Indian Nuclear test Was Secret Project

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by WARREN SS, Aug 23, 2016.

  1. WARREN SS

    WARREN SS Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2013
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    170
    Location:
    India
    Indian Nuclear test Was Secret Project

    Read this
    How the CIA was Fooled by India
    This extract addresses one of the big questions of the 1998 tests that has so far remained unanswered: just how did India keep preparations for the nuclear tests secret, hoodwinking even the redoubtable CIA which had satellites constantly monitoring Pokhran? The subterfuge adopted by the bomb team -- real cloak and dagger stuff -- was considered as big a triumph as the test itself. And the Indian Army had a major role to play in the effort.


    [​IMG]

    The US Marine Intelligence maps showing the Indian test site, 1997.
    http://www.india-today.com/itoday/17051999/books.html


    Shakti I thermonuclear device Which was the underground Test Abdul Kalam also said that the thermonuclear bomb's yield was designed to be at 200 kilotons of TNT (840 TJ) but it had to reduced to 50 KT kilotons of TNT (190 TJ) to minimize seismic damage to villages near the test range; the closest village to the test range, Khetolai, was a mere 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) away
    See the Image below


    [​IMG]

    Also read
    Fizzle' claim for thermonuclear test refuted


    The government on Thursday strongly refuted claims that the 1998 test of a thermonuclear device had been a failure, with Principal Scientific Adviser R. Chidambaram telling The Hindu that those questioning the tests yield had an obligation to back up their charge with scientific evidence.

    He was responding to the recent statement by a former defence scientist, K. Santhanam, that “the yield in the thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was claimed.” Mr. Santhanam, who cited only unspecified “seismic measurements and expert opinion from world over,” went on to say that this was the reason India should not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

    “If Mr. Santhanam has any scientific data to back up what he has claimed, I am sure BARC scientists would be more than happy to debate it,” said Dr. Chidambaram. “Without that, this kind of statement means nothing.”

    Source:
    http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article10457.ece?homepage=true

    What you Missed to from Wikipedia In your Hastiness to prove Me wrong
    The BARC approximated the blast yields at 58 kilotons of TNT (240 TJ) that were obtained at the site 3 km from the test shafts on 11 May 1998. The BARC described the tests as a "complete success, and it was determined that all the devices and their components had performed flawlessly."On 17 May 1998, Abdul Kalam and R. Chidambaram held a press conference to validate BARC's data to remove all doubts.


    They have test data to Prove it
    India currently has 3 types of nuclear weapons in its arsenal. These are:

    (1) Thermonuclear Device

    (2) Fusion boosted Fission Bomb ( 2 types - Weapon grade plutonium & Reactor grade Plutonium)

    (3) Fission Plutonium Bomb (2 types - Low Yield & High Yield )

    After the 58 kiloton Pokhran-II nuclear tests India received its first fusion boosted weapon device . Present-day thermonuclear weapons need plutonium or highly enriched uranium to set off the hydrogen-bomb part.Fusion produces 1 neutron for 14 MEV release of energy, while fission produces approximately 3-4 neutrons for 200 MEV release of energy. Ergo ,Fission is energy intensive whereas fusion is neutron intensive.

    In an interview to the Federation of American Scientists Dr. R. Chidambaram (RC), Chairman, AEC & Secretary, DAE had clearly mentioned that a Thermonuclear weapon was indeed tested .

    Press Conference

    Shortly after POKHRAN II BARC published their radio-chemical analysis estimate of the S-1(Fusion Weapon) yield . The raw data has not been presented as it could reveal the specifics of the weapon design. However, it provides a qualitative method of determining the efficacy of the tests.

    Page on barc.gov.in

    Two controversies gathered storm after Pokhran 2(thanks largely to speculations made by commentators who were never even present during the tests) . First , the yield of the Thermonuclear explosion was lower than what was declared & Second , just 5 nuclear tests isn't enough to develop the nuclear weapons that India intends to develop .

    Needless to say that individuals from BARC , MoD , IA etc are parties to a Non Disclosure Non Circumventing agreement and therefore they cannot disclose information that is defined as confidential . Therefore , the other individuals who are stating the Yield figures are basically speculating based probably on their own understanding of Nuclear weapon yield . As a reminder , the yield-to-weight ratio is the amount of weapon yield compared to the mass of the weapon.

