Pokharan II Fiasco: Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
The Hydrogen Bombs of South Asia?
2009 September 2
The BJP came to power on an Hinduvata agenda of power in Asia and Ram
Raj within its boundaries. It’s bigoted roots in the RSS allowed it
use the Gwalkar agenda of destroying mosques in South Asia. This is
did with impunity and raised the Babri Masjid to rubble. Egged on by
President Clinton, the BJP then tried to to make Bharat a world power
overnight. It instructed the Bharati scientists to explode a Nuclear
bomb. The scientists were not ready and asked for time. The BJP forced
the scientists to give Prime Minister Vajpayee a firm date. The
instrucitons were, the sooner the better. Mr. Abul Kalam had been
running Bharat’s missile program–and running it not to well. Abul
Kalam saw an opportunity for fame and fortune and promised Premier
Vajpayee explosions.
Let us look at the type of explosions that are possible and the types
of Nuclear bombs:
What is an A-Bomb and how does it differ from an H-bomb. An Atomic
bomb is a one-stage fission device that uses fissile material
(typically uranium or plutonium) assembled in a chain-reacting
critical mass.
The H-bomb uses fusion in two or three stages to boost the primary
fission device, giving it more power. The H-Bomb is more compact,
scalable, and cost-effective. The H-Bomb causes much greater
destruction at about same cost.
The difference between a hydrogen bomb and a regular uranium or
plutonium bomb is that a hydrogen bomb uses fusion instead of fission
to generate the main explosion.
In a fission reaction, unstable isotopes of the heavy elements uranium
and plutonium are split into smaller atoms, releasing a large amount
of energy proportional to the amount of material used.
In a fusion reaction, two atoms of the lightest element, hydrogen,
fuse to create one atom of helium, the next-lightest element — and
release much more energy.
1) The Hiroshima Fat Boy and Nagasaki Little Boy type of low yeild
bombs which were dropped on Japan. The 15-kiloton bomb that the United
States dropped on Hiroshima killed most people within a circle with a
radius of about one kilometre. The chief physical effects that caused
these deaths were the blast wave that blew down houses and threw
people around; the searing heat from the fireball, which burned the
skin, blinded the eyes of those directly exposed and caused
innumerable “secondary” fires; and radiation illness caused by the
neutrons and gamma rays coming from the explosion before it turned
into a fireball. If the same weapon were exploded over the centre of
Mumbai (Bombay) today, it would, under the most conservative
assumptions, kill about 150,000 people.
2) Andrei Sakharov is the father of the H-bomb. The Hydrogen Bomb is
a device which is hundreds/thousands of times more potent than the
Fat Boy dropped on Japan. The H-Bomb can vaporize entire countries.
The US tested a 25 megaton H-bomb, which gave a 15 megaton yield.. The
Soviet Union’s Tsar bomb was tested by the former Soviet Union in 1961
at Zemlya in the Arctic Circle. The Tsar bomb was originally meant to
be 100 megatons (one megaton = 1000 kilotons), which is about 7000
times more powerful than the ones dropped on Japan (around 15
kilotons). The USSR later scaled its H-Bomb down to 50 megatons – only
about 3500 more powerful than Fat Man dropped on Hiroshima. China made
a fast transition from fission-based atom bombs to H-bombs in less
than two years. Its thermo-nuclear test measured 3 megatons. Pakistan
too has made known its intention to master TN technology.
A hydrogen bomb with an explosive power of about 1500 kilotons,
exploded at an altitude of 2,300 metres would engulf in a firestorm a
region with a diameter of 30 kilometres and an area of 700 square
kilometres. That could consume the entire metropolis of Bombay and its
13 million inhabitants. If the explosion occurred at an altitude of
less than 600 metres, the fireball would suck up huge quantities of
earth and deposit it downwind as radioactive fallout, which would kill
people over a much larger area by radiation illness whose victims
sicken by stages over a period of weeks. Over the following decades,
some of the survivors would die of radiation-induced cancers. Thus the
destruction from such a bomb would extend across space and time.
In 1998, Pakistan announced that it had the capability of of exploding
a Hydrogen Bomb.
Pakistan can test a hydrogen bomb “within days,” if the political
leadership wants it, and the series of explosions conducted last month
have generated enough data for computer-simulated testing, according
to the country’s top nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.
In an exclusive interview to India Abroad Khan, the man behind
Pakistan’s bomb, also said Islamabad will not conduct any more nuclear
explosions “in the near future,” and claimed that the tests conducted
by New Delhi had used dated know-how.
The series of six tests by Pakistan May 28 and 30 “has been a
successful nuclear explosion by all definitions. India Abroad,
06-12-1998. `Pakistan can test hydrogen bomb within days’
Pakistan had a workable design of a thermo-nuclear device since 1995
and cold tested this in 2000 and has since done this 15 times.
Cold test and super-computer input threshold has been crossed. Alot of
this tech has been achieved clandistinely and with help of allies.
In their paper, Kristensen and Norris say Pakistan is improving its
weapon designs, moving beyond its first-generation nuclear weapons
that relied on Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). After pursuing plutonium-
based designs for more than a decade, Islamabad appears to have
mastered the technology.
Central to that effort, the paper says, is the 40–50-megawatt heavy
water Khushab plutonium production reactor, which was completed in
1998 and is located at Joharabad in the Khushab district of Punjab.
Six surface-to-air missile batteries surround the site to protect
against air strikes. Norris and Kristensen say as a sign of its
confidence in its plutonium designs, Pakistan is building two
additional heavy water reactors at the Khushab site, which will more
than triple the country’s plutonium production.
Explaining the changing nature of the Pak arsenal, they say all of
these efforts suggest that Pakistan is preparing to increase and
enhance its nuclear forces. In particular, the new facilities provide
the Pakistani military with several options: fabricating weapons that
use plutonium cores; mixing plutonium with HEU to make composite
cores; and/or using tritium to “boost” warheads’ yield.
the types of facilities under construction suggest that Pakistan has
decided to supplement and perhaps replace its heavy uranium-based
weapons with smaller, lighter plutonium-based designs that could be
delivered further by ballistic missiles than its current warheads and
that could be used in cruise missiles. Pakistan rapidly ramping up
India-specific nuclear arsenal. Times of India. Chidanand Rajghatta,
TNN 2 September 2009, 12:01am IST
In 1998 Abul Kalam promised the BJP a 45 Kiloton Hydrogen Bomb and
several Plutinium Bomb explosions and a regular Uranium Bomb explosion–
a total of five. According to press reports and K Santhanam the
Bharati attempt was a fizzile.
Therefore Indian bombs remain untested.
Source: M.V. Ramana, a physicist, is a Visiting Research Fellow at
Princeton University. Frank Niels von Hippel, also a physicist, is a
Professor of Public and International Affairs there. DOES INDIA NEED
THE H-BOMB? The Hindu, Wednesday, December 23, 1998, M.V. Ramana and
Frank von Hippel
Source: Times of India
Moin Ansari | rupeenews.com
Also See:
India’s 1998 Nuclear Test Was A Failure
Pakistan’s Plutonium based Tritium H-Bombs deter Indian aggression
Analysis: Nuclear Armageddon in South Asia’
Pakistan Enhances Second Strike N-capability
Pakistan, A Sleeping Superpower
Video: Arrogant Pakistan
In Pictures: This Is Why Pakistan Can Never Go Down
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
No Title
Princess Coocoola
South Asian Blogs…
from → RUPEE NEWS
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2009/08/27/india%E2%80%99s-1998-nuclear-test-was-a-failure/
Six Jewish Companies Own 96% of the World’s Media »
India’s 1998 Nuclear Test Was A Failure
13Claps
VN:F [1.6.3_896]
Indian Nukes Need More Testing, Say Scientists
As if the embarassment over India’s missiles capability wasn’t enough,
a senior Indian scientist has admitted for the first time that India’s
1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests were actually far from the success they
have been claimed to be. The yield of the thermonuclear explosions was
much below expectations and the tests more a ‘fizzle’ rather than a
big bang.
It is important to note that India does not have a functional long
range missile. The 250 km ‘Prithvi’ is the only fully tested,
functional, and ready deployed nuclear-capable missile that India has
in its arsenal. With doubtful nuclear capability, India’s missiles
might not be more than a set of expensive fireworks.
Related:
Indian Missiles Embarassment Continues
Pakistan Missiles Project Far Ahead of India’s
How ‘Indigenous’ is India’s Missile Program?
Pakistan Enhances Second Strike N-capability
Pakistan’s Plutonium based Tritium H-Bombs deter Indian aggression
Analysis: Nuclear Armageddon in South Asia’
India Lags Behind Pakistan In Missiles
Another Indian Missiles Test, Another Failure
The Sorry State of the Indian Army
India Upset about Pakistan’s Brazilian Missiles
Pakistan, A Sleeping Superpower
Video: Arrogant Pakistan
In Pictures: This Is Why Pakistan Can Never Go Down
Full Story from Times of India: The controversy over the yield of the
tests, previously questioned by foreign agencies, has been given a
fresh lease of life with K Santhanam, senior scientist and DRDO
representative at Pokhran II, admitting for the first time that the
only thermonuclear device tested was a “fizzle”. In nuclear parlance,
a test is described as a fizzle when it fails to meet the desired
yield. (Watch Video)
Santhanam, who was director for 1998 test site preparations, told TOI
on Monday that the yield for the thermonuclear test, or hydrogen bomb
in popular usage, was much lower than what was claimed. Santhanam, who
was DRDO’s chief advisor, could well have opened up the debate on
whether or not India should sign CTBT as claims that India has all the
data required and can manage with simulations is bound to be called
into question.
“Based upon the seismic measurements and expert opinion from world
over, it is clear that the yield in the thermonuclear device test was
much lower than what was claimed. I think it is well documented and
that is why I assert that India should not rush into signing the
CTBT,” Santhanam told TOI on Wednesday.
He emphasised the need for India to conduct more tests to improve its
nuclear weapon programme.
The test was said to have yielded 45 kilotons (KT) but was challenged
by western experts who said it was not more than 20 KT.
The exact yield of the thermonuclear explosion is important as during
the heated debate on the India-
US nuclear deal, it was strenuously argued by the government’s top
scientists that no more tests were required for the weapons programme.
It was said the disincentives the nuclear deal imposed on testing
would not really matter as further tests were not required.
According to security expert Bharat Karnad, Santhanam’s admission is
remarkable because this is the first time a nuclear scientist and one
closely associated with the 1998 tests has disavowed the government
line. “He is not just saying that India should not sign the CTBT,
which I believe is completely against India’s interests, but also that
the 1998 thermonuclear device test was inadequate.
His saying this means that the government has to do something. Either
you don’t have a thermonuclear deterrent or prove that you have it, if
you claim to have it,” said Karnad.
Sources said that Santhanam had admitted that the test was a fizzle
during a discussion on CTBT organised by IDSA. Karnad also
participated in the seminar. He told TOI that no country has succeeded
in achieving targets with only its first test of a thermonuclear
device.
“Two things are clear; that India should not sign CTBT and that it
needs more thermonuclear device tests,” said Santhanam.
The yield of the thermonuclear device test in 1998 has led to much
debate and while western experts have stated that it was not as
claimed, BARC has maintained that it stands by its assessment. Indian
scientists had claimed after the test that the thermonuclear device
gave a total yield of 45 KT, 15 KT from the fission trigger and 30 KT
from the fusion process and that the theoretical yield of the device
(200 KT) was reduced to 45 KT in order to minimise seismic damage to
villages near the test range.
British experts, however, later challenged the claims saying that the
actual combined yield for the fission device and thermonuclear bomb
was not more than 20 KT.
VN:F [1.6.3_896]
Pak Alert PressTrend Alerts, Breaking News, Global Crises,
Investigations, Project 2012, Coming Greatest Depression, Coming
Nuclear War and moreHome About Jinnah’s Pakistan Operation Blue Tulsi:
15 Years in Planning, 10 Years in Preparation and Today in Execution –
Updated
2009 July 9
Online References of Operation Blue Tulsi
I am making a list of all the references for the Operation Blue Tulsi
which I can find on the Internet. If you have any sources, you would
be very kind to inform me via the comment section. It would be helpful
for other as well.
A Pakistani Newspaper cartoon showing RAW agetns coming to Pakistan
Source: Jasarat, (Pakistan) 8 April 2008
1995-96
Aitzaz Ahsan hands over the list of Sikh freedom fighters to India.
Ref: Pakistan’s drift into Extremism by Hassan Abbas, page#142General
Abdul Waheed Kakar refuses the extension in his tenure.
Ref: Far East and Australasia 2003 By Eur, Europa Publications Staff,
Europa Publications Staff Europa Publications, pg# 1171
Benazir Bhutto’s government expells more than 2000 Arab Mujahiddin
Ref: Far East and Australasia 2003 By Eur, Europa Publications Staff,
Europa Publications Staff Europa Publications, pg# 1171
Online: http://books.google.com/books?id=e5Az1lGCJwQC&pg=PP1&dq=Far+East+and+Australasia+2003&as_brr=3
Ref 2: Europa World Year Book 2 By Taylor & Francis Group, Taylor &
Francis Group pg#3259
Online: http://books.google.com/books?id=gP_-8rXzQs8C&pg=PA3259&dq
Rehman Malik was recruited by FBI in 1995 by John Lipka of FBI and let
foreign agents interrogate Pakistani citizens in Pakistan
Ref:The New Jackals By Simon Reeve, pg#47
Online: http://books.google.com/books?id=VQjpziNmoE4C&pg=PA236&dq
US will Take out Pak Nukes
“India had been promised, that in the event of some Pakistani national
cataclysm, the Americans would move in to remove the nuclear weapons.”
Ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/markurban/2009/06/pakistans_loose_nukes.html
2004
“Pakistan’s Provinces” is published by “Strategic Foresight Group” of
India, which predicts balkanization of Pakistan.
Ref: http://www.strategicforesight.com/pakprovinces.htm
Ref: http://www.strategicforesight.com/news_pakprovinces.htm
July 2009
Operation Blue Tulsi report is released by PakAlertPress on the
internet and spreads like wildfire. In one day the google search
results increase from 15 to 500 and in two weeks to 35,000.
Ref: http://groups.google.com/group/pakalert/browse_thread/thread/0fbee80b20ddfea9
Wikipedia Deletion
All the references to Operation Blue Tulsi on wikipedia are deleted on
7 July 2009. (you can check this by using the “History” link on the
pages where operation blue tulsi appears). However, some of the
references are put back up after 2 to 3 days.
12 July 2009
Article on Blue Tulsi Operation is published in London Institute of
South Asia UK.
Ref: http://www.lisauk.com/Articles.asp?aid=640
13 July 2009
Interior Minister Rehman Malik launches campaign against anti-
government emils, sms and websites. He says, “Any Pakistani living
abroad would be deported to Pakistan. Interpol/Lyon have been asked to
identify those email addresses and websites registered abroad which
are being used for “such stories”. We have marked some websites that
are based abroad and our teams will be paying a visit to these
countries soon.”
15 July 2009
Guardian (UK) talks about:
“a widely believed conspiracy theory in Pakistan that Washington is
orchestrating violent chaos so US troops can storm in and disable the
country’s nuclear arsenal”
and indirectly trying to say that there is no such conspiracy. We all
know what conspiracy theory – “Operation: Blue Tulsi” – The Guardian
is talking about.
Ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/15/al-qaida-pakistan-us-nuclear
18 July 2009
Pakistani newspaper confirms Blue Tulsi Operation.
Ref: http://pakobserver.net/200907/18/Articles02.asp
20 July 2009
An injured suicide bomber confesses on TV (July 20, 2009 on “Point
Blank” program of Private TV Channel “Express News”) that India/RAW is
supporting Barhamdagh Bugti and funding the unrest in Pakistan.
Ref: http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=217752
Watch Video: http://www.pakalertpress.com/2009/07/26/interview-with-a-captured-suicide-bomber/
22 July 2009
Pakistan hands India comprehensive evidence of RAW’s involvement in
terrorism in Pakistan.
Ref:
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/12-proof+of+raw+involvement+in+terror+acts+given+to+india–bi-08
27 July 2009-wikipedia deletion
On 26 July all references to Operation Blue Tulsi on wikipedia are
deleted AGAIN. In the last two weeks numerous pages relevant to
Operation Blue Tulsi were found mentioning the operation name or
details but by 27 July not a single reference is left on wikipedia.
30 July 2009 – Pakistan hands proof to NATO-US
Pakistan hands over the proof of India helping Baitullah Mehsud to
NATO and US
Ref: http://www.zeenews.com/news551444.html
Operation Blue Tulsi: 15 Years in Planning, 10 Years in Preparation
and Today in Execution
by Xavia Team
Every inquiry must start somewhere. We have chosen this inquiry to
start in the late eighties when two junior intelligence officers one
Pakistani other Indian faced each other on opposite sides of the law.
The Pakistani intelligence officer had caught the Indian agent on
Pakistani soil with incriminating evidence. Indian agent knew his life
had come to an end. However, everything has a price. And his freedom
was worth a little less than half a million rupees. A few days later
the Indian agent was sitting back at home, free as a bird. And life
went on for several more years until the fateful year of 1994 when the
two old “chaps” met again. This time officially. The Indian agent had
climbed the ladder to an important post in the government. At this
side of the border the junior Pakistani agent, against all odds had
become one of the top bosses at Federal Investigation Agency. Of
course, this was the infamous Rehman Malik. (See: Pakistan’s Zionist
Security Advisor)
The Indian side wanted Pakistani Government’s help in reducing cross-
border terrorism. But Rehman Malik offered a lot more than mere
reduction in “cross-border”. He had been appointed as Additional
Director FIA and yielded immense power through the country.
Additionally he had become the right-hand-man of Asif Ali Zardari,
stashing his looted money all over the world. He offered them direct
access to the jihadists which he would capture. Somewhere along the
line Israel also became a party to the deal and soon Mossad agents
were carrying out investigations of the captured (ISI backed)
jihadists on Pakistani soil. There were millions to be made from the
deal and of course Rehman Malik was working in tandem with this
immediate boss Ghulam Asghar, head of the FIA and under the auspices
of Asif Ali Zardari. ISI, Pakistan Military and top brass quietly kept
a close watch. Although painful but capture of a few foot soldiers was
bearable in the bigger national interest.
By 1995 in a little over a year the Benazir Bhutto government had
expelled 2000 Arab mujahidin of the Afghan-Soviet War and imprisoned
number of Pakistani mujahidin. Secondly and more significantly,
Benazir Bhutto on her official visit to US in April 1995 met in secret
with an Israeli delegation. On her return she faced stiff resistance
from a block of military and civilian bureaucracy which had generated
great suspicions of her dealings with India and Israel. Just four
months later she thwarted a coup attempt against her headed by Major
General Zahirul Islam Abbasi. Director General of Military
Intelligence Major General Ali Kuli Khan tipped-off General Abdul
Waheed Kakar who immediately ordered Chief of General Staff Lt.
General Jehangir Karamat to suppress the coup. A total of 36 army
officers and 20 civilians were arrested from Islamabad and Rawalpindi.
Then in November 1995 Egyptian Embassy blast occurred. Al-Qaeda was
quick to claim it. Although the real reasons of the handlers of
bombers remain hidden to this day, but in the next few days a silent
but significant event happened. General Abdul Waheed Kakar who was
given an extension in his tenure he refused it and Lt. General
Jehangir Karamat was appointed as the Army Chief by the then President
Farooq Leghari on 18 December, 1995. Lt. General Jehangir Karamat was
the senior most general at the time, therefore the least controversial
within the military – something which the military desperately needed
at the time. The other three generals who were in the position to
become COAS were Lt Gen Javed Ashraf Qazi, Lt Gen Naseer Akhtar, and
Lt Gen Mohammad Tariq. Lt. Gen. Ghulam Muhammad Malik had already
retired in October 1995. Maj Gen Naseem Rana was heading the ISI at
the time, taken his charge in October 1995. Lt Gen Shujat Ali Khan was
heading the ISI’s Internal Wing.
In the backdrop of these events in Pakistan, in March 1995 Israel’s
Air Force chief had visited India with an entourage that included key
Mossad officials. It was at this point that in a meeting Pakistan’s
nuclear program was discussed. A year later Indian nuclear and missile
program head, Abdul Kalam had a “top secret” visit of Israel in June
1996. It was “top secret” because no one knew about it. As it turned
out, everyone knew about it even before he left India. All the much
publicized secrecy and visit of such a top level official achieved the
aim and nearly nobody bothered with the entourage which included a
manager from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)
– Alok Tiwari. The “top secret” meetings between Abdul Kalam and his
Israeli counterparts were related to purchase of UAVs. However, in
every single one of those “top secret” meetings Alok Tiwari was
missing. With all the attention was focused on Abdul Kalam and his
“top secret” meetings no one noticed the odd thing.
Just a few days later, after coming back to India Tiwari accompanied
Air Chief Marshal S. K. Sareen to Israel in Israel in July 1996. In
fact this was his third trip. He had also visited Israel in April 1996
along with India’s first Defence Attaché to Israel.
First Wave
The effect was immediate. In late July 1996 MQM organized a province
wide strike. Simultaneously a large bomb exploded at Lahore airport
and a second at Faisalabad railway station. On 14th August 1996 12 SSP
activists were gunned down during an Independence Rally by
unidentified gunmen. By end August Punjab had been engulfed in
sectarian violence, Shias and Sunnis were being gunned down in broad
daylight. The political and security situation worsened by the murder
of Murtaza Bhutto and reinstatement of Manzoor Wattoo as Chief
Minister of Punjab. The country seemed in a political and economic
turmoil with violence erupting throughout the country. At the same
time, out of blue Ataullah Mengal returned from his self-imposed
exile.
While everyone was busy with the current crisis a team of agents
working directly under Rehman Malik were gathering information on
Kahuta and A.Q. Khan. Beginning November 1996 ISI saw an increase in
Indian troops movement, which finally sent alarm bells ringing through
the echelons of Rawalpindi and Islamabad.
Suddenly, all the pieces fell in place and Ghulam Asghar and Rehman
Malik’s shenanigans seemed a lot deeper than mere money grabbing
tactics. By fourth of November a thick load of evidence had been
gathered on Ghulam Asghar and Rehman Malik working with the consent of
Asif Ali Zardari towards gathering information on the progress of
Pakistan’s nuclear program.
On 5th November 1996, Farooq Leghari dissolved Benazir Bhutto’s
government. At the other side of the border, this caused the immediate
visit of Israeli naval chief Vice-Admiral Alex Tal to India. Back at
home, Ghulam Asghar and Rehman Malik were imprisoned on undisclosed
charges. Pakistan had narrowly escaped the storm that was brewing in
its mists.
Second Wave
In February 1997, Indian Defence Secretary T. K. Banerji led a high
level defence delegation to Israel to discuss the “exchange of
technology” between two countries. Other than the official purpose the
most important topic was Pakistan’s nuclear program. By the end of the
visit the two countries had decided to do “whatever” it takes to
neutralize the threat.
In March next year the BJP won Indian elections and one of the
immediate policies adopted was to tackle Pakistan’s nuclear issue by
any means possible. With such enthusiastic approach the government
even decided to take the most extreme measures if needed. In the next
two months the official and diplomatic delegations between India and
Israel came to a halt, however, there was a sudden rise in non-
diplomatic delegations between the two countries. The last official
visit was of Gen. Prakash Malik to Israel in March 1998, who was also
the first serving Indian Chief of Army Staff to visit Israel since
normalization. In April 1998 two out-of-the ordinary incidents
happened. Air India announced its discontinuation of Tel Aviv flight
on 1 April 1998 and early April the Confederation of Indian Industry
announced an unplanned “Study Mission” to Israel. This was the prelude
to the second wave which officially started on 11th May 1998 when
India exploded its nuclear bombs.
Night of 27-28 May
Pakistan resisted testing its nuclear bombs for nearly two weeks until
27th May 1998. On 27 May 1998 in a top level meeting Lt. Gen.
[[[Naseem Rana]] (DG ISIP briefed the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and
army chief of the increasing intelligence reports of possible Indian
attack on Pakistan’s nuclear installations. However, the panic this
created was nothing compared to the next two meetings. The first
report pertained to the sighting of an unidentified F-16 aircraft at
the periphery of Pakistan’s airspace on 27th May. Knowing India did
not have F-16, the obvious suggestion was presence of Israeli Air
Force in the area (especially with the reports of Indian COAS visiting
Israel just a month ago). And the second report coming just before 1am
on 28th May recorded unusual movements of Indian aircrafts just across
the border which suggested India was preparing for preventive
airstrikes against Pakistan. The obvious response of nuclear tests on
28th May.
The tests confirmed once and for all that Pakistan has nuclear
capability.
Deduction
It seemed probable that BJP Government had decided to fire its nuclear
bombs to force Pakistan into test firing its – if it has any. After a
delay of two weeks, doubts had started rising in nearly every
analytical discourse that Pakistan did not have the nuclear capability
otherwise it would have responded. This was the golden opportunity to
take out Pakistan/Pakistan’s nuclear installations before that
Pakistan got the capability. The important visit of Indian COAS to
Israel in March – in the light of proceeding events – could only be
regarding Israel’s support for the planned attack. Whatever, the
reasons and aims, the end result was establishment of Pakistan as a
nuclear state, which completely changed the Great Nuclear Game.
Third Wave
Pakistan’s test firing of nuclear bombs was a shock for the rest of
the world. No one expected, in the first place for Pakistan to have
the capability and secondly to fire them if it had. For India and
Israel, who were two top most interested parties in destroying
Pakistan’s nuclear assets, this meant a complete overhaul of their
strategy.
A year later Indian National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra came to
meet Barak in September 1999 and this time he was accompanied with a
familiar face – Alok Tiwari. Within a year, Alok Tiwari and another
security analyst finalized a document based on their discussion the
preceding year.
In June 2000 L. K. Advani visited Israel in which new deals related to
Mossad and Shabak espionage and cooperation with R&AW are finalized
and as a result Israel was allowed to establish its own network to
operate from India. Also, L.K. Advani discussed Pakistan’s nuclear
program and coordination between the two countries on an operation for
disarming Pakistan. During the visit, Alok Tiwari’s report was also
discussed.
By July 2000 a heavy deployment of Israeli agents in Indian Occupied
Kashmir was reported. Near the end of 2000 Israel’s top intelligence
officers were reported to have visited India and discussed amongst
other issues, Kashmir and Pakistan’s nuclear assets. One of the
meetings on the agenda was regarding the report Alok Tilwar had
prepared which had gone through considerable changes in Israel. By the
end of the visit the top spies of the two country had agreed to
cooperate on the operation detailed inside the thick volume titled:
“Operation Blue Tulsi”.
Operation Blue Tulsi: Preparation
We do not know what is written inside the report Operation BlueTulsi.
But we can ascertain some of it by the events it had led to beginning
2001. Preparation for the mega Operation Blue Tulsi began fervently in
early 2001. By mid 2001 eyebrows were being raised over R&AW and
Mossad’s cooperation and in July 2001 Janes Information Group reported
that RAW and Mossad are cooperating to infiltrate Pakistan to target
important religious and military personalities, journalists, judges,
lawyers and bureaucrats. In addition, bombs would be exploded in
trains, railway stations, bridges, bus stations, cinemas, hotels and
mosques of rival Islamic sects to incite sectarianism. At the same
time the Balouchistan Liberation Army rose out of dead like a second
incarnation and Balach Marri a Moscow graduate declares himself as the
leader of BLA. Within weeks in Balochistan numerous training camps
sprouted with each camp reported to be training up to a 100 militants.
Intelligence of RAW, Mossad and CIA agents operating in Balochistan
started coming in.
In mid 2001 reports appeared that Special Operations Division of
Mossad, also known as Metsada, specializing in assassinations and
sabotage have been based in India since May 2001 to train RAW
operatives and Mossad and Shin Bet or Shabak were operating a number
of teams in Indian Held Kashmir and were also operating a delicate spy
network from Indian soil. In July 2001 RAW increased its budget for
Indian consulates in Afghanistan by nearly 10 times.
Within days after Sep 11, a story was leaked into press that Pakistan
is dismantling and spreading its nuclear assets to safer places
implying that it would be much more difficult to pinpoint them and
much more easier for extremists to get hold of. These news stories
were shortly followed by another piece on 28 October 2001 which stated
that Pentagon was looking into plans to dispatch an elite unit into
the Pakistan to disarm its nuclear arsenal. The special unit which was
trained to slip into foreign countries to ferret out and disarm
nuclear weapons and operated under Pentagon control with CIA
assistance and would be getting special help from Israel’s Sayeret
Matkal also known as Unit 262.
On 22 December 2001 C. Raja Mohan wrote, “There is a growing belief in
New Delhi that the time has come to call Pakistan’s nuclear bluff. If
it does not, India places itself in permanent vulnerability to cross-
border terrorism from Pakistan… India is now confronted with the
possibility that its restraint in the face of nuclear escalation is
taken as a fundamental weakness. India must deal with the possible
assessment in Pakistan that its nuclear capability has foreclosed all
conventional military options.” Same time at the other side of the
globe Prof. Stephen P Cohen was saying, “South Asia may have reached a
point where the two countries (India and Pakistan) are really bent on
hurting each other one way or another and it may be time to consider
more unilateral, more forceful American steps – diplomatically and
economically forceful – to get compliance from India and Pakistan
separately on some vital concerns. Clearly, we may have reached a
point where the peace process is simply too little, too late, and we
may have to turn to other forms of diplomacy.”
These two writers one from US and other from India very implicitly had
voiced their respective governments’ policies towards Pakistan’s
nuclear assets.
In December 2001 Indian PM, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, while addressing the
parliament said, “the question was not whether there should be or
should not be a war, [the question was] under what circumstances there
will be war … and whether there will be a war.”
Of course the underlying message was, whether India should attack a
nuclear armed country or a country which has lost its nuclear
capabilities.
In December 2001 Benazir Bhutto while visiting India said in her
interviews, “President, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, as an army general, had
planned the Kargil invasion in Jammu and Kashmir while I was the Prime
Minister.” Later she also said, “Pakistan army as an institution had
brought back Osama bin Laden”.
This rhetoric of Benazir Bhutto was perfectly in line with the
agreement signed by US and India in 2002. Late in 2002 US and India
signed an agreement on cooperation in disarming Pakistan’s nuclear
assets and the two player offensive team of OperationBlueTulsi found a
third partner in the form of CIA. As a result of this deal Abdullah
Mehsud was freed from Guantanamo Bay and returned to Pakistan with
millions in cash.
Benazir Bhutto’s statements in India were the major reason Pervez
Musharraf’s declaration of Benazir Bhutto as a “security risk” during
a chat with Pakistan’s leading editors and correspondents in April
2002. Pakistani security agencies already had a great deal of
intelligence regarding Benazir Bhutto, Asif Zardari and Rehman Malik’s
involvement with Mossad and India in 1995-96 and their collaboration
against Pakistan’s nuclear assets.
In January 2002 under orders from L. K. Advani R&AW and other
intelligence agencies submited a detailed report on military options
for solving Kashmir issue and in case of a full-fledged war, for
neutralizing Pakistan’s nuclear assets. One major outcome of the
report was creation of Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) in March 2002
with the authority to conduct external operations supported by a huge
budget.
Also, a Lawyers’ Struggle surfaced in October 2003 under the
leadership of Hamid Ali Khan (now drowned under the infamous Lawyers’
Movement). The first prominent protest of the “struggle” was held on
15 October 2003 in which the President of the Supreme Court Bar
Association (SCBA) Hamid Ali Khan said, “Musharraf’s very presence
within the army and holding of other important offices and Shaikh Riaz
Ahmad’s continuation as chief justice after his retirement are
undoubtedly illegal and unconstitutional… Let’s think collectively,
move forward collectively and act collectively to outs usurper
generals and judges (who had collaborated with Pervez Musharraf
including Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry). However, like a B-grade movie
twist, four years later Iftikhar Chaudry becomes the hero to these
same lawyers who wanted to oust him. Like a script from past, this
protest had followed a “Long March”. And the “struggle” then moved to
other cities one by one asking Musharraf, Riaz Ahamad and among others
Iftikhar Chaudhry’s removal from office. At this point along with
Hamid Ali Khan, Kazim Khan was at the forefront. Lacking the charisma
and cunning of their successors, assassination of a leader, and
shortage of “unlimited” billions of rupees their names and their
Lawyers’ Struggles has been confined to the dusty pages of history
with their names ascribed against the words, “traitors”. Also, there
is no evidence to support that assassination attempts on Pervez
Musharraf were somehow related to the timing of the Lawyers’ Struggle.
(See: Black Revolution: Pakistan’s Lawyers Movement: The Bush
Administration’s Last Color Revolution)
By mid 2004 the government had ample evidence that BLA and some Baloch
leaders were conspiring against the government, aided by foreign
countries.
On 13th August 2004 the Chief Minister of Baluchistan, Jam Muhammad
Yousaf is quoted by The Herald (Sep 2004-Karachi): “Indian secret
services (RAW) are maintaining 40 terrorist camps all over the Baluch
territory”. While this was happening on ground, there was talk of
“Peace Talks” everywhere in the air. And Jan Muhammad Jamali had
become a laughing stock of the media for his suggestion of foreign
agents operating in Balochistan, which despite the ground facts
forcefully opposed such thoughts.
However, he was already too late. The preparation for the Operation
Blue Tulsi were nearly complete and the Government of Pakistan had
wasted all opportunities for stopping the inevitable.
Operation Blue Tulsi: Start
1st January 2005 was the starting date. The local agents got the
signal and the operation started with the ominous rape of a female
doctor in Sui on 2nd January 2005. As expected the incident created
headlines all round and culprits not being found created a much
supported backlash. This was shortly followed by rocketing of gas
installation at Sui on 7th January which put a hole in Pakistan’s gas
supply for nearly a week.
2005 was a busy year with Baloch terrorists continuously creating
havoc in Balochistan and adjacent areas and ended with assassination
attempts on Musharraf in December. After President Gen Pervez
Musharraf escapes a rocket attack on his life in December 2005 and the
Inspector General Frontier Corps survives an assassination attempt,
Navtej Sarna, the Indian External Affairs Ministry’s spokesman said,
“The Government of India has been watching with concern the spiralling
violence in Balochistan and the heavy military action, including use
of helicopter gun-ships and jet fighters by the Government of Pakistan
to quell it… We hope the Government of Pakistan will exercise
restraint and take recourse to peaceful discussions to address the
grievances of the people of Balochistan”.
The Indian Government had realized that the two assassination attempts
would surely result in backfire on the Indian assets in Balochistan,
which it needed to safeguard for its final aim, especially Akbar
Bugti. Just as suspected, the Government of Pakistan intensifies its
operation against Baloch militants.
And in April 2006 Government of Balochistan is setup with its offices
in Jerusalem under Azaad Khan Baloch. In a laughingly stupid mistake,
Azaad Khan Baloch who is representing Balochis of Pakistan decided to
spell his name according to Hindi transliteration with double “a” in
Az”aa”d, rather than a single “a” as used in Pakistan, i.e. Azad. Or
more probable, “Azad Khan Baloch” is not a Pakistani.
Meanwhile in Balochistan the government operation against Akbar Bugti
intensified who took shelter in the rugged mountain range and
coordinated the activities of his militants from there. Ultimately the
military found him and during the process of capture Akbar Bugti died
because of cave-roof collapse on 26 August 2006. (See: The Story of
Bugti’s Death)
This proved a minor setback in the overall plans. However, beginning
2007 events in the country took a completely different turn. Starting
March 2007, every incident occurring in the country was tied to the
aim of ousting Pervez Musharraf, including the much profitable
Lawyers’ Movement. Intelligence agencies were having a field-day
bringing in pile after pile of reports proving involvement of CIA,
RAW, Mossad and MI6 towards Musharraf’s ouster. True to some extent
but unlike analyzed, ouster of Pervez Musharraf was just one milestone
towards the main goal, which every agency completely missed. Thus, all
their efforts went into controlling the situation to secure Musharraf,
while in the backdrop, silently the wheels kept turning. While Punjab,
Sindh, Balochistan were burning Swat was sitting quietly, unnoticed
and out of radar. Within a period of few months, the numbers of
“Pakistani Taliban” in Swat surged and just as well their ammunition,
latest military equipment a country like Pakistan would dream of. A
portion of this ended up in the ill-fated Lal Masjid. While
intelligence and military were busy keeping Musharraf’s seat safe in
Pakistan, a new political game started in UAE. Rehman Malik
enthusiastically started pursuing the goal of National Reconciliation
Ordinance. He became instrumental in the final deal between Benazir
Bhutto, US and Pervez Musharraf and NRO. Since Benazir Bhutto did not
have much to lose without NRO she was never very interested in it.
That was the reason two options were thrown at Musharraf, i.e. either
eliminating the two term condition or NRO. Rehman Malik on the other
hand was vehemently pursuing NRO, as of the three (Asif Ali Zardari,
Benazir Bhutto and Rehman Malik) the Government of Pakistan only had
clear evidence against Rehman Malik and it was enough to put him in
jail for life (i.e. involvement in espionage and working with Mossad
and RAW). However, at that point no one knew the real motivations of
Rehman Malik other than that he was working to get the path clear for
Benazir’s return. Amazingly, FBI also was putting its weight behind
NRO rather than eliminating the two term condition. While, if US had
really wanted Benazir Bhutto as Prime Minister of Pakistan, logic
dictates that they would want the two term condition eliminated to
assure her easy succession to the premiership. It needs to be noted
here that Rehman Malik had also tried to do a similar deal in 2005,
which never materialized. This time it did.
Near the end of 2007, intelligence and military were convinced that a
conspiracy had been hatched in the country with the sole aim of
removing Musharraf from power. Assassination of Benazir Bhutto,
simultaneous rioting throughout the country, terrorist activities
occurring in every province had considerable similarities to the Bush
Administration backed Color Revolutions. In order to keep Musharraf in
power the government kept giving into one demand after the other. As a
result Rehman Malik becomes head of Interior Ministry, Yusuf Raza
Gilani becomes the Prime Minister of Pakistan and sweeping changes are
made in the security and intelligence community. Still, the government
saw the war finally over when in one move Gilani puts ISI under
Interior Minister on 27 July 2008. Until that time ISI and top brass
had thought all Rehman Malik wanted was to get-rid of extremist
elements from ISI and Pakistan’s establishment.
It was the end of July 2008 when the alarm bells started ringing again
in the high echelons. Intelligence machinery went into extra high gear
and millions later it came back with the name: Operation Blue Tulsi.
Operation Blue Tulsi: the Revelation
The Establishment, only now realized the full extent of the operation
which they had been witnessing since the beginning of 2000. More
worryingly, the current operation had eerily similar modus operandi to
the 1995-96 debacle – which left the country tethering onto its
nuclear assets – just that this time it was vastly more sophisticated
and greater in size. In matter of hours the priorities changed.
Keeping Pervez Musharraf in power suddenly paled in comparison to the
real threat. As the agencies reopened recent reports, reading them in
the light of newest finding all the pieces fell in place. It was a
disastrous lapse on behalf of the multibillion dollar strong
organizations. Overnight the report was prepared and the summary was
sent to President Pervez Musharraf next morning.
In 1995-96 India came up with a plan to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear
facilities before that Pakistan developed a nuclear capability. The
plan was prepared by a RAW agent Alok Tiwari (who has recently been
compromised). At that time Mossad was already active in Pakistan and
once it heard about the project for elimination of Pakistan’s nuclear
facilities jumped in by first streamlining the project further and
then using its assets in Pakistan. Somewhere in early 1996 the
operation was given go-ahead. At that point FIA Director General
Ghulam Asghar and his ADG Rehman Malik in a deal with India and Israel
were hunting down Pakistan based Kashmiri and Arab militants. These
two proved to be the front line in the operation and when contacted by
Indian agents fully agreed to supply all the necessary information
regarding Kahuta and A. Q. Khan’s operations. Towards mid 96
demonstrations and chaos erupted throughout the country. The aim was
to destabilize the country enough that when the two confirmed Pakistan
did not have any nuclear capabilities India would go-ahead with all
out assault. General Jehangir Karamat who was already weary of the two
chaps and Asif Ali Zardari’s complicity took immediate action and
Benazir Bhutto’s government was dissolved. The duo of Asghar and Malik
and Zardari had already come into military’s radar the year before
when they tried to lure General Abdul Wahed Kakar.
Then five years later, Alok Tiwari submited an updated version of his
older report. Israel was again consulted and this time L. K. Advani
vehemently pursued it. Towards the end of 2000 a delegation of top
Mossad brass visited India and the combined operation titled:
Operation Blue Tulsi was finalized and put into operation which had
only one aim:
Destroy Pakistan’s nuclear assets followed by its Balkanization.
Approach:
Resurrect Baloch insurgency. Pakistan was fine with it, as it had
thirty years of experience with it, starting with the Afghan-Soviet
War.
Buy officials in military, bureaucracy, politics and law. ISI was fine
with it, as it had sixty years of experience in dealing with
traitors.
Plant agents in top positions in Taliban, FATA and NWFP. A shocker for
everyone.
Taliban were the foster child of ISI and the agency had no contingency
for enemy agents in top positions. The best option they came up with
was to buy back the agents with more money and as a result they were
deceived time and again and again. Top on the list, Baitullah Mehsud.
The twenty million dollars he got in suitcases was one of the
stupidest moves in the world espionage history and ISI top brass to
this day are vengefully pursuing him.
Milestones:
Friendly political government. Asif Zardari in place, Aslam Raisani in
Balochistan (though first choice Akbar Bugti unfortunately dead, MQM’s
omnipresence in Sindh, Fazlur Rehman and ANP in NWFP)
Friendly judiciay. Iftikhar Chaudhry, Munir A. Malik, Atizaz Ahsan
Friendly secretaries. ??
Friendly Civil Society. Ansar Burney, Asma Jehangir
Friendly Generals. ??
Unrest in NWFP and immediate threat of Taliban taking control of
Islamabad. Back in 2002 US had agreed with India that if ever Pakistan
seemed to destabilize or falling into the hands of extremists, it
would help India in destroying Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities. The
situation they agreed upon is well defined by the Pakistani media’s
current theme song of “Taliban are coming to Islamabad”
Immediate Countermeasures
By August 2008 the operation was too deep rooted and it was clear if
attention was diverted towards saving Musharraf there was more than a
probability of loosing nuclear capability in near future. With
Musharraf gone, ISI estimated a window of opportunity of 18 to 20
months before either Taliban or Asif Zardari with his shenanigans
destabilized Pakistan. In the greater interest Musharraf decided to
step down peacefully. ( See: Musharraf Era Performance & Musharraf’s
Pakistan Had True Potential)
Operation Blue Tulsi: In Operation
Musharraf stepped down and Asif Ali Zardari took over, but by then the
order had been sent and the agents in Swat Valley and FATA who had
been preparing for the day for the last eight years launched an all
out assault on the military with a single aim of destabilizing
Pakistan. In the eventful month of December 2007 Baitullah Mehsud had
already announced officially the formation of Tehrik-i-Taliban
Pakistan. Although right after the victory of PPP Baitullah Mehsud has
negotiated peace with the government which led to the great debacle of
US$ 20 million by August 2008 he was again involved with the military
in a full on battle. ISI and military by this time had realized the
foremost importance of ridding the Taliban off foreign agents and
assets by any means and costs.
At one end Pakistan military still is trying to safeguard its own
assets while tracing out and eliminating foreign agents, while at the
other end US is trying its best to safeguard its prime asset of
Baitullah Meshud who had taken over after the death of Abullah Mehsud.
Until very recently, there had been not a single drone attack on
Baitullah Mehsud, while ISI aligned Taliban had been bombed
repeatedly, as a result of which many have turned their backs against
Pakistan. Only in the recent months four drone attacks on Baitullah
Mehsud’s territory have been reported.
Operation Blue Tulsi and Future
Currently the entire country is gripped by the ongoing operations of
military against the Taliban. Media which once championed itself as
the sympathizers of the Taliban and were chanting “Taliban are coming
to Islamabad” have suddenly changed their tunes, especially after
being declared by the Taliban as kafirs and thus “killable”.
The economy is in doldrums and corruption is rampantly high but the
top brass knows Pakistan is first and for Pakistan nuclear assets come
first. Thus, until the country is cleansed of all the foreign agents
in FATA and Taliban, the military and intelligence has only one goal,
to stop Operation Blue Tulsi at this stage, making sure it never goes
into Phase TWO – attacking and destroying Pakistan’s nuclear assets
because extremist elements have destabilized Pakistan.
Also See:
Black Revolution: Pakistan’s Lawyers Movement: The Bush
Administration’s Last Color Revolution – Operation Blue Tulsi in
Action
Codename Operation Enduring Turmoil Exposed! – Neocon & Zionist Plans
for Pakistan and rest of the World
US Government Supports Terror In Balochistan
The Color Revolutions: From Orange to Green
Biography: Pervez Musharraf
Biography: Nawaz Sharif
Comparative Study Of Barack Hussein Obama And Asif Ali Zardari
China, Not America!
Video: Webster Tarpley discusses 9/11 and the partitioning of Pakistan
Report: AF-PAK War And The Battle For Oil
Why I’m An Ungrateful Pakistani, Mr. Holbrooke
Destroying Pakistan by design: Is Geo TV (Jew TV) a CNN affiliate or
is it the psy-ops wing of the CIA?
Fighting the Corrupt Journalists in Pakistan
Indian Army Major-General Runs Terrorist Camps Inside Afghanistan
Pakistan Gives US, NATO Proof On India’s Covert Links With Baitullah
Mehsud
Video: Interview With A Captured Suicide Bomber
EXCLUSIVE: Drone Strike Not Meant For Mehsud
ALERT: Senior Pakistani Politician In Govt. Caught On Tape Endorsing
The Breakup Of Balochistan!
Bruce Riedel Strikes Again
Why Pakistan Will Never Catch Terror Leader Alive
Irrefutable Evidence: Israel, India Fomenting Trouble In Pakistan’s
Tribal Region
US, Israel and India backing Baitullah Mehsud: reveals close aide
Mossad-Taliban whistleblower killed in Pakistan
Confirmed: Pakistani Taliban Using Indian/US Weapons
Indian Weapons In Swat & FATA
Video: Why Baitullah Mehsud Is CIA-Indian Asset?
Is U.S. Trying To Save Agent Mehsud?
Indian RAW funded Swat terrorists:$650 million to destabilize Pakistan
ALERT: Indians Fighting In Swat – WARNING: Disturbing Pictures
ISI vs. CIA: When Spies Don’t Play Well With Their Allies
Is US ‘Occupying’ Pakistan? 38 Pakistanis Killed By CIA Drones Every
Day Since 2006
Pakistan Must Ban Indian/Afghan Over-flights
Washington Puts Pressure On India, Which Is Good, But CIA Is Killing
Pro-Pakistan Tribesmen
A Dirty American Game In Pakistan
The American War On Wana
India Wants To Fight In Afghanistan Until The Last American
Pakistan’s Munich: The Enemy’s Fingerprints
United Pakistan: India’s Worst Nightmare.
The World’s Most Dangerous Collaboration
Mumbai Terror Attacks: The Mossad Angle
The Story of Bugti’s Death
Blackmail In Balochistan
Pehlwans – From Street Thugs to National Thugs – Story of Not So
“Sharif” Brothers – Updated
Six Billion Rupees, Three Bureaucrats, One Government Department and
No Electricity
Comparative Study Of Barack Hussein Obama And Asif Ali Zardari
Don’t Fool Yourselves, Pakistan’s Judiciary As Screwed As Its Feudal
Democracy Rehman Malik: Traitor Or Downright Idiot – A Rebuttal
Pakistan’s Zionist Security Advisor
India is supporting Taliban against Pakistan says US intelligence
official
Report:India is trying to separate Balochistan from Pakistan
In Pictures: The Horror of these fake Pakistani Talibans – Violence
18+
Pakistan Tells America To Stop Supporting Insurgents Inside Pakistan
Who is behind TTP’s Terrorists?
Thoughts On The War Between The USA And Pakistan
Report:India is trying to separate Balochistan from Pakistan
Pakistan: Malik blames Brahmdagh, India for Balochistan conditions
The Destabilization of Pakistan: Finding Clarity in the Baluchistan
Conundrum
RAW Facts on South Asia- India Fails to Occupy Countries
RAW Network In Afghanistan Destabilizing Pakistan
Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) Terrorism- Global Security Intel
Report
Victims of India
India: Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) Terrorism
Sri Lanka Defeated Indian RAW Game Plan
RAW On The Mission Of Obliterating Regional Peace
US Report: Direct RAW Involvement In East Pakistan Secession
India: Exporting Terrorism In The Name Of Largest Democracy
RAW: An Instrument of Indian Imperialism
Pakistan and China versus Mossad, CIA, RAW and MI6
Video: Obama targets Pakistan – Who’s behind it?
Obama’s new wars
Israeli Terrorism = U.S Invasion Of Pakistan
Video: The Project for New American Century Exposed!Updated
The main aim of the US & its allies is to de-nuclearise Pakistan, the
only Islamic country having nuclear weapons
Is America At War With Islam?
The Destabilization of Pakistan: Finding Clarity in the Baluchistan
Conundrum
Redefining Pakistan
US planning to partition Pakistan: Poll
After Iraq and Afghanistan, Is it Pakistan?
US-NATO Military Agenda: The Destabilization of Pakistan
The Plan To Topple Pakistan
The Great Game Continues
The Great Game Revisited
US-Indian Plans Exposed: NAS RUN MIN ALLAH HAI WA FATAH UN QAREEB!
Cut CIA’s Footprint In Pakistan
Cornering the Nuclear-Pawed Cat
A Simple Guide To Pakistan’s Enemies
What About America’s Responsibility For The ‘AfPak’ Mess?
SPECIAL REPORT: US Grand Designs on Pakistan
Media Disinformation: Reframing the War in Afghanistan and Pakistan as
a “Class War”
Pakistan Must Expand Its Nuclear Arsenal
The Military Intervenes To Affirm Nuclear Pakistan Is Here To Stay
Is Pervez Musharraf still relevant in Pakistani politics?
Musharraf Era Performance
Musharraf’s Pakistan Had True Potential
On Musharraf, In All Fairness
Overall Economy under Musharraf
Oooh! Another Pakistan Scare Story
Dissecting The Anti-Pakistan Psyop – A Must Read
Video: Targeting Pakistani Nukes: ‘Don’t Mess With Us’
Why Bruce Riedel Has Lost My Respect
The World Doesn’t Have A Pakistan Nukes Problem … It Has A David
Albright Problem
Who Says Pakistani Nukes Are ‘Not Ready’?
Video: Arrogant Pakistan
Pakistan, A Sleeping Superpower
In Pictures: This Is Why Pakistan Can Never Go Down
Ahmed Quraishi, Naeem Salik with Dr Dansih on ARY News about PAK
NUCLEAR [Urdu]
Pakistanis Laugh At Weak U.S. Nuclear Safeguards
Pakistan Enhances Second Strike Nuclear Capability
Pakistan’s Plutonium based Tritium H-Bombs deter Indian agression
Video: Pakistan Missiles Far Ahead of India
Pakistan beefs up nuclear plants
Analysis: Nuclear Armageddon in South Asia’
Video: We Are Soldiers – The Reality of being a Pakistani Soldier,
Episode 1 and 2
Video: Pakistan’s Elite SSG Commando Force – The Pride of Pakistan
The Nukes: A Waning Pakistani Resolve?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Operation Blue Tulsi: How India Approached Israel For Help Against
Pakistan
The Great Game Revisited
Indian Army Major-General Runs Terrorist Camps Inside Afghanistan
Operation Blue Tulsi: 15 Years in Planning, 10 Years in Preparation
and Tod…
from → wikimir.com
43 Responses leave one →
2009 August 15 Sahir Najam
I think one point that was missed to mention, in the whole plot was
the media campaign. I believe that we have agent media to in Pakistan.
Which played a very sever role in removing Musharaf from the screen.
The same media, is hypnotizing the whole nation on any concern, by
rolling it on and on, on their channel.
2009 August 6 gumsum
All references of Baitullah Mehsud’s links with India and Raw have
been deleted from Wikipedia. They were there a week ago.
Increasingly, in a coordinated effort, all negative articles and
comments related to India are being removed from wikipedia.
2009 August 4 Hamza Khan
@ Amir
I did not mean the pro-pakistan.com website. I simply meant another
website which “potrays” as pro-pakistan. I agree with you that pro-
pakistan.com takes the right stance and is not biased. That is exactly
what I wrote on wikimir.com
http://www.wikimir.com/pro-pakistan-websites
2009 July 30 Abdul R Khan
woa..my frend told me about this but i thot it waznt true….but again i
hav knwn this for about 5 yearz…..but to see it here..iz shocking…
greater Balochistan..Greater Punjab..ITS ALL COMING TRUE!!!…PRES
MUSHARRAF WE NEED U!! PLZ COME BAK!! IF U GUYZ R CINCERE BRING MUSH
BAK PLZ!!
2009 July 28 gumsum
All references to Operation blue tulsi have been deleted on Wikipedia.
This is the second time this has happened on wikipedia within this
month. First it happened on 7th July and now on 26 July.
http://bluetulsi.blogspot.com/
ps. Wikipedia is really pro-india. Even majority of Pakistani pages
are edited/moderated by indians. That is why everywhere on wikipedia
it says Pakistan was “partitioned” and not “independence”. There is a
thin line between the two words but a huge difference in meaning.
2009 July 25 Shahzad
Allahalmighty is still with us … we always hope for the best… and also
we must have to trust on our pakistani ISI and army they must keep
there eyes open and keep watch on these type of people. I am sure they
will….
This government is totally failure becaue majortiy was here in
government because of NRO only, most of them are corrupt.
We just have to pray for our nation unity.
2009 July 14 Asim
If linking Rehman Malik to RAW (India) and Mossad (Israel) is so far
fetched, then howcome there is documentary evidence of foreign agents
conducting interrogations of “terrorists” captured by FIA under Rehman
Malik. Really, if there is no connection then I would like to see you
answer this question.—
As for homecoming of Rehman Malik. It was part of the deal. He was
given pardon under NRO. Which means all of his “classified” charges
were dropped and his slate was as clean as on his birth.
Also, India and Israel were never enemies.
Pakistan’s destiny will only change when people like you who only
whine on the net and in social gatherings start voting. If 90% people
of Pakistan were to vote, it is a surity none of these gangsters would
ever get elected. But then, it is such a hardwork to get out of bed
and going to a polling station. (it is always easier to stay in bed
and whine with the excuse that there is no one good to vote for.
However, if you go to polling booth you will see at least a couple of
unknown independent candidates at every constituency)
Of course blue tulsi has nothing new, because it is an investigation
report (which means reporting something which has happened) and not a
PhD Research Thesis (which means giving something which is new to the
world). But writing such an article is better than commenting on it
and feeling saintly of having done a holy deed.
Another fact. To date not a single “looting” proof/charge against
Musharraf has been brought forward (a guy who ruled Pakistan as a
“dictator” for over 8 years). So whatever your definition of looting
and patriotism is putting him in the same bag as AZ, sharifs whose
only achievements were corssing personal billion dollar marks is not
fair.
As for threat of Taliban developing under Musharraf. These are the
“baqiat” of Zia.
One last thing for NRO. Benazir had nothing to win from NRO. That is
why she was continuously leaning towards removal of “two term” limit.
Oh, and if you had read the entire article from start to finish, you
wouldn’t have made these “illuminating” remarks in the first place.
Peace.
I forgot to mention. This guy is trying to find references for all the
material written in the above article. May be this would suit someone
like you who doesn’t even read the entire article before posting his
expert views:
http://bluetulsi.blogspot.com/
2009 July 14 Muhammad Umer Kamal
INSHALLAH TALLAH, the peace of land we all call and the world knows by
the name of PAKISTAN is going to last to the end of times and all the
hypocrates, insurgents, countries, agencies and individuals willing
and wishing to parish on the ruins of this motherland of ours will
have to reborn for another million years to see there dream ever come
true.
Our motherland was founded on the night of 27th Ramzan “Shab-e-Qadr”
August 14, 1947. there must be a blessing of Allah Subhanatallah on it
so why to worry. just chill and see the game every one is playing
inshallah we will be victorious.
2009 July 14 zahir Jilani
Part of it is true while some of it is disinformation aimed at
discrediting BB,Zardari and Rehman Malik.This by no means imply that I
have a soft corner for them or other rulers before them who have
robbed this country and stashed their ill gotten wealth abroad while
its poor and wretched continue to languish in poverty.Let us now take
a dispassionate look at the other side of the coin.
* when BB became the elected Prime Minister she was was not allowed
proper access to our Nuclear developments on the premise that she was
not a patriot.During her visits abroad she was often questioned on
this vital issue which much to her embarrasment she was not in a
position to properly respond due to inadequate knowledge on the
subject.What was the option left with her to find out what was really
going on at the project which was started off so dispassionately by
her own father?Obviously seek the services of a loyal lieutenant who
would fill up this information void.So in comes Rehman Malik (RM).
* Linking up RM with RAW and Mossad is a bit far fetched.If this was
true,why did Musharraf and Kayani(who) was the then DG ISI agree to
RM’s home coming.Similarly why was this dreadful NRO agreed to.It
could have been modified after BB’s assassination to block AZ’s entry.
* Details of operation Blue Tulsi and Indian israeli collaboration
became public knowledge in the year 2001.In fact, even before that.Why
did’nt Musharaf
and his team do anything about it during nine long years of their rule?
Was there any counter strategy for combatting this threat?
* The threat from taliban developed right under the nose of Musharraf
and the MMA govt in the NWFP.What was the government of the day and
its agencies doing during all this time.
* Undermining the Government of the day and create doubts about their
loyalty and credentials is a favourite tactic employed by adversaries
to run down their opponents.Job of the hostile agencies/countries/
vested interests becomes easier when doubts are created about its
leadership which ultimately leaves the nation confused and divided.
* Information about Blue Tulsi has nothing new in it.However, the fact
to be noted is that the Indians did their homework and got friendly
with their enemies enemy(Israel) to attain their goals and
objectives.We have no one to blame except our corrupt and incompetent
leadership(both military and civilian) who remained and remain deeply
involved in their myopic personal interests.
* Pakistans destiny cannot change unless and until the people of this
country wake up from their slumber and ensure that the likes of Zia ul
haq,AZ , NS and Mush are never allowed to come to power.I would not
like to comment on any leaders patriotism but am bitter about the fact
that not only were they incompetent,they also looted this poor country
and transferred its wealth abroad into their private coffers..
2009 July 13 Amir
@Mr. Hamza Khan,
I think you are totally wrong about Pro-Pakistan.com. I think its one
of the best blogs covering Pakistan. I have been visiting that site
for an year, and they have always supported the right stance, may it
be with anyone.
