What's new

Do we have thermonuclear warheads?

Don't expect a nuclear test in future except from N.Korea , untill our space agencies combine and find an hostile species somewhere deep in the night sky.
 
.
In next 10 years any one who wants a nuclear weapon will test it. There will be lots of chaos. I wont be surprised if US & Russia start testing nuclear weapons soon to warn each other.

US and Russia know that they have very well functioning nuclear arsenals. I don't foresee any stage where they will face off.

Also, Russia doesn't want a confrontation. It is evident by the fact that they have not moved an inch after taking their strategic island of Crimea, and by establishing some presence in Eastern Ukraine. They are not touching the Baltics etc.

Neither does US nor Europe want a confrontation.

In all likelihood, in 10 years, US and Europe would even reach a compromise with Russia on this issue.

In next 10 years any one who wants a nuclear weapon will test it. There will be lots of chaos. I wont be surprised if US & Russia start testing nuclear weapons soon to warn each other.

US and Russia know that they have very well functioning nuclear arsenals. I don't foresee any stage where they will face off.

Also, Russia doesn't want a confrontation. It is evident by the fact that they have not moved an inch after taking their strategic island of Crimea, and by establishing some presence in Eastern Ukraine. They are not touching the Baltics etc.

Neither does US nor Europe want a confrontation.

In all likelihood, in 10 years, US and Europe would even reach a compromise with Russia on this issue.
 
. .
I couldn't find this anywhere.

The only thing that I know is that India didn't conduct a thermonuclear test, and has the highest recorded yield of 56kt according to official sources, which is of course disputed.

In short - yes we do have up to 200 kt and we are expanding our thermonuclear arsenal as evident. India currently has 3 types of nuclear weapons in it's arsenal -

(1) Thermonuclear Device
(2) Fusion boosted Fission Bomb (2 types - Weapon grade plutonium & Reactor grade Plutonium)
(3) Fission Plutonium Bomb (2 types - Low Yield & High Yield )

After the 45 kiloton Pokhran-II nuclear tests India received its first fusion boosted weapon device -
Present-day thermonuclear weapons need plutonium or highly enriched uranium to set off the hydrogen-bomb part.Fusion produces 1 neutron for 14 MEV release of energy, while fission produces approximately 3-4 neutrons for 200 MEV release of energy. Ergo ,Fission is energy intensive whereas fusion is neutron intensive.

In an interview to the Federation of American Scientists Dr. R. Chidambaram (RC), Chairman, AEC & Secretary, DAE had clearly mentioned that a Thermonuclear weapon was indeed tested .

Press Conference

Shortly after POKHRAN II BARC published their radio-chemical analysis estimate of the S-1(Fusion Weapon) yield . The raw data has not been presented as it could reveal the specifics of the weapon design. However, it provides a qualitative method of determining the efficacy of the tests.

Page on barc.gov.in

India is also expanding its thermonuclear arsenal - as evident from the expansion of uranium enrichment facility at the Indian Rare Metals Plant, Mysore - The plant is able to produce about twice as much weapons-grade uranium as India will need to fuel its nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines in the future.

1535852_-_main.jpg
The removal of various structures related to construction support activities in February 2014 suggests that facility expansion is nearing completion. (PLEIADES © CNES 2014, Distribution Astrium Services / Spot Image / IHS)

India increases its uranium enrichment programme - IHS Jane's 360

We have thermonuclear bombs for deterrence: Kakodkar

The results of India's thermonuclear tests in 1998 were examined by different groups of experts and confirmed as fully successful, and the weaponisation based on these tests have been accomplished to full satisfaction, Anil Kakodkar, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, tells Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN'sDevil's Advocate programme, in a firm rebuttal of the insistence from various involved scientists that this was not so. Edited excerpts:

Dr Kakodkar, four leading scientists -- Dr Santhanam, Dr Iyengar, Dr Sethna and Dr Prasad -- have raised serious doubts about the thermonuclear tests of 1998. Dr Santhanam says "we have hard evidence on a purely factual basis that not only was the yield of the thermo-nuclear device far below the design prediction, but that it actually failed".

The yield of the tests was verified by several methods based on different principles, done by different groups. These have been reviewed in detail. I had described the tests in 1998 as perfect and I stand by that.

Dr Santhanam says the Defence Research and Development Organisation seismic instruments measured the yield as something between 20-25 kilotonnes (kt), hugely different from the claim put out by the Atomic Energy Commission that it was 45 kt.