    Also , detractors used the Wallace Analysis to state that the yield was less . Now the formula that Wallace used was arbitrary in nature and therefore the appropriateness of this formula is debatable . The formula is dependent on two variables - seismic signal generated by the test and size of the crater formed. However, Scaling Laws clearly explains that since the scaling laws themselves are changing it is very difficult to use Scaling Laws to measure Shot Effects . While , it is possible that the actual yield of the Thermonuclear weapon was somewhat less than the figure of 45 kilo tons that was disclosed by GOI it is certainly not as low as the figures circulated by certain Western Analysts .

    Use plural, India has thermonuclear bombs: Kakodkar

    In other words,the S1 is the thermonuclear device that was tested . So , after the test, the S1 ( it's military designation will be different) became India's thermonuclear weapon.


    NOW, Read the second controversy of INDIA not carrying out enough nuclear tests to get all the data required to design a Thermonuclear weapon , fact remains that with the advent of Scalable supercomputer clustering , nuclear explosions can be Simulated down to the molecular level. Therefore , India does not need to carry out as many nuclear tests as the P-5 members did in the 60s and 70s unless of course India wants to drastically change the physical and mathematical models that describe the nuclear explosion that is being simulated. This is because throwing more computing resources at a simulation whose fundamental equations are flawed will not improve the accuracy of the solution.


    Field Evaluation Report of Nuclear test Site by Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC)

    199907-01 (1)-page-005.jpg
    199907-01 (1)-page-001.jpg


    199907-01 (1)-page-006.jpg


    Do You Know What Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Stand For


    This assessment has been seconded by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). In arecent research brief, SIRPI noted, “A new unsafeguarded gas centrifuge facility appears to be under construction at the Rare Metals Plant near Mysore. India’s expanded centrifuge enrichment capacity has been motivated by plans to build new naval propulsion reactors, but the potential excess capacity could also signify its intent to move towards thermonuclear weapons by blending the current plutonium arsenal with uranium secondaries.”

    http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/is-india-building-thermonuclear-weapons/



    The types of weapons India is believed to have available for its arsenal include:

    • a pure fission plutonium bomb with a yield of 12 kt;
    • a fusion boosted fission bomb with a yield of 15-20 kt, made with weapon-grade ploutonium;
    • a fusion boosted fission bomb design, made with reactor-grade plutonium;
    • low yield pure fission plutonium bomb designs with yields from 0.1 kt to 1 kt;
    • a thermonuclear bomb design with a yield of 200-300 kt.
    Public information and trade estimates indicate following types of Indian RV warheads:
    1. Mk-4: For light weight 17Kt Fusion Boosted Fission (FBF) warhead5. Mass6: ~180 Kg7.
    2. Mk-5: For 50Kt FBF or 200Kt Thermo Nuclear (TN) warhead8. Mass: ~340 Kg
    3. Mk-6: For 150Kt FBF warhead 9. Mass: ~550 Kg.

    [​IMG]




    [​IMG]

    With Agni-6 or K series SLBMs Which can carry 6-8 RV Mk-5 and Mk-6 Which Yields upto 150-200KT

    In Single Agni-6 Missile
    200KT x 6/8 warheads =1.2- 1.6 MT


    India Nuclear Submarine INS Aridhaman can carry 8 K series SLBMs

    Now calculate 1.6 Mt x 8 Missiles =12.8 Megatons

    @LETHALFORCE @Kunal Biswas @abingdonboy
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2016
    Bullet, Berkut, LETHALFORCE and 6 others like this.
  2.  
  3. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle Perfaarmance Naarmal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    7,126
    Likes Received:
    7,663
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    LETHALFORCE likes this.
  4. Chinmoy

    Chinmoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    1,024
    Indx TechStyle likes this.
  5. sasum

    sasum Atheist but not Communists. Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,434
    Likes Received:
    737
    Location:
    Delhi, India
    Still, country men would like to see a couple of more physical test of high yield hydrogen-bombs to put the doubt at rest.
     
  6. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle Perfaarmance Naarmal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    7,126
    Likes Received:
    7,663
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    Cuz demonstrating and watching power yourself and flaunting capabilities is human nature.:)
     
  7. Hari Sud

    Hari Sud Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,054
    Likes Received:
    861
    Location:
    Ontario
    Come again,

    Where is the myth in these series of articles. Or the headline of this thread designed to attract attention.

    There is no myth, it is all fact.
     
  8. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle Perfaarmance Naarmal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    7,126
    Likes Received:
    7,663
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    Even 200kt won't be enough when we compare to P5.
    India must try to make TNWs yields between 1 and 5 MT.:)
     
  9. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle Perfaarmance Naarmal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    7,126
    Likes Received:
    7,663
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    WTF is the new title?:tsk:
    Last one had at least some meaning.

    Indian Nuclear test Was Secret Project
    So, before the creation of thread, we thought it was public.:pound:
     
    airtel and aditya10r like this.
  10. WARREN SS

    WARREN SS Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2013
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    170
    Location:
    India
    I think You Not Understand My Post We don't Need It we already have Working device In Shakti-1 Field Test is Process of 60's

    We can Do this by Modern Scalable supercomputer clustering With Simulation which are recorded in Param Supercomputer During 1998 Tests
    Since We Developed So much in this field We Don't need Field Test Unless we have to Create or upgrade Are Design for higher yield Weapons Eg Above 1 Megaton



    Read What Kakodkar said

    In other words,the S1 is the thermonuclear device that was tested . So , after the test, the S1 ( it's military designation will be different) became India's thermonuclear weapon.
    NOW, Read the second controversy of INDIA not carrying out enough nuclear tests to get all the data required to design a Thermonuclear weapon , fact remains that with the advent of Scalable supercomputer clustering , nuclear explosions can be Simulated down to the molecular level. Therefore , India does not need to carry out as many nuclear tests as the P-5 members did in the 60s and 70s unless of course India wants to drastically change the physical and mathematical models that describe the nuclear explosion that is being simulated. This is because throwing more computing resources at a simulation whose fundamental equations are flawed will not improve the accuracy of the solution.


    Now To Explain What Scalable supercomputer clustering Stand For

    Treaties forbid the detonation of nuclear test weapons — which creates problems for national defense developers who need to efficiently certify the effectiveness of their arsenal. Luckily for them, a powerful new supercomputer is now able to replicate the physical impact of nuclear explosions — albeit digitally. And luckily for us, the resulting innovations may spill over to more constructive areas.


    The number-crunching required to simulate an actual nuclear explosion is staggering. Computer scientists need to simulate molecular-scale reactions taking place over the course of milliseconds. To get this level of detail, researchers at Purdue and the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had to coordinate over 100,00 machines. They also had to split multiple processes in parallel on separate machines in large computer clusters.

    And as any computational scientist worth his grain of salt will tell you, once you start to scale this high, you are virtually guaranteed to experience failed error detection and bottlenecks in communication and computation — and this is exactly what started to happen. Initially, the researchers discovered that natural faults in the execution environment frequently resulted in errors, resulting in corrupted memory and failed communication between machines. The challenge, therefore, was in managing the scale.


    Their solution: Scalable supercomputer clustering.

    In their revised configuration, each machine in the supercomputer cluster contained several processors with each one running a "process" during a simulation. The researchers created an automated method for "clustering," or grouping the large number of processes into a smaller number of "equivalence classes" with similar traits. Grouping the processes into equivalence classes made it possible for them to quickly detect and pinpoint problems.


    Their breakthrough marked an important step forward in the development of ultra-precise simulations. It is thought that the same simulation architecture used by these researchers could eventually be applied to such areas as climate modeling and studying the dynamic changes in a protein's shape.

    The findings will be presented during the Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks from June 25-28 in Boston. Recent research findings were detailed in two papers last year, one presented during the IEEE Supercomputing Conference and the other during the International Symposium on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing.



    Also read

    Reference
    https://books.google.co.in/books?id=5CvhBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=Scalable+supercomputer+clustering+in+nuclear+test&source=bl&ots=qh4JobePA0&sig=5OaEol1n5SRPhJuCIRHuJ9qAcw4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0jsSf29_OAhXMvY8KHQUkCm4Q6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=Scalable supercomputer clustering in nuclear test&f=false
     
  11. sasum

    sasum Atheist but not Communists. Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,434
    Likes Received:
    737
    Location:
    Delhi, India
    On this forum, we have had lengthy discussion in Feb or March (I don't recall) about India's thermo-nuclear device capability. A few members quoted opinions of various nuclear physicists. Computer simulation of yield can be relied upon only when a similar physical device is exploded and the yield-data are cross-checked with simulated output. Not only that, this experiment needs to be repeated several times to establish the authenticity of Computer simulation of a blast. You may be aware, cancerous cells have been neutralised by various agents in petri-dishes in labs. But they invariably failed in human trials !!
     
  12. rishivashista13

    rishivashista13 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2016
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    263
  13. Indx TechStyle

    Indx TechStyle Perfaarmance Naarmal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    7,126
    Likes Received:
    7,663
    Location:
    21°N 78°E / 21°N 78°E
    As PDF.
    Please enter a message with at least 30 characters.
     
