprising due to the fact that a similar phenomenon related to the Lg wave attenuation has been observed in North America6 and Middle East11. In view of the above, we feel that the data of AJM should be analysed separately by using the coda of the Lg wave12.
Figure 4 shows the short period seismogram of GBA. The GBA seismogram, like that of BHPL, also has very strong Lg wave. From GBA data the amplitude ratio of Lg waves between POK2 and POK1 (ref. 13) at 1 s period is obtained as 3.7 which gives the difference in magnitudes (D mb(Lg)) between these two events as 0.57.
For POK2, very few stations at teleseismic distances have reported Ms estimates based on the amplitude around 20 s period. To be precise, there were only four teleseismic Ms observations when compared to 160 observations corresponding to mb as reported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the International Data Center (IDC), USA and the Kyrgyz network (KNET). However, at the regional distances (D < 20° )
Rayleigh waves in the period range 3.5–7.0 s with high SNR have been observed at several stations. The Rayleigh wave detection capability is sensitive to rapidly changing noise levels and signal interference.
Nuttli6 in his study with central US earthquakes noted that though the Rayleigh waves of 3–12 s periods at regional distances yielded Ms value as high as 4.08 no teleseismic surface waves of 20 s period were detectable for a given event. Nuttli concluded that 20 s period waves for this event were too small to be observed at large distances and the microseismic level was also too high.
The average surface wave magnitude for POK2 using the four teleseismic observations of the USGS is obtained as 3.57 based on the formula adopted by the International Association for Seismology and the Physics of the Earth’s Interior (IASPEI)14. Using the value of Ms = 3.57 and the regional data from six stations corresponding to POK2 having signal periods between 3.5 and 7.0 s, a relation for Ms (authors) is obtained as
Ms = 2.75 + 1.51 log (D ) + log(A/T)max. (3)
For regional distances between 2° and 20° . Nuttli6 has proposed the formula
Ms = 2.6 + 1.66 log(D ) + log(A/T)max, (4)
where D is in degrees and (A/T)max is the maximum value of A/T in microns per second (A is zero to peak value) for vertical component of Rayleigh waves having periods between 3 and 12 s. Nuttli has used eastern North American data for arriving at the above relation. The Ms estimates obtained using these two relations are listed in Table 2. It may be seen that both the estimates are extremely close to each other. Nuttli’s relation gives an average Ms value of 3.56. The estimates of standard deviations for Ms (authors) and Ms (Nuttli) are obtained as 0.259 and 0.263, respectively. As the difference between these standard deviations is very small, we conclude that Nuttli’s relation, which has been derived from the data of some independent events, is applicable for the Indian region as well.
The amount of energy transmitted as seismic energy due to an underground explosion is only a small fraction of the total energy. Further, the strength of the seismic signals generated also depends on the host medium. Moreover, the signals recorded at a seismic station depend not only on the above factors but also on the wave transmission characteristics of the path which varies from region to region. Therefore, in order to remove these uncertainties the strength of an explosion from seismic signals should be estimated in relation to a nearby calibration explosion, the yield of which is already known15. The ratio of yields between two explosions can be evaluated by using the difference in their magnitudes, D M, expressed as
D M = C log(Y/YC), (5)
where Y and YC are the yields of the given explosion and the calibration explosion, respectively and C is a constant.
The value of D mb (Lg) = 0.57 at GBA together with a value of C = 0.833 corresponding to unsaturated
material7 gives the yield ratio between POK2 and POK1 as 4.83 based on Lg waves. This is almost close to the yield ratio of 4.46 obtained earlier from P wave data of eight global stations which were common to both the 1974 and 1998 events3. Using the reported yield of POK1 as 12 to 13 kt (refs 13, 16), the yield of POK2 based on D mb and D mb (Lg) values (Yp and Ylg, respectively) is obtained as 54 kt < Yp < 58 kt and 58 kt < Ylg < 63 kt, respectively. Combining these two estimates we get the yield, Y, of POK2 as 54 kt < Y < 63 kt. It may be added that the rock mechanics phenomenology calculations based on the reported yield of POK1 reproduced the measured cavity radius, spall velocity and the extent of the rock fracturing17. The reported yield of POK1 was also found consistent with the analysis of global data carried out by Marshall et al.18 and Bache19.
