Pokhran II not fully successful

Society Military and Strategic Issues
1

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.

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.

Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist - India - NEWS - The Times of India

this is not the first time that the success level of nuclear test conducted by india has questioned. but now internal sources has confirmed that level of success was not that as it was claimed at the time when nuclear explosion was conducted.

i wud appreciate if some one cud compare technically yet in understanble language to a layman, the nuclear test conducted by india and pakistan.

2

Nothing new, contrary to Indian govt. claims this is what the world had been saying all along, hundreds of articles by western analyst available on the web.

BTW this should be in M & S forum not WA.

3

So the rumour is true that Russia on emergency basis provided a nuclear bomb to India after the first round of Indian nuclear detonations miserably failed.

4

Pokhran II may be a fizzle, but it was terribly successful in destroying Pakistan's economy.

We saw Indians cutting their nose, and guess what, we following quickly and cut our nose too.

India being a much bigger country with mature industry could recover from it.

we on the other hand are still bleeding.

Sadly!

5

It was the bomb which actually helped Pakistan keeping India at bay in 1999, 2002 and during Mumbai incident.

There are news already coming from Indians saying if it wasnt for the bomb, India would have attacked Pakistan.

It was the right and the only thing to do for Pakistan at that time.

We still have a free country. :)

6

Stop reading too much of India school books its bad for knowledge and little knowledge is a bad think... Not too long ago your mighty dud was also a success and that goes for the rest of the stories.

Oh. BTW speaking of economy India wears the crown when it comes to extreme poverty and hunger beating sub saharan africa hands down, we bad pakis don't even count nor do the chinese.

7

it was successful nuclear test but it seems hydrogen bomb yield was as per benchmarks so if someone saying their nuclear part didnt work is wrong but surely their hydrogen part didnt work which we also dont have

8

Your are confusing the concept of "having a bomb", and "exploding a bomb".

It is OK to have one, it was NOT OK to explode one in Pakistan.

Everyone knew Pakistan has one.

We should have kept it under the wrap until it was really needed.

Got it?

9

and let India alone join UN security counsel as an official nuclear power ?

I dont think so.

If it wasnt exploded officially, western countries would have had our current leaders wrapping up the program by now. Now they can only ask us to refrain from making more bombs then we already have.

Just curious, Why are you so pessimistic ?

10

chalo ji.

First you said Indian would beat the cr@p out of us if we didn't explode nukie toy.

When given a reasonable reply to counter that,

Now you say,

  1. India would have joined SC if we didn't explode the nukie toy.

  2. West would take our nukie toy from us.

Let me address #3 first.

Man! Where hath thyself living till now? If the West couldn't stop us from building the toy, How do you think they would have taken from us? Hain Ji? What kind of logic is that?

for #2, India would or won't have been admitted for having nukie toy. Brazil and Japan don't have one, and they still were being considered for SC seats.

Sorry to be harsh. But what kind of logic is that drives your outmoded analysis?

Don't you even realize that nukie toy explosion practically destroyed our economy for years to come? All the money left our banks within 24 hours of the explosions.

Perhaps you are the follower of dirty politicians who said.

--- Hum nukie bum lain gay, chahay hum ko ghans khana paray.

So now thanks to pathetic show-bazi we in Pakistan are eating grass, and crippled power system.

Shabash.

Shabash.

Just reminds me a parody of Bollywood song.

---- Bum maro bum, bum maro bum
---- mit ga-ay hum, mit ga-ay hum
--- bolo subha shaam.
--- nukie dum-bum hai mera naam

p.s. West looked the other way when we imported / stole / smuggled the parts for the toy. They simply said, don't explode it willy nilly and we'll let you build one. And there are many historic and strategic reason for the West to give Pakistan "special permission". Their sanctions were simply slap on the wrist. Ask Iranians and N.Koreans what real sanctions mean. As both of them do bakri wali bai bai.

Do you even know that Iranian oil facilities are shut and they are being forced to import their petrol.

And N. Koreans ki to maan hi mer gaee. They are begging for $1 million a year just to import food and fuel.

11

I stopped reading after your first sentence claiming what I never said.