Musharaf and Shoukat Aziz did blunders – and deserved the flake for
that ! saying this , here is one of the posts covering Operation Blue
Tulsi as well
http://www.pro-pakistan.com/2009/07/13/cyber-crime-act-revised-to-punish-indecent-sms-emails/
—-
Pakistan Zindabad
2009 July 13 Farooq
Benazir and Malik are also responsible for compromising the Sikh
improvement in Indian Punjab by practically selling names of activists
there, who had been directly or indirectly in contact with some
Pakistani/Canadian counterparts for support. The information was so
extensive that the Sikh movement was utterly crushed by Indian forces.
Till date many Sikh nationalists hate Pakistan for this back stabbing
– thanks to BB & Co. What can be expected from national Traitors and
all the Munafiqeen, who will sell their nation and probably their
mothers/sisters for few $s.
2009 July 12 Mubasher
Dear Brothers in Islam,
Xavia team has done excellent work and we should spread it to all
Pakistani bros.
.
Let me remind you all and the traitors of Pakistan(second ideological
state after Madina) that this country was created and blessed with
Atomic Power by Allah Almighty which is part of HIS planning.
.
The jews and indians (which are also one branch of jews) will continue
on their evil and ugly planning.
.
In few years, we will see the begining of Ghazwa Hind as you can see
the enemies of Islam are encircling Pakistan.
.
People of Pakistan must have to sustain some early losses but that
would be KAFFARA and then Nussrat of Allah will be with us.
Long live Pakistan and Inshallah will be the starting point of Khilafa
Ala Minhaje Nabuwa.
regards,
Mubasher
2009 July 12 Muhammad Amir Javed
ASSALMAOALAIKUM! to all my MUSLIM brothers and sisters……
it is very important publication which i have read ever…..every one
know that all political parties ever been elected by us were not not
with the people of Pakistan….instead they want to looted Pakistan….but
ALMIGHTY ALLAH always with us and no one will ever able to distroy
us…..
those who want to creat instability in our BELOVED HOMELAND PAKISTAN…
are never be a muslims… and INSHALLAH never be able to survive
more….and their actual home land is in HELL…..
2009 July 11 Naveed
Assalam Alikum,
InshaAllah Anyone who is trying to distroy the Ummah will be distroyed
it self . All we need now is all out atempt to change the things.
The biggest blow to the Face of the enimies can be 2 steps and as soon
as they can be takes it will be good.
1- Get a pro Islam-ProPakistan Government . I think some how ISI or
Army will have to get involved in it.
2-Get the original Sharia (Not one that Taliban need) implemented in
the Pakistan .This will be a Huge Blow to the Face of enemies . As
Pakistan was made on the ideology of Islam if we can get the real
Islam fully (or even partially) implemented it will do to things
firstly it will bring the nation together secondly it will left no
space for Baitulah and company . There is a simple logic behind this
“Implement Real sharia so there will be no place for the Danda Bardar
sharia”.
Bad people like baitulah always get access to the masses when there is
some kind of vacuum of ideology and justice , People some times
support wronged image of Islam because there is no one posing the
right image to them (and people are not well literate to protect them
selves) so the logic is clear and I am sure there must be a big part
of ISI and pro Islam and pro Pakistan forces working on it.
Thanks and regards,
Naveed
Jazak Allah
2009 July 11 Mamoon Ur Rasheed
It is detailed but I believe its incomplete. The people planned this
are worst than the picture shown here. Inshallah, Allahalmighty is
still with us (the nation) otherwise our leaders left nothing to
accomplish the goals of our real enemies.
They are not the writer of this drama, the script was written by
Wahdahu-Lashareek and inshallah result will be so different as compare
to their (Zionist) desire.
May Allah Bless this nation with true leaders and help us against our
enemies to cut them from roots.
2009 July 11 shahzada
Very Interesting analysis—-what would be legal course against these
people—-what about Nawaz sharif–where does he fit in the picture–its
impossible that he is not part of the game plan—
2009 July 11 Zohair
there s no doubt that currrent government of Zaradari and current
provincial government of Balochistan are acting for vested interests
of enemy countries of Pakistan….. May Allah give sincere leadership to
Pakistan …. InshAllah these treacherous people could give no harm to
our soil..
2009 July 11 M. Wasim Siddiqui
May ALLAH be with us
2009 July 11 Salman
Even though the analysis is well researched with some speculation and
exaggeration as well BUT I was wondering that ALL our analysis are
based on EXTERNAL OBSERVATION & RATIONAL INQUIRY and the Divine
component (which is characteristic of the Ummah of Muhammed SAW) is
entirely missing.
2009 July 10 Hamza Khan
This really is hard investigation. However, the real add-on would be
if some how key players are identified. And in this, one of the first
things should be identification of the websites which are purposely or
“naively” supporting the said agenda. I have come across one well-
known website, which on the outside looks Pro-Pakistan (even by its
name), but the articles inside are purely anti-Musharraf and Shaukat
Aziz. Plus, the comments posted on the website purposely depict one
community of Pakistan as terrorists. Also, if in the comments someone
highlights this issue, the comments are either deleted or moderated.
If the comments try to raise the subject of corruption of one of the
prominent politicians of Pakistan, they are also never put on.
Surely, this is not the only website. There are many others. So my
suggestion here is, there should be a place where netizens like us can
give our inputs to atleast the websites, which are helping this
“dajjalian” conspiracy against Pakistan.
2009 July 10 Syed Ahsani
Dear Pak Alert,
Most interesting insightful analysis:
It is collaborated by:
1.Global Research Canada -Destabilizationf Pakistan
2.The Future of Pakistan by Usman Khalid in Information Clearing
House,California
3.Executive Intelligence Review
4. American Free Press.net
5.Barnes Review
6.Truthdig.com
7.Foreign conspiracies against Pakistan since assassination Liaqat Ali
Khan-Web under the heading
2009 July 10 saeed qureshi
Mind boggling. Hair raising .These guys are now ruling Pakistan.
But if Musharraf thought Benazir and Zardari as security risk, then
why he tried to involve them in the government and issued NRO to
release them from all allegations of corruption?
Saeed Qureshi
Saeed Qureshi
2009 July 10 Irfan Naqvi
Well documented and truly shocking disclosures and analysis.
The game seems to be balkanization of Pakistan, by whichever means,
and that will ensure handing over of nuclear assets. However, while
the enemey seems to have infiltrated Balochistan, Sindh and NWFP, the
readings do not bring out similar selling out in Punjab. As long as
Punjab is safe, I am sure, the evil planners will not be able to
achieve their goals. People’s support often changes the intended
course of history; there is need to bring up awareness to the populace
of all Pakistan. This is a powerful tool which denies operatives their
cover.
Irfan Naqvi
2009 July 10 Michelle
You have a nice site! Great information!
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Video: Top Conspiracies Exposed by Dr. Danish « Pak Alert Press
Video: Top Conspiracies Exposed by Dr. Danish | Pak Alert Press
Operation Blue Tulsi Exposed! | Pak Alert Press
Weekly PakAlert ENewszine 23 Aug 09 – Ramadan Kareem! | Pak Alert
Press
Weekly PakAlert ENewszine 23 Aug 09 – Ramadan Kareem! « Pak Alert
Press
ALERT: A Pakistani Government Official Caught Telling Brahamdagh
Bugti: ‘Declare Balochistan Independence While You Still Have A
Chance’ – Pak Alert Press « Sadda-E-Sindh
...and I am Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
Chidambaram 'puzzled' over report about Pokhran II failure
New Delhi, Aug 27
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.
Last updated on Aug 27th, 2009 at 14:17 pm IST--IANS
Possibly related news:
•Pakistan has increased nuke warheads to 90: report (Sep 1)
http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a76218.html
Pakistan has increased nuke warheads to 90: report
New Delhi, Sep 1
Pakistan has increased its nuclear warheads from 60 to around 70-90
and is enhancing its nuclear weapon capabilities across the board by
developing and deploying new nuclear-capable missiles, say two experts
in a report in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
The report, entitled "Pakistani nuclear forces, 2009", by Robert S.
Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Hans Kristensen of
the Federation of American Scientists is published in the Nuclear
Notebook section of the Bulletin.
It details how Pakistan is improving its weapons designs and is moving
beyond the first-generation nuclear weapons that relied on highly
enriched uranium.
The increase in the warhead estimate does not mean Pakistan is thought
to be sprinting ahead of India, which is also increasing its
stockpile, Kristensen writes in a condensed version of the report
published on the website of the Federation of American Scientists.
India has taken note of the report and is viewing with concern the
increasing Pakistani arsenal, especially as the disclosure comes close
on the heels of a New York Times report quoting unnamed senior
officials that Islamabad modified Harpoon anti-ship missiles purchased
from the US to target India, official sources said here Tuesday.
Besides, Islamabad is adding more nuclear capable missiles to its
arsenal.
“The new nuclear-capable ballistic missile is being readied for
deployment, and two nuclear capable cruise missiles are under
development. Two new plutonium production reactors and a second
chemical separation facility also are under construction,” said the
report.
"For at least a decade, Pakistan has been pursuing plutonium-based
designs. Central to that effort is the 40-50-megawatt heavy water
Khushab plutonium production reactor, which was completed in 1998 and
is located at Joharabad in the Khushab district of Punjab,” they
write.
The report goes on to add that Pakistan is building two additional
heavy water reactors at the Khushab site, which will more than triple
the country’s plutonium production.
Pakistan’s nuclear weapons stockpile may reach between 100 and 120
warheads within the next decade, or even sooner, the two nuclear
experts said.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a non-technical online
magazine that focuses on global security and public policy issues,
especially related to the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons
of mass destruction. It has been published continuously since 1945,
when it was founded by former Manhattan Project physicists after the
atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The two experts added that Pakistan is keeping its missiles with
nuclear warheads in a completely assembled form and can launch them at
a very short notice.
According to them, a satellite picture shows that the Masroor Air Base
near Karachi is where missiles like the medium range Shaheen maybe
stored.
They also claim that Pakistan is developing two new cruise missiles -
the ground-launched Babur and the air-launched Ra'ad.
The new cruise missiles will carry nuclear warheads miniaturised to
fit onto them.
http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a75866.html
India concerned over Pakistan modifying anti-ship missiles
New Delhi, Aug 31
India Monday expressed concern over Pakistan illegally modifying US-
supplied Harpoon anti-ship missiles to hit land-based targets, saying
this was "against India's national interest".
"This is the danger of proliferation that we have been mentioning to
America that whatever you have given to Pakistan will not be used in
self defence. This (modification of the Harpoon missile) has nothing
to do with self defence and is against India's national interest,"
said outgoing Indian Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta, who retired
Monday.
A US media report Sunday said that Pakistan had illegally modified the
Harpoon missiles to allow them strike land-based targets, making them
a potential threat to India.
•India's nuclear deterrence proven: Navy chief (Aug 27)
http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a75137.html
India's nuclear deterrence proven: Navy chief
New Delhi, Aug 27
Indian Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta Thursday dismissed a top
scientist's contention that the country needed to conduct more nuclear
tests as those conducted in 1998 were inadequate. He also asserted
that India's nuclear deterrence capabilities were "proven and capable
enough".
"Our nuclear policy is that we will have no first strike. We maintain
credible deterrence and we have the capability," Mehta said when asked
about the capabilities of India's nuclear arsenal.
"As far as we are concerned, we go by the views of the scientists. The
scientists said the tests were enough. That capability is enough for
us to maintain a credible deterrence and that is more than enough to
deter anybody," Mehta maintained.
He was responding to questions about a media report that quoted K.
Santhanam, who coordinated the nuclear tests, called Pokhran II, in
the Rajasthan desert, as admitting that the only thermonuclear device
tested during Pokhran II was a "fizzle." A test is described as a
fizzle when it fails to meet the desired yield.
•India's n-tests raises questions, 'puzzles' government (Aug 27)
http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a75121.html
India's n-tests raises questions, 'puzzles' government (Lead)
New Delhi, Aug 27
A former top official's admission that the 1998 nuclear tests by India
were inadequate from the security standpoint has left Home Minister P.
Chidambaram “puzzled”.
"We can't get into a stampede to sign CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty). We should conduct more nuclear tests which are necessary from
the point of view of security," K. Santhanam, who coordinated the
tests, called Pokhran II, in the Rajasthan desert, told IANS.
"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 quoting Santhanam as admitting that the only
thermonuclear device tested during Pokhran II was a "fizzle." A test
is described as a fizzle when it fails to meet the desired yield.
Santhanam, while speaking to IANS, said“: "We should not get
railroaded into signing the CTBT." He was commenting on reports about
the US pressuring India to sign the CTBT and the fresh efforts by the
Obama administration to revive non-proliferation activism.
Santhanam, a former official with the Defence Research and Development
Organisation, said that the thermonuclear or hydrogen bomb tests - the
first and most powerful of the three tests conducted on May 11, 1998 -
did not produce the desired yield.
R. Chidambaram, who was then the chief of the Department of Atomic
Energy (DAE), is on record as saying that the bombs yield was 45
kilotons (45,000 tonnes of conventional explosive).
Santhanam's remarks are set to create a flutter in the non-
proliferation establishment in the US and may raise fresh doubts about
the future of the India-US nuclear deal which will unravel if New
Delhi were to test again.
Santhanam's assessment is set to bolster India's opposition to signing
the CTBT - an issue that may figure in the discussions when Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh goes to the US in November. India has opposed
CTBT on grounds that it is discriminatory and tends to divide the
world into the nuclear haves and have-nots.
chhotemianinshallah
No CTBT, India needs more nuclear tests: Pokhran II coordinator
New Delhi, Aug 27
A former top official who coordinated India's nuclear weapons
programme has cautioned that India should not be "railroaded" into
signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as the 1998 Pokhran
tests were not sufficient from the security point of view.
"We can't get into a stampede to sign CTBT. We should conduct more
nuclear tests which are necessary from the point of view of security,”
K. Santhanam told IANS here.
"We should not get railroaded into signing the CTBT,” Santhanam said
when asked about reports of the US pressuring India to sign the CTBT
and fresh efforts by the Obama administration to revive non-
proliferation activism.
Santhanam, a former official with the Defence Research and Development
Organisation, said that the thermonuclear or hydrogen bomb tests - the
first and most powerful of the three tests conducted on May 11, 1998 -
did not produce the desired yield.
Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) chief R. Chidambaram is on record as
saying that the bombs yield was 45 kilotons (45,000 tonnes of
conventional explosive).
Santhanam's remarks are set to create a flutter in the non-
proliferation establishment in the US and may raise doubts about the
Sid Harth
'India has simulation capability, N-tests not needed'
Agencies
Posted: Sep 02, 2009 at 1726 hrs IST
Mumbai Joining issue with an ex-DRDO scientist that Pokhran-II was not
a full success and India needs to go for a few more nuclear tests,
Atomic Energy commission chief Anil Kakodkar on Wednesday said the
country has strong simulation capability and that additional tests
were not required.
"We have enough data. We have comprehensive simulation capability and
therefore there is no need for any more tests," Kakodkar said, days
after K Santhanam ignited a controversy that Pokhran-II was a fizzle
and did not give the desired yield. "We are very confident about the
simulation capability,"
Indian nuclear scientists had already validated and bench marked the
validated tool of the three dimensional simulation for earth motion
and displacement data collected following Pokhran II tests in 1998, he
said.
"We used the data of Beneberry nuclear tests of US of December 18,1970
to validate our 3-D simulation for earth motion and displacement and
this validated tool was used for bench marking," Kakodkar said.
There is no need for series of tests to validate the yield since the
tool and also observations are available, he said adding that it was
published in the international journal Nuclear Technology in 2006 four
years after its communication from Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
(BARC).
Scaling up of nuetronic calculation can always be done, he said adding
that all the observations and calculations were done by scientists
from BARC.
Sid Harth
THE NEW FIZZLE DEBATE
- The nuclear question concerns everybody, not just scientists
Amitabh Mattoo & Rajive Nayan
The nuclear debate in India, after a brief lull, promises to become
stormy over the next months. The contest is once again, after over a
decade, in essence over the merits and demerits of India signing the
comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty or CTBT. A former senior
official of the Defence Research and Development Organisation has
proved to be the catalyst and a whistle-blower. At a closed-door
seminar in the capital, where the Chatham House Rules were flouted
with impunity, the official declared that the thermonuclear test India
conducted in 1988 was a fizzle. A fizzle, in nuclear jargon, is
another term for a test that has not delivered, at least not in terms
of the expected yield. The implication was clear: India should not
consider signing the CTBT because we still need to conduct further
tests to ensure the credibility of the country’s nuclear deterrent.
While the government has sought to distance itself from the
controversy, it is clear that this is an issue that cannot be swept
under the carpet. What is needed, therefore, is an independent panel
of scientists and analysts who can address the issue of the
thermonuclear test and the wider implications for India, its nuclear
deterrent, and its engagement with the CTBT. All this needs fleshing
out.
The CTBT was adopted by the United Nations general assembly in
September, 1996. About 150 States have ratified the CTBT and another
32 States have signed but not yet ratified it. But the treaty cannot
come into force unless the 44 States listed in Annex 2 of the treaty
have ratified it. Nine of these States have not ratified the treaty,
including India, China, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the
United States of America. During the Bush years, the CTBT was not an
issue: the Republican administration believed more in direct action
than in multilateral arms control, and the treaty was pushed into cold
storage. The Obama administration is, however, different.
At Prague in April, Obama committed himself to radical steps on arms
control and disarmament; it seems his administration has decided to
make the ratification of the CTBT a cornerstone of its foreign policy.
In other words, Washington will begin exercising serious pressure on
the non-signatories, even as they build a consensus on ratification
domestically.
The India story, however, is, as usual, more intriguing. On September
10, 1996, at the UN general assembly, India’s permanent representative
to the UN in Geneva, Arundhati Ghose, and a bhadramahila with a
greater spine than most Indian diplomats, said: “Mr President, I would
like to declare on the floor of this august assembly that India will
never sign this unequal treaty, not now, nor later.” The reasons, on
the face of it, were simple: India had been included in Annex 2,
without its consent, the draft had been negotiated outside the
conference on disarmament (where India blocked a consensus) and that
the treaty was not explicitly linked to a plan for disarmament which
India had demanded. But there was a deeper, less diplomatic, reality.
India needed time: to be able to conduct nuclear tests at an opportune
time when the international backlash could be contained, so essential
to build a credible nuclear posture. This happened less than two years
later.
On May 11 and 13, 1988, India conducted five nuclear tests at Pokhran.
All the tests were then declared totally successful. Recall the
statement issued by the official spokesman on May 11: “The tests
conducted today were with a fission device, a low yield device and a
thermonuclear device. The measured yields are in line with expected
values. Measurements have also confirmed that there was no release of
radioactivity into the atmosphere.”
India quickly declared a unilateral moratorium on further testing, and
New Delhi’s back channels seriously discussed signing the CTBT (as a
way of normalizing relations and getting sanctions, imposed in the
wake of the tests, lifted) with their American counterparts, but the
Clinton administration was beset with its own problems. Then came the
trouble-free Bush years. In March this year, however, the prime
minister’s special envoy, Shyam Saran, said at a conference at the
Brookings Institution at Washington: “It is also our conviction that
if the world really moves categorically towards nuclear disarmament in
a credible timeframe, then India-US differences over the CTBT will
probably recede into the background.” Why are we then witnessing this
hullabaloo? For at least three reasons.
First, many consider thermonuclear or hydrogen weapons essential for
building a credible deterrent. While this is debatable in terms of
Indian nuclear deterrence strategy, there has always been scepticism
about the thermonuclear claim. Days after the test, both the Central
Intelligence Agency and the international scientific academic
community expressed reservations. The well known nuclear-seismologist,
then at the University of Arizona, Terry C. Wallace, openly rubbished
India’s claims on the basis of detailed seismic analyses. In India,
P.K. Iyengar, a former chief of the department of atomic energy, also
doubted the official claim.
In response, the Indian atomic science establishment published its
findings. Key figures of the atomic energy establishment, S.K. Sikka,
Falguni Roy. and G.J. Nair, argued - in a referred paper — rather
naïvely it now seems — that large variations in the seismic magnitude
were because of the “cancellation and superimposition of signals from
these explosions separated in space by about 1 km”. The DRDO
official’s assertion implies that Sikka et al were, at the very least,
magnifying their achievements.
But we must not overlook the traditional rivalry between institutions
and individuals. All nuclear States have had rivalries within driven
by personal idiosyncrasies and institutional loyalties. The famous
rivalry between Edward Teller (the father of the hydrogen bomb) and J.
Robert Oppenheimer (the leader of the Manhattan Project which produced
the first atomic weapons) is legendary and irretrievably divided the
two main American nuclear labs: Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore.
When Oppenheimer opposed the hydrogen bomb, Teller accused him of
being a Soviet spy.
In India, the rivalry between the atomic energy establishment and the
DRDO is well known. Raja Ramanna openly expressed his uneasiness at
the elevation of a well known rocket scientist to a high position. In
the Atomic Energy Commission itself, nuclear scientists have looked
down upon nuclear engineers — the traditional innovators’ contempt for
mechanics. Two chairmen of the AEC, Raja Ramanna, a nuclear scientist,
and Homi Sethna, a nuclear engineer, had always had an uneasy
relationship.
Finally, of course, there are institutional interests. No organization
will seek to undermine its own raison d’être. In the US, when the
Clinton administration sought the support of the nuclear laboratories
for the CTBT, they had to be almost bribed. As the physicist, Richard
Garwin, described it: “What could they get? Sandia got the
microelectronics research center, which had minimal relevance to the
CTBT. Los Alamos got the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test
facility. Livermore got the National Ignition Facility— the white
elephant eating us out of house and home.”
The fact is that we need oversight by an independent authority. In the
US, there were at least two panels which, in recent years, addressed
issues related to the CTBT and inter-institutional rivalry. In 1995,
an Energy Advisory Board Task Force on Alternative Futures for the
Department of Energy National Laboratories was set up. The panel
concluded that while some of the finest scientific research in America
was done in the national laboratories, “the current system of
governance of these laboratories is broken and should be replaced with
a bold alternative”. An earlier committee, which remains a model, is
the bipartisan JASON committee, consisting of top research and
industrial scientists. One of its most important reports was on
safety, reliability, and performance margins of nuclear weapons in the
wake of a possible CTBT. We need to recognize that the nuclear
question is too important to be left to scientists or the armed forces
alone. It concerns us all.
Amitabh Mattoo is professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University and Rajive
Nayan is with the IDSA, New Delhi
Sid Harth
TESTING PEACE
An event in April does not, ordinarily, make news in August without
reason. Pakistan has perhaps rightly guessed why news of the missile
tests it conducted earlier this year should be hitting the headlines
now, only a month away from a crucial session of the American
Congress. Allegations of Pakistan modifying anti-ship Harpoon missiles
— sold to it by the United States of America — to make them capable of
land attacks against India could be aimed at undoing its months-long
orchestrated effort at pushing the US to release the bounty of $7.5
billion. For one, such modification would establish that Pakistan is
still channelling resources to an arms build-up, thereby prioritizing
defence over development (for which money is being claimed). The
second, and more damaging part, would be the incontrovertible proof
that Pakistan is continuing to bite the hand that is feeding it. For
this is no longer Pakistan’s surreptitious remodelling of Chinese or
Korean missiles that the world, and the US, had learnt to accept. This
is cocking a snook at the superpower which had steadfastly supported
an ally despite the double standards Pakistan repeatedly displayed in
the course of the war on terror. The sentiments this can arouse in the
US are being feared. Even if these sentiments do not, ultimately, hold
up aid, they could force the Barack Obama administration into
committing itself to more stringent control of the money than
heretofore. Naturally, Pakistan is trying its best to control the
damage. It has already agreed to a supervision of its Harpoon arsenal.
In the next few days, this pliancy may translate itself into more
attention to the war against the Taliban which it is already now in
two minds about fighting.
It should be quite clear to India that it is witnessing a series of
manoeuvres in the battle of wills between two allies. As in so many
earlier tussles, this too may end in much mutual back-patting between
the US and Pakistan. For a war-ready nation like India, which has just
indigenously manufactured its own nuclear submarine, a twisted Harpoon
should not be too much to worry about. What should be worrying are the
skewed rules in the game of accountability that the US and its ally
continue to engage India in. Will the subcontinent be freed of terror
if the US continues to mollycoddle a belligerent Pakistan and Pakistan
continues to show its muscles while talking peace with India?
bademiyansubhanallah
Pokhran II controversy needless: PM
Former president, APJ Abdul Kalam, has already clarified that the
programme was a success
Hardnews Bureau
The latest controversy over the success of Pokhran II tests has raised
uncomfortable questions.
In a bid to quell concerns, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently
said that the controversy is needless and that former president APJ
Abdul Kalam has already clarified that the programme was a success. "A
wrong impression has been given by some scientists which is needless.
Kalam has clarified that the tests were successful," Singh reportedly
said.
The defence ministry and the outgoing naval chief, Admiral Sureesh
Mehta, maintain that the tests were successful despite claims by
Santhanam, a former official with the Defence Research and Development
Organisation (DRDO) and director for the 1998 test site preparations.
Santhanam claimed that the 1998 Pokhran tests were not sufficient from
the security point of view. So, India should not sign CTBT and
continue improving its nuclear programme, he opined. Former National
Security Advisor, Brajesh Mishra, too, attested the success of Pokhran
nuclear tests.
The 1998 test was said to have yielded 45 kilotons (KT) but was
challenged by western experts who said it was not more than 20 KT. The
controversy has again cropped up with Santhanam admitting for the
first time that the only thermonuclear device tested was a "fizzle". A
test is described as a fizzle when it fails to have desired results.
Santhanam told a national daily that his stand is based upon the
seismic measurements and expert opinion from world over which,
according to him, make it clear that the yield in the thermonuclear
device test (hydrogen in popular usage) was much lower than what was
claimed.
Santhanam's admission is significant because this is the first time a
nuclear scientist closely associated with the 1998 tests has refuted
claims by the government.
But, there are disagreements within the scientific circle, too. R
Chidambaram, a key associated with Pokhran II, had described these
reports as incorrect. He has also argued that computer simulations
would be enough for future design.
bademiyansubhanallah
‘Pakistan’s nuke arsenal is a concern’: India
Wednesday, 02 Sep, 2009 | 10:22 PM PST |
‘If these news reports of having 70 to 90 atomic bombs are correct,
then I think they (Pakistan) are going well beyond the so called
requirement of deterrence even,’ said Deepak Kapoor. - AP/File photo
Media Gallery
Snapshots from South Asia THE DISPOSABLE ALLY
Pakistan highest foreign policy priority: US NEW DELHI: India’s Army
Chief Deepak Kapoor says Pakistan’s growing sophisticated nuclear
arsenal is a major cause of concern for India.
His comments referred to reports by the Indian and foreign press based
on an academic paper that says Pakistan has 70 to 90 nuclear arsenals.
India’s Army Chief Deepak Kapoor: ‘We are all equally concerned about
it. There is a difference between having a degree of deterrence which
is required for one’s own protection and going beyond that degree of
deterrence. If these news reports of having 70 to 90 atomic bombs are
correct, then I think they are going well beyond the so called
requirement of deterrence even. That’s something which is of concern
to all of us.’
Media reports quote that the paper written for the Bulletin for Atomic
Scientists in the US says that the number of Pakistan’s nuclear
weapons has gone up to 70-90 from 60 last year.
Recently US accused Pakistan for modifying the Harpoon anti-ship
missiles that were sold to them in the 1980s as a defensive weapon.
Pakistan denied the charge and said it developed the missile, the
media report said.
The accusation stems from US intelligence agencies’ detection of a
suspicious missile test on April 23 which was never announced by the
Pakistanis and which appeared to give it a new offensive weapon, the
Times said.
The missiles and the growing nuclear weapons would bolster Pakistan’s
ability to threaten India, stoking fears of heating up the two
nations’
bademiyansubhanallah
Scientist raises doubt about success of Indian N-test By Jawed Naqvi
Friday, 28 Aug, 2009 | 05:00 AM PST |
The yield of thermonuclear explosions was below expectations and the
tests were more a fizzle rather than a big bang: K. Santhanam.—File
NEW DELHI: An Indian scientist involved with the country’s nuclear
weapons project has triggered doubts about the success of a
thermonuclear explosion during the Pokhran tests in May 1998, but
India’s defence minister ridiculed the claim on Thursday and said it
had an adequate nuclear deterrent.
The minister said senior DRDO scientist K. Santhanam’s assertion that
the 1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests were not fully successful was wrong.
‘India has a meaningful number of nuclear weapons and an effective
delivery system to go with it.’
Mr Santhanam, who was director for 1998 test site preparations, had
said in an interview that the yield of thermonuclear explosions was
actually much below expectations and the tests were perhaps more a
fizzle rather than a big bang.
In nuclear parlance, a test is described as a fizzle when it fails to
meet the desired yield.
The scientist said the yield for the thermonuclear test, or hydrogen
bomb in popular usage, was much lower than what was claimed.
He also said that given this fact, India should not rush into signing
the CTBT.
Mr Santhanam emphasised the need for India to conduct more tests to
improve its nuclear weapons programme.
The test was said to have yielded 45 kilotons (KT) but was challenged
by western experts who said it was not more than 20 KT.
...and I am Sid Harth
bademiyansubhanallah
Pakistan ‘disturbed’ over Indian nuclear tests: FO
Thursday, 03 Sep, 2009 | 02:46 PM PST |
Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit. — Photo by AFP Pakistan
US fears on AQ Khan’s release baseless: FO FRESH START
Obama reaches out to religious parties in Pakistan ISLAMABAD: Pakistan
said on Thursday it was disturbed by reports that India might be
considering additional nuclear tests after doubts were raised about
the success of its 1998 tests.
Indian nuclear scientist S. Santhanam, who was a director for 1998's
test-site preparations, has claimed that the tests were only partially
successful and the results were much weaker than claimed at the time.
In a reported statement urging India not to sign the comprehensive
nuclear test-ban treaty, Santhanam said the 1998 explosions did not
yield the desired results as the thermonuclear devices tested were a
‘fizzle’.
‘We are disturbed by media reports that India might be considering
additional tests,’ foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Basit told a
weekly press briefing Thursday.
India carried out nuclear tests on May 11 and 13, 1998 and Pakistan
responded days later with six tit-for-tat tests, on May 28 and 30.
Islamabad, however, unilaterally announced a moratorium on further
testing if India did not carry out additional tests.
Basit said Pakistan hoped the moratorium would continue to be
observed.
‘We hope that the unilateral moratorium on testing effective since
1998 will continue to be maintained,’ Basit added.
Santhanam's statement triggered controversy over India's nuclear
capability, with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Saturday
dismissing doubts about the success of the nuclear tests.
Basit also rejected western concerns that the lifting of restrictions
previously placed on Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan might lead to nuclear
proliferation.
Describing such concerns as ‘baseless and uncalled for’, Abdul Basit
insisted that Pakistan has effective nuclear export control mechanisms
to check proliferation of sensitive material.
bademiyansubhanallah
India’s nuclear fizzle By Pervez Hoodbhoy
Wednesday, 02 Sep, 2009 | 08:39 AM PST |
We need not panic an invasion even if India increases its nuclear
arsenal. — File Photo Pakistan
Pakistan ‘disturbed’ over Indian nuclear tests: FO FRESH START
Obama reaches out to religious parties in Pakistan Suspicion has now
turned into confirmed fact: India’s hydrogen bomb test of May 1998 was
not the fantastic success it was claimed to be. Last week’s dramatic
revelation by K. Santanam, a senior RAW official with important
responsibilities at the 1998 Pokhran test site, has essentially
confirmed conclusions known from seismic analysis after the explosion.
Instead of 45 kilotons of destructive energy, the explosion had
produced only 15 to 20. The bomb had not worked as designed.
Why blow the whistle 11 years later? An irresistible urge to tell the
truth or moral unease is scarcely the reason. Santanam’s ‘coming
clean’ has the stamp of approval of the most hawkish of Indian nuclear
hawks. Among them are P.K. Iyengar, A.N. Prasad, Bharat Karnad and
Brahma Chellaney.
By rubbishing the earlier test as a failure, they hope to make the
case for more nuclear tests. This would enable India to develop a full-
scale thermonuclear arsenal.As is well known, a thermonuclear (or
hydrogen) bomb is far more complex than the relatively simple fission
weapon first tested by India in 1974 and by Pakistan in 1998. Advanced
weapons needs fine-tuning to achieve their full destructiveness —
France had to test 22 times to achieve perfection.
By generating a pro-test environment, India’s nuclear hawks hope to
make life difficult for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s moderate
government whenever India’s signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT) comes up for discussion. Santanam’s revelation has been
spurred by the fear that if President Obama succeeds in his initiative
to revive the CTBT — which had essentially been shot dead by the US
Senate in 1999 — the doors on nuclear testing could be shut worldwide.
A race against the clock is on.
There are not the only ominous developments. India has begun sea
trials of its 7,000-ton nuclear-powered submarine with underwater
ballistic missile launch capability, the first in a planned fleet of
five. India became the world’s 10th-highest military spender in 2008
but now plans to head even further upwards. In July 2009, Indian
defence minister, A.K. Antony announced that for 2009-2010 India plans
to raise its military budget by 50 per cent to a staggering $40bn,
about six times that of Pakistan.
On the Pakistani side, the desire to maintain nuclear parity with
India has caused it to push down the pedal as hard as it can. Although
the numbers of Pakistani warheads and delivery vehicles is a closely
held secret, a former top official of the CIA recently noted in a
report released this month that: ‘It took them roughly 10 years to
double the number of nuclear weapons from roughly 50 to 100.’
This is bad news for those Pakistanis, like myself, who have long
opposed Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Our Indian friends and colleagues
— who have opposed their country’s bomb with far greater vigour — have
failed even more spectacularly in stopping their nuclear juggernaut.
It is little satisfaction to note that post-1998 developments have
repeatedly confirmed predictions, made by Pakistani and India anti-
nuclear activists separately, that the loud claims of ‘minimal
deterrence’ by nuclear hawks on both sides are a proven sham. Only the
sky is the limit.
Stuck with an arms race that is fuelled by India’s newfound economic
strength, what should Pakistan do? Before contemplating alternatives,
one must calmly scrutinise India’s motives and disaggregate the
threats that Pakistan faces both externally and internally.
First, an unpalatable truth — India’s nuclear planners want to play in
the big league, not with Pakistan. While nuclear Pakistan is indeed
seen as troublesome, it is a side consideration. India’s newfound
aggressive and dangerous nationalism now actively seeks new rivals and
enemies across the globe. This potentially includes its present
allies, Russia and the US. But it is strongly focused upon
neighbouring China.
An example: this month’s article by Bharat Verma, the hawkish editor
of the influential Indian Defence Review, makes the preposterous
prediction that China will attack India before 2012, leaving only
three years to the Indian government for preparation. He claims that a
desperate Beijing is out ‘to teach India the final lesson, thereby
ensuring Chinese supremacy in Asia in this century’ and China is
working towards an end game rooted in the ‘abiding conviction of the
communists that the Chinese race is far superior to Nazi Germany’.
Verma’s solution: India must arm itself to the teeth.
Pakistan should find reassurance in this kind of thinking, warped
though it is. It indicates that India’s China obsession is doing most
of the driving, not hostility with Pakistan or the Muslim factor.
Certainly, India’s military expansion deserves a full-throated
condemnation both because of the unnecessary tension it creates, as
well as the diversion of resources away from the actual needs of
India’s people. But the lesson for us is that we need not panic or
fear an Indian invasion. Pakistan already has enough military muscle
to stay safe in this regard, even if India increases its nuclear
arsenal manifold.
On the other hand, Pakistan is not safe from dangerous internal
threats. These are: population growth, terrorism and provincial
tensions.
Pakistan’s population is out of control. From 28 million in 1947, it
has shot up to 176 million today, roughly a six-fold increase over 60
years. This exploding population bomb makes it impossible to provide
even basic education and health facilities to a majority. Shrinking
per capita availability of water is inevitable and is certain to
become a source of serious internal violence as well as growing
tensions with India.
Terrorism, fortunately, is not yet out of control. But recent army
victories and the elimination of Baitullah Mehsud, while welcome, are
far from decisive. The epicentres of terrorism are highly mobile.
Religious radicalism has penetrated deep into the core of Pakistan’s
society, particularly its youth. The real problem lies in our cities,
not the mountains.Nationalist struggles, with those in Balochistan
being the most serious, are a third important threat. They are
indicative of the deep unhappiness felt by a good fraction of
Pakistanis living outside Punjab. While too inchoate to seriously
threaten the federal structure at this point, circumstances could
rapidly change.
These are serious existential threats. But they cannot be met by
following India’s path. Would tripling Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and
missile inventory, or having thermonuclear weapons, reduce their
severity even marginally?
Instead, the way to create a viable Pakistan lies in embarking on an
emergency population planning programme, building a sustainable and
active democracy on the back of a welfare state, restructuring the
economy for peace rather than war, remaking the federation so that
provincial grievances can be effectively resolved, eliminating the
feudal order and creating a tolerant society that respects the rule of
law and does not discriminate between citizens.
The writer is a professor of nuclear physics at Quaid-i-Azam
University, Islamabad.
bademiyansubhanallah
Indian PM denies nuclear ‘fizzle’ claim
Saturday, 29 Aug, 2009 | 03:27 PM PST |
Manmohan Singh lashed out at doubts over India’s nuclear capability,
saying the 1998 tests were successful.— Photo from AFP/File NEW DELHI:
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday dismissed doubts
raised recently about the success of the country’s nuclear tests in
1998.
Indian nuclear scientist S. Santhanam, who was a director for 1998
nuclear test site preparations, has claimed that the tests were only
partially successful and the results were much weaker than what was
claimed at the time.
He said the explosions did not yield the desired results as the
thermonuclear device tested was a ‘fizzle.’ The statement triggered
controversy over India’s nuclear capability but India’s former
president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who headed the nuclear programme, said
the May 1998 Pokhran tests were successful.
‘A wrong impression has been given by some scientists which is
needless. Kalam has clarified that the tests were successful,’
Manmohan Singh said during a visit to Rajasthan, the Press Trust of
India news agency reported.
The tests involving five nuclear devices were conducted by India in
May 1998 at the Pokhran test range, an isolated region in the desert
state of Rajasthan.— AFP
chhotemianinshallah
India possesses nuclear deterrence, Pokhran II tests were successful:
Navy Chief
August 27th, 2009 - 4:40 pm ICT by ANI -
New Delhi, Aug.27 (ANI): Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta, who is due
to retire on August 31, today said that the Pokhran nuclear tests
conducted in 1998 were successful, and dismissed claims made by senior
DRDO scientist K Santhanam to the contrary.
The Navy Chief said that India maintains a credible nuclear deterrence
and “we follow no first strike capability.”
Admiral Mehta came out strongly against DRDO scientist Santhanam’s
assertions on the country’s nuclear might that would have the world
believe that India’s nuke tests in 1998 were not successful.
Admiral Mehta, however, asserted that India had the capability to
stand tall as a member of the nuke club. He added that scientists had
given India credible nuclear deterrence.
Santhanam, who was director for 1998 test site preparations, has
claimed that the yield for the thermonuclear test or hydrogen bomb in
popular usage was much lower than what was claimed. As per him the
yield of Pokharan II tests can only be classified as a “fizzle” rather
than big bang.
“The tests were adequate. We believe whatever the scientists tell us.
The scientists said the tests were enough and tested. We believe the
scientists, as they provide us with nuclear capability,” Admiral Mehta
said while reacting to the revelation made by the top nuclear
scientist.
Admiral Mehta statement came while he was addressing his farewell
press conference in the capital this afternoon.
Admiral Mehta’s statement came even as the Defence Ministry and former
national security adviser Brajesh Mishra too dismissed Santhanam’s
statement by asserting that India has a “meaningful” number of nuclear
weapons and an effective delivery system to go with it.
The test was said to have yielded 45 kilotons (KT), but was challenged
by western experts who said it was not more than 20 KT.
India conducted five nuclear tests at the Pokhran test range, three of
which were conducted on May 11 and two on May 13, 1998.
Rajagopala Chidambaram headed the team, which conducted tests, and the
Device was developed at the Defence Research and Development
Organisation or DRDO’s Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory. (ANI)
chhotemianinshallah
India must not sign CTBT as Pokhran II was not fully successful, says
DRDO scientist
August 27th, 2009 - 12:03 pm ICT by ANI -
New Delhi, Aug.27 (ANI): A senior scientist and DRDO representative at
Pokhran II has admitted for the first time that the May 1998 nuclear
tests may not have been as successful as has been projected.
K Santhanam, who was director for 1998 test site preparations, told
the Times of India in an interview that the yield of thermonuclear
explosions was actually much below expectations and the tests were
perhaps more a fizzle rather than a big bang.
In nuclear parlance, a test is described as a fizzle when it fails to
meet the desired yield.
Santhanam said the yield for the thermonuclear test, or hydrogen bomb
in popular usage, was much lower than what was claimed. Santhanam also
said that given this fact, India should not rush into signing the
CTBT.
He emphasized the need for India to conduct more tests to improve its
nuclear weapon programme.
The test was said to have yielded 45 kilotons (KT) but was challenged
by western experts who said it was not more than 20 KT.
The exact yield of the thermonuclear explosion is important as during
the heated debate on the India- US nuclear deal, it was strenuously
argued by the government’s top scientists that no more tests were
required for the weapons programme. It was said the disincentives the
nuclear deal imposed on testing would not really matter as further
tests were not required.
According to security expert Bharat Karnad, Santhanam’s admission is
remarkable because this is the first time a nuclear scientist and one
closely associated with the 1998 tests has disavowed the government
line.
“This means the government has to do something. Either you don’t have
a thermonuclear deterrent or prove that you have it, if you claim to
have it,’ said Karnad.
The yield of the thermonuclear device test in 1998 has led to much
debate and while western experts have stated that it was not as
claimed, BARC has maintained that it stands by its assessment.
Indian scientists had claimed after the test that the thermonuclear
device gave a total yield of 45 KT, 15 KT from the fission trigger and
30 KT from the fusion process and that the theoretical yield of the
device (200 KT) was reduced to 45 KT in order to minimise seismic
damage to villages near the test range.
British experts, however, later challenged the claims saying that the
actual combined yield for the fission device and thermonuclear bomb
was not more than 20 KT. (ANI)
chhotemianinshallah
Kalam rejects Santhanam’s Pokhran II failure claims
August 27th, 2009 - 8:08 pm ICT by ANI -
New Delhi, Aug.27 (ANI): Former President Dr. A.P.J.Abdul Kalam on
Thursday rejected senior DRDO scientist Dr. K. Santhanam’s claims that
the Pokhran II nuclear tests held in the month of May 1998 were
partially successful.
Dr. Kalam told a private television channel that the tests were
successful and that a thorough review of these tests had been taken
with Dr. K.Santhanam present.
chhotemianinshallah
Pokhran-III prospects dead on Pokhran-II anniversary? (Commentary)
May 11th, 2008 - 1:50 pm ICT by admin -
By Tarun Vijay
What difference does it make who signed the Pokhran files? Brajesh
Mishra, the powerful former security advisor to then prime minister
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, revealed a bit too late. There was a time when
the Congress must have felt elated to claim making India nuclear. The
first Pokhran test (in 1974) was their contribution and Indira Gandhi
dared the Americans bravely. Should we be ashamed of it or try to
delete that chapter from Indian history just because she happened to
be another party’s leader? If Rajiv Gandhi signed the file clearing
the way for Pokhran-II and Vajpayee did take the final step
successfully, should the fight be on credit or the efforts made for an
unanimity on those brave acts to take the nation on the path of
Pokhran-III - if ever required?
Indians should develop a habit of feeling elated to see any other
Indian succeeding for the cause of the motherland. That way the
present United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government has done
injustice to the Indian cause celebre by refusing to celebrate the
Pokhran-II anniversary.
It was certainly a great moment. Indira Gandhi did the first Pokhran
blast and while P.V. Narasimha Rao couldn’t muster courage after the
leak to the Americans and their subsequent pressure, Vajpayee, like
Shivaji, did the whole operation in such a grand fashion that all
pervasive US satellites failed and the world shook on May 11, 1998,
seeing mushroom clouds over the desert of Rajasthan. A peeved and
bruised US imposed all sorts of sanctions fooled by the Europeans and
the Japanese too. Who cared? We emerged taller and all the sanctions
were removed without our applying for it in their durbar.
Remember the days when Americans were refusing super computers and
Russians were stopped from providing cryogenic engines? The fuel
crisis and the technological components, the essential parts for our
nuclear plants and heavy industry and so on so forth. All tactics were
used to make us bend on knees and say sorry. India refused.
Our scientists did us proud by producing supercomputer Param in less
than half the American cost and as good, if not even better. The
spirit of Swadeshi, self reliance and indigenous brilliance was
recognised. India asserted its sovereign rights and stood tall in the
comity of nations.
But everything has a price, especially to stand firm as a proud
people. The cost India gave is certainly high; we have been longing to
get the best in hardware for our nuclear plants and heavy industry.
Even for our labs and IITs, the supplies got stuck post Pokhran-II and
the votaries of signing the 123 agreement with the US put up the same
argument - ink the agreement and get all what you need. The crowd
crying to sign is the same that advocates beheading the solution for a
headache.
A society and a nation doesn’t live just on un-interrupted power
supplies and peaceful armed forces de-teethed to please some donors.
And while donor nations keep on arming and financing our deadly
enemies in the neighbourhood sitting pretty on their nuclear godowns,
the nice sweet and energy-starved are advised to work on their
peaceful purposes.
India did its first explosion in May 1974 and named it ‘Smiling
Buddha’. That was Indira Gandhi’s time and we had a great patriotic
scientist in Homi Bhabha. Even that time, those who are aggressively
campaigning to cap our nuclear programme were frowning furiously at us
and helped Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s ‘Islamic bomb’ dreams get realised
clandestinely.
Now India is surrounded by two unreliable nuclear power states and
both of them have been at war with us, both of them have usurped a
large part of our land and still clamouring for more. One of them has
been singularly responsible for killings of more than 100,000 Indian
citizens by way of direct war and proxy-wars through Islamic jihadis
in the last three decades.
Apart from these two worthies, we are surrounded by failed states who
threaten our security and territorial integrity. If Bangladesh, a
‘jihad factory’ sends our dead soldiers tied to bamboo poles like
animals and exports its extra heads to become our illegal guests, Sri
Lankan battle fields have cast a bloody shadow on our domestic
politics claiming one prime minister. And look at Nepal. The Red Army
rule in Kathmandu means China reaching as close to us as Gorakhpur,
and Badrinath.
In this scenario, it is not to suggest that we shall use tiny bits of
nuclear explosions to silence the dangers, but having the strength to
strike in times of need means having a credible deterrence to frighten
the arrogant and mischievous aggressor. Given the past record, it’s
only India on this planet that can be trusted for using nuclear power
for peaceful purpose that includes the purpose to maintain peace and
scare the enemy from becoming the first striker.
The nationalists are not blindly opposed to the nuclear deal with the
US. In spite of the fact that neither the Clinton years nor the Bush
era proved great for bilateral relationship, Clinton pushed us hard to
de-nuclearise and for the first time used a ghastly incorrect term -
Hindu terrorists - in reference to a terror attack in Chhittisinghpura
in Jammu and Kashmir when 35 Sikhs were killed. Bush refused to
address our terror wounds by ignoring Pakistan’s support to Taliban
and entertaining Kashmiri separatists.
Still an India-US friendship is always welcome for the present world
scenario where India needs democratic cohesiveness to smoothen its
path to economic progress. But it can’t be done by sealing our doors
and keeping the keys with Washington’s mercurial masters.
Friendship doesn’t mean complete surrender of our future options to
the whims and egos of a nation whose track record doesn’t instil
confidence to call him an ‘all weather ally’. In fact, we need a prime
minister who would have the guts to go for Pokhran-III, if need be.
And why not? We may wish never ever having to go that way, but that
also means wishing that US and other nuclear club members take a
complete Gandhian turn and empty their nuclear store houses for ever!!
This government neither represents the nationalist spirit of the
Congress’ basic identity nor the character of Indian patriotism.
It’s a small coterie of people willing to sacrifice greater interests
of the nation for smaller gains. Hence should we believe that the
tenth and an un-celebrated anniversary of Pokaran-II, fell on the
death of the Pokhran-III prospects?
(Tarun Vijay is director, Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerjee Research
Foundation, a right wing think tank. The views expressed are his own.
He can be contacted at tarun...@gmail.com)
Sid Harth
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videoopinions/4939256.cms
Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist
Sachin Parashar , TNN 27 August 2009, 12:38am IST
NEW DELHI: The 1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests might have been far from
the success they have been claimed to be. The yield of the
thermonuclear explosions was actually much below expectations and the
tests were perhaps more a fizzle rather than a big bang. ( Watch
Video )
The controversy over the yield of the tests, previously questioned by
foreign agencies, has been given a fresh lease of life with K
Santhanam, senior scientist and DRDO representative at Pokhran II,
admitting for the first time that the only thermonuclear device tested
was a "fizzle". In nuclear parlance, a test is described as a fizzle
when it fails to meet the desired yield.
Santhanam, who was director for 1998 test site preparations, told TOI
on Monday that the yield for the thermonuclear test, or hydrogen bomb
in popular usage, was much lower than what was claimed. Santhanam, who
was DRDO's chief advisor, could well have opened up the debate on
whether or not India should sign CTBT as claims that India has all the
data required and can manage with simulations is bound to be called
into question.
``Based upon the seismic measurements and expert opinion from world
over, it is clear that the yield in the thermonuclear device test was
much lower than what was claimed. I think it is well documented and
that is why I assert that India should not rush into signing the
CTBT,'' Santhanam told TOI on Wednesday.
He emphasised the need for India to conduct more tests to improve its
nuclear weapon programme.
The test was said to have yielded 45 kilotons (KT) but was challenged
by western experts who said it was not more than 20 KT.
The exact yield of the thermonuclear explosion is important as during
the heated debate on the India-
US nuclear deal, it was strenuously argued by the government's top
scientists that no more tests were required for the weapons programme.
It was said the disincentives the nuclear deal imposed on testing
would not really matter as further tests were not required.
According to security expert Bharat Karnad, Santhanam's admission is
remarkable because this is the first time a nuclear scientist and one
closely associated with the 1998 tests has disavowed the government
line. ``He is not just saying that India should not sign the CTBT,
which I believe is completely against India's interests, but also that
the 1998 thermonuclear device test was inadequate.
His saying this means that the government has to do something. Either
you don't have a thermonuclear deterrent or prove that you have it, if
you claim to have it,'' said Karnad.
Sources said that Santhanam had admitted that the test was a fizzle
during a discussion on CTBT organised by IDSA. Karnad also
participated in the seminar. He told TOI that no country has succeeded
in achieving targets with only its first test of a thermonuclear
device.
``Two things are clear; that India should not sign CTBT and that it
needs more thermonuclear device tests,'' said Santhanam.
The yield of the thermonuclear device test in 1998 has led to much
debate and while western experts have stated that it was not as
claimed, BARC has maintained that it stands by its assessment. Indian
scientists had claimed after the test that the thermonuclear device
gave a total yield of 45 KT, 15 KT from the fission trigger and 30 KT
from the fusion process and that the theoretical yield of the device
(200 KT) was reduced to 45 KT in order to minimise seismic damage to
villages near the test range.
British experts, however, later challenged the claims saying that the
actual combined yield for the fission device and thermonuclear bomb
was not more than 20 KT.
Key Pokharan scientist R Chidambaram had described these reports as
incorrect. He has also argued that computer simulations would be
enough in future design.
Readers Opinions Write to EditorPokhran II not fully successful: DRDO
scientist vishnu, Satara, says: That means waste more money & more &
more... Give me good roads instead
27 Aug, 2009 1230hrs IST
HImanshu, NOIDA, says: Good...NUCLEAR BOMBS should no more be
successful....Earth will then no longer be peaceful.
27 Aug, 2009 1115hrs IST
h b patel, la, usa, says: who are we trying to fool this time?
pakistan or the world??
Sid Harth
No more nuke tests needed, says Kakodkar
PTI 3 September 2009, 04:13am IST
MUMBAI: Joining issue with an ex-DRDO scientist that Pokhran-II was
not a full success and India needs to go for a few more nuclear tests,
atomic energy commission chief Anil Kakodkar on Wednesday said the
country has strong simulation capability and that additional tests
were not required.
"We have enough data. We have comprehensive simulation capability and
therefore there is no need for any more tests," Kakodkar said days
after K Santhanam ignited a controversy that Pokhran-II was a fizzle
and did not give the desired yield.
"We used the data of Beneberry nuclear tests of US of December 18,1970
to validate our 3-D simulation for earth motion and displacement and
this validated tool was used for bench marking," Kakodkar said.
There is no need for series of tests to validate the yield since the
tool and also observations are available, he said adding that it was
published in the international journal Nuclear Technology in 2006 four
years after its communication from Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
(Barc).
Sid Harth
Kalam can't talk about N-physics, says Sethna
TNN 2 September 2009, 04:03am 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 DRDO
when Santhanam was coordinating Pokhran-II, was no qualified authority
to rubbish his former colleague's claim.
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?"
Sid Harth
Kalam certifies Pokharan II, Santhanam stands his ground
Sachin Parashar, TNN 28 August 2009, 12:55am IST
NEW DELHI: The claim of K Santhanan, former DRDO scientist who was in-
charge of Pokharan II, that the thermonuclear device tested in 1998
was a fizzle detonated a full-scale row on Thursday, with former
President A P J Abdul Kalam refuting the statement of his former
colleague.
Kalam, who spearheaded India's nuclear programme then, came out in the
open asserting that the test was successful. With Santhanam holding
his ground and other scientists weighing in with their versions, a
vigorous debate raged through the day on whether Pokharan II was
indeed as successful as was claimed.
"There was a detailed review, based on the two experimental results:
first, the seismic measurement close to the site and, second,
radioactive measurement of the material after post-shot drill on the
test site. It has been established by the project team that the design
yield of the thermonuclear test has been obtained," said Kalam,
scientific advisor to the defence ministry when the test took place.
R Chidambaram, who led the team of scientists who conducted the tests,
also described Santhanam's claim as absurd.
However, an undeterred Santhanam told TOI on Thursday that the
hydrogen bomb test was not more than 50-60% successful in terms of the
yield it generated. He was supported by prominent nuclear scientists
including P K Iyengar, a player in Pokhran I, who said Santhanam was
only stating the truth, but Kalam sought to end the controversy by
saying that the desired yield had been obtained.
The dispute is significant from the point of view of whether the
country needs to conduct more tests - an option that has become
expensive because of the nuclear cooperation deals with the US and
other countries and which may disappear altogether if the country
acquiesces to the growing pressure for Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT).
Talking to TOI on Wednesday evening, Santhanam had said that the test
was a fizzle because the actual yield was much lower than what was
claimed. He told TOI on Thursday that the thermonuclear device test
was only 50-60% successful.
"I can't recall the exact number but it wasn't more than that. My
assessment is based on the report by the programme coordinator and
also the instrumentation data," said Santhanam, adding that he would
take statements about India having enough deterrence, including the
one made by Navy chief Sureesh Mehta on Thursday, with a kiloton (KT)
of salt. DRDO was responsible for the instrumentation work in the
tests and Santhanam was DRDO's main man in the whole exercise.
While Navy chief Mehta said on Thursday that India had enough nuclear
deterrence, Brajesh Mishra, who was NSA in 1998, said that Kalam
himself had certified the test result and it "set the record
straight".
Santhanam stood his ground though. "I can't stop anybody from taking
names. It is his perspective. My observation has a scientific and
technological basis to it," he said.
Santhanam again emphasized that India must not sign CTBT as it would
hurt its nuclear weapons programme. Santhanam's remarks have sparked
off a controversy as many believe that India's nuclear deal with the
US is based on the premise that New Delhi will not go for any further
testing. "The fact is that no country has succeeded in achieving the
target in only its first thermonuclear device test. India needs more
tests and for that it has to keep away from CTBT," he said.
A Gopalakrishnan, another senior nuclear scientist, said he backed
Santhanam's observations. "You have to first decide whether or not you
want a thermonuclear deterrent. If the answer is yes, then you have to
have more tests because what we have now is not sufficient. All these
reports about managing with computer simulation are baseless," he
said.
Sid Harth
Former NSA disagrees with scientist, says Pokhran II successful
ANI 27 August 2009, 04:31pm IST
NEW DELH: Former National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra has rejected
senior DRDO scientist K Santhanam's assertion that the 1998 Pokhran
II
nuclear tests were not fully successful. ( Watch Video )
Mishra told a private television channel that the five nuclear tests
conducted in May 1998 were successful and dismissed Santhanam's
statement with regard to them.
"Dr A P J Abdul Kalam, who was then the scientific adviser to the
defence ministry, had openly said that the 1998 nuclear tests
conducted in Pokhran were successful. It is enough that Dr Kalam said
that they were successful. Dr. Santhanam was working directly under Dr
Kalam. That should set the record straight," said Mishra
Mishra's statement came as the defence ministry also rejected
Santhanam's assertion and added that India has a meaningful number of
nuclear weapons and an effective delivery system to go with it.
Sources in the ministry told the Times Now television channel that
India has a nuclear deterrent that is adequate for its security.
K Santhanam, who was director for 1998 test site preparations, told
the Times of India in an interview that the yield of thermonuclear
explosions was actually much below expectations and the tests were
perhaps more a fizzle rather than a big bang.
In nuclear parlance, a test is described as a fizzle when it fails to
meet the desired yield.
Santhanam said the yield for the thermonuclear test, or hydrogen bomb
in popular usage, was much lower than what was claimed. Santhanam also
said that given this fact, India should not rush into signing the
CTBT.
He emphasized the need for India to conduct more tests to improve its
nuclear weapon programme.
The test was said to have yielded 45 kilotons (KT) but was challenged
by western experts who said it was not more than 20 KT.
The exact yield of the thermonuclear explosion is important as during
the heated debate on the India- US nuclear deal, it was strenuously
argued by the government's top scientists that no more tests were
required for the weapons programme. It was said the disincentives the
nuclear deal imposed on testing would not really matter as further
tests were not required.
According to security expert Bharat Karnad, Santhanam's admission is
remarkable because this is the first time a nuclear scientist and one
closely associated with the 1998 tests has disavowed the government
line.
"This means the government has to do something. Either you don't have
a thermonuclear deterrent or prove that you have it, if you claim to
have it,'' said Karnad.
The yield of the thermonuclear device test in 1998 has led to much
debate and while western experts have stated that it was not as
claimed, BARC has maintained that it stands by its assessment.
Indian scientists had claimed after the test that the thermonuclear
device gave a total yield of 45 KT, 15 KT from the fission trigger and
30 KT from the fusion process and that the theoretical yield of the
device (200 KT) was reduced to 45 KT in order to minimise seismic
damage to villages near the test range.
British experts, however, later challenged the claims saying that the
actual combined yield for the fission device and thermonuclear bomb
was not more than 20 KT.
Sources claim that Santhanam had admitted that the test was a fizzle
during a discussion on CTBT organized by IDSA.
India conducted five nuclear tests at the Pokhran test range. Three of
them were conducted on May 11 and two on May 13, 1998.
Rajagopala Chidambaram headed the team, which conducted tests, and the
device was developed at the Defence Research and Development
Organization's Ballistics Research Laboratory.
chhotemianinshallah
chhotemianinshallah
Pokhran II : Why the US missed India's nuclear tests
Submitted by Mr. S.S. Vasan (May 13, 1998)
WASHINGTON, May 12 - Despite a $27 billion budget and a galaxy of spy
satellites, U.S. Intelligence agencies failed to detect India's
preparation for Monday's nuclear blast. Why? U.S. officials are
blaming it on a leak to The New York Times. Senior Intelligence and
military officials tell NBC News that India put its nuclear testing
equipment underground in 1996 following a leak to The New York Times
that U.S. spy satellites were monitoring that nation's nuclear test
site.
"There was a leak that we knew would have a reaction and it did," said
one senior intelligence official. "We watched as they put it
underground... We warned back then that India now had the capability
to test very quickly and predicted that we wouldn't be able to tell."
The Times report ran Dec. 14, 1995, and quoted unnamed government
officials as saying satellites had recorded activity in western India
that suggested a test might be imminent. No tests occurred and an
Indian government spokesman said the Times report was "highly
speculative." As a result, said officials, India was able to very
"quickly and subtly" make preparations for the test of three nuclear
devices Monday.
In fact, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger told reporters the
United States still had no confirmation of the test nearly 12 hours
after the blast occurred. India calculated the orbits of spy
satellites and then moved equipment at times when they believed
nothing was overhead. India, several officials noted, has long had a
space program and is capable of determining what satellites are in
which orbit. "They were in our blind spot," said a senior military
official. Moreover, intelligence officials note that the Indian
nuclear weapons program is the "most secretive" of all Third World
programs. "We know more about the North Korean program than we do
about the Indian program."
Satellite Imaging Capability
The reasons, say officials in both Washington and New Delhi, are
varied. India has its own satellite-imaging capability, which gives it
an understanding of what can and can't be seen from space. It's
nuclear program is kept separate from its military, which like many
militaries is prone to boasting and leaking. And unlike many programs,
India's is not as dependent on outside help. India has a large pool of
trained nuclear scientists and electrical engineers and an industrial
infrastructure capable of producing key equipment. Much U.S.
intelligence on other nations' nuclear programs is derived from
electronic eavesdropping on sales of equipment related to weapons
development. India has prevented Western intelligence from recruiting
spies in India by an aggressive program of counterintelligence that
includes surveillance and even attempted recruitment of diplomats and
suspected agents. "They are very, very good," said one official.
"Remember, this is the same country that produced the scientists who
designed the Pentium chips," added an official. "They don't need a lot
of outside help. They can do it on their own."
Televised Announcement
CIA officials say the United States did not know anything about the
tests until Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee announced the
tests on television Monday morning, four hours after they had taken
place. The announcement even preceded analysis of the seismic data on
the tests. "A lot of people had their hair on fire," said one
intelligence official. Intelligence officials say policy officials
deserve some of the blame for the tests, noting that intelligence
officials have repeatedly warned that India's Hindu Nationalist BJP
party was serious about "going nuclear." Bill Richardson, the U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations, told the Pakistani government last
month that he was impressed with BJP "restraint" when he met with
party officials prior to his visit to Islamabad. "The U.S. charge
d'affaires got his butt chewed by the Pakistanis last night," an
official noted, saying that the United States should have known of the
Indian plan and that the tests proved there was little restraint in
New Delhi.
Clinton Warned
The Pakistani ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that his
prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, had warned President Bill Clinton of
India's intentions, if not its specific plans. "South Asia has been on
the back burner in this administration," said another official. "They
have taken Indian restraint for granted and didn't take the BJP
threats seriously." As for why India tested the weapons now, the
intelligence assessment is that the tests were driven more by domestic
political concerns, rather than any action by Pakistan. "The BJP
couldn't get budget through by the end of the month without something
to help them. If the budget deal fell through, they would have had to
call new elections," said a senior intelligence official. "It was done
clearly for nationalistic and domestic political concerns."
Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials say that in spite of Pakistani
claims that it will match India's nuclear tests, there are no
indications that Pakistan is preparing for such a test. The United
States has moved its satellites and increased electronic surveillance
to monitor Pakistan's nuclear test site in the Chagai Hills in the
desert of western Pakistan. Officials note that Sharif is scheduled to
return to Islamabad quickly from a trip to Kazakhstan. Once home, say
officials, the United States expects some decisions. U.S. officials
expect that if the Pakistanis don't detonate a nuclear device, they
will probably again test the Ghauri missile, which is nuclear-capable.
Pakistan first tested the missile, which it bought from North Korea,
the first week of April.
http://chemeng.iisc.ernet.in/alumni/nuclear3.html
Pokhran II : A Voice for Humanity
Submitted by Mr. S.S. Vasan (May 13, 1998)
(This article was written around a couple of hours before India
conducted its second round of nuclear tests)
The Buddha has smiled. In the arid north-western state of Rajasthan in
India, Lord Buddha chose his birthday after a long break of 24 years
to crack into a wide grin that were the three nuclear blasts at
Pokhran at 1543 hours on May the 15th 1998. And for all we know, may
choose to smile yet again if the esteemed scientists of India dont
find his attempt measuring up to their expectations this time round.
A momentous occasion this, for Indians the world over. Like a friend
exclaimed yesterday "For the first few hours, there were only
patriotic, no-nonsense thoughts in my head"...but what after the
initial exhilaration? Where do we stand now and where do we go from
here? Modern India has never ever found itself in the enviable
position that it is in today.
Leaders the world around have sat up and taken notice of this nation
with roughly one - sixth of the worlds population and which now
becomes the sixth country in the world to declare its nuclear
capability. Will its voice for global disarmament be heeded at least
now?
Now, coming to the nuclear tests conducted. Whats the big ado about?
Didn't the world see it coming? Right from its first explosion back in
1974, through the years of tacit progress in research with the
connivance of Russia and its refusal to sign the "meaningless" nuclear
test ban treaty in 1996 unless accompanied by negotiations for global
nuclear disarmament.
The last piece in the buildup to the inevitable tests was the election
of a government at the Centre which got only one of the issues in its
election manifesto onto the national agenda - and that was to go
nuclear. This was all that was needed by, as stated by a shell-shocked
official in the most powerful nation in the world, "the decision
making process in India which we hardly know about"!!
The real crux of the issue is that this act on the part of India has
brought into sharp focus the term "nuclear deterrent" and the pressing
need for global disarmament. Who needs these deterrents and who is
qualified to use them and how are such decisions taken? All the
nuclear powers have agreed not to make first use of these weapons.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that these tools of
devastation will never be used by anyone on planet earth again. So,
what's stopping global disarmament and who is the "nuclear deterrent"
for? Can we speak for our children two or three generations down the
line and say they would not be tempted to target each other with these
weaponery and technology that we pass on to them? And can we decide
whose children are going to make the monumental mistake of starting
it? Bear in mind that none of them would have had a first hand
experience/knowledge of the devastation caused by the atomic bombs in
1945.
The time has come to cast aside this shadow of an impending nuclear
war over our heads. Referendums have been initiated and peple are
voting on whether India has done right in testing its nuclear bombs. A
thirteen year old in Pokhran has stated (and this has been reported by
the world media) that he is happy that India can now defeat its
neighbour!! Please note this "immature" kid will grow up feeding on
hatred and ill-feeling in the narrow confines of his head and may
eventually be involved in the decision-making process of his country
which the world might still be unaware of.
History has taught us that periodically, the world sees the rise of a
Hitler, Pol Pot or an Idi Amin, to name a few from the 20th century,
and practically every generation of humanity has seen a major war
during its lifetime. Human instinct for power and expansion have not
abated. However, one crucial difference lies in the future. A
Mussolini or a Saddam did not have a stock of nuclear weaponery at
their disposal. Not the current crop of politicians, but succeeding
generations will be the most probable perpetrators of the holocaust
that would follow. And the next such perpetrator(s) could very well
come from any of the nuclear powers and the victims are going to be
any of the 180 nations who have placed their faith in the "Big Five"
or is it six now? And eventually this would lead to the annihilation
of entire humanity as has been predicted by the seers and saints of
yore.
Its time to say enough! Nuclear weapons should go and no child of ours
ought to be given the option of exercising this capability as a
deterrent or any such.
http://chemeng.iisc.ernet.in/alumni/nuclear1.html
Pokhran II : Chemical Engineers' Contributions
Submitted by Mr. Rajdip Bandyopadhyay (May 13, 1998)
Amid the recent incident of nuclear bomb blasts, it is interesting to
note the following excerpt, which appeared in Janes' - the
comprehensive missile sourcebook, referred widely for trade and
development in missile technology. Importantly, this appeared 4 months
earlier and showcases India's potential towards making a fusion
(Hydrogen) bomb. That what happened now, 4 months later, is indeed
what had been predicted in the following report, is for all of us to
see.
The reason I want you to read the article is, it involves a success
story of Indian scientists, and indeed of a group of Chemical
Engineers at BARC. They have developed a very low cost method of
producing gaseous Tritium, which apparently is used in thermonuclear
weapons like hydrogen bomb. Specifically, the team developed a
hydrophobic catalyst which produces enriched tritium gas from heavy
water, the latter being a by-product from nuclear reactor coolants and
is abundant in India.
India thus possesses a very cheap and easy source of tritium, critical
for nuclear weapons, which beats the Americans hands down in terms of
the production method and costs. And this is indigeneous technology,
starting from producing tritium to finally recovering an enriched gas-
stream through a cascaded sequence of 3 multicomponent distillation
units, comprising of 240 stages!
Regards,
Rajdip.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRITIUM BREAKTHROUGH BRINGS INDIA CLOSER TO AN H-BOMB ARSENAL
Source: Janes Intelligence Review, January 1998
Nestled between the nuclear capabilities of China and the nuclear
aspirations of Pakistan, India would seem to be in an unenviable
strategic position. As T.S. Gopi Rethinaraj reports, however, a
breakthrough by Indian scientists in the economical production of
tritium may have tipped the strategic scales in New Delhi's Favour.
The importance of tritium as a strategic material in the creation of
thermonuclear weaponry, given the insignificance of its other uses,
cannot be overstressed. Its importance becomes even more apparent when
one considers the major leap from the ability to manufacture fission
weaponry to the capacity to build a thermonuclear weapon like a
hydrogen bomb. It is within this context that the pioneering work in
extracting highly enriched tritium conducted by scientists at India's
Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) assumes significance. In this
area at least, Indian scientists have reason to cock a snook at the
USA. While the USA had stopped producing tritium by about 1988 due to
safety reasons and ageing facilities, the Indian breakthrough
underscores the fact that tritium can now be produced at a fraction of
the estimated US$ 7 billion needed to produce the isotope at current
costs using the accelerator process, as was done in the USA. The
Indian scientists have managed to extract, highly enriched tritium
from heavy water used in power reactors. The advantage of the
technology developed by BARC is that it assumes heavy water as the
moderator in power reactors when most of those in the West (including
Russia) - with the exception of Canada - use light water. The other
advantage is a short gestation period; the Indian tritium facility
takes less than two years for completion. This is not to say that
India has already secretly developed the H-Bomb, but the very fact
that tritium, according to all available indications, is now being
stockpiled puts India in a comfortable position in terms of nuclear
deterrence, given the nuclear ambitions of Pakistan and the already -
nuclear China.
On the trail of Indian Tritium
It was an innocuous paragraph at the end of a recently published paper
on detritiation that let the cat out of the bag. The paper appeared in
a book entitled Heavy Water- Properties, Production and Analysis,
which was authored by two BARC scientists, Sharad M. Dave and
Himangshu K Sadhukhan, with a Mexican scientist, Octavio A Novaro. On
p461 of the work, it says the following:
The Bhabha Atomic Research Center, Bombay, India, also having
developed a wetproof catalyst for LPCE liquid phase catalytic
exchange, has employed it for detritiation. A pilot plant based on
LPCE cryogenic distillation with about 90 per cent tritium removal
from heavy water has been commissioned and is under experimental
evaluation. Reportedly, this facility seems to be the only operating
LPCE-based detritiation facility in the world. A commercial
detritiation plant based on this process is being set up at one of
their nuclear power stations.
According to BARC scientists, the new technology is aimed at lowering
the tritium content in heavy water circulating around the moderator
circuit. They argue that the project is being executed to prevent the
many health hazards associated with the leakage of tritium from
reactors. When asked what is exactly being done to the highly
radioactive tritium so recovered, the scientists refuse to talk - even
under conditions of anonymity. When pressed, some ventured to comment
that a scenario in which the recovered tritium is being stockpiled for
strategic purposes cannot be ruled out.
Curiously, there seems to exist some confusion regarding how
classified the project is, but scientists at the Nuclear Power
Corporation (NPC), the government controlled organization that
constructs and runs India's commercial power reactors, remain tight-
lipped on the entire issue. Both A Sanatkumar and C Surendar, group
directors at NPC, said the same thing: "We are unable to understand
what you are talking about. There is no such project at Kalpakkam".
When the author contacted the managing director's officers said:
"Please don't ask anything about the detritiation plant. We have been
asked not to talk about it". However, there was no categorical denial
of such a project being at the implementation stage. Incidentally,
some time ago, the NPC management announced that one of the power
reactors at Kalpakkam near Madras in southern India would be opened to
research activities. According to highly placed sources, the
commercial version of the pilot plant is taking shape at Kalpakkam.
Recently, labour trouble hit the plant with the workers striking for
nearly a month because of alleged high levels of radioactivity.
Employees working in the station are still puzzled as to why their
dosimeter readings have increased in recent times. Dr. Rajagopalan
Chidambaram, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), evaded
probing questions relating to the project. When asked persistently, he
admitted: "Yes, there is a pilot plant for detritiation of heavy water
in BARC" Asked whether the project is meant for stockpiling tritium,
he replied: "No Comment". Also refusing to comment when asked about
the project was former AEC chief P K lyengar, one of the pioneers of
India's 1974 fission bomb experiment.
With eight operating Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) at
Kalpakkam, Rawatbhatta, Narora and Kakrapar plus more to come in
future, India has struck a gold mine in tritium production, as the
BARC pilot plant can be implemented at all of these power stations.
Scientists say that the size of the commercial plant would be just two
or three times the size of the pilot plant. According to technical
estimates, 2400 curies of tritium could be produced for every MW of
electricity produced in heavy water reactors. Since, unlike fission
bombs, fusion bombs have no critical size, bombs of various
intensities could be fabricated using tritium. Fusion bombs require an
ambient temperature of 100 million 0C to overcome the Coulomb
Repulsion Barrier (CRB) which prevents lighter atoms from coming
together - meaning that fission bombs are a prerequisite for
detonating fusion, bombs. India first demonstrated its capability to
explode fission bombs in 1974 in the deserts of Pokhran in Northwest
India. Under the circumstances, the inference is inescapable: that the
breakthrough in BARC puts India on the road of self-sufficiency in
terms of strategic materials for defence purposes. It is another
matter that Indian scientists are loath to call it 'production' of
tritium, but instead choose to talk of 'detritiation'. "Look, our
intention is not to produce tritium," said a senior scientist directly
involved with the pilot detritiation plant at BARC. "Our aim is to
lower the tritium content in the heavy water, which gets contaminated
after fission and neutron capture by deuterium atoms. If tritium comes
out as a by-product, what can we do about it?" Asked what was to be
done with the tritium so obtained, the scientist just smiled.
Tritium
Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen with a half-life of 12.3
years, meaning that 5.5 per cent of tritium will decay into helium-3
every year. Deuterium, another isotope of hydrogen, along with the
elementary gas itself, is stable and non-radioactive. Tritium decays
and is converted into a non-radioactive form of helium.
Although tritium is present naturally in the environment, this amount
is too small for practical recovery. Therefore, tritium required for
strategic purposes has to be produced artificially, and there are two
ways to do this, both involving nuclear reactions with neutrons: in
the first method, neutrons are made to strike a target of lithium or
aluminum metal, which gives tritium and other by-products; the second
method involves a neutron reaction with helium-3 which gives tritium
and hydrogen as by-products.
The first method is widely used an was employed for several years at
the Savannah River Site (SRS) in the USA before it was shut down in
1988. The production of tritium requires the generation of energetic
neutrons, the source of which can be either power reactors or
accelerators. In reactors, neutrons are produced as a result of
fission, while in accelerators they occur as a result of spallation,
where protons strike a metallic target and 'kick off' neutrons from
the metal. Tritium finds peripheral use in medical diagnostics, but it
is mainly used in the construction of hydrogen bombs and to boost the
yield of both fission and thermonuclear weapons. Contained in
removable and refillable reservoirs in nuclear arsenals, it boosts the
efficiency of the nuclear materials. Although no official data is
available on inventory amounts of tritium.
each thermonuclear warhead is said to contain 4 g of the isotope.
However, neutron bombs designed to release more radiation will require
10-30 g of tritium, according to a status report prepared by the US
Department of Energy's Science Policy Research Division and an
assessment made by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
(IEER) in Maryland, USA.
Authoritative US reports put the USA's total tritium production since
1955 at 225 kg. After decay, it is now left with 75 kg of tritium,
which is sufficient to take the country through the first quarter of
the next millennium.
Even in low levels, tritium has been linked to developmental problems,
reproductive problems, genetic and neurological abnormalities and
other health problems. Additionally, there is evidence of adverse
health effects on populations living near tritium facilities. Tritium
contamination has been reported at the Savannah River site in ground
water soil from operational releases and accidents. No figures are
available relating to the Indian stockpile of tritium, however. The
pilot plant at BARC was set up, according to well-placed sources in
the department, in 1992.
India's Breakthrough
India has now acquired a unique place in the annals of tritium
production. Lacking the 'big money' to go in for capital-intensive
methods, India's economic position - combined with the hostile
attitude it faced from the West following the country's refusal to
sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty and Fissile Material cut-off Treaty - has taught Indian
scientists to rely on economically viable indigenous methods. They
therefore decided to extract tritium from moderator heavy water in
power reactors, which is plentiful. This year India exported 100 tons
of heavy water to South Korea.
India's three-stage nuclear planning has come in handy for the
project: in the first stage Indian power reactors use natural uranium;
the second stage employs fast breeder reactors that will use plutonium
from the first stage; finally, the third phase aims at using thorium,
since India has abundant thorium reserves in the beach sands of Kerala
and Orrisa. The first stage uses reactors moderated by heavy water,
and it is in these reactors that Indian scientists have struck a gold
mine in tritium production.
The tritium build-up in these reactors increases with the number of
years of plant operation. The pilot plant is called the detritiation
plant because the process involves lowering tritium levels in heavy
water, but the fact remains that the by-product is highly enriched
tritium. The reason why BARC developed new technology was to reduce
radioactive levels by lowering the tritium content in heavy water. The
department set up a pilot plant to achieve this and struck pay dirt:
enriched tritium at low cost which needed only additional detritiation
plants ton be added to the country's already-available nuclear
infrastructure. The BARC technology is all the more laudable in that
it is 100 per cent indigenous and the first of its kind anywhere in
the world, according to experts preferring to remain anonymous.
Scientists at BARC's Chemical Engineering Group recently developed a
wet-proof catalyst for LPCE (the process that yields highly enriched
tritium from heavy water), but they refrained from talking about the
defence implications of the project. They have called the facility a
detritiation plant to avoid charges of stockpiling a strategic raw
material crucial in the production of thermonuclear weapons.
The Process
The presence of tritium in heavy water has been a major concern of
reactor engineers in India for a long time. During the operation of a
PHWR, tritium is produced as a result of fission and irradiation of
reactor components with neutrons. This tritium remains in the fuel and
later passes into the effluents in the fuel reprocessing plants. The
BARC pilot plant produces tritium using moderator heavy water, where
tritium is produced due to the capture of neutrons by deuterium atoms
in the water. This reaction, as reported in scientific literature, is
known to yield maximum tritium.
Although any method employed in the production and enrichment of
isotopes can also be used in the case of tritium, the BARC scientists'
choice of process was governed by safe handling and economic reasons.
BARC scientists first worked with the water distillation and
electrolytic method, which proved to be risky and inefficient. This
produces tritium in its most hazardous form: liquid. They instead
settled for the method of chemical exchange followed by cryogenic
distillation. In this method the tritium is in a liquid phase only for
a short time during the chemical exchange process, with the final
product collected in gaseous form and kept in double containment to
ensure safety. This method yields 90 per cent enriched tritium. It is
worth noting that weapons also use tritium in its gaseous phase.
The Catalyst
The most important hurdle in producing tritium by this method is
finding a suitable catalyst for the process because heavy water from
the moderator and pure deuterium gas have to pass through the column
containing the catalyst. Besides, the exchange reactions of deuterium
between hydrogen and water require a slow and suitable catalyst,
taking into account the slow nature of these reactions. Nickel coated
by chromium, platinum or other noble metals supported on silica or
activated charcoal have been found effective for vapour phase exchange
reactions, but BARC's exchange reactions occur in the liquid phase and
require some other species of catalyst. All the catalysts mentioned
above lose their activity in contact with liquid water and prevent
hydrogen from reaching them. Indian scientists have overcome this
problem by imparting hydrophobicity to the catalysts. Since water in
the liquid form wets and contaminates the catalyst, the suitable
solution was a wet proof catalyst, which is what the BARC scientists
opted for. A number of technical snags associated with the poor choice
of catalyst have been eliminated, and experiments conducted to check
the performance of the catalyst have shown positive results. Although
the department undertook this work in the early 1970s, it was only
recently that they perfected the technology.
Design
The pilot plant's equipment is indigenously designed. Scientists, have
taken into consideration various aspects of handling inflammable gases
like hydrogen, deuterium and the radioactive tritium. Pipelines,
fitting-valves and other equipment are made of special steel, all
suitable for cryogenic conditions. The entire cryogenic part of the
plants is housed inside a vacuum-insulated enclosure, which provides
thermal insulation for its components. The column sections have been
insulated with mylar to prevent any cold leak.
Being a multi-component distillation system, it is not simple to
operate. The difficulties encountered include the decay heat of
tritium (associated with the decay of tritium into helium-3), which
would evaporate all the liquid. The pressure drop is minimized,
however, and temperature variations are kept to a minimum.
Scientists from the group say the philosophy of the plant's operation
is based on fail-safe conditions. The operation of the entire
distillation column takes place at atmospheric pressure and an
ambulant temperature of -268 0C. The whole plant has two sections: a
low tritium activity section and a high tritium activity section (see
graphic). The scientists involved say that nearly 240 stages are
involved in the tritium enrichment process, and so it has to be
carried out in three-stage cascade distillation units. The deuterium-
tritium gas, which emerges from the second stage, is 100 per cent
enriched. After this the tritium is separated suing an equilibrator,
with the condensed product serving as the reflex for the third stage.
The highly concentrated tritium is drawn off periodically from the
bottom of the cryogenic column and immobilized in a matrix of metal
tritride, which would be compact, safe and stable at normal
temperature. The gas can be recovered at any time by heating the metal
tritride. At this stage the pure tritium is ready for stockpiling.
bademiyansubhanallah
Defence Ministry rejects scientist's stand on Pokhran II
56 Comments
Posted: Thursday , Aug 27, 2009 at 1314 hrs
New Delhi:
The Defence Ministry on Thursday rejected senior DRDO scientist K
Santhanam’s assertion that the 1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests were not
fully successful, adding that India has a meaningful number of nuclear
weapons and an effective delivery system to go with it.
Sources in the ministry told a TV channel that India has a nuclear
deterrent that is adequate for its security.
K Santhanam, who was director for 1998 test site preparations, had
said in an interview that the yield of thermonuclear explosions was
Why Do You Hesitate to Accept the Truth?
By: FromPakistan | Friday , 28 Aug '09 15:36:22 PM
Dear Indian Fellows: You claim to be a democratic country but , sadly
you don't listen what does not please you. Be it the issue of Jaswant
Singh writing about Jinnah - or - a statement from your own Scientist
about the unsuccessful nuclear tests.
K Santhanam
By: dilip mahanty | Friday , 28 Aug '09 5:08:08 AM
What was he trying to prove? By raising this issue 11 years later all
he has done is show India in poor light much to the delight of China
and Pakistan! I would much rather accept the statement of an eminent
scientist and an icon like Dr Kalam than a Santhanam who wants to have
his minute of fame! One would have thought that India's security
matters would been discussed behind closed doors and not in media
glare! The Media, too, should be more responsible than discuss
sensitive strategic issues of national interest in public. But then
when has Indian media shown restraint and good sense? Remember Mumbai
26/11 and the gung ho reporting? Selling stories(sometimes concocted)
and making money any which way seems to be the only goal of the media.
Country could go to hell for all it cares!
something called official secracy
By: ram van | Friday , 28 Aug '09 3:42:16 AM
Time to send these kind of people to prison so that none of them will
talk so openly.
Watch out..
By: Krishnan | Friday , 28 Aug '09 1:18:20 AM
Nuclear deterrence is nothing unless you have a safe and tested weapon
that works when needed. All major nuclear powers have performed 10s
and 100s of tests to refine and fine tune their design. India, if it
wants to be considered a credible nuclear power should do the same.
Take your time to refine the designs and resist the CTBT/NPT pressure
since the country's interests need to be safeguarded. The GoI should
strongly wade off pressure from the powers that be (including the
Obama admn) that are out to get us into their fold. Like they
say, ..there are no permanent friends or foes only permanent
interests... Jai Hind.
Our Nuclear Capability
By: Anant | Friday , 28 Aug '09 0:22:45 AM
Our nuclear program should not be Pakistan centric. India has a bigger
problem in the shape of a devil, CHINA. Pakistan is irrelevant what we
should be thinking is how to do enough damage to China so that they
think twice before attempting misadventures in India. India will never
be as strong as China in the near future but we should be able to at
least destroy half of China. China is already walking into Indian
territory at will and they might claim huge land of India with Paki
help and with the understanding that at present India has got no
nuclear capability to do much damage to them. Our politicians will do
great damage to the nation if they hide any facts.
Neuclear Weapon capability of India
By: V.V.Sadanandan | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 20:02:26 PM
We don't want a neuclear bomb in our arsenal lik a malfunctioning
cracker when it is really put to use as a deterrent weaponery. So go
for refining and ensuring that we have correct quantity and capability
to compete in the face of our main enemies' around our borders.
india is a disaster
By: Raj Thackrey | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 19:26:51 PM
This country needs to be split in order to make it manageable. The
government is manipulating its people to pay taxes which is in turn
blackmailed by the military to fetch the pie of the growing economy to
survive.
India MUST unite
By: SVS Subrahmaniam | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 22:29:09 PM
I do not like, think or wish of India getting divided in to small
pieces as suggested by Raj Thackrey or like in the article written by
a Chinese statagist who advised China to disintegrate India with the
help of neighboring countries. We should be united like what we are
today to resist the onslaught going on us by other nations. Unless we
are united we can not grow and develop like now. Today we are a force
reckon with. Let us not get disheartened by the “fizzles” in side a
political party. However, with the trends going on inside the country
it may be a big task to keep united; unless we all Indians show more
and more “oneness” to the out side world and no body can divide us. To
that cause, we all Indians must to take a pledge.
Nuclear weapon Detterrance
By: Narender | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 18:21:14 PM
Nation must possess capability for credible deterrence and not for
demonstration. These are the tools of national security and can't be
based on approximation. If there is a deficiency in capability or
reliability, we must make amends and should such a serious issue not
be left to chance. Mr Santhanam has done a great deal of favour if it
is true what he has said. I remember him being one of the main
architecture of Indian nuclear capability and I don't think man of his
stature will talk out of the context or which is factually inaccurate.
Pools paradise
By: Srinivas | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 18:11:06 PM
All our so-called stellar achievements atomic energy, space program
and missile program and armory etc have to taken with a pinch of salt.
For our famed scientists like Madhavan Nair, if spacecraft doesn't
fall into see, it is great success whether it reaches its destination
and works there like chandrayaan. For last 20 years we have been
testing so many missiles successfully, but still defense force keep
importing missiles. Similar is the case of so many nuclear reactors we
have in India which do not even produce half of the rated annual
yield. And, the list is endless. Our politicians who also want more
show and do not understand substance, believe whatever these scientist
tell and reward and award them.
Prove yourself Santhanam
By: M.L.Gupta | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 17:48:25 PM
So, first it was Kargil which was berated. Now it is Pokharan-II. Are
we already in the general elections to the parliament mode? Painting
the opposition as the devil by the treasury and vice-versa was cheap
politics. But it doesn't work now. Alluring a scientist to rubbish the
achievements of the Vajpayee government is low politics.Let us presume
for argument sake alone that Santhanam is speaking the truth: he must
have noted his views on the file after Pokharan-II. Right? Let
Santhanam say whether he did so or not. He was duty bound to put on
record the true results of the test. If he noted otherwise, he
compromised his integrity. Remember, a government servant is required
to "maintain absolute integrity all the time". Did Santhanam address
any letter to the Scientific Advisor to the GOI? If not why not? If
yes, let him corroborate his disclosures now with the facts contained
in the letter.His failure in performing his duty is an offence. It
calls for action.That too immediately.
Prove youeself
By: Henry | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 22:06:40 PM
Who are you fooling, Do you really believe in this what yu have
written. There should be no doubt in anybodies mind abt the scientist
claim. Rest is politics. And regarding kargil, actually facts are
totally different what we see on media. Pak was made to withdraw after
US pressure, And if India could drag them out from kargil after using
all possible options, even airforce we should not be complacent.
Denial of Claims
By: M.V.Muthu | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 17:38:24 PM
By the same logic, how would anyone 'Jas' trust all our claim about
our Aero-Space accomplishments? The TV Channel should invetigate the
various missions claimed uptil now by interviewing one or two top
blinks in Space Department/Organisation, who have laid down or about
to lay down office.
We are where wer are
By: ananymous | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 16:43:55 PM
Friends, it is wrong to say that pak is ahead of us in nuke race. Ours
was able to send shock waves across the world, but it was our own
baby. Pakistans explosion was china staged drama with the toy from
china explode in chagai. Its strength was camoflauged by indegenious
techniques and hence it appeared as low strength. Actual yield was
more but it was trapped inside shockers. And who cares, are we going
to have a nuclear war? Probably no. And the weapons india has got is
sufficient to tackle pakistan. Sub KT are of more use in today's
scenario. For China like situation our Yields are sufficient to deal
with. So let up be happy where we are in the race. China says
chadrayan was a false launch. Do we believe them or we believe our own
scientist is to be seen.
Treason
By: Prasad | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 16:11:54 PM
Sometime ago, I commented while discussing some other issue "What is
the guarantee that Indian Nukes do the job when they are required" -
or words to that affect. This scientist's revelation is simply making
me more critically doubtful about India's technical, managerial and
political capabilities in delivering the right answer to the rogue
nations at the the right time. This incapability is manifested by
India several times over the last several decades - most noticebly
within the last 10 years. Dispelling the doubts raised by this
scientist, requires that India test couple of these devices soon.
Secondly, if what he said is true, this scientist shall be charged
with revealing Nation's secrets. If what he said is untrue, he shall
be charged with treason.
mr.
By: Henry
Thursday , 27 Aug '09 15:53:09 PM
India is too complacent about its achievements. And in turn they make
themselves sound Idiotic, Like Advani did after the Pokhran 2. when he
threatened pakistan. And In the 45 days pakistan tested nuclear bomb,
which was termed more successful by westerner than india. Now Indian
scientist says india's test was a fizzle. They have lost all their
advantage over pakistan, leave alone china, where the comparison will
be mispalced!!!
We should not sign CTBT
By: Suresh | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 15:12:26 PM
Thanks Mr. Santhanam, we will not let the weak and meek Manmohan sign
the CTBT!!
Relax, don't worry
By: Vinay | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 15:02:08 PM
even if this claim is true, then also we still have our Atom bombs, to
act as deterrent.Also as Hydrogen bombs are bigger than Atom bombs
though have bigger bang/yield, while the move is towards smaller, not
bigger bombs.Don't get carried into unrequired threat/fear without
fail proof - Hydrogen Bombs.Jai Hind !!
AtomvHydrogen Bomb
By: Popat | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 16:18:10 PM
Dear VinayAre you speaking as an expert on the nuclear weapons or just
as an idle armchair imaginator?
We have to accept the truth
By: ravi | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 14:41:49 PM
i found many posts very critical of Mr Santhanam. Firstly, one needs
to understand how political class works and propogates information.
One needs to understand whom to believe. By now, we should have know
that it is the scientific establishment, which is more reliable source
of information. Mr Santhanam like the Naval Chief's warning about
China, did the right thing in letting the nation know of the truth.
Some people from their posts made it clear that they would rather like
to bask in the false glory rather than deal with the reality.
Probably, Mr Santhanam made this public for the reason that he might
be knowing of the plans of the Govt to sign CTBT. Truth might be
harsh, but it is what it is and one has to deal with it.
dummy
By: yasir | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 14:16:03 PM
that was our mistake because of that dummy expriment now pak is more
stronger than us in neculiar wapon
Pokharan II
By: Popat | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 14:04:50 PM
India must make sure that the scenario when China invaded India will
not be repeated again. It is matter of upmost important to get to the
bottom of the case because afterall it affects the security and
survival of India as a free country. Blaming game is not what India
needs.
Truth trickling out?
By: john jacobs | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:59:04 PM
The predicament for the common man is whose version of the test
results to believe; A nuclear scientist who was part of the team which
exploded the test device or political opinion which is prepared to
accept a less powerful and low yieldnuclear device and commit the
nation to a test ban treaty in exchange for unreliable international
assurances?
Do we make false claims?
By: Dr B Sundara | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:49:42 PM
One doubt that comes to mind is whether we make false claims of our
achievements in various fields? If we are doing that, then it is self-
defeating and the country will have to pay for it sometime or the
other.There should be right to dissent. But the dissent should be
timed appropriately; No post mortem would be much use.
A Very Bad Precedence !
By: KP Pillai | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:49:35 PM
This is an extremely bad precedence. Govt should consider extending
Official Secrets Act until the death of employees who worked in
strategic departments. Any violation should be dealt with stingent
punishment. There should not be any let up on it. Retired govt
employees should not behave like politcal leaders who discloses
everything of the previous party
once they quit.
MASALA MEDIA
By: Raj | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:43:00 PM
A mad channel interviewing a guy who just says "doubts were raised by
western countries" and making it a breaking news. I think the head of
these channels is already broken and have become insane. Don't people
doubt the landing of man on moon. What do these channels gain from
such cheap reporting except hurting the country and the sentiments of
its people. Shame on these masala media channels.
Mr.
By: Jai Singh | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:41:31 PM
Given the past history of the DRDO and its achievements,it would be
not at all surprising surprising if Mr.Santhanam is telling the truth.
It is up to the scientists to judge the success of a nuclear test
since they have made the nuclear device. The Defence Ministry should
accept the truth and none of these two organisations should try and
fool the nation.
Hydrgeon bomb is a dud in the indian armoury
By: Robert Mathew | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:38:11 PM
The sorry and sordid state of India and indians. It was Advani who
eulogised Ginnah in PAKISTAN, for the purpose only he knows. There
comes Sing from the same party who toes Advani and is now in Pakistan
promoting his book which is flying off the shelves like pieces of
freshly backed cakes. Then follows our scientist who blows the whistle
on India's status as a country of nuclear power. If the test, in which
he mimslef was involved, was not a successful one, why the test was
not carried out for a second time. Why, then India invited the wrath
of the international community which denied India the much needed
technology. What did india gain in self glorification. This percetion
of deception and self glorification have combined together for the
downfall of India. Indians with an ioto of wisdom, must understand,
that it is the indians who are working for the disintergration of the
so called Indian Federtion. They need not be worried about an external
force.
K Santhanam is right
By: Godwin | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:33:55 PM
Persons who love to keep secrets at cost of the nation, in fact it can
be termed unpatriotic. Santhanam is right at least he has the guts to
openly declare although he has served in high positions and many must
be jealous of him .
truth
By: dravidan | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:32:17 PM
people of this nation has rights to know the truth. people like
santhanam should come forward and expose the limits so has to achieve
better results in future.same thing in developement/corruption is
properly exposed in time our developement policies will eliminate the
faults or road blocks.if we hide our faults/limits other countries
will underestimate our skills.
Morale
By: George P. Joseph | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:30:46 PM
The morale of concerned Countries, now, have stabilized though
suspiciously
face the truth
By: Logic induction | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:26:33 PM
If India is to grow into a healthy nation with a successful polity,
then we must be open to 'face the truth' no matter how ugly or
discomforting it is !
Prove your bona fide
By: YD | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:19:54 PM
Manmohan Singh has said several times in Parliament and outside
Parliament that there is no bar on India for further tests. Now is the
time to prove it. Test a thermo-nuclear bomb and you proved your bona
fide and actual yield of the bomb. But either Manmohan Singh will stay
quite or come out with massive statement which will make no sense. His
ministers will go ga-ga.
Where were you then Mr K Santhanam???
By: Brij Khar | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:05:17 PM
It has become so fashionable for many to jump the bandwwagon and cry
foul once they disassociate or cease to be part of establishment they
served or worked for!!!Scientific experiments are undertaken
inavariably under lot of uncertainities some real or some not very so.
Every experiment is unique and so are its results -success or failure
included.Those who work in sensitive R
IRRESPONSIBILITY AT THE COST OF NATIONAL INTEREST
By: M.V.Muthu | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:01:26 PM
AS A DEMOCRACY, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT EVERY INDIAN SHOULD HAVE THE
FREEDOM SPEACH AND EXPRESSION OF THOUGHT. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT
AT THE BEHEST OF A TV CHANNEL, OPERATING WITH A SELF SERVING CAUSE, AN
IMPORTANT SCIENTIST, WHO,IS SURELY GOVERNED BY PARAMOUNT SECRECY,
DURING AND AFTER THE TERM OFFICE,SHOULD GO TO THE ROOF TOP AND CRY
FOUL. ONE EXPECTS THAT SUCH SENIOR PERSONNEL SHALL LIVE AND DIE WITH
SENSITIVE ISSUES, EVEN IF THERE ARE ANY SHORTCOMINGS. ESSENTIAL, WE DO
NOT HAVE ANY FRIENDS IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AND, WORSE STILL, MORE
POWERFUL NATIONS ARE MORE INCLINED TOWARDS OUR ENEMIES ON STRATEGIC
COUNT.
Eh??
By: Jas | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 14:07:39 PM
As citizens of this country we have the unvarnished right to know if
those tests did indeed acheive their strategic objectives. Thanks to
certiifed philistines like you, spewing screeds on the garb of
national security ensures that we'll remain a subordinate state to our
political class.
Eh!!
By: M.V.Muthu | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 17:25:47 PM
Jas always has a problem whenever there is a counter thought far from
the herd mentality! Well Jaswant you have a short-cut mate here.
Let the truth out
By: Robin | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 12:50:29 PM
Why are some people so worried by the truth becoming known?I don't
know if K Santhanam is right or wrong, but we will know better once we
have a proper public discourse on this.If based on false information
India signs the CTBT, we will regret it in the future and will regret
that more people did not have K Santhanam's backbone.
pokran2
By: anandaraj | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 12:49:38 PM
these indian politesian always tell false statement. i want the
scientist to tell the truth to the public.these funny guy's must be
shot dead for misguiding people.these political people should be
punished by people of this nation.abd by terrorist also.
wik india
By: basit ahmad khan | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 12:33:05 PM
like that experiment indians all development is dummy.hhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
and this truth is reveal after some time like the opposite stand made
by jaswant singh in his book.
muslim are reason
By: raj | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 14:23:07 PM
india will develop fast ..if there is no muslims in india..htey are
the one killing indian economy by terorism ,hawala etc..
muslim are reason
By: raj | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 14:17:23 PM
india will develop fast ..if there is no muslims in india..htey are
the one killing indian economy by terorism ,hawala etc..
Our talent are respected
By: anand | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:31:00 PM
Hey Paki Kha u can make such silly comments forgetting all facts.Just
ask any person who have some brain they will list out the scientific/
Industrial and agriculture achievments India has made.Just take IT
field India is a knowledge house for the world IT sector and Indian
are most wanted in all IT major companies across the world.U pakis can
only dream such position as u people are more smart in exporting
terrorism and drugs.
Shut up....
By: Satish B | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:23:34 PM
Why are you saying hhhhhhhhhhhhh? Next time when they do the test, you
be there, then you will know the concequence.
Talent
By: sajjid | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 23:48:24 PM
yes your talent shines right through you.Its about time people like
you get a life
Is K Santhanam falling for cheap popularity?
By: Bhartendu Kumar Singh | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 12:30:05 PM
This was not expeected from a famous scientist who was part and parcel
of India's nuclear programme. Without going into the merits of his
arguments,it only shows how our scientist become victims of their
innate desire for cheap popularity. At least,K Santhanam should have
known his limits since he has served in various capacities and the
Government even rewarded him with the directorship of New Delhi based
Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.It is high time we develop
a code of conduct for people who retire from sensitive assignments in
civil or military field else allof them would like to write a book or
start giving interviews. At the end of the day, this will only
jeopardise nation's security.
One more book!
By: Krupa | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 12:27:20 PM
Expect to see one 'book' from this nutcase also in the next few days.
Praise Whistleblower
By: Patriot | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 12:26:37 PM
The DRDO is known to make fraudulent statements to hide its
incompetence. Its great that someone as senior as Santhanam came out
with the truth. He is a true patriot,because he genuinely believes
India should do further tests to prove beyond doubt that we have a
Hydrogen Bomb that works. DRDO are a bunch of losers, its widely known
that their claim on Trishul is fake, there is no such missile as
Trishul,that is why India uses the Israeli Barak system. India should
never sign the CTBT.
Official responsibility on vital National Security issues.
By: shanthanu | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 12:21:49 PM
It is true every person small or big engaged in projects involving
National security must exercise restraint while commenting on matters
of his project in the public domain. Other-wise failures, which are
the stepping stone of success when corrected, will never be welcome
which is a hindrance for research. No child will learn to walk without
stumbling and we cannot say child should not walk till it learns not
to stumble. But failure should not be invited by callousness and
exposure in such circumstances is necessary of corrective measures.
It is national interest to be a whistleblower
By: Jay | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 11:49:59 AM
Thank God somebody had the guts to speak out. DRDO which has been
unable to do anything productive should also be audited. Too much
secrecy is allowing all government departments to milk the public.
Secrecy is jeopardizing national security.
IT IS TOAL SELL OUT OF INDIAS DEFENCE - SHAME
By: n.r.i. | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 11:34:36 AM
WHO IS MOST PATRIOTIC AND NATIONALIST - DEFENCE MINISTRY - THE
SECURITY EXPERT OR THE NUCLEAR SCIENTIST . WHO WOULD YOU TRUST MOST
FOR THE DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY ? ? ? ? ? ? ?I WOULD SAY THE SCIENTIST
WHO CAN'T BE BOUGHT BY THE GOVERMENT AND AMERICAN C.I.A. THE GOVERMENT
IS ONLY INTERESTED TO SIGN ON DOTTED LINE OF C.T.B.T. THEY CARE HELL
ABOUT INDIA PROVIDED THEY GET SOME THING IN RETURN .MANMOHAN HOW WOULD
YOU TACTLE " BIG FISH " FIRMLY PERVASIVE CORRUPTION TARNISHING AND
WITHOUT FEAR IMAGE OF INDIA .EVEN IN A QUESTION OF DEFENCE OF THE
COUNTRY - THERE IS NO ONE VIEW . WHAT A STATE OF MESS INIDA IS . GOD
SAVE BHARAT .
It is not my place to recommend that his pension may be withheld.
By: Hary Nambiar | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 11:32:11 AM
Scientists working on sensitive projects like nuclear weapon testing
are expected to maintain confidentiality in respect of their
assignments and the information they gained in the course of
performance of their duties. If they run their mouth, disregarding the
consequences, they run the risk of jeopardizing national security. It
is not his place to make such an assessment, yet such information
throws doubt in the minds of vested interests which are bound to make
use of it against Indian national interest. Such behavior in other
countries break loose lot of screws and the sky falls on the
individual. Now, I am well aware that it is not my place to recommend
that his pension may be withheld.
Re: Hary Nambiar.
By: Avinash Baranwal | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 12:09:38 PM
Now, when the system itself is putting India's interest on stake, what
is wrong if someone breaks the decorum to save all of us?Ofcourse,
such things leaves us with bad taste as we the ordinary citizens can
not make who is wrong and who is right.
Indian politicians may fool the Indian electorate, but not the DAE
By: Hary Nambiar | Friday , 28 Aug '09 2:24:40 AM
His role was limited to digging the hole. Probably he heard some
hearsay, but It is the responsibility and within the competence of
nuclear scientists with the Department of Atomic Energy to make
assessment of the results of nuclear tests. That department is by far
the best run in the country and its scientific community is comparable
to that of any nation in the world. It is not within my technical
competence to evaluate them, however, as a common man, I am convinced
of the technical competence, professional integrity and patriotism of
those at the helms of affairs in that department, past and present.
They formulated and defended the Indian position on Nuclear Non-
proliferation; planned, investigated and implemented nuclear power
program and researched for raw materials; astutely developed and
defended the Indian nuclear safeguards program and successfully
steered clear of international opposition with an enviable non-
proliferation record. Let DAE, not DRDO recommend nuclear policy.
Need more tests..
By: Jai | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 13:13:46 PM
hats off to mr Santhanam. Mastering Fusion bomb is a complicated task.
US needed 3 tests to master this art. Harnessing radiations from a
fission trigger which is just 3 feet away from fusion fuel and holding
the assembly for few microseconds is a tough task. with reservations
in PSU and incompitance is bound to happen in all GOVT organizations.
Its a matter of national security. If there is any concern left in the
govt about this nation; there is a need for test. One can not
weaponise fission bomb of large yeild due to restrictions of weight to
yeild ratio. we need a workable H bomb to mate with our inefficient
missile system which may be having same failed systems... god save us
all..
Stop this
By: amit | Thursday , 27 Aug '09 12:00:32 PM
SO you think instead GOI should fool public.He is just asking conduct
more tests.and tell me which country has perfected fusion bombs in
just one test??We need more fission n fusion tests.those who say they
can simulate are also fooling Indian,just one fusion test won't give
sufficient data..its just a white paint.
bademiyansubhanallah
Pokhran-II: Did Buddha really smile? news
27 August 2009
A distinguished Indian defence scientist now says that the yield of
the H-bomb device in the country's 1998 ''Buddha Smiles'' nuclear
tests was much below expectations and that the test was a 'fizzle,'
raising concerns about the potency of the country's nuclear arsenal. A
look at the controversy, and what it portends, by Rajiv Singh.
New Delhi: Reviving a controversy that had erupted in 1998, almost
immediately after Pokhran-II ''Buddha Smiles'' nuclear tests, a
distinguished Indian defence scientist now says that the tests may
actually not have been the success they were said to be in one
particular respect. According to K Santhanam, the yield of the
thermonuclear device was actually much below expectations and the test
was a 'fizzle.'
Key scientists and engineers on 10 May 1998.
Abdul Kalam is on left (silver hair);
R. Chidambaram is holding file;
Anil Kakodkar is behind Chidambaram wearing glasses; K. Santhanam is
at extreme right.
In nuclear parlance, a test is described as a 'fizzle' when it fails
to deliver the desired yield.
There would perhaps be nothing new about the controversy, as India's
claims that the tests had indeed met the benchmarks set for them was
hotly contested within a few days of the tests itself by foreign
governments and monitoring agencies, which pointed out discrepancies
between the Indian claims and the seismic 'readings' of their
monitoring machines.
The thermonuclear (Hydrogen bomb) test was said to have yielded 45
kilotons (KT) but the claim was challenged by Western experts who said
it was not more than 20-25 KT.
Santhanam, who was director for 1998 test site preparations,
apparently made the admission, at a semi-public seminar on the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty at the Institute of Defence Studies and
Analyses (IDSA) on Tuesday. The seminar followed the Chatham House
Rule, under which the identity of the speaker is not revealed, though
what he or she said is freely quoted.
Santhanam apparently stressed at the seminar that India needed to
conduct more tests to improve its nuclear weapons programme. "There is
no country in the world," he emphasised, "which managed to get its
thermonuclear weapon right in just one test."
Preparing to fire the devices in the control bunker, code named "Deer
Park." K. Santhanam transfers the firing keys to the range safety
officer Vasudev.
Yesterday he told a daily, ''Based upon the seismic measurements and
expert opinion from world over, it is clear that the yield in the
thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was claimed. I
think it is well documented and that is why I assert that India should
not rush into signing the CTBT.''
All this directly contradicts government claims that India has all the
data required from such explosions and can now manage with computer
simulations. It is also the first confession from one of the original
Pokharan-II scientists that the thermonuclear test had not quite
worked out to the extent that the Indian government would have liked.
Cat amongst the pigeons
Howsoever hard the government may try to deny, it is a given that the
Indo-US nuclear treaty is predicated on India not testing nuclear
weapons again. This was the point around which the whole domestic
debate had revolved. If Santhanam avows that the country, for the sake
of a robust and credible nuclear deterrence, needs to test again then
the carefully crafted structure of the Indo-US nuclear treaty begins
to come apart at the seams.
Experts at home are already beginning to hail Santhanam's "extremely
courageous stand," even as former president Dr APJ Abdul Kalam has
stepped in to clarify that the tests were successful and had generated
the desired yield.
"After the test, there was a detailed review, based on the two
experimental results: (i) seismic measurement close to the site and
around and (ii) radioactive measurement of the material after post
shot drill in the test site," Kalam said.
"From these data, it has been established by the project team that the
design yield of the thermo-nuclear test has been obtained," said
Kalam, who as director general of the Defence Research and Development
Organisation, spearheaded the nuclear tests in 1998.
But then, in 1998, even as Dr Kalam was declaring success, then
Department of Atomic
Energy chief, R Chidambaram claimed that they had deliberately kept
the secondary stage of the thermonuclear Shakti- I explosion low so as
not to damage a nearby village.
This was his way of trying to explain away the low yields from the
first of the two tests, which foreign sources were claiming was not
commensurate with the test of a successful thermonuclear weapon
design.
There were also other explanations.
Shakti-1
Nuclear bomb (probably the Shakti I thermonuclear device) being
lowered into test shaft.
The May 1998 'Buddha Smiles' tests involved six designs of varying
yields. The tests were organized into two groups that were fired
separately on two separate days. The first group consisted of a
thermonuclear device, a fission bomb and a sub-kiloton device. The
second group consisted of two more sub-kiloton devices.
The first group of explosions were dubbed Shakti I-III and the second
group, with two explosions, Shakti IV-V. A third design Shakti VI was
never exploded.
What is causing the controversy is the yield from Shakti-1, the
thermonuclear device, or the hydrogen bomb, which was also the largest
device tested.
A thermonuclear device operates in two stages. First a normal
plutonium implosion device (primary) acts as a trigger to set off a
fusion or thermonuclear process (secondary) that releases a vast
amount of energy.
Shakti I was a two-stage thermonuclear design, using a boosted fission
primary, which DAE chief R Chidambaram claimed had a yield of 43kt
(also described as 43kt +/- 3kt). Western sources claimed that the
yield was in the range of 22-25kt. They also pointed out that a plain
reading of the Indian government's own seismic evidence puts the yield
at, or below, 25kt.
This was, of course, disputed by BARC scientists (including Dr Anil
Kakodkar, who was part of the team) who published a series of papers
showing through radio- chemical analysis that the yields were as
expected.
Dust columns from the Shakti test series on 11 May 1998
The doyen of Indian nuclear scientists, PK Iyengar, former chairman of
the Atomic Energy Commission and one of the original group who worked
on the Indian nuclear weapons programme almost from inception, and was
involved in the 1974 nuclear test, had this to offer Reuters on 12
May, a day after the tests.
Iyengar spoke about the differing sizes of the Shakti I-III series and
how they corresponded to three differing weapon designs. The first
group of explosions, as has been pointed out, consisted of a
thermonuclear device, a fission bomb and a sub-kiloton device.
According to Iyengar, the smallest (sub-kiloton) was the size that
could be used as an artillery fired shell, or dropped from a combat
support aircraft. The mid-size, fission bomb was from a standard
fission device equivalent to about 12 kilotons -- the size that might
be dropped from a bomber plane.
The largest of the three warheads tested on that day, he said, was not
a full hydrogen bomb. Most of its explosive force came from the
primary, a fission device which serves as a trigger for the H-bomb's
big fusion explosion. According to Iyengar, the device contained only
a token amount of the hydrogen variant tritium. It showed, he said,
that India's thermonuclear technology worked, but did not produce the
megaton explosion typical of a full H-bomb.
"We need not go for a megaton explosion while testing an H-bomb," said
Iyengar. "Such tests are required only if we are planning for a total
destruction of the opposite side. They don't have relevance in our
strategy."
But then there are explanations and explanations and the fact remains
that there is an ambiguity around the May 1998 tests that remains
unresolved to this day. A scientist of the seniority and stature of
Santhanam is not given to shooting off his mouth unnecessarily.
If Santhanam's claim is correct, then no responsible Indian prime
minister can agree to signing the CTBT even as its own nuclear arsenal
suffers from defects in design and technology. Fancy rollouts of
nuclear powered submarines can only be an object of derision for
powers who need to be impressed with our deterrence capabilities.
An unequivocal statement on the issue, either by scientists or
bureaucrats, would be too much to expect, given the sensitive nature
of the subject matter.
Now for a look at why the controversy may have reared up again after
eleven years.
Engaging Washington
Though the controversy is old hat for security experts and analysts,
Santhanam's revelation now sets the cat amongst the pigeons in the
policy-making spheres of the government (read the PMO).
The controversy couldn't have come at a worse time for the UPA
government's somewhat beleaguered prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh,
who not only contemplates a widespread drought situation in the
country but has also just finished wiping off a lot of egg from his
face - post the NAM summit at Sharm-el-Shaikh.
The Indian prime minster is now all set to depart for Washington,
where a newly installed Obama administration will receive him as its
first foreign guest - a unique honour. What awaits him there may not
be very difficult to guess.
Post-Sharm-el-Sheikh, secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, found
herself fending off accusations that it was under US pressure that
India made the kind of concessions it had to Pakistan.
Brushing off such accusations in an interaction with the press, she
tried to put a positive spin on the relationship reiterating the Obama
administration's commitment to the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement.
However, she said, on her forthcoming trip to India she would like to
discuss with Indian leaders the ways to prevent the "proliferation of
nuclear material and weapons to state and non-state actors that pose a
threat to India, to the US, and to the many countries around the
world."
This was a polite way of saying that NPT/CTBT linked issues were back
on the table, and also a message that the Democratic Party had
returned to the evangelical mode of operations in foreign affairs,
setting aside a more laissez faire approach of Republican
administrations.
Clinton redux
The Obama administration has made its non-proliferation agenda amply
clear, not just through policy statements, but more importantly in the
recruitment of a large number of people to positions of influence in
its administration who are ex-non-proliferation zealots of some sort
or the other.
The appointment of the new ambassador to India, Timothy Roemer, is
only one example of non-proliferation 'experts' occupying positions of
influence in the administration.
Given the mass recruitment of ex-members and policy wonks from the
Bill Clinton administration to staff positions in the new
administration, we need to remember that the Clinton administration,
amongst all the wars that it engaged in with a Republican-controlled
House and Senate, was also involved in a bruising, and unsuccessful,
war with the Republicans on the issue of ratifying the CTBT. This
apart from a much-publicised, and a very unsuccessful, attempt to push
through a Hillary Clinton-promoted health care plan.
No surprises, but both agendas are now back on top of the table with
the new Democratic administration. After eight years of a Republican
presidency, the only existing recruitment pool that the Obama
administration can now tap to man its offices and policy making
positions is from the Clinton administration. A lot of baggage,
ideological and otherwise, will travel with them.
Obama has promised on the international stage that he would get the
CTBT ratified at home and, along with Russia, make 'deep' cuts to the
country's nuclear arsenal. In this task he would appear to have an
easier job on his hands than Clinton, given his majority in both
Houses of the legislature.
Obama stepped into Washington with a lot of 'moral' authority with
calls for 'Change.' As the recession wears on and he gets embroiled
deeper in pushing his health care plan through the Congress and the
Senate, he also sees his approval ratings slipping by the day from
their dramatic highs.
A chastened Republican Party, still nursing its wounds from the
drubbing it has received in recent polls, is not likely to offer any
easy victories to him, if it can help it. The CTBT never made any
sense to them, and it is a matter of record that every Republican
president has dumped the issue on assuming power. It is also a matter
of record that every Democrat president has put it high on his
agenda.
Obama still needs 67 votes in the Senate, for ratification requires
two-thirds majority, and at best he has 60. Even less if the vacuum
caused by the passing away of Senator Ted Kennedy is not filled
quickly enough.
As he gets bogged down in Health Care reforms the Republicans may
seize the chance and deny him any traction over CTBT-related issues as
well, a treaty which they distrust almost as heartily as the Democrats
seem to embrace it.
It is up to the Indian prime minister to make of the situation what he
will.
He will be aware that the Indo-US nuclear deal was the only
significant achievement that the Bush presidency could boast of. The
deal was also achieved in the face of cut-throat opposition - not just
here in India, but also in the United States.
Once the treaty was done with, both countries went on to conduct
elections from which a significant difference has emerged – the Indian
opposition was completely sidelined by the parliamentary elections,
whereas in the United States the opposition has moved into power.
Non-proliferation is a significant component of the ideological
baggage of the Democratic Party and its proponents had watched with
horror as the Indo-US nuclear deal progressed to maturity. It is now
baying for blood.
This report may appear trifling, but is an indication of the language
of the new Obama administration. On 19 August this year secretary of
state Hillary Clinton swore-in her close ally, former Rep Ellen
Tauscher, as undersecretary of State for arms control and
international security.
We quote verbatim from a published report: "The fact that secretary
Clinton personally swore-in the new undersecretary is a testament to
the very close relationship between these two veteran female
politicians, a connection that goes beyond any formal bureaucratic
lines of authority," a non-proliferation hand in attendance said.
It's also "a reflection of the personal importance secretary Clinton
places on the broad issues of arms control and non-proliferation.
Indeed, for all the recent musings over where Hillary Clinton can make
her mark in this administration, forging progress on strengthening the
global non-proliferation regime and securing Senate ratification of
such key agreements like the START follow-on treaty and the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty can lay the foundation for a very strong
[Clinton] legacy."
Amen!
Of tests and CTBTs
Here are some statistics that we may look at for our reading pleasure:
From 1945 until 2008, there have been over 2,000 nuclear tests
conducted worldwide.
Between 1945 and 1992, when the United States of America stopped
nuclear testing, it has conducted 1,054 atmospheric and underground
nuclear tests. The Soviet Union conducted 715 nuclear tests between
1949 and 1990.
Compare this with the six explosions conducted by India, spread over
three days, since the first one in 1974. The 1998 tests have been
declared adequate by Indian authorities, so the question arises what
have the Americans been trying to achieve with their 1,000-plus
nuclear tests?