The average Ms value from six regional stations has been estimated as 3.56. Using Murphy’s relation between Ms and yield4 Ys, for less than 100 kt explosions,
Ms = 2.14 + 0.84 log (Ys), (6)
Ys for POK2 is obtained as 49 kt. However, relation of Evernden and Marsh20,
log (Ys) = 0.762 Ms – 1 (7)
which is applicable to explosions in hard rock anywhere, gives Ys as 52 kt.
The above yield estimates which are found consistent with the yield obtained from post shot radio-chemical analysis of rock samples show that the yield estimates of Barker et al.21 and Wallace22 are too low. The low yield values may be attributed to the fact that these authors have used only teleseismic P wave data and not taken into account the source geometry of POK2, source parameters and the site-specific geophysical parameters. Moreover, they have not used the global Ms observations for estimating the yield of POK2, as done by Evernden23, which lead to a value closer to our estimates.
After going through a detailed analysis of the data corresponding to POK2, the following conclusions are arrived at.
(1) At the regional distances, Lg waves having high SNR were observed at several stations. Average mb (Lg) obtained from such data was 5.47. Though the NIL station in Pakistan and BHPL in India are situated at similar distances from the POK2 site, the observed Lg wave amplitude at BHPL was much higher than that observed at NIL. It may be further emphasized that not only BHPL, but several other in-country stations including GBA have recorded Lg waves with high SNR. This suggests that the attenuation of Lg waves in the peninsular Indian region is, in general, lower than that along the path between NIL and POK2 site. The amplitude ratio of Lg waves at GBA between POK2 and POK1 at 1 s period was obtained as 3.7, resulting in an yield ratio of 4.83 between these events.
(2) Rayleigh waves observed at regional distances gave an average Ms = 3.56. For Indian region, Nuttli’s relation6 for estimating Ms based on 3–12 s period Rayleigh waves was found applicable.
(3) From D mb and D mb (Lg) values between POK2 and POK1, the yield of POK2 is estimated as 54 kt < Y < 63 kt in comparison to that of POK1 as 12 kt < Y < 13 kt.
In short, the yield estimates obtained from both teleseismic as well as regional data are consistent with each other and the estimates are in agreement with the radio-chemical analysis of rock samples recovered by post shot drillings.
warrior monk
Regular Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 650
- Likes
- 1,114
Reason for Western Bias for our test results.
Well the westerners are having some bias for our Mb ( body waves ) and Ms ( surface waves ) calculation
because Mb is calculated as Mb = log (A/T) + B.
where A and T are the amplitude and the period measured off long-period vertical component
seismic recordings in nanometers and seconds and B is a distance-dependent correction term which is where the discrepancy persists.
similarly for Ms calculation yield is calculated by Xa +Xblog10 Y= Mb where Xa and Xb vary with the geology of the particular site in our case Pokhran which is where they assumed while we had access to our site so our calculation is nearer to the truth.
Yield is also calculated from other methods are based on the radionuclide analysis of the nuclear byproducts of the explosion (by radiochemical methods) and measurements of the speed of the shockwave generated by the explosion in the surrounding rock (hydrodynamic methods) but here 's the catch
Neither radiochemical nor hydrodynamic methods are currently used by the United States to measure routinely the yields of other countries only for its own test plus they don't have any radiochemical arrays near India nor have they performed any noble gas test like radioxenon test to measure xenon concentration.
India has performed 4 different yield tests but only the seismic analysis is available in public because if any more information is revealed it would reveal our bomb signature.
So we can safely build and test upto 200 kt weapon design with the information of the above test .
We can design Mega tonne yield bomb of tellar ulam design but it would weigh 5 to 6 tonnes which is ridiculous
Well the westerners are having some bias for our Mb ( body waves ) and Ms ( surface waves ) calculation
because Mb is calculated as Mb = log (A/T) + B.
where A and T are the amplitude and the period measured off long-period vertical component
seismic recordings in nanometers and seconds and B is a distance-dependent correction term which is where the discrepancy persists.
similarly for Ms calculation yield is calculated by Xa +Xblog10 Y= Mb where Xa and Xb vary with the geology of the particular site in our case Pokhran which is where they assumed while we had access to our site so our calculation is nearer to the truth.
Yield is also calculated from other methods are based on the radionuclide analysis of the nuclear byproducts of the explosion (by radiochemical methods) and measurements of the speed of the shockwave generated by the explosion in the surrounding rock (hydrodynamic methods) but here 's the catch
Neither radiochemical nor hydrodynamic methods are currently used by the United States to measure routinely the yields of other countries only for its own test plus they don't have any radiochemical arrays near India nor have they performed any noble gas test like radioxenon test to measure xenon concentration.
India has performed 4 different yield tests but only the seismic analysis is available in public because if any more information is revealed it would reveal our bomb signature.
So we can safely build and test upto 200 kt weapon design with the information of the above test .
We can design Mega tonne yield bomb of tellar ulam design but it would weigh 5 to 6 tonnes which is ridiculous
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 18,277
- Likes
- 56,182
Well, there has been a claim of enough fissile material for 1000 nuclear warheads to be possessed by India.
Is that true?
warrior monk
Regular Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 650
- Likes
- 1,114
I think we should keep that a secret but rest assured we are far far more capable than Pakistan.
no smoking
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2009
- Messages
- 5,010
- Likes
- 2,308
It is just a myth as much as some claims that Chinese has 3000 nuclear warheads hiding in the tunnel. Check the following link:
http://fissilematerials.org/library/gfmr15.pdf
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/india-nuclear-disarmament/
Of course, if someone has different ideas based on the "secret" information they claimed, it is up to you to believe or not.
garg_bharat
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2015
- Messages
- 5,078
- Likes
- 10,139
India is likely to have a small number of warheads. 110-120 is a good number.
China is a black hole and nobody has good information on either Chinese intentions or Chinese nuclear posture.
China may have any number between 250 and 3000.
HariPrasad-1
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2016
- Messages
- 9,602
- Likes
- 21,068
See, We do not have information does not mean that we are at the 1998 stage now. In all fields , we have made a huge progress and we would have made similar progress in N Bomb field also. Infact making 1 and 3 MT H bombs are very much in our agenda. So we must have progressed in this are a also with same speed and vigor.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 18,277
- Likes
- 56,182
I didn't talk or China.
Anyway, true or not, preparing for war thinking that China really has 3000 nuclear warheads will e better insurance.
HariPrasad-1
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2016
- Messages
- 9,602
- Likes
- 21,068
Forget about Pakistan. It doesn't count. Where do we stand in comparison to Big 5?
garg_bharat
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2015
- Messages
- 5,078
- Likes
- 10,139
We do not maintain nuclear forces similar to any in P5. Our force is minimal and is according to stated objectives.
India does not depend on nuclear force for its security. The pillars of security remain the conventional forces and the Indian people.
There is no ambiguity about Indian force structure. It is well articulated and while not publically declared, not hidden either.
HariPrasad-1
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2016
- Messages
- 9,602
- Likes
- 21,068
No we must have matching power to protect our interest. Conventional weapons are meaningless against N weapon. With a lots of advancement in Super computing and simulations in last 2 decades, our H bomb design might have gone through a lots of design change and in all probability It would have been a great design by now.
garg_bharat
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2015
- Messages
- 5,078
- Likes
- 10,139
The concept of fighting with nuclear weapons is illogical and irrational.
Let us not get delusional with all this nuclear war stuff. Focus on development and quality of life.
We must train more people in using arms and we must produce more armaments. In fact I believe that 10% of population should receive military training. This is the only insurance policy for survival of the state.
Let us not get delusional with all this nuclear war stuff. Focus on development and quality of life.
We must train more people in using arms and we must produce more armaments. In fact I believe that 10% of population should receive military training. This is the only insurance policy for survival of the state.
warrior monk
Regular Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2014
- Messages
- 650
- Likes
- 1,114
Yes we have but without testing so it requires hot testing
