- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 7,550
- Likes
- 1,309
Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist
- Thread starter I-G
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,972
- Likes
- 91
I’ve checked the Atlas, and am yet to find an enemy Pakistan managed to “harass”. They existed under the cold war circumstances under the funds of the US(they still do). Their reality never came to the forefront then. Today, their support has come up, BECAUSE it is the US/NATO who are losing troops due to Pakistan.
Coming back to the area of relevance, I don’t know if you appreciate the policy of blowing up one’s economy, in return for trying to match a more powerful neighbour’s defence budget. I certainly don’t.
How are your comments about Pakistan linked in any way to 10,000 nukes?
Pakistan does not have 10,000 nukes, not now, not ever. If you threw 10,000 nukes onto their laps they would not know what to do with it.
We have been trying to point out that such a large number of warheads are pertinent only if you have a war fighting stance, and right now only US/ NATO and Russia have that capability.
No one else, not even the other nuclear states at an individual level. And even US and Russia are scaling back
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 24,328
- Likes
- 11,809
Kalam no authority on Pokhran II test: Ex-AEC chief
things getting murkier. PK Iyengar says Pokhran 2 was conducted in haste.
things getting murkier. PK Iyengar says Pokhran 2 was conducted in haste.
Sethna slams Kalam, says Pokhran II done in haste
PTI 1 September 2009, 08:21pm IST
MUMBAI: Homi Sethna, a former top atomic boss, on Tuesday waded into the 1998 Pokhran row when he backed ex-DRDO scientist K Santhanam's assessment
that the nuclear test was not a full success and slammed former President A P J Abdul Kalam for rubbishing the claim.
"I fully support Santhanam and I stand by his statement that India needs more nuke tests to be conducted," Sethna, the guiding force behind India's first nuclear test in 1974, said.
Sethna now in his eighties suggested that Kalam, who was heading the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) when Santhanam was coordinating Pokhran-II, suggested that the missile man was no qualified authority to rubbish his former colleague's claim.
Simultaneously, another former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) P K Iyengar alleged that the 1998 tests were done in haste at the bidding of the government of the day. A BJP-led NDA government headed by Atal Behari Vajpayee had just assumed office when India conducted the tests.
The comments by Sethna, who was the AEC chairman in 1974 came notwithstanding Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Kalam setting at rest the controversy over the 1998 nuclear tests.
Kalam said the only thermonuclear device (hydrogen bomb) tested produced the "desired yield".
But Sethna said "former president APJ Abdul Kalam was not a scientist and Santhanam is a physicist and he knew what he was talking.
"What does Kalam understand about physics? He can say anything as he was the President and a politician."
"What Santhanam said was absolutely correct," he added.
"What did he (Kalam) know about extracting, making explosive grade? He didn't know a thing. By being a president he appeared to wear the stature. He relied on atomic energy to gain additional stature," said Sethna about Kalam while talking to a TV channel.
"I don't like politicians to interfere specially lay politicians to interfere any more. I firmly believe that they should stay out. When we did the test... the first test there was no politician. It was a raw one. We were lucky that the whole thing collapsed," said Sethna, who in his days in the atomic establishment had the reputation of being a blunt, plainspeaking organisational leader.
Kalam had on August 27 said Pokhran II was a success rubbishing Santhanam's claim that the tests were a "fizzle".
Iyengar, who was among the three top atomic scientists who oversaw the 1974 tests, has already shared Santhanam's assessment and questioned official claims of success.
Iyengar suggested that in March 1998, two months before Pokhran-II, India's intelligence must have found out that the Pakistanis were about to test and that they were serious.
"Therefore, they (the new government in India) asked these people(scientists) to hurry up, do as fast as possible in all this extra pressure to be one up politically because BJP had just come to power," he said.
"If Pakistan fired an explosion before India what a common man in India would have thought," Iyengar added.
The Principal Scientific advisor of Government of India Dr R Chidambaram, who led the team of scientists for Pokhran-II, denied Santhanam's statement and said he had to explain scientifically why the tests were not fully successful.
Sethna slams Kalam, says Pokhran II done in haste - India - NEWS - The Times of India
PTI 1 September 2009, 08:21pm IST
MUMBAI: Homi Sethna, a former top atomic boss, on Tuesday waded into the 1998 Pokhran row when he backed ex-DRDO scientist K Santhanam's assessment
that the nuclear test was not a full success and slammed former President A P J Abdul Kalam for rubbishing the claim.
"I fully support Santhanam and I stand by his statement that India needs more nuke tests to be conducted," Sethna, the guiding force behind India's first nuclear test in 1974, said.
Sethna now in his eighties suggested that Kalam, who was heading the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) when Santhanam was coordinating Pokhran-II, suggested that the missile man was no qualified authority to rubbish his former colleague's claim.
Simultaneously, another former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) P K Iyengar alleged that the 1998 tests were done in haste at the bidding of the government of the day. A BJP-led NDA government headed by Atal Behari Vajpayee had just assumed office when India conducted the tests.
The comments by Sethna, who was the AEC chairman in 1974 came notwithstanding Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Kalam setting at rest the controversy over the 1998 nuclear tests.
Kalam said the only thermonuclear device (hydrogen bomb) tested produced the "desired yield".
But Sethna said "former president APJ Abdul Kalam was not a scientist and Santhanam is a physicist and he knew what he was talking.
"What does Kalam understand about physics? He can say anything as he was the President and a politician."
"What Santhanam said was absolutely correct," he added.
"What did he (Kalam) know about extracting, making explosive grade? He didn't know a thing. By being a president he appeared to wear the stature. He relied on atomic energy to gain additional stature," said Sethna about Kalam while talking to a TV channel.
"I don't like politicians to interfere specially lay politicians to interfere any more. I firmly believe that they should stay out. When we did the test... the first test there was no politician. It was a raw one. We were lucky that the whole thing collapsed," said Sethna, who in his days in the atomic establishment had the reputation of being a blunt, plainspeaking organisational leader.
Kalam had on August 27 said Pokhran II was a success rubbishing Santhanam's claim that the tests were a "fizzle".
Iyengar, who was among the three top atomic scientists who oversaw the 1974 tests, has already shared Santhanam's assessment and questioned official claims of success.
Iyengar suggested that in March 1998, two months before Pokhran-II, India's intelligence must have found out that the Pakistanis were about to test and that they were serious.
"Therefore, they (the new government in India) asked these people(scientists) to hurry up, do as fast as possible in all this extra pressure to be one up politically because BJP had just come to power," he said.
"If Pakistan fired an explosion before India what a common man in India would have thought," Iyengar added.
The Principal Scientific advisor of Government of India Dr R Chidambaram, who led the team of scientists for Pokhran-II, denied Santhanam's statement and said he had to explain scientifically why the tests were not fully successful.
Sethna slams Kalam, says Pokhran II done in haste - India - NEWS - The Times of India
Well at least it makes it harder for MMS to sign away our nuclear deterrent come October. He's smitten enough with Obama to do it.
Good job all those who stepped up to reiterate our need to test. Perhaps the waters are muddy but atleast the whole thing won't be slid past the nation like another SeS.
Good job all those who stepped up to reiterate our need to test. Perhaps the waters are muddy but atleast the whole thing won't be slid past the nation like another SeS.
forget, 10,000, even 1000 nukes are waste of money.
if two nukes of around 20 to 30 KT yield could force Japan to surrender. Then certainly in todays world the threat of destroying 2 to 3 economic centers (which would obviously collapse enemys economy) would provide enough detterance.
no idiot would take risk and challenge that detterance based on number of nukes enemy has or their yield or even reliability of nukes which is bring argued so much recently. one wouldn't want to risk their urban, economic centres, very base of entire economy and nation for bunch of wastelands in Arunachal pradesh or Kashmir.
shankarosky
Regular Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 79
- Likes
- 0
Irrespective of it fall out on nuclear deal -further series of test is now imperative before we are pushed into signing CTBT by Obama administration
anoop_mig25
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,807
- Likes
- 3,152
anoop_mig25
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,807
- Likes
- 3,152
not good eg of ur scientisit
( .as we know preparations were already going for it from the day`s of NARSHIMHA RAO gov and when usa found out they armed twist us not to conduct.but this give our scientist to fine tune our devices
i conclude only one thing this scientisit were senior to kalam and still they had work under kalam as he was head of project .and then as every time goes in india jealous
i dont what why the hell this people were slient at that time?fearing of loosing their jobs?congrees would have supported thwm and wait a miniute read the line where scientist claim that Indian intelligence must have know before 2 months that pakistanis are going to test nuke`s (bad joke). pak are not so stupid as he belive in it .there army are very smart.first of all pakistan would have never done it because thier ex-pm navaz sharif has himself claim in walk_talk with shekhar gupta(editor indian exprees) that credit for pak`s nuke testing goes to india as we provided them wth opportunity to conduct ther test that to be in 10 day`s (miracle).And if we go by scientisit claim then we tooke 2 months good joke
( .as we know preparations were already going for it from the day`s of NARSHIMHA RAO gov and when usa found out they armed twist us not to conduct.but this give our scientist to fine tune our devicesi conclude only one thing this scientisit were senior to kalam and still they had work under kalam as he was head of project .and then as every time goes in india jealous
BLACK_COBRA
Regular Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Messages
- 73
- Likes
- 0
The Pokhran-2 controversy
THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN "THE TRIBUNE" (CHANDIGARH)
The Pokhran-2 controversy
India’s leadership and armed forces are satisfied with nuclear deterrent by
K Subrahmanyam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Subrahmanyam)
Top Indian nuclear scientists are fighting among themselves on the effectiveness of India’s nuclear tests in 1998. Dr K Santhanam, Dr P K Iyenger and Mr H N Sethna have claimed that the tests were not a full success. Reacting sharply, Dr A P J Abdul Kalam has rubbished the claims of the sceptics.