DRDO did deploy some instruments for measurements but these did not work. I myself had reviewed all the results immediately after the tests and we concluded that the instruments did not work.

Do you have proof that the yield of the test was 45 kt?

Yes. No country has given so much scientific details on their tests as we have given and this we have published with the maximum clarity which could be done.

Even in 1998, foreign monitors questioned the yield of the tests. At that time, Indian doubts were only expressed in private. Now, Indian doubts have burst out into the open and they are being heard in public. Does it not worry you that these doubts have continued for 11 years?

Facts are facts. The measurements were done by different groups, different methods. And, all these groups have come to their own conclusions, which match with each other.

All these five or six different ways of measuring the yield have concluded the yield was 45 kt for the thermonuclear device?

Right. Absolutely no doubt.

Dr Santhanam, in addition to disputing the yield, has other reasons. He says the fission device, which produced a yield of 25 kt, created a crater of 25 metres in diameter. Then, if the fusion bomb had been successful and produced 45 kt, it should have created a crater of 70 metres in diameter. He says there was no crater at all.

The fission device yield was 15 kt, not 25 kt. And, though the two devices were 1.5 km apart, the geology within that distance changed quite a bit, partly because of the layers that exist and their slopes, but more important, because their depths were different. So, the placement of the device of the fission kind is in one medium and of the thermonuclear kind in another.

And, we have gone through detailed simulation. In simulation, you can locate the thermonuclear device where the fission device was placed and you can locate the fission device where the thermonuclear device was placed. And you get a much bigger crater now because the yield is higher.

Dr Santhanam says if the thermo-nuclear device had succeeded, both the shaft and the a-frame would have been destroyed. Instead, he says, the shaft "remained totally undamaged" and as for the a-frame, he says, it "remained completely intact".

You must understand the ground motion when a nuclear test takes place. Depending on the depth of burial and the medium in which it is buried, you could get several manifestations on the surface. You could get different kinds of craters. You can just get a mound. And, it can vent out. In the case of the thermonuclear device, the placement was in hard rock -- granite --- and with the depth and the yield for 45 kt, one expects only a mound to rise, which is what happened.

What about the shaft and the a-frame?

There was a cracking of the ground for a fairly large distance. But the phenomena was that it rises as a mound, then comes down slightly but it still remains a mound. So, there is no question of damage to the a-frame. it has been seen in detailed simulations. And, this simulation is done on codes which have been actually verified in 3-D situations on the test data available from abroad and validated, and these have been published in international journals.

One of your predecessors -- former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission P K Iyenger -- said: "The recent revelations by Dr Santhanam are the clincher. He was one of the four leaders associated with Pokhran II, the team leader from the DRDO side, and he must certainly have known many of the details, particularly with regard to the seismic measurements."

Dr Iyenger was nowhere involved in the 1998 tests. He was, of course, a key figure in the 1974 tests. Before the 1998 tests, all work was done under cover and we required a lot of logistical support and that all was being provided by DRDO. But things were still being done on a need-to-know basis. So, to assume Dr Santhanam knew everything is not true.

He knew everything within his realm of responsibility.

Everything that he needed to know but not more?


That's right.

Dr Santhanam says these doubts were formally raised by the DRDO with the government as far back as 1998 itself. And in a meeting arranged by the then national security advisor Brajesh Mishra, they were brushed aside.

Immediately after the tests, we carried out a review with both teams present -- the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre team as well as the DRDO team. We looked at the measurements done by both and I told you the conclusions and what instruments we could go by and what conclusions we could draw. If the instruments didn't work, where is the question of going by any assertions based on (that)?

In an article that Dr Santhanam has written recently, he says the Department of Atomic Energy is hiding facts from successive Indian governments, from Parliament and from the Indian people.

As I said earlier, we are perhaps unique in giving out (the volume of) information and that, too, immediately after the tests. There is no hiding. There are limits to what can be revealed. These have been discussed in the Atomic Energy Commission, in not one but four meetings, after the 1998 tests. And there are people who are knowledgeable. Dr Ramanna was a member of the commission at that time. So, where is the hiding?

To repeat, there are methods through which one has assessed the test results. Each one of them is a specialisation in itself and there are different groups --- not just individuals but groups -- which have looked at these. This is also on a need-to-know basis. Now, if all of them come to conclusions which are by-and-large similar, what other things can you do in terms of forming a peer group of scientists?

The matter is conclusively sorted out?

That's right. And after this controversy has been raised and it was again reviewed by the Atomic Energy Commission, we had gone through the records and the commission has come out with an authoritative statement.

