Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

[nitesh]

Deterrence and explosive yield

 

[Yusuf]

Posting excerpts from the link given by nitesh. People talking about megatons read it.

A thermonuclear weapon of 150 kiloton explosive power or three 25 kiloton warheads delivered in a distributed way on a city will perhaps produce equal magnitudes of casualties and property damage. Can it be argued that only a 150 kiloton weapon will deter another warhead of a similar yield? Deterrence is not about the damage one causes to the adversary. It is about what the aggressive side will consider as unacceptable. It is irrelevant whether the destruction is caused by 150 kt weapons or 25 kt weapons. Obviously, it is not infra-dig for a 3,500-km range missile to carry a 25 kt warhead. Cost-effectiveness calculations have no meaning since the nuclear war itself has no meaning. In a mega-city struck by a couple of 25 kt warheads, apart from the hundreds of thousands of dead, there will be an equal number of people wounded and more people affected by radiation; all of whom will be envying the dead. One of us is revisiting the calculations involved in predicting the extent of destruction inflicted by nuclear weapons. Our preliminary results suggest that even with 25kt fission bombs, the damages are going to be far more and extensive than what Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered given the higher population densities in the cities of China and South Asia and the urban development of recent years. Therefore, the Indian deterrent posture will not lose its credibility if India is compelled to rely on fission weapons only.

somthing that I have been saying all along.

 

[fulcrum]

Fulcrum Akash is not a AA missile ok it is SAM first get your basics right. And heed to friendly advice by moderators.

Actually I meant to say astra.. was racing along when I typed that. The point was AA missile still in development.
There was no advice.. this is a debate unless you're not allowed to put your facts and views here.

Can it be argued that only a 150 kiloton weapon will deter another warhead of a similar yield? Deterrence is not about the damage one causes to the adversary. It is about what the aggressive side will consider as unacceptable.

Exactly! And how do those people(K. Subrahmanyam and V.S. Arunachalam) know what is considered as unacceptable by the adversary? Are they mind readers? The Soviet union and the Americans have enough weapons to wipe out their entire populations since they thought that other side may consider losing 50% or 80% of the population may not be enough and prepared for the worst. Now we have these Govt backed gentlemen here who are either mind readers or assume(the key word) killing 5% of the enemy would be enough to scare them. That is ok when we are faced with a sane leadership, but what if there is some hardass megalomaniac leadership somewhere down the line?

It is irrelevant whether the destruction is caused by 150 kt weapons or 25 kt weapons. Obviously, it is not infra-dig for a 3,500-km range missile to carry a 25 kt warhead. Cost-effectiveness calculations have no meaning since the nuclear war itself has no meaning.

yeah.. right.. our opponent will be launching a 2Mt(2000kt) warhead while we will be launching 30-40 missiles with 25kt warheads just to catch up to that one missile, very clever! Now add Agni-III missiles cost which is around 8 million. For Storage, maintenance, personnel, trucks, modified railway carriages cost for those missiles, add another 2 million. So 10 million for each missile. 10 X 30 = 300 million for just to catch up for the one single chinese missile which would be around $10-15 million. China must have around 500-1000 missiles. Are you going to match 500 of their missiles by a multiplication factor of 20-40? What are the costs? Almost forgot, add the cost of all those 25kt nukes as well.. lol.. god this is stupid!!! For one nuke deal and afraid of international reactions we are indulging in all this nonsense.


BTW, here is the definition of MAD-
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender.[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome—nuclear annihilation.

Do you know the definition of Mutual? From websters-
mu•tu•al2 (my€‚ch€ ƒl) adj. 1. exchanged in equal measure; reciprocal: mutual respect.

"To avoid nuclear annihilation"-
an•ni•hi•late2 (ƒ nð‚ƒ lt) v.t., -lat•ed, -lat•ing to reduce to utter ruin or nonexistence; destroy utterly.

So...
1# We have no weapons to tell the other guy that we have weapons for nuclear annihilation. But the opponent clearly has such a weapon. So there is NO deterrence if the opponent thinks on the lines of we can kill/destroy a lot of them than they can kill ours.
2# The costs of catching up to their doomsday weapons using number of our primitive weapons is unthinkable.
3# The fission trigger and the fission fuse of a T-N weapon does not have a huge requirement of U235 and Pu239. The fuel used for 25kt can be used to detonate a 200kt-500kt T-N weapons easily. Only other requirement is Li6D & U238. Li6 is naturally occurring and can be mined and got easily. D is got from sea water or simply water, and the process is less complicated than obtaining U235 via centrifuges or Pu239 via reactors. And U238 is the easiest to get of the 3 as it is available in plenty as uranium ores. Why am I saying all this? Because for the same amount of work you need to produce 2 X 25kt weapon, you can get a single 500kt one. So in every way we are in a disadvantage.
4# Are those MMS backed ppl who are coming in support of our non-violent economic PM so smart to think the other nations such as U.S, Soviet union, Britain, France & China are Idiots to have gone through all the trouble of making and testing T-N weapons if those are not useful?
5# No one knows what China's Arsenal is like. They might have more than a 1000 nukes all of T-N variety given their industrial, economic strength and clandestine nature of their nation.

Conclusion: Our PM is focused on Nuke deals, international relations and economics, not strategic weapons. To assuage the fears of the population he and his party is coming forward with their assumptions and thesis to justify having fission weapons while others have moved on to advanced Fusion weapons(let alone primitive fusion weapons). The BJP party has also joined the chorus but they are not arguing whether 25kt is sufficient, but rather they are arguing that the test was a complete success... since they will be accused of lying and gross mishandling of the situation back then in 1998 if they say the test was not a success.

SO the question you should be asking is, what is the PRINCIPLE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE "25kt WEAPON IS ENOUGH" THEORY? Say if the factor of Sanctions, nuke deal not withheld and international relations are taken out of the picture will the government still harp on its tune of "25kt WEAPON IS ENOUGH" "Or the test was a success"? NO!! They will malign and slander the BJP of lying to the nation and carry out another test in a heart beat.
So it is obvious what the key factor behind the "25kt is enough" theory is... It's not '25kt is enough' and we are happy with it, but rather the threat of sanctions and nuke deal going bust which is driving the politicians to not test.

 

[Yusuf]

168 peoples lives were enough for a government to surrender against terrorists.
A 12 Kt bomb on Hiroshima and a similar one on Nagasaki ended world war 2.

I don't think you have any respect for lives.

Megaton nukes were developed by the super powers to take out reinforced structures like silos to destroy their second strike capabilty.
A hundred 25kt nukes will kill 10 million people. If that is mot enough damage for you, then I wonder what is.

You still haven't read the whole thread. If you don't want to learn then it's your wish.

 

[RPK]

Santhanam hits back at NSA; says MK barking up the wrong tree - India - NEWS - The Times of India

NEW DELHI: Former DRDO scientist K Santhanam, who has questioned the success of 1998 Pokhran nuclear tests, hit out at NSA M K Narayanan, saying the
official was "barking up the wrong tree" by contending he was not privy to test measurements and information.

Terming the remarks by the NSA as "unnecessary", he also demanded that an independent panel probe the success of the Pokhran tests.

Narayanan is "barking up the wrong tree", he said at an interaction with journalists at the Indian Women Press Corp here.

Santhanam also sought to counter claims by Narayanan and others in the establishment that he was not privy to the test measurements and information on Pokhran-II tests.

The former DRDO scientist had last month questioned the the efficacy of the thermonuclear device during the Pokhran-II tests. He had described the May 11, 1998 tests as a 'fizzle' (failure to achieve expected yield) and said India needed to conduct more tests besides not signing CTBT.

Narayanan has termed Santhanam's claims about Pokhran-II as "horrific" and asserted that India has thermonuclear capabilities which have been verified by a peer group of researchers

 

[nitesh]

Actually I meant to say astra.. was racing along when I typed that. The point was AA missile still in development.
There was no advice.. this is a debate unless you're not allowed to put your facts and views here.

It was a friendly advice only. Ok please provide some answers to basic questions:

1. What is the casualty figure using a 25kt bomb?

2. What is the casualty figure using a 2MT bomb?

(Do consider BMD in the scenario)

Do consider what is the use of a 2MT bomb in Indian scenario where it can be used?

 

[rony]

Well this is easier to say but if we use three 25kt simple fission nukes substituting a single H-bomb then:
1 We have to increase the number of nukes in our arsenal 3-5 five times more than thermonukes, well anybody can guess then why Thermonukes are more reliable.