This is not even taking into consideration hundred of tests undertaken
by the UK, France, China etc. Why are such huge numbers of tests
required?
Does it say something for Indian genius, or is there another,
worrying, story that emerges from these statistics?
As for the CTBT, of the total of 181 States that have signed the
treaty only 148 have also ratified it. Amongst the nuclear weapons-
states only three nations have done so - the Russian Federation,
France and the United Kingdom.
The notable absentees are the United States of America and China.
To enter into force, the CTBT must be signed and ratified by 44
specific States. These are States that participated in the
negotiations of the Treaty in 1996 and possessed nuclear power or
research reactors at the time. Only thirty-five of these States have
ratified the treaty.
Of the nine remaining States, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel
and the United States have signed the treaty but not ratified it. The
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, India and Pakistan are yet to
sign it.
bademiyansubhanallah
Obama facing hurdles to nuclear disarmament goals
By DESMOND BUTLER
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 3, 2009; 5:34 PM
WASHINGTON -- Five months after President Barack Obama, with great
fanfare, called for a world free of nuclear weapons, a crucial step
toward that goal is running into resistance.
There is little indication Obama will have the votes he needs for a
cornerstone of his nonproliferation efforts: Senate ratification of a
nuclear test ban treaty. If Obama can't get the treaty approved, he
probably will have a hard time persuading the rest of the world to
rein in nuclear weapon programs.
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, an
advocacy group based in Washington, said the Obama administration
needs to "work faster and harder" to build support in the Senate.
The absence of progress comes as a backdrop to the special U.N.
session to be chaired by Obama later this month. The summit Sept. 24
on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly's annual ministerial
session will seek broad consensus on preventing the spread of nuclear
weapons.
Political realities have made focusing on the test ban treaty
difficult. Obama's top priorities these days are passing a massive
health care overhaul and overcoming violence in Afghanistan. On arms
control, his administration is now focused on another goal: securing a
successor to a bilateral treaty with Russia that expires in December.
The treaty with Russia would amount to a small step toward the goal of
a nuclear-free world that Obama outlined in April in a sweeping speech
before a crowd of 20,000 in Prague. In the same speech, he promised to
focus on the test ban treaty.
"My administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S.
ratification," he said.
The administration says it is now working behind the scenes to build
congressional support for the test ban treaty.
"We are pushing very hard on all fronts," White House spokesman Mike
Hammer said.
But supporters of that goal outside the administration say they have
not seen evidence of urgency.
"If this pace continues, there is little chance he will achieve the
goals he outlined," said Joseph Cirincione, president of the San
Francisco-based Ploughshares Fund, which advocates the elimination of
nuclear weapons.
Negotiated in the 1990s, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty specified
44 nuclear-capable countries that must give formal approval before it
can take effect. Eight countries besides the United States have yet to
ratify the treaty: China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North
Korea and Pakistan. In 1999, during the Clinton administration, the
Senate rejected ratification overwhelmingly, with all but three
Republicans voting against.
Many countries see ratification of the treaty as a test of U.S.
commitment to phase out nuclear weapons.
If the Senate doesn't ratify it, Obama could have difficulty
persuading countries to support other goals, such as strengthening the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, at a review conference in May. The
administration also wants a treaty to prohibit further production of
weapons-grade nuclear material.
The White House says it already has achieved goodwill because other
countries have seen that the U.S. is committed to reducing the world's
nuclear weapons.
"We have heard from many countries that President Obama's ambitious
nuclear agenda and multilateral approach have created a very positive
international climate and goodwill for strengthening global
nonproliferation efforts and advancing arms control," Hammer said.
The administration needs 67 votes in the 100-member Senate to ratify
the test ban treaty, which means it will need support from some of the
40 Republicans. No Republican has yet declared support, and key
Republicans remain skeptical.
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., a well-regarded arms control and
nonproliferation expert, recently told The Associated Press that the
administration should build its case and wait at least until the
second half of 2010 to push for a vote. But some supporters say that
will be too close to congressional elections in November, and they
worry that after that Obama may not have the large Democratic majority
he now enjoys.
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who opposes deep reductions in arsenals and
led opposition to the 1999 vote on the test ban treaty, remains
opposed. He believes a test ban would constrain the United States and
undermine its technological superiority.
Kyl and other opponents also say it will be difficult to verify
whether other countries are conducting secret tests and to ensure that
the U.S. arsenal can be maintained and improved without testing.
The administration argues that technological advances, including the
capability of computer simulation, have made testing unnecessary and
have also made it easier to detect tests in other countries. It has
commissioned a National Academy of Sciences report on how to maintain
the arsenal and an intelligence estimate on detecting nuclear
explosions. The administration hopes the reports, expected early next
year, will help win ratification.
Kyl told the AP he believes he can defeat Obama's push for the
treaty.
"I think they are dead set on ratifying it," he said. "That doesn't
mean it is going to happen."
The resistance comes as the administration is already deep into
negotiations with Russian counterparts to finish a follow-on agreement
to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires in
December. The administration hopes ratification of that treaty will
give the issue momentum.
Prospects look much better for that treaty, with some Republicans
already on board. Kyl said he could support it if the administration
backs funding to modernize nuclear stockpiles and infrastructure.
bademiyansubhanallah
Pakistan denies it altered US-made missiles
By ASIF SHAHZAD
The Associated Press
Sunday, August 30, 2009; 8:50 AM
ISLAMABAD -- Pakistan rejected accusations its army illegally modified
American-made missiles to increase its land-strike capability, denying
Sunday that it reconfigured anti-ship weapons in a way that could
target India.
The denial was in response to a news report that the Obama
administration made a diplomatic protest to Pakistan's prime minister
over the alleged alterations to the anti-ship missiles Islamabad
bought in the 1980s.
Nuclear-armed Pakistan is a key U.S. ally in fighting the Taliban and
hunting down al-Qaida terrorist leaders along its northwestern border
with Afghanistan. However, it's aggressive weapons development and
antagonistic relations with giant neighbor India, also a nuclear
power, have raised concerns of an arms race.
A statement from Pakistan's Foreign Ministry said Sunday that it
"categorically rejected" the article in The New York Times saying that
Harpoon anti-ship missiles had been modified and that they could pose
a potential threat to giant rival India.
The newspaper cited senior Obama administration and congressional
officials as saying the allegation first surfaced in June in an
unpublicized diplomatic protest to Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf
Raza Gilani.
Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S., also denied the
report.
"The accusations are incorrect and based on wrong intelligence,"
Haqqani said in a report carried by the state-run news agency,
Associated Press of Pakistan.
The Harpoon missiles were sold to Pakistan by the Reagan
administration decades ago as defensive weapons.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars since they were born in the
bloody partition of the South Asian subcontinent at independence from
Britain in 1947.
bademiyansubhanallah
White House claims Pakistan modified U.S.-made missiles: report
Reuters
Saturday, August 29, 2009; 5:25 PM
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Obama administration has accused Pakistan of
illegally modifying U.S.-made missiles to expand its ability to hit
land-based targets, which would constitute a threat to India, The New
York Times reported in Sunday editions.
Citing senior administration and Congressional officials, the Times
said the charge came in late June through an unpublicized diplomatic
protest to Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani and other top Pakistani
officials.
The accusation, made amid growing concerns about Pakistan's
increasingly rapid conventional and nuclear weapons development,
triggered a new round of U.S.-Pakistani tensions, the report added.
"There's a concerted effort to get these guys to slow down," the
newspaper quoted a senior administration official as saying. "Their
energies are misdirected," the official added.
A senior Pakistani official called the accusation "incorrect," saying
that the missile tested was developed by Pakistan, just as it had
modified North Korean designs to build a range of land-based missiles
that could strike India, according to the Times.
U.S. officials said the disputed weapon is a conventional one based on
the Harpoon anti-ship missiles that were sold to Pakistan during the
Reagan administration as a defensive weapon, the newspaper reported,
but the charges come as the Obama administration is seeking
Congressional approval for $7.5 billion in aid for Pakistan over the
next five years.
The accusation stems from U.S. intelligence agencies' detection of a
suspicious missile test on April 23 which was never announced by the
Pakistanis and which appeared to give it a new offensive weapon, the
Times said.
U.S. military and intelligence officials suspect Pakistan of modifying
the Harpoon sold to them in the 1980s, which would violate the Arms
Control Export Act.
Pakistan denied the charge and said it developed the missile, the
Times said.
The missiles would bolster Pakistan's ability to threaten India,
stoking fears of heating up the two nations' arms race.
"The focus of our concern is that this is a potential unauthorized
modification of a maritime anti-ship defensive capability to an
offensive land-attack missile," another senior administration official
told the Times, speaking on condition of anonymity about classified
information.
"When we have concerns, we act aggressively," the official added.
(Writing by Chris Michaud; Editing by Eric Walsh)
Sid Harth
Monday May 11 11:05 AM EDT
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian.marathi/browse_frm/month/1998-05
As the article below shows, preparations for these tests were
underway
bademiyansubhanallah
Rising Pak nuke stockpile a matter of concern: Army Chief
Express news service
Posted: Sep 02, 2009 at 1516 hrs IST
Pune Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor said on Wednesday that increase
in Pakistan's atomic weapons stockpile, if true, was a cause for
concern for India. "There is a degree of deterrence for one's
protection, but this is beyond that. They are going well beyond what
can be called 'deterrence'," said Kapoor, while addressing media
persons on the sidelines his visit to Pune's Artificial Limb Centre
and the Armed Forces Medical College.
"If these reports are true then, it is definitely a matter of concern
for us," he said. On Tuesday, reports quoted an American scientist
saying that Pakistan has amassed a stockpile of 70-90 nuclear
warheads, up from its previous known figure of 60.
On repeated Chinese incursions along the Indian border, Kapoor said it
was a difference of perception on both sides about the actual line of
control and not a cause for alarm. "The solution lies in resolving the
border issue," he said. "It is perceived by us as incursion. We also
patrol up to what we think is the border, which might be perceived
differently on their side," he said. Kapoor, however, did not comment
on the Chinese denial that it had not violated the line of control.
Kapoor also said that the numbers of these 'incursions' had remained
more or less the same as compared to the same period last year, 20 in
June, 21 in July and 24 in August. "It is not a cause for alarm. We
have regular border meetings, where such questions are raised," Kapoor
said.
bademiyansubhanallah
'Harpoon modifications threatens India-Pak ties'
Agencies
Posted: Sep 03, 2009 at 0845 hrs IST
Washington The illegal modifications in the anti-ship Harpoon missiles
is a provocative and destabilising action by Islamabad and threatens
the "delicate" India-Pakistan ties, an influential US lawmaker has
said.
"If (recent media reports are) true, the modification of these
missiles would be a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. In
addition, this would be yet another provocative and destabilising
action which threatens the delicate relationship between India and
Pakistan," Congressman Edward Markey has said.
Amidst reports appearing in the US media, which has been confirmed by
the US Administration, that Pakistan has illegally modified the
American-made Harpoon missiles to expand its striking capability,
Markey, sought off a letter to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
expressing his concern.
Though Islamabad has denied the charges, the US has said that it has
entered into an agreement with Pakistan for a mutually agreed
inspection of the missiles in questions.
Markey, founder of the House Bipartisan Task Force on
Nonproliferation, in a letter to Clinton sought information on
published reports that Pakistan may have illegally modified US-
exported Harpoon missiles to give them a land-attack capability.
"The nascent nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan is
extraordinarily worrisome, as both countries appear to be increasing
their ability to manufacture weapons," Markey wrote in the letter.
In 2006, Markey introduced H R 5902 to stop the Bush administration
from selling 36 advanced F-16 fighter jets and related weaponry to
Pakistan unless that country halted its construction of new reactors
for nuclear weapons production.
Urging Clinton that the US must discourage development of such
offensive weaponry such as the alleged modifications of Harpoon,
Markey in his letter to Clinton sought answers to a number of
questions that arises out of such media reports.
"Did the United States government lodge a protest or otherwise
communicate, either formally or informally, with the government of
Pakistan regarding that country's US-exported Harpoon missiles? If so,
what was the content of that protest?" Markey asked.
"Has Pakistan, as reported, allowed American officials to inspect
Pakistan's Harpoon inventory to determine if modifications have been
made? If so, has that inspection taken place? Were all of the Harpoon
missiles exported by the United States to Pakistan inspected? Were any
modifications made to the missiles?" he asked.
"Does the Department of State believe that the Harpoon missiles in
Pakistan's inventory can be armed with nuclear warheads? Does the
Department of State believe that Pakistan has armed or intends to arm
any of its Harpoon missiles with nuclear warheads?" Markey asked.
Finally he asked if the State Department believes that Pakistan has
violated its commitments under the harpoon export licenses? "What
repercussions are stipulated by the Arms Export Control Act in such a
case?" he asked.
Comments - 12
Whaaaat Hammad? Late awakening?
by Sukumar Pradhan on 04 Sep 2009
My dear Hammad, thanks for your post. So we should take it as you
people are also as tormented as us as it says. But how can you justify
all that bad happening to us only because of you and why have joined
Chinese if not but only to destabilise us? You people loved USA for
all the support you got from them to be used against us. Now, when
your foot is caught in the booby trap that went with it, you are
suddenly taking this turn to appeal to us. Well, a very good example
of croc's tears. We shall believe you when we see some improvement
from you. And what you say about Kashmir is utter bullshit. Who gave
you a right to give away a part of it to them, and create another
bleeding issue for us? So this is an attempt at a hug with a dagger
hidden inside the khamij, eh? If you really mean it, we shall be glad
to listen to you, but....
U r not the target; INDIA
by Hammad on 04 Sep 2009
Dear Indian Brothers, you speak from the fact that is feeded to you. I
am a muslim Pakistani and trust me in our youth there is no particular
hatred or animosity towards India. U must realize that being a muslim
country we have been a target of most of the jewish around the globe
and in our stupidity we have made them stronger by purchasing all
these goddamn weapons from them. We have literally built the american
armament industry. Bow it is time that we realize that we should be
together. Pakistan has no ill feeling towards India. You have also
read the history as i have. U took Kashmir by force in 1947, we tried
to take it back in 1999. v r square. Now from the look of things, US
has us in sight now. We are next on their list. They have started
sending in their recon units to lit up the targets in the time of war.
Our main focus is safeguarding our interest from the US and this is
what we will do inshallah. So no need for you to worry. We dont have
any offensive desires. Peace out
Whaaaat Hammad? Late awakening?
by Sukumar Pradhan on 04 Sep 2009
My dear Hammad, thanks for your post. So, you are saying, you people
are also as tormented as us due to so many things done wrong. But how
can you justify all that bad happening to us only because of you and
why have joined Chinese if not but only to destabilise us? You people
loved USA for all the support you got from them to be used against us.
Now, when your foot is caught in the booby trap that went with it,you
are suddenly taking this turn to appeal to us. Well, a very good
example of croc's tears. We shall believe you when we see some
improvement from you. And what you say about Kashmir is utter
bullshit. Who gave you a right to give away a part of it to them, and
create another bleeding issue for us? So this is an attempt at a hug
with a dagger hidden inside the khamij, eh? If you really mean it, we
shall be glad to listen to you, but....
'Harpoon modifications threatens India-Pak ties'
by Dr S Shankar Singh on 03 Sep 2009
USA is arming Pakistan with most advanced weapon systems, knowing
fully well that these are going to be used against India. It is also
wel known that Pakistan is an epicentre of all kind of terrorism al-
Quaida and Taliban variety. All kid of terrorism originates and
terrorists find shelter in Pakistan. Pakistan is acquiring an
aggressive posture after it has acquired advanced weapon systems and
nuclear capabiity. Pakistan has become a threst to world peace. Yet
USA does not want to see the reality.
important question
by amit on 03 Sep 2009
important question is why america gave "anti ship missiles" to
pakistan to fight with terrorist in afganistan? where ships were
expected from in afganistan?
We are stuffed
by arun lal on 03 Sep 2009
India's old inept and useless leadership has jeopardised the country's
defence and left Indian open to blackmail by Pakistan and China. Keep
it up MMS!
Harpoon modifications threatens India-Pak ties'
by BG Subhash on 03 Sep 2009
Foreign Secretary of India. Here is a project for you and your team.
Take 6/9 months. Mobilize Western opinion against the black deeds of
Terrorist country of Pakistan. Take up this as a challenge.As a result
Security council must unanimously censure and disarm Pakistan.You will
save Billions of US$ to India
HARPOON MODIFICATION BY PAKISTAN
by Rajesh Vyas on 03 Sep 2009
The important question is what is the influential Congressman doing
about this? The SA have all the influence it takes to make Pakistan
behave. Will the US congress do anything about this? Just preaching
and making statements about the India-Pakistan cold war is certainly
not enough. How about threatening to cut of the badly needed financial
assistance to Pakistan? The USA is clearly being blackmailed by Pak
and the unfortunate part is that SUPERPOWER) is succumbing to this
blackmail almost shamelessly.
Self ditterant is the right of any country
by Shaji on 03 Sep 2009
Why should India show concern when Pakistan stockpile arms and modify
their missiles capable of hitting anywhere in India. Only India has
the right to acquire modern weapons and radars, test and induct
missiles? Instead of showing concern, we must make sure our weapons
are genuinely workable and trustworthy. Compared to Indian
Intelligence, Pakistani Intelligence system is more effective, that is
why our genious intelligence system could not smell when Pakistani
Army Personnel entered deep 10kms inside our territory in Kargil and
stayed months there and made bungers. This is our intelligence.
Secondly, 10 terrorists all the way from Karachi to Mumbai came by
fishing boat, but our navel intelligence, coast guards nobody has the
information. They stayed in our Prestigious Taj Hotels for weeks,
stockpiled arms and explosives, still our intelligence could not reach
them. We must feel shame and admit our system is a total failure and
out-dated.
Thanks, Shaji
by SCV on 03 Sep 2009
Exactly. So, when a trust is let down, we must punish the real
culprits - our own stupid yet rascal leader and top brass guys. And
then try to reshape all that matters. Drop Cricket, Bollywood and such
bullshit and get to arming our youth with truth first inspiring
courage in them and guiding them along to take up the
responsibilities. These old fools are proving too much of a burden.
But do not go and select that school boy's great grand son Rahul, now.
Open your eyes, Northeners
by Kalidas M on 03 Sep 2009
Please stop fooling the already too innocent (stupid)true Indians by
such immature comments, for heaven' sake. Our upbringing needs a 180
degree change. We continuously produce half scared people from each of
our homes, for ages. History is daunting at us for over thousands of
years, but we are so numb to learn lessons from it. We are just
idiotic onlookers to all that is happening to us. EVERYTHING AROUND US
IS WRONG
No reason for developing offensive weapons
by Brijesh on 03 Sep 2009
There is absolutely no reason for Pakistan to clandestinely develop
offensive military capability against India. There is no race between
India and Pakistan. India's military development is reasonable
considering its size and the task of defending its vast borders.
Are you OK, Brijesh?
by Sumangal Pande on 03 Sep 2009
Another news headline today" Al-Qaeda sought assistance from A Q
Khan". How does it ring to your ears, sir? Drop your Hindu stupidity
and get amed for you are forewarned well in advance. Or just keep your
mouth shut. Let your brain anayse the data all around you.
Open your eyes, Northeners
by Kalidas M on 03 Sep 2009
Please stop fooling the already too innocent (stupid)true Indians by
such immature comments, for heaven' sake. Our upbringing needs a 180
degree change. We continuously produce half scared people from each of
our homes, for ages. History is daunting at us for over thousands of
years, but we are so numb to learn lessons from it. We are just
idiotic onlookers to all that is happening to us. EVERYTHING AROUND US
IS WRONG
No reason for developing offensive weapons
by Brijesh on 03 Sep 2009
There is absolutely no reason for Pakistan to clandestinely develop
offensive military capability against India. There is no race between
India and Pakistan. India's military development is reasonable
considering its size and the task of defending its vast borders.
Many reasons for Developments---
by romesh.sharma(Real) on 03 Sep 2009
Mr.Brijesh,what makes you to think that there is no reason(that too
absolutely)for Pakistan to develop offensive military build-up against
India?See the things from the factual side which speak contrary to
what most peace loving(Gandhian mentatlity) people think.Pakistan is
all bent to destroy India through every possible means.Its burning to
avenge loss of East-Pakistan(BDesh).Pakistani developement is not
atall clandestine and is well known to USA and India as well but the
news come out only when it suits USAmerican intersts and policy.Indian
politicians simply don't want to know or show some special concern to
tis disastrous developments(both in Pakistan and China)just because
they are shy and shirk to take responsibilities seriously.Small and
bigger in territorial size is no argument for to them or to any other
its the biggest which is national ego.The way we think that we have
much greater risk from greater neighbouring country China,don't you
think Pakistan also feels that it has to defend against much greater
India?India is far behind in weapon technology and all three Forces
are poorly armed/weaponized and India needs drastic modernizations and
modifications which is well justified for its India's concern against
whom is irrespective.Moreover Offensive is the best way of
Defense.Indian attitude of delaying/keep the things hanging just for
the sake of kick-backs and party above the Nation policy have
endangered our security and jeopardized defense capabilities is the
fact.What others do is not India's concern and is their look
out.Though what news is coming for the last few days about Paksitani
build-ups speaks more of US propaganda/intrigue to push India to
purchase more weapons from them and make big dough.Irrespective of
that India has to learn that though Russian Union has broken down but
still the cold-war type of development is going on.This race will
continue and in this competition India has to be much faster because
it has to cover the distance lost through slow pace and under
estimating others.
How do you mean, Brijesh?
by SCV on 03 Sep 2009
Well, it does not match any way with what we face everyday all over
the country (terrorist attacks) and at the borders (militants'
insurgencies). And I need not tell you who is behind it. Pakistan is
again acting like Gazani Part II, and India is again welcoming it like
the Northern States at that time. Pakistan is more learning from our
history than us. Hence, there are all the reasons to get worried due
the arms race. And do something about it, too. Or what is the other
use of all our weapons except as ornaments and not armaments? Start
thinking like a man. Or you will soon be a damsel in distress. You do
surprise me.
The Cowboy Philosophy
by SCV on 03 Sep 2009
What a perfect mess, this one. And if it happens often, there is a
full scope to suspect foul play. Shows American immaturity in the
whole affair. Pakistan. everyone knows, is an opportunitist country.
And it is geting away all the time. But still, it can not do it all on
its own, that is for sure. When Russian nukes arrive at your doorsteps
in 60s, you guys almost wetted your pants and now, you are playing a
double standarsd and letting us face the music with some added notes
of your own. And what ties are you talking about? This is not a tie,
my sir, but a noose, how many live it will take from both sides is
anyone's guess. Or perhaps, do you want to actually see, to count?
AMERICAN DON'T CARE HOW MANY MILLIONS DIE BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE IN
IRAQ
by n.r.i on 03 Sep 2009
"SCV" AMERICANS CARE LESS HOW MANY MILLIONS OF LIVES ARE LOST BECAUSE
THEY HAVE DONE IT IN IRAQ . OUT OF ONE BILLION IF HALF A BILLION DIES
IN INDIA , THEY CARE LESS .THEY WILL KEEP PROVIDING HARDWEAR AND
WEAPONS TO PAKIS. IN ORDER TO DISTABILIZE INDIA .THEY WILL PAY KICK
BACK TO ALL TOP LEADERS OF RULING PARTY AND ARM FORCES , OBTAIN TOP
SECRET INFORMATION OF INDIAN PLANS BEFOREPAKIS. ARE ASKED TO ATTACK
INDIA . THIS TIME AMERICANS WANTS THE PLAN TO SUCEED . JAI HIND
Thanks
by SCV on 03 Sep 2009
Thanks for your views, they are supporting mine.
bademiyansubhanallah
Indian armed forces confident about nuclear arsenal
Rajat Pandit, TNN 28 August 2009, 01:29am IST
NEW DELHI: Indian armed forces seem quite confident about the
country's nuclear arsenal despite the controversy over the "yields''
of the 1998 Pokhran-II nuclear tests, which included a 15 kiloton
fission device, a 45 kiloton thermonuclear device (hydrogen bomb) and
three sub-kiloton devices.
Outgoing Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta, also the chairman of the
chiefs of staff committee, on Thursday said India had "a credible
minimum nuclear deterrent'' in line with its no-first use (NFU)
policy.
"We are a nation which maintains a credible deterrent...more than
enough to deter anybody,'' said Admiral Mehta. And should someone do
the unthinkable by launching a first-strike, then the "consequences
will be more than what they can bear''.
Asked about former DRDO scientist K Santhanam's statement that the
hydrogen bomb tested during Pokhran-II was actually "a fizzle'',
Admiral Mehta said, "As far as we are concerned, scientists have given
us a certain capability which is enough to provide requisite
deterrence...the deterrent is tried and tested.''
That may well be so but there are still some lingering doubts over
whether India has a swift and assured second-strike capability,
crucial for a country like India whose nuclear doctrine is centred
around the NFU policy.
The doctrine, on its part, declares that nuclear retaliation to a
first strike will be "massive and designed to inflict unacceptable
damage''. This connotes a robust stockpile of nuclear warheads, safe
and ready for use if needed. Estimates indicate India's weapons-grade
plutonium stockpile is enough for 80-90 warheads at present.
Pakistan, on its part, has deliberately kept its nuclear policy
ambiguous in the belief it deters India from undertaking any
conventional military action against it.
Moreover, recent reports indicate Pakistan has pressed the throttle to
enhance its arsenal much beyond 60 nuclear warheads as well as
supplement its ongoing enriched uranium-based nuke programme with a
weapons-grade plutonium one.
But more than the actual number of nuclear warheads, the worry of the
Indian armed forces has been the gap in their delivery systems.
Pakistan, for instance, is well ahead in the missile arena, borrowing
as it has heavily from China and North Korea.
China, with its long-range ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles)
and SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), is in a different
league altogether. Its road-mobile DF-31A missile, for instance, can
hit targets 11,200 km away, while JL-2 SLBM has a reach beyond 7,200
km.
India, of course, has no ICBM or SLBM. While it's developing the 3,500-
km Agni-III and 5,000-km Agni-V ballistic missiles, the only missiles
available to armed forces as of now are Prithvi (150 to 350-km range),
Agni-I (700-km) and Agni-II (2,500-km). But they, too, have not
undergone the rigorous testing nuclear-capable missiles should
undergo.
IAF has some fighters like Mirage-2000s jury-rigged to deliver nuclear
weapons but the Strategic Forces Command has no dedicated bombers.
Similarly, Navy has only two "dual-tasked'' warships armed with
Dhanush (variant of Prithvi with a 330-km range) missiles, INS
Subhadra and INS Suvarna.
Moreover, the nuclear-powered submarine INS Arihant, which was
launched on July 26, will take at another two to three years to become
fully operational. And it will be equipped only with 700-km range
missiles to begin with.
bademiyansubhanallah
US nuclear gurus see signs of more Indian nuclear tests
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN 28 August 2009, 05:24am IST
WASHINGTON: US nuclear pundits feel the Indian establishment --
political, scientific, or both in concert – may be lining up to
conduct more nuclear tests to validate and improve the country’s
arsenal before the Obama administration shuts the door on nuclear
explosions.
''You bet he wants to test again,'' said Henry Sokolski, Executive
Director of the Washington DC-based Nonproliferation Policy Education
Center, when asked about the remarks from a key Indian nuclear
scientist suggesting India’s thermonuclear test was not up to mark.
''Imagine you are a nuclear weapons designer who has corrected the
mistakes and ironed out the wrinkles. You would be crazy not to want
to test again.''
''You have to look at the DNA of a weapons designer. They always want
to make the weapons smaller, lighter, more powerful,'' Sokolski added.
''If you blindfold them, tie their hands and leave them in the middle
of a forest, they will still make their way to a test site.''
While Sokolski addressed the Indian motivations largely from the
technology validation standpoint, Washington has long believed that
geo-political objectives rather than scientific or technical metrics
drives New Delhi’s nuclear weapons quest. The argument has gotten
another boost following the remarks by a key Indian scientist,
K.Santhanam, questioning the potency of India’s thermonuclear bomb.
While ''We told you so,'' was pretty much the reaction in the US
scientific and strategic community on the renewed controversy over the
yield of the thermo-nuclear device in Shakti series of nuclear test
arising from remarks by Santhanam, there is lingering suspicion here
that the disclosure in politically driven. It’s rare for Indian
scientists to break ranks on a sensitive national security issue.
Why would Santhanam go public, with such deliberation, on something
that was commonly discussed and widely acknowledged in scientific
circles, a decade after the questions first surfaced?
The answer, according to some nuclear pundits mulling on the issue on
blogs: To ward off growing American pressure on India to sign various
nuclear containment treaties and perhaps enable India to conduct one
last series of tests to validate and improve its nuclear arsenal.
In scores of research papers and studies in the immediate weeks and
months of the 1998 nuclear tests in Pokhran, US scientists repeatedly
questioned the reported yield of the thermo-nuclear device, saying it
was well below India’s claim of 43-45 kilotons. In fact, some
scientists, notably Terry Wallace, then with the University of Arizona
and now attached to the Los Alamos National Laboratory, put the
combined yield of the three May 11 tests at as low as 10 to 15
kilotons.
Two other tests on May 13 involved sub-kiloton devices for tactical
weapons, which US scientists doubted even took place. Even the six
nuclear tests claimed by Pakistan were treated with derision, with US
scientists saying only two of them involved nuclear devices.
''This is quite clearly a case where governments tested for a
political reason rather than scientific reasons, so we have to be
suspicious of what they say,'' Wallace, the country’s top nuclear
seismology expert, had said about the reported yields.
On Thursday, suspicion lingered in strategic circles that even
Santhanam’s ''admission'' was cloaked in politics, aimed primarily at
warding off US pressure on New Delhi to sign CTBT, the long-sought
treaty to ban nuclear tests, and making ground for a further series of
tests. There is renewed energy in Washington under the Democratic
dispensation to push forward with such nuclear containment treaties
after the previous Bush administration put them on the backburner.
Some US nuclear gurus also believe any break-out test at this point
will be detrimental to India, even if it is aimed at validating its
thermo-nuclear device, or the so-called Hydrogen Bomb.
"An Indian test would be very toxic to cooperation it has just gained
under the nuclear deal. It’s hard to see what India would gain," said
Gary Milholin Director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms
Control.
Ensuring a reliable thermonuclear bomb? Milholin scoffed at the idea.
"There are people who say American nuclear bombs won’t work because we
have not tested for so long," he laughed. "I don’t think anyone would
want to test that assumption."
Similarly, he said, it would be risky for any country to count on
India’s thermonuclear weapon to have a low yield.
"There are now ways other than testing to increase confidence,"
Milholin added. "And I think India has enough computing power to do
that."
bademiyansubhanallah
US Senator mistakenly calls India a security threat, apologizes
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN 26 July 2009, 09:10pm IST
WASHINGTON: Just how bad is the economic pain and job loss in the
United States? Bad enough for an Indophile Senator to get New Delhi
and Beijing mixed up in his mind. ( Watch )
A key US Senator who has extensively supported India, including the
passage of the nuclear deal, stunned his Indian and Indian-American
supporters this weekend when he identified India as a US national
security threat and clubbed it with North Korea and Iran, while
arguing for continuing the F-22 fighter jet programme, which would
keep up to 100,000 jobs going in the US.
''It (the F-22 program) is important to our national security because
we're not just fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,'' Texas’
Republican Senator John Cornyn said in a TV interview. "We're fighting
we have graver threats and greater threats than that: From a rising
India, with increased exercise of their military power; Russia; Iran,
that's threatening to build a nuclear weapon; with North Korea,
shooting intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of hitting
American soil.''
Turns out the Senator had a 'slip of the tongue.'
''Senator Cornyn misspoke saying 'India' when he meant to say 'China.'
As Founder and Co-chairman of the Senate India Caucus, no Senator has
greater respect or admiration for India or values our relationship
with them more. Sen. Cornyn regrets the mistake and apologizes for any
misunderstanding this may have caused,'' his spokesman Kevin
McLaughlin clarified after the remarks were brought to his notice.
Misunderstanding and ire there certainly was for a moment from a very
sensitive Indian lobby. One community activist wanted to know what the
Senator had been drinking. And coming on a day India launched its
first indigenously built nuclear submarine, it certainly raised
eyebrows.
Finally, it was the Senator’s Indian supporters who brought what was
obviously a flub to his notice.
''Senator Cornyn is a friend of India and Indian American community.
He considers India a strong ally of United States. He is the senator
who initiated and successfully established friends of India caucus in
the senate. He spear headed the support for the civil nuclear and was
first to be co-sponsor of the bill,'' Ashok Mago, a Texas realtor,
said in an email before getting Cornyn’s office to issue the
clarification.
Cornyn was one of 40 Senators who failed to stop the Obama
administration’s move to kill the 30-year old F-22 stealth fighter jet
program that employed up to 100,000 people directly and indirectly in
46 American states. By a 58-40 vote, the Democrat controlled Senate
voted last week to scrap the program that was widely seen as a baby of
the military-industrial complex, contractors, and lobbyists.
The US has 187 F-22’s ─ each costing between $ 135 million to $ 300
million depending on how one computes the inputs made principally by
a Lockheed Martin and Boeing collaboration. It was increasingly seen
as a white elephant and killing the program was widely hailed by many
military analysts even as several lawmakers like Cornyn pressed for it
to save jobs in their states and districts. India accidentally got
nicked in the crossfire that eventually led to its demise.
bademiyansubhanallah
Nuke deal: Just Rs300cr cover for accidents
Pradeep Thakur, TNN 25 July 2009, 03:28am IST
NEW DELHI: The proposed bill on nuclear civil liability — very high on
the US priority list with India — to cover accidents in nuclear
installations will limit monetary accountability of the operator to Rs
300 crore, while damages in excess will be borne by the Indian
government.
The limited liability clause could bring cheer to multinationals who
are looking at billions of dollars worth of business in India. Fixing
the liability on operators is important to US firms who are looking to
supply nuclear reactors at Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat as otherwise
they cannot avail of insurance.
With operators, not suppliers, responsible for liability committments,
US firms can go ahead with their business contracts. The government
had deflected US pressure earlier this year on the plea that polls are
round the corner. Now while a draft bill is ready, it seems it will be
brought to Parliament in the winter session.
US was keen as Russia and France are already ahead with projects lined
up in India. The proposed bill, besides limiting the liability of the
operator, gives flexibility to the central government to decrease the
compensation amount on the operator. But in what could be of
significance, the bill states that in each case where the government
decides to decrease the liability, it "shall not be less than Rs 100
crore". The amount of liability shall not include any interest or cost
of proceedings.
The bill debars civil courts from entertaining any suit or proceedings
in respect of any matter which the claims commissioner is empowered to
adjudicate. It says, "No injunction shall be granted by any court or
other authority in respect of any action taken in pursuance of this
Act."
The setting up of a six-member nuclear damage commission has been
proposed to look into the claims. The chairperson and members of the
commission shall be appointed by the central government on the
recommendation of a three-member committee headed by the cabinet
secretary and having secretaries from the department of atomic energy
and the ministry of law as the other two members.
The chairperson of the commission will be a person who will be
qualified to be a judge of a High Court. A special mention has been
made of ensuring that the project is insured for financial security
before it is started. "The operator shall, before he begins operation
of his nuclear installation, take out insurance policy or such other
financial security covering his liability," it states.
An operator, in relation to a nuclear installation, has been defined
in the bill as the person designated as the operator of that
installation. It also explains that several nuclear installations of
one operator which are located at the same site shall be considered as
a single nuclear installation.
Where the nuclear damage is caused in a nuclear installation owing to
temporary storage of material-in-transit in such installation, the
person responsible for transit of such material shall be deemed to be
the operator.
However, an operator has been exonerated of any responsibility for any
nuclear damage if it is caused due to "natural disaster or an act of
armed conflict, civil war or terrorism".
bademiyansubhanallah
G8 calls upon all countries to sign NPT
Diwakar, TNN 10 July 2009, 09:00am IST
L'AQUILA (Italy): The G8 countries on Thursday called upon all
countries to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while deciding to
step up efforts for swift implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT), in a message that seems aimed at India -- the only
`outlier' country at the summit.
Insisting that countries that have not signed NPT should do so
immediately, the G8 emphasised the importance of the treaty to pursue
non-proliferation and disarmament. India has refused to sign NPT
describing it as a discriminatory regime.
"We underscore that NPT remains the cornerstone of the nuclear non-
proliferation regime and the essential foundation for the pursuit of
nuclear disarmament, and reiterate our full commitment to the
objectives and obligations of its three pillars: non-proliferation,
peaceful uses of nuclear energy and disarmament. We will work together
so that the 2010 NPT Review Conference can successfully strengthen the
Treaty's regime and set realistic and achievable goals in all the
Treaty's three pillars," the L'Aquila Statement on Non-Proliferation
said.
Though only the latest of the reminders to India and other holdouts,
the insistence is a clear indication that divergence over NPT remains
a potential point of tension between India and the developed world. As
NPT members move towards the RevCom of the NPT in 2010, there will be
increased calls to India to sign up.
The G8 stand on non-proliferation highlighted the increasing
possibility of India coming under renewed pressure also on the issue
of CTBT, with member countries resolving to speed up their efforts to
ensure ban on nuclear testing.
After remaining in cold storage for almost a decade, because the Bush
administration did not consider it to be priority, the non-
proliferation crowd received a shot in the arm with Barack Obama, who
has promised to get the US Senate to ratify CTBT. He is still short of
the required two-thirds majority, but experts believe that could be
made to happen, overcoming doubts that US's nuclear warheads need to
be updated.
"We welcome the announcement made by the President of the USA that has
decided to seek ratification of Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
and we will intensify our efforts towards the early entry into force
and universalisation of the CTBT as one of the principal instruments
of the international security architecture and a key measure of non-
proliferation and disarmament," the G8 countries stated.
CTBT became major point of discord between India on the one hand and
the US and other developed countries as well as NPT signatories on the
other after India refused to sign the treaty calling it discriminatory
and designed to serve the interests of the nuclear haves. The issue
abated under the Bush administration, but has staged a comeback under
Obama who has decided to make nuclear disarmament one of the defining
marks of his presidency.
bademiyansubhanallah
No pressure on India to talk with Pakistan: US
PTI 17 July 2009, 04:43pm IST
NEW DELHI: The US has not pressurised India to return to the dialogue
table with Pakistan, says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and added
that she was "very impressed" with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's
discussion with his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani in
Egypt.
"No, not at all," said Clinton in an interview to a news channel while
replying to a question on whether it was the US which was pressurising
India to return to the dialogue table.
"I am impressed with Prime Minister Singh meeting both President Asif
Ali Zardari and now with Prime Minister Gilani.
"This dialogue between India and Pakistan is certainly one that could
only be pursued with the agreement and commitment of the two countries
and the leaders, but of course United States is very supportive with
steps that India might take towards any agreement that India and
Pakistan might reach," she said.
Clinton, who is arriving in Mumbai tonight, said "in fact, I think in
the last few days there has been real commitment that was discussed
between Gilani and Singh about the commitment of the Pakistan
government to pursuing the Mumbai terrorists and their associated
organisations which provide the training and the employment of
terrorists....."
She also reiterated the Obama administration's commitment to the Indo-
US civil nuclear agreement but said she would like to discuss with
Indian leaders the ways to prevent the "proliferation of nuclear
material and weapons to state and non-state actors that pose a threat
to India, to the US and to the many countries around the world."
"Well of course we are committed to the civil nuclear agreement that
was signed during the Bush administration. I hope to have some
announcements about the continuing implementation of that agreement
when I arrive in India....
"So of course there will be a very serious discussion that will begin
with my visit and continue to our important strategic dialogue, but I
think we share a common desire to make sure that we don't have
irresponsible state and especially a non-state actor like a terrorist
network acquiring weapons that we know should not be in their hands,"
Clinton said.
Expressing the US' concern about proliferation, she said the Obama
administration is, as are other G-8 members, "very concerned about
proliferation."
"The US is very committed to our nuclear agreement with India, but I
want to hear from the Indian leaders what they believe would be the
useful step that we could mutually pursue that would avoid the concern
that I think we share about such material falling into the wrong
hands," she said.
Besides holding talks on a broad comprehensive agenda with foreign
minister S M Krishna, Clinton will also call on the Prime Minister
during her five-day India visit.
On the US House of Representatives passing a bill which imposes trade
restrictions on countries which do not sign an emission cap, the
Secretary of State said she was looking to have a discussion with
Indian leaders as to how both countries could make the fight against
climate change a "win-win" proposition.
"Certainly you will not hear from me or President Obama or our
administration any desire to prevent the continuing development of
India...," Clinton said but at the same time made it clear that the US
understands the great threat posed by climate change to coastal
countries like India.
Trying to dispel the perception that US was not doing enough to put
pressure on Pakistan to bring to book those responsible for 26/11
terror attacks, she said "we have engaged in very important ongoing
discussion with the Pakistani forces, civilian government as well as
the military about the importance of standing up against terrorists
and extremists no matter who they are and where they might strike."
Remembering the "wonderful memories" from her previous trips to India,
Clinton said "I am very pleased that I have the opportunity to take
forward the commitment that my husband then President had made 14
years ago.
"....So it is a particular privilege for me to be in this position at
this time to be coming to India and to be pursuing a deeper and
broader relationship between our two countries."
bademiyansubhanallah
Pokhran-II achieved 100 per cent results: Kakodkar
August 28, 2009 18:51 IST
Dismissing a top nuclear scientist's contention that Pokharan II was
not a complete success, Atomic Energy Commission chief Anil Kakodkar
on Friday said the tests in 1998 achieved '100 per cent desired
results'.
Speaking at a function organised by the Raja Ramanna Centre for
Advanced Technology in Indore, Kakodkar said, "Pokhran II tests were a
complete success and they achieved 100 per cent desired results."
On Wednesday, Defence Research and Development Organisation
representative for Pokhran II K Santhanam had said that India should
not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as the country needed to
carry out more tests, since the thermonuclear tests in 1998 had failed
to produce the desired results.
© Copyright 2009 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or
redistribution of PTI content, including by framing or similar means,
is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent.
bademiyansubhanallah
'Santhanam was worried about India signing the CTBT'
Last updated on: August 28, 2009 18:47 IST
K Santhanam's statement terming the nuclear tests held under the aegis
of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance
government at Pokhran, Rajasthan, in May 1998, a mere 'fizzle', has
divided the country's scientific community.
While some nuclear scientists have supported Santhanam, who was in
charge of Pokhran-II, others feel such a statement was uncalled for.
In an interview with rediff.com's Vicky Nanjappa, Dr A N Prasad,
former director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and a
distinguished nuclear scientist, explains the reasons behind
Santhanam's statement and its possible implications for India.
What prompted Mr Santhanam to issue such a statement about Pokhran II?
I feel he made such a statement because of his concerns about the
latest moves by the United States to pressurise India to sign the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I feel his statements are aimed at
ensuring that India rethinks its stand on this issue.
India has already accepted the terms and conditions of the India-US
civil nuclear agreement. Though the official position is that we can
conduct tests, in practice we are not allowed to do so.
Once the process is complete, we will invest billions of dollars and
if under any circumstance if we go ahead and conduct a test due to our
national interests, the economic consequences will be bad.
In case we go ahead and conduct tests, then the deal will surely be
off and all the efforts towards building reactors and infrastructure
will be a waste. Probably Santhanam thought this was not the right
time to sign the CTBT and hence he came out with such a statement.
Do you think India should sign the CTBT?
For all practical purposes, we are in a situation where the CTBT has
become a mere formality, as we have voluntarily announced a moratorium
on testing. As I said earlier, in the future, in case India goes ahead
and conducts a test, the economic consequences would be terrible.
I think India should carefully study all these factors before going
ahead.
Who do you think should shoulder the blame for the 'fizzle', as Mr
Santhanam called the 1998 tests?
It is unfair to blame one single political party for this. Blaming the
BJP is not right. Every politician who is at the helm of affairs is
bound to go by the version of the experts and the BJP too did the
same.
If the people who were in charge of conducting the tests say that the
tests were good enough, then political parties have no option but to
go by their statements.
Do you think Mr Santhanam is right?
I really can't say. It is difficult to detonate a thermo-nuclear
device underground. Hence to say that everything is 100 per cent
correct where Pokhran II is concerned raises a doubt. We need to look
into the issue in a proper perspective and then come to a conclusion.
I personally don't know the exact results of the test. Insiders like
Santhanam and P K Iyengar, who were actively involved in Pokhran-II,
will know best. I must add that blaming politicians is not the answer
here.
But the statement has come after 11 years. It raises doubts about the
timing; it seems the issue has been scripted.
I know people are repeatedly asking why this statement was made after
11 years. Try and understand that it is very difficult to make a
statement when a person is in the government. The official version is
different.
A correct statement can be made only after the person retires and this
could have been the case for Santhanam too. Probably he is worried
about (India signing) the CTBT.
After the embarrassing revelations, how will India tackle the
situation?
Let us not forget that it is a highly credible thing to carry out a
nuclear test in the first place. Just because such a statement has
been made, let us not take away the contribution of the scientists.
It is not a crime to fail.
Nothing can be 100 per cent perfect. However, covering up something
that has not gone entirely correctly is wrong.
What about the CTBT? What does India do now?
Some damage control exercise is needed here. There is a problem on
hand and it needs to be set right. There is a lot of chaos and
confusion at this moment. At such a time, it would not be sensible to
go ahead and sign the CTBT.
We need to wait for things to cool down first. There is no great hurry
either since the US too has not ratified it. Unless they ratify it
there is no big hurry.
total 58 messages
Time of revelations
by Indian on Sep 04, 2009 08:03 PM
Dr. Santhanam in his interview said that the time was ripe and to ward-
off pressure on CTBT he revealed that now. However from the time
perspective, I think he already lost the bus !! If at all his
intentions were what he claims, he should have made this disclosure
when the there was heated debate going on related to 123 Agreement (US-
India Nuke deal).
After that deal we have any way signed CTBT de-facto. That is as PM
put it that time, India has right to test and US has right to react
(meaning walk out of the deal). Consequences would be we will be
sitting on pile of Billions of dollars investments which would be
worthless. And once US walks out, let us not forget it won't allow
anybody else (France and Russia) to do business with us. Russia did
not have any daring to ward-off US pressure in past also (remember
Cryogenic Engines, Limited Fuel Supply to Trombay). So 123 deal has
practically made it difficult for India to do further test (unless
Offcourse, Pakistan or China attacks or something similar). In short I
think Dr. Santhanam neither did help Country (as he claims) nor did
give wake-up call to Leaders by this disclosure at this time.
The only effect, as I see it as, India's scientific Creditibililiy may
get dented seriously (coupled with not so good news on Moon
Mission).
Re: Time of revelations
by Indian on Sep 04, 2009 08:15 PM
And to add to that, I do not see, how NDA governmnet can be seen in
bad light because of this so-called partial success. Political
decision was taken by NDA. Success/failure can only be determined to
the scientists. Regarding claiming the high yield, well any government
of that day would have acted similarly. Deception is the game in
International politics.
Santhanam
by Aditya Agrawal on Sep 03, 2009 07:35 PM
Very good hibernation for the last ten years. Which animal hibernates
so much?
Pokharan II
by Hare Krishna Pradhan on Sep 03, 2009 09:57 AM
It is unfortunate that the scientists (Dr Santhanam)contradict the
results after retirement.Why he didnot tell before the test that the
approach is not good. Why Dr Iyengar now telling that the test was
done in haste.I think their pensions should be stopped. Some times I
feel shy to say that I am an Indian. We dont have values and national
feeling. What is our image now with this type of remarks by the
scientists. How the BJP Govt Or Bajpayee can be held resposible. If
the scientists had no capabilities they should not have proposed to
the Govt for the test.The comments of Dr Sethana is unfotunate. He is
more than 80 yrs and his brain might have degenerated. Let all these
people stop talking nonsense for the national intrest.
Screwed up Scientists
by Riv on Sep 02, 2009 09:07 PM
No offence to all those Great Scientists who are working with
creativity instead of just following other research papers...but some
screwed up scientists, no matter how patriotic they may be like Mr.
Santhanam should have gone to appropriate people I am sure some one
will listen to you, since you are a high profile guy in a small elite
group who have more access to policy makers (if they exists) than any
politician or a common man. The path chosen by santhanam or other
scientists in ridiculing India's power and insulting others is no more
than a act of treason against India.
sanatham
by VAIBHAV srivastava on Sep 02, 2009 07:50 PM
india should have a more smart and devastating nuclear delivery
platform along with credible nuclear deterrence. India is talking with
Maldives for its naval base so as to keep its interest alive in the
region of indian ocean, Malacca region and Arabian sea to counter
Chinese invasion. We are urgently requiring a Nuclear tipped ICBM with
atleast a range of 5000-6000Kms and fully operational to counter
china. indian Defense budget should not only focus on purchasing
hardware from foreign suppliers but more emphasis to be given on R&D
to develop latest aircrafts, jets and missile to stand amongst the
league of premier nations. Report suggests that pakistan has almost
90-110 Nuclear ready warheads while as india (based on 2002 Facts)
bharatrakhshak.com has 65-85 Nuclear ready warheads. conventional
plutonium based, but lacking in delivery systems. we need to really
act fast.
reactor building and technology
by Raghavendra Bhat on Sep 02, 2009 10:01 AM
What if we are on the edge of building a smaller reactor than what the
US or the others can provide us? What if we can save millions of
public money by building our own reactors? Technology can progress
only under freedom, not under the restriction of the CTBT or of any
other!
Re: reactor building and technology
by Indian Citizen on Sep 02, 2009 12:29 PM
You are right. We need to build small reactors using Thorium and
making plutonium in fast breeders. Both may be required for peace and
war.
Raising this issue now is bad
by Anand Sachudanand on Sep 01, 2009 09:33 PM
Raising this issue now is like putting down both our former President
Dr. Kalam and our former PM Mr. Vajpayee, who did the test inspite of
the world opposing it. We shd remember that nobody dared to do this
test or these tests was pending for a long time. Even there is a
controversy on US going to Moon. But people of that country are with
their country, whether they went to moon or not. Even if our N-Test is
fake or in-complete, we should stand by those people who were behind
it and respect their decisions. This news brought respect for India
and put India on the top of the world along with five N Countries.
These people who were num that time, are now answering question as
though the test was done under some communist regime or under some
dictator. The people in Govt would not have killed you people even if
you were talkign that time. If we want to do another test, let them do
it. We still have options for we have not signed any agreement. Let
the scientist come forward and compelte the test.
Re: Raising this issue now is bad
by Anand Sachudanand on Sep 01, 2009 09:40 PM
I strongly feel that these guys are Anti-BJP raising this issue now.
They even kept quite when US was signing N-Deal last yrs and India was
urged to sign CTBT. If they wanted to do the test they should have
brought this issue that time itself. This clears that Congress has not
succeded in anything. To hide their unsucessful governance, security,
poor health, economy downfall, price raise issues, such un-wanted
issues are raised now.
Re: Re: Raising this issue now is bad
by RitesH on Sep 02, 2009 07:42 PM
how can we define time
Nuke CHina and Pak now...
by jaggu on Sep 01, 2009 03:51 PM
There is no point in witing too long- today is as good as any other
day! This is because:
1) Both China and Pakistan are old & ambidextrous rogues like in
Amitabh films- they can murder,rape and loot their victim at the same
time while consuming liquor and cigarettes & attending phones with
other hand. They manage to cheat at every point unlike Nestle & Coke
which stick to one type of business & rob in daylight on the price
alone.
2) there is severe rat problem in all govt offices- they eat cables in
cluding nuclear ones.
3) Plastics & hydro carbons in India always disintegrate due to cheap
quality & hence the "nuclear button" is of tender L1 low cost plastic.
4) In the interest of mankind ( 1 crore indians) - I appeal to MMSingh
to blow up China and Pakistan before taking the next cup of tea.
indian ruler never acountable to anyone
by Bhupinder Singh on Aug 31, 2009 11:11 AM
from nehru to indira,, to atal bihari whole leader were product of
indian hatred politics, which always try to divide people in the name
of caste, religon and on many other fact or,, their version of
official record, history of govt files,and blatent of bureacratic
lies, hassle and reply by minister are whole dam show,, no one can
trust, bhobia is created by socalled money minting press , who are
more interest to serve their master than inlightening poor, helpless
poeple,
We need to perfect our nuke tech
by Grizzly on Aug 31, 2009 09:54 AM
If we didnt get it 100% right then we need to do more tests to get it
right. We cannot ignore our national interests. There is no harm in
Mr. Santhanam's statement. It just highlights the need for more
precision.
US, Russia, china, UK, France etc. have all tested the nuke tech many
many times. India has only done 2-3 tests. Its not enough for us. In
order to be more perfect in our technology, we should plan and
complete more tests. CTBT will come slowly and we can negotiate later
on that. But for now, lets make our weapons more precise.
Re: We need to perfect our nuke tech
by turabe fazil on Aug 31, 2009 04:46 PM
That is what exactly Dr.Santhanam wants us to do...there is furore in
the scientific community over developing US pressure on issues related
to technology development, where the ultimate result would be, if
unchecked, needing to buy arms from US even for the mere cause of
deterring pakistan...which should be an economic disaster
Nobody says he is not correct
by Chana Masala on Aug 31, 2009 04:22 AM
The people opposing him are saying 'statement was uncalled for'. Which
means, he is right, lekin pole khol diya.
Pokran II - Santhanam's statement
by Alagunambi Ramasubbu on Aug 30, 2009 05:34 PM
We all the Indians should Salute this man's brave statement against
all odds. Especially while this Politicians are trying to fool people
and telling this and that and all lies, this man has at-last made a
wonderful statement that the II Pokran Nuclear Test held in 1998 was a
failure one. As a Scientific Researcher I truly appreciate and accept
him as no one coule ever get 100 % right in all times. But only due to
political pressure they were forced to make such a statement by that
time and even we all people face a lot of consequences from the US
(Naattamai periyannan). However, now it is the right time that we must
realize our true potential before going for any agreement (CTBT or the
like) related to Nation's safety and other aspects. I really
appreacite Dr Santhanam and truly I support him 100 % for his
statment.
Re: Pokran II - Santhanam's statement
by mohanraj jebamani on Sep 01, 2009 09:16 PM
jaswant for his part damaged the history. now this scientist has taken
up the cudgels. they have decided to finish india off
What this scientist wants to prove ?
by chanakya maurya on Aug 29, 2009 04:23 PM
Himself perhaps ?
Y did he not dare to open his foul mouth when the whole nation was
jubilant ?
Was he afraid of Indira ?
The only thing we can say about this scientist:
A First Class Rascal.
Re: What this scientist wants to prove ?
by thomas jojy on Aug 31, 2009 08:34 PM
ahey man it's not Indira ..The nuclear was tested during Vajpayee
time.
Re: What this scientist wants to prove ?
by James Gurung on Aug 30, 2009 10:00 PM
I agree. This scientists kachumar must be taken out.
Re: Re: What this scientist wants to prove ?
by santosh m on Aug 31, 2009 11:33 AM
I wont agree with you guys... He has come forward to say the truth. We
should not forget there are still more Rascls out there who were part
of this test and still they not ready to accept the truth. Moreover
they are still continue to fool us with their wrong statements.
PokhranII Results
by siva none on Aug 29, 2009 02:43 PM
Now that MMS is also defending the test results,the controversy is
widening into more arguments.
If everything was right why not publish the relevant documents as
signed and certified by those conducted the test.It doesn't matter who
now vouches for it(Kalam,MMS etc;) it is good to publish the facts for
the sake of our Nation and People.
Nuclear Scientists ha ha ha!!
by Laughing Buddha on Aug 29, 2009 11:21 AM
All the persons involved in that testing and who fed the country with
wrong information that the test was fully successful should be tried
by the country for high treason.ANd it should start from the top that
is R Chidambaram, Anil Kakodkar and Santhanam. On lower level the addl
two increments given to the so called scientists of all dae units
including its commercial arms like NPCIL,HWB, UCIL because of the
success(sic) of Pokhran should be stopped with immediate effect and
the amount paid till date shud be recovered with interest.
Testing TN device
by tls mani on Aug 29, 2009 11:10 AM
We had a great oppurtunity to conduct a test on the Pakis for their
attack in Mumbai and could have taught Jihadis how it feels when they
die in hordes. By this we could have now signed the CTBT and decimated
the Jihadis. 2 in 1.
Testing TN device
by tls mani on Aug 29, 2009 11:09 AM
We had a great oppurtunity to conduct a test on the Pakis for their
attack in Mumbai and could have taught Jihadis hw it feels when the
die. By this we could have now signed the CTBT and decimated the
Jihadis. 2 in 1.
Pakis on the site
by Indian on Aug 29, 2009 10:59 AM
I can smell some Pakis here !! ND is certainly one !
Rediff
by Nostra Damus on Aug 29, 2009 10:12 AM
Rediff is biased it seems. any comments on north are immediately
muzzled but any kind of offensive blog on south is ok. either let
there be a free and frank discussion or dont open such a portal at
all
Re: Rediff
by Vivek Chandra on Aug 29, 2009 10:38 AM
What is your opinion about A_n_d_h_r_a professionals. Are they the
best? Do they deserve better treatment than they normally get. How can
you honour "jewel_of_the_south"?
AP -A shining beacon of hope and prosperity for whole of
subcontinent.
Re: Re: Rediff
by murli nair on Aug 30, 2009 12:49 PM
instead of naming the airport after Narasimha Rao, the sycophant named
it after a gandhi yet again. I think even the Gandhis must be sick of
this kind of nauseating chamchagiri
Porkis are vomiting hatred here....
by qwer on Aug 29, 2009 09:52 AM
guys be careful in your words here, we have porkis here...trying to
inflame communal and regional divisions here....Porkis in the false
names of Shailendra singh, Nostra Damus are creating divisions
here....their ip addresses are being traced....
Re: Porkis are vomiting hatred here....
by Nostra Damus on Aug 29, 2009 10:16 AM
we see offensive tv serials, discrimination and you want we should
suffer it silently ? i am not trying to inflame communal division i am
hitting back when my language or culture is insulted. First cure
thyself.
Re: Re: Porkis are vomiting hatred here....
by Indian on Aug 29, 2009 11:06 AM
When did you come back from China, dear Paki ?
Amar Singh's game plan
by sagar ganguli on Aug 29, 2009 09:21 AM
Mr. Santhanam has said that ex-Prez Kalam was not a nuclear scientist
and hence he would not know about the desired yield of the detonation.
Amar Singh the SP leader thought Kalam was a nuclear expert and after
discussion with him the SP gave support to MMS Govt. The UPA Govt
survived and went through the N-Deal with the USA. Now India's fate is
sealed. Politicians over the years ar runining the country because of
their hidden agendas.
Re: Amar Singh's game plan
by G Uppal on Aug 29, 2009 11:14 AM
and now Amar Singh says SP did a blunder by supporting UPS in the vote
of confidence.
