Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

Kumar

Regular Member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
41
Likes
0
Country flag
Pokhran II disclosure puzzles Chidambaram

Updated on Thursday, August 27, 2009, 15:16 IST Tags:pokhran, II, disclosure, Chidambaram, Santhanam, DRDO, nuclear

New Delhi: Home Minister P Chidambaram Thursday said he was "puzzled" over a newspaper report stating that the country's second nuclear tests in Pokhran in 1998 had failed to get the desired yield.


"I have seen the report. I am puzzled. The government will find out, somebody will brief you," Chidambaram told reporters after a meeting of the cabinet committee on economic affairs.

He was replying to questions about a report in The Times Of India daily Thursday that quotes a senior scientist associated with the 1998 tests as admitting that the only thermonuclear device tested was a "fizzle." A test is described as a fizzle when it fails to meet the desired yield.

The newspaper quotes K. Santhanam, who was a representative of the Defence Research and Development Organisation and a director for the 1998 test site preparations, who says the three tests were not such a big success as portrayed by the government.


Pokhran II disclosure puzzles Chidambaram
Yes, Of course anyone sitting in his chair would be puzzled, I am horrified by the fact that the scientist did not even think about the magnitude of damage done by him in giving such a statement.

I hope that this issue to be probed to its grounds and the scientist be jailed if proved wrong for making such statements about National projects which are strategically important. :2guns:
 

hit&run

United States of Hindu Empire
Mod
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
14,104
Likes
63,370
Dont jump to conclusions, read what the actual scientists say, go to links:

FOXNews.com - Nuclear-Blast Computer Simulations No Match for Real Thing - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News
Nuclear-Blast Computer Simulations No Match for Real Thing

The United States has one of the biggest stockpiles but it's getting old, and the government is planning a fresher weapon, the Reliable Replacement Warhead, that could be developed without underground blast tests.

The U.S. government is expected to choose an RRW design next month.

Western governments were pressured into halting tests when the end of the Cold War called nuclear arsenals into question. But Coyle, a former nuclear scientist, worries that information gleaned over 50 years of testing could be lost.

"In all the years I was involved in underground testing, time and again we were surprised. Something would happen that we wouldn't expect," he said. "We would realize that we didn't understand everything about the weapon."

"There's no simulation like the real thing," Coyle added.



And read what our own scientist is saying, he is definitely no a idiot, you can agree i hope:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 938610.cms


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

He told TOI that no country has succeeded in achieving targets with only its first test of a thermonuclear device.
Before i waste my time to detail any thing please research in totality.
1.It is not your fault, but human limitation not to trust something which is not heard or seen. That is why i am not defeating the fact COMPLETELY that computer simulation tests can provide full proof assurance; not because i distrust Indian capabilities but know human brain physiology very well.

2. There is no point to further discusses Computer simulation pros and cons here as we have a different thread for the same. Furthermore i am not jumping on conclusions like Indian scientist and may be like you cause i know since last 11 odd years the the tests were successful and i am adhering to that(not jumping).

3.The test was a DUD ?? as one of the scientist is saying so. I respect that scientist as he was In charge for preparing the site for nuclear test but not the one who made actual device.

4.He is totally out of touch i can bet cause he is referring to the arguments of some idiot UK agencies; Because:

Do you know it was India who disclose that we have conducted nuclear tests not UK or US?

Do you know US seismic DATA was not able to distinguish between explosion or earthquake? (bonus point if you can tell why).

Do you know Indians have better seismic monitors able to distinguish between explosion and earthquake?

Do you know there was no(negligible) radioactive leakage on site to qualify for one of the criterion of a fizzle nuclear explosion?

Do you know Mr. Scientist's out cry for India's nuclear weapon programme :blum3: :bye: has very less to do with the explosion he is suggesting was of low yield (i.e shakti I). It was a device that was designed mainly to produce data to analyze the performance of India's Hydrogen bomb technology for future computer simulations and actual weaponisation.:rofl:

Shakti II was A pure fission device using the Plutonium implosion design with a yield of 15 KT. The device tested was an actual nuclear warhead that can be delivered by bombers or fighters and also mounted on a missile. The warhead was an improved, lightweight and miniaturized version of the device tested in 1974. Scientists at BARC had been working to improve the 1974 design for many years. Data from the 1974 test was used to carry out computer simulations using the indigenous Param supercomputer to improve the design. The 1998 test was intended to prove the validity of the improved designs.(''wikipedia ke sojaneye se'')

The only thing i am concerned is that are we going to sign CTBT and will do some more tests before signing it cause Barack hussein Obama do not trust Indian words of no further testing.
Are we going to test for more before placing nuclear pencils in Arihant and sisters.
I am desperately waiting for official words from GOI.
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,622
Likes
163
Santhanam was involved in the test site preparations. He was not part of the team of scientists which designed the thermonuclear device (who were from BARC, not DRDO).
He says that his opinion is based on seismic studies from abroad, and not his own studies, or for that matter, the data generated from the tests themselves.

If he's right, then it makes no difference, because as long as the Indian Government claims otherwise, nobody is going to risk it. If he's wrong, it still doesn't make any difference.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
Just tell me if any treaty is not ratified by US senate does it becomes a law in US?
By US Law alone, it cannot be US Law but again, you've missed the point that the Executive Branch has followed the treaty to the letter and like all other treaties signed by the US, the US must notify the Treaty Participants when they will stop observing the Treaty.

After 1998 India has not done a single test. So by your logic India is following CTBT; so why India need to sign it?
I asked the same thing when the Hyde Act was introduced as a measure to control the 123 Agreement. Yes, India is not bound by the Hyde Act but testing will kill 123 all the same.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Santhanam seems to be referring to only thermonuclear tests(and not all nuclear tests). So, according to him Pokhran was successful albeit partially. Anyway, this statement and its timing makes one wonder whether this is to thwart any pressure on India to sign CTBT. Either this was a strategic statement made with covert support from GOI or otherwise. Irrespective of it, the message is clear: India should not sign CTBT.

Now, Should India test? Yes, absolutely. For, India needs many tests before we can have adequate data to be able to do simulated tests. Remember, that other nuclear nations have done many tests before they moved to simulated ones. And India has to do the same. Whether we should test rightnow or not is a different issue, but we also need to keep in mind our immediate threats like when would India need nuclear deterrance: in the next decade or after 2/3 decades?
IMO, we need nuclear deterrance in the next decade. So, the tests must go ahead. Also the world is still in recession and sanctioning a country like India right now is not easy. In these times of recession, countries wouldnt want to give up the lucrative business of selling nuclear reactors either. So, if we need to test, then this is the right time. Otherwise, wait till 2/3 decades.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
India Nuclear Update : Wisconsin Project

Excerpt from the above link:

Rajagopala Chidambaram, former chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, claimed in August 1999 that Indian scientists can make nuclear weapons of "any type of size," including a neutron bomb, based on information obtained from the 1998 tests. He also reiterated the claim that India detonated a thermonuclear device during the tests. However, in February 2000, P.K. Iyengar, retired chief of the Indian Department of Atomic Energy, stated that the thermonuclear test was a failure.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
Sir, is it still possible for US to do positive yield tests and still go undetected by other countries.
I had to think about that one. Yes, launched the nuke into outer space and detonated it while only a small batch of Pacific Islands could see it. Now, how you collect data from that is something else altogether.
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,622
Likes
163
AFAIK, it is estimated that India has between 30-50 warheads. Are these A-Bombs (fission) or H-Bombs (thermonuclear)?
Also, what would be the yield from an Indian nuclear-tipped ballistic missile?
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
Sir thats why india rejecting to sign the NPT & CTBT. Big5 got all datas to simulate future tests, India donnt have full pleged data. once it got it will go ahead to sign CTBT & also ratify it unlike US
India rejects the NPT because of N5 hyprocracy.

From Gen K. Sundarji's (the more I read about this man, the more I like) own notes

Many arguments… are used to harangue India and Pakistan, pointing out that they are foolish (children) to believe that by going nuclear they are augmenting their national security, when by Western reckoning they are only increasing their vulnerability to nuclear chastisement (by the legitimately nuclear adults of the world, the USA, China, etc.). This kind of patronizing attitude is so infuriating…
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
AFAIK, it is estimated that India has between 30-50 warheads. Are these A-Bombs (fission) or H-Bombs (thermonuclear)?
Seriously? No one cares if they are fission or hydrogen. Politically, they're nukes. Militarily, both goes bang. For counterforce, you need 100kt plus against hardened targets and incase of some mountain base, ie Cheyenne Mountain, multi-megaton. But the small number of Indian nukes would preclude going after hardened targets and hence, no requirement for big yields. Accuracy matters more than yield. 12kts can destroy 10 city blocks. Hit the right 10 city blocks, ie water and sewage, or power generation, you kill the city.
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,622
Likes
163
Santhanam was an Intelligence guy, according to this Hindustan Times article, not a scientist:

“There was water cascading about,” says K. Santhanam, who was in charge of the test site as Colonel Srinivas. “The water was a lovely colour of sambhar,” he says, adding quickly, “though inedible of course.” Santhanam was then with the state-owned and ultra secretive defence research outfit the DRDO. And that’s how the former senior operative of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), which is India’s external intelligence agency, happened to play a critical role in Pokhran II.
?Colonel Srinivas? recalls N-day, Pokhran II tests- Hindustan Times
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Flint,
P.K. Iyengar a senior(and well respected) scientist, also retired chief of Indian Department of Atomic Energy had said that Thermonuclear tests failed(in 2000). So, regardless of who Santhanam is, there must be some credibility to this news.
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,622
Likes
163
Excerpts from an interview with this Iyengar fellow:
More N-tests needed to sustain Indian nukes programme -- Iyengar

The Indian Express whether he was indicating that Pokharan-II tests were a failure, Iyengar said: "I never disagreed with the yields published by the DAE. I agree they are the best people to judge and they have done what they can. But in the intricacy that I showed, how much of fusion energy came out of that, how much of fission energy came out of that, there is a complication. It has got three devices inside: a fission device, a booster device and a thermonuclear part. How you apportioned the yield between these three is something has not been done absolutely correctly or has not been publicly expressed. It's not that a fusion device cannot be partially burning. I can show you American references that it can be a partial burning; it need not be a full burning. Still it produces that energy. So under those circumstances, it is my conviction and the fact that it has to be weaponised requires further testing. So we should not say we don't need any more testing. This is what I challenge. That is not correct. If we have to weaponise, if we have to progress in R&D, then we need the option to test and therefore we should not sign the CTBT."

and

Early this year, addressing a group of BARC scientists, Iyengar openly stated that the thermonuclear device tested on May 11th has not performed as intended. According to him, the actual fusion part of the device has burnt only 10 per cent compared to design expectations and therefore India will have to conduct a few more tests of the thermonuclear device (with better design) in case we want this defence capability.
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,622
Likes
163
Well, clearly, India's nuclear arsenal consists of simple fission devices, and not thermonuclear devices.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
The message is loud and clear: India needs more real testing(not virtually simulated ones).
So, dont sign CTBT.
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,622
Likes
163
The message is loud and clear: India needs more real testing(not virtually simulated ones).
So, dont sign CTBT.
I don't see that happening in the near future. In any case, India wasn't planning on signing the CTBT either.
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,622
Likes
163
Scientists stand on Pokhran II lacks information : Dr. Raj Baldev

MIL/Mohan Balaji, Aug 27, 2009


New Delhi, India: August 27, 2009 – Interview by Mohan Balaji - Dr. Raj Baldev, you are a famous Cosmo Theorist, well known multiple personality being the Head of God Believers, formerly National Integration Assembly (NIA) - (World Peace Mission), on one hand, and Head of Scientific Advance Research of Universe & Life (SAROUL) on the other, I would like to seek your comments on the stand on 1998 Pokhran Test II, taken by Indian Scientist K. Santhanam, who said the test had practically fizzled out, did not produce the exact yield of the thermonuclear explosion.

Balaji: Dr. Raj Baldev, you are famous author of Two Big Bangs Created the Universe, (Formed in Eternal Space) in which you tried to reconstruct the theory of Big Bang, apart from tracing the origin of the Universe, you also drew the history of atom bomb, first experimented in Albuquerque and used in Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Since you are considered well versed in this area, I seek your comments in national interest. Please say something how you consider the stand taken by Indian scientists on Pokhran test?

Dr. Raj Baldev said: The comments given by Indian Scientist K. Santhanam on 1998 Pokhran II Nuclear tests are unfortunate, he should have avoided to create an unnecessary controversy on this vital national subject which might create a negative repercussion and go against the national interest.

Dr. Raj Baldev further said, “ Mr. K.Santhanam has perhaps not gauged the damage that he unintentionally caused to the nation. Keeping update knowledge in mind, I can safely say that Pokhran test II was absolutely successful from the point of view of the exact model that was required; the experiment was meant to get only a specific yield, which does not mean that the test was fizzled out, and this aspect might have not been known to certain scientists who were engaged in the preparations of the experiment, the issue being top secret, the services of many scientists were used but the actual design of the model was kept top secret from them.


Dr. Raj Baldev: “In this model of 1998 Pokhran II Nuclear test, the yield of thermonuclear explosion was calculatedly designed to a specific level for security reasons, and to prevent pilferage of the formula, which was later on adjusted and the entire Nuclear build up held by India became one of the world’s Ist Class categories, better sophisticated than many other countries in the world. To comment upon India’s standard of Pokhran II Nuclear test simply shows that Mr. K.Santhanam might not be belonging to the inner team of scientists who had designed the model of a certain yield for security reasons.”


Dr. Raj Baldev further said: The Defence Ministry has rightly contradicted the stand of Senior DRDO’s assertion that 1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests were not fully successful, and it is absolutely justified to contradict his stand, he might not be belonging to the inner bracket of top security confident scientists, who had the actual knowledge of the model desired to be tested only with specific yield?


“The critics should not forget that India has its top secret strategy on Nuclear build up and their own perfect standard they needed, and ultimately got it, and the comments given by Mr. Santhanam seem to have lacked the update knowledge about India’s exact Nuclear Policy, its specific model with low yield, and its future use, Dr. Raj Baldev said..


Finally Dr. Raj Baldev, Cosmo Theorist said, “It is for the govt. and the Defence Ministry to take care of their security and also their Nuclear deterrent, which they are observing and maintaining at the top of all securities and it is considered to be one the best in the world. But so far the Indian scientific expertise on this subject is concerned, I would like to say that most of the Indian scientists are not aware how far India has made her advancement in Nuclear perfection, and I feel that Dr. Santhanam is perhaps not fully aware, what specific model the authorities wanted to be experimented with their future plan, even though he was a part of the whole mission?

“Santhanam’s suggestion that India should not rush into signing the CTBT, does not seem to be appropriate, it’s the top security issue for the govt. to decide. In short, India is well protected and is capable of taking proper care of its neighbors, still wish peaceful relations with them in the large interest of World Peace.

Dr. Raj Baldev is also the head of God Believers, who wish world peace all over and for which he has served the world in this area for over 4 decades, and now advise the critics of India not to be misled with their imperfect information.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top