  14. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,551
    Likes Received:
    6,556
    @WARREN SS

    This is what use to be believed, but now in the
    Age of MIRV's smaller more controlled warheads along with dummy warheads are better controlled and more effective and more damaging 4 MIRV'd 200 kiloton warheads can do more damage over a wider area than a 1 megaton warhead dropped on one spot. An SLBM with MIRV ( like AGNI or k4 or k15) gives you the ability to strike anywhere in the world without
    Without the need for ICBMs or missile silos etc...
    http://www.asian-defence.net/2011/05/india-developing-6000-km-range-agni-6.html?m=0
    India Developing 6000 km Range Agni-6 SLBM With MIRV Capability



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2016
    kstriya, WARREN SS and Indx TechStyle like this.
  15. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,551
    Likes Received:
    6,556
    Even with nuclear test data that P5 have does not mean anyway they will be able to 100. Percent accuracy control or calculate damage from nuclear warheads. No matter how much data you have it will always be messy , destructive and uncontrolled the shockwave , EMP , nuclear wind etc are totally unpredictable and uncontrolled . When nuclear weapons were fist developed scientist feared an unending chain reaction would set the world on fire when used that was proven not to be but the weapon is still uncontrolled when used. No matter how much data you have you cannot control a nuclear explosion just control the area of devastation by size of the weapon. California residents use to
    Lived in fear when some nuclear tests in Nevada had triggered earthquakes in neighboring Nevada in 1960's.

    https://www2.usgs.gov/faq/node/3339
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2016
    WARREN SS likes this.
  16. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,173
    Likes Received:
    422
    No, the technic on 200kt warhead is lot more difficult than 1mt.
    So far, there is no evidence that India is developing MIRV.
    Indian nuclear explosive device in the picture is simply too big to fit in any Indian missile in service.
     
  17. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,173
    Likes Received:
    422
    Once again, you get whole thing wrong.
    Firstly, he was talking about the reliability of computer simulation while you are talking about nuclear bomb design, completely different thing;
    Secondly, there is no such thing of 100 percentage in any engineering product. The designer and manufacturer are only interested in tolerable variance based on the purpose of usage, i.e. if we accept 3% below the designing yield as a standard of success for certain type of bomb, as long as the bomb can perform beyond that level, we will accept that the design and product is reliable. Believe or not, all P5 believe that their nuclear warhead is far more reliable than their missiles;
    Thirdly, regarding nuclear bomb, no one is trying to control the result, we are simply trying to forecast the performance of the design. We were improving our capability of forecasting by experiment. After decades of nuclear tests, now we can "control" nuclear explosion lot better than 1960;

    In one word, the more tests you do, the more reliable your design is, the more accurate your computer simulation will be.
     
    Kyubi likes this.
  18. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,551
    Likes Received:
    6,556
    http://wap.business-standard.com/ar...e-warheads-likely-by-2017-113050800034_1.html

    Advanced Agni-6 missile with multiple warheads likely by 2017


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    kstriya, raja696 and WARREN SS like this.
  19. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,551
    Likes Received:
    6,556
    Can you give a link to this control of nuclear explosions? China has done the lowest test doubt Chinese have control anywhere near other p5 members. Can you give a proof of this control. or how China compares to real nuclear powers?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    WARREN SS likes this.
  20. WARREN SS

    WARREN SS Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2013
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    170
    Location:
    India
    Your comparison Is Wrong So the Primary Prototype Devices Which Meant for test Purposes.It Common IQ Military version Warhead Will be Heavily modified Version
    I Mentioned It in My post

    IF You compare Size of Even Prototype Device With W88 warhead its Almost Seminar in Size And Weight

    Picture Shakti-1 Thermonuclear Prototype Device During 1998 Tests

    [​IMG]



    W88 Warhead

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
  21. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,173
    Likes Received:
    422
    Sorry, I can't. I read from some books written by American scientists.

    No, China and British both had 45 tests recorded publicly. It has nothing to do with their design reliability, simply 2 reasons:
    1. They are followers. By learning from US/USSR experience of nuclear tests, each of their tests includes more subjects and context;
    2. They developed far less types of nuclear warhead than other 3 by focusing on strategic warhead.

    You can google a book written by an American who was once a head of US nuclear center. He was invited to visit multiple Chinese military nuclear facilities.
     

Share This Page