Re: Re: Amar Singh's game plan
by murli nair on Aug 30, 2009 12:52 PM
Amar Singh is mad because the congress did not play "Chor Chor
Mauserey Bhai !" and opted for clean politics
Message deleted by moderator.
Message deleted by moderator
Re: tamils
by Indian on Aug 29, 2009 09:22 AM
Any doubts "Nostra Damus" is not a Pakistani ?
Re: tamils
by Indian Pal on Aug 29, 2009 08:38 AM
are there any hindi scientists?? these hindi people are too busy doing
politics and looting the country like the marwaris and banyas!
Re: Re: tamils
by keesari reddy on Aug 29, 2009 09:32 AM
well said dude!
Worrying of CTBT
by t prasad on Aug 29, 2009 08:08 AM
Why now, after supproting it for long time. What was Mr. Santhanam
doing all this time. He must have read about the CTBT all these years.
What was he doing, sleeping and whiling his time. Now, he opens the
mouth. When majority of the people of hIndia, opposed it, the Congress
Government under Mr. MMS and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have compromised the
National Interest. They always looked at the USA. Then, this Mr.
Santhanam was around, but he didn't open his mouth or vent his
apprehensions. Why know? Mr. Santham, be wise in your thought and give
the people of India your proof of failure. If, it is true, as you say,
then the people of this Nation will act as they done against the
British Empire. Please wake up.
Re: Worrying of CTBT
by Subash Muppidi on Aug 29, 2009 09:46 AM
Well Said
Till now i thought only Politicans will take advantage of the
situtaion and the will OPEN their MOUTH.. but now scienetist like Mr
Santhanam is opening mouth after keeping quiet for so long I think he
is planning to join POLTITICS..Mr.Santhnam I am aure you will be gud
POLTICIAN......
Re: Re: Worrying of CTBT
by Devalraju Ramaiah on Aug 29, 2009 09:54 AM
How can we comment against Santhanam ? Most of the Scientists can't
come forward and raise the issue I am sure. Probably he would have
rang the bell first.
SANTHANAM
by Aqua Mariner on Aug 29, 2009 06:54 AM
Brothers Wht could be the reason for this ?
1)Excessive patriotism fearing indian intrests would be surrended
2)Hatred against America and Upa decissions
3)Personal or political vendetta animosity
4)A fowl play influenced by finacial flows
5)Insane ( thats the last step or brilliance )
it seems this guy is on that stage .
pls comment
Re: SANTHANAM
by some one on Aug 29, 2009 07:21 AM
Mr. Santhanam must be right. Such a person would not make a false or
frivolous statement. The real issue is getting bypassed in this
discussion.
What is India's arrangement to test the Thermo Nuclear devices again
or do we depend on unreliable bombs given to the Defence Forces?
All these years Pakistan and China must be aware of reality, and
unless India removes the Moratorium it cannot be sure of so called
Assured Destruction of Enemy if attacked with Nuclear Weapons.
Is it important to save economic damage, which undoubtedly would be
very great in any direct confrontation with the USA, or is it
important to keep India safe against persistent and proven enemies
through Assured Destruction Counter Attacking capability ?
Why dont Indians today have the courage to sacrifice economic
interests in such situations and become strong militarily and
thereafter come back to economic dealings with USA and others of their
group, lke China and Pakistan had done so successfully? Both those
countries have acquired the capability to go on attacking USA and at
the same time enjoy MOst Favoured status with the USA?
Re: SANTHANAM
by Vivek Chandra on Aug 29, 2009 07:02 AM
Reason for what? You dont need a reason for being truthful.
Santhanam is stating a fact which is already known to the world
community. This does not mean that we do not have a credible nuclear
deterrent. Nobody doubts our capability to explode a fission based
device.
Dont be too paranoid. This is how the things are.
Re: Re: SANTHANAM
by some one on Aug 29, 2009 07:57 AM
This discussion has to be taken above a Naive Layman's level.
Fission devices are wasteful. Enemies China, Pakistan, North Korea
have thermo nuclear weapons.
Thermo Nuclear weapons capable of destroying 90 % of major Industrial
and Population centers of ChinPak are needed. Fission devices use too
much of scarce nuclear materials.
Thermo Nuclear weapons help to get a much bigger blast from scarce
Materials.
India has no means of getting much more quantities of Materials for
Fission devices. The only way out is to use Thermo Nuclear weapons.
It is not to frighten the enemy population by threat of a few Nuclear
explosions. It is their scientists, military professionals, and
politicians in Govt. who are to be convinced of India's destructive
power. Such people are not moved by mere dramatic explosion of a few
(Fission) weapons. Only proven ability to destroy a major portion of
their country will affect their decision making about how to continue
their attacks on India.
Tested and Proven Total Explosive Capability ("TPTEC") of India has to
be at least 20 Giga Tons TNT Equivalent if China and Pakistan are to
be stopped. That much Explosive power is impossible for India without
very big Thermo Nuclear weapons.
Today India stands defenseless against ChinPak, which is why they are
being so brazen and provocative in attacking India.
Remaining undefended is India's only option until it resumes testing.
Re: Re: Re: SANTHANAM
by Vivek Chandra on Aug 29, 2009 09:36 AM
This is also an internationally known fact that Pakistan does not have
thermo nuclear technology, however China does. I am not saying we
should not have this technology but we can not wait for ever for
attaining this while shelving other developmental projects. On the
defence front the demand of the hour is to develop credible deployment
systems for delivery of these weapons. This is what we are doing in
guise of developing rocket technology for space exploration.
Re: SANTHANAM
by siva none on Aug 29, 2009 09:17 AM
Like stated in the above interview,Santhanam must have worried about
his life and position when in office.There is no govt.Officer in this
country who will talk / work aganist the HUKOOMATH when serving in the
office.We have enough contradicting results / statements / etc; which
were never answered.
Let us lookinto the future,and let there be new tests and to find our
if we can ever be successful in this venture.
Sivaproactive
Why does India need an A-Bomb?
by Shailendra Singh on Aug 29, 2009 06:50 AM
Why does India need an atomic bomb? It will disintegrate within next
five years because of internal pressures and poverty. It should use
its money for wiser things.
Re: Why does India need an A-Bomb?
by Vivek Chandra on Aug 29, 2009 07:03 AM
This bullshit we have been hearing for last many decades. Stop wasting
your time. We are not going to disintegrate.
Re: Re: Why does India need an A-Bomb?
by Shailendra Singh on Aug 29, 2009 07:28 AM
I believe that India's disintegration is extremely desirable and
inevitable. We in North then will get our Hindi speaking nation.
Re: Re: Re: Why does India need an A-Bomb?
by Rana Bose on Aug 29, 2009 07:52 AM
Well, when did you move from porkistan to india ? Go back to Porkistan
- you paki
Re: Re: Re: Why does India need an A-Bomb?
by Vivek Chandra on Aug 29, 2009 07:39 AM
Then they'll fight for a Thakur or Brahmin homeland. Wont they?
How many subdivisions we can have/afford?
Re: Re: Re: Why does India need an A-Bomb?
by keesari reddy on Aug 29, 2009 09:35 AM
even if we divide INDIA to a city level also, people would fight to
get divided furhter to street level!!!
Re: Re: Re: Why does India need an A-Bomb?
by Nostra Damus on Aug 29, 2009 08:53 AM
i support you wholeheartedly. The south will be a better place without
this drag on its neck.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why does India need an A-Bomb?
by qwer on Aug 29, 2009 09:48 AM
You porki....you have no business here....go save your NWFP and
Balochistan..and sindh in near future.Porkistan is going to
disintegrate soon...
need more tests
by Sam on Aug 29, 2009 06:18 AM
india should do more tests and publish the data to world scientist
community. He might have informed to polical establishment in delhi
under mannu mohan, since the did not listen, communicating to the
public.
mannu mohan should stop commadity exchange and order more tests,
otherwise india will be attacked by china or even bangaldesh, srilana
and nepal.
Re: need more tests
by Vivek Chandra on Aug 29, 2009 07:09 AM
More tests... not sure. Why? Fusion capability will not add any more
laurels to our existing defence arsenals.
If necessary we might conduct an open and negotiated testing for
harnessing fusion technology later on.
We can publish data only after we convince ourselves which at the
moment we have not done.
Re: need more tests
by siva none on Aug 29, 2009 09:21 AM
Results should not be cooked and vouched by criminal minded
politicians and administrators, BUT must be real and truthful, so that
we can take corrective measures rather than misguide everyone /
everything.
Sivaproactive
Message deleted by moderator.
Re: santha
by Nishit Shukla on Aug 29, 2009 04:14 AM
Hahahah, what was this man?
Hey Ram Save India before it is too late
by bharat on Aug 29, 2009 03:44 AM
UPA government is full of looters who funded by CIA. They have and
will sell this country to foreign country so that rest of generation
inherit eternal slavery...Hand tying procecss began since Nehru was in
power who hung out with Mountbatten wife..Who let Nathuram a radical
element pass through security so that Mahatma can be
eliminated...Since with Mahatma in power...Nehru and congress couldn't
have looted this nation with such success...Hey Ram!!! Save this
nation from People who can rigg the election...develop politician and
criminal nexus.....create society where it is ok to take money under
the table.....but not ok to be religious and God fearing.....
Message deleted by moderator
Next Nuclear test in india will be done
by such jano on Aug 29, 2009 02:26 AM
by either china or pakistan.
Pokharan II
by brajeshwar nath on Aug 29, 2009 02:22 AM
Its a carefully crafted strategy by K Santhanam to get extension or
some advisory role in the UPA dispensation.He knew if he criticised
Pokhran II, which wasconducted under NDA rule, Congress Govt. would
easily be convinced.Ask why did he wait for 11 years and the a..ho..
has no answer.Even if the results were not as expected , to term it a
a failure would be a blatant lie.He was the incharge. why did he keep
mum? He owes an explanation to the people of India.Its not him vs NDA
anymore.Its a well thought out gameplan from a fiendish mind.Every
Tom ,Dick and HAry in any position of power or establishment is going
to town with his own biased or cooked up versions of events post facto
these days.Its a free for all. iguess, democracy has its limitations
and we are witnessing the same.Some sense or properiety must prevail
upon those in positions of importance.By his self serving utterances
this gu has just shown that he is not fit to be in the place. He
should be shown RGV's AAG for one full day as a punishment.And if he
is still able to walk straight after the expereience, any of Mithun's
movie of later phases would do the trick.
And that would be even better than feeding him to l.i.o.n.s.
Re: Pokharan II
by bharat on Aug 29, 2009 03:48 AM
Hats Off to Mr K Santhanam..A true Patriot...who risked his career in
line to save the rest of the generation to accept eternal
slavery....May Lord Bless You and Protect you from evil...
Message deleted by moderator
Should I be...............?
by Rushi on Aug 29, 2009 02:11 AM
Should I be glad to know that we have honets scientist in india?
Or
Should I be disapointed by scared scientist who took 11 years to tell
the truth?
O god...
Re: Should I be...............?
by krishnan paramu on Aug 29, 2009 03:16 AM
should be happy of being a typical indian who rushes fr rope when
somebody says THE bull JUSTDELIVERED THE CALF.........kudooooooos
Re: Re: Should I be...............?
by bharat on Aug 29, 2009 03:50 AM
People forget that Manmohan is rushing to US to sign India into
eternal slavery....What can Patriot like Santanam do...?
You will know when you will put your job in line in todays economy...
Next nuclear test
by Krish on Aug 29, 2009 02:08 AM
I hope the next nuclear test is done inside the parliament and please
make sure that all the policians be there to witness the test results
in person.
Re: Next nuclear test
by Rushi on Aug 29, 2009 02:12 AM
hahahayha
Biggest Error In Indian History
by tamil on Aug 29, 2009 02:07 AM
That is BJP..
They divided scientist community.. divided India based on caste ...
divided India based on religion.. divided India based on region..
Re: Biggest Error In Indian History
by arvi on Aug 29, 2009 02:28 AM
Oyee KarunaNidhi...remove your Dark glasses!!
Re: Biggest Error In Indian History
by Subash Muppidi on Aug 29, 2009 09:52 AM
Mr TAMIL
You don't have the rights to talk first look at ur STATE, you ppl are
trying to split the neighboring (SRI LANKA),do remember whenever you
point fingues at OTHERS, THREE fingures will be pointing toward you
Re: Biggest Error In Indian History
by Jai Hind on Aug 29, 2009 04:46 AM
If you can't undersatnd english, just stay away. It is santanam's
mouth on Pokhran divided Science community based on their view about
it.
Re: Biggest Error In Indian History
by vignesh waran on Aug 29, 2009 05:04 PM
tamil nu peravachi tamil mantha vangathada loosy payalae.............
Re: Biggest Error In Indian History
by bharat on Aug 29, 2009 03:53 AM
When UPA is selling India to Pakistan in Sharme Hayaa in Egypt..When
Manmohan sing is rushing to US to sell India then people like you are
waiting to be licking you know what.....
the bigger picture
by Devdutt Nayak on Aug 28, 2009 10:33 PM
economy is screwed in multiple ways:
1. rains are messed up - 252 districts drought
2. food grain import already okayed
3. next year if it does not rain also, we have economic and social
destruction
4. Pak does nuke test and threatens India.
5. USA says Pak is long term friend and India should not retaliate.
6. If india tests, it gets sanctions upon drought and food imports.
7. Dollar stocks vanish in 10-12 months.
8. if india does not test MMS faces immense public pressure due to a
few more attacks on hindu festivals
9. Maoists take full advantage
9. China implements Divide-India plan
11. US says india is must be saved from Chinese invasion, enters war.
12. WE are the centre of World War III
13. We face music from all sides
14. Our expats sit in US, EU and Middle East and emotionally recollect
the great nation that was India, which has become Iraq.
All this because they can force climate change rules, nuke testing
ban, terrorism, and economic weapons of mass destruction onto us.
Still, we will want to join CA / MBA and run to the US to make our
career great.
Still, nobody cares for our farmers.
when the farmer cannot give you food, you will realise how big a
mistake it was to take the farmer for granted.
All these farmer suicides are a big karmic blot on URBAN conscience.
WE are collectively responsible for encouraging commodities trading
that kills the hand that FEEDS us.
Gujjus will die first because they are the biggest danger to the
Globalist Elite.
Re: the bigger picture
by Devdutt Nayak on Aug 28, 2009 10:46 PM
if i have a farm and i want my grains to sell in the market, i will
first burn down your farm and barn and storehouse (global warming,
floods droughts)
then i will call you a thief and a liar and shame you in the village
for something you cannot disprove
(nuke test, bush's claim that indian village cooking smoke adds to
global warming)
then i will send rodents and snakes into your farm
(insurgencies, terrorism, corruption, swiss banks, D-company)
if i want to spoil your name in the village, i will quietly go to your
barn at night and spread poisonous oil on your sacks of grain
(chinese milk product poisoning scandal)
so that your name is spoilt in the village market
i will poison your food (bird flu)
i will pay the sarpanch and the panchayat to exile you
(economic sanctions from UN and veto by UNSC panchayat)
i will steal your home-maker from you (rajiv gandhi) so that you
cannot even grow properly
i will silently get your servant to loot money from your treasury
(Ministers, politicians with Swiss bank accounts, MBAs, CAs working
for Lehmann, Goldman-Sachs, Deutsche Bank, UBS etc)
i will make your family and workers sick (swine flu, aids, cancer,
diabetes, hypertension, etc lifestyle disorders)
And I will remain the only powerful moneylender, gangster, landlord
and Sarpanch in the entire region, even beyond my village (Americas
and Europe)
This is the direct explanation of the behaviour of US Govt, MIC, and
the Globalist Elite Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission
Re: Re: the bigger picture
by Devdutt Nayak on Aug 28, 2009 11:07 PM
oh yes, and to maintain sole control of the village river, waterhole
or well, (oil and gas deposits) i will destroy the houses next to the
waterhole and keep control of the well (petroleum price)
and i will see to it that no two big houses ever become friends
because they area threat to my single dominance.
So i will make brother fight against brother, neighbour against
neighbour, by sending people to set fire to haystacks on farms of
neighbours, like India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine (centuries
old friends - all three religions have biggest shrines there!), north
and south korea, China and Tibet, Iran and Iraq, the whole of Africa.
They spared Japan from North Japan and south Japan which they might
have seriously considered had the Japanese not surrendered entirely.
If you dare challenge the village moneylender-gangster, he will first
try to kill your family head, burn your farm and your house.
Then sow seeds of permanent hatred - like the British did after they
were stunned by 1857 people's uprising, which they euphemise with
"Sepoy mutiny".
It was a war of independence that we lost, not a minor revolt. We
butchered the British by the hundreds and thousands and so they
destroyed our very identity by the time 1947 arrived.
Of course, if we still do not see the bigger picture and continue
bowing to the moneylender-gangster, he will do exactly what he knows
best - loot, murder, destroy, incite and terrorise.
Do not bow to Macro-Economic Terrorism by Globalists.
Re: Re: Re: the bigger picture
by Rushi on Aug 29, 2009 02:15 AM
Nayak.. 1 page is not enough to explore problems of india as We had
number of issues and still we are in top 5 developing countries.....
Dont worry... We have will and We will have it...
instead of
by chintan jhunjhunwala on Aug 28, 2009 10:16 PM
these controversial arguments why cannot the old seismic records be
reexamined with other scientific evidences.the records must have been
stored and not destroyed.the true fusion energy of the blast will come
out.
He may be correct - Pakistan is still around..
by jaggu on Aug 28, 2009 09:02 PM
Why else should the test specimen Paksitan be still around? We should
complete the trials and get the results..
One point
by Kid on Aug 28, 2009 09:01 PM
A point that I would like to make : It's very rare that you would be
successful at the very first sceintific experiment.
Common sense says you usually need multiple tests to achieve
perfection.
So in effect I would like to partly agree with Dr Santhanam.
India should not say we achieved what we wanted and hence we stop and
no more stops required.
Why cant we NUKE - Srilanka!
by jayson moses on Aug 28, 2009 08:22 PM
Why cant we NUKE - Srilanka! Any try whether its Fizzle or real.
Re: Why cant we NUKE - Srilanka!
by debraj chanda on Aug 28, 2009 08:26 PM
Illa puka
ni gudda
lanjha puka
Re: Why cant we NUKE - Srilanka!
by ramen das on Aug 28, 2009 08:35 PM
prabhakaran is roting in hell..u will also suffer the same
Re: Re: Why cant we NUKE - Srilanka!
by Nostra Damus on Aug 29, 2009 08:57 AM
hey bong - didnt bangladesh ram it up yours
Re: Why cant we NUKE - Srilanka!
by Amit Kumar on Aug 28, 2009 08:28 PM
Perhaps u want to settle ur personal score with Srilankaa.Is it the
demise of Prabhakaran which makes u feel hurted.
Message deleted by moderator
Ask Jastwant Singh!
by jayson moses on Aug 28, 2009 08:13 PM
Its right time to ask Jastwant Singh about it. He will reveal the
secret.
Re: Ask Jastwant Singh!
by Amit Kumar on Aug 28, 2009 08:17 PM
No he won't right now he is dancing with the ghost of Jinnah
NATIONAL HERO!!!!
by Partha Das on Aug 28, 2009 08:12 PM
Shantaram should be hailed a National Hero to come out in the open and
expose the lie that has been buried for so long.We are glad that this
man is speaking out.
Re: NATIONAL HERO!!!!
by jayson moses on Aug 28, 2009 08:14 PM
Economic sanctions for nothing!
Re: NATIONAL HERO!!!!
by Righteous on Aug 28, 2009 08:15 PM
partha das
Right
Re: NATIONAL HERO!!!!
by secret on Aug 28, 2009 11:30 PM
Who is Shantaram???
Re: NATIONAL HERO!!!!
by Amit Kumar on Aug 28, 2009 08:15 PM
It is too early to call him national hero.On wat basis can u say
whether he spoke truth or lie.
Re: Re: NATIONAL HERO!!!!
by Righteous on Aug 28, 2009 08:18 PM
Amit kumar
HOWSOMUCH he is Correct or Incorrect , but his Message is Worth Crores
of Blessing & Love towards this Nation and the DUMB DWELLERS here like
You
Re: Re: Re: NATIONAL HERO!!!!
by Amit Kumar on Aug 28, 2009 08:23 PM
@Righteous
Donot forge Mr Kalam is also considered very cleanHe is also a man
with crores of blessing and love towards nation.So if u raise your
finger towards MR Kalam think twice.thts why I say it would be early
to glorify any one without evidence.
Re: Re: Re: Re: NATIONAL HERO!!!!
by Righteous on Aug 28, 2009 08:30 PM
Amit
Mr.Kalam expertised in Missile Propulsion and was not directly
involved in Tests
Amit
Would You Consult a TV TECHNICIAN for a Problem in Ur AC or
Refrigerator?? ,,, instead of calling an AC Technician
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NATIONAL HERO!!!!
by ramen das on Aug 28, 2009 08:37 PM
u r just repeating what santhanam said in interview...fact is that
Kalam was also very much involved in the project...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NATIONAL HERO!!!!
by Amit Kumar on Aug 28, 2009 08:49 PM
Righteus :It seems you have come to this forum with poor knowledge.U
must know Mr Kalam was also involved with the project.Get the facts
right befor u speak.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NATIONAL HERO!!!!
by Righteous on Aug 28, 2009 08:58 PM
Amit / Ramen
The Issue is that Santhanam and Patriotic Indians don't want India to
Surrender to US
Whether Yeild was "Satisfactory" or not is a Technical expertise Issue
on National Security and this MAY HAVE PERSONAL BEARING ASLO,,what if
few scientists are Not Contended with Result Parameters??
Common Indian shud Take a Note that
1. CTBT not to be signed
2. India MAY require more Tests (even though Morotarium is declared by
the GOI) ,,given the Fact that Western Countries & Russia have already
done SCORES of Underground & under water Tests and thus they have
Achieved Perfection in Fission & Fusion technologies
So this guy...
by YoBro on Aug 28, 2009 08:09 PM | Hide replies
...is as guilty as the others; since he falsified his research
findings.
Re: So this guy...
by shayantan on Aug 28, 2009 11:42 PM
yes...but at least he has the courage and decency to bring the truth
out...albeit later than sooner....its like the hindi saying....subah
ka bhoola, shaam ko ghar laut aya toh....
Some one has to bell the cat
by Govind Lal on Aug 28, 2009 07:56 PM
Mr.Santhanam should be appreciated. Someone has to bell the cat.
If the boss willfully does wrongs others will defnitely follow suit.
WE are aware all that happened about N-deal and other agreements. Is
there any transparency? Even the Parliament was not informed. IN the
last treaty the ASEAN FTA, the govt secretary announced in front of
media that full text of the treaty will put on the internet within 48
hours. How many days has passed after that declaration? Something
decayed is there in the govt. It smells bad.Let the Congress work for
the country. Let people know of it.
Re: Some one has to bell the cat
by Amit Kumar on Aug 28, 2009 08:07 PM
Truth on nuclear deal should be brought in front of Indian
people.Perhaps a debate (with evidence )between Mr.Santhanam and Kalam
should be live on TV.
Re: Some one has to bell the cat
by secret on Aug 28, 2009 11:33 PM
Who will watch it? Indian are busy watching reality(???) shows.
Re: Some one has to bell the cat
by Righteous on Aug 28, 2009 08:04 PM
Govind lal
Good point
keep posting
Re: Re: Some one has to bell the cat
by ram mishra on Aug 28, 2009 08:12 PM
It took 11 years to know that tests were not right. Santhanam's speed
is quite remarkable. He is trying to settle his scores with kalam & R.
chidambaram.LOL
Re: Re: Re: Some one has to bell the cat
by Kanwar Arora on Aug 28, 2009 08:18 PM
hello mr. ram, you shud tell us your opinion since you claim to be
involved with this work ...was it successful or not ??
chhotemianinshallah
September 01, 2009
India reels under explosive nuclear charge
By Neeta Lal
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KI01Df01.html
NEW DELHI - In an explosive revelation that may well have unsavory
foreign policy repercussions, a senior official of India's premier
defense organization - the Defense Research and Development
Organization (DRDO) - who played a pivotal role in orchestrating
India's nuclear program during the Pokhran nuclear tests in 1998, has
declared that the tests that year were a dud and not nearly as
successful as projected to the world.
The declaration by K Santhanam - remarkable as it comes from a top
nuclear scientist directly associated with India's nuclear program -
has stirred a hornet's nest in New Delhi.
The scientific community and political parties - primarily the ruling
United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and its principal right-wing
opposition Bharatiya Janata Party under whose stewardship the tests
were conducted - are scrambling to offer explanations to counter
Santhanam's statement.
Home Minister P Chidambaram said he was "puzzled" by the scientist's
remark and acerbically added, "If you are not, then you are a
genius."
Santhanam's comments were also contested by Brajesh Mishra, national
security advisor in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government (1998-2004)
who said R Chidambaram, then chairman of the Department of Atomic
Energy, had reported to him on May 13, 1998, that all parameters had
been met in the five tests carried out and there was no need to
undertake a sixth one.
Chidambaram has maintained that the Bhabha Atomic Research Center had
done numerous measurements on site during the Pokhran-II experiments,
analyzed global seismic data and the radioactivity in samples
recovered post-shot from near the emplacement points of the nuclear
devices to conclude that the tests were indeed a success. Even
erstwhile president A P J Abdul Kalam, who as director-general of the
DRDO spearheaded the nuclear tests in 1998, said the tests were
"successful".
India conducted five nuclear tests on May 11 and 13, 1998, at the
Pokhran range in the western state of Rajasthan. These included a 45-
kiloton (kt) thermonuclear device, also called a hydrogen bomb. Other
tests on May 11 included a 15-kt fission device and a 0.2-kt sub-
kiloton device. The two simultaneous nuclear tests on May 13 were also
in the sub-kiloton range - 0.5 and 0.3 kt.
According to Santhanam, the yield of thermonuclear explosions was
below par and hence not sufficient to meet India's strategic
requirements. The scientist's contention is that since India still
needs to carry out more tests to fine-tune its nuclear program, it
should not rush to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
Many Western seismic experts, too, had challenged India's claim of a
60-kiloton (kt) yield on May 11 and 700 tons on May 13, 1998. They
approximated that the output was about 10-15 kt on the first day and
about 100 tons later. US intelligence was of the view that India's
claim of testing a "thermonuclear device" actually amounted to no more
than a hydrogen bomb.
The latest revelations have hit like a whiplash at both the Vajpayee-
led government which conducted the tests and Manmohan Singh's current
administration. The Vajpayee government - which had steamrolled world
opinion to go ahead with the nuclear tests within a few months of
coming to power that year - was keen to impress the world with India's
newfound nuclear prowess.
The "dud tests" theory has also complicated things for Singh, and
might even jeopardize his carefully choreographed civilian nuclear
deal signed with the United States last year, which catapulted India
into mainstream international nuclear commerce, that too without
signing the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Santhanam's outburst implies that India requires additional nuclear
testing for its program to be perfected and to gain credibility. This
will obviously be anathema to America as the India-US nuclear
agreement comes with a clear caveat - that another nuclear test would
lead to its abrogation.
Foreign policy experts point out that the nuclear deal is premised on
a waiver to the US's Atomic Energy Act which bars nuclear trade
between the US and countries that are not signatories to the NPT. This
waiver covers only Indian nuclear tests until May 13, 1998. Any fresh
tests would bring the ban on nuclear trade into immediate force.
The exact yield of the thermonuclear explosion is vital to gauge a
country's defense preparedness. This was evident during the heated
debate in the wake of the India-US nuclear deal, when many top
scientists argued that the disincentives the nuclear deal imposed on
testing won't be relevant to India as no further tests were required
for its nuclear program.
Santhanam's assertion might well mess up things for Manmohan on the
CTBT front too. The treaty has gathered immense salience under US
President Barack Obama who, unlike his predecessor George W Bush, is
keen to push the treaty through the senate. If it comes through, India
will again face the same dilemma it did before the Pokhran tests - to
test or not.
Once the CTBT is ratified in the US Congress, probably within a few
months, every other country will toe the line. India, which maintains
that it will not come on board, will then seem recalcitrant if it goes
against the tide of world opinion.
But more than anything else, what this development might do is
seriously undermine India's much-vaunted claim of possessing a world-
class nuclear deterrence capability. It also riddles holes in the
country's nuclear force claims, as the whole idea behind the Pokhran
tests was to strengthen the view that India possessed a credible
nuclear deterrent.
Thus, Santhanam's revelations are likely to have far-reaching
reverberations in the country's security policy. Many attribute
Santhanam's outburst to political motivation. Why else, they argue,
would the scientist feel the need to rake up the issue after 11 years?
Others feel Santhanam has put forth this view now because he's not
keen on India signing the CTBT. The scientist maintains that India
should not rush to sign the treaty before conducting more tests and
augmenting its nuclear weapons program.
Many in the Indian scientific establishment are against India giving
up the option of further tests. They feel it is vital to conduct more
tests to calibrate India's thermonuclear bomb to perfection. Another
theory doing the rounds is that raking up the nuclear tests issue now
may well be a devious ploy to test again.
Neeta Lal is a widely published writer/commentator who contributes to
many reputed national and international print and Internet
publications.
Posted by Naxal Watch at 12:41 AM
chhotemianinshallah
Scientists need to reassure army on H-bomb yield: Ex-Indian Army chief
Agencies
Posted: Sep 06, 2009 at 1448 hrs IST
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, said to a private TV channel.
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 about perceptions that Pakistan had gained
confidence with the steady build up in its arsenal.
"I am absolutely convinced that we need to build our deterrence
capability much more than what we have today," Malik said noting that
the Pakistan gaining confidence after the 1998 nuclear tests was one
of the reasons for the Kargil incursion.
The former Army Chief said that the reported modification of the
Harpoon missiles has brought several cities and key establishments in
the country within the strike range of Pakistani weapons.
bademiyansubhanallah
H-bomb or a fizzle?
PRAFUL BIDWAI
The claim that the May 1998 thermonuclear test failed should not be
used to demand further testing. India does not need hydrogen bombs for
security.
STRANGE are the ways of our nuclear and foreign policy experts and the
defence-science establishment. For four decades, Indian diplomacy has
concentrated on and invested tremendous energies into fighting off and
avoiding any legally binding commitments on arms control and nuclear
disarmament or restraint. The last memorable occasion on which India
did so was in 1996, when the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was
negotiated at the United Nations Conference on Disarmamen t in Geneva.
Having condemned the CTBT as intrinsically unworthy, ineffectual,
unequal and discriminatory, India’s representative Arundhati Ghose
famously declared that India will not sign it, “not now, not ever”.
Yet, Arundhati Ghose, like much of the South Block establishment, now
says just the opposite. India should sign the CTBT if the Treaty, put
into cold storage in the United States under Republican pressure, is
ratified by the Senate, as U.S. President Barack Obama wants it to
do.
Ironically, before it came on the negotiating agenda of the Conference
on Disarmament, India had long held the CTBT, in contrast to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as a model of a universal, non-
discriminatory and equal treaty. But as the crunch came close, India
started hedging. The CTBT was soon reviled as a sham, a facade, and a
trap set by the Nuclear-5 to prevent India from crossing the nuclear
threshold.
Just how hollow was the conviction of many ardent supporters of
India’s “principled” opposition to the CTBT became evident when they
suddenly switched sides to back the Treaty after India blasted its way
into the global nuclear club by conducting the five Pokhran-II tests
of May 1998. Indeed, by 1999, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who
had made the fateful decision to cross the Rubicon – with the consent
of, if not at the behest of, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh – was
signalling that India would consider signing the CTBT.
But if consistency and strength of conviction are not the hallmarks of
our nuclear policymakers, then transparency, internal cohesion and
accountability are not the forte of the designers and makers of
nuclear weapons and other armaments either. The Department of Atomic
Energy (DAE) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation
(DRDO) have long been notorious for announcing targets they rarely
achieve, exceeding generously set cost estimates, and making
extravagant and boastful claims about their “indigenous” technological
prowess and accomplishments.
For instance, the nuclear-propelled submarine, recently released for
trials, was to cost under Rs.1,000 crore when the Advanced Technology
Vessel project was started in 1975. Thirty four years on, the meter
has clocked Rs.30,000 crore. There are credible reports that certain
vital designs and components of the reactor, some precision equipment,
and the technology of miniaturising the reactor came from Russia. No
wonder 143 Russian engineers, designers and consultants who
participated in the project were present at the launch function where
fulsome praise was showered upon Russia’s “cooperation” by Indian
Ministers.
All military and nuclear projects in India are touted as “major
achievements”, no less. More often than not, however, doubts come to
be cast on the veracity of the claims. This is true of the Pokhran
test of 1974, projected as a “major scientific achievement”, whose
explosive yield was officially claimed to be 12 to 14 kilotons (a
kiloton is the equivalent of 1,000 tonnes of TNT, or
trinitrotoluene).
Many independent analysts believe that the actual yield was 2-4 kt.
P.K. Iyengar, former Secretary of the DAE, the principal physicist
involved in the test, later said that the yield was 8-10 kt.
Another important example is the success of the fusion (hydrogen or
thermonuclear) bomb, codenamed Shakti-I, that India claimed to have
tested on May 11, 1998, whose yield was reported to be 43 kt. This was
one of three devices exploded that day, with a combined yield of 50 kt
(revised to 60 kt in February 1999).
Thermonuclear or fusion weapons usually have yields in the megaton
(1,000 kt) range. But DAE Secretary R. Chidambaram said the Shakti-I
yield was kept deliberately low to avert seismic damage to villages in
the vicinity of the test site. He claimed the tests were “perfect” and
“weaponisation is now complete”.
He said that India had conducted its full complement of tests and
“obtained three robust bomb designs” from the explosions. He ruled out
the need to conduct further tests. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, former DRDO
chief and President of India, fully backed him.
Yet, the nuclear establishment was itself divided over assessing the
success of the thermonuclear device. P.K. Iyengar went on record to
say the “secondary” (fusion) assembly probably ignited only partially
– perhaps “less than 10 per cent”. Later A.N. Prasad, a former
Director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, voiced a similar view.
More important, a number of independent scientists and engineers,
including seismologists, nuclear physicists and weapons designers,
analysed the tests, based on seismic data, and concluded that the
total yield of the three May 11 explosions was 10 to 25 kt. According
to the Natural Resources Defence Council of the U.S., the midpoint of
the range of probable yields was only about 12 kt.
In November 1998, Nucleonics Week, the international nuclear
industry’s trade journal, reported, quoting analysts at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory using “classified data”, that “the
second stage” of India’s two-stage hydrogen bomb device “failed to
ignite as planned”. “They strongly believe that the primary stage …
detonated, but its heat failed to ignite the secondary stage.” (For
details, see my book, co-authored with Achin Vanaik, South Asia on a
Short Fuse: Nuclear Politics and the Future of Global Disarmament,
Oxford University Press, 2001.)
Since then, more Western nuclear weapons analysts have cast doubts on
the DAE’s claims. Said one: “The consensus among outside seismic
experts is that the yields of most Indian tests are overstated.”
LACK OF TRANSPARENCY
And now, K. Santhanam, a former senior scientist with the DRDO and a
member of the core team responsible for the Pokhran-II blasts, has
exploded something of a bombshell by saying that the fusion device
tested in 1998 fizzled out, with a yield “much lower than what was
claimed”. Santhanam cited unspecified “seismic measurements” and
“expert opinion” from the world over and went on to argue that India
must conduct more tests and should not sign the CTBT.
Santhanam reportedly aired similar views in closed circles soon after
the 1998 tests. But August 25 was the first time he expressed them,
albeit in a non-attributable conference in Delhi, from where they
leaked out.
Santhanam’s statement raises uncomfortable questions about the working
of the DRDO and the DAE. They clearly lack a culture of transparency
and open debate and have very little internal cohesion despite
secrecy. Santhanam reportedly supported the official line against
further testing all these years because of “functioning pressures”.
At any rate, Santhanam’s statement has ruffled many feathers.
Chidambaram, now the Principal Scientific Adviser to Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh, has challenged him to back his claim with evidence.
Former National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra has said that he was
speaking out of turn, and that the word of his boss, Abdul Kalam,
should be treated as final. And National Security Adviser M.K.
Narayanan has said that the DRDO had nothing to do with the
measurements pertaining to the tests’ yields and that Santhanam is “a
bit of a maverick” with no locus standi in the matter. If he believed
the test failed, “he should have said so [then], not 10 years later”.
Santhanam may be a maverick, but his claim deserves to be debated and
the truth established – with one proviso. The hydrogen bomb device’s
failure should not become an argument for further testing.
There is a powerful case for abolishing nuclear weapons, as this
column has repeatedly argued, but none against further refining them
or going in for weapons that are 100 or 1,000 times more destructive
than the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs. Nuclear weapons do not give
security and it is ludicrous and dangerous to seek it through nuclear
deterrence or a balance of terror.
Even if we leave aside for a moment the morally and strategically
overwhelming argument for nuclear disarmament and only refer to
India’s professed doctrine of minimum nuclear deterrence as the
criterion, it is impossible to make a case for a hydrogen bomb
arsenal. A minimum deterrent is logically understood as a few dozen
fission bombs. One must pause and ask how many bombs it would take to
destroy five Chinese and five Pakistani cities.
The hawks must not be allowed to hijack the issue of security. They
have always demanded more and more powerful bombs, more missiles, more
nuclear-capable warplanes, submarines, surface ships. They always
will. But more is not better in matters nuclear. As the Cold War
demonstrated, amassing more and more nuclear weapons is a recipe for a
runaway arms race, more military spending, greater insecurity, and an
unacceptable, obscene diversion from our real social priorities.
bademiyansubhanallah
Pokhran row
R. RAMACHANDRAN
The controversy over the yields of the Pokhran-II nuclear tests still
rages, with specialists continuing to question the DAE’s
conclusions.
AFP
The Shakti-3 site after a nuclear device was detonated underground on
May 11, 1998. This photograph was released by the Government of India
six days after the test.
SINCE the days of the Shakti series of Pokharan-II underground nuclear
tests, conducted jointly by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and
the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) more than 11
years ago, controversy over the yields of the devices tested, in
particular that of the thermonuclear device, or hydrogen bomb (S1),
has refused to go away.
The devices of May 11, 1998 – S1, S2 and S3 – were exploded
simultaneously as the shafts S1 and S2 were just one kilometre apart
and there was the danger of the shock wave from the first large
explosion damaging the neighbouring shaft and the equipment therein.
Similarly, the sub-kiloton devices of May 13, too, were exploded
simultaneously, apparently for reasons of “convenience and speed”. The
thermonuclear design yield was limited to 45 kt to avoid any damage to
Khetolai village, located 5 km away, the DAE had stated. In a paper
published in 2008 in the journal Atoms for Peace, R. Chidambaram,
former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the leader
of the POK2 tests, claimed that thermonuclear weapons of yields up to
200 kt could be confidently designed on the basis of the S1 test.
Soon after the tests, Western analysts, analysing the data of the
tests as recorded by seismic stations worldwide, began to doubt the
claims of Indian scientists for the combined yields of the May 11
devices and asserted that the actual yields were much lower. These
estimates ranged from 10-15 kt to 20-25 kt. However, on the basis of
correct interpretations of the regional and global seismic data and on-
site measurements of ground accelerations and post-shot radiochemical
analysis of the radioactive debris in the shafts, DAE scientists
countered these estimates through a number of published papers on the
results of the tests that confirm their early estimates (Table 1).
While some well-known experts have concurred with the DAE’s claims,
the controversy has sort of remained unresolved with many specialists
continuing to question the DAE’s analyses and conclusions.
From the DAE’s perspective, the claimed yield values are accurate and
these agreed with the estimates of simulations and design values, thus
rendering the Shakti campaign successful. DAE scientists also claimed
that the tests were sufficient to build a credible minimum deterrent
(CMD) and the data gathered in the tests were sufficient to carry out
sub-critical tests, if required. In sub-critical tests, the fissile
material is prevented from becoming critical and initiating an
explosive chain reaction. Such tests will not be forbidden under a
verifiable Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) if it should come into
force. It was on this basis that the country declared a unilateral
moratorium on testing. Continuation of this moratorium is a
precondition to India’s civil nuclear cooperation agreement with the
United States.
With K. Santhanam, a former DRDO official who was part of the core
group associated with the tests, now stating publicly that the
thermonuclear test was a “fizzle”, fresh fodder has been added to the
controversy. He first made these remarks on August 24 at an in-house
meeting of the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) on the
CTBT. He has since reiterated the statement to the media as well.
“Based upon the seismic measurements and expert opinion from world
over,” Santhanam has been quoted as saying, “it is clear that the
yield in the thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was
claimed. I think it is well documented and that is why I assert that
India should not rush into signing the CTBT.”
Clearly, if there is any credibility to this statement, the
government’s premise on the claimed CMD posture and the vacation of
nuclear threats, its unilateral moratorium on testing as well as its
position on the CTBT would seem shaky. In the wake of President Barack
Obama’s apparent reversal of the U.S. stand on the CTBT, there could
be increasing pressure on India to sign the treaty. What is important
is that Santhanam’s assertion seems to be based on “expert opinion
from world over”. Strangely, he does not wish to rely on measurements
– seismic as well as other – made by Indian agencies and the rebuttals
by DAE scientists of the various external “expert opinions”. His claim
would have been more convincing had he presented any scientific
counter-evidence to the DAE’s claims or challenged its analyses with
an independent set of measurements by the DRDO or by responding to the
DAE’s claims in technical terms.
Domestic criticism of the thermonuclear test had come from none other
than P.K. Iyengar, former AEC Chairman, way back in August 2000. He
wrote: “[T]he fusion core [probably] burnt only partially, perhaps
less than 10 per cent.” This comment has been wrongly interpreted by
various media commentators to mean that the thermonuclear weapon had
fizzled. A thermonuclear weapon has a primary fission (or fusion-
boosted fission) trigger and a secondary fusion containing the solid
lithium deuteride (LiD). Neutrons from the fission are absorbed by Li
in the LiD to yield tritium and helium. The tritium in turn combines
with deuterium in situ and undergoes fusion, releasing large amounts
of energy. Even in the most advanced thermonuclear weapons, efficiency
of the secondary fusion is around 50 per cent.
Arguing that the fusion to fission yield ratio in the Pokhran-II test
must have been at best 1:1, 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. Iyengar reiterated
the argument in a recent article (New Indian Express, September 2). He
has further argued that the fusion yield cannot be derived
unambiguously from radiochemical analysis as the methodology is
complex and subject to large errors. In reality, however, the design
ratio was 2:1, with the yield of the boosted fission trigger being 15
kt. According to Chidambaram, detailed radiochemical analysis, too,
had validated this as well as the total yield (Graph 1).
Now, since both Santhanam and Iyengar were privy neither to the design
of the weapon nor to the details of the radiochemical analysis and
other measurements, their arguments are quite speculative. National
Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan, in fact, said in a recent interview
(The Hindu, August 30): “First and foremost, DRDO has nothing to do
with [this aspect of the] tests…. The measurements are not done by
DRDO.” And, in any case, unlike Santhanam now and many Western
analysts before him, Iyengar has not questioned the yield itself.
Therefore, the question of whether India should conduct more than one
thermonuclear test to improve the efficiency of the weapon and to make
its nuclear deterrent more credible, particularly in the context of
its no first-use policy, and its relevance to India’s stand on the
CTBT, is entirely distinct from the need to do more tests if S1 had
been a fizzle. It may even be argued that the bogey of a thermonuclear
fizzle is now being raised by those who would like India to conduct
more tests and not sign the CTBT. Indeed, as Narayanan said, “I think
we are going to face pressures from the international community… [It]
is going to say that this is one of India’s very devious methods of
preparing for a test, that [our] scientists are saying that was a
fizzle, therefore India may find it necessary to prove itself once
again. This is my worry. I hope it doesn’t happen.”
Irrespective of the unwarranted fallout of the controversy, it is
important to know the exact situation with regard to the yield of the
Pokhran-II tests even if the evidence is not enough to settle the
issue. The only data pertaining to the tests that are globally
available are the seismic signals. On the other hand, data from the
other close-in measurements, namely, on-site accelerometer
measurements of the ground acceleration, CORRTEX (Continuous
Reflectometry for Radius vs Time Experiment) measurement of the two-
way transit time (TWTT) of an electric pulse through a coaxial cable
(which determines the strength of the advancing shock front from the
explosion as a measure of the explosive yield), and the analysis of
radioactivity in the explosion debris are available only to the
agencies involved in the tests. In fact, the radiochemical data and
the capacity to analyse them – considered the most accurate means to
calculate the yield – exist with the DAE only. It is reliably learnt
that though on May 11, 1998, the DRDO set up its own accelerometer to
measure the ground acceleration, the instrument malfunctioned and did
not record the associated waveform correctly. An independent internal
check in this regard, outside the DAE, would have been possible if
this had worked. Much of the controversy with respect to the test
yields has, therefore, naturally arisen from the seismic data, which
were the first to be recorded over the global seismic networks as
signatures of an underground nuclear explosion.
An underground nuclear explosion sends up a shock wave near the point
of detonation and a small portion of the total energy released is
converted into elastic seismic waves. The efficiency with which the
wave energy is transmitted through the medium depends on the nature of
the surrounding medium, the source characteristics and the coupling of
the medium and the source, which depends on the geophysical properties
of the rocks in the vicinity of the explosion site. These seismic
waves travel through the body of the earth and also along its surface.
The former are called body waves, which include both compressional P
waves and shear S waves. P waves travel faster than S waves and also
their frequency content is greater. At short distances (less than
2,000 km) body waves travel through the crust and top portion of the
upper mantle, and these waves are called regional seismic waves.
Beyond 2,000 km, body waves travel through the mantle and the core and
are called teleseismic waves. Surface waves include two groups of
waves, Rayleigh (R) waves and Love (L) waves. At regional distances, a
group of higher mode Rayleigh and Love waves, called Lg waves, arrives
at the detector before the fundamental L and R waves.
The energy of seismic sources – a measure of the yield in the case of
explosions – is measured using a logarithmic magnitude scale. Three
magnitude scales are used: body wave magnitude m(B), surface wave
magnitude m(S) and Lg wave magnitude m(Lg). The yield Y of a nuclear
explosion (in kt) is given by an empirical relation m = a + b log Y,
where a and b are not universal constants but are site specific. To
arrive at the value of explosive yield, one needs to measure the
magnitude and also use site-specific values of the constants a and b.
For m(B) in particular, such well-established relations exist only for
a few well-known testing sites of nuclear weapon states. While a
varies significantly from site to site, b varies in a narrow range
0.75-0.85.
According to S.K. Sikka, one of the key DAE scientists involved in the
Pokhran-II tests, a major reason for Western analysts giving a lower
yield is the arbitrary use of an a value of a known site, such as the
Russian Shagan river site, for an unknown site such as Pokhran. Owing
to the anisotropy and heterogeneities in the earth through which waves
travel, m(B) can vary, and given a logarithmic m-Y relation, yield
estimates would vary considerably even for small differences in m(B).
In practice, assuming that errors in magnitudes arising from
differences in propagation characteristics from the source to
different seismic stations are random, the magnitude of an event is
arrived at by averaging all globally measured m(B) values.
In the case of Pokhran-II, the computation of the average was further
complicated because of the simultaneity of the tests, which causes P
waves emanating from individual explosions to interfere constructively
or destructively depending on the direction of detection with respect
to the source geometry. Sikka and associates showed that owing to the
interference of P waves from the two large signals S1 and S2, the
values of m(B) along the line joining the two shafts (east-west) would
be lower compared with m(B) values along north-south. For Pokhran-II,
the average m(B) estimates of the networks of the International Data
Centre (IDC), Arlington, U.S., and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
are thus smaller, they argued. After making the necessary corrections,
they showed that, as compared to m(B) = 5.0 and 5.2 respectively for
IDC and USGS, the correct average value was 5.4. This gave a combined
yield value for the May 11 tests to be 58±5 kt (Graph 2).
Soon after the Indian announcements of the test yields, Terry Wallace
in Seismological Research Letters (SRL) and Brian Barker and
associates in Science questioned the Indian yields. In fact, these two
papers continue to be cited to challenge the Indian figures. But in
their analysis, Sikka and colleagues had also rebutted their
conclusions. First, Wallace and Barker used the average USGS and the
IDC values of m(B) respectively to calculate the yields, which,
according to Sikka, were inaccurate without including interference
effects.
Moreover, both used the formula for the Shagan river site for Pokhran,
which was inappropriate. DAE scientists pointed out that the Indian
plate was different from the Eurasian plate, and in the absence of a
site-specific m-Y relation for Pokhran, it was more appropriate to use
the formula for the Nevada test site (NTS) (with a = 4.05 instead of
4.45 and b = 0.77) to calculate the Pokhran yields. Using an m(B) of
5.4, this gives 58 kt (Graph 2).
It must be pointed out that while the seismology community has not
accepted the DAE’s argument of interference being significant, there
has not been any convincing rebuttal based on detailed analysis
either. Wallace’s rejection had been rebutted by DAE scientists who
pointed out that his use of USGS stations only amounted to a biased
selection as they lay within a narrow angle with respect to Pokhran
and interference within them would be negligible. In a 2001 analysis
in the Indian journal Current Science, British weapon scientists A.
Douglas and others concluded that the effect was small. But they too
rejected a number of stations as, according to them, their m(B)
measurements were corrupted by the arrival of coincidental
earthquakes.
Since there is a great deal of site-specific uncertainty (in a) in the
determination of the absolute yield from seismic data and b does not
vary significantly in the m-Y relation, the relative yields between
two tests for a given site can be evaluated with much greater
confidence by using the difference in m(B) values and eliminating a.
By measuring the ratio of amplitudes of P waves (see picture) at 13
seismic stations common to both Pokhran-I and II (Table 2), Sikka and
others have calculated the average change in m(B) to be 0.45. This, in
turn, corresponds to a ratio of 4.46 between the yields of Pokhran I
and II. A Pokhran-I yield value of 12-13 kt gives Pokhran-II yield to
be 54-58 kt.
Clearly, this method of estimating the Pokhran-II yield critically
depends on the Pokhran-I yield. It may be recalled that there is
controversy over its value as well. On the basis of an apparent
statement made by Iyengar that the Pokhran-I yield was 8-10 kt, this
is the value that has generally been used by Western analysts instead
of the official figure of 12-13 kt. Some, in fact, believe that it was
less than 5 kt. A figure of 2 kt has also been stated.
Clarifying this to this correspondent, Iyengar said that local
acceleration measurements at Pokhran had given a value of 10 kt,
whereas British weapon scientists had measured an m(B) corresponding
to 8 kt. “Therefore, we were very happy that our device had worked
with an yield in the ballpark we had estimated,” Iyengar said in an e-
mail exchange.
According to Sikka, radiochemical analysis of Pokhran-I had been done
and it gave a value of 12 kt. Based on post-shot data such as cavity
radius, surface velocity and the extent of rock fracturing, an
analysis in 1985 has yielded a value of 12-13 kt. This has been
accepted by some Western analysts on the basis of international m(S)
measurements (Graph 3). But despite this, people like Wallace continue
to use a lower figure for Pokhran-I. Interestingly, however, Wallace
himself was a co-author of a report of the IRIS Consortium to the U.S.
Senate in 1994 that gives a value of 10-15 kt, according to Sikka.
However, in a post-1998 analysis for the Federation of American
Scientists (FAS), Carey Sublette, while generally agreeing with the
arguments of DAE scientists, has pointed out that given Pokhran’s
sandstone and shale strata over a water table, the plot of yield
versus crater morphology fits better with a Pokhran-I value at 8 kt
rather than 13 kt. He then goes on to rely on this value to give a
lower estimate of around 30 kt for Pokhran-II. In a comparative
analysis similar to that of Sikka and Co., Douglas and associates
arrive at 0.37 for the average m(B) difference. This corresponds to a
yield ratio of 3.1. With Pokhran-I at 13 kt, this gives a Pokhran-II
yield of 40 kt. They prefer to use a value of 8 kt and arrive at a
Pokhran-II value of 25 kt.
Given the uncertainties in dealing body wave magnitudes and the
possibility of introducing bias in analysing m(B) values, renowned
seismologist Jack Evernden prefers to use long-period surface waves.
These show less scatter compared with short period P waves. Being
waves of longer wavelength (60 kilometres), they are less influenced
by the small-scale in homogeneities as well as interference effects.
In fact, the relationship is almost independent of the site. Soon
after the Pokhran-II tests, Evernden used USGS’ m(S) value and
calculated the yield to be in agreement with the Indian claims. It
may, however, be pointed out that for Pokhran-II very few stations
reported m(S) values. Using an m(S)-Y formula due to J.R. Murphy, the
value of m(S) = 3.56 estimated by DAE scientists yields a value of 49
kt. Similarly, the use of a formula due to Evernden and G.E. Marsh
yields a value of 52 kt, both of which are consistent with DAE
figures.
Notwithstanding Iyengar’s reservations about the method, the most
reliable estimate comes from the post-shot radiochemical analysis. It
may be pointed out that the U.S. has always relied on radiochemical
analysis for estimating its nuclear test yields, rather than seismic
data. In a 1999 analysis, DAE scientists claimed that the post-shot
radioactivity measurements on samples extracted from the S1 site had
confirmed that the fusion secondary gave the designed yield.
This radioactivity, apart from unburnt fissile and tritium, consists
of (a) fission products from the trigger and the fission component of
the secondary (if present); and, (b) activation products due to the
high-energy (14 MeV) neutrons produced by fusion, such as sodium-22
and manganese-54, which are produced much more in fusion than in
fission. Graph 4 shows the gamma radiation peaks due to fission and
neutron-activation products, which are much higher in the case of the
thermonuclear sample than in the case of pure fission samples (Graph
1).
According to Chidambaram’s Atoms for Peace paper, “a study of this
radioactivity and an estimate of the cavity radius, confirmed by
drilling operations at positions away from ground zero, the total
yield as well as the break-up of the fission and fusion yields could
be calculated.” The yield estimate by this method was 50±10 kt.
But this too does not seem to satisfy Western analysts. According to
Sublette, the radiochemical analysis refers to an entirely different
method. He argued that the DAE method had inherent limitations arising
from the error in measuring the cavity radius. Values lower than the
claimed radius of 40 m would substantially bring down the yield value,
he said. The upshot of the ongoing story is that notwithstanding the
DAE’s detailed arguments and analyses, doubts continue to persist. But
that should not prevent the DAE and the government from carrying out a
totally objective internal evaluation of the success or otherwise of
Pokhran-II.
Since the present AEC Chairman Anil Kakodkar, who was also part of
Pokhran-II team, has stated categorically that no more tests are
needed, the current controversy, one hopes, will not drive the
country’s polity towards more nuclear tests.
chhotemianinshallah
Dangerous liaisons
Thomas Mathew,
September 10, 2009
First Published: 23:20 IST(10/9/2009)
Last Updated: 08:36 IST(11/9/2009)
In light of Pakistan’s ex-Prime Minister, Z A Bhutto’s claim that his
country was prepared to do whatever it took to acquire nuclear
weapons, news that Pakistan has tampered with the US-made Harpoon
missiles and P-3C Orion maritime aircraft for land attack capability
should surprise no one — least of all the US, as this is not the first
time Pakistan has done so.
Graver instances in the past include the altering of F-16 aircraft to
carry n-weapons, in a clear violation of the US Arms Export Control
Act. What’s perturbing is not that Pakistan is tampering with weapons
in its armoury, but that the US continues to arm Pakistan in a manner
that’s reminiscent of the Cold War, contributing to an arms race in
the subcontinent.
During the Cold War, the US may have had some justification for its
supplies to Pakistan, which provided it with important bases and
listening posts to spy on the erstwhile USSR, besides being party to a
series of US security pacts, and was a vital link in Washington’s
schemes to encircle the USSR. But the Cold War is history now, and
India and the US are forging closer military ties. The signing of the
India-US Defence Framework Agreement has taken the relationship almost
to the level of an alliance. Also, the US might soon replace Russia as
our largest defence supplier.
With Indo-US relations improving, it is discouraging that Washington
continues to supply Pakistan with weapons that have little relevance
in the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but are most suited and
likely to be used against India. These include the P-3C Orion maritime
aircraft, AN/TPS-77 surveillance radars, F-16 aircraft with laser-
guided bomb kits and the Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Serving US
officials have testified that the Pakistanis have “focused most of
their equipment acquisitions” against India and not on strengthening
their counter-insurgency capability.
Yet, since 9/11, Pakistan has been the beneficiary of large-scale US
military aid. In 2002-09, such overt assistance alone totalled around
$10.94 billion. The Obama administration has proposed US$ 2.49 billion
for 2010, an increase of nearly 26 per cent over the current year. The
present US arms aid would strengthen Pakistan’s conventional balance
of power against India and also augment its nuclear weapons delivery
capability through the transfer of more F-16 aircraft.
The US is also ‘dramatically’ increasing its economic aid to Pakistan,
even as the latter has an appalling record of diverting non-military
aid for military purposes, amounting to around 80 per cent of the
$11.8 billion. Despite this, Washington is considering tripling its
non-military aid to Islamabad to $7.5 billion over the next five
years. An earlier version of the Bill had sought to make US aid
contingent on Pakistan adhering to important benchmarks to discourage
the misuse of Washington’s assistance; and the dropping of these
conditions even provoked the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Panel, Howard Berman, to remark that the bailout plan for the American
International Group had more onerous conditions than the Bill on US
aid to Pakistan!
Under these circumstances, New Delhi’s quest for US arms could prove
costly, as this would only benefit US defence companies. Worse still,
increasing dependence on US arms, and critical spares, could stymie
any military options in the future that might not have Washington’s
blessings. Thus, India needs to move cautiously till Washington
exhibits more sensitivity to the security concerns of its new-found
strategic partner.
Thomas Mathew is Deputy Director-General, Institute for Defence
Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.
The views expressed by the author are personal
Sid Harth
Indo US Nuclear Deal: Why this hurry and at what cost?
July 7th, 2008 - 2:28 pm ICT by Amrit Rashmisrisethi -
By Sandeep Pandey
Amidst protests against price rises of essential items throughout the
country, the PM Manmohan Singh has again started harping on the issue
of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. The Deal has been pushed forward in India
in an anti-democratic manner without approval of the Parliament - in
fact in the teeth of opposition by a large majority of
parliamentarians. The Deal has the potential of disturbing regional
stability and further distorting India ’s relationships with important
neighbours like China , Pakistan and Iran.
This cannot also but severely undermine the prospects for both
vertical and horizontal non-proliferation and thereby the prospects
for global nuclear disarmament. This allurement also has the danger of
further propelling India towards becoming a junior military ally of
the US and a market to mint profits for its MNCs and also the nuclear
industry of other advanced countries — Russia and France, in
particular.
Most importantly it will be a set back to the environmentally friendly
sustainable ways of meeting our energy requirements. Power from
nuclear energy is a failed project in developed countries and the
eagerness of the Prime Minister to clinch the Deal fails to generate
any enthusiasm among the common people of India . Neither is nuclear
energy a solution to global warming as some experts make it out to be.
On the contrary the entire nuclear fuel cycle is fraught with danger
and exposes human beings to hazardous radiation. The world is yet to
find a safe way for disposal of radioactive waste, a factor which is
constraining the growth of nuclear power programmes in the developed
countries.
The US, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Japan all seem to be reviewing
their nuclear energy programmes and commissioning of new nuclear power
plants in all these countries has almost come to a stand still.
Australia , the biggest supplier of Uranium in the world, is yet to
initiate a nuclear power programme. Everybody has realized there is no
future in nuclear energy. Advanced countries are looking for
alternatives. But because of the parochial vision of our government
the ruling class of this country has become obsessed with the nuclear
option without any clear understanding of its implications. There
seems to be a superficial feeling that this Deal is somehow going to
enhance the stature of India in the community of nations. Hence it is
matter of vanity and false sense of pride with possibly no concrete
benefits for the people of this country.
A Planning Commission study shows that even with the best possible
estimates of capacity addition in power generation after the Deal is
through, the country is not going to increase its share of electricity
from nuclear energy from the present 3% to more than 7-9%. And this
would come at a huge cost — financially and politically. We would be
required to bring our foreign policy in line with the US policy as has
been already exhibited by India being forced to vote against Iran in
the IAEA meeting.
The Indo-US Nuclear Deal is meant to serve the interests of the global
nuclear power industry and is a ploy to keep India away from staking
claims to shrinking fossil fuel reserves in proportion to its large
population so that these reserves may last for some more time for the
rich countries.
The undue importance given to the Indo-US Nuclear Deal as opposed to
the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, even though gas is predicted to
be the major source of power globally for the next two to three
decades, raises questions about the motives of the Indian government.
The most diabolical aspect of the Deal is the increasing military
proximity between the US and India . Joint Indo-US military exercises
have already been going on for the last seven years with the aim of
building interoperability.
A Counter-Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School has been established at
Vairengte in Mizoram. The US Congress has been briefed that in a war
that is being predicted with China in about fifteen years from now,
the US would like to see India on its side. US envisions a military
base for itself on India soil soon.
The increasing militarization of the India State is also being used to
stifle civil liberties and democratic movements in the country. India
must learn a lesson from the history of US military involvement in
various parts of the world which have been left devastated. It is
dangerous to have the US as an enemy but fatal to have as a friend.
The friendship and the elusive geo-political status or possibly a seat
in the Security Council, whatever the Government of India is aspiring
for, is going to come at the cost of loss of sovereignty to the
nation. Our status will be reduced to that of a second rate UK or
Israel .
In the face of unprecedented pressure mounted by the US , the Left
Front, a partner in the UPA alliance, must be congratulated for
successfully stalling the Indo-US Nuclear Deal up till now. The Deal
is now stuck at the stage of finalizing a India specific agreement
with the IAEA. The Left party leaders have displayed foresight in
foiling the US hegemonic designs in South Asia even though they have
yet to take an ideological position against the nuclear power
programme.
Manmohan Singh, who talked about renewable energy for the last time at
NAM meeting two years ago, has directed the Ministry of New and
Renewable Energy to draft an umbrella legislation for promotion and
growth of renewable energy, under duress. It would make more
political, economic and environmental sense for India to pursue a path
of self reliant renewable energy programme for fulfilling its need
rather than the elusive nuclear energy for which we’ll always be at
the mercy of external agencies. But then India will have to give up
its own hegemonic designs of acting as a regional military super
power.
Clean source of energy will have to be accompanied by clean politics.
India will have to work on the agenda of regional peace, disarmament
and stability rather than converting it into a region of warfare. If
Manmohan Singh embarks on this twin objective programme, he would be
remembered for his wisdom more than he would be if he were to finalize
the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. He would favourably alter the course of
history of not only this nation but also possibly the world towards a
cleaner, safer and secure future.
Dr Sandeep Pandey
(The author is a Ramon Magsaysay Awardee (2002) for emergent
leadership, heads the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM)
and did his PhD from University of California, Berkeley in control
theory which is applicable in missile technology. He can be contacted
at: ashaa...@yahoo.com)
Sid Harth
List of states with nuclear weapons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nuclear-armed states
China · France · India
Israel · North Korea · Pakistan
Russia · South Africa†
United Kingdom · United States
† No longer possesses
nuclear weapons.
This box: view • talk • edit
Nations that are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons are
sometimes referred to as the nuclear club. There are currently nine
states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are
considered to be "nuclear weapons states" (NWS), an internationally
recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the
United States, Russia (successor state to the Soviet Union), the
United Kingdom, France, and China.
Since the NPT entered into force in 1970, three states that were not
parties to the Treaty have conducted nuclear tests, namely India,
Pakistan, and North Korea. North Korea had been a party to the NPT but
withdrew in 2003. Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear
weapons, though it has refused to confirm or deny this.[1] The status
of these nations is not formally recognized by international bodies as
none of them are currently parties to the NPT. South Africa has the
unique status of a nation which developed nuclear weapons but has
since disassembled its arsenal before joining the NPT.
In 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors found Iran in non-compliance with
its NPT safeguards agreement[2][3] in a rare non-consensus decision.
[4] The UN Security Council imposed sanctions against Iran three times
when it refused to suspend its previously undeclared enrichment.[5][6]
[7][8] Iran has argued that the sanctions are illegal[9] and compel it
to abandon its rights under the NPT to peaceful nuclear technology.[5]
IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei states the agency is unable to resolve
"outstanding issues of concerns" while also noting the Agency has "not
seen any diversion of nuclear materials... nor the capacity to produce
weapons usable materials".[10]
Contents [hide]
1 Estimated worldwide nuclear stockpiles
2 Five nuclear weapons states from the NPT
3 Other known nuclear powers
4 Undeclared nuclear states
5 States alleged to have nuclear weapons programs
6 Nuclear weapons sharing
7 States formerly possessing nuclear weapons
7.1 Former Soviet countries
8 See also
9 References
10 External links
Estimated worldwide nuclear stockpiles
Map of nuclear weapons countries of the world.
NPT Nuclear Weapon States (China, France, Russia, UK, US)
Non-NPT Nuclear Weapon States (India, North Korea, Pakistan)
Undeclared Nuclear Weapon States (Israel)
States accused of having nuclear weapon programs (Iran, Syria)
NATO weapons sharing weapons recipients
States formerly possessing nuclear weaponsThe following is a list
of states that have admitted the possession of nuclear weapons, the
approximate number of warheads under their control in 2002, and the
year they tested their first weapon. This list is informally known in
global politics as the "Nuclear Club". With the exception of Russia
and the United States (which have subjected their nuclear forces to
independent verification under various treaties) these figures are
estimates, in some cases quite unreliable estimates. Also, these
figures represent total warheads possessed, rather than deployed. In
particular, under the SORT treaty thousands of Russian and U.S.
nuclear warheads are in inactive stockpiles awaiting processing. The
fissile material contained in the warheads can then be recycled for
use in nuclear reactors.
From a high of 65,000 active weapons in 1985, there were about 20,000
active nuclear weapons in the world in 2002. Many of the
"decommissioned" weapons were simply stored or partially dismantled,
not destroyed.[11] As of 2007, the total number was expected to
continue to decline by 30%-50% over the next decade.
Weapons of
mass destruction
By type
Biological
Chemical
Nuclear
Radiological
By country
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
PR China
France
Germany
India
Iran
Iraq
Israel Japan
Netherlands
North Korea
Pakistan
Poland
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Sweden
Syria
Taiwan (ROC)
United Kingdom
United States
List of treaties
v • d • e
Country Warheads active/total* Year of first test
Five nuclear weapons states from the NPT
United States 2,623 / 9,400[12] 1945 ("Trinity")
Russia (former Soviet Union) 4,840 / 13,000[12] 1949 ("RDS-1")
United Kingdom 160 / 185[12] 1952 ("Hurricane")
France 300 / 300[12] 1960 ("Gerboise Bleue")
China 180 / 240[12] 1964 ("596")
Non-NPT nuclear powers
India n.a. / 60-80[12] 1974 ("Smiling Buddha")
Pakistan n.a. / 70-90[12] 1998 ("Chagai-I")
North Korea n.a. / <10[12] 2006 (2006 test)
States accused of having nuclear weapons
Israel n.a. / 80[12] unknown or 1967 (See Vela Incident)
*All numbers are estimates from the Natural Resources Defense Council,
published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, unless other
references are given. If differences between active and total
stockpile are known, they are given as two figures separated by a
forward slash. If specifics are not available (n.a.), only one figure
is given. Stockpile number may not contain all intact warheads if a
substantial amount of warheads are scheduled for but have not yet gone
through dismantlement; not all "active" warheads are deployed at any
given time. When a range of weapons is given (e.g., 0–10), it
generally indicates that the estimate is being made on the amount of
fissile material that has likely been produced, and the amount of
fissile material needed per warhead depends on estimates of a
country's proficiency at nuclear weapon design.
Five nuclear weapons states from the NPT
See also: History of nuclear weapons
An early stage in the "Trinity" fireball, the first nuclear explosion,
1945.
U.S. and USSR/Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles, 1945–2006.
A Trident missile launched from a Royal Navy Vanguard class ballistic
missile submarine.
French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and the
American nuclear-powered carrier USS Enterprise (left), each of which
carries nuclear-capable fighter aircraft United States
Main article: Nuclear weapons and the United States
The United States developed the first atomic weapons during World War
II in co-operation with the United Kingdom and Canada as part of the
Manhattan Project, out of the fear that Nazi Germany would develop
them first. It tested the first nuclear weapon in 1945 ("Trinity"),
and remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons against
another nation, during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It was the first nation to develop the hydrogen bomb, testing an
experimental version in 1952 ("Ivy Mike") and a deployable weapon in
1954 ("Castle Bravo"). Throughout the Cold War it continued to
modernize and enlarge its nuclear arsenal, but from 1992 on has been
involved primarily in a program of Stockpile stewardship.[13][14][15]
See also: United States and weapons of mass destruction#Nuclear
weapons
Russia
Main article: Military history of the Soviet Union#The Cold War and
nuclear weapons
The Soviet Union tested its first nuclear weapon ("Joe-1") in 1949, in
a crash project developed partially with espionage obtained during and
after World War II (see: Soviet atomic bomb project). The USSR was the
second nation to have developed and tested a nuclear weapon. The
direct motivation for their weapons development was the development of
a balance of power during the Cold War. It tested its first megaton-
range hydrogen bomb in 1955 ("RDS-37"). The Soviet Union also tested
the most powerful explosive ever detonated by humans, ("Tsar Bomba"),
with a theoretical yield of 100 megatons, intentionally reduced to 50
when detonated. After its dissolution in 1991, the Soviets' weapons
entered officially into the possession of Russia.[16]
See also: Russia and weapons of mass destruction#Nuclear weapons
United Kingdom
Main articles: Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom and United
Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction
The United Kingdom tested its first nuclear weapon ("Hurricane") in
1952, drawing largely on data gained while collaborating with the
United States during the Manhattan Project. The UK was the first
nation in Western Europe to have developed and tested a nuclear
weapon. Its program was motivated to have an independent deterrent
against the USSR, while also remaining relevant in Cold War Europe. It
tested its first hydrogen bomb in 1957.[17][18] It maintains the
Trident ballistic missile fleet of four 'Vanguard' class nuclear-
powered submarines. The British government controversially announced a
replacement to the current Trident system to take place over the next
decade (see British replacement of the Trident system).
France
Main article: France and weapons of mass destruction
France tested its first nuclear weapon in 1960 ("Gerboise Bleue"),
based mostly on its own research. It was motivated by the Suez Crisis
diplomatic tension vis-à-vis both the USSR and the Free World allies
United States and United Kingdom. It was also relevant to retain great
power status, alongside the United Kingdom, during the post-colonial
Cold War (see: Force de frappe). France tested its first hydrogen bomb
in 1968 ("Opération Canopus"). After the Cold War, France has disarmed
175 warheads with the reduction and modernization of its arsenal that
has now evolved to a dual system based on submarine-launched ballistic
missiles (SSBN) and medium-range air-to-surface missiles (Rafale
fighter-bombers). However new nuclear weapons are in development and
reformed nuclear squadrons were trained during Enduring Freedom
operation in Afghanistan. In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac
stated a terrorist act or the use of weapons of mass destruction
against France would result in a nuclear counterattack.[19]
China
Main article: People's Republic of China and weapons of mass
destruction
China tested its first nuclear weapon device in 1964 ("596") at the
Lop Nur test site. The weapon was developed as a deterrent against
both the United States and the USSR. China would manage to develop a
fission bomb capable of being put onto a nuclear missile only two
years after its first detonation. It tested its first hydrogen bomb in
1967 ("Test No. 6"), a mere 32 months after testing its first nuclear
weapon (the shortest fission-to-fusion development known in history).
[20] The country is currently thought to have had a stockpile of
around 240 warheads, though because of the limited information
available, estimates range from 100 to 400.[21][22][23] China is the
only nuclear weapons state to give an unqualified negative security
assurance to non-nuclear weapon states and the only one to adopt a "no
first use" policy.[24]
Other known nuclear powers
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)
Parts of this article (those related to section) may no longer be up
to date. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly
available information, and remove this template when finished. Please
see the talk page for more information. (June 2009)
Large stockpile with global range (dark blue), smaller stockpile with
global range (medium blue), small stockpile with regional range (pale
blue).
An Indian Agni-III Intermediate range ballistic missile displayed at
the Republic Day Parade 2008. India
Main article: India and weapons of mass destruction
India has never been a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
India tested what it called a "peaceful nuclear explosive" in 1974
(which became known as "Smiling Buddha"). The test was the first test
developed after the creation of the NPT, and created new questions
about how civilian nuclear technology could be diverted secretly to
weapons purposes (dual-use technology). India's secret development
caused great concern and anger particularly from nations that had
supplied it nuclear reactors for peaceful and power generating needs
such as Canada. It appears to have been primarily motivated as a
general deterrent, as well as an attempt to project India as regional
power. India later tested weaponized nuclear warheads in 1998
("Operation Shakti"), including a thermonuclear device.[25] In July
2005, U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh announced plans to conclude a Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement.
[26] This came to fruition through a series of steps that included
India’s announced plan to separate its civil and military nuclear
programs in March 2006,[27] the passage of the United States-India
Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act by the U.S. Congress in
December 2006, the conclusion of a U.S.-India nuclear cooperation
agreement in July 2007,[28] approval by the IAEA of an India-specific
safeguards agreement,[29] agreement by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to
a waiver of export restrictions for India,[30] approval by the U.S.
Congress[31] and culminating in the signature of U.S.-India agreement
for civil nuclear cooperation[32] in October 2008. The U.S. State
Department said it made it "very clear that we will not recognize
India as a nuclear-weapon state".[33] The United States is bound by
the Hyde Act with India and may cease all cooperation with India if
India detonates a nuclear explosive device. The US had further said it
is not its intention to assist India in the design, construction or
operation of sensitive nuclear technologies through the transfer of
dual-use items.[34] In establishing an exemption for India, the
Nuclear Suppliers Group reserved the right to consult on any future
issues which might trouble it.[35]
As of September 2005, India was estimated to have had a stockpile of
around 100-140 warheads.[36] In addition, Defense News reported in
their November 1, 2004 edition, that "[an Indian] Defence Ministry
source told Defense News in late 2004 that in the next five to seven
years India will have 300–400 nuclear and thermonuclear weapons
distributed to air, sea, and land forces." It has estimated that India
currently possesses enough separated plutonium to produce and maintain
an arsenal of 1,000-2,000 warheads.[37] According to the calculations
of one of the key advisers to the US Nuclear deal negotiating team,
Ashley Tellis:
Operating India’s eight unsafeguarded PHWRs in such a [conservative]
regime would bequeath New Delhi with some 12,135–13,370 kilograms of
weapons-grade plutonium, which is sufficient to produce between 2,023–
2,228 nuclear weapons over and above those already existing in the
Indian arsenal. Although no Indian analyst, let alone a policy maker,
has ever advocated any nuclear inventory that even remotely
approximates such numbers, this heuristic exercise confirms that New
Delhi has the capability to produce a gigantic nuclear arsenal while
subsisting well within the lowest estimates of its known uranium
reserves.
Pakistan
Main article: Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction
Pakistan is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
either. Pakistan covertly developed nuclear weapons over many decades,
beginning in the late 1970s. Pakistan first delved into nuclear power
after the establishment of its first nuclear power plant near Karachi
with equipment and materials supplied mainly by western nations in the
early 1970s. Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto promised in
1965 that if India built nuclear weapons Pakistan would too, "even if
we have to eat grass." It is nearly certain that China only supplied
(sold) 5000[38] critical ring magnets to Pakistan in the early 1980s,
and enabled Pakistan to have a rudimentary nuclear weapons capability
by the end of the 1980s. The United States continued to certify that
Pakistan did not possess nuclear weapons until 1990, when sanctions
were imposed under the Pressler Amendment, requiring a cutoff of U.S.
economic and military assistance to Pakistan.[39] In 1998, Pakistan
conducted its first nuclear tests at the Chagai Hills, in response to
the tests conducted by India a few weeks before.
North Korea
Main article: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction
North Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but
announced a withdrawal on January 10, 2003 after the United States
accused it of having a secret uranium enrichment program and cut off
energy assistance under the 1994 Agreed Framework. In February 2005
they claimed to possess functional nuclear weapons, though their lack
of a test at the time led many experts to doubt the claim. However, in
October 2006, North Korea stated that due to growing intimidation by
the USA, it would conduct a nuclear test to confirm its nuclear
status. North Korea reported a successful nuclear test on October 9,
2006 (see 2006 North Korean nuclear test). Most U.S. intelligence
officials believe that North Korea did, in fact, test a nuclear device
due to radioactive isotopes detected by U.S. aircraft; however, most
agree that the test was probably only partially successful.[40] The
yield may have been less than a kiloton, which is much smaller than
the first successful tests of other powers; however, boosted fission
weapons may have an unboosted yield in this range, which is sufficient
to start deuterium-tritium fusion in the boost gas at the center; the
fast neutrons from fusion then ensure a full fission yield. North
Korea conducted a second, higher yield test on May 25, 2009 (see 2009
North Korean nuclear test).
Undeclared nuclear states
On October 5, 1986, the British newspaper The Sunday Times ran
Mordechai Vanunu's story on its front page under the headline:
"Revealed – the secrets of Israel's nuclear arsenal." Israel
Main article: Nuclear weapons and Israel
Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and
refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or
having developed nuclear weapons, or even having a nuclear weapons
program. Israel has pledged not to be the first country to introduce
nuclear weapons into the region, but is also pursuing a policy of
strategic ambiguity with regard to their possession. In the late
1960s, Israeli Ambassador to the US Yitzhak Rabin informed the United
States State Department, that its understanding of "introducing" such
weapons meant that they would be tested and publicly declared, while
merely possessing the weapons did not constitute "introducing" them.
[41] Although Israel claims that the Negev Nuclear Research Center
near Dimona is a "research reactor", or, as was originally claimed, a
"textile factory," no scientific reports based on work done there have
ever been published. Extensive information about the program in Dimona
was also disclosed by technician Mordechai Vanunu in 1986.
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation
of American Scientists, Israel possesses around 75–200 weapons.[42]
Imagery analysts can identify weapon bunkers, mobile missile
launchers, and launch sites in satellite photographs. Israel may have
tested a nuclear weapon along with South Africa in 1979, but this has
never been confirmed (see Vela Incident).
On May 26, 2008, former US president Jimmy Carter stated that Israel
has “150 or more nuclear warheads” at a press conference at the annual
literary Hay festival in Wales.[43]
States alleged to have nuclear weapons programs
Below are countries which have been accused by Israel or the United
States of currently attempting to develop nuclear weapons technology.
Iran
Main article: Iran and weapons of mass destruction#Nuclear weapons
A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate of December 3, 2007 judged with
"high confidence" that Iran had an active nuclear weapons program
which was halted in fall 2003 and with "moderate confidence" that it
remained halted as of mid-2007. The estimate further judged that US
intelligence did not know whether Iran intended "to develop nuclear
weapons," but that "Iran probably would be technically capable of
producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon sometime
during the 2010-2015 time frame" if it decides to do so.[44] IAEA
Director General ElBaradei noted in particular that the Estimate
tallies with the Agency's consistent statements over the last few
years that "although Iran still needs to clarify some important
aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the Agency has no
concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared
nuclear facilities in Iran."[45] Iran's representative to the UN has
explained that Iran categorically rejects the development of nuclear
weapons and Iran is guaranteed the right to peaceful nuclear
technology under the NPT.[5]
Syria
Main article: Syria and weapons of mass destruction
On September 6, 2007, Israel bombed an officially unidentified site in
Syria which it later asserted was a nuclear reactor under construction
(see Operation Orchard).[46] The alleged nuclear reactor was not yet
operational and no nuclear material had been introduced into it.[47]
Top U.S. intelligence officials claimed low confidence that the site
was meant for weapons development, noting that there was no
reprocessing facility at the site.[48] Press reports[49] indicated the
air strike followed a shipment delivery to Syria by a North Korean
freighter, and that North Korea was suspected to be supplying a
reactor to Syria for an alleged nuclear weapons program. On October
24, 2007 the Institute for Science and International Security released
a report[50] which identified a site next to the Euphrates River in
eastern Syria's Deir ez-Zor Governorate province, about 11 kilometers
north of the village of At Tibnah, at 35°42′27.05″N
39°49′58.83″E / 35.7075139°N 39.8330083°E / 35.7075139;
39.8330083 ), as the suspected reactor. The building appeared to match
the external structure of the North Korean 5 megawatt reactor at
Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center, and is surrounded by a
security barrier and hidden within a small side canyon off the main
river valley. After refusing to comment on the reports for six months,
the White House briefed Congress and the IAEA on April 24, 2008,
saying that the U.S. Government was "convinced" that Syria had been
building a "covert nuclear reactor" that was "not intended for
peaceful purposes."[51] Syria denounced "the fabrication and forging
of facts" in regards to the incident.[52] IAEA Director General
Mohamed ElBaradei criticized the strikes and deplored that information
regarding the matter had not been shared with his agency earlier.[48]
Myanmar
A report in the `Sydney Morning Herald' and Searchina, a Japanese
newspaper, report that two Myanmarese defectors saying that the
Myanmar junta was secretly building a nuclear reactor and plutonium
extraction facility with North Korea's help, with the aim of acquiring
its first nuclear bomb in five years. According to the report, "The
secret complex, much of it in caves tunnelled into a mountain at Naung
Laing in northern Burma, runs parallel to a civilian reactor being
built at another site by Russia that both the Russians and Burmese say
will be put under international safeguards."[53]
In 2002, Myanmar had notified IAEA of its intention to pursue a
civilian nuclear programme. Later, Russia announced that it would
build a nuclear reactor in Myanmar. There have also been reports that
two Pakistani scientists, from the AQ Khan stable, had been dispatched
to Myanmar where they had settled down, to help Myanmar's project.
[citation needed]
Recently, the David Albright-led Institute for Science and
International Security rang alarm bells about Myanmar attempting a
nuclear project with North Korean help.[citation needed]
If true, the full weight of international pressure will be brought
against Myanmar, said officials familiar with developments. But
equally, the information that has been peddled by the defectors is
also "preliminary" and could be used by the west to turn the screws on
Myanmar -- on democracy and human rights issues -- in the run-up to
the elections in the country in 2010.[citation needed]
During an ASEAN meeting in Thailand last week, US secretary of state
Hillary Clinton highlighted concerns of the North Korean link. "We
know there are also growing concerns about military cooperation
between North Korea and Burma which we take very seriously," Clinton
said.[54]
Nuclear weapons sharing
Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones Nuclear weapons states
Nuclear sharing Neither, but NPT Belgium, Germany, Italy,
Netherlands, Turkey, and historically Canada, Greece
Main article: Nuclear sharing
Under NATO nuclear weapons sharing, the United States has provided
nuclear weapons for Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and
Turkey to deploy and store.[55] This involves pilots and other staff
of the "non-nuclear" NATO states practicing handling and delivering
the U.S. nuclear bombs, and adapting non-U.S. warplanes to deliver
U.S. nuclear bombs. Until 1984 Canada also received shared nuclear
weapons, and until 2001, Greece.[56] Members of the Non-Aligned
Movement have called on all countries to "refrain from nuclear sharing
for military purposes under any kind of security arrangements."[57]
The Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (ISSI) has criticized the
arrangement for allegedly violating Article I and II of the NPT,
arguing that "these Articles do not permit the NWS to delegate the
control of their nuclear weapons directly or indirectly to
others."[58] NATO has argued that the weapons' sharing is compliant
with the NPT because "the U.S. nuclear weapons based in Europe are in
the sole possession and under constant and complete custody and
control of the United States."[59]
States formerly possessing nuclear weapons
Nuclear weapons have been present in many nations, often as staging
grounds under control of other powers. However, in only a few
instances have nations given up nuclear weapons after being in control
of them; in most cases this has been because of special political
circumstances. The fall of the USSR, for example, left several former
Soviet-bloc countries in possession of nuclear weapons.
Spare bomb casings from South Africa's nuclear weapon programme South
Africa
Main article: South Africa and weapons of mass destruction
South Africa produced six nuclear weapons in the 1980s, but
disassembled them in the early 1990s. In 1979, there was a putative
detection of a clandestine nuclear test in the Indian Ocean, and it
has long been speculated that it was potentially a test by South
Africa, perhaps in collaboration with Israel, though this has never
been confirmed (see Vela Incident). South Africa signed the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1991.[60]
Former Soviet countries
Belarus had 81 single warhead missiles stationed on its territory
after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. They were all transferred to
Russia by 1996. Belarus has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.[61]
Kazakhstan inherited 1,400 nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union, and
transferred them all to Russia by 1995. Kazakhstan has signed the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[62]
Ukraine has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Ukraine
inherited about 5,000 nuclear weapons when it became independent from
the USSR in 1991, making its nuclear arsenal the third-largest in the
world.[63] By 1996, Ukraine had voluntarily disposed of all nuclear
weapons within its territory, transferring them to Russia.[64]
See also
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
Nuclear disarmament
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Nuclear proliferation
Nuclear war
Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone
References
^ "Calls for Olmert to resign after nuclear gaffe Israel and the
Middle East | Guardian Unlimited". Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1970616,00.html. Retrieved
2009-05-15.
^ "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic
Republic of Iran", IAEA Board of Governors, September 2005.
^ "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic
Republic of Iran", IAEA Board of Governors, February 2006.
^ "ASIL Insight - Iran’s Resumption of its Nuclear Program: Addendum".
Asil.org. http://www.asil.org/insights/2005/09/insights050929.html.
Retrieved 2009-05-15.
^ a b c "Security Council Imposes Sanctions on Iran for failure to
halt Uranium Enrichment, Unanimously adopting Resolution 1737 (2006)".
2006-12-23. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8928.doc.htm.
^ "Security Council tightens sanctions against Iran over uranium
enrichment". 2007-03-24. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21997&Cr=Iran&Cr1.
^ "Security Council Tightens Restrictions on Iran’s Proliferation-
Sensitive Nuclear Activities, Increases Vigilance Over Iranian Banks,
Has States Inspect Cargo". Un.org. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9268.doc.htm.
Retrieved 2009-05-15.
^ "UN Security Council demands that Iran suspend nuclear activities".
UN News Centre. 2006-07-31. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19353&Cr=iran&Cr1=.
^ "IAEA INFCIRC/724: Communication from Iran (28 March 2008)" (PDF).
2008-03-28. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2008/infcirc724.pdf.
^ "Director General Briefs Press On Iran/DPRK". IAEA Staff Report.
2006-07-31. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/dg_iran-dprk.html.
^ Webster, Paul (July/August 2003). "Just like old times," Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists 59:4: 30–35.
^ a b c d e f g h i "Federation of American Scientists: Status of
world nuclear forces, April 2009". Fas.org.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html.
Retrieved 2009-05-15.
^ Hansen, Chuck (1988). U.S. nuclear weapons: The secret history.
Arlington, TX: Aerofax. ISBN 0-517-56740-7.
^ Hansen, Chuck (1995). The Swords of Armageddon: U.S. nuclear weapons
development since 1945. Sunnyvale, CA: Chukelea Publications.
http://www.uscoldwar.com/.
^ Stephen I. Schwartz, ed., Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences
of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940 (Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution Press, 1998).
^ Holloway, David (1994). Stalin and the bomb: The Soviet Union and
atomic energy, 1939-1956. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN
0-300-06056-4.
^ Gowing, Margaret (1974). Independence and deterrence: Britain and
atomic energy, 1945-1952. London: Macmillan. ISBN 0333157818.
^ Arnold, Lorna (2001). Britain and the H-bomb. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
ISBN 0312235186.
^ France 'would use nuclear arms' (BBC, January 2006)
^ John Wilson Lewis and Xue Litai, China Builds the Bomb (Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1988). ISBN 0804714525
^ [1][2][3]
^ Norris, Robert S. and Hans M. Kristensen. "Chinese nuclear forces,
2006," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 62:3 (May/June 2006): 60-63.
^ Lewis, Jeffery. "The ambiguous arsenal," Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists 61:3 (May/June 2005): 52-59.
^ http://nuclearthreatinitiative.org/db/china/nfuorg.htm
^ "India's Nuclear Weapons Program: Operation Shakti". 1998.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaShakti.html. Retrieved
2006-10-10.
^ "Joint Statement Between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh". Whitehouse.gov.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050718-6.html.
Retrieved 2009-05-15.
^ Implementation of the India-United States Joint Statement of July
18, 2005: India’s Separation Plan
^ U.S.- India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative – Bilateral
Agreement on Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation
^ "IAEA Board Approves India-Safeguards Agreement". Iaea.org.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/board010808.html. Retrieved
2009-05-15.
^ Statement on Civil Nuclear Cooperation with India
^ Congressional Approval of the U.S.-India Agreement for Cooperation
Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (123 Agreement)
^ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Indian Minister of External
Affairs Pranab Mukherjee At the Signing of the U.S.-India Civilian
Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
^ Interview With Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security Robert Joseph, Arms Control Today, May 2006.
^ Was India misled by America on nuclear deal?, Indian Express.
^ ACA: Final NSG Statement
^ Norris, Robert S. and Hans M. Kristensen. "India's nuclear forces,
2005," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 61:5 (September/October
2005): 73–75.
^ Tellis, Ashley. "Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear
Cooperation and India's Nuclear Arsenal" (PDF). pp. P.31-P.36.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf.
^ "Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program - Present Capabilities".
Nuclearweaponarchive.org. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Pakistan/PakArsenal.html.
Retrieved 2009-05-15.
^ "Case Studies in Sanctions and Terrorism: Pakistan". Iie.com.
http://www.iie.com/research/topics/sanctions/pakistan.cfm. Retrieved
2009-05-15.
^ "CIA's Hayden: North Korea Nuke Test 'Was a Failure'". Newsmax.com.
2007-03-28. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/3/28/83234.shtml.
Retrieved 2009-05-15.
^ Avner Cohen and William Burr, "The Untold Story of Israel's Bomb,"
Washington Post, April 30, 2006; B01.
^ Israel's Nuclear Weapons, Federation of American Scientists (August
17, 2000)
^ "Middle East | Israel 'has 150 nuclear weapons'". BBC News.
2008-05-26. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7420573.stm.
Retrieved 2009-05-15.
^ Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities (National Intelligence
Estimate)
^ Statement by IAEA Director General on New U.S. Intelligence Estimate
on Iran (4 December 2007), IAEA.org
^ 6 September 2007 Air strike at globalsecurity.org. Retrieved October
24, 2007.
^ IAEA: Statement by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei regarding
Syria[dead link]
^ a b "IAEA slams U.S. for withholding data on alleged Syrian nuclear
reactor". Haaretz.com. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/978043.html.
Retrieved 2009-05-15.
^ N. Korea, Syria May Be at Work on Nuclear Facility, Glenn Kessler,
Washington Post, Thursday, September 13, 2007; Page A12
^ Suspect Reactor Construction Site in Eastern Syria: The site of the
September 6 Israeli Raid?, David Albright and Paul Brannan, October
23, 2007
^ "Statement by the Press Secretary". Whitehouse.gov.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080424-14.html.
Retrieved 2009-05-15.
^ "Syria rejects U.S. allegations on existence of nuclear activities".
News.xinhuanet.com. 2008-04-25. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/25/content_8050478.htm.
Retrieved 2009-05-15.
^ Searchina, "Reasons for digging tunnels in Burma", August 11, 2009.
^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/World/Rest-of-World/Myanmar-building-nuke-reactor-says-media-report/articleshow/4846971.cms
^ "Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security: NATO Nuclear
Sharing and the N.PT - Questions to be Answered". Bits.de.
http://www.bits.de/public/researchnote/rn97-3.htm. Retrieved
2009-05-15.
^ Hans M. Kristensen (February 2005), U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe,
Natural Resources Defense Council, http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro.pdf,
retrieved 2006-05-23
^ Statement on behalf of the non-aligned state parties to the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 2 May 2005
^ ISSI - NPT in 2000: Challenges ahead, Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, The
Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad
^ NATO's Positions Regarding Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Arms Control
and Disarmament and Related Issues, NATO, June 2005
^ Nuclear Weapons Program (South Africa), Federation of American
Scientists (May 29, 2000).
^ Belarus Special Weapons, Federation of American Scientists
^ Kazakhstan Special Weapons, Federation of American Scientists
^ Ukraine Special Weapons, GlobalSecurity.org
^ Ukraine Special Weapons, Federation of American Scientists
External links
Archive of Nuclear Data - List of warheads by country
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp
Nuclear Threat Initiative
http://www.nti.org/index.php
Globalsecurity.org – World Special Weapons Guide
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/index.html
The Nuclear Weapon Archive
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/
Nuclear Notebook, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
http://www.thebulletin.org/
U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe: A review of post-Cold War policy,
force levels, and war planning NRDC, February 2005
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/contents.asp
Pakistani Nuclear Development
Removed
Online NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:Tracking Nuclear Proliferation
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/military/proliferation/
bademiyansubhanallah
Experts say Iran can make nuclear bomb
STAFF WRITER 12:39 HRS IST
Vienna, Sept 18 (AP) Iran experts at the UN nuclear monitoring agency
believe Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and worked on
developing a missile system that can carry an atomic warhead,
according to a report.
The document drafted by the International Atomic Energy Agency is the
clearest indication that those officials share Washington's views on
Iran's weapon-making capabilities and missile technology, even if they
have not made them public.
The document, titled "Possible Military Dimension of Iran's Nuclear
Program," appeared to be the so-called IAEA "secret annex" on Iran's
alleged nuclear arms programme that the US, France, Israel and other
IAEA members say is being withheld by agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei,
claims the nuclear watchdog denies.
It is a record of IAEA findings since the agency began probing Iran's
nuclear programme in 2007 and has been continuously updated.
chhotemianinshallah
Pokhran II : Why the US missed India's nuclear tests
WASHINGTON, May 12 - Despite a $27 billion budget and a galaxy of spy
Satellite Imaging Capability
Televised Announcement
Clinton Warned
---------- Post added at 11:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at
11:00 AM ----------
The detection of the test preparations by American satellites in 1995,
had taught a lesson to the Indian scientists. It was decided that
preparations for the May 1998 tests should be undertaken under a cloud
of secrecy so that foreign powers could not detect the preparations
and try to pressure the government. Extensive measures were taken in
order to deceive intelligence agencies around the world. The decision
to test was not disclosed even to senior cabinet ministers. The
preparations were managed by a closed group of scientists, military
officers and politicians.
Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, the Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister,
and Dr. R. Chidambaram, the head of the Department of Atomic Energy,
were the chief coordinators for the operation. They were assisted by
the 58th Regiment of the Army Engineering Corps in preparing the test
site. Scientists from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and the
Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) were involved in
assembling the weapons, moving them to Pokhran, placing them into
shafts in the ground and laying a network of sensors to gather data
during the explosions.
The Regiment 58 Engineers had learned much since the aborted 1995 test
preparations about avoiding detection by American satellites. Much
work was done at night, and heavy equipment was always returned to the
same parking spot at dawn so that satellite image analysts would
conclude that the equipment was never moved. Piles of dug-out sand
were shaped to mimic the wind shaped dune forms in the desert area.
The shafts were dug under camouflage netting. When cables for sensors
were laid they were carefully covered with sand, and native vegetation
was replaced to conceal the digging.
The scientists involved in the operation took care to ensure that even
their close friends and colleagues would not detect the work being
undertaken at Pokhran. All scientists involved in the operation did
not depart for Pokhran simultaneously, but left in groups of two or
three. One group would use the pretext of attending a seminar or a
conference, and would tell their wives that they could not be
contacted while they were away. Tickets were bought for a destination
other than Pokhran (or cities nearby) under pseudonyms, and after
arriving at their destination, the group would secretly leave for the
military base in Jaisalmer from where they would be taken by the army
to Pokhran. After finishing their work the group would return,
retracing their path. Then another group would leave for the range
employing similar means to do their work. In this way, information
about the test was kept tightly under wraps. All technical staff at
the range wore military fatigues, so that in satellite images they
would appear to be military personnel maintaining the test range.
On the diplomatic front, India adopted a policy of ambiguity about
deciding to go nuclear. Statements by Indian politicians and diplomats
gave an impression to the world that India was not yet decided about
its nuclear status. Deliberate steps were taken to ensure that the
world community would not take the BJP's campaign promises seriously.
In separate meetings with American officials, then Foreign secretary
K.Raghunath and Defence Minister George Fernandes stated that India
had not yet decided about going nuclear and they also conveyed to the
officials that the National Security Council would be meeting soon to
discuss the matter and decide about the nuclear option. The council
was to meet on the 26th of May. Both the Indian officials had
categorically told the Americans that "there would be no surprise
testings". All this led the Americans and the world community to
believe that India was not going to pursue the nuclear option in the
near future. They did not take the BJP's campaign promises seriously
and hence did not expect an Indian nuclear test so soon.
Satyamev Jayate
(Truth Always Triumps)
chhotemianinshallah
Pokhran 2 Analysis, Facts
With all this debate over Pokhran 2, I decided to do some research on
what exactly was done, what succeeded, what failed.
My references (dont laugh):
Nuclear weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Smiling Buddha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pokhran-II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nuclear weapon yield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Teller?Ulam design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Boosted fission weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pakistan - Chagai-I
Important terms:
Atomic Bomb:In fission weapons, a mass of fissile material (enriched
uranium or plutonium) is assembled into a supercritical mass—the
amount of material needed to start an exponentially growing nuclear
chain reaction—either by shooting one piece of sub-critical material
into another (the "gun" method), or by compressing a sub-critical
sphere of material using chemical explosives to many times its
original density (the "implosion" method). The latter approach is
considered more sophisticated than the former, and only the latter
approach can be used if plutonium is the fissile material.
Possible yield: 1KN - 500 KN
Countries: US, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pak
* Israel unconfirmed
Hydrogen Bomb (Thermonuclear Bomb):They rely on fusion reactions
between isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium). However, all
such weapons derive a significant portion – and sometimes a majority –
of their energy from fission (including fission induced by neutrons
from fusion reactions).
Possible yield: No limit
Countries: US, UK, France, Russia, China
* India tested the 2 stage thermonuclear device for which the yield is
being questioned.
India Tests:
Smiling Buddha (1974):
Yield: 8KT
This one did not test the actual fission weapon
Shakti (1998):
A total of five nuclear weapons were detonated at Pokhran during
Operation Shakti. They are:
Shakti I
A two stage thermonuclear device with a boosted fission primary, its
yield was downgraded from 200 KT(theoretical) to 45 KT for test
purposes. The thermonuclear device tested at Pokhran was not an actual
warhead. 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. Dr. K. Santhanam, has
disputed the claimed yield of this test, by stating that the Hydrogen
Bomb was a fizzle. This has lead to an uproar in Indian nuclear and
defense circles with arguments and counterarguments in favor of a re-
test series.
Shakti II
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.
Shakti III
An experimental boosted fission device that used reactor grade
Plutonium for its primary with a yield of 0.3 KT. This test device was
used to test only the primary stage. It did not contain any tritium
required to boost the fission. This test was designed to study the
possibility of using reactor grade plutonium in warheads and also to
prove India's expertise in controlling and damping a nuclear explosion
in order to achieve a low (sub-kiloton) yield.
Shakti IV
A 0.5 KT experimental device. The test's only purpose was to collect
data about the explosion process and to study the performance of
various bomb components.
Shakti V
A 0.2 KT experimental device that used U-233, an isotope of uranium
not found in nature and produced in India's fast breeder reactors that
consume Thorium. This device too was used to collect data.
So Guys, chill, we do have a confirmed deployable fission weapon. From
the allegations, looks like our thermonuclear test failed. Still we
must have gained valuable insights.
Things noteworthy:
1. The mother of all bombs was tested by Russia (50 MT), followed by
US (15 MT), China(3.3 MT), UK (3 MT) , France (2.6 MT)
2. The bomb dropped on Japan (Little bomb0 was an atom bomb (18KT). If
that caused so much destruction, you can imagine what the hydrogen
bomb would do.
Comparision to Pak:
1. Pakistan conducted a successful fissile device test (40 KT).
2. They have not conducted any Thermonuclear tests.
I would say we are better off than them but not by much. Latest rumors
are that Pakistan is progressing towards thermonuclear device design.
But considering what the big 5 have (hydrogen bomb + miniaturization),
it seems kind of silly trying to prove ourselves any better.
I feel reassured.
chhotemianinshallah
Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist
The 1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests might have been far from the success
they have been claimed to be. The yield of the thermonuclear
explosions was actually much below expectations and the tests were
perhaps more a fizzle rather than a big bang.
The controversy over the yield of the tests, previously questioned by
foreign agencies, has been given a fresh lease of life with K
Santhanam, senior scientist and DRDO representative at Pokhran II,
admitting for the first time that the only thermonuclear device tested
was a "fizzle". In nuclear parlance, a test is described as a fizzle
when it fails to meet the desired yield.
Santhanam, who was director for 1998 test site preparations, told TOI
on Monday that the yield for the thermonuclear test, or hydrogen bomb
in popular usage, was much lower than what was claimed. Santhanam, who
was DRDO's chief advisor, could well have opened up the debate on
whether or not India should sign CTBT as claims that India has all the
data required and can manage with simulations is bound to be called
into question.
``Based upon the seismic measurements and expert opinion from world
over, it is clear that the yield in the thermonuclear device test was
much lower than what was claimed. I think it is well documented and
that is why I assert that India should not rush into signing the
CTBT,'' Santhanam told TOI on Wednesday.
He emphasised the need for India to conduct more tests to improve its
nuclear weapon programme.
The test was said to have yielded 45 kilotons (KT) but was challenged
by western experts who said it was not more than 20 KT.
The exact yield of the thermonuclear explosion is important as during
the heated debate on the India-
US nuclear deal, it was strenuously argued by the government's top
scientists that no more tests were required for the weapons programme.
It was said the disincentives the nuclear deal imposed on testing
would not really matter as further tests were not required.
According to security expert Bharat Karnad, Santhanam's admission is
remarkable because this is the first time a nuclear scientist and one
closely associated with the 1998 tests has disavowed the government
line. ``He is not just saying that India should not sign the CTBT,
which I believe is completely against India's interests, but also that
the 1998 thermonuclear device test was inadequate.
His saying this means that the government has to do something. Either
you don't have a thermonuclear deterrent or prove that you have it, if
you claim to have it,'' said Karnad.
Sources said that Santhanam had admitted that the test was a fizzle
during a discussion on CTBT organised by IDSA. Karnad also
participated in the seminar. He told TOI that no country has succeeded
in achieving targets with only its first test of a thermonuclear
device.
``Two things are clear; that India should not sign CTBT and that it
needs more thermonuclear device tests,'' said Santhanam.
The yield of the thermonuclear device test in 1998 has led to much
debate and while western experts have stated that it was not as
claimed, BARC has maintained that it stands by its assessment. Indian
scientists had claimed after the test that the thermonuclear device
gave a total yield of 45 KT, 15 KT from the fission trigger and 30 KT
from the fusion process and that the theoretical yield of the device
(200 KT) was reduced to 45 KT in order to minimise seismic damage to
villages near the test range.
British experts, however, later challenged the claims saying that the
actual combined yield for the fission device and thermonuclear bomb
was not more than 20 KT.
Key Pokharan scientist R Chidambaram had described these reports as
incorrect. He has also argued that computer simulations would be
enough in future design.
chhotemianinshallah
http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/32459-pokhran-ii-not-fully-successful-scientist-3.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/32459-pokhran-ii-not-fully-successful-scientist-4.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/32459-pokhran-ii-not-fully-successful-scientist-5.html
http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/32459-pokhran-ii-not-fully-successful-scientist-6.html
chhotemianinshallah
Damaging fallout: 'Dud' Pokhran II blows up 11 years later
MUMBAI: Eleven years after India tested nuclear bombs in the deserts
of Pokhran, embarrassing details about the test fizzling out have
exploded
into a full blown controversy with top nuclear scientists on Thursday
demanding that the government institute an inquiry to determine
whether the test failed. Former nuclear czars said they were ashamed
that information had been hidden.
Three former nuclear leaders -- M R Srinivasan, P K Iyengar and A N
Prasad -- said in the wake of revelations by K Santhanam, project
leader for Pokhran II, the government must order a peer review into
the yield of the thermonuclear test of May 1998.
Santhanam went public first on August 26, saying that the yield from
the test was far lower than what prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's
government claimed. On Thursday, in a newspaper article he disclosed
embarrassing details saying the test was a failure because the yield
was only 25 kilotons, nearly half of what the scientists had then
claimed. He said that a meeting of scientists discussed the failure
soon after the test and decided to hide it. He also pointed out that
the failure meant that India now did not possess a credible nuclear
deterrent, indicating that warheads on India's long-range missile
could have far less punch than expected.
R Chidambaram, former chairman of Atomic Energy Commission and the
architect of the nuke tests; Anil Kakodkar, then director of Bhabha
Atomic Research Centre, and APJ Abdul Kalam who led the team from
Defence Research and Development Organisation, have insisted the
device operated according to its design specifications and the yield
was 45 kilotons.
At a meeting on September 5, the AEC dismissed the first statements
made by Santhanam, saying through different types of analysis it was
established that the yield of the thermonuclear test was 45 KT. Now,
even scientists in Barc, the nation's top nuclear weapon
establishment, doubt the claim.
While saying he was surprised by Santhanam's article, M R Srinivasan,
former AEC chairman, told TOI it was time for both Chidambaram and
Kakodkar to clarify the situation. ``In such circumstances I think a
peer review is certainly warranted,'' he said.
At the same time he said he still stood by the official position and
would support Chidambaram and Kakodkar regarding the yield of the
thermonuclear test. ``A lot of information has been published and is
on record. So I have really no reason to disbelieve at this stage
either Chidambaram or Kakodkar on this issue. However, because of the
current controversy, I think the best recourse would be for both of
them to clarify the position through a peer review,'' he added.
Former Barc director, A N Prasad, who has all along maintained that
the thermonuclear test was anything but a success, said, ``The painful
fallout of this episode is that the credibility of the nuclear
scientific community and the respectable name of Barc is being damaged
by a few at the top.''
In a direct attack on Kalam and Chidambaram, Prasad said: ``If all
that Santhanam has written is true, then people occupying high places
have misled the country. If all the data about the thermonuclear test
has been held by one man (Chidambaram), then how can it be
scientifically contested or debated? He has kept it under wraps.''
Stressing that there should be a probe by a committee constituted by
the government, Prasad said that the team should comprise those having
serious doubts about the yield of the test as well as experts who can
include former nuclear scientists who have been raising their voices.
``It should not consist of only yes men. It should consist of those
who are knowledgeable, who have the capacity to investigate such a
serious matter,'' he said.
``If this committee concludes that the thermonuclear test had
completely failed then the government has played a major fraud on the
people of this country,'' he said. Asked if the AEC itself can
investigate, he replied: ``It has credibility, but no expertise.''
Another former AEC chief, P K Iyengar said, ``The government should
undertake an active investigation immediately following the statements
made by Santhanam in the article. I am feeling really ashamed.''
Regarding a revelation in Santhanam's article that the thermonuclear
device had not yet been weaponised like the fission devices, he said:
``How will they do it if they are doubtful about the yield? This
itself is a clear indication that the test was not a complete
success.''
Both Iyengar and Prasad said the disclosures by Santhanam, that there
was no disturbance to the shafts at ground zero, was also proof that
the test was unsuccessful.
chhotemianinshallah
chhotemianinshallah
Credibility of Indian Nuke Programme By Zaheerul Hassan
On August 27, 2009 in an interview with Times of India K Santhanam,
senior scientist and DRDO representative at Pokhran II admitted that
the only thermonuclear device tested was a "fizzle". In nuclear
parlance, a test is described as a fizzle when it fails to meet the
desired yield. Santhanam, was director for 1998 test site preparations
in Pokhran test range, has stated hat the thermonuclear explosions
conducted at that time were ‘actually of much below expectations and
the tests were perhaps more a fizzle rather than a big bang’. This is
the first time some Indian senior scientist gave some reservation
about the nuke programme. He was the closely associated with the 1998
tests.
The government officials did not endorsed Santhanam’s point view. In
this connection Interior Minister R. Chidambaram was in state of
confusion while talking to the journalists after the meeting of Lok
Sabha Chidambaram, who was the Chairman of the Department of Atomic
Energy in 1998, totally dismissed the scientist statement and said
that there is no controversy over the yield of Pokhran-II nuclear
tests. The world’s analysts have number of times raised questions
about the security of Indian nuclear programme. British nuke experts
have challenged the claims while saying that the actual combined yield
for the fission device and thermonuclear bomb was not more than 20 KT.
Santhanam’s view was shared by nuclear scientist Subramaniam, who said
“there was something wrong with the seismic signals which seemed
pretty weak to me then… so I would tend to agree with Santhanam”.
The Santhanam’s disclosing uncovered the face of Indian leadership. In
short the recent revelation of senior nuke scientist put the question
mark on the credibility of Indian nuke prgramme. The exact position of
the explosion of 1998 can be judged from the following:-
TEST DEVICE DATE YIELD
claimed YIELD
reported
Fission device 18 May 1974 12-15 kiloton 4-6 kiloton
Shakti 1 Thermonuclear device 11 May 1998 43-60 kiloton 12-25 kiloton
Shakti 2 Fission device 11 May 1998 12 kiloton ??
Shakti 3 Low-yield device 11 May 1998 0.2 kiloton low
Shakti 4 Low-yield device 13 May 1998 0.5 kiloton low
Shakti 5 Low-yield device 13 May 1998 0.3 kiloton low
Indian nuclear controlling authorities yet to formulate elaborate
arrangements to control and secure their nuclear programs. But the
biggest dilemma is that US and Russia have concluded number of nuclear
deals with India while ignoring all international rules and
regulations in relation to the safety features of nuclear programme.
In addition to the Russian deal, the French nuclear conglomerate Areva
concluded an agreement Dec. 18 to provide India with 300 tons of
uranium for reactor fuel.
Currently; India has a total of 17 operating nuclear power reactors
and has plans to construct an additional 25-30 by 2030 to meet
expected civil and military future needs. At present she has 35 – 45
nuclear arsenals of various yields but security aspects of these
weapons always remained concern to the world community and sincere
Indian officials too.
According to the Uranium Information Center (UIC), India's program
extends from uranium exploration and mining through fuel fabrication,
heavy water production, reactor design and construction, to
reprocessing and waste management. India, the UIC says, has a small
fast breeder reactor and is about to build a much larger one. It is
also developing technology to use its abundant resources of thorium as
a nuclear fuel. It has 14 small nuclear power reactors in commercial
operation, nine under construction - including two large ones, and
more planned.
It’s an eye opener and point of concern to US nuke experts that Indian
nuke progrramme is one of the most risky programme.
There are 152 financial corruptions and theft cases of uranium have
also been reported and registered with the police since 1984. The
cases include crimes like abductions and murders of staff, stolen of
uranium, transfer of technology to other countries through underworld,
smuggling of weapons and electronic equipment being used for
preparation of nuke arsenals and disappearance of complete shipment of
uranium. The increase in rate of incidents in is becoming great
security hazard to the mankind and threatening regional security too.
According to Fairness.com, a US-based information clearinghouse,
radiation emitted from the country's nuclear reactors is three times
higher than international norms allow. Of its 14 nuclear power
reactors, only three reportedly meet international standards. Indian
governments always tried to hide about leaks and accidents from the
reactors. An Indian scientist who prefers not to be named reported,
"An estimated 300 incidents of a serious nature have occurred, causing
radiation leaks and physical damage to workers."
The reports further reveal those famous politicians, top brass of
intelligence agencies and scientists those remained involved in
illegal smuggling and transfer of nuclear technologies to other
countries and local extremists Hindu organizations.
On June 13, 2009 Indian famous nuke scientist Lokanathan Mahalingam
found dead from Kali River. The scientist had been mysteriously
disappeared from the Kaiga Atomic Power Station on June 8, 2009. The
Kaiga plant is located near one of the biggest naval bases, Project
Seabird. The scientist was working on the atomic plant since last
eight years. Reportedly, he was in possession of highly sensitive
information and might be doubted for Indian nuke proliferation.
Mahalingam was involved in training apprentices on a replica of the
actual reactor. So he had knowledge of working of the reactor. Earlier
too on November 11, 2006, Director of Uttaranchal Space Application
Centre, Dr Anil Kumar Tiwari, was also shot dead by an unidentified
person near his residence. About six weeks ago, another NPC non-
technical employee Ravi Mule was found dead in the township. He too
had gone for morning walk. Police have not cracked the earlier cases
and similarly still is clue less in the current case of scientist.
The contents revealed in above Para confirmed that the world most
treacherous nuke proliferation is going on in India which made her
nuclear programme unsafe and the most dangerous too. The Hindu
extremists with the help of Indian nuke scientists seem to be involved
in illegal transfer of nuclear technology to Israel and some western
countries through underworld organizations to generate the funds for
the completion of “Maha Baharat agenda.
There have been widespread allegations that well-connected
manufacturers cut deals with politicians selling defective parts to
build reactors. Thus general masses rightly in the state of panic with
regard to the safety of nuke programme. The series of incidents at
India's nuclear plants has raised fears of a disaster equivalent to or
bigger than the American nuclear leak at Three Mile Island in 1975 or
the horrendous accident at Chernobyl in what was then the Soviet Union
in 1986, which so far is responsible for the deaths of at least 6,000
persons, with many more expected to die later.
According to the South India Tribune, India has ordered two plants
shut over the last two years because of safety reasons in the face of
plans to generate 20,000 megawatts of nuclear power by 2020. Serious
accidents and shortcomings have been reported starting in 1969 at the
Tarapur, Rajasthan, Madras, Narora and Kaigba Atomic.
In 2008 Russian President Medvedev and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh signed nuclear co-operation accord for construction of the four
new plants at Kundankulam stipulated under the Russia. Similarly
Washington too has finalized 123 Nuclear Civil deal with New Delhi.
However, in this regard only some procedural issues and formalities
are left in the way of implementation of the accord.
French, Russia, America and IAEA are having double standards over
nuclear programmes. The revealed countries and UN nuclear watch dog
IAEA always tried to put sanctions and criticized over Pakistan
peaceful nuclear programme. Iranian nuclear programme which was
started with the support of US in 1950 has only been targeted after
Iranian Islamic revolution. India has always neglected international
laws in relation to its nuclear programme. She has refused to signed
CTBT and NPT. But US, Russia and America too have never respected the
opinion of the world humanity and went for agreement with India while
putting side security concerns of nuke experts. In short the recent
statements of K Santhanam, repeated incidents and nuke proliferation
have made the Indian Nuke Programme, the world’s most dangerous one.
IAEA should carry out detail inspection of her civil and military nuke
plants. US, Russia and French should reconsider their decisions of
further continuation of pacts without elaborate security arrangements
and establishing Indian Nuke command control authority. Indian
authorities should devise some system to enhance security arrangements
to minimize the incidents at their nuke plants.
chhotemianinshallah
Pakistan goes beyond nuclear deterrence: Indian army chief
Pakistan goes beyond nuclear deterrence: Indian army
chief_English_Xinhua
English_Xinhua 2009-09-02 22:42:35
NEW DELHI, Sept. 2 (Xinhua) -- Indian Army Chief Gen. Deepak Kapoor
said on Wednesday that Pakistan was going well beyond deterrence after
reports Islamabad had increased its nuclear arsenal and was working to
add cruise missiles.
"There were certain degrees of deterrence and the figure of 70 to 90
nuclear warheads directed against a country certainly goes beyond the
concept of deterrence," Kapoor said in the western Indian city of
Pune.
"It is a matter of concern for us," he added.
Gen. Kapoor was commenting on an article published in the Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientist about the enhanced nuclear arsenal of neighboring
Pakistan.
"A new nuclear-capable ballistic missile is being readied for
deployment, and two nuclear-capable cruise missiles are under
development. Two new plutonium production reactors and a second
chemical separation facility also are under construction," said the
U.S. journal.
Pakistan has previously denied it is adding to its nuclear warheads.
Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira said in May his country did not
need to expand its nuclear arsenal but would maintain a minimum
nuclear deterrence that was essential for its defense and stability.
----
Asking for trouble? Or making the trouble to happen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> !! ھیمت ہے تو پاس کر ، ورنہ برداشت کر
> “The Yankee is one who, if he once gets his teeth set on a thing, all creation can't make him let go!!”~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
> We want Neo and Darki back! (i know that they have to make this decision themselves, but grounds also need to be made for their come back, this is for the management to do). Please!
> ...i drank to drown my pain, but the damned pain learned how to swim....!
> i don't speak for the Army; DG ISPR does!
chhotemianinshallah
Supersonic BrahMos missile successfully test fired in Pokhran
29 Mar 2009, 1334 hrs IST, PTI
NEW DELHI: For the second time in a month, the Block II version of the
supersonic BrahMos cruise missile with a striking range of 290 km,
successfully hit its target during a test at the Pokhran firing range
on Sunday, DRDO officials said.
"The missile was successfully launched at 1115 hours in the morning
and in the next two-and-a-half minutes, it hit the bull's eye in the
Pokhran firing range in Rajasthan," an official said.
This was the third test-firing of the latest Block II version of the
missile.
During the test, Army's Director General of Military Operations
Lieutenant General A S Sekhon, Artillery School Commandant Lt Gen Rao
and Additional Director General (Artillery) Major General V K Tiwari
were present.
The launch of the latest land attack version of the missile being
developed for the Army was also witnessed by DRDO's chief controller
and BrahMos aerospace chairman A Sivathanu Pillai and DRDL director P
Venugopalan.
After Sunday's test, officials said the development phase of the Block
II version of the missile was over and it was ready for induction in
the Army. They said the mission objectives of the test were completely
fulfilled.
In the first test on January 20, the missile failed to hit its target
due to glitches in the homing device of the missile. The missile had
taken off successfully but deviated from its path in mid-course and
landed far away from its target. Sources said the defects were
rectified at the time of the last test when it went on to hit the
target.