2 We have to increase the number of ballistic missiles, fighter aircrafts and other delivery vehicles, well again it will be costly logistically.

3 Guys you know that a 25kt simple fission warhead needs 5-6kg of Plutonium so we have to increase the production of fissile materials 3-times more. Guess it is also not a cheap solution.

4 Well in a Thermonuke one detonates a primary boosted fission stage which requires much less Pu than in a fission bomb, so making a thermonuclear arsenal gives a more bang for the buck.

5 Well another important point is the weight of a 2 stage Thermonuclear weapon is much less than its 25kt simple or boosted nuke and its shape is more suitable to mate it on a ballistic missile.

Why alll the P-5 nations have developed H-bomb capability instead they must have gone for simple fission warheads, well those nations should be making fools of themselves if simple fission nukes were to make a superior substitute. The thing is that without a major proven Thermonuclear arsenal India will never gonna considered as a major global power instaed India will be considered as a second rate nuclear power which will be equated with pak and north korea. Without a thermonuclear arsenal India will not get into the league of P-5 and all our dreams of making India a super power will be wet dreams instead.

 

[nitesh]

Good points rony but what is the number of warheads does India have? Does any body has any authentic clue? And does India's thermonuclear explosion was really a fizzle? Who will certify that it was a failure? When no body has any access to the blast site?

 

[Pintu]

India lacks deterrence: Santhanam- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

India lacks deterrence: Santhanam
22 Sep 2009, 0324 hrs IST, ET Bureau

NEW DELHI: Countering National Security Advisor M K Narayanan’s remarks on the Pokhran-II tests, former DRDO scientist K Santhanam on Monday said that he hoped for at least two more nuclear tests as the country was yet to acquire minimum deterrence.

Continuing to raise questions on the efficacy of the 1998 hydrogen bomb test, Mr Santhanam called for the setting up of an independent panel to probe the results of Pokhran II and maintained that there was a need to reopen the debate on nuclear testing.

The claims and demand by a senior scientist comes at a time when India is expected to come under increased pressure to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Both these treaties would legally bind India from testing a nuclear weapon. But a section of the scientific community believes that India still lacks minimum deterrence against China and that there is a need to carry out further nuclear tests.

The DRDO scientist, who was one of the four key scientists associated with Pokhran-II, had earlier called the May 11, 1998, tests a ‘fizzle’ and had warned against signing CTBT. On Monday, Mr Santhanam took this argument forward and said that there was a need to reanalyse the test data. “The trouble lies in what data was included in the BARC analysis and what was not. There is a wealth of seismic and other data, which reveal that the thermonuclear device underperformed,” Mr Santhanam said countering Mr Narayanan’s contention that nobody could contest the proven data of the Pokhran tests. “There is a large body of evidence in seismology circles around the world and India, which raised doubts about the yield, immediately after the test,” he added.

At the same time, Mr Santhanam also slammed Mr Narayanan for calling his claims ‘horrific’ and questioning his credibility. He said the national security advisor was “barking up the wrong tree” by contending he was not privy to test measurements and information and suggested that Mr Narayanan had given “misleading” statement over 1998 explosions as he was not NSA at that time. The National Security Advisor had asserted that India had thermonuclear capabilities and it has been verified by a peer group of researchers.

According to Mr Santhanam, the hydrogen bomb test, which was the second and most powerful of the three tests conducted on May 11, 1998, did not produce the desired yield. Saying that the H-bomb did not explode with its designed power equivalent of 25,000 tonnes of TNT, he claimed that the physical evidence at the site was also another proof of the failure of the thermo-nuclear device.

Mr Santhanam opined that the Atomic Energy Commission and BARC could not be ‘judge and jury’ on the claims of the thermo-nuclear yield. “There is a strong and clear need to form a group of stalwarts and give them access to all relevant data. Only then will credibility increase,” he said. On why it took him 11 years to raise the Pokhran issue, he said he had already told the government about the failure of the test in 50-page classified report submitted in 1998.

Mr Santhanam’s arguments were bolstered by Ashok Parthasarthi, former S&T adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who contended that the country needed to debate the nuclear testing issue in the same manner the Sharm-el-Sheikh Indo-Pak joint statement was debated.

But he acknowledged that the decision to conduct nuclear tests had to be taken by the government of the day. “It is up to the government of the day to factor in the political and diplomatic inputs and take a decision. When Agni-III becomes operational, will you send it with a 20 kilotonne fission bomb?”

 

[Pintu]

I fully agree with nitesh , the Hindu link can have the answer:

The Hindu : News : ‘Naked’ India needs ‘series of tests’ to deal with China: Santhanam

and the following report and link of Deccan Herald:

‘Two more tests to improve H-bomb’

Thermonuclear test in 1998 was a ‘fizzle’: K Santhanam

‘Two more tests to improve H-bomb’

New Delhi, Sep 22, DHNS:

Reiterating his claims that the 1998 thermonuclear test was a 'fizzle', retired defence scientist K Santhanam on Monday said India would require at least two more tests with hydrogen bombs to collect information on parameters to simulate and improve their performance.

As a way of bolstering his fizzle claims, Santhanam said a 50-page DRDO report submitted to the government months after the May 1998 tests stated that the test yields were far lower than the claims made by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). But the DAE is believed to have given a point-by-point rebuttal to the DRDO report, which was authored originally by Santhanam. Both documents are classified.

The scientist who retired from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA) called for an independent probe to verify claims that the DAE has made on H-bomb. The DAE has consistently maintained that the H-bomb test yield was 45 kt.

Top scientists, including Santhanam who was then deputy to APJ Abdul Kalam at DRDO, had claimed after the “Shakti-tests” that atomic scientists should be able to improve the weapons by computer simulation based on the data collected from the tests. Western scientists, however, questioned India’s claim on the yields of H-bomb test, sparking-off widespread debate on the original result.

Santhanam re-ignited the debate last month, raising questions over the H-bomb yield,11 years after the tests were conducted. The doubts resurface at a time when the Obama administration is having a change in perception on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), leading to apprehensions over New Delhi's motives in changing its stance.

Santhanam said he had based his views of the test on DRDO’s instrumentations at ground zero, which, DAE officials have suggested, had malfunctioned on the day of the test. The former DRDO scientist—also a nuclear physicist trained at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre—argued that the H-bomb test failed since a 45 kt test at a depth of more than 100 mt could have created a huge crater on the ground, while none was found after the test.

Scientists said such assertions are flawed, as a different methodology (related to the volume effect of the explosion) would be applicable to determine the crater size in case of a fusion bomb. Santhanam claimed that the DAE never made the detailed radio-chemical analysis public to justify its claim on 45 kt yield. He said there are two DRDO units which have capabilities to independently analyse the radio-chemical data to verify DAE’s assessment.

 

[NSG_Blackcats]

No need for yet another test: official​

SIVAGANGA: T. Ramasami, Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, on Monday said there was no need for yet another thermonuclear test, as the Pokhran-II data had demonstrated its “designed impact.” He was talking to The Hindu at Kundrakudi, near here, after inaugurating a seminar. “The test is a success. I don’t have the original data. But based on the secondary data, I can say the Pokhran-II is a success.” Many eminent scientists, who were part of the programme, averred that the test had achieved its goal. No one could raise doubts about the country’s nuclear capabilities. The Atomic Energy Commission and its Chairman did not feel the need for another test, he said. The apprehension raised by some was only about the “yield” and not about the nuclear capacity. Mr. Ramasami said that if the “persons concerned” had a different view; they should have come out with it within a reasonable period after the test, which was conducted in 1998. It might have given opportunities to verify the doubts in specific areas.

Link

 

[Officer of Engineers]

OH FOR PETE'S SAKES, DOES IT TAKE A CANADIAN TO PUT YOUR TESTS INTO CONTEXT?

Look, P-II worked. There is no ifs, ands, nor buts about it, otherwise, India would not be talking open source about a 3 MIRV warhead SLBM at 30kt each. Note the yield, 30kts, not 45, not 200. THIRTY KILOTONS!

What does this say? The design yield of 45 kts that may or may not scale up to 200 kts may or may not succeeded BUT India has learned more than enough to put three 30kt warheads onto one single SLBM!

Jeeze, I swear, you guys need to get over your SUMO wrestling when your military is trying to do Ninja!

 

[nitesh]

Jeeze, I swear, you guys need to get over your SUMO wrestling when your military is trying to do Ninja!

Good one sir

 

[Sridhar]

Dr.santhanam talks of a 25 KTs in a AGNI III

Mr. Santhanam pointed to China’s stockpile of nuclear weapons and asked whether India would prefer using the 3,500-km Agni-III missile with a 25-kiloton fission warhead as the core of its credible minimum deterrence, instead of mounting a larger warhead.
The Hindu : News : ‘Naked’ India needs ‘series of tests’ to deal with China: Santhanam

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Dr.santhanam talks of a 25 KTs in a AGNI III

And he's full of it

“We are totally naked vis-À-vis China which has an inventory of 200 nuclear bombs, the vast majority of which are giant H-bombs of power equal to 3 million tonnes of TNT,” a note circulated by K. Santhanam, former Chief Adviser (Technologies) of the Defence Research Development Organisation, at a press conference addressed by him said.

At last count, China only has 20-36 3 megaton warheads all tasked to their ICBM force, ie towards Russia and the US (you don't want ICBMs to take on India), the rest are 120kts and below with the majority at 50kts and below.

 

[MIG_ACE]

It was a friendly advice only. Ok please provide some answers to basic questions:

1. What is the casualty figure using a 25kt bomb?

2. What is the casualty figure using a 2MT bomb?

(Do consider BMD in the scenario)

Do consider what is the use of a 2MT bomb in Indian scenario where it can be used?

Is the question just about casualty figures?

TN weapons AFAIK require a lot less fissile material than a Fission device of a similar yield.
While developing SLBMs, the weight and size of the warhead that would eventually be mated to it would be a lot more important than for land based missiles. This is especially true in our case if we ever want the Arihant to become a credible second strike platform.
Considering the (relatively) small size of the submarine and the consequent reduction in both numbers and the size of the missiles carried we need the warheads to be as light as possible and still pack a punch if we want the missile to have the requisite range to reach deep inside china. And for that we need TN warheads, megaton or otherwise.

 

[anoop_mig25]

Makes me laugh. They could not detect the test preparation. They detected the test that's why the foreign scientist were saying the test was below the claimed yield. Satellite pics will show craters. Radiation will be picked up. We can run for a moment, but we cannot hide forever.

u must thank me i made u to laugh but tell me one thing if they are able to detect then what happen in 1998 when amercians got news from CNN.was there cia sleeping or as usual they ignore till event doesnot occur:bye::bye:

 

[MIG_ACE]

Even if we consider for a moment that Santhanam is lying and the TN yield during Pokhran -II was the stated figure of 45kt, he is not the only one who had reservations about it.
From the link which Nitesh posted a couple of pages back
Link

Nitesh had highlighted this part:

Iyengar said that while he had no reason to dispute the yield (of 40+ kt) claimed by DAE scientists, he believed that the burn of the secondary fusion core was likely to have been highly inefficient. That is, the amount of LiD used must have been a great deal more than the optimum. He further argued in favour of more thermonuclear tests to improve the fusion efficiency as well as to increase the fusion to fission yield ratio.

This would not be unexpected.It was the first time we had designed a TN weapon and there was only one test. There is a reason the Americans and Chinese tested so many times and its not because they like big explosions. Its because they were perfecting their weapons to make sure that if and when the sh1t hits the fan the weapons do what they are supposed to do.

How can you expect our scientists to get everything right the first time? They cannot and they didn't.

Bottom line, we need more tests before some pacifist PM gives in to US pressure and signs the CTBT.

 

[Yusuf]

u must thank me i made u to laugh but tell me one thing if they are able to detect then what happen in 1998 when amercians got news from CNN.was there cia sleeping or as usual they ignore till event doesnot occur:bye::bye:

Read my post again. They failed to detect the preparations. We could not have hidden the fact forever. We had to hide the prep as they would have put pressure on us to not test just like it was in 95.

But after the test they would have picked it up. So you cannot just test and keep quiet about it as if nothing happened.

 

[Peacemaker_78]

India needs to perfect the H bomb. H bomb technology will be useful not only a tremendous deterrence, but it can also be used to make tactical nukes. of all points discussed here, its important to know that H bomb has very very low radioactive fallout when compared to atomic bombs. USA had used a tactical nuke during 1991 gulf war near the iranian border to deter them.
a tactical H nuke will be helpful in the sub continent esp against pakistan or pok area, it utmost important that the radioactive fallout doesn't affect india indirectly through wind and water ways.
H bomb is the way to go.