K Subrahmanyam, who has closely watched the growth of India’s nuclear programme from the beginning, has joined issue with the doubting scientists, pointing out that even a critical world has accepted India as a nuclear weapon power and the worth of its arsenal.
— Editor-in-Chief
THE present controversy over the yield of Pokhran-2 nuclear tests is not the first such development in this country of argumentative Indians. Pokhran-1 also had its share of controversy on its explosive yield. Since it was not claimed to be a weapon test at that time and there was no talk of nuclear deterrence, that controversy was less fierce than the present one. Then, too, there were people who termed it a dud.
I have heard personally Prime Minister Morarji Desai saying that there was no nuclear test and the scientists set off an explosion of a large quantity of buried conventional explosives. Others contested the claimed yield of 12 kilotons and asserted that it was only 8 kilotons. The result of the Pokhran-1 controversy survives till today and contributes to the present one. Many foreign scientists concede that they arrive at a lower yield of the Pokhran-2 test by extrapolating the lower yield of Pokhran-1 as advanced by some Indian scientists.
Controversies and personality clashes among scientists are not unknown. In the West, one has heard of the Oppenheimer-Teller clash or the one between Oppenheimer and E.O.Lawrence. In India, too, we had Bhabha-Saha clash and the deep divide between Dr Raja Ramanna and H. N. Sethna. When Vikram Sarabhai was the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission the relations between him and the Trombay establishment were quite cold. Scientists by the very nature of their vocation are highly individualistic people and they prefer to be convinced about a fact personally on the basis of evidence.
Nuclear physics is an arcane subject and in that weapon designing is even more esoteric. There are, therefore, limits to transparency on it. Moreover, this is India’s second fission test and first thermonuclear test. With the exception of two — Dr P. K. Iyengar and the late Dr Ramanna — all other weapon designing talent was involved in the Pokhran-2 test. Of the two outside, Dr Iyengar is a sceptic while Dr Ramanna, when he was alive, accepted the claimed yield.
All nuclear scientists are not necessarily familiar with the intricacies of weapon design. There is a popular tendency in the country to accept that all people associated with the Department of Atomic Energy are knowledgeable in the intricacies of nuclear weapons. This is not the case.
It has been widely propagated that many foreign scientists have questioned the yield of Pokhran-2. Usually when seismic stations monitored a nuclear test they used to announce the magnitude of the explosion in terms of ranges of yields as, for instance, a low- yield explosion of 5-15 kilotons or a medium-yield explosion of 15-60 kilotons. Very rarely was a precise yield reported. The ease with which many foreign assessments were made about precise yields made them suspect, especially when they were not familiar with geological structures and soil conditions at the test site.
The very first report from the West termed the test an earthquake. There could also be some resonance between the domestic scepticism and foreign assessments.
Dr Chidambaram, former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and head of the weapon designing team in 1998, writing in “Atoms for Peace” (Vol. 2 No. 1, 2008), cites an article in New Scientist (Mackenzie 1998) where it said, “Roger Clark, a seismologist of the Leeds University found that when data from 125 stations — closer to the number required by the treaty (CTBT) monitoring network — are taken into account the estimate is nearer 60(kilotons)”. He also refers to the finding of a world-renowned seismologist, Jack Evernden, being consistent with the official claim.
The issue was examined in a review by then National Security Adviser, Brajesh Mishra. If the weapon designers had doubts about the yield they could have conducted one more test within the first few days after the May 11 test since one more shaft was available, before any commitment was made on voluntary moratorium.
Apparently, the weapon design team did not have any doubts on the result. But on the very first day the sceptics had doubts. There was a popular view that the thermonuclear test should be of 100 kilotons and above and, therefore, this could not be a thermonuclear explosion. In any case, the shaft could not have withstood any explosion higher than 60 kilotons.
Do we conduct some more tests to satisfy the sceptics? This cannot be publicly debated just as conducting the nuclear tests was not debated. The nuclear tests of 1998 were not to pre-empt any Pakistani move but were a response to the provocative Pakistani Ghauri missile test and also to declare India a nuclear weapon state in the early days of the new BJP-led NDA government before the Americans started applying pressure on India. At that time it was expected that the CTBT would come into force in 1999.
The late P. V. Narasimha Rao had urged Mr Vajpayee to conduct the test early in 1996. It could not be done in the 13 days the BJP was in office and was carried out in May 1998. Pakistan’s tests were in response to the Indian tests and the interaction between Pakistan and the US on the issue is a matter of public record. But Pakistan had its nuclear weapon tested by China at the Lop Nor test site on May 26, 1990, according to the disclosure in the book “The Nuclear Express” by two US scientists, Thomas Reed and Danny Stillman. India lived in a state of unfavourable deterrent asymmetry in the nineties till the Shakti tests were carried out.
As Prime Ministers V.P. Singh and I.K. Gujral explained after the tests, the file to test was always on their table. Narasimha Rao came close to conducting the test. But only Vajpayee could do it by taking the world by surprise. During all that time there were no TV debates or newspaper editorials or strategists screaming about India’s vulnerability.
India became a nuclear weapon power and in the next eight years its strategic arsenal has been accepted by the international community. India has also the NSG waiver. All that happened in spite of opposition from sections of our people who preferred a confrontationist strategy with the international community.
The government leadership is satisfied with the state of our deterrent posture and so also the armed forces. In the US and Russia, too, there are people dissatisfied with the readiness of their arsenals and would like to resume testing. But the majority public opinion in those countries is opposed to it. Fission weapons of 60-80 kilotons have been successfully fabricated and standard thermonuclear warheads of today are neither in megatons nor in hundreds of kilotons. Our fission weapon capabilities are not under question. So long as the adversary believes that the nuclear explosions in his cities will cause him unacceptable damage he will be deterred.
Whether it is the CTBT, the FMCT or conducting nuclear tests, it is counter-productive to look at these issues in a narcissistic manner. We should try to exploit the opportunities as they arise. This country is just learning to do it and we have a long way to go. The need of the moment is to avoid chauvinism and steadily improve the capacity of the country to grow and deliver without demagoguery
The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Opinions
THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN "THE TRIBUNE" (CHANDIGARH)
The Pokhran-2 controversy
India’s leadership and armed forces are satisfied with nuclear deterrent by
K Subrahmanyam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Subrahmanyam)
Top Indian nuclear scientists are fighting among themselves on the effectiveness of India’s nuclear tests in 1998. Dr K Santhanam, Dr P K Iyenger and Mr H N Sethna have claimed that the tests were not a full success. Reacting sharply, Dr A P J Abdul Kalam has rubbished the claims of the sceptics.
K Subrahmanyam, who has closely watched the growth of India’s nuclear programme from the beginning, has joined issue with the doubting scientists, pointing out that even a critical world has accepted India as a nuclear weapon power and the worth of its arsenal.
— Editor-in-Chief
THE present controversy over the yield of Pokhran-2 nuclear tests is not the first such development in this country of argumentative Indians. Pokhran-1 also had its share of controversy on its explosive yield. Since it was not claimed to be a weapon test at that time and there was no talk of nuclear deterrence, that controversy was less fierce than the present one. Then, too, there were people who termed it a dud.
I have heard personally Prime Minister Morarji Desai saying that there was no nuclear test and the scientists set off an explosion of a large quantity of buried conventional explosives. Others contested the claimed yield of 12 kilotons and asserted that it was only 8 kilotons. The result of the Pokhran-1 controversy survives till today and contributes to the present one. Many foreign scientists concede that they arrive at a lower yield of the Pokhran-2 test by extrapolating the lower yield of Pokhran-1 as advanced by some Indian scientists.
Controversies and personality clashes among scientists are not unknown. In the West, one has heard of the Oppenheimer-Teller clash or the one between Oppenheimer and E.O.Lawrence. In India, too, we had Bhabha-Saha clash and the deep divide between Dr Raja Ramanna and H. N. Sethna. When Vikram Sarabhai was the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission the relations between him and the Trombay establishment were quite cold. Scientists by the very nature of their vocation are highly individualistic people and they prefer to be convinced about a fact personally on the basis of evidence.
Nuclear physics is an arcane subject and in that weapon designing is even more esoteric. There are, therefore, limits to transparency on it. Moreover, this is India’s second fission test and first thermonuclear test. With the exception of two — Dr P. K. Iyengar and the late Dr Ramanna — all other weapon designing talent was involved in the Pokhran-2 test. Of the two outside, Dr Iyengar is a sceptic while Dr Ramanna, when he was alive, accepted the claimed yield.
All nuclear scientists are not necessarily familiar with the intricacies of weapon design. There is a popular tendency in the country to accept that all people associated with the Department of Atomic Energy are knowledgeable in the intricacies of nuclear weapons. This is not the case.