Given that these are doubts about India's one and only thermo-nuclear test, do we need more tests?

The thermo-nuclear test, the fission test and the sub-kilotonne test all worked as designed. They are diverse. In terms of detailed design, their content is quite different. So, we think the design done is validated and within this configuration which has been tested, one can build devices ranging from low kt all the way to 200 kt. And that fully assures the deterrence.

The truth is that all the established thermonuclear powers needed more than one test. Can India be the exception?

Dil Maange More, that's another story. But we are talking about a time where the knowledge base has expanded, the capability has expanded and you carry out a design and prove you are confident that on the basis of that design and that test, one can build a range of systems right up to 200 kt.

We have a credible thermonuclear bomb?

Why are you using singular? Make that plural.

We have thermonuclear bombs in the plural? With a yield of at least 45 kt each?

Much more than that. I told you we have the possibility of a deterrence of low kt to 200 kt.

So, when people like General Malik, the former army chief, say the army wants assurance of the yield and the efficacy of India's thermonuclear bomb, what is your answer?

I think that is guaranteed. The army should be fully confident and defend the country. There is no issue about the arsenal at their command.

Source:- 'We have enough nuclear bombs for deterrence' - Rediff.com India News

FieldProvenHighConfidenceWpns-DRDOM.jpg

RVComparisionr13d-1.jpg

A23_M51_Pontoon_r13d.jpg


Claimed at 56 kt, but international experts think it was closer to 20 kt.
In all fairness to India, the device could have been a boosted fission weapon, perhaps with a partially-fizzled first or second stage. High yield is not really a specific requirement to be exhibited by thermonuclear weapons, only the fact that part of the yield is resultant from a fusion reaction.
make sense, as our MIRV is a 5 sticks of dynamite tied around the 5 rocks wrapped with a time delayed fuse string... AITDF -Aggarbatti initiated time delay fuse- patent pending.


actually they were a few sticks of dynamite - made in china offcourse, which were used to fake the whole thing. after lighting the fuse (no detonaters - as that is too advance for India), few of the sticks did not light up , and thus the low faked yield of the fake test.

The trouble with the dispute around the yield of Pokhran-II is that it can only be settled by subject-matter-experts and there are still 2 groups among those. The skeptics and the supporters (in the Indian scientific community) both use extensive scientific analysis to support their claims and it's impossible for a layman to know.

Source:- Page on tribuneindia.com,Pokhran-II,Yields.

Where there is some consensus - it's that the thermonuclear test which was scaled down from a theoretical 200kT to it's actual claimed yield, was still just borderline to prove a true thermonuclear design (not just boosted fission), but it may not even be necessary to test it in full.

Source:- Nuclear Weapons Program

Even if it was done to protect nearby villages (barely 5km) away - the claimed yield dwarfs in comparison to the 3+ megaton tests done by China and Russia, and there have been questions as to why India tested small devices in the fist place.

Going by all the news reports I've read over time - the conclusion would be this:

Even if the yield of the test was a bit lower - then India still got enough scientific data for simulation to master thermonuclear technology from the test's partial success. It was a thermonuclear design but its possible that a few tell-tale signs of such a design were perhaps missing in the seismic data.

The argument against this by the scientists like Santhanam and Iyengar is that no country has mastered thermonuclear tech in their first attempt - and India needs a total of 2 or 3 tests to be entirely sure of it's ability of putting it on a warhead on a missile.

But this goes against India's idea of a minimum deterrence which is "strategically active and militarily dormant" and it believes that one test and it's data was enough to serve as a deterrence. Weapons designers have endless requests for testing and scaling up and the whistle-blowers are yet to explain the timeline of their revelation (after 11 years).

The fact that it came out around the time of the Indo-US nuclear deal after which they felt US pressure for the CTBT would be highest, and that their conclusions effectively renew calls for another test before that window disappears - tends to diminish their claims.

There's also the fact that Vajpayee is rumored to have been inclined towards signing the CTBT after Pokhran-2 which indicates that the relevant members of the Indian defense and scientific community were indeed convinced of the results and India's abilities (that it was a success and India has the H-bomb that can theoretically scale by a large factor).

Source:- Vajpayee makes conditional offer on signing CTBT
'Vajpayee's offer to sign CTBT is contingent on America being equally conciliatory' : EDITOR'S NOTE
 
.
The argument against this by the scientists like Santhanam and Iyengar is that no country has mastered thermonuclear tech in their first attempt - and India needs a total of 2 or 3 tests to be entirely sure of it's ability of putting it on a warhead on a missile.

Anyone want to disagree with this?

India has been testing LCA for years, still not inducted.

China has been testing HGV for years, still not inducted.

So how can India have ASAT or Thermonuclear weapons, with 0 successful tests?

How does that make sense?
 
.
I don't think that will happen, for it will set a chain reaction of many nuclear tests around the world, something that is highly destabilizing, not to mention environmentally degrading.

Also, India didn't sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because at that time India was not a nuclear weapons state, despite a limited nuclear show in '74.



Which minister?
Minister under UPA or NDA.
Sorry....not minister......i was talking about kakodkar only
 
.
In short - yes we do have up to 200 kt and we are expanding our thermonuclear arsenal as evident. India currently has 3 types of nuclear weapons in it's arsenal -

(1) Thermonuclear Device
(2) Fusion boosted Fission Bomb (2 types - Weapon grade plutonium & Reactor grade Plutonium)
(3) Fission Plutonium Bomb (2 types - Low Yield & High Yield )

After the 45 kiloton Pokhran-II nuclear tests India received its first fusion boosted weapon device -
Present-day thermonuclear weapons need plutonium or highly enriched uranium to set off the hydrogen-bomb part.Fusion produces 1 neutron for 14 MEV release of energy, while fission produces approximately 3-4 neutrons for 200 MEV release of energy. Ergo ,Fission is energy intensive whereas fusion is neutron intensive.

In an interview to the Federation of American Scientists Dr. R. Chidambaram (RC), Chairman, AEC & Secretary, DAE had clearly mentioned that a Thermonuclear weapon was indeed tested .

Press Conference

Shortly after POKHRAN II BARC published their radio-chemical analysis estimate of the S-1(Fusion Weapon) yield . The raw data has not been presented as it could reveal the specifics of the weapon design. However, it provides a qualitative method of determining the efficacy of the tests.

Page on barc.gov.in

India is also expanding its thermonuclear arsenal - as evident from the expansion of uranium enrichment facility at the Indian Rare Metals Plant, Mysore - The plant is able to produce about twice as much weapons-grade uranium as India will need to fuel its nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines in the future.

1535852_-_main.jpg

The removal of various structures related to construction support activities in February 2014 suggests that facility expansion is nearing completion. (PLEIADES © CNES 2014, Distribution Astrium Services / Spot Image / IHS)

India increases its uranium enrichment programme - IHS Jane's 360



Source:- 'We have enough nuclear bombs for deterrence' - Rediff.com India News

FieldProvenHighConfidenceWpns-DRDOM.jpg

RVComparisionr13d-1.jpg

A23_M51_Pontoon_r13d.jpg






The trouble with the dispute around the yield of Pokhran-II is that it can only be settled by subject-matter-experts and there are still 2 groups among those. The skeptics and the supporters (in the Indian scientific community) both use extensive scientific analysis to support their claims and it's impossible for a layman to know.

Source:- Page on tribuneindia.com,Pokhran-II,Yields.

Where there is some consensus - it's that the thermonuclear test which was scaled down from a theoretical 200kT to it's actual claimed yield, was still just borderline to prove a true thermonuclear design (not just boosted fission), but it may not even be necessary to test it in full.

Source:- Nuclear Weapons Program

Even if it was done to protect nearby villages (barely 5km) away - the claimed yield dwarfs in comparison to the 3+ megaton tests done by China and Russia, and there have been questions as to why India tested small devices in the fist place.

Going by all the news reports I've read over time - the conclusion would be this:

Even if the yield of the test was a bit lower - then India still got enough scientific data for simulation to master thermonuclear technology from the test's partial success. It was a thermonuclear design but its possible that a few tell-tale signs of such a design were perhaps missing in the seismic data.

The argument against this by the scientists like Santhanam and Iyengar is that no country has mastered thermonuclear tech in their first attempt - and India needs a total of 2 or 3 tests to be entirely sure of it's ability of putting it on a warhead on a missile.

But this goes against India's idea of a minimum deterrence which is "strategically active and militarily dormant" and it believes that one test and it's data was enough to serve as a deterrence. Weapons designers have endless requests for testing and scaling up and the whistle-blowers are yet to explain the timeline of their revelation (after 11 years).

The fact that it came out around the time of the Indo-US nuclear deal after which they felt US pressure for the CTBT would be highest, and that their conclusions effectively renew calls for another test before that window disappears - tends to diminish their claims.

There's also the fact that Vajpayee is rumored to have been inclined towards signing the CTBT after Pokhran-2 which indicates that the relevant members of the Indian defense and scientific community were indeed convinced of the results and India's abilities (that it was a success and India has the H-bomb that can theoretically scale by a large factor).

Source:- Vajpayee makes conditional offer on signing CTBT
'Vajpayee's offer to sign CTBT is contingent on America being equally conciliatory' : EDITOR'S NOTE

That was an interesting read.

It pretty much elaborates on what I posted earlier: that a high yield is not necessarily a prerequisite for nor a definite outcome of a thermonuclear test. I am rather skeptical, however, of the assertion that India's test regimes were watered down in light of a "minimum deterrence strategy". The entire premise of deterrence is to let your potential adversaries know exactly what your delivery systems and payloads are capable of. Skepticism amongst India's potential adversaries regarding Delhi's thermonuclear research does not work to its favor.
 
.
Anyway, the fact that people are still asking this question is proof that India has no proven Thermonuclear capability.

China has tested HGV and J-20 for years, but nobody believes they are actually inducted today. Now imagine we had never tested HGV even once, how can we expect anyone to believe we have it?

Same as India's supposed ASAT capability. Never been successfully tested, yet we are supposed to believe they have it.

I might as well claim we have wormhole technology for space travel, it's never been tested either, just like India's supposed ASAT and Thermonuclear capabilities. You just have to trust we have it, even though it has never been tested once.
Yea dude we dont hv thermonuclear weapons,we build ssbn and icbm for passing time.
Ooppppppps did i just said ssbn and icbm? No no its diwali rocket and glass bottle to launch our 0.0001tone yeild lawangi.
 
.
Anyway, the fact that people are still asking this question is proof that India has no proven Thermonuclear capability.

China has tested HGV and J-20 for years, but nobody believes they are actually inducted today. Now imagine we had never tested HGV even once, how can we expect anyone to believe we have it?

Same as India's supposed ASAT capability. Never been successfully tested, yet we are supposed to believe they have it.

I might as well claim we have wormhole technology for space travel, it's never been tested either, just like India's supposed ASAT and Thermonuclear capabilities. You just have to trust we have it, even though it has never been tested once.

We don't care about your cheeni maal.
 
.
Anyone want to disagree with this?

India has been testing LCA for years, still not inducted.

China has been testing HGV for years, still not inducted.

So how can India have ASAT or Thermonuclear weapons, with 0 successful tests?

How does that make sense?

But India did reach to MARS in single attempt which no other country could!!!
 
. .
Anyone want to disagree with this?
India has been testing LCA for years, still not inducted.
China has been testing HGV for years, still not inducted.
So how can India have ASAT or Thermonuclear weapons, with 0 successful tests?
How does that make sense?

Well Said, but add to it, ( as per Indian Claims ) , their SECOND Nuclear Test ( First one in 1974 ) , in 1998 INCLUDED a Fusion Device, and IT SUCCEEDED ( as per DRDO ) Period.

So, Like Mars Project, and ( Like US / Russia / China success of Fusin "devices" in maiden attempt ) India DO HAVE a FUSION "CAPABILITY". .i.e the ABILITY to Create a FUSION Explosion.

Plz note, my Term "CAPABILITY" , as in their FIRST TESTS, neither US nor USSR had "weapon" ( = a Deliverable Warhead ) , they had simply carried a Fusion Blast of Megaton range. This is where Santhanm's position become relevant.

IMHO , DRDO ( Kakodkar ) and Santhnam both have a point. At one side DRDO is confidant of "design" aka "capability" while Santhnam is actually focusing "Weapon Test" aka ACTUAL WARHEAD TEST.
 
.
Instead of Arguing here, will somebody file a RTI to know the exact position!!:D
 
.
But India did reach to MARS in single attempt which no other country could!!!

I just don't understand the overemphasis of the MARS mission. There are very few countries that have attempted a Mars orbiter mission. USA and USSR both did so years back, and were not successful in their first attempt. China is yet to make even its first attempt. I don't think European Space Agency made an attempt as well.

Also, no doubt Mars mission was an incredible success, but I don't like the over boasting that some Indians tend to do.
 
.
I just don't understand the overemphasis of the MARS mission. There are very few countries that have attempted a Mars orbiter mission. USA and USSR both did so years back, and were not successful in their first attempt. China is yet to make even its first attempt. I don't think European Space Agency made an attempt as well.

Also, no doubt Mars mission was an incredible success, but I don't like the over boasting that some Indians tend to do.
That was a response to the one who doubts thing cannot go correct in first go. Chances are less but its not impossible.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom