India's military nuclear capability

[LETHALFORCE]

1998 had five tests conducted . 200 kiloton design was tested successfully.

All five test were plutonium based weapons. A sixth test may have been conducted ?

No info on that.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaShakti.html

 

[Yumdoot]

Wrong, U2s were sent to picture nuclear facilities and collect those material samples in the air around nuclear test site. By analysing these samples, Americans had pretty good idea of the material used in Chinese nuclear bomb. On the other hand, the major way to estimate the scale of yields is seismic stations instead of U2

Nobody cared for seismic readings of chinese tests. These were never doubted. You can check out the declassified material. They are talking about completely different things. Things of strategic importance that have nothing to do with 'saving face' or 'cheena is gleet'.

By your own government, among 3 tests in one day, only one was sub-kiloton test. The one disputed mostly was 43k device. So, sub-kiloton has nothing to do with the discussion here.

3 on first day of which 1 was sub kiloton and then again 2 sub kilotons a few days later. Sub kilotons alone are not good enough to understand the situation fully but they do have a bearing on the reality of IMS-CTBTO networks. It was only after Shakti series that these lame idiots began to admit properly that the limitations of their detection. Almost all the studies/comments/congressional testimony are dated after Shakti series.

Additionally this shows how useless the network was at the time. The subkilotons were completely missed even in the neighbouring Pakistan. This shows how fast the SNR deteriorates for the network with distance. Mind you again this seismic signal too has to be a inverse square law signal that needs to be detected properly. So with every doubling of distance the signal needs to be 4 times to maintain the same resolution. IOW the resolution will fall perhaps like 4 times as you double the distance between Pokharan-Nilore-740 km distance. And mind you the seismic readings are already on a log 10 scale. There is simply no likelihood of the signal resolution not deteriorating to around 10 kt (even perhaps 20kt) which is the differential between the Indian readings and the western readings. This also explains why the westerners got such divergent readings - they were filling in their own prejudice where their maths was not sufficient - quite like you. Some of them (wonder if it was all of them) actually read the first days test as just one explosion and yet they say that the waves do not interfere (how idiotic can that be). On top of that India did its tests in a medium which had both sand in some sites and rock in nearby sites. IOW it was not a uniform site. Which can be expected to induce its own peculiarities. On top of that there was only 1 test of 1974 for the westerners to calibrate their instruments.

And that is why testing organisations put in multiple testing equipment including seismographs so near to their tests. For Shakti tests India had preped several seismographs within India the 3 nearest being Ajmer (nearest one at 275 km), Bhuj and Bhopal. Even then at this close in distances it is not satisfactory enough. So they put in multiple other test equipment right next to the test device.

Do not supply your idiocy also where merely your prejudice is sufficient to explain your behaviour.

 

[warrior monk]

Wrong, U2s were sent to picture nuclear facilities and collect those material samples in the air around nuclear test site. By analysing these samples, Americans had pretty good idea of the material used in Chinese nuclear bomb. On the other hand, the major way to estimate the scale of yields is seismic stations instead of U2



First, India's 1998 tests were claimed as big as 55k in total (43k, 12k, 0.2k), only one of three was sub-kiloton as you suggest here;
Second, the wildest estimation of these tests is 25k, which means even India uses every possible method to cover her tests yields, the result was still far away from her claim.




By your own government, among 3 tests in one day, only one was sub-kiloton test. The one disputed mostly was 43k device. So, sub-kiloton has nothing to do with the discussion here.

First
Yields can be estimated not only through seismic means, but also by other methods. The
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).
US govt never uses radio nuclide or hydro dynamic methods to test yields outside US so there goes all your theories outside the window.
Second
The Mb ( Body waves ) and Ms ( surface waves ) data points are used from the NEVADA TEST Site where US did its test which has a different geology than pokhran.
Third
Pokhran test sitegeology has some similarity (probability=.77) with Kazakhstan test site used by the Soviets for which US always assumed the yield and gave a disclaimer .

Fourth
Mb is calculated as m b = log (A/T) + B.
Ms is calculated as Ms = log (A/T) + D,

where A and T are the amplitude and the period measured off long-period vertical component
seismic recordings in nanometers and seconds
B is a distance-dependent correction term that compensates for the change of P-wave amplitudes with distance and D is a distance-dependent correction term for Rayleigh waves.
and yield of a nuclear test is measured by Mb = a + b log10 Y where Y=yield : Here constants a and b vary with geology of the earth surface.
What value did they use for constants a and b cause they have to examine the geology of pokhran to calculate yield. What is the value of Mb used by westerners.

Fifth
Have they factored in the interference pattern of the 2 simultaneous tests of 43 kt and 12 kt during Pokhran 2 as both Mb and Ms will deviate from log normal pattern. By the way it was a destructive interference.

Sixth

The measurement of Ms requires a larger event, because Rayleigh waves are small for nuclear explosions. For explosions below 50 kt Ms may be missed altogether at tele seismic distances which was exactly what the westerners did they used the Ms from tele seismic distance of their seismic arrays to measure without factoring in the a , b and the Mb of the test

These are some of the basic points raised for seismic testing of yield which itself has a discrepancy of 30 % and no radio nuclide test or any arrays in India is like taking a wild guess which has no place in scientific experiment.

 

[no smoking]

Nobody cared for seismic readings of chinese tests. These were never doubted. You can check out the declassified material. They are talking about completely different things. Things of strategic importance that have nothing to do with 'saving face' or 'cheena is gleet'.

That is funny. It is you claiming that no one knows what material Chinese used. I pointed out that you are wrong: the world especially Americans know and U2s were sent to get the sample. You need to clear up your mind, my friend.

3 on first day of which 1 was sub kiloton and then again 2 sub kilotons a few days later. Sub kilotons alone are not good enough to understand the situation fully but they do have a bearing on the reality of IMS-CTBTO networks. It was only after Shakti series that these lame idiots began to admit properly that the limitations of their detection. Almost all the studies/comments/congressional testimony are dated after Shakti series.

Again, we are not discussing those Sub-Kiloton tests here.

Do not supply your idiocy also where merely your prejudice is sufficient to explain your behaviour.

Certainly this kind of language does show your personality.

 

[no smoking]

First
Yields can be estimated not only through seismic means, but also by other methods. The
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).
US govt never uses radio nuclide or hydro dynamic methods to test yields outside US so there goes all your theories outside the window.

I didn't say US uses radio nuclide to test yields in the case of Chinese test. What I said is US sent U2 to collect radio nuclide to analysis the material in Chinese nuclear bomb tested. It is not my theory, it was reported in Chinese military newspaper and Taiwanese paperwork.

Second

The Mb ( Body waves ) and Ms ( surface waves ) data points are used from the NEVADA TEST Site where US did its test which has a different geology than pokhran.
Third
Pokhran test sitegeology has some similarity (probability=.77) with Kazakhstan test site used by the Soviets for which US always assumed the yield and gave a disclaimer .

Fourth
Mb is calculated as m b = log (A/T) + B.
Ms is calculated as Ms = log (A/T) + D,

where A and T are the amplitude and the period measured off long-period vertical component
seismic recordings in nanometers and seconds
B is a distance-dependent correction term that compensates for the change of P-wave amplitudes with distance and D is a distance-dependent correction term for Rayleigh waves.
and yield of a nuclear test is measured by Mb = a + b log10 Y where Y=yield : Here constants a and b vary with geology of the earth surface.
What value did they use for constants a and b cause they have to examine the geology of pokhran to calculate yield. What is the value of Mb used by westerners.

Fifth
Have they factored in the interference pattern of the 2 simultaneous tests of 43 kt and 12 kt during Pokhran 2 as both Mb and Ms will deviate from log normal pattern. By the way it was a destructive interference.

Sixth

The measurement of Ms requires a larger event, because Rayleigh waves are small for nuclear explosions. For explosions below 50 kt Ms may be missed altogether at tele seismic distances which was exactly what the westerners did they used the Ms from tele seismic distance of their seismic arrays to measure without factoring in the a , b and the Mb of the test

Thanks.

These are some of the basic points raised for seismic testing of yield which itself has a discrepancy of 30 % and no radio nuclide test or any arrays in India is like taking a wild guess which has no place in scientific experiment.

I am not a nuclear expert. The words I put here are what I read from the internet including American and Chinese source. Some are written by the experienced nuclear experts. Almost everyone of them claims that Indian overstated the yields. Some Indian scientists speeches even gave them more credit.

 

[Yumdoot]

That is funny. It is you claiming that no one knows what material Chinese used. I pointed out that you are wrong: the world especially Americans know and U2s were sent to get the sample. You need to clear up your mind, my friend.

No I did not make that claim. That was a query important enough and technically demanding too but that part was solvable with some effort. And the U2 flights cleared up that matter pretty fast. Also most likely CIA had been trying to sniff for radio-nucleotides since at least 62 from out of India & then also as 'ELINT' out of Nanda Devi as late as 64.

In any case, let me see if you even know what it was about chinese nukes that was not answered at the time and is still unanswered.

Probably that will explain why the CIA did not fly their U-2s out of India, even when India was cooperating till 62 at least, for keeping tabs on Lop Nur. There has got to be a reason for that. Why Black Cat and why not ARC?

Queries and Conclusions are inevitable for any man willing to apply his brains.

Again, we are not discussing those Sub-Kiloton tests here.

Why!? should have been easy to understand.

Certainly this kind of language does show your personality.

Pass

 

[Chinmoy]

Anybody here got the point?

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.

What is the point of blending Plutonium and Uranium for thermonuclear weapon? Am I missing something here?

Trends in World Nuclear Forces, 2017

http://www.css.ethz.ch/en/services/...cle.html/f07aeec7-0ee3-4593-b326-ff23edccaf33

 

[Tarun Kumar]

I didn't say US uses radio nuclide to test yields in the case of Chinese test. What I said is US sent U2 to collect radio nuclide to analysis the material in Chinese nuclear bomb tested. It is not my theory, it was reported in Chinese military newspaper and Taiwanese paperwork.



Thanks.



I am not a nuclear expert. The words I put here are what I read from the internet including American and Chinese source. Some are written by the experienced nuclear experts. Almost everyone of them claims that Indian overstated the yields. Some Indian scientists speeches even gave them more credit.

I dont know which Indian scientists you are referring to because the only person who has questioned the yields is S Santhanam who is NOT a nuclear scientist but rather associated with DRDO. There has been a long time rivalry between DRDO- which makes our missiles and BARC (Bhabha Atomic Research Center) which makes our nukes as unlike other countries BARC does not share details of nuclear designs with anyone including the military let alone DRDO. Even in China nukes are under dual control of CPC and PLA but in India BARC totally controls the nukes and only few top bureaucrats and PM know the nuke codes apart from BARC. Infact BARC is so secretive that I read somewhere that there is a BARC within a BARC which makes the real weapons designs. Now why are we so secretive is because there are lots of sellouts in India who can sell nuke secrets for dollars and Yuans so we want as few people as possible to be within nuke food chain.AFAIK BARC has categorically stated that 1998 nuke tests were 100% success and I believe them 100% as BARC is an organization which even Indian PM (including Jawahar Lal Nehru or even Indira Gandhi) cannot trifle with. It is the only organization (apart from RAW-India's intelligence agency) which is under no oversight by anyone and they are absolutely best in the business.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

No, India government itself claimed 43 kt for a series explosion including the biggest one of 12 kt.
However, the data collected by other sources suggests a much lower result, some scientists even suggested it was a failure.

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

it is because of complex signals nullifying one other as three explosions took place simultaneously as said by kakodkar.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

1998 had five tests conducted . 200 kiloton design was tested successfully.

All five test were plutonium based weapons. A sixth test may have been conducted ?

No info on that.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaShakti.html

Six test were planned but first five worked as per desin and no sixth test was required and so it was taken out of the shaft.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

3 on first day of which 1 was sub kiloton and then again 2 sub kilotons a few days later. Sub kilotons alone are not good enough to understand the situation fully but they do have a bearing on the reality of IMS-CTBTO networks. It was only after Shakti series that these lame idiots began to admit properly that the limitations of their detection. Almost all the studies/comments/congressional testimony are dated after Shakti series.

It is possible that India might have conducted few test secretly. I got a hint of that from the speech of Ex defense minister Mulayam singh Yadav from his speech in parliament. He told vajpayee that what was the need of testing. he was also defense minister. Than what he said gave some hint of that. From his speech , I could get an Idea that some small tests were done secretly in sea.

 

[no smoking]

I dont know which Indian scientists you are referring to because the only person who has questioned the yields is S Santhanam who is NOT a nuclear scientist but rather associated with DRDO.

Let’s see:

Physics honours degree from Presidency College;

1953 joined Atomic Energy Establishment;

1961-1963, studying nuclear physics at Arbonne National laboratory in Lamont

From 1973, analysing of the cooperation between China and Pakistan

From 1986 in DRDO, related to simulation, war-gaming, and software engineering

From these working history I googled, obviously he is a qualified nuclear scientist with rich experience.

On the other hand, he was not alone:

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/figures-will-not-lie-personal-profile.html

There has been a long time rivalry between DRDO- which makes our missiles and BARC (Bhabha Atomic Research Center) which makes our nukes as unlike other countries BARC does not share details of nuclear designs with anyone including the military let alone DRDO.

That is rediculous.

Who is responsible for the 7x24 maintenance? Uniform man! You can’t ask them to do the work without knowing the detailed designs.

Even in China nukes are under dual control of CPC and PLA but in India BARC totally controls the nukes and only few top bureaucrats and PM know the nuke codes apart from BARC.

This is even funnier!

Does BARC have the necessary knowledge and training for war? NO!

Does BARC have the necessary classified information of enemy to make the nuclear war plan? NO!

Does BARC even have qualified and hard-trained soldiers/officers standing by 365x24 hours for the launch orders? NO!

If BARC has no role in the future nuclear war, why do you need them to control the nuclear weapon? Why do you need irrelevant people to have the nuke codes?

Infact BARC is so secretive that I read somewhere that there is a BARC within a BARC which makes the real weapons designs. Now why are we so secretive is because there are lots of sellouts in India who can sell nuke secrets for dollars and Yuans so we want as few people as possible to be within nuke food chain.

First of all, that is not so secretive. It is an ordinary phenomenon in any sensitive weapon design department in any country;

Secondly, oppose what you believe, the civilian is always better target for foreign spies seeking for information than military staff. Why? Because the latter is under the martial law.

AFAIK BARC has categorically stated that 1998 nuke tests were 100% success and I believe them 100% as BARC is an organization which even Indian PM (including Jawahar Lal Nehru or even Indira Gandhi) cannot trifle with. It is the only organization (apart from RAW-India's intelligence agency) which is under no oversight by anyone and they are absolutely best in the business.

Well, if they are under no oversight by anyone, how do you know they are telling the truth. Because they say so?

 

[no smoking]

it is because of complex signals nullifying one other as three explosions took place simultaneously as said by kakodkar.

This was taken into the calculation already.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

This was taken into the calculation already.

While replying the query, Kakodkar said this.

 

[no smoking]

It is possible that India might have conducted few test secretly. I got a hint of that from the speech of Ex defense minister Mulayam singh Yadav from his speech in parliament. He told vajpayee that what was the need of testing. he was also defense minister. Than what he said gave some hint of that. From his speech , I could get an Idea that some small tests were done secretly in sea.

Using the minimized explosion for simulation is an ordinary method for P5 to check existing weapon and design new weapon because all of them have collected enough data for their mathematics model and their models were all clarified in the full scale nuclear test.
In the case of India, the question is: can India collect enough data in mere 6 tests? and can India improve her simulation model above satisfactory within 6 tests. The answer from scientists outside India is: NO. The evidence is: India has never asked to sign the CTBT while all P5 signed CTBT immediately after they matured their simulation model.

 

[airtel]

Using the minimized explosion for simulation is an ordinary method for P5 to check existing weapon and design new weapon because all of them have collected enough data for their mathematics model and their models were all clarified in the full scale nuclear test.
In the case of India, the question is: can India collect enough data in mere 6 tests? and can India improve her simulation model above satisfactory within 6 tests. The answer from scientists outside India is: NO. The evidence is: India has never asked to sign the CTBT while all P5 signed CTBT immediately after they matured their simulation model.

If we have the ability to make a nuclear submarine with made in India nuclear reactor.....

Then we can also make nuclear weapons.....which is much more easy.

ISRAEL also never tested (officially ) their nuclear weapons.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Using the minimized explosion for simulation is an ordinary method for P5 to check existing weapon and design new weapon because all of them have collected enough data for their mathematics model and their models were all clarified in the full scale nuclear test.
In the case of India, the question is: can India collect enough data in mere 6 tests? and can India improve her simulation model above satisfactory within 6 tests. The answer from scientists outside India is: NO. The evidence is: India has never asked to sign the CTBT while all P5 signed CTBT immediately after they matured their simulation model.

Actually, When India conducted these tests, Russian said that India shall conduct atleast 3 test in each of 3 category. Actually 4 test were required but as per them, India was very strong in simulation so they can do with 3 test in Subkilo ton, Normal nuclear test and Thermonuclear tests. However India conducted three test in sub kilo ton category only and did one test each in Nuclear and thermonuclear category.

 

[no smoking]

If we have the ability to make a nuclear submarine with made in India nuclear reactor.....
Then we can also make nuclear weapons.....which is much more easy.

Different thing, can't say which is easier.
In the case of nuclear weapon, everybody knows that India can make the weapon. But what kind of nuke? So far, the rest of the world doesn't think India has not prove her H-bomb design yet.

ISRAEL also never tested (officially ) their nuclear weapons.

No, they did once with South Africa.

 

[no smoking]

Actually, When India conducted these tests, Russian said that India shall conduct atleast 3 test in each of 3 category. Actually 4 test were required but as per them, India was very strong in simulation so they can do with 3 test in Subkilo ton, Normal nuclear test and Thermonuclear tests. However India conducted three test in sub kilo ton category only and did one test each in Nuclear and thermonuclear category.

First time to hear such kind of category, very wired. I guess, it is your own interpretation or understanding. Did only 4 tests doesn't prove anything. Without a full scale nuclear test, how can you prove the accuracy of your simulation.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

First time to hear such kind of category, very wired. I guess, it is your own interpretation or understanding. Did only 4 tests doesn't prove anything. Without a full scale nuclear test, how can you prove the accuracy of your simulation.

Please try to understand my post.