They said that the "unique" technology in the Block II missiles made
them "unparalleled" and would help the armed forces hit even
"insignificant targets" hidden in cluster of buildings.
"The new seeker is unique and would help us to hit our targets, which
are insignificant in terms of size, in a cluster of large buildings.
India is now the only nation in the world with this advanced
technology," an official claimed.
DRDO officials claimed that BrahMos would be able to start deliveries
of the 240 missiles ordered by the Army in two years from now as per
the original schedule. The Army has already inducted one regiment of
the Block I version of the missile. BrahMos is an Indo-Russian joint
venture company with its headquarters in Delhi
chhotemianinshallah
Reevaluation of India's nuclear program
The conflict with Pakistan also helped India to think more positively
about its nuclear program. In 1965 India and Pakistan fought a bloody
war to resolve the territorial dispute in Kashmir. In this conflict
China supported Pakistan creating a sense of crisis in India.
Dr. Mukesh Williams
In a world wrought by extremely divisive forces, nations with advanced
nuclear and missile technologies act as deterrence to state-sponsored
violence and keep a check on the hegemonic ambitions of non-nuclear
nations. Today, it is not only enough to possess nuclear weapons but
also a sophisticated delivery system in the form of intercontinental
ballistic missiles to be taken seriously by other nations. In its
February 14, 2009 issue The Times of India reported that India would
test-fire ICBMs in 2010. By this date it would also acquire a
submarine launched ballistic missile technology (SLBM), and develop a
ballistic missile defense system (BMD) in order to offset its military
disadvantage and come closer to the exclusive club of nuclear nations
formed by America, Russia and China. In the light of these new
developments it is important to analyze the causes and motives that
forced India to go nuclear about four decades ago in spite of
espousing a non-violent foreign policy.
Early Stages of India's Nuclear Program
India's nuclear program began in the late 1940s when India gained
independence from Britain after over 150 years of protracted colonial
rule. The memory of American bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was
fresh in the minds of Indian leaders and the public, who felt the need
to develop an indigenous nuclear technology and military superiority
to prevent future colonization or hegemony by any other ambitious
nation. India began to see the U. S. model of using nuclear technology
for producing both domestic energy and providing military defense as
an ideal for its geographical and political situation. At the same
time India never lost sight of developing nuclear technology
indigenously-whether it was related to the mining and enrichment of
uranium and reprocessing spent fuel or the development of cryogenic
engines and supercomputers.
The beginning and success of India's nuclear program was a rich
combination of perceived military threats and able political and
scientific leadership to address these threats. India's nuclear
program, beginning in the 1960s and developing in the 1970s, was a
direct outcome of perceived security threats from China and Pakistan.
The success of the program owes in large measure to the dedicated
efforts of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, its chairman Homi
Jehangir Bhabha and the late Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru.
Together they provided the impetus for a skilled workforce, a
sophisticated infrastructure and nuclear R&D to create a formidable
nuclear defense plan for India that would become the envy of many
nations. The first one-megawatt thermal reactor in India named Apsara
went critical on August 4, 1956 paving the way for the development of
its dual-purpose nuclear technology.
In the early 1950s atomic R&D was viewed in the world as a positive
contribution by nations towards resolving their economic and social
problems. The development of atomic energy did not have the negative
connotations of 'nuclear proliferation,' 'mass destruction' or 'global
threat' as it has today. India took advantage of this favorable
international climate and used the expertise of nuclear nations like
France, United Kingdom, Canada and the United States to build its own
nuclear technology. Of all these nations, Canada was instrumental in
helping India construct its nuclear program in the initial stages.
Briefly, the initial two decades, that is the 1950s and 1960s, were
basically developmental in nature as they provided India with the
nuclear expertise to expand its infrastructure and nuclear agenda into
what Lal Bahadur Shastri termed "the nuclear explosive" project.
The Nuclear Debate
From 1947 to 1964 India continued to develop its civilian nuclear
infrastructure keeping the military option open. But when in 1964
China exploded a nuclear device, the act initiated a grand debate
about the security needs of India based on its nuclear threat
perception of China and Russia. India always saw communist China as a
friend and often raised the highly emotional slogan Hindi-Chini Bhai
Bhai, or Indians-Chinese Brothers, Brothers. India never anticipated
that a border dispute with China would soon turn into a full blown
conflict. In 1962 India fought a contentious border war with China and
lost about 50,000 square miles of territory to it. The Sino-Indian
conflict revealed the abysmally poor defense system India possessed.
The conflict shattered the belief that a communist country would never
threaten the sovereignty of India. However, this perceived and real
threat from China did not push India into a nuclear arms race with
China. India still feared the debilitating effect of a costly nuclear
development on its fragile economy.
The Congress government wisely realized that, at the present moment,
to pursue international diplomacy in order to contain the hegemonic
intentions of China would be more suited to India's needs. The
opposition parties did not share the government's view. Both the Hindu
nationalist party, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh and the socialist party,
The Praja Socialist Party, demanded the nation to develop a nuclear
military option to combat the growing hegemonic intentions of both
China and Russia. The intellectual elites, the media and the political
parties in India began to debate the pros and cons of a robust nuclear
policy.
The Indian newspapers saw the Chinese nuclear policy as a "new menace"
to the world that directly affected India, its next door neighbor.
Some pacifists argued that India must not develop its own nuclear
weapon technology but instead seek nuclear protection from the US.
Though the United States president assured India of American help in
the eventuality of a nuclear attack, the US government was unwilling
to make a firm commitment. The lack of a clear assurance from the US
made Indian leaders feel that in case of an emergency, or a scenario
where Russia and China joined hands against India, American help may
not be forthcoming. India always considered verbal assurances somewhat
unreliable in international diplomacy, and rightly so. The US
government on the other hand was unwilling to make a firm commitment
to India or sign a treaty. Given the state of affairs it was felt that
an independent nuclear program would not only free India from
depending on the US or Russia, but also bestow prestige on the country
for its scientific prowess.
The Ethical Imperative
The Indian debate on "going nuclear" was fervently discussed under
many sub-themes including necessity and cost, but the most significant
sub-theme was the ethical imperative. It was felt that the nuclear
program would run contrary to the general non-violent ideals
propounded by Mahatma Gandhi and the pacifist principles of Panchsheel
enshrined in the Indian foreign policy. Obviously the pragmatists
disagreed. They argued that the threat posed by five nuclear nations
to the security of India was far greater than the ethical compromise.
They further argued that the theory of deterrence need not contradict
the moral basis of nonviolence, but in fact lend credence to it. Since
China posed a long-term threat to the security of India, China
continued to shape Indian foreign policy vis-à-vis nuclear disarmament
and sanctions. It was felt that even if China did not use the bomb on
India, it would threaten to use the nuclear option to blackmail and
coerce India. Therefore many intellectual elites felt that
strengthening nuclear security at high cost was a far greater priority
for the government than just worrying about fiscal development.
Soon the pragmatists were able to win over the moralists and the
idealists in their campaign to develop a nuclear option. Both the
ruling and opposition parties began to feel the need for developing
military nuclear infrastructure. Even from within the Congress Party
pressure began to mount on the government to produce its own "atom
bomb." The New Delhi Pradesh Congress President Mustaq Ahmed voiced
this concern by suggesting that the time was right for India to
develop its own nuclear infrastructure. In November 1964 the Jana
Sangh tabled a motion in the Lok Sabha urging the Indian government to
produce nuclear weapons. Mr. Lal Bahadur Shastri who until now was
opposed to the idea of a nuclear program, began to be convinced that
India should go nuclear. He modified Jana Sangh's motion by suggesting
that India should develop "peaceful nuclear explosives" in the near
future. This paved the way for an underground nuclear test called the
Subterranean Nuclear Explosion Project.
Response to Pakistan and China
The conflict with Pakistan also helped India to think more positively
about its nuclear program. In 1965 India and Pakistan fought a bloody
war to resolve the territorial dispute in Kashmir. In this conflict
China supported Pakistan creating a sense of crisis in India. China
threatened India with grave consequences if it proceeded with military
action against Pakistan. It is during this period that India's
nonviolent idealism gave way to a pragmatic defense policy that
included the nuclear option. The political history of the 1960s in
India amply demonstrates this conclusion.
Though initially Indira Gandhi pursued a non-nuclear policy, the
thermonuclear test by China on May 9, 1966 and the nuclear missile
test on October 27, 1966 convinced her in favor of developing a
nuclear explosive technology. Also the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty was increasingly considered detrimental to the security
interests of India, as it did not attempt to contain the Chinese
problem. On the contrary it went on to legalize China's nuclear
status. India therefore refused to sign the NPT in 1968. A survey in
1972 demonstrated that 68.9 percent of Indians were not in favor of
the NPT.
India always perceived China's nuclear and rocket technology as a
threat to its security. On April 24, 1970 China tested a rocket
carrying a satellite in orbit. This once again raised India's anxiety
to a new level. In response to the Chinese threat, IAEC chairman,
Vikram Sarabhai initiated a 10-year nuclear space program called the
Sarabhai Profile that would develop a missile delivery system for both
civilian and military purposes.
The Difficult 1970s and Pokhran I
In the midst of political and technological impasse, India began to
inch forward towards a nuclear option. Though the political crisis in
the 1970s was obvious, the technological crisis was less obtrusive.
The Americans had refused to transfer the technology of super
computers and the Russians were coerced by Americans to deny cryogenic
engines to India. Denied help from both the superpowers India turned
swadeshi. In less than four years it was able to produce the
supercomputer named Param and develop its own brand of cryogenic
engine. In 1974 India conducted its first peaceful nuclear explosion
or PNE at Pokhran, nicknamed "Buddha Smile," under the leadership of
Indira Gandhi and Homi Sethna, a test that was conceived much earlier
by Dr. Raja Ramanna. Though India vehemently denied that the test was
a precursor to the development of a formidable nuclear arsenal, the
test did two things: firstly it strengthened India's nuclear option
and secondly it opened the way for the development of nuclear weapons.
It can be argued that India's increasing assertiveness in foreign
policy ran at tandem with its nuclear strength. The nuclear testing at
Pokhran created a quick reaction and condemnation from countries like
Pakistan, United States and Canada for various reasons. Pakistan felt
threatened. The United States became concerned of a regional
instability in the subcontinent and Canada felt betrayed as the
plutonium came from the Canadian CIRUS reactor. However, most Indians
were fully supportive of the nuclear development.
The New Political Reality of the 1980s
The early 1980s saw a new realignment of superpower interests in the
South Asian subcontinent. We must remember that this is the period of
a Cold War between the two superpowers, the United States and the
Soviet Union. The American reaction to the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan in 1979 pushed US interests closer towards Pakistan. The
US needed Pakistan to prevent Soviet hegemony in the region and
expansion in the west. It also needed Pakistan to buttress anti-Soviet
resistance in Afghanistan. The US tilt towards Pakistan reopened
American military aid in the form of financial assistance and supply
of F16s to Pakistan. India began to see a new threat from the growing
alliance between the US and Pakistan and between Pakistan and China.
Furthermore India became deeply concerned when it saw that China was
directly helping Pakistan at Kahuta and PINSTECH in Rawalpindi to
build its nuclear and missile technology. At one point India even
contemplated surgical and preemptive strikes at these two locations.
As a reaction to the new political realignment in the subcontinent in
1983 India initiated the Integrated Guided Missile Development
Programme (IGMDP) under the direct supervision of the Defense Research
and Development Organization (DRDO). The IGMDP allowed India to
integrate its anti-tank, surface-to-air and surface-to-surface
technologies in the development of its nuclear missile program. In
1984 Pakistan's Abdul Qadeer Khan's comment that his country possessed
the capability to produce weapon-grade uranium, accelerated India's
own nuclear program. When in 1985 Pakistan tested a triggering device
for a nuclear explosion India's threat perception of its neighbor was
raised to a new height. Rajiv Gandhi was well aware of Pakistan's
nuclear ambition and its threat to India. Though he campaigned for
global disarmament he did not abandon the nuclear option or the use of
nuclear technology for civil use. By the early 1990s India had
developed about two-dozen nuclear devices to be deployed at short
notice.
Retreat of the Soviet Union
The end of the Cold War in 1991 restructured the global strategic
balance. Apart from other geopolitical changes it also saw the breakup
of the Soviet Union. The restructuring weakened the diplomatic support
of the Soviet Union and supply of arms to India. From 1993-1995 China
threatened India by deploying nuclear warheads in Tibet. China also
assured Pakistan of helping it develop its nuclear and ballistic
missile technologies. It is in this background that the Kashmir issue
flared up. Pakistan began supporting insurgency in Muslim-dominated
Kashmir and threatened India with the use of nuclear device if forced
into a tight corner.
Besieged by China and Pakistan, depending on a weakened friend like
the Soviet Union for support, and criticized by western powers for
pursuing a nuclear program, India felt increasingly beleaguered. We
must see some of the subsequent developments in the light of this
situation. Though in October 1963 India had decided to join the
Partial Test Ban Treaty it consistently refused to sign the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT) on moral grounds. As late as 1996, India voted against the UN
General Assembly resolution endorsing CTBT on the grounds that the
resolution lacked a "time-bound" framework for universal nuclear
disarmament and a ban on laboratory simulations. However though India
rejected the terms and conditions of the CTBT, major powers began
using the provisions of the CTBT to put pressure on India to either
join it or curtail its nuclear ambition. Since India had become a
member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) four of its
nuclear reactors had to comply with the IAEA security safeguard
standards. It became increasingly difficult for India to pursue a
policy of nuclear ambiguity. India began to realize that like China,
sooner or later, it had to accept the NPT and the CTBT. The rising
power of China and its unequivocal support of Pakistan further
exacerbated India's anxieties. It is within these parameters that we
must understand India's movement towards Pokhran II.
Pokhran II
In early 1998 when the Hindu BJP came to power, it wanted to realize
its election pledge of advancing India's nuclear capability. In May
1998 it conducted five nuclear tests under the leadership of Atal
Behari Vajpayee. It is argued that these tests were part of the
party's strategy to bolster its image both at home and abroad.
Subsequent events revealed that this argument was not completely
sustainable. Within a few months of Pokhran II the BJP lost elections
in three major states of India, namely Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi.
However it must be remembered that in 1995 the Congress Party under
Narshima Rao also wanted to test a nuclear devise but backed out under
US pressure. It can be said that the pressure of the CTBT became a
diplomatic barrier that India had to either break or succumb to. India
chose to take a bold stand and conduct its nuclear tests.
Over the years US sanctions against India have been lifted and
European and Japanese acrimony has also evaporated. In 2006 India and
the US signed a civilian nuclear transfer of technology which was
considered mutually beneficial. This has to do with a growing
recognition in the west that India is not only a responsible nation
using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, but also a strong
international ally in fighting terrorism.
Conclusion
Though the development of the nuclear program has directly addressed
India's anxieties regarding its neighbors, it is debatable whether
nuclear technology for civilian use is beneficial in the long run. It
is widely believed that nuclear energy would provide sustainable and
cheap electricity to India in the coming years. However many
scientists argue that this hope may be belied as it has been in other
countries pursuing the same goal. Nuclear technology has never proved
to be a major generator of electricity. On the contrary the dangers it
poses to the environment are far greater than its benefits. Though the
deployment of nuclear weapons is directly under the control and
command of the prime minister of India, the threat of nuclear weapons
from countries like China and Pakistan to the people of the Indian
subcontinent cannot be ignored. Even though India's nuclear deterrence
is enormous in the region it still calls for a serious discussion on
the ways nuclear technology is utilized in future and the need for
nuclear disarmament in the subcontinent.
analysis
Sid Harth
Raising doubts about Pokharan-II condemnable: BJP
STAFF WRITER 20:12 HRS IST
New Delhi, Sep 18 (PTI) The BJP today condemned the questioning of the
success of Pokharan-II atomic tests by some Indian nuclear experts,
saying that they should not "play with" the country's strategic
security and deterrence.
"Some Indian nuclear scientists have demanded a review of Pokharan
tests of 1998. We condemn this outright. Giving full respect to these
scientists, we would like to say -- please don't play with our
strategic security and nuclear deterrence," BJP spokesperson Ravi
Shankar Prasad said.
Then Atomic Energy Commission chief R Chidambaram, then BARC director
Anil Kakodkar and ex-Scientific Advisor to the government A P J Abdul
Kalam said the tests were a success.
"We don't consider the raising of this issue, 11 years after the
tests, proper....There are equally important scientists who said the
tests were a success. We need to be sensitive to India's strategic
security," Prasad said
bademiyansubhanallah
NUCLEAR ISSUES
Spectral defence
R. RAMACHANDRAN
S.K. Sikka, a scientist involved in Pokhran-II, shows how the U.S.
calculations of yield of the thermonuclear device were way off the
mark.
JOHN MACDOUGALL/FILES/AFP
The site of the May 11, 1998, underground nuclear tests at Pokhran, as
seen on May 20, 1998. Says S.K. Sikka: "The geology of the Pokhran
test site is such that at depths corresponding to the depth of burial
of the 1974 Pokhran-I device, the surrounding material is more like
alluvium, comprising sandstone and shale. But at the depths
corresponding to the depth of burial of the 1998 thermonuclear device,
the material is pink granite."
IN response to an article in Frontline (September 25, 2009) on the
revival of the controversy over the yields of the May 11, 1998,
Pokhran-II nuclear tests, one of the issues raised in informal
discussions is the fact that while the fission device (of 12-13
kiloton) in the Pokhran-I test of 1974 produced a prominent crater,
the Pokhran-II thermonuclear device of a much greater yield did not
produce a distinctly larger crater morphology. An explanation for this
is, therefore, in order.
A study of the surface topography after an underground nuclear test
also provides a method to estimate the yield of the test. Western
analysts have tried to use the images of post-shot crater morphology
to debunk the yield values put out by the Department of Atomic Energy
(DAE). The crater morphology would obviously depend on the depth of
burial (DOB) and the manner of emplacement of the device in relation
to the surrounding earth.
Qualitatively speaking, if the DOB is shallow a more voluminous crater
is created. In an underground explosion, there are two effects: the
confining effect of the material overburden causes the energy to be
directed downwards and is thereby a negative influence on cratering,
and at the same time the confining strata are blown upwards by the
expanding gas. As the DOB increases, the confining effect obviously
increases and the average material pushed upwards decreases as the
mass of the overburden increases. As a result a larger and larger
fraction of the material thrown upwards falls back. This also traps
and buries much of the radioactivity.
At a particular depth, the increasing overburden is exactly balanced
by the force of the volume being thrown out. This depth is called the
optimum depth of burial and varies with the geology of the site, being
greater for less dense and structurally weaker surrounding material
(for example, alluvium) and shallower for dense rock.
At depths greater than the optimum DOB, the crater size begins to
reduce as less and less material now gets ejected. There would be
upheaval within the crater boundary but nothing is thrown out. At
these depths a great amount of broken rock is produced, which was seen
in the Pokhran-II thermonuclear explosion, whose DOB was about 230
metres compared with Pokhran-I’s 107 m.
The observed effects would depend on the properties of the surrounding
strata and the emplacement of the device. According to S.K. Sikka,
formerly of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and one of the
key scientists involved in the tests, the geology of the Pokhran test
site is such that at depths corresponding to that of the Pokhran-I
device of 1974, the surrounding material is more like alluvium,
comprising sandstone and shale. But as one goes deeper the geology
changes, and at depths corresponding to that of the 1998 thermonuclear
device and lower the material is pink granite.
The crater sizes (depths, cavity radii, etc.) are empirically
determined to be governed by a scaling law, which goes as Y0.295,
where Y is the explosive yield in kt. That is, cratering explosions at
different depths and yields (under similar surrounding geology) can be
compared by scaling them to a standard yield, say 1 kt. For example, a
1 kt explosion at 20 m may be similar to a 50 kt explosion at 100 m.
This relation has been fully characterised for Pokhran by BARC
scientists and is given by the equation DOB (scaled) = 67 x Y0.295.
From this equation, using different DOBs and different Ys, the
corresponding scaled comparisons can be made for different yields.
The Pokhran-I explosion actually resulted in a shallow crater (where
the crater radius and cavity radius are roughly equal) following a
raised mound with a crater radius of 47 m and a cavity radius of 30 m.
Without knowing the geology of Pokhran, Western analysts have assumed
the Pokhran-I test to have resulted in what is known as a subsidence
crater and an equation for scaled depths (122 x Y0.295) that is not
applicable to Pokhran. They also used a known value of a U.S. test
which resulted in a subsidence crater, and estimated a low value for
the Pokhran-I yield. For estimating Pokhran-II, they have used this
low Pokhran-I yield to calibrate the Pokhran geology and estimated the
thermonuclear yield to be lower.
Now, according to studies at BARC for the design yield of the Pokhran-
II thermonuclear device, the DOB was exactly in the region where the
crater size falls at the minimum of the scaling curve. And this is
exactly what was observed. In fact, according to Sikka, exact
simulations were done to eliminate completely the venting of
radioactivity and the DOB was chosen accordingly. He further points
out that the little mound that is seen in the picture of the cratering
by the thermonuclear weapon is actually owing to the strong reflection
of the shock waves from the granite stratum below the DOB.
More proof
In this revived debate over the Pokhran-II yields, Sikka has come up
with yet another proof to show why Western analysts were wrong to
ascribe low yield values based on seismological parameters. As
explained in the earlier article (Frontline, September 25),
underground explosions set up seismic waves analogous to earthquakes.
These waves comprise body waves that travel through the body of the
earth and those that travel along the surface. The body waves are
short period (about 1-2 seconds) waves that include both compressional
or P waves (which are longitudinal) and shear or S waves (which are
transverse). At short distances (less than 2,000 km) body waves travel
through the crust and top portion of the upper mantle and are called
regional seismic waves. Beyond 2,000 km, body waves travel through the
mantle and the core and are called teleseismic waves.
P waves travel faster than S waves (with speeds of about 5-10 km/s)
and these arrive at the detectors first. The P-wave amplitudes are
used to determine what is called the body wave magnitude m(B). The
yields of explosions (as in the case of energy released in
earthquakes) are given by a relation between m(B) and the explosive
yield Y. This has the form m(B) = a + b log Y, where ‘a’ and ‘b’ are
site-specific constants. While there is considerable variation in the
‘a’ values from site to site, variations in ‘b’ are much less.
In a paper published soon after the tests (in the September 10, 1998,
issue of Current Science), Sikka and others pointed out that owing to
the simultaneity of the Pokhran-II (fission and thermonuclear)
explosions in shafts that were a kilometre apart, the network-averaged
m(B) values would be lower than the true values because of the
significant interference effects in the direction of the line joining
the two shafts (east-west). They showed that if interference effects
are corrected for, the averaged m(B) value was 5.39, compared with 5.0
of the Arlington-based International Data Centre (IDC) network and 5.2
of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) network.
They also pointed out that the constants ‘a’ and ‘b’, in the m(B)-Y
relation, that were appropriate for Pokhran were those pertaining to
the hard rock conditions of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and not those
of the Shagan River Test Site (SRTS) at Semplatinsk of the former
Soviet Union, which were used by Western analysts. Sikka and co.
reiterated this fact by a detailed analysis of 64 NTS observations and
74 SRTS observations, which was published in Current Science in 2002
(Frontline, September 25).
The earliest analyses contesting the yield claims made by the BARC
scientists were those of Brian Barker and others in the September 25,
1998, issue of the journal Science and T.C. Wallace in the September
1998 issue of Seismological Research Letters. In their analyses, while
Barker and co. used the IDC’s m(B) of 5.0, Wallace used the USGS’s m
(B) of 5.2. Further, arguing that the observed P-wave spectrum from
Pokhran-II, averaged over 20 seismic stations of the IDC network, was
remarkably similar to those of tests at the SRTS, but inconsistent
with those of the NTS, they applied the SRTS constants (‘a’= 4.45 and
‘b’= 0.75) for Pokhran and determined the yield to be 12-15 kt. This,
according to the BARC scientists, was incorrect. Besides, Barker and
co.’s paper did not provide details of the P-wave spectra or the
averaging technique they had used.
Countering this, the BARC scientists sent their comments to Science,
which, however, were not published. Instead, the journal sent a plot
of the spectra that Barker and co. used for arriving at their
assumptions regarding the constants but did not include in their paper
(Figure 1). Admittedly, from Figure 1, the Pokhran curve appears
closer to the SRTS curve than to the NTS curve.
Revisiting the issue now, Sikka has shown how the Pokhran-II spectrum
used by Barker and co. is actually consistent with appropriate NTS
constants and a yield of around 60 kt. In doing so he has demonstrated
two things: one, the method of comparing network-averaged P-wave
spectra is not unambiguous; and, two, careful selection of spectra
should be made for choosing appropriate constants because even for a
given region (NTS or SRTS or Pokhran) the geological conditions can
vary from test to test depending on the depth of burial and
emplacement of the device. This analysis also re-emphasises the fact
that yield estimation on the basis of P-wave characteristics,
including m(B), is not a precise method.
The geology of the Pokhran test site is such that at depths of around
100 m, corresponding to the emplacement of the Pokhran-I device, the
surrounding material is more like alluvium, made of rocks of sandstone
and shale. But at depths corresponding to the emplacement of the
Pokhran-II thermonuclear device and lower, the material is pink
granite. Shock physics experiments done at the Terminal Ballistic
Research Laboratory (TBRL) of the Defence Research and Development
Organisation (DRDO) to characterise the Pokhran granite have shown
that these Pokhran rocks are very similar to the granite at the French
Hogger Testing Site (HTS) in Sahara.
Fortunately, says Sikka, in 2001 J.R. Murphy and B. Barker published
the P-wave spectrum of the French 58 kt ‘Rubis’ explosion at HTS on
October 20, 1963. The same paper also published the spectrum of the 62
kt ‘Pile Driver’ test of the U.S. at NTS. Further, Murphy and Barker
also proved in their paper that the coupling of granite with the
explosive source at the NTS was close to that of the HTS granite.
Simply plotting together the P-wave spectra of Pokhran-II, ‘Rubis’ and
‘Pile Driver’, as given by Barker himself, shows the striking
similarity between them (Figure 2). This is what Sikka has done in his
recent exercise to drive home why Western estimates of Pokhran-II
yield were lower. From the plot one can directly infer that the
Pokhran-II yield would be in the ballpark of the yields of ‘Rubis’ and
‘Pile Driver’, which is around 60 kt.
Specifically, applying the constants ‘a’= 3.93 and ‘b’= 0.89,
corresponding to the HTS and NTS granites, for Pokhran-II m(B) gives a
yield of about 47 kt. The actual values of ‘a’ and ‘b’ for Pokhran, as
determined by the BARC scientists, are 4.04 and 0.77 respectively and
this gives a yield of 58 + 5 kt. The original estimate of combined
yield of the May 11, 1998, tests was about 60 kt, with 45 kt for the
thermonuclear weapon and 15 kt for the fission weapon that were set
off simultaneously.
Sid Harth
China says never engaged in nuclear proliferation
STAFF WRITER 17:33 HRS IST
Beijing, Sept 22 (PTI) China, one of the five recognised nuclear
powers, today said it has never engaged in proliferation, days after
Pakistan's disgraced scientist A Q Khan claimed his country had helped
it in enrichment technology in return for atomic bomb blue-prints.
China is firmly opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in
whatever forms, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu said here when
asked to comment on Khan's latest revelation that Pakistan supplied
nuclear know-how to its "all weather" ally.
"As a member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, China has always strictly abided by its international
obligation on the non-proliferation issue," she was quoted as saying
by the official Xinhua news agency.
74-year-old Khan, considered father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, had
revealed that his country helped China in enrichment technology in
return for bomb blue-prints.
bademiyansubhanallah
Comment: Bigger Isn't Better
22 September 2009, 12:00am IST
The brouhaha over the success or lack thereof of the thermonuclear
device tested at Pokhran II is working its way up the food chain. The
latest to enter the fray has been national security advisor M K
Narayanan, citing the independent Atomic Energy Commission's
satisfaction with the test to counter former DRDO scientist K
Santhanam's claim that it was a failure. In a sense, the entire
acrimonious debate has missed the point. The wrong questions are being
asked, conflating the political dynamics surrounding the tests with
the credibility of India's nuclear posture. Conclusions shaped by this
false assumption are likely not just to be wrong, but also detrimental
to Indian interests.
There is unlikely to be absolute clarity on the issue of the
thermonuclear test. But that has little to do with India's no first
use policy or its moratorium on further testing. A strategic position
of nuclear deterrence is not founded on the quantum of damage that can
be caused by a single device. It is based on an assured second-strike
capability and the adversary's perception of what constitutes
unacceptable retaliatory damage. And as various analysts have pointed
out and as has been overlooked in the ghoulish calculus of how many
casualties a thermonuclear device can cause as opposed to a fission
one the threshold for such damage was shown to be extremely low during
the Cold War and subsequently.
India's nuclear capabilities, then, are adequate to the task with or
without thermonuclear devices. The questions that should have been
asked are those relating to delivery systems and second-strike
capabilities. Are the Agni III intermediate range ballistic missile
user trials on track? What of the Agni-3SL, the submarine launched
variant that will enable the third leg of India's nuclear triad? Are
our simulation capabilities up to par? Is the survivability of India's
nuclear capability, guaranteeing a retaliatory strike, assured?
With renewed impetus for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and
nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, we can re-examine our options. But
the international context is very different now from what it was in
1998. Global dynamics have changed, as has India's position. It serves
New Delhi far better now to join the global nuclear establishment if
the major powers, for instance, ratify the CTBT. A Q Khan's
revelations have highlighted just how important it is to establish a
non-proliferation regime with teeth. To let such a crucial debate be
hijacked by an irrelevant sideshow about a thermonuclear device would
be short-sightedness of the highest magnitude.
chhotemianinshallah
Emerging India: Insecure and unsafe
Last updated on: September 22, 2009 20:13 IST
Colonel Anil A Athale (retd) says India's indifference to strategic
and defence requirements can cost it dear. A two-part column:
A student of military history would be justified in feeling a sense of
deja vu at recent happenings. Former Pakistan president Pervez
Musharraf [ Images ] disclosed that he used American aid not against
terrorists but to bolster Pakistani capabilities against India. Our
leaders then go ballistic and beseech the Americans!
Cut to April/May 1965 -- Pakistan used the Patton tanks against India
in the Rann of Kutch -- we spend time and energy in taking photographs
and again go to the Americans.
As in 1962, we seem to downplay Chinese intrusions -- not unlike the
famous Nehruvian jibe about Aksai Chin that not a blade of grass grows
there!
To cap it all is the recent disclosure by nuclear scientist Dr K
Santhanam, that the May 1998 thermonuclear test was less than 100
percent successful has fuelled a much needed debate on our security
and defence preparedness. Dr Santhanam is a scientist connected with
India's nuclear programme and his views have to be taken seriously.
Since 1998, India has openly shifted from 'defence' to 'deterrence' as
cornerstone of its security policies.
India did not have much choice in the matter. In the decade of 1980s a
reckless US supplied weapon systems to Pakistan (the F-16s) which in
turn for the first time gave that country reach and bomb weight to
pose a direct threat to Indian cities. Our nuclear reactors came under
threat. Thus should Pakistan have so chosen it could target these and
virtually 'nuke' India?
The critics of 1998 Pokhran II and an overt Indian nuclear posture to
'deter' this attack, ignore this reality. All that the 'Shakti' tests
did was to go for overt in place of 'covert deterrence', itself a
contradiction in terms. Ten years have passed and during this time
these theories were severely tested and a comprehensive debate ought
to be welcome.
While the attention of Indians and the world is focussed on the
economic progress of our country, the age-old weakness of our
civilisation -- the neglect of the security dimension, casts a long
dark shadow on our future.
India is unique in several ways -- unlike other countries, in India
ardent and idealist 'peace lobbies' are part of mainstream politics
and not on the fringes as in all other countries of the world. In its
5,000-year-old history, India has produced treatises on virtually
every subject on the earth, from astronomy, medicine to even sex, but
we do not have a single major work on warfare or the art of war.
Time and again our use of war elephants was shown to be ineffective,
yet we persisted in it.
We were the first to use war rockets in the 18th century, but never
developed them to make them bigger, longer or more effective.
Intellectuals stayed away from the war strategy and weapons.
We refused to change with the times.
In the nuclear age as well we seem to be repeating our dismal history.
The new 'mantra' is minimum deterrence and second strike capability as
panacea solution to face all threats. India went wrong in Kargil
[ Images ] in 1999 when we realised that the proxy aggression 'used
'the nuclear umbrella while we lulled ourselves.
The 2002 Operation Parakaram in the wake of the attack on Parliament
as well as our inability to react to the Mumbai [ Images ] attacks on
26/11 showed the limits of our retaliatory capability.
Through successful use of rhetoric and threats, Pakistan neutralised
our conventional response.
Now over the last 10 years it has become an established pattern of
behaviour on our part. Our strategy of retaliation with surgical
strikes or the new strategy of 'cold start' remains moribund and
ineffective for the enemy believes and rightly so, that we lack the
will and wherewithal to implement it.
Our conventional retaliation strategy lacks 'credibility' and
therefore is no deterrent. The issue is not of mere 'will' either.
India lacks the overwhelming technological/numerical superiority to
implement this. For instance, Israel has been successfully employing
'threat of retaliation' as a deterrent to proxy or terrorist threats.
Israeli technical prowess makes it a credible threat and its past
behaviour has established its will to act.
In 1773, the small kingdom of Thanjavur was threatened by the combined
forces of the Karnataka nawab and the British. As enemy troops massed
outside the city, the high priests of the famed Thanjavur temple
assured the king that their 'mantra' was powerful enough to defeat the
invaders, and went on to sprinkle the water sanctified by the 'mantra'
to stop the invasion! Of course the 'mantra' failed and the kingdom
was annexed by the British.
Today we have the high priests of nuclear strategy in Delhi [ Images ]
similarly chanting the 'mantra' of no first use and minimum
deterrence! Will the result be any different than at Thanjavur in the
18th century?
An analysis of why 'we are like that only' is necessary so that we can
rectify this fatal flaw in our national psyche.
The Diagnosis: What ails Indian thinking on defence?
We are a peculiar nation that is obsessed with the 'eternal truth'
while we ignore the 'practical' or the realistic world. Carl Jung, the
Swedish psychologist visiting India about a century ago, had remarked
about this and felt (as a Westerner) as if the whole country lived in
a trance or maya or illusion.
Let me illustrate. It is a fundamental belief of Indians that there
are no evil beings only evil deeds and fundamentally the atman or the
soul is universal and part of the divine in all of us.
While this is so, yet there are evil individuals, for instance the
terrorists who mercilessly killed hundreds in Mumbai or have been
planting bombs in busy trains and markets. We have to deal with this
evil ruthlessly. But what do the Indians do? We question every action
of the police/armed forces, we have karuna or pity for the Mumbai
terrorists.
The list of our foundational weaknesses is a long one. Here I would
just mention it and leave the rest to the reader's imagination.
We tend to think that security is the sole prerogative of the armed
forces and police.
Divorce between theorists and practitioners -- it is politically
incorrect to think of national security in academia -- the British
implanted a colonial mindset whereby Indians were kept out of this
vital area. Even 62 years after independence this persists.
The lack of strategic culture -- in case of nuclear strategy we have
scientists as strategists -- like asking chemist to prescribe
medicines (as many Indians do).
Segmented approach to security -- armed forces kept away from decision
making on the nuclear issue.
Treating low intensity, conventional and nuclear conflicts in
isolation and denying the linkages between them.
Isolating defence industry/research from mainstream and colossal
inefficiency of the bureaucratic structure of the Defence Research and
Development Organisation empire.
Colonel Anil A Athale is the Chhattrapati Shivaji Fellow at the United
Services Institution and coordinator of the Pune-based think-tank
Inpad.
Colonel Anil A Athale
chhotemianinshallah
'No crater was formed after the nuke test'
Last updated on: September 22, 2009 12:13 IST
"This is the picture of ground zero where the thermo-nuclear device
was detonated in May 1998 in Pokharan. No crater was found at all!
This picture tells the story that we have to do more homework. Indeed,
we have to do more honest homework." said K Santhanam, former Defence
Research and Development Organisation scientist dramatically holding
the picture in his hand in the press conference held in New Delhi
[ Images ].
Santhanam was addressing media to rebut the claims of National
Security Advisor M K Narayanan who has reaffirmed that India has the
thermo-nuclear capabilities. Since the last few days Santhanam,
through his writings and interviews has been challenging India's
acknowledged scientific achievement of May 1998 when the Bhabha Atomic
Research Centre and Defence Research and Development Organistaion
conducted five nuclear tests. Santhanam, who was a part of the core
team, now says that the problem arose with the second test on May11,
1998.
"The first test on May11, 1998 was an atomic bomb (A-bomb) of power
equal to around 20, 000 tons of TNT. Sathanam said. "It worked like a
dream, but the second test failed," he said. Sathanam claimed that he
was working under Dr. Abdul Kalam [ Images ] in the DRDO. Dr.
Chidambaram was chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and S K Sikka
was head of the nuclear weapons programme at BARC. These four had
crucial jobs to perform.
Santhanam also claims that due to 'India's failure' in 1998, India
lags behind China in thermo-nuclear technology. He says that since
India's thermo-nuclear device testing had failed, India has "only some
Atomic bombs of 40,000-50,000 tons of TNT equivalent."
Santhanam says, 'We are totally naked vis-a-vis China which has an
inventory of 200 nuclear bombs, the vast majority of which are giant
Hydrogen bombs (H-bomb) of power equal of 3 million tons of TNT!"
He says, "How can any government protect the nation's security unless
it accepts that the thermo-nuclear device of Pokhran–II was a failure.
It was totally incapable of weaponisation." He advocates that
therefore, " We must resume thermo-nuclear device testing immediately
by lifting the so-called unilateral voluntary moratorium on nuclear
tests."
Santhanam wants India to launch a series of thermo-nuclear tests until
such bombs are perfected along with successful mating of India's long
range missiles.
In 1998, Santhanam was in charge of of mission of setting up a vast
array of seismic instrumentation inside and on the surface outside of
the 110 km deep shafts at the bottom of which the thermonuclear device
was detonated.
According to the press release given by Santhanam, " The thermo-
nuclear device was a two-stage design. The first stage was a A-bomb
device which triggered the second stage, the main H-bomb. Again the A-
bomb trigger worked and designed and expected to perform but, the main
H-bomb completely failed to ignite at least anything like fully (sic)
and even let alone explode with its designed power of 25,000 tons of
TNT.' A statement released said "the seismic instrumentation network
set up by Santhanam and his seven colleagues proved that
categorically." Santhanam shows the picture that shaft was intact on
ground zero as evidence.
Santhanam said, 'If the H-bomb stage of the composite device had
worked the shaft would have been blown to smithereens. He said what is
called "A -frame" which sits on ground across the mouth of the shaft
and the powerful winches were exactly as they had been built even
after the thermonuclear test. "They both stood pristine without even
the slightest damage after the thermo-nuclear device was activated. No
more clinching evidence could exist that the H-bomb stage of the two-
stage thermo-nuclear device had totally failed," The former scientist
said.
Santhanam says that numerous articles were published questioning
India's nuclear test results. He says, "However, BARC and
Dr.Chidambaram tried every trick in the book to contradict the world
scientists and specialist's opinion."
Santhanam claims in his written statement that his theory has support
from former chairman of AEC, H N Sethna and P K Iyengar, and also from
former director of BARC, Dr A N Prasad.
Image: The site of the second nuclear blast in Pokhran is seen in this
picture released May 17, 1998 by the Government of India
Reportage: Sheela Bhatt | Photograph: Reuters
chhotemianinshallah
Government rubbishes claims that Pohkhran-II was failure
Indo-Asian News Service
On Board Air India One, September 24, 2009
First Published: 02:04 IST(24/9/2009)
Last Updated: 02:10 IST(24/9/2009)
The government has rubbished the claim by a retired senior scientist
that the nuclear tests India conducted 11 years ago were a failure and
questioned the timing of his statement.
"He is a perennial doubter. Why has he waited for five years of the
UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government to make the claim?" a top
government official said referring to the claim by the former
scientist with a state-run agency.
"Out of eight different tests, one may not have yielded the same set
of results that we may have talked about. But the rest of the seven
have been a success," the official said on condition of anonymity,
during an informal interaction with journalists accompanying Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh on way to Pittsburgh, US, for the G20 Summit.
The comments by the official were in response to the claim by K
Santhanam, a retired scientist of the Defence Research and Development
Organisation (DRDO), that the nuclear tests conducted by India in 1998
were not a success.
The tests were conducted May 11, 2008 at Pokhran in Rajasthan during
the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government under prime minister
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, following which India had to face economic
sanctions.
bademiyansubhanallah
Posted: Thu, Sep 24 2009. 12:44 PM IST
Economy and Politics
Pokran II was successful: Kakodkar“
It has given us the capability to build deterrence based on both
fission and thermonuclear weapon systems from modest to all the way
upto 200 kilotons”PTI
Mumbai: Rubbishing doubts on the efficacy of the hydrogen bomb test in
1998, Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar on Thursday said
scientists have achieved success in building deterrence capability of
upto 200 kiltons.
“Once again I would like to re-emphasise that the 1998 nuclear tests
were fully successful. We had achieved all the objectives in toto.”
“It has given us the capability to build deterrence based on both
fission and thermonuclear weapon systems from modest to all the way
upto 200 kilotons,” he said addressing a press conference here.
Kakodkar, who was director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in
1998, termed as “unnecessary” the controversy over the Pokhran-II
nuclear tests triggered after claims by a former DRDO scientist that
the hydrogen bomb experiment was a failure.
R. Chidambaram, chairman of the AEC in 1998 and the current principal
scientific adviser to the union government, made a presentation on the
results of the Pokhran-II nuclear tests.
Former DRDO scientist K. Santhanam, who was the DRDO coordinator for
the 1998 tests, had claimed that the thermonuclear test was much below
expectation triggering a controversy.
Santhanam had also demanded an inquiry by an independent panel of
experts into the test results.
chhotemianinshallah
A file photo of Atomic Energy Commission Chairman, Dr Anil Kakodkar.
PTI Photo Photograph (1)
Can build nuke deterrence upto 200 kilotons: Kakodkar
STAFF WRITER 12:35 HRS IST
Mumbai, Sep 24 (PTI) Rubbishing doubts on the efficacy of the hydrogen
bomb test in 1998, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar
today said scientists have achieved success in building deterrence
capability of upto 200 kilotons.
"Once again I would like to re-emphasise that the 1998 nuclear tests
were fully successful. We had achieved all the objectives in toto.
"It has given us the capability to build deterrence based on both
fission and thermonuclear weapon systems from modest to all the way
upto 200 kilotons," he said addressing a press conference here.
Kakodkar, who was Director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in
1998, termed as "unnecessary" the controversy over the Pokhran-II
nuclear tests triggered after claims by a former DRDO scientist that
the hydrogen bomb experiment was a failure.
...and I am Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on 1998
Pokhran tests?
Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on 1998
Pokhran tests?
Editor, The Times of India
P.S. You may also SMS or e-mail your views. Mail us on
mytimes...@timesgroup.com with ‘Tests’ mentioned in the subject
line. To SMS, type MTMV, leave a space, type ‘TESTS’, leave a space,
type your comments and your name and sms to 58888.
Posted on Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:04 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
NO NEED N NO COUNTRY DISCLOSED ANY DETAILS ABOUT TEST SO WHY INDIA?
SUCH A SENSETIVE THING NOT TO DISCUSS IN MEDIA N BY MEDIA !!FROM MR
MERCHANT MARRIAGE BUREAU DUBAI*S CELEBRITY MATCHMAKER IN DUBAI UNITED
ARAB EMIRATES FOR NON RESIDENT INDIAN ABROAD N CAN CONTACT OR SEND SMS
ON +971503869917 OR SEND EMAIL merchanto...@gmail.com OR READ
www.gulfnews.com
Posted by MR MERCHANT DUBAI*S CELEBRITY MATCHMAKER IN DUBAI @
9/25/2009 5:00 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Success or failure, the tests conducted are simply not enough as a
deterrent against China. Need more test for better designs and higher
yield and certainly need more test for creating any computer
simulation model.
Posted by Bhupendra @ 9/23/2009 7:38 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
A BIG NO ! One thing or the other shall keep creeping in for /against
with the passage of time . Are we to satisfy all those foolish/
brainless people who keep on harping stupid /nonsensical stuff ,since
their ego seems to be at stake ? Or is it a publicity stunt to be
popular amongst the masses ? The Govt must not bother about such
enquiries or questionnaire,since it is north while to attend to. The
PM / PMO's Office is ,therefore, expected to dispel any misgivings
about the Pokhran II business once for all ,as he did it in the case
of Dr Tharoor's 'cattle-class' case, recently. It is worthwhile to
bring on record that the NDA was in power during 1998 .
Posted by A S CHAUHAN @ 9/23/2009 2:54 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full
Oye lawda singh or l.a.uda sing whatever, I can give you the benefit
of being a stupid sikh. Firstly you test your bum on Delhi as it is
not likely to work at Karachi. Secondly dont forget Pakistan teray
Bharat kee maatajee ko l.u.n.d dey dey ga.
Posted by vox populi @ 9/23/2009 11:00 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
santhanan's comments on this issue is for his popularity.He is a
senior scientist, he should have handled it in smart way. I feel he
doesn't have any reach to the findings of this test. Poor santhanan he
didn't find any other way to become a known scientist in India. We can
trust our Government and Abdul Kalam.
Posted by Tony @ 9/23/2009 6:57 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Yes.When the issue is raised by the scientists who were knowing better
than anybody, it is appropriate to know how our country is placed vis-
a-vis capability of Pakisthan and China. Remedial measures to be taken
immediately in the country's interest.
Posted by P.hari @ 9/22/2009 3:18 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
The real beneficiary of the test was Pakistan, thereafter who becomes
the official nuclear power. The rest is history and it is better we
should learn from the mistakes of history instead of cutting our own
feet by repeating it again and again.
Posted by Harsh @ 9/22/2009 2:11 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
The real beneficiary of the test was Pakistan, thereafter who becomes
the official nuclear power. The rest is history and it is better we
should learn from the mistakes of history instead of cutting our own
feet by repeating it again and again.
Posted by Harsh @ 9/22/2009 2:08 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
The real beneficiary of the test was Pakistan who becomes the official
nuclear power. The rest is history and it is better we should learn
form the mistakes of history instead of cutting our won feet by
repeating it again and again.
Posted by Harsh @ 9/22/2009 2:03 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
No.
Posted by Anu Ashokan @ 9/22/2009 1:45 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
No
Posted by Shaikh Rizwan Iqbal @ 9/22/2009 12:55 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
NO
Posted by Lina @ 9/22/2009 12:55 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
NO Government should not disclose the report.
Posted by anil yadav @ 9/22/2009 10:38 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
The very aim of Pokharan tests were to develop a formidable deterrent
against any threat from our enemies and to an extent succeeded in her
attempts. But the revelations by one of the nuclear scientist for its
success is unfortunate, as the purpose was still being fulfilled by
these tests. Now as this has happened, the government should make full
disclosure on the 1998 Pokharan test, so that the citizens of this
country come to know the exact outcome of the test irrespective of its
result. If favourable results it will establish the faith in the
governance of this nation and if the results are not that good it
would help making a public opinion about further testing of nuclear
device.
Posted by Balwant @ 9/22/2009 9:57 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
NO,
it should be kept secret wheather sucess or failure,
the enemy should never know the truth keep them guessing
and the pakis are haveing a day in the sun especially Mr Moin Mian
from rupeesnews
so why spoil their petty happiness
Posted by Mumbaikar @ 9/22/2009 8:54 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Absolutely. They should disclose every details of it. India is about
to break into parts and Khalistan will be craved out of it. Revenge
will be taken from those who have commited grave sins against Punjab
and Punjabi's. Khalistan is not a country for Sikhs but Hindus,
Muslims who are Punjabi's and want a corruption free governance, free
of Bihari gunda gardi and criminals. It will be the land where wishes
of people will be respected and justice will prevail.
Posted by Raj @ 9/22/2009 8:23 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
It depends. Every government has to classify information into various
categories. Some of this type of information should be classified as
top secret and should be accessible to only a few who need to know it.
At the highest level that there is information of a particular type is
itself highly classified. The classifying authority should declare
certain information as releasable to public. Even the top scientists
and engineers will not be allowed to release such information unless
and until it is declassified. If an official releases classified
information, it should be a serious crime.
The fact that the enemies do not know if there is a certain capability
is a strength in itself. On the other hand, if enemies gain knowledge
of the status and strength, they have a great edge.
India should be smarter than opening their information cupboard to all
enemies.
Posted by Som Karamchetty, PHD @ 9/22/2009 4:54 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
This is a matter of great national importance. I think we must trust &
believe our government as well as the father of our Nuke Technology
(Mr.Abdul Kalam)at face value.
Posted by Vikas Devnani @ 9/22/2009 12:27 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
No, No, not at all.
Posted by M. Kar @ 9/21/2009 10:14 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
GOVERNMENT. F U C K. TIMES OF INDIA.. F U C K. POLITICIANS F U C K.
Posted by TIMES OF INDIA F U C K E R S @ 9/21/2009 8:49 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Not at all. Why to answer such a foolish issue? Even if there is few
more efforts desired it can be done other way. Why we can not take a
lesson from pakistan who did everything in clandestine manner even
though no match to INDIA. But we people just on behest of a foolish
scientist named santhanan is behaving like another fool. If that
scientist was good enough why making such hue and cry now, why he was
enjoying all the benifit during that time. One should ask them to
behave like a partriotic manner. Trying to do something like Q.A.Khan
for pakistan rather a Santhanam of India. Press also plays such a
delicate point in most irresponsible way. Lets take that the test was
failure then is it the way our Press and these mad scientist are going
to solve the problem. In one hand even if China is slapping us at
border we are not finding courage to reply onother hand these issues
will lead us no where. Try to get patriotic solution if we have any
else at least donot creat chaos.
Posted by Ajay Shankar @ 9/21/2009 4:30 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
India should be clear on this. because our media is sometime becomes
so foolish and act like extra ordinary that later on our ministers has
to take U turn from the described military power, which shows no unity
and foolishness
Posted by Raheel @ 9/21/2009 2:54 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
If the government is hiding the information then surely the tests were
a failure. And this means that we don't have a credible nuclear
deterrent. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, where Pakistan and
China have nuclear weapons, and in case of a nuclear war with either
of them, the people of India would pay a high price for these
unscrupulous politicians, who are willing to hide the failures of
nuclear tests.
Posted by Raj @ 9/21/2009 12:26 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Certainly not. These are highly classified information and should
remain with the right people. Moreover, we should always remember that
more than anything else, nuclear bombs act as deterrents (against
other countries- In a nuclear war...WAR itself is the main enemy). So
till we can maintain that we do have a considerable thermo nuclear
capability, it should do. However, now that the beans have been spilt,
its important that the government comes out in the open with some
facts and restore the confidence among its citizens. And if its true
that the tests were a failure, the Indian government should seriously
think about performing a re test sometime in the near future.
Ofcourse, this is easier said than done considering the backlash from
the international community, but I feel it is important. But, more
than anything else, India needs to focus on developing its
conventional defence forces i.e. the army, navy and air force and
attain a much higher level of preparedness and capablity.
Posted by S Banerjee @ 9/21/2009 11:28 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Being a Responsible entity you should not entertain such questions
also.
Posted by Tushar Wani @ 9/20/2009 10:02 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Ofcourse not..........
These are the matters of national security and it must not be made
public........
See these talks that are going in the media suggest that we are not
confirmed that the test results shown to us were upto the
mark.................
But as we are still not dominated in the nuclear region as there are
many nuclear dominated countries in this world.......we should not
disclose any info. that may stagger or hinder our progress in the
nuclear department.................
So its ruthless to question the same............
And the man who was involved in these tests and the first man of our
country is not who is to e qestiones...................
Posted by Anand @ 9/20/2009 9:25 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full
Sir,
According to the relevant provisions of the official secrets Act
formulated by the Govt.no secret infomation about the sentive issues
pertaining to the nation be made public,and as such the Govt. should
not disclose the details of how and why and under what compulsion the
1998 Pokhran tests were conducted,as any disclosure of the sensitive
information will give a wrong signal to our neighbours to take undue
advantage of the disclosure of sensitive issues.
Yours Faithfully,
B S Raghavendra Rao,
D-901,Sterling Terraces,
BSK 3rd.stage,
Bengalooru.
Posted by B S Raghavendra Rao. @ 9/20/2009 1:45 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Yes Because keeping it under wraps and signing agreements with US will
undermine our security
Posted by Vikram @ 9/20/2009 11:17 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full
no. i don't think so that govt should disclose the details of pokhran
tests....
Its a matter of national pride..
these matters should not be allowed to come outside..
these are classified documents...
if any discrepancy is there, the same should be resolved internally,
and in no condition should these be allowed to come outside....
Posted by rohit @ 9/20/2009 8:36 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
For perfecting the Hydrogen Bomb it is necessary to do experimental
testing in trial and error. If pokhran test has not yeilded the
expected result then that means our H bomb project is in an infancy
stage and that we need to test more.
Posted by abq @ 9/19/2009 10:44 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
NO, It would be one of the BIG mistakes congress is doing againest the
nation. We need to do internal investigation and improve the the
things.
Posted by Anil @ 9/19/2009 10:38 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
IT IS NOT INTELLECTUALLY APPROPRIATE TO DISCLOSE INDIA'S NUCLEAR
CAPABILITIES PUBLIC.MORE SO WHEN THE REAL DISCUSSION IS NOT INDIA HAS
FUSION BOMB OR NOT BUT SHOULD IT CONTINUE WITH MORE TESTS TO PERFECT
IT INORDER TO DECLARE ITS MINIMAL NUCLEAR DETERANCE POLICY.EVEN
Mr.SANTHANAM AN EMINENT INDIAN SCIENTIST ONLY CAST DOUBT ON THE
PROJECTED YIELD AND NOT ON THE WHOLE TEST ITSELF.INDIANS CAN BE
JUSTIFIABLY AND UNASHAMEDLY&PROUDLY CONFIDENT OF OUR CAPABILITIES IN
MANY FIELDS AND WE DEFINETLY ARE ON GLOBAL STATURE.
Posted by bala srinivasan @ 9/19/2009 6:39 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
NO, it is high time now, that some individuals for a cheap popularity
making mockery of our research.
there should not be any doubt about the job done under Dr. Kalam.
Posted by Gansh @ 9/19/2009 5:33 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
NO, it was the stupidity in first place of "Mr. K Santhanam, project
leader for Pokhran II". He has brought disgrace to the countrymen,
and, I do not see any reason other than hungernes of money and
publicity for giving statement which is related to country's safety
and security.
I think, govenrment should use his power and give one final statement
about the conducting tests and put a complete "BLACK_OUT" on this
topic to get discussed in media or in books.
And we guys, let us stop bringing it in lilght again and again.
Posted by Ravi @ 9/19/2009 3:34 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
The scientists raising controversy all retired long time back. Except
Dr PK Iyengar non of them is a nuclear scientist.The timing of the
controversy indicates their attempt to gain cheap popularity and find
new avenues for themselves.
Posted by Dr S Shankar Singh @ 9/19/2009 2:49 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
India's nuclear capability is a very sensitive matter. It can not be
discussed in the public. Our adversaries can take advantage of the
information and plan accordingly. There are some vested interests
disgruntled elements who are raising controversy about our nuclear
capability 11 years after the tests were conducted. There appears to
be some motive behand raising the matter at this time. The timing
raises doubt about the intention. Motive could be personal score to
setlte, to win the favour of UPA Govt by discrediting NDA Govt, to
discredit scientific establishment etc. etc.
Posted by Dr S Shankar Singh @ 9/19/2009 2:41 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
India's nuclear capability is a very sensitive matter. It can not be
discussed in the public. Our adversaries can take advantage of the
information and plan accordingly. There are some vested interests
disgruntled elements who are raising controversy about our nuclear
capability 11 years after the tests were conducted. There appears to
be some motive behand raising the matter at this time. The timing
raises doubt about the intention. Motive could be personal score to
setlte, to win the favour of UPA Govt by discrediting NDA Govt, to
discredit scientific establishment etc. etc.
Posted by Dr S Shankar Singh @ 9/19/2009 2:39 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
I think this should be treated as classified information & our
government should not make a full disclosure on this issue.
Posted by melvin @ 9/19/2009 1:44 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
YES
Posted by Name @ 9/18/2009 9:12 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Why? Just because some publicity and money hungry ex- bureaucrat is
crying foul after a decade? We can't have GoI spending money on
investigating such allegations. There are enough number of credible
people (including APJ Abdul Kalam) saying that the test was
successful.
Posted by shailendram @ 9/18/2009 6:19 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Silly season is in full swing. Retired experts will do anyhting for
publicity.
Posted by Ram @ 9/18/2009 5:28 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Its not imporatant to make the full data public, as it is a sensitive
data, but the govt should definitely bring out the truth of the matter
to the public.
Posted by Abid @ 9/18/2009 5:02 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
no entirely necessary.
Posted by charit sharma @ 9/18/2009 4:44 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
No not atall...Because that will disclose our countries confidential
information .But yes I agree that Govt should so a complete
investigation on the truth and should take some corrective actions
according to report.
Posted by P Jena @ 9/18/2009 4:38 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT DISCLOSE THE HIDDEN TRUTH TO THE PUBLIC ON 1998
Pokhran tests.
THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL ISSUE.
Posted by VED/EX SERVICEMAN IAF @ 9/18/2009 3:59 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
The Govt should ascertain what the truth is and based on the fact act.
It is not right, if a bunch of senior people have misled the Govt and
the public.
Posted by Raman M. @ 9/18/2009 2:58 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
I do not know What Government want to prove on investigation on the
said subject. Government should think many times on such a narrow
subject.
Posted by Ramesh Chhabra @ 9/18/2009 2:47 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Govt Should NOT disclose the test information to public... but they
should investigate what is the true story. If they find the tests were
inadequete, then India should perform as many tests as required.
Posted by Bhushan @ 9/18/2009 2:01 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
NO
Posted by Anurag Yadav @ 9/18/2009 1:15 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
no ,there is no need ,the military and defence system needs to be
confidential else media will make heck of it
Posted by Paritosh @ 9/18/2009 9:57 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Yes, Look at times of india report today on IAF dropping live bombs on
cities. Now at least they can use nuclear without the risk of any
damage or explosion
Posted by imran @ 9/18/2009 9:30 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
No,but the scientists and the defence minister should find out what
happened in the test and come forward to sort out the problems leaving
behind all the confusions.A high level secret talk is necessary on
this topic as it India's security depends on it and there should be no
confusion on it because of any internal politics.
Posted by Pranjit Kalita @ 9/18/2009 8:51 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Leave the bloody debate of govt disclosing the test results, damn.But
do not sign any CTBT for atleast sometime that will not allow us to do
more tests untill we figure out things clearly.
Posted by Srini @ 9/18/2009 8:41 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
Disclosing results is of no importance. Entire world knows that
nuclear tests were a failure. US reported the same thing immediately
after the test. The fact is no country gets a perfect thermonuclear
bomb made just after one test. But what is stupid is that our gov is
in the state of denial & most depressing is the false claim by APJ
kalam. We have to undertake more tests.....It is as evident as sun
Posted by Girish Yajurvedi @ 9/18/2009 6:51 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
why cant indian govt do a second test in karachi
Posted by lawda singh @ 9/18/2009 12:05 AM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full disclosure on
1998 Pokhran tests?
NO
Posted by srikrishna @ 9/17/2009 11:03 PM
# re: Do you think our government should make a full
NO Government should not disclose the report as it may go against
sovereignty of India and it violates sec 5 of official secret act
1923.
Posted by Ajaz Haider @ 9/17/2009 10:14 PM
chhotemianinshallah
Jaswant for panel to probe Pokhran II row
Ajay Parmar, TNN 25 September 2009, 04:59am IST
JODHPUR: Former defence minister and ousted BJP leader Jaswant Singh
has asked the Centre to constitute a committee of three to five
retired nuclear
scientists to investigate into the controversy over the success of
Pokhran II.
Speaking here on Thursday, Singh said that the motto of India's
nuclear policy is to build a "credible minimum deterrence", which
needs to be maintained at any cost and such controversies affect this
credibility which paints a negative image of the country.
"A large number of comments have been pouring in in this regard from
both political and scientific quarters, which should not be allowed to
prevail as it not only hurts the country's nuclear prospects but
spreads an atmosphere of distrust also," he said.
Singh said that since he was directly linked with this test in 1998,
he too is interested to know whether it was successful or not and the
sooner it is done, the better it is to decide the future course of
action to ensure the credible minimum deterrence.
It is Singh's first visit to his home state after the Jinnah
controversy erupted and he was expelled from the BJP. While talking to
the media enroute to his home district Barmer, he appeared quite
distraught by the expulsion. "The kind of treatment meted out to me
was shocking as I was not given any notice or sought any
clarification," he said.
He claimed that this all came as a surprise to him as he had already
apprised both Lal Krishna Advani and Rajnath Singh about his work on
Jinnah and they did not object to it. According to him, they rather
advised him to first wait till the assembly elections are over and
then the general elections.
"But the extreme step they took was without going through the contents
of my book and they just took it as my glorification of Jinnah,
whereas I have also criticised him at a number of places," he rued,
"It was quite an unceremonious adieu to my 43 years' of service to the
party."
The veteran politician also threw light on his future plans, in which
his literary zeal is likely to hold priority. Reactions from the
Rajput leader reflected the controversy has to some extent boosted his
literary zeal as he has plans to pen a few more books in the coming
days.
"I am working on a compilation of all the diaries which I have written
during my entire political career," Singh said, claiming that the
diary will disclose a number of secrets and cause further ripples in
the political circles. "I am planning to write a book on Chakravarti
Rajagopalachari," he added.
Pained by the treatment extended to his book on Jinnah, right from
burning the copies to banning them, Singh referred to the book as his
child' and described the treatment of it as a "crime and sin". He
stated that books must be respected as they are the harbinger of the
freedom of thoughts and expression.
hab...@anony.net
bademiyansubhanallah
National / Cover Stories / Interviews Magazine | Oct 05, 2009
Jitender Gupta
EXCLUSIVE interview
The Myth Bomber
Whistle-blower scientist says Pokhran II was a failure and lambasts
the NSA ('babe in the nuclear woods') and APJ Kalam ('doesn't know
where to hide his face now')
Pranay Sharma , Ajaz Ashraf Interview K. Santhanam
Also In This Story
When the door to the first-floor apartment of S-523 A in Delhi’s
spiffy Greater Kailash-II colony is flung open, a lanky man, dressed
in a vest and lungi, greets us with a smile so thin we can barely
discern it. You can even say he looks sullen, sour, perhaps irritated
at the disruption of his routine. He is former Defence Research and
Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist K. Santhanam, who was the
field director during the Pokhran-II nuclear tests. It was he who
stoked a raging controversy when he claimed at a seminar in August
that the thermonuclear device tested on May 11, 1998, at Pokhran
didn’t perform as expected.
“Our recording instruments were calibrated to record exact yield. We
instantly knew the test had failed when it didn’t show predicted
yield.”
We follow Santhanam into his spacious drawing room. There are no neat
arrangements here, no particular method—sofas are placed to leave
large vacant spaces; the table is cluttered with books, sheafs of
papers, an ashtray with stubs. The TV screen, hanging from the wall,
beams a slice of the past from the History Channel, accidentally
symbolic of the Outlook team’s desire to know what exactly happened on
that scorching May 11 afternoon.
He picks up a shirt, buttons it up silently. Then he sits down,
crosses his legs, toys with a cigarette, ready to field our questions.
Outlook’s photographer wonders whether he, Santhanam, wouldn’t want to
be dressed a tad formally. He steps away from us, but still very much
in our sight, promptly wears a pair of trousers. The interview begins,
the photographer begins his work. Santhanam frowns at the successive
clicks of the camera. Soon, he can take it no more; he grimaces and
says, “He’s interrupting my flow of thought.”
“When our team (including Kalam and Chidambaram) went there, we saw
the damage in the TN shaft was minimal. No crater was formed.”
It’s him National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan described as a
maverick, for questioning the thermonuclear test of 1998, in an
attempt to dissuade the nation from believing him. As you listen to
him unravel the nuclear complexities, rattle out facts long forgotten,
question luminaries such as Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Narayanan in a
sardonic tone, you know he’s a maverick who’s irrepressible, who isn’t
likely to buckle under pressure and recant.
Santhanam’s thesis is simple: the thermonuclear device tested on May
11, 1998, under-performed; it didn’t leave a crater as it should have;
it didn’t provide the expected yield of 45 KT. He says a window of
opportunity is still open to conduct one or two H-bomb tests to
bolster India’s nuclear arsenal. Excerpts from an interview with
Santhanam:
A step apart: K. Santhanam, on the left, with Kalam, Vajpayee, R.
Chidambaram and others at the Pokhran site in May 1998
What was planned for the 1998 tests? What were your thoughts? Why was
it planned?
The May 1998 tests occurred 24 years after the 1974 peaceful nuclear
explosion (PNE). Many things affecting India’s national security had
occurred. For one, Pakistan and China had begun their cooperation in
the nuclear weapon area in January 1975. (Z.A.) Bhutto had said that
Pakistan would eat grass rather than succumb to a nuclear India.
Certainly, they had the desire to acquire nuclear weapons. What’s
necessary for us to note is that we have to keep a vigil on such
developments and appropriately tune our own programmes—to improve them
or go on a plateau so that the country is not caught by surprise.
“The claim that we managed a yield of 45 KT is a blatant lie. It’s a
LIE, all capitals”
Also, the 1974 test was a fission device, an experimental
configuration. It was done more as a proof of principle rather than as
a weapon which was optimised in terms of weight and size, to be
delivered by either an aircraft or a missile. To be frozen in time
with the 1974 design was also not desirable. Compared to 1974, we
(now) have a long-range missile from the Agni family. Unlike an
aircraft as a delivery system, a missile is difficult to intercept. So
surface-to-surface missiles of sufficiently long range would be the
vector of choice for a country which decides to go nuclear.
Certainly, India had perfected the fission bomb or the atom bomb, with
the yield in the range of 20 to 30 kilotonnes (KT). But the hydrogen
bomb or the thermonuclear (TN) weapon can pack a bigger punch, almost
at the same weight, maybe with a little more volume, but not
substantially higher. So, to pack more punch within the volume and the
mass to be carried in the payload of a missile, it was necessary to
complete the work. Certainly, there was some work going on, but we had
not conducted thermonuclear tests.
Bombed out?: The Pokhran site
It’s important to note that no country in the world, including the big
boys, has succeeded in the first atomic nuclear tests. No matter how
good or smart you are in theoretical calculations or modelling and
simulations, there’s no replacement for full-scale testing in order to
be sure that your design works the way you meant it to work. Theory
has to be validated by experiments. In May 1998, we had a TN device,
its designed yield was 45 KT and that was placed in one of the shafts
in Pokhran.
When was the decision taken? Who took the decision? When were you all
told about the go-ahead?
We were close enough to conducting a test towards 1995 end. That was
held over for various reasons. When the BJP-led NDA government came to
power (in 1998), one of the first few decisions it took was to call
the agency heads of DRDO and BARC and ask, how is your readiness
status, how soon can you do it. It was decided to conduct the tests in
May 1998.
“The DRDO’s instruments worked perfectly for the fission device, but
failed when it came to the TN device! This is talking with a forked
tongue.”
Since no country has got the thermonuclear device right with a single
test, were there apprehensions in May 1998 that one test for the H-
bomb may not be sufficient?
The very purpose of testing is to validate your designs and
theoretical calculations. Between 1995 and May 1998, the device for a
thermonuclear test was (made) ready. It was a device for 45 KT;
anything above it would have caused a venting of radiation that would
have been a violation of the Partial Test Ban Treaty to which India is
a party. So, in May 1998, we had designs for a fission bomb test, for
a TN device and three others with sub-kilo tonnes. It was a fairly
comprehensive kind of test.
What was achieved?
The intense instrumentations to measure ground acceleration, ground
movement and various other sophisticated instruments to measure....
These were all prepared by the DRDO?
The instrumentation was done by the DRDO and the recording instruments
were also part of the DRDO’s responsibilities. The shaft in which the
fission bomb was tested had a huge crater, even larger than the 1974
one. But the shaft where the thermonuclear device was tested did not
cause the kind of damage that was expected. No crater was formed, the
instruments also showed that the 45 KT yield had not been achieved.
When did you realise that the test for the thermonuclear device had
failed?
Almost immediately, it was almost instantaneous, because we had the
recording instruments that were calibrated to accurately record the
predicted yield of the various tests. And so when the instruments
didn’t show the predicted yield, we knew almost instantaneously (that
the thermonuclear device had under-performed.)
Secondly, after the tests, it’s a practice to take the vehicles and
visit the site of the shafts. When we (the team also included Dr
A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Dr R. Chidambaram) went there, we saw the
crater was very large for the fission bomb, it was even larger than
the one in 1974. But for the TN shaft, the damage was very little. No
crater was formed.
“The statement attributed to Kalam is because some people beseeched
him, ‘Sir, you are a Bharat Ratna. Entire India adores you. Speak in
our support’.”
No crater?
No crater.
Were there other sceptics about the performance of the thermonuclear
device?
Almost immediately, the international seismological centres, including
those with decades of experience of monitoring underground testing,
put out their assessment that the 45 KT yield claimed for the
thermonuclear device didn’t happen. It was instantaneous, it was not
inspired, it was not racist. You can’t give any such labels and say
that they were deliberately doing it to downplay India’s success.
What about the other team members? Were they also sceptical?
Seeing is believing. They accepted that the TN device had under-
performed. The Bombay team didn’t accept that.
“International seismological centres immediately said the claimed 45
KT yield didn’t happen. It was instantaneous, you can’t call it
inspired or racist.”
They said it right there?
No, they went back. Then they went to some rather ridiculous extreme
by saying that the DRDO’s instrumentation was faulty. This is amazing.
With respect to the fission bomb, which gave more than 20 KT for sure,
the DRDO’s instruments worked perfectly. But when it came to the TN
device, its instruments failed! This is talking with a forked tongue.
Is there any sure sign of telling that a TN test has failed?
If you look at the seismic data recorded by the DRDO instruments,
which worked beautifully, you can tell that the 45 KT yield didn’t
happen.
Then, why’s there so much difference between your perception and that
of others in the team?
From scientific and technological data, we’re very sure that the TN
device under-performed. Now, it’s being converted into a political
statement. Claims are being made which are obviously divorced from the
truth. This is an assertion rather than a scientifically proven fact.
I’m not a psychoanalyst to find out what goes on in the minds of those
who claim it wasn’t a failure. But as a science and technology (S&T)
person, I’m very sure that the TN device didn’t perform according to
expectation.
“We submitted a classified report. But they were ostrich-like. They
were virtually saying, ‘I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with
facts.”
And when did you bring it to the notice of the leadership?
By the end of May 1998, we came and spent considerable time in
analysing the data from the DRDO’s instrumentation for the tests. We
checked, we double-checked and triple-checked. We submitted a report
to the government saying these were the expected readings based upon
BARC predictions and the actual readings are lower than that. This was
given in a classified report to the government. But clearly, the
attitude of some people was ostrich-like. They were virtually saying,
‘I have made up my mind, don’t confuse me with facts.’
Was that the overwhelming view?
Normally, in matters of disputes, the procedure is to form a blue-
ribbon panel with retired, distinguished scientists, give them the
relevant data and the classified report and get their view. This
hasn’t happened yet.
When did you or the DRDO submit the report to the government
expressing your views on the TN test?
In 1998.
Loss of face: “Kalam is a missile man. H.N. Sethna’s statement was a
whack in his face, he doesn’t know where to hide”
And did Dr Kalam go through the report?
He may have read it but I’m not sure if he understood it.
“Narayanan’s statement shows desperation of a sort. There is a nice
phrase in football—‘attacking the player, not the ball’.”
You wrote in a newspaper about the ‘voice vote’ Brajesh Mishra took as
NSA among scientists to determine whether the TN test was
successful....
No, I think there was some misinterpretation. I had used the voice
vote within quotes. It was not as if he went around asking each
individual, do you agree, do you agree, yes sir, no sir, three bags
full. He took a broad view. Normally, what happens in such matters, as
I said before, is that you form an expert committee to resolve
differences.
Do you think there was also personal ego involved in all this among
some of the team’s key members?
Everybody has an ego of his choice and size. I’m only saying that in
S&T matters, there’s no ego. When a witness is administered an oath in
court, he’s asked to say, ‘I will speak the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth.’ Why doesn’t he....
In this case, you think only partial truth is being said?
In this case, they are claiming we managed a yield of 45 KT. This is a
blatant lie. It’s a LIE—all capitals.
“I have a certain ‘roundedness’ with my interest in a lot of things.
But I certainly don’t have political ambitions (which I am accused of
having).”
So, what was the yield?
About 20 to 25 KT.
National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan describes you as a
maverick....
It shows desperation of a sort. There is a nice phrase in football
—“attacking the player, not the ball”.
Are they trying to attack you by discrediting you?
The attempt is to give the dog a bad name. But this dog has not lost
its bite.
NSA, present and past: M.K. Narayanan, Brajesh Mishra
What did you mean when you said the NSA was barking up the wrong tree?
I said this in response to the NSA saying that Santhanam does not know
what he’s talking about. I am a person from a nuclear background, who
spent close to 16 years in Trombay, published articles in various
journals. I was doing strategic analysis long before I came to Delhi.
I may not be known to Sri Narayanan but, if anything, I will add that
Narayanan is a babe in the woods on nuclear matters. His career has
been that of a cop and a spook. And I don’t want to elaborate any
further.
“The CTBT will be pursued with much greater vigour by the new US
administration. The window (of opportunity) to test is available
now.”
What about former president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, since he was your
immediate boss in the DRDO?
He was head of the DRDO. He is a missile man, he’s not familiar with
nuclear issues. You must have seen the statement of Dr H.N. Sethna. I
think Dr Kalam was put up to give a statement and Dr Sethna from
Bombay gave such a whack after which Dr Kalam does not know where to
hide his face.
But weren’t you disappointed that Kalam, who was your boss, didn’t
back you?
As my boss, he certainly didn’t prevent me from doing what I was
doing. Because he knew that I knew what I was talking about. The
statement attributed to him now is because some people went to him and
beseeched him: ‘Sir, you are a Bharat Ratna. Entire India adores you.
Your statement will carry a lot of weight. Sir, please come out with a
statement in our support.’
Some people say you are raising all this now because you have
political ambitions. Is that correct?
I don’t have any political ambitions. My father was an MLA in 1937, he
was an MLC in 1950. My mother is a distinguished writer in Tamil who
has received a number of awards. I was a debater, a quiz master and
also a cricketer in college. And I have a certain ‘roundedness’, with
my interest in a lot of things. But I certainly don’t have any
political ambitions. This is another brush with which they want to tar
me. Since I don’t have any such political ambition, this brush need
not have been used. It may become counter-productive for them. It’s
also one more index of their frustration and desperation.
Where do you want to take it from here?
I don’t want to take it any further. I want a closure of the
discussion so that the dust settles down and the concerned agencies
and people in government pull up their socks and try to understand the
lessons from my remarks.
But the failure of the TN device bothers you?
It bothered me then, it bothers me now. But it does not bother me to
the extent that I spend sleepless nights, because in some sense the
deterrence with the fission bomb is available. But obviously, India’s
nuclear arsenal is incomplete without a TN weapon. India’s minimum
credible deterrent remains untouched because the fission bomb
certainly worked like a song and, therefore, the minimum part of our
deterrent is fully addressed. (But) certainly, we need a thermonuclear
bomb, especially for the Agni class of missiles which have a range of
3,000 to 4,000 km. It really doesn’t make sense that you fly the Agni
missile 4,000 km and deliver a 20 KT bomb. This will certainly not be
in the category of what we call inflicting unacceptable damage on the
adversary who attacks us. For sure, we need to carry out a proper
thermonuclear test.
I’ve said that if the opportunity arises we should consider resuming
the tests. Ultimately, it’s a political decision and I fully respect
that. But if you ask me, I think the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
will be pursued with much vigour by the new US administration. The
window of opportunity is available now.
We can still go ahead and test.
Yes, I think it’s in the national interest because the CTBT is around
the corner and the new US administration will be very different in its
nuclear policy than the George Bush Jr one. So, we’ll have to study
all these things, understand the ramifications and take a decision
based on our national interest.
But won’t such tests have severe implications for India? For instance,
on the Indo-US nuclear deal?
If you look at the Bush-Manmohan Singh agreement on civilian nuclear
cooperation carefully, there’s only a reference, half an article,
which says that if the security environment around India changes and
is of adverse nature, then the two countries will enter into
consultations. This is a procedure by which the US is not taken by
surprise about the developments. So, this is part of diplomacy between
India and the US.
Sep 29, 2009 04:48 PM
62 Siddharth,
I agree with you that he was as spineless as Manmohan is. Mobilizing a
million troops along the border for a month or so, without any war to
follow, must have drained thousands of crores of rupees into the
sewers. Not to mention the emotional distress it caused to the
families of the men standing near the border. So many troops were
called for duty when they just returned from their stationed place to
spend some time with their families. We have these pompous idiots for
politicians, who make no bones about wasting national resources.
vikram chandra
Visakhapatnam, India
Sep 29, 2009 04:06 PM
61 NARAYANA STHANAM
There never was any basis for you to talk about caste here.
If you do not know about the topic being discussed i wonder why you
posted into it.
This is freespeech section so i guess anything goes.
kiran
bangalore, India
Sep 29, 2009 11:51 AM
60 Why do the Indian quota beggars want a nuclear bomb? Will the
eunuch Manmohan use the bomb say tomorrow the Pakistanis throw one on
us?
A thoroughly analytical article was published in TOI by MD Nalapat
when eunuch Vajpayee was the PM. Nalapat convincingly argued that in
case of Pakistanis throwing a N-bomb on us the Americans will quickly
step in and stop Vajpayee from retaliating. The eunuch Vajpayee has
always been saying , "Bharat shanti priya desh hein; yeh desh chahata
hein"!
I will lay the blame for all sorts of political perversions on quota
mentality. I still don't understand how quotas can degrade a
scientist, a politician, a doctor and an engineer so thoroughly. Does
quotas stir uncontrollable lust inducing mental ejaculation?
siddharth
Chennai, India
Sep 28, 2009 11:21 PM
59 Kiran Sir,
Thank you for your response, sorry to miss spell 'caste' along with
may be many others in my post. Forgive me if I am not understand you
right, I did not say that 'there is caste involved here'. I only said
people in India bring caste, religion, color of skin, region of birth,
ancestral knowledge etc into every discussion to make a point, however
irrelevant they are. What I have written are my personal observations
about Indian scientists I come across in scientific meetings in India
and other places around the world I attend regularly. As per
commenting on the points you have raised, I have only partial
knowledge about the things you have written and not going to
extrapolate on them without complete or almost complete understanding.
Thank you.
narayana sthanam
Birmingham, United States
Sep 28, 2009 07:10 PM
58 [50]kiran:>>"Seshadri, i see - that you see - through the mossy
fronting as chaterjee !!! keep it up"
thanks, for the appreciation.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Sep 28, 2009 05:58 PM
57 >Why doesnt Outlook hire some MPs to rake up this issue in the
Parliament?
Oh, my god ! that's risque. There is something called previledge.
MANISH BANERJEE
KOLKATA, India
Sep 28, 2009 04:41 PM
56 Why doesnt Outlook hire some MPs to rake up this issue in the
Parliament? This expose will serve no purpose unless investigated for
truth.
Navien K Batta
muscat, Oman
Sep 28, 2009 03:24 PM
55 Sandilya,
The issue here is not Santahnam vrs. Chidambaram. Issue is whether the
exploded device was of 25 or 45 KT capacity. Irrespective of his
motive & timing now, Santhanam was a key science side player in the
1998 explosion. And he has raised serious doubt about capacity of the
1998 TN device. If it is thought that 45 KT device explosion is
minimum to simulate & fabricate Hydrogen Bombs of appropriate capacity
to attain minimum deterrence(?), the thing to do is to revisit &
reassess the data from the explosion of the 1998 device, not bad
mouthing Santahnam.
Though I will not go to your extreme to describe DRDO as 'biggest
hoax', true, results produced by it are disproportionate to its size.
Problem is compounded by military's deep reluctance accept indegenous
equipment as the foreign one comes superbly well greased. Dr.A.P.J.
Abdul Kalam is the one who, by & large, set up this science
bureaucracy, he, though a missile engineer , was an uberbureaucrat &
was at home in New Delhi's power corridors to get large financial
allotment for defence research. He is a man who stayed alwyas on the
right side of power & eshtablishment. He even allowed his name to be
used at the height of nuclear deal debate in parliament by a power
broker who did not know an atom from Amitabh or a neutron from Jaya,
be them Bacchan or Prada.
MANISH BANERJEE
KOLKATA, India
Sep 28, 2009 01:23 PM
54 narayana sthanam
You are right in your perception about Santhanam
sandilya
Chennai, India
Sep 28, 2009 01:08 PM
53 >>They will try to demolish him by hook or by crook. >then let him
wait for his comeuppence.
MANISH BANERJEE
No tears need be shed for Santhanam since he is no lilly. He is more a
politician than a scientist.
DRDO is our country's biggest hoax research organisation. And people
like Santhanam and next Kalam have managed to keep its false glory
flying. Time a white paper is published on the number of patents this
organisation registered and converted to really useful military
technolgy. The quality and caliber of scientists of DRDO does not
match their tall claims.Santhanam was a master at tall claims and now
he is singing different tune, apparanatly for some gain.
sandilya
Chennai, India
Sep 28, 2009 11:53 AM
52 Seshadri,
>>>>"Your sick mind is obsessed with Arabs".
>> you have a funny habit of telling me exactly what I should be telling you!.
How many times have I mentioned Arabs, camels and tents? Now count how
many times you have mentioned them!
>>>>"Saying homeland means we share a home and are brothers".
>> right, invaders have had to become share-holders only in india.
Idiot, we were talking of Indian Muslims and vande maatram! By
referring to invaders and share-holders in such a discussion all you
want to do is to poison the dialogue rather than have a dialogue.
>> "the asurabeeja adamogenics."
That is the phraseology of hate-crazed bigots like yourself.
>>>> "Motherland" is a romantic way of saying the same thing as "homeland".
>> strange fellow!, associating romance with mothers.
Moron, romantic way of saying means poetic way of saying. You truly
have a dirty mind.
>>>>"To make a big point out of this difference as you have done repeatedly, is evidence that you want to search for differences and then blow them up in order to promote your divisionism and hate".
>> I understand. You want divisionism, hate and extermination of non-moslems, a full-national version of the mumbai attacks.
You are truly a despicable villain. How does the Mumbai attack come
into a discussion of the fact that you keep searching for differences
between communities and then blowing them up in order to promote your
divisionism and hate?
>>>> "A mature person would be able to respect differences in view points and maximize areas of agreement".
>> a convenient interim arrangement for you. even pak now only wants india to treat terrorism as a common problem.
You are just a hopeless case. What do Pakistan and terrorism have to
do with the fact that you are incapable of respecting differences in
view points and incapable of maximizing areas of agreement in issues
such as singing vande maatram.
>> people come and go and get reborn also. the mother-'land' continues.
So people do not mean anything to you. You just worship the land!
>> only hindus really love hindusthan.
You are not capable of loving India, because you cannot see beyond the
Hindu community. You do not even know what India is. Every word in
your post is dripping with hate, and then you have the nerve to say
that you do not hate anybody. I have never seen anybody in my whole
life who is as full of hate as you.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Sep 28, 2009 11:03 AM
51 >What I am wondering is how a person who has been Govt. of India's
salaried scientist able to afford a house in Greater Kailash Part-II
of New Delhi?
That's what Santhanam should expect. First a 'maveric', now his
integrety. The Babudom will not let him go easily. They will try to
demolish him by hook or by crook. But then that will not be easy ,
Santahnam must have counted his chikens , saw to it that he is not
vulnerable. If he is, then let him wait for his comeuppence.
MANISH BANERJEE
KOLKATA, India
Sep 28, 2009 10:16 A
50 Seshadri
i see - that you see - through the mossy fronting as chaterjee !!!
keep it up
kiran
bangalore, India
Sep 28, 2009 09:52 AM
49 V_C3:>>"Why do you feel pain when Saudi is leasing farmlands of
Pakistan?"
bec I have a nationlist feeling for the undivided subcontinent of
india, hoping that jinnaist wisdom might arise among paki states in
due course, to reconfederate into a union of subhimalayan asian
states, USHAS, new dawn. Saudi colonialism will come in the way.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Sep 28, 2009 09:45 AM
48 V_C3:>>"Islamic semen is in great demand even in Gujjuland"
'islamic semen is eagerly looking around for impregnations to increase
the moslem population in guj rapidly', is a more correct stat5ement of
the truth.
>>"So, bajrangi parents employ spies so that their daughters don't date Muslim boys.The sale of condoms and oral contraceptives soar"
naturally and rightly so. May Lord Radhe-Shyaam help them, bless them
and protect them!
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Sep 28, 2009 09:37 AM
47 No wonder, you have no feeling at all for pak farmlands becoming
the slave-sthan for feeding the saudi kingdom! >>V.Seshadri
Why do you feel pain in your ass when Saudi is leasing farmlands of
Pakistan?
Vivek Chatterjee3
Calcutta, India
Sep 28, 2009 09:33 AM
46 A:>>"Your sick mind is obsessed with Arabs".
you have a funny habit of telling me exactly what I should be telling
you!.
>>"Saying homeland means we share a home and are brothers".
right, invaders have had to become share-holders only in india [in
iran, they have become the full owners]. these 'brothers' will become
'masters' soon, when their pop increases to near 40 percent, slave-
drivers later and exterminators of all hindus, finally.
but, beware, what God has allowed the asurabeeja adamogenics to do,
the over-exploitation of land and its desertification, in the entire
north africa and middle-east, will not be allowed to be done on sapta-
sindhu aarya-varta.
>>"Motherland" is a romantic way of saying the same thing as "homeland".
strange fellow!, associating romance with mothers.
>>"Some Muslims may have religious objection to saying "Vande maatram", because they do not worship (vande) anyone but God".
'most moslems' will be a correct state-ment.
>>"To make a big point out of this difference as you have done repeatedly, is evidence that you want to search for differences and then blow them up in order to promote your divisionism and hate".
I understand. You want divisionism, hate and extermination of non-
moslems, a full-national version of the mumbai attacks, only to wait,
it will happen only when the moslems do it, when their pop reaches 40%
level.
>>"A mature person would be able to respect differences in view points and maximize areas of agreement".
a convenient interim arrangement for you. even pak now only wants
india to treat terrorism as a common problem, cooperate in sharing
info on terrorist plans from pak we get; only, so that they can
silence those terrorist modules and activate others. india should coop
for its own destruction, is what they want..
>>"your patriotism extends to Pakistani lands but not to Pakistani people, not even to Indian Muslims and Christians".
Yes, people come and go and get reborn also. the mother-'land'
continues, as symbol and substance of nationalism and patriotism, the
karma-bhoomi, for aarya-varta sanaatanists.
for asura-beeja arabics like you, only mecca in arabia is sacred,
other lands only to be exploited, desertified and converted into
extensive burial grounds only. No wonder, you have no feeling at all
for pak farmlands becoming the slave-sthan for feeding the saudi
kingdom! the billions the usa gives to pak is only saudi money re-
directed, anyway!. very soon, the sindh-river-land might only become
another version of the nile-river-land, is what you expect. but, I
expect suitable acts of god will prevent that from happening.
>>"You think loving Hinduism and the Hindu community is patriotism. You are neither a patriot nor a nationalist. You are a sangh-bhakt, not a desh-bhakt".
only hindus really love hindusthan = sindhsthan = sapta-sindhu aarya-
varta. the sangh teaches them this desh-bhakti. the mecca-bhakti of
you moslems will only convert this desh also into another deserted
burial ground, like the entire north africa and the middle east. the
river meant for mesapotamia, potamac, is now flowing, only thro
washington city.
Allaakhya-parameSwara will ensure justice and welfare for the right
kind of humanity, anyway. wait and watch.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Sep 28, 2009 09:05 AM
45 In Gujjuland strange things happen. Even the Navratri festival is
no exception.Young lovebirds have a merry time,and in fact get a free
licence to have licentious relationships all in the name of Garbha
dancing. Islamic semen is in great demand even in Gujjuland. So,
bajrangi parents employ spies so that their daughters don't date
Muslim boys.The sale of condoms and oral contraceptives soar. Those
who don't take adequate steps turn up at the doorstep of
gynecologists' clinics for abortions.So, everyone is happy:boys,
girls, pharmacists and doctors even. No one ever complains, Gujju Modi
included.
Vivek Chatterjee3
Calcutta, India
Sep 28, 2009 08:09 AM
44 ANWAR,
you to Seshadri.
Its common with average Muslims to make and look at everything as
religious centric.Its better and sensible to behave like Romans when
in Rome.
Americans may call their motherland as Homeland or fatherland.we have
got nothing to do with it.Do you have any objections with the American
national anthem too.The sick Arab mind today is the fuel for the
irresponsible and mad jihadis.Your Islamic brotherhood which you used
to boast as exemplary is in tatters.Today you guys are unable to take
sides since in the name of brotherhood the brothers are engaged in
bloody violent battles one calling himself as a Shia and the other as
Sunni.Before advising others one has to set his home right.
Motherland is is not as romanticizing as a jihadiland.There is no
pressure on any Muslims to sing the national anthem.Its however more a
part of national culture than religion you idiot.In the name of
motherland no one is killing innocents by becoming either a martyr or
a Fidayeen.Who are these 'some' Muslims anyway.Are you the one amongst
them as you have always defended and sympathised with that"Other"
lot.They do not worship a goddess but when that Mad Freak pervert
painter Hussein a Muslim himself made objectionable paintings on Hindu
goddess no Muslim the 'other' or not 'as other' one came forward to
protest .Hindus or non Muslim are not making any big point or fuss out
of this as its the Muslims alone that are showing their fanatical
behaviors and making it a big issue while there are so many religions
and castes in India who have no objections singing a national
anthem.May be thats why there are the 'others' who hoist the flags of
an enemy country in Kashmir and elsewhere.On national issues and on
patriotism there is no second view.There is invariably a difference
between a mature person and fanatic person.
Dont include the Christians or any one else other than the 'other'
community for god's sake.No one has so far questioned the nationalism
or patriotism and the integrity of the Christians in India.Differences
may be there on issues like conversions.For some loving their religion
and community is patriotism.But there are others for whom wishing good
or loving an enemy country in itself is patriotism.One has to be
religious but there is no need for him to be fanatic.
whether you sing vande mataram or not is not an issue.the reason why
you are not protesting against those('other') who are refusing to sing
is the real problem.
vijay
Bangalore, India
Sep 28, 2009 05:24 AM
43 NARAYANA STHANAM
BIRMINGHAM, UNITED STATES
OK We know that you feel there is caste involved here and that indian
scientists arent upto the mark on several parameters...
Would it be possible for your to address the following?
1. Santhanam was always opposed to the nuclear deal. Its reflected in
his position all through the deal related debate.
2. He has already stated that he had submitted his findings on the
failure of the Thermo test to the government of the day [nda] in a
confidential 50 page report [which kalam too would have read].
3. He never came shouting that Thermo test was a failure [Strobe
talbott in his book - "engaging india - diplomacy democracy and the
bomb", states that the intelligence community of the US, believes that
indian scientific establishment has informed the political leadership
that the Thermo test results werent upto the mark.
4. No Theremo nuclear mechanism in the world has worked out with a
single test...Maybe india's did !! as per satinder sikka of BARC
[sikka agreed with the test result data of the DRDO for other tests,
but when it came to thermo...he says the measuring instruments were
faulty]
5. Santhanam made the recent statement of Thermonuclear test being a
failure under 'chatam house rules', where the statements may be
disclosed but not the individual. when the rules were violated by the
reporter who disclosed his name, santhanam was roundly attacked. he
has now hit back with such precision and in a factual style that
people can only attack him in terms of
caste talk
competency of indian scientists
'why now' etc....
REGARDLESS...THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS
- MADMOHAN SINGH, NEUTERED INDIAS STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING CAPABILITY
- he was also the guy who starved the nuclear establishment of india
for funds when he was the Finance minister.
- We do not have a proven thermo weapon while we have the delivery
mechanism. Thats like driving a thousand miles to fight a battle and
then discovering you dont have the strength- courtesy Madmohan singh.
kiran
bangalore, India
Sep 28, 2009 03:53 AM
42 Seshadri,
>> saying 'homeland' is like the camel telling the arab, I have made your land my home now.
Your sick mind is obsessed with Arabs. Saying homeland means we share
a home and are brothers.
>> saying motherland implies: 'we are all equal children of this mother-land"
"Motherland" is a romantic way of saying the same thing as "homeland".
Some Muslims may have religious objection to saying "Vande maatram",
because they do not worship (vande) anyone but God. To make a big
point out of this difference as you have done repeatedly, is evidence
that you want to search for differences and then blow them up in order
to promote your divisionism and hate. A mature person would be able to
respect differences in view points and maximize areas of agreement.
>> my nationalism extends to the entire subcontinent. That is why I deplore the idea of saudis leasing off large parts of fertile farmlands in pak's sindh and punjab.
Your patriotism extends to Pakistani lands but not to Pakistani
people, not even to Indian Muslims and Christians. You think loving
Hinduism and the Hindu community is patriotism. You are neither a
patriot nor a nationalist. You are a sangh-bhakt, not a desh-bhakt.
>> you said devout alla-worshipper-moslems decline to say vande maataram.
Lying and distorting are your usual modus operandi. I said Muslims (I
did not say 'devout Allah-worshipping) who do not sing Vande maataram
do so for religious reasons, not anti-national reasons. I had added
that I and many Muslims gladly sing Vande Maataram. Do you have poor
memory or are you just a gutter-level despicable liar?
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Sep 28, 2009 12:52 AM
41 A:>>"If someone loves his country as his "homeland", is he worse
than someone who loves it as his "motherland"?"
you will see the difference if you think carefully.
saying 'homeland' is like the camel telling the arab, I have made your
land my home now, you better die or go away somewhere else!
saying motherland implies: 'we are all equal children of this mother-
land, let us all work for her progress and protection'.
It does make a lot of difference.
>>"An anti-national charlatan like you"
my nationalism extends to the entire subcontinent. That is why I
deplore the idea of saudis leasing off large parts of fertile
farmlands in pak's sindh and punjab. the food produced will only go to
arabia. poor pakis will move into india for food, I suppose. not good
for either land. only saudi agents like you can appreciate.
>>" I and many Muslims gladly sing Vande maatram"
you said devout alla-worshipper-moslems decline to say vande maataram.
That really means most mosl in india and pak. You are only a
missionary posting as a moslem, to keep up hindu-mosl divide in india,
for benefitting the christendom-expansion program of the church, under
sonia-raj.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Sep 28, 2009 12:51 AM
40 I think there is some truth in Dr.Santhanam's statement.
Instead of dismissing him, why Indian Scientific community is NOT
addressing the issue from a scientific perspective.
Let us examine the facts and prove that he is right or wrong.
JAYADEVAN.T.J
kumbanadu, india
Sep 28, 2009 12:49 AM
39 I think there is some truth in Dr.Santhanam's statement.
Instead of dismissing him, why Indian Scientific community is
addressing the issue from a scientific perspective.
Let us examine the facts and prove that he is right or wrong.
JAYADEVAN.T.J
kumbanadu, india
Sep 28, 2009 12:17 AM
38 Seshadri,
>> allah Himself is finding ways of punishing moslems in non-arab countries, who think it is wrong to love their mother-land also as mother.
What an idiotic argument! If someone loves his country as his
"homeland", is he worse than someone who loves it as his "motherland"?
An anti-national charlatan like you who is constantly generating
hatred against minorities must be looking for and praying for some
punishment or other being inflicted on Muslims! Do you think God looks
kindly on ill-wishers like you?
>> Hopefully, the anwar types will recognize and agree to say 'vande maataram' also.
Are you a liar or a moron? I have told you several times that I and
many Muslims gladly sing Vande maatram. Does lying help your hate-
prachar?
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Sep 27, 2009 11:32 PM
37 What I am wondering is how a person who has been Govt. of India's
salaried scientist able to afford a house in Greater Kailash Part-II
of New Delhi?
Aseem Swarup Johri
Toronto, Canada
Sep 27, 2009 11:09 PM
36 Dr Santhanam is a typical Indian scientist, or I should say typical
Indian. Having worked in top rated Indian scientific establishments
for many years as a graduate student and post-doctoral scientist and
migrated to US for pursuing research in my field of interest, I can
say one thing with honesty, India and Indian scientists need to evolve
and progress many many fold better and higher in scientific integrity
and excellence. This is my personal observation: Whenever we ask an
Indian scientist a simple subject related question, if they know the
answer, they will tell you as if they have invented that field before
west, and if they do not know the answer, they will make it clear to
you that 'all those guys who say they know the answer' are nothing but
cheats and dishonest guys. Guys like Dr. Santhanam insist that all
other scientists, who are well recognized and respected by their
'scientific peers’ are cheats and sycophants and like some of the
people in this forum, they will bring cast, religion, political
affiliation, color of the skin, region of birth, their parents
poverty, Indian Vedic knowledge, international conspiracy etc etc.
into the discussion to make a point. It is a simple question, why did
he wait for 11 years to come out with this damning information? What
is all this nonsense and disparaging remarks about Dr. Kalam, Dr.
Narayanan, Dr. Sethana, Dr. Chidambaram etc. and making silly
statements like 'barking up the wrong tree, 'babe in the nuclear
woods' dog did not lose the bite etc etc. I think Dr. Santhanam is
like many typical ‘old timer’ Indian scientists, highly intelligent,
could have done excellent work but could not do because of deficient
facilities and outdated scientific culture, lots of Ego, questionable
scientific integrity (may be) and a constant feel of 'sour grapes'. If
he has the data to prove that the experiment failed, because he says
he has analyzed the data along with others, contrary to what others
are claiming, he should communicate to a scientific peer reviewed
international journal with 'clear hypothesis and proving data'.
Scientific peers should be the judges, not people like me and others
who do not know an iota of nuclear physics. He should put the analysis
in front of scientific community rather than seeking publicity in
sensationalizing 'news' papers. This whole issue is more about 'him'
than about India, scientific integrity and excellence and it is a sad
commentary on Indian science and scientists. Whether US want us to do
the ‘test’ or not is not the question here, please leave it to the
elected Govt. If he claims the experiment has failed, contrary to
others claim for 11 years, then why did he keep quite? He was part of
the experiments conducted with tax-payers money, and knowing that it
is mishandled, he should have come out long time back and that by
itself is dishonesty, which he is attributing to all other eminent
scientists!.
narayana sthanam
Birmingham, United States
Sep 27, 2009 07:53 PM
35 "Pakistan never tested H-bomb coz india failed in its H-bomb
tests.
Pakistan didn't test Hydrogen bomb after Indian failure "
http://forum.pakista...ndex.php/t16897.html
happy ram ambalvi
Ambala Cantt, India
Sep 27, 2009 07:47 PM
34 A qestion is being repeatedly asked here & in other fora - why
Santahnam wait 11 yers to come out in public. These people are
deliberately displaying selective amnesia or listlessly read the
interview having preconditioned mindset. Here is what Dr. Santhanm
said in this very interview: "By the end of May 1998, we came and
spent considerable time in analysing the data from the DRDO’s
instrumentation for the tests. We checked, we double-checked and
triple-checked. We submitted a report to the government saying these
were the expected readings based upon BARC predictions and the actual
readings are lower than that. This was given in a classified report to
the government" . He could have hardly do more or go public, given his
position in the set up.
And those who expected Santahnam to go public right then are the ones
who would have gone to town loudest about Santhanam's indiscreetness.
And there was no way he could have done so ethically or legally.
The reason he went public now, as he now legally can & being in the
camp for more set of tests, is that he is seeing India perennially
loosing option to go for one more Nuclear test , going by recent
diplomatic manuevres. Santhanm's was superbly clever move , breadth
taking in its timing. He seems to have suceeded. Look at the Indian
breast beating at least in public at UN last week about CTBT being
discriminatory.
Former policemen who cannot look beyond their nose calling Santhanam
'maveric' are the ones who are scuppered pants down by razor sharp
intellect of people like Santham. In this slugfest of wit against
skuldugery Santhanam won the first round by huge margin.
This, however, is without being judgemental about desirability further
nuclear tests.
MANISH BANERJEE
KOLKATA, India
Sep 27, 2009 06:46 PM
33 Vijay:>>"the minorities work for those Arabs in the middle east
countries"
But then, even moslems, from india and pak, are refused citizenship in
arabia or mideast, even after decades of service there! now, the
saudis are trying to take, on long lease, large tracts of fertile farm-
land in pak, for mech-producing food for their country only! a new,
cruel, form of colonialism really. They might try the same on india
also, in our islamophile states.
Perhaps, allah Himself is finding ways of punishing moslems in non-
arab countries, who think it is wrong to love their mother-land also
as mother. 'maatru-devo bhava', says the veda, as the first spiritual
dictum. this applies to mother-land also.
Now that Allah has entered Siva as gangaa-dhara, He seems to be
emphasizing this dictum, to pakis also. Hopefully, the anwar types
will recognize and agree to say 'vande maataram' also.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Sep 27, 2009 05:48 PM
32 Reddy/Perian,
The upper caste coolies work for western countries and the coolies
from lower caste and the minorities work for those Arabs in the middle
east countries.So what difference you find here you thick skulls.At
least the upper castes are not getting a raw deal from their bosses in
the west unlike how the Arabs treat their employees in the middle
east.Do you also call that as oppression or exploitation of the lower
castes and oppressed by the Arabs too.
vijay
Bangalore, India
Sep 27, 2009 05:41 PM
31 ANWAR,
you have been responding to my posts for so long.that means you are
understanding my English or what I have been trying to push inside
your thick skull.There was no necessity for you draw the name of the
BJP unnecessarily like your sister Saba Naqvi does.Are you an English
professor ?.
vijay
Bangalore, India
Sep 27, 2009 03:14 PM
30 P:>>"IITs are run by people like seshadri for the past fifty
years"
I wish people like me could really have run the iits, as you believe.
people like me were products of pre-iit colleges like psgct, joined
iit on trans-world compete after studies in rolla, urbana, on TCM
scholarships, started def res centres in iits, to reduce dependance on
west, helped the space research activities also. I retired as prof and
head of guidance/control and avionics/systems labs in EED of IITM. my
lectures on these subjects, meant for MTechs, were taken by senior
Btechs and phD students also. internalized promo schemes did come in
the way of getting best talents in, after 1975. no one there to
continue my courses, extension unthinkable in anti-B environment. IISc
had better quality induction bec all appointments were 5yr contracts
only.
maintenance of merit alone as measure, for faculty selection, became
difficult in atmo of intercaste, inter-lang, inter-region conflict
considerations. now, reservations for obc, in adm and faculty also,
will only add to the confusion. chaos will be the name of the nation,
from now onwards, I suppose, even in iits. worse, in other places.
Only worried about the students who have to make a life coming out of
the mis-educ environment in the country. if GRE type tests thro
internet are used to determine parallel quality-assessment across the
board, and if students are given the full freedom to move to better
institutions each semester, based on their own assessments, education
could still be saved, for the country, even if institutions are ruined
by the criminal politicians and pastor-types all over the country.
But, then, the same polits in power may not allow that also. God save
the country, if He cares, really.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Sep 27, 2009 03:04 PM
29 "The window of opportunity is closing. Possibly it is already too
late. But determining whether Santhanam had a moral lapse for 11 years
is much less important than finding out the truth and examining our
options."
1. Truth as a layman I knew from News Paper repots of anylisis by the
World Sesmic Labs that our Thermo Nuke Bomb did not gave desired
results that is within a week of the Pokhran Tests .Atomic Bombs were
success however .Even Dr K confims.
2.Question is simple can we conduct another round of Tests ? Simply
no.
To get perfection of Hydrogen Bomb under underground testing mode we
need to conduct couple of more tests .That is the norm .
Can we ?
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Sep 27, 2009 02:21 PM
28 “Santhanam’s revelations have 'Unplugged' the ‘Hot Air Balloon’ of
Indian Defence Program - ‘Midair’.”
Rajneesh Batra
New Delhi, India
Sep 27, 2009 01:52 PM
27 Perian,
The south Indian's particularly the Dravidians are known to have been
very jealous of the intelligence,entrepreneurship and global success
of thenorth Indians.The Dravidians are not ashamed to call the success
of the upper castes as being of that of an upper castes and not so
successful as being of a lower castes because of the upper
caste .There is no cure yet found for Jealousy.Seshadri alone is an
upper caste nor Perian alone is a lower caste.who ever passes through
IIT unless and until they come out in flying colours the advanced
western countries will not throw even grass leave alone dollars.After
all even uneducated coolies do not social service,they work because
they earn.well people like you want the coolies to be served without
doing anything and that too on some one else's or tax payers cost.If
all professors were of like Mr.Seshadri at those IIT's then it would
not have ranked best in the world only after some well known
institutes across the west.whats your problem here.people suffering
from jealousy are the lazy and lethargic worms or obnoxious weeds in
any growing country.Its not the caste that is responsible for ones
success but only the hard work and perseverance.No one is admitted in
the west based on caste you idiot.
what you wish may become a reality .who knows.that day may also come
when there will be hundred percent reservations and all unreserved
category will be getting admitted in the west.it may be only a
generation gap.Reservation is only a path for creating
opportunities.The ultimate success depends on ones own capabilities
irrespective of one's caste.Thats why you see why the monopoly of
those notorious christian missionaries over quality education is over
in India.This is how our society is getting developed.
Anyway the enemies of the Hindus have no other cudgel to beat the
Hindus and hence resort to caste as the enemy.what the BJP-RSS gang
has to do with your problem.Its the secular UPA government which
lauded the services of the RSS sponsored education and development
projects for the poor tribals and the Daliths.what the Ambedker
parties have done so far for the poor Daliths.mere hate mongering
against some particular castes cannot fill the empty bellies of the
daliths and poor.Grow up Mr.Perian.stop your loose tongue.
vijay
Bangalore, India
Sep 27, 2009 01:46 PM
26 Vijay/Stopperbhai,
>> Your Congress brothers also used to oppose everything including Nuclear intentions and expansions.
Your post does not address the point I had raised. Do you understand
English?
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Sep 27, 2009 01:25 PM
25 ANWAR,
Your Congress brothers also used to oppose everything including
Nuclear intentions and expansions that was American earlier when
Indira Gandhi was piggy backing on Russia.BJP opposed only from the
angle that its our sovereign right to perform test when we need and
not when America desires.You have often proved yourself as an
idiot .It was the BJP which first congratulated Indira Gandhi on
Pokran I.The Muslims anyway will never appreciate any national
achievements as they dont even like our nuclear scientist or the
father of our Nuclear advancements in India in Dr.Abdul Kalam.
vijay
Bangalore, India
Sep 27, 2009 01:02 PM
24 The assertion that the BJP had opposed the nuclear treaty because
they knew of the need to do more thermonuclear tests is pure humbug!
All they wanted was that the Congress should not have any
achievements.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Sep 27, 2009 12:53 PM
23 Perian,
How will there be equal development if you go on attacking upper
castes? Do you want the upper castes to be dalits or do you want equal
development. No wonder many of the upper castes settle in foreign
nations fearing you racists who are driven by hate, not equal
development. What little development there is in India, in industry,
sports, culture, is due to the upper castes. Just check your
employer's caste.
vikram chandra
Visakhapatnam, India
Sep 27, 2009 12:37 PM
22 perian--"They produce just upper caste techno coolies who work for
western countries."
perian ... this is the holy truth !!
Reddy
Bangalore, India
Sep 27, 2009 12:17 PM
21 IITs are run by people like seshadri for the past fifty years.
utter useless institutes for innovations in science and technology.
They produce just upper caste techno coolies who work for western
countries. Shame less creatures. To hide their incapacity they go on
attacking reservation policy. ofcourse some limitations will be there
in the begining due to reservations but ultimately it will lead to
overall development of the society. These eunuch hindu fanaticist BJP-
RSS gang indulged in crap works. no doubt now.
perian
chennai, india
Sep 27, 2009 10:26 AM
20 MK Narayana is a quota-supporting pervert. For him a rich man
deserves quotas and poor man 20 days wages of NREGA so that he can
wash his stomach with water. The eunuch Vajpayee government tried the
stunt of exploding the H-bomb. No sooner the gang of Vajpayee eunuchs
maintained a VERY studied silence. Why? Because it was dud. Another
dud Nawaz Sharif also staged in Pakistan to appease his Muslim morons.
Dud for dud it was a good match between Indian eunuchs and the
Pakistanis.
The loquacious Sushma Swaraj said: "desh mein kushi ki lahar dod rahi
hain." What she meant was the beggared Indians have been fooled once
again by treasonous politicians.
siddharth
Chennai, India
Sep 27, 2009 10:26 AM
19 MK Narayana is a quota-supporting pervert. For him a rich man
deserves quotas and poor man 20 days wages of NREGA so that he can
wash his stomach with water. The eunuch Vajpayee government tried the
stunt of exploding the H-bomb. No sooner the gang of Vajpayee eunuchs
maintained a VERY studied silence. Why? Because it was dud. Another
dud Nawaz Sharif also staged in Pakistan to appease his Muslim morons.
Dud for dud it was a good match between Indian eunuchs and the
Pakistanis.
The loquacious Sushma Swaraj said: "desh mein kushi ki lahar dod rahi
hain." What she meant was the beggared Indians have been fooled once
again by treasonous politicians.
siddharth
Chennai, India
Sep 27, 2009 10:00 AM
18 D_K:>>"our scientific establishmant is mired in politics and is an
utter mess"
yes. only countries where science and education are left entirely to
the researchers and teachers, produce nobel laurettes. [TCM scholars
were told this in 1959 at a mtg in waldorf astoria in washington].
such countries do not even have any 'education-ministers', at all, in
centre or states, telling what should taught, in which lang, etc.. the
best minds are put in charge and funds reqd by them allotted to them.
in california, all govt funds for research require some matching funds
from some private corpn also, to ensure that wastage will be countered
by the profit-interest of the corpos involved.
students, in all developed countreies, are allowed to change their
study-institutes every semester, with grade-certificates. govts do not
run selections, admissions, reservations, college-recognitions. good-
teacher colleges collect more students, bad ones become hotels.
swirling waters will find their own levels.
in TN, a VC did full namaskar to JJ, after giving her honorary doc!
Now, mk is being 'divinized' by ex-VCs. Day is not far off, when some
'scholar' from a 'kalaigjnar institute' gets DSc for counting the
number of hair-strands left on mk's head, with a special award also to
go with it. no wonder if mom-india wants to go under the indian ocean,
for peace in honor.
iits have now become ind inst of trickeries, mainly bec of excessive
state-govts' reps in their governing bodies. things will get worse,
with more iits being started in relatively under-developed over-
politicized-criminalized states.
the prestige of the iits can be saved, their techno-standards ensured,
only if all of them are controlled and run by a single director-
general of high competance and comprehension in travel mode. Kalam or
narayan moorthy could be a good choice. State-govt reps in their BoGs
should be replaced by eminent profs from prominent world-repute
institutions.
Kapil saying he is helpless bec educ is in concurrent list cannot be
accepted. president lady can issue a corrective ordinance to save
mother india from disgrace.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Sep 27, 2009 07:43 AM
17 The story shows what we have known all along -- our scientific
establishmant is mired in politics and is an utter mess. No one can
make careers in science unless they are sycophants. Students opt for
commerce or IAS instead because everyone knows what is the state in
scientific institutes. Now they are crowing about finding water on the
moon. Watch this space...after some years we will find that even that
is an eyewash.
Dinesh Kumar
Chandigarh, India
Sep 27, 2009 07:02 AM
16 Correction to below:
"it would also expose the BJP's rabid opposition to the deal."
should actually have been
"it would expose the real reason behind BJP's rabid opposition to the
deal."
That was also the reason that while Saba Naqvi Bhadwick asked Jaswant
Singh questions on Kargil, Kandahar etc but not about the BJPs
opposition to nuclear deal.
kiran
bangalore, India
Sep 27, 2009 06:57 AM
15 GANESAN>> "Why did you wait for 11 years to come out in public"?
Answer:: He has already stated in a seperate interview [either
rediff.com or timesofindia.com, that he submitted a 50 page
confidential report to the government of that time]
If that was asked by outlook and answered by Santy [his codename in
the intelligence community] it would also expose the BJP's rabid
opposition to the deal. And Vinod 'sonia ka chooooosa' mehta cannot
allow that.
kiran
bangalore, India
Sep 27, 2009 05:22 AM
14 Someone should ask Narayanan or Chidambaran is India has weaponized
its so called TN device yet... if not then why not since they claim
the TN test was a such a "grand success".
A Dutta
Los Angeles, United States
Sep 27, 2009 12:38 AM
13 Seshadri,
>> not hate, but clear perception, only.
The clear perception of someone blinded by hate!!!
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Sep 27, 2009 12:19 AM
12 >> determining whether Santhanam had a moral lapse for 11 years is
much less important than finding out the truth and examining our
options.
Absolutely! The issue being so sensitive, there can be reasons for his
silence, which he cannot reveal. What is infinitely more important is
to determine the truth and take necessary steps based on the truth. It
is amazing to see some people here not bothered about truth.
Kumar
Bangalore, India
Sep 26, 2009 11:51 PM
11 A:>>"Seshadri is truly blinded by his hate"
not hate, but clear perception, only. unfortunately, today, surplus
money, for paying pipers freely, is now available only with the mullas
of riyadh and the cardinals of rome, besides the banks in zurich!. Let
us pray for a change in the patterns, by grace of Allah...
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Sep 26, 2009 11:21 PM
10 Seshadri,
>> my suspicion is that santhanam .... has quietly accepted a million dollars from a mulla-moneybag...
Seshadri is truly blinded by his hate! Whatever the subject matter,
his hate agenda is sure to crop up!
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Sep 26, 2009 11:15 PM
9 > " in matters of disputes, the procedure is to form a blue-ribbon
panel with retired, distinguished scientists, give them the relevant
data and the classified report and get their view. This hasn’t
happened yet."
There is no reason why such a blue-ribbon panel cannot be set up now.
The window of opportunity is closing. Possibly it is already too late.
But determining whether Santhanam had a moral lapse for 11 years is
much less important than finding out the truth and examining our
options.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Sep 26, 2009 10:20 PM
8 Dr K Santhanam was the operative Head of he group of the Scientists
who conducted Pokhran Two.If he was dissatisfied with the results then
he should have shared his views during at that time.He is thus guilty
of misleading the Nation for 11 yrs.
A serious crime by any standrd.
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Sep 26, 2009 10:06 PM
7 Characters like Dr. Santhanam, who sprung from nowhere, only go to
prove the politics in the functioning of DRDO and AEC. Indian
government itself is unprepared for another test and the next time we
test a nuclear device, it will be in another nation; hopefully,
ruffling some feathers in the surrounding impact area, while back
home, every important Indian city is wiped out.
If the test cannot form a crater, one doubts the severity in effect,
the devices built on it's model can cause. Thanks to Dr. Santhanam, we
now know what "minimum deterrence" is all about.
vikram chandra
Visakhapatnam, India
Sep 26, 2009 09:36 PM
6 G:>>""Why did you wait for 11 years to come out in public"? I would
be happy if someone can point his answer to this question."
my suspicion is that santhanam has got some grand-kids who have not
very good jobs to make good living. he has quietly accepted a million
dollars from a mulla-moneybag and made an announcement to please the
pakis and embarrass the govt of india, future of gr-kids secure, he
can seek to reach the feet of narayana in peace, now. it takes all
sorts to make the world.
v.seshadri
chennai, india
Sep 26, 2009 08:46 PM
5 Its waste of time to read this interview. Public is least interested
in scientific and political details. Why did he wait for 11 years for
disclosure? Why you did not speak up immediately after the tests? It
raises several doubts. Were you expecting downpour of awards which did
not happen so you finally decided to tell the nation that they have
been bluffed years before? Or you were afraid that if you'll speak
while still in service, your growth in DRDO will stop? If you can't
explain the delay, your statements will be seen as publicity stunts of
a forgotten genius who craves for attention in twilight.
One last thing: We all, when we are in a sensitive position have a
moral responsibility, responsibility of keeping Country's secrets
intact. By shouting in the press you are only giving enemies chance to
assess the real situation. Its highly condemning to discuss defence
secrets in full public glare no matter how intelligent you are.
S Singh
Hyd, India
Sep 26, 2009 08:30 PM
4 "I would be happy if someone can point his answer to this
question."
Ganesan
USA was not serious in getting India sign NTPT .Hence Test lobby was
not worried.
happy ram ambalvi
Ambala Cantt, India
Sep 26, 2009 08:24 PM
3 "But if you ask me, I think the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will
be pursued with much vigour by the new US administration. The window
of opportunity is available now."
Santhanam should have also explained the consequences of availing the
open window . Doors of Nuke co-operation will be closed firmly shut
once for all for India.
happy ram ambalvi
Ambala Cantt, India
Sep 26, 2009 07:47 PM
2 I may be wrong here but as far as I read, the key question was not
asked "Why did you wait for 11 years to come out in public"?
I would be happy if someone can point his answer to this question.
Ganesan
Nj, USA
Sep 26, 2009 07:47 PM
1 I may be wrong here but as far as I read, the key question was not
asked "Why did you wait for 11 years to come out in public"?
I would be happy if someone can point his answer to this question.
Ganesan
Nj, USA