It has been widely propagated that many foreign scientists have questioned the yield of Pokhran-2. Usually when seismic stations monitored a nuclear test they used to announce the magnitude of the explosion in terms of ranges of yields as, for instance, a low- yield explosion of 5-15 kilotons or a medium-yield explosion of 15-60 kilotons. Very rarely was a precise yield reported. The ease with which many foreign assessments were made about precise yields made them suspect, especially when they were not familiar with geological structures and soil conditions at the test site.
The very first report from the West termed the test an earthquake. There could also be some resonance between the domestic scepticism and foreign assessments.
Dr Chidambaram, former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and head of the weapon designing team in 1998, writing in “Atoms for Peace” (Vol. 2 No. 1, 2008), cites an article in New Scientist (Mackenzie 1998) where it said, “Roger Clark, a seismologist of the Leeds University found that when data from 125 stations — closer to the number required by the treaty (CTBT) monitoring network — are taken into account the estimate is nearer 60(kilotons)”. He also refers to the finding of a world-renowned seismologist, Jack Evernden, being consistent with the official claim.
The issue was examined in a review by then National Security Adviser, Brajesh Mishra. If the weapon designers had doubts about the yield they could have conducted one more test within the first few days after the May 11 test since one more shaft was available, before any commitment was made on voluntary moratorium.
Apparently, the weapon design team did not have any doubts on the result. But on the very first day the sceptics had doubts. There was a popular view that the thermonuclear test should be of 100 kilotons and above and, therefore, this could not be a thermonuclear explosion. In any case, the shaft could not have withstood any explosion higher than 60 kilotons.
Do we conduct some more tests to satisfy the sceptics? This cannot be publicly debated just as conducting the nuclear tests was not debated. The nuclear tests of 1998 were not to pre-empt any Pakistani move but were a response to the provocative Pakistani Ghauri missile test and also to declare India a nuclear weapon state in the early days of the new BJP-led NDA government before the Americans started applying pressure on India. At that time it was expected that the CTBT would come into force in 1999.
The late P. V. Narasimha Rao had urged Mr Vajpayee to conduct the test early in 1996. It could not be done in the 13 days the BJP was in office and was carried out in May 1998. Pakistan’s tests were in response to the Indian tests and the interaction between Pakistan and the US on the issue is a matter of public record. But Pakistan had its nuclear weapon tested by China at the Lop Nor test site on May 26, 1990, according to the disclosure in the book “The Nuclear Express” by two US scientists, Thomas Reed and Danny Stillman. India lived in a state of unfavourable deterrent asymmetry in the nineties till the Shakti tests were carried out.
As Prime Ministers V.P. Singh and I.K. Gujral explained after the tests, the file to test was always on their table. Narasimha Rao came close to conducting the test. But only Vajpayee could do it by taking the world by surprise. During all that time there were no TV debates or newspaper editorials or strategists screaming about India’s vulnerability.
India became a nuclear weapon power and in the next eight years its strategic arsenal has been accepted by the international community. India has also the NSG waiver. All that happened in spite of opposition from sections of our people who preferred a confrontationist strategy with the international community.
The government leadership is satisfied with the state of our deterrent posture and so also the armed forces. In the US and Russia, too, there are people dissatisfied with the readiness of their arsenals and would like to resume testing. But the majority public opinion in those countries is opposed to it. Fission weapons of 60-80 kilotons have been successfully fabricated and standard thermonuclear warheads of today are neither in megatons nor in hundreds of kilotons. Our fission weapon capabilities are not under question. So long as the adversary believes that the nuclear explosions in his cities will cause him unacceptable damage he will be deterred.
Whether it is the CTBT, the FMCT or conducting nuclear tests, it is counter-productive to look at these issues in a narcissistic manner. We should try to exploit the opportunities as they arise. This country is just learning to do it and we have a long way to go. The need of the moment is to avoid chauvinism and steadily improve the capacity of the country to grow and deliver without demagoguery
The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Opinions
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 4,970
- Likes
- 229
fullstory
Encourage India and Pak to sign CTBT: Markey
Washington, Sept 3 (PTI) Expressing concern over nuclear arms race in South Asia, a senior Democratic lawmaker, who opposed the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, has asked the Obama administration to "encourage" India and Pakistan to sign CTBT and halt production of nuclear-weapon fissile material.
"The United States should encourage both countries (India and Pakistan) to abide by their current nuclear test moratorium and to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban," Congressman Edward Markey said in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Markey is founder of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation and had lobbied against the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal.
"The United States should encourage both countries to halt the production of nuclear weapons-usable fissile material, pending the entry into force of a globally binding Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty," he urged Clinton.
Encourage India and Pak to sign CTBT: Markey
Washington, Sept 3 (PTI) Expressing concern over nuclear arms race in South Asia, a senior Democratic lawmaker, who opposed the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, has asked the Obama administration to "encourage" India and Pakistan to sign CTBT and halt production of nuclear-weapon fissile material.
"The United States should encourage both countries (India and Pakistan) to abide by their current nuclear test moratorium and to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban," Congressman Edward Markey said in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Markey is founder of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation and had lobbied against the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal.
"The United States should encourage both countries to halt the production of nuclear weapons-usable fissile material, pending the entry into force of a globally binding Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty," he urged Clinton.
Pak disturbed over India’s nuke test possibility
Islamabad: Pakistan today said it was "disturbed" by reports that India could be preparing for additional nuclear tests and hoped a unilateral moratorium on testing would remain in place in the region.
"We are disturbed by media reports that India might be considering to conduct additional (nuclear) tests," Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit told a weekly news briefing.
Basit was responding to a question on concerns expressed by Indian Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor about a reported increase in Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
Pakistan does not "discuss the contours of our deterrence in public" but is committed to maintaining a "credible deterrence at the minimum levels," he said.
Pakistan is also opposed to any arms race in South Asia, he added.
"We have proposed a regional restraint regime, including a regional nuclear test ban treaty. The proposal is still on the table. We hope a unilateral moratorium on testing in the region will continue to be observed," Basit said.
Leading Indian defence scientist K Santhanam's recent remarks that the test of a thermonuclear bomb in 1998 was not as successful as was claimed triggered speculation that New Delhi could be preparing for further tests to validate the design of its nuclear weapons.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has refuted Santhanam's claims.
Pak disturbed over India?s nuke test possibility
Pak disturbed over India’s nuke test possibility
Islamabad: Pakistan today said it was "disturbed" by reports that India could be preparing for additional nuclear tests and hoped a unilateral moratorium on testing would remain in place in the region.
"We are disturbed by media reports that India might be considering to conduct additional (nuclear) tests," Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit told a weekly news briefing.
Basit was responding to a question on concerns expressed by Indian Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor about a reported increase in Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
Pakistan does not "discuss the contours of our deterrence in public" but is committed to maintaining a "credible deterrence at the minimum levels," he said.
Pakistan is also opposed to any arms race in South Asia, he added.
"We have proposed a regional restraint regime, including a regional nuclear test ban treaty. The proposal is still on the table. We hope a unilateral moratorium on testing in the region will continue to be observed," Basit said.
Leading Indian defence scientist K Santhanam's recent remarks that the test of a thermonuclear bomb in 1998 was not as successful as was claimed triggered speculation that New Delhi could be preparing for further tests to validate the design of its nuclear weapons.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has refuted Santhanam's claims.
Pak disturbed over India?s nuke test possibility
sayareakd
Mod
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 17,734
- Likes
- 18,952
May have to revisit nuclear no-first use policy: Army chief
TNN 6 September 2009, 01:18am IST
NEW DELHI: Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor may have opened a fresh discussion on India's nuclear posture and preparedness with his recent remarks that
if reports of Pakistan's expanded arsenal are correct, then New Delhi may well have to reconsider its strategic stance.
The Army chief's latest remarks with regard to a report by Federation of American Scientists which said the Pakistani arsenal could be as large as 70-90 warheads — he had earlier said if true this went beyond deterrence — has further spurred the debate in the strategic community.
Kapoor's implied suggestion that India could have to revisit its no-first use policy in case the strength of Pakistan’s nuclear was close to what had been claimed, will challenge a long held position. The need to think afresh is also linked to Pakistan deliberately blurring its red lines to maintain a nebulous doctrine.
Security expert Brahma Chellaney feels there there is need to review India’s “deterrence posture” while another analyst Bharat Karnad says no-first-use is not a substantive declaration. But they agree there is a need to plug gaps in India’s posture with regard to both Pakistan and China.
Though India’s doctrine has been touted as an indication of New Delhi’s peaceful intentions, Pakistan’s aggressive nuclearisation may mean that India needs to take a second look at its doctrine.
A number of eminent scientists in the past few weeks have made a case for India strengthening its nuclear capabilities and Kapoor’s remark that ‘‘India shall take a look at its stance’’ has added to the growing perception that the Indian nuclear arsenal needs refurbishing, if not the need to carry out more tests, to maintain its nuclear programme’s cutting edge.
The FAS claim is further buttressed by a report of the US Congressional Research Services, an independent bipartisan research wing of Congress, which has now said that Pakistan is not just making ‘‘qualitative and quantitative’’ improvement to its nuclear arsenal but has also added to the list of circumstances under which it would be willing to use them against India.
It said the number of warheads Pakistan had could be much more than the official figure of 60 and that this had been indicated to CRS by none other than the US government.
May have to revisit nuclear no-first use policy: Army chief - India - NEWS - The Times of India
TNN 6 September 2009, 01:18am IST
NEW DELHI: Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor may have opened a fresh discussion on India's nuclear posture and preparedness with his recent remarks that
if reports of Pakistan's expanded arsenal are correct, then New Delhi may well have to reconsider its strategic stance.
The Army chief's latest remarks with regard to a report by Federation of American Scientists which said the Pakistani arsenal could be as large as 70-90 warheads — he had earlier said if true this went beyond deterrence — has further spurred the debate in the strategic community.
Kapoor's implied suggestion that India could have to revisit its no-first use policy in case the strength of Pakistan’s nuclear was close to what had been claimed, will challenge a long held position. The need to think afresh is also linked to Pakistan deliberately blurring its red lines to maintain a nebulous doctrine.
Security expert Brahma Chellaney feels there there is need to review India’s “deterrence posture” while another analyst Bharat Karnad says no-first-use is not a substantive declaration. But they agree there is a need to plug gaps in India’s posture with regard to both Pakistan and China.
Though India’s doctrine has been touted as an indication of New Delhi’s peaceful intentions, Pakistan’s aggressive nuclearisation may mean that India needs to take a second look at its doctrine.
A number of eminent scientists in the past few weeks have made a case for India strengthening its nuclear capabilities and Kapoor’s remark that ‘‘India shall take a look at its stance’’ has added to the growing perception that the Indian nuclear arsenal needs refurbishing, if not the need to carry out more tests, to maintain its nuclear programme’s cutting edge.
The FAS claim is further buttressed by a report of the US Congressional Research Services, an independent bipartisan research wing of Congress, which has now said that Pakistan is not just making ‘‘qualitative and quantitative’’ improvement to its nuclear arsenal but has also added to the list of circumstances under which it would be willing to use them against India.
It said the number of warheads Pakistan had could be much more than the official figure of 60 and that this had been indicated to CRS by none other than the US government.
May have to revisit nuclear no-first use policy: Army chief - India - NEWS - The Times of India
Something is realy cooking up:
Reassure army on H-bomb yield: VP Malik
Reassure army on H-bomb yield: VP Malik
PTI First Published : 06 Sep 2009 03:35:31 PM ISTLast Updated :
NEW DELHI: With some scientists questioning the efficacy of the hydrogen bomb tested in Pokhran over a decade ago, former Army chief V P Malik has said the armed forces need to be "reassured" by the nuclear establishment on the exact yield of the weapons developed by them.
"They need to be reassured about the weapon system they use and about the planning of what kind of the yield they have when they hit the target," Malik, the Chief of the Armed Forces during the Pokhran-II nuclear tests, told Karan Thapar on the Devil's Advocate programme of CNN-IBN.
Terming the recent comments of former DRDO scientist K Santhanam, questioning the yield of the thermonuclear device tested on May 11, 1998 as "shocking", he said doubts over the efficacy of the weapon affects the armed forces.
"Yes, it affects the armed forces. Particularly, because, when they plan the task given to them then they have to know what kind of yield that each nuclear weapon has," he said stressing that it was important to remove doubts.
Malik also dubbed as "unconvincing" former President A P J Abdul Kalam's remarks virtually rubbishing Santhanm's claims on the yield of the thermonuclear device tested in 1998.
"Let us not forget that Dr Santhanam was part of his (Kalam's) team. And it came as quite a shock with Dr Santhanam himself mentioning that it was a fizzle. Of course, again he was referring to the thermonuclear weapon. So, Dr Kalam's statement was not quite convincing," he said.
The former Army chief said that the team of scientists led by then Chairman of the Atomic Energy commission R Chidambaram should reassure the armed forces on the yield of the weapons.
"You can convince people only through the scientists, particularly those who participated in this exercise. I am referring to Dr Chidambaram and his whole team from the Atomic Energy Commission.
"I don't think we can be convinced easily by people who are not scientists. This is a matter of technology and these are the people who can discuss and reassure you," Malik said.
Asked whether he found Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's remarks on the controversy convincing, Malik said "well that was a political statement. In things like this, particularly for the armed forces, they have to be convinced by people who have developed these weapons."
He said the reassurance by nuclear scientists need not be in the form of a public debate but can be done privately.
Malik, who is credited with the victory in the Kargil war, termed as "worrying" reports about Pakistan stepping up nuclear weapons programme and modifying the Harpoon missiles acquired from the US.
"It is not only the low intensity conflict but even the ongoing proxy war may get extended because they are so reassured, so confident that we will not be able to do anything, even Kargil-type incursions can take place," he said.
DRDO came in way of acquiring key radars before Kargil: Malik
New Delhi, Sep 6 (PTI) Former Army chief V P Malik, who led the army during the 1999 Kargil war, has said casualties in the conflict could have been reduced had DRDO "not come in the way" in the acquisition of weapon-locating radars.
"We had one or two incidents particularly on the weapon locating radar. If the DRDO had not come in the way we would have got them before the Kargil war and that would have definitely reduced our casualties," he told Karan Thapar on Devil's Advocate programme on CNN-IBN.
Asked whether DRDO was "slight boastful" in claims over developing weapons, Malik said "well that has been our (armed forces') experience over the development of weapons and equipment the DRDO has delivered or not delivered."
On whether A P J Abdul Kalam, during his stint as the Director-General of the DRDO, overestimated the country's capacity and ability, Malik merely said "I do not want to go more into that
Reassure army on H-bomb yield: VP Malik
Reassure army on H-bomb yield: VP Malik
PTI First Published : 06 Sep 2009 03:35:31 PM ISTLast Updated :
NEW DELHI: With some scientists questioning the efficacy of the hydrogen bomb tested in Pokhran over a decade ago, former Army chief V P Malik has said the armed forces need to be "reassured" by the nuclear establishment on the exact yield of the weapons developed by them.
"They need to be reassured about the weapon system they use and about the planning of what kind of the yield they have when they hit the target," Malik, the Chief of the Armed Forces during the Pokhran-II nuclear tests, told Karan Thapar on the Devil's Advocate programme of CNN-IBN.
Terming the recent comments of former DRDO scientist K Santhanam, questioning the yield of the thermonuclear device tested on May 11, 1998 as "shocking", he said doubts over the efficacy of the weapon affects the armed forces.
"Yes, it affects the armed forces. Particularly, because, when they plan the task given to them then they have to know what kind of yield that each nuclear weapon has," he said stressing that it was important to remove doubts.
Malik also dubbed as "unconvincing" former President A P J Abdul Kalam's remarks virtually rubbishing Santhanm's claims on the yield of the thermonuclear device tested in 1998.
"Let us not forget that Dr Santhanam was part of his (Kalam's) team. And it came as quite a shock with Dr Santhanam himself mentioning that it was a fizzle. Of course, again he was referring to the thermonuclear weapon. So, Dr Kalam's statement was not quite convincing," he said.
The former Army chief said that the team of scientists led by then Chairman of the Atomic Energy commission R Chidambaram should reassure the armed forces on the yield of the weapons.
"You can convince people only through the scientists, particularly those who participated in this exercise. I am referring to Dr Chidambaram and his whole team from the Atomic Energy Commission.
"I don't think we can be convinced easily by people who are not scientists. This is a matter of technology and these are the people who can discuss and reassure you," Malik said.
Asked whether he found Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's remarks on the controversy convincing, Malik said "well that was a political statement. In things like this, particularly for the armed forces, they have to be convinced by people who have developed these weapons."
He said the reassurance by nuclear scientists need not be in the form of a public debate but can be done privately.
Malik, who is credited with the victory in the Kargil war, termed as "worrying" reports about Pakistan stepping up nuclear weapons programme and modifying the Harpoon missiles acquired from the US.
"It is not only the low intensity conflict but even the ongoing proxy war may get extended because they are so reassured, so confident that we will not be able to do anything, even Kargil-type incursions can take place," he said.
DRDO came in way of acquiring key radars before Kargil: Malik
New Delhi, Sep 6 (PTI) Former Army chief V P Malik, who led the army during the 1999 Kargil war, has said casualties in the conflict could have been reduced had DRDO "not come in the way" in the acquisition of weapon-locating radars.
"We had one or two incidents particularly on the weapon locating radar. If the DRDO had not come in the way we would have got them before the Kargil war and that would have definitely reduced our casualties," he told Karan Thapar on Devil's Advocate programme on CNN-IBN.
Asked whether DRDO was "slight boastful" in claims over developing weapons, Malik said "well that has been our (armed forces') experience over the development of weapons and equipment the DRDO has delivered or not delivered."
On whether A P J Abdul Kalam, during his stint as the Director-General of the DRDO, overestimated the country's capacity and ability, Malik merely said "I do not want to go more into that
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2009
- Messages
- 24,328
- Likes
- 11,809
The tests gave data for simulation. Even if the tests fizzled it gave data which can and will be used to improve yield and design. Let's for an instance think it was not 45kt and was 25. Does that give the enemy any soccour? No. Nukes are nukes and they will destroy. Hiroshima ans Nagasaki are the proof.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ashdoc's movie review---Parmanu ; the story of Pokhran | Members Corner | 23 | |
|
Parmanu: The Story of Pokhran trailer | General Multimedia | 0 | |
| K | Pokhran II: 16 years later | Defence & Strategy | 1 | |
|
From Pokhran to Pokhran: The story of India's nuclear journey | Defence & Strategy | 2 |