12

It is just an excuse to conduct more tests in the future. The Indian govt is more stable than it was in 1998. But Obama may be more of a problem than Clinton or Bush.

13

India is in a catch 22 position. India can kiss the nuclear deal with USA and others good bye if she ever went for another round of nuclear detonations and on the other hand, India must test more bombs to validate its design/yield and performance beyond any doubt.

[QUOTE]

Problem with India is that for her having tons of fissile material in the form of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium or plutonium-239 is not enough. In fact, fissile material is useless without a bomb design which actually works, and since 1945, all nuclear armed countries have opted for the implosion method, whose validity is confirmed by cold and hot tests. So unless a bomb design, with its trigger mechanism, physics calculations, precision engineering of explosive lenses and machining and fabrication of metallic fissile core of HEU or Pu-239, neutron source, booster and tamper and high-speed electronics and computers is all not syncrhonized and made to conform to very strict quality control procedures,chances are that some component of the bomb will not work as planned and will not conform to the technical parameters and benchmarks of the theoretical design.......M Ahmed.

[/QUOTE]

14

Sethna slams Kalam, says Pokhran II done in haste

PTI 1 September 2009, 08:21pm IST

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 needs more nuke tests to be conducted,” Sethna, the guiding force behind India’s first nuclear test in 1974, said.

Sethna now in his eighties suggested that Kalam, who was heading the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) when Santhanam was coordinating Pokhran-II, suggested that the missile man was no qualified authority to rubbish his former colleague’s claim.

Simultaneously, another former chairman of the Atomic Commission (AEC) P K Iyengar alleged that the 1998 tests were done in haste at the bidding of the government of the day. A BJP-led NDA government headed by Atal Behari Vajpayee had just assumed office when India conducted the tests.

The comments by Sethna, who was the AEC chairman in 1974 came notwithstanding Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Kalam setting at rest the controversy over the 1998 tests.

Kalam said the only thermonuclear device (hydrogen bomb) tested produced the “desired yield”.

But Sethna said "former president APJ Abdul Kalam was not a scientist and Santhanam is a physicist and he knew what he was talking.

“What does Kalam understand about ? He can say anything as he was the President and a politician.”

“What Santhanam said was absolutely correct,” he added.

“What did he (Kalam) know about extracting, making explosive grade? He didn’t know a thing. By being a president he appeared to wear the stature. He relied on atomic energy to gain additional stature,” said Sethna about Kalam while talking to a TV channel.

“I don’t like politicians to interfere specially lay politicians to interfere any more. I firmly believe that they should stay out. When we did the test… the first test there was no politician. It was a raw one. We were lucky that the whole thing collapsed,” said Sethna, who in his days in the atomic establishment had the reputation of being a blunt, plainspeaking organisational leader.

Kalam had on August 27 said Pokhran II was a success rubbishing Santhanam’s claim that the tests were a “fizzle”.

Iyengar, who was among the three top atomic scientists who oversaw the 1974 tests, has already shared Santhanam’s assessment and questioned official claims of success.

Iyengar suggested that in March 1998, two months before Pokhran-II, India’s intelligence must have found out that the Pakistanis were about to test and that they were serious.

“Therefore, they (the new government in India) asked these people(scientists) to hurry up, do as fast as possible in all this extra pressure to be one up politically because BJP had just come to power,” he said.

“If Pakistan fired an explosion before India what a common man in India would have thought,” Iyengar added.

The Principal advisor of Government of India Dr R Chidambaram, who led the team of scientists for Pokhran-II, denied Santhanam’s statement and said he had to explain scientifically why the tests were not fully successful.

Sethna slams Kalam, says Pokhran II done in haste - India - NEWS - The Times of India

It is not just Dr. Sathnam who was part of the India’s nuclear project but also **Homi Sethna **(Fromer top atomic boss) now as well as former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) P K Iyengar. and on top of that there is world community saying " we told you that Indian nuclear explosions were fizzles.

Must be hard for the Indians who introduced the nuclear age in South Asia in 1974 are still without a reliable bomb whereas their neighbour Pakistan has progressed ten fold.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: