What's new

Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

@Screaming Skull

Its just the general Public in India who didn't know.

You are underestimating the ‘general public in India’ friend. You are only hearing about these claims of failures now. For a guy like me and many fellow Indians it is just an action replay of what happened in the aftermath of those tests of 1998. Same suspicions were raised way back in that time too. Even Indian nuclear scientists back then had argued based on the seismic data collected by them and it had raised a furor even then. Only difference being that the media had limited reach then and couldn’t influence the people on a scale that is possible now. But trust me, reasonably educated Indians have been aware of the controversies. Check out this report published merely 3 weeks after the test- Rediff On The NeT: India may not have an H-bomb, says scientist

Have a look at this lecture by Dr. Inam-ur-Rehman and listen what he is saying about Indian Thermonucler Weapons nearly 6 months back. (He is very humble person and you would not find him bragging or making high claims) According to Dr. Inam-ur-Rehman, Indian thermonuclear weapon had failed and he describes more about the test. He is a very humble and down-to-earth person and you would not find him make high claims or brag about anything. You would love to watch his lecture if you are looking for some insight information.

Thanks for pointing out the video. But, honestly it doesn’t tell me anything that I am not aware of already. Many Indian and non-Indian scientists have argued based on the same points being made by Dr. Inam-ur-Rehman. But those claims have been successfully refuted numerous times. For one of the credible refutations, please check out the report I posted in my previous post.

Anyway, I am neither denying nor accepting what is being claimed by Santhanam. What I am merely pointing out is that, this revelation from Santhanam in all probability has come at the behest of the GoI. The reasons for which, I have stated in my previous post. Whether the test was a failure or not doesn’t undermine the larger point that he is making about India refraining from signing the CTBT.

Btw, Santhanam is the same guy who said this in 1998- India capable of making Neutron Bomb: Santhanam
 
.
Santhanam's doubts about the hydrogen bomb after the Pokhran tests were first featured, on an unattributable basis, in security analyst Bharat Karnad's book India's Nuclear Policy ( 2008) where he pointed out that " a senior DRDO official involved in the testing" had, some six months after the tests, " recommended resumption of testing to the government because he was convinced that the test of the hydrogen bomb was inadequate".


Asked why Santhanam might have decided to go public now, Karnad said that it was his belief that " as a nuclear scientist who has always dealt in physical certainties, try as he might Santhanam could not reconcile the physical facts of deficiencies in the design of the thermonuclear device evidenced in the test results with the profession of satisfaction by the government with the same results."


'Indian hydrogen bomb was a dud': India Today - Latest Breaking News from India, World, Business, Cricket, Sports, Bollywood.
 
.
Here is what BBC has to say:

BBC NEWS | South Asia | India nuclear test 'did not work'

A retired atomic scientist who was closely associated with India's 1998 nuclear tests has said they were not as successful as was claimed.

K Santhanam said one of the tests - on a hydrogen bomb - had not worked, and that India would have to carry out more tests for a credible nuclear deterrent.

His statement has been dismissed by the government and his former colleagues.

The Indian tests led to similar tests by Pakistan, raising fears of a nuclear conflict between the two countries.

Cover-up?

K Santhanam is a respected Indian atomic scientist who was project director of the 1998 nuclear tests.

He now says that one of the five tests that were carried out, in which a thermonuclear device or hydrogen bomb was detonated, did not perform as well as expected.

He also said that everyone associated with the tests immediately recognised that something had gone wrong.

If his statement is accurate it points to a massive cover-up by India and also confirms what many in the West suspected at the time - that the nuclear devices India tested were not as powerful as had been thought.
India's government has dismissed Mr Santhanam's claim, which has also been disputed by senior officials of the BJP-led government which carried out the tests.

The scientist says that India is coming under pressure to sign up to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a move he says would be disastrous since he contends that the country does not yet have a credible nuclear deterrent.
 
.
There are basically arguements on both sides. However is it wise to base your nation's nuclear deterent on a test which has been shrouded in doubt.
Some insights but mostly more of the same.
domain-b.com : Pokhran-II: Did Buddha really smile?

Pokhran-II: Did Buddha really smile?
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.'
shakti1_domain-b.jpg
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."....................................
 
Last edited:
.
I would rather call Dr. Santhanam's comments as doubts than revelations.
:rofl:
Even if what he said is true, he did good to India. Now no government will try to sign treaties like CTBT. :lol:
 
.
I would rather call Dr. Santhanam's comments as doubts than revelations.
:rofl:
Even if what he said is true, he did good to India. Now no government will try to sign treaties like CTBT. :lol:

India has actually signed it. Did you remember the Nuclear Deal with USA. You are not going to test any nuclear device. If you did you will not get any uranium from nuclear supplier club.
 
.
This guy Santhanam really intrigues me you know! I have been following his articles and interviews very closely over the years and never once did I get the feeling that his stand was any different from that of the ABV govt's or the subsequent MMS govts’. Just to prove my point further, I did a little research and dug out all the major interviews with this guy.

10th Sep 1998- Indian Express report

India capable of making Neutron Bomb: Santhanam

19th May 2003- Santhanam authored article in ‘Outlook'

I think India is much better off after May 1998. First, Pakistan's weapons have been forced out of the closet. Our option, which had been on oxygen since 1974 (if not earlier), came out of the icu. Our status is no longer 'ambiguous' and the people of India feel relieved that national security interests are protected. Secondly, the asymmetry with respect to China stands largely removed and it is worth emphasising that deterrence is not just about numbers alone.

www.outlookindia.com | The Quantum Leap

2007 CNN-IBN debate on nuclear deal

Video-1
Video-2
Video-3

From the above articles and videos it is clear that Dr. Santhanam until now believed that the 1998 thermonuclear test was a success or at least he was toeing the official GoI line on that. What I don’t understand is why suddenly after 11 years the man comes out with this revelation which is absolutely contradicting to what he has been saying all this while. There are only three possible reasons-

1. The pressure on GoI to sign the CTBT is too much and the GoI is using one of its trusted foot soldiers (an ex-RAW agent) to do subtle psy-ops to build public opinion against signing CTBT through the media. This public pressure can then be used as an excuse by the GoI to avoid signing the CTBT.

2. Dr. Santhanam feels that the GoI is close to signing the CTBT or feels that the GoI will soon buckle under US pressure and hence decides to be a martyr to save the country from walking the path of assured doom. What better way than to get the media to project the CTBT as an evil treaty for India.

3. The test was indeed a failure and the gov now feels that there is an urgent need to test before it can sign the CTBT. With INS Arihant in the waters, it will not be wise to carry untested, suspect, high yield nuclear warheads that may jeopardize the submarine and the lives of its crew.

Whatever be the reason, I personally feel that Dr. Santhanam has done a great service to the nation. Hopefully, the media will follow up and continue to put pressure on the gov to come clean on this issue.
 
.
I honestly feel this is a double game being played here. Its just for the sake of not signing the CTBT. There are tests on the way, I believe, not soon, but on its way.

This is kind of a message, that the CTBT wont be signed anytime soon. Nothing more to derive out of it.
 
.
India has actually signed it. Did you remember the Nuclear Deal with USA. You are not going to test any nuclear device. If you did you will not get any uranium from nuclear supplier club.

The reality is.. irrespective of Test results ...on Thermonuclear device tests. India at this moment cn't and willn't test any nuclear devices... for sure.. but yeah if India grows its economy and comes out of the USA superpower shadows... It becomes altogether a different ball game...
now these things don't happen in a year or two...it may as well take 2-3 decades or never !!!
 
.
I still would not worry if Hydrogen bombs failed..you still have atomic bombs which is are equally deadly.
 
.
Whether the hydrogen bomb worked or not may be up for debate but one thing this has done is that no way will the govt sign the CTBT now.
 
.
I still would not worry if Hydrogen bombs failed..you still have atomic bombs which is are equally deadly.

That s besides the point. Using pure fission weapons now is like using gramophones in the age of ipods!

Thermonuclear weapons have several advantages over the conventional pure fission weapons. Two stage thermonuclear weapons, like the one India tested, use fusion reactions involving isotopes of light elements like hydrogen and lithium to remove the yield limits of fission and boosted fission designs, to reduce weapon cost by reducing the amount of costly enriched uranium or plutonium required for a given yield, and to reduce the weight of the bomb. They have superior ‘bang for the buck’ and ‘bang per kg’. If the emphasis is on cheapness depleted or natural uranium is usually used for the jacket. If the emphasis is on yield per weight enriched uranium is used. The energy produced by the fusion second stage can be used to ignite an even larger fusion third stage (already tested by US & Russia). Multiple staging allows in principle the creation of bombs of virtually unlimited size.

In India’s context all these advantages are very significant. It is very beneficial to have light yet powerpacked warheads. As you know, Indian missiles are capable of carrying 1000-1500 kg warheads. Bringing down the payload of a ballistic missile increases its range almost exponentially. So, if India was to use a thermonuclear warhead (assuming that we aren’t using them already), it would be sufficient to carry say about 600-700 kg to cause the same amount of destruction as a pure fission warhead weighing 1000-1500 kg. Thus we can easily add about 1000-1500 km range to our missiles without having to tweak with the motors. Since, they are compact and require little uranium, they are ideal candidates to go into our SSBNs too. This will ensure limited radiation fallout and will allow miniaturization of warheads and missiles to carry more of them in the sub and also improve their range. Lastly, the cost factor too is very important.

India realized these advantages long back and hence embarked upon the quest to develop a thermonuclear device way back in 1998. Even if the 1998 test was a failure, it would be foolhardy to believe that even after 11 years of that test, India hasn’t furthered the research and mastered the tech. imo After 11 yrs of further R&D, India today has the necessary designs and techs for a much more powerful TN than the one tested in 98. Now all that remains is real time testing for which we shouldn’t surrender our right to test by signing the CTBT. And this is precisely the point Dr. Santhanam s trying to make (maybe at the behest of the GoI imo).
 
.
Indian armed forces confident about nuclear arsenal

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.

Link Indian armed forces confident about nuclear arsenal - India - NEWS - The Times of India
 
.
‘Fizzle’ claim for thermonuclear test refuted

New Delhi: The government on Thursday strongly refuted claims that the 1998 test of a thermonuclear device had been a failure, with Principal Scientific Adviser R. Chidambaram telling The Hindu that those questioning the tests yield had an obligation to back up their charge with scientific evidence.

He was responding to the recent statement by a former defence scientist, K. Santhanam, that “the yield in the thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was claimed.” Mr. Santhanam, who cited only unspecified “seismic measurements and expert opinion from world over,” went on to say that this was the reason India should not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The stated success of the second generation nuclear device tested on May 11, 1998, was questioned at the time by a number of Western seismologists who said the seismic signatures detected by them were at variance with the claimed yield of 45 kilotons. Although the controversy subsided somewhat once scientists from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre — which designed the weapon — published their scientific evidence, it is likely to be reignited once again since Mr. Santhanam represented the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) team at the Pokhran-II tests and is the first member of that group to echo the arguments of those who say the thermonuclear device failed to work properly.

“If Mr. Santhanam has any scientific data to back up what he has claimed, I am sure BARC scientists would be more than happy to debate it,” said Dr. Chidambaram. “Without that, this kind of statement means nothing.”

In a 2000 article, The May 1998 Pokhran tests: Scientific aspects, republished in 2008 with some updated details, in a French journal, ‘Atoms for Peace,’ Dr. Chidambaram has argued that western seismologists who under-estimated the Pokhran yields did so because they did not take into account the geological structure at the Indian testing range. They also failed to appreciate that India’s weapons designers purposely went for lower yields because the shots had to be fired in existing shafts which could not be dug any deeper for fear of detection. Higher yields, then, would have caused damage to nearby villages and also led to the possible venting of radioactivity.

Dr. Chidambaram wrote that the thermonuclear device tested was “a two-stage device of advanced design, which had a fusion-boosted fission trigger as the first stage and a fusion secondary stage which was compressed by radiation implosion and ignited.” He said the argument that the secondary stage failed to perform is belied by post-shot radioactivity measurements on samples extracted from the test site which showed significant activity of sodium-22 and manganese-54, both by-products of a fusion reaction rather than pure fission. “From 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.” Based on this, he said, BARC scientists worked out a total yield of 50 +/- 10 kt for the thermonuclear device, which was consistent with both the design yield and seismic estimates.

As for the sub-kiloton tests of 0.3 and 0.2 kt of 13 May 1998, which the International Monitoring System for verifying CTBT compliance failed altogether to detect, he said “the threshold limit for seismic detection is much higher in, say a sand medium than in hard rock; the Pokhran geological medium comes somewhere in between” and so it was not surprising these two tests did not show up on the IMS.

“Let someone refute what we have written, then we can look at it,” said Dr. Chidamabaram, adding that he was yet to see a published critique of BARC’s scientific assessment by any laboratory-based scientist abroad.

Faulty instrumentation


A former senior official of the erstwhile Vajpayee government confirmed to The Hindu that there had been differences of opinion between BARC and DRDO scientists after the May 1998 tests, with the latter asserting that some of the weapons tests had not been successful. The internal debate was complicated by the fact that the DRDO experts, including Mr. Santhanam, were not privy to the actual weapon designs, which are highly classified. But the issue was resolved after a high-level meeting chaired by Brajesh Mishra, who was National Security Advisor at the time, in which the BARC experts established that DRDO had underestimated the true yields due to faulty seismic instrumentation. And the radioactivity analysis provided the clincher.

Since 1998, whatever his private reservations might have been, Mr. Santhanam appears to have stuck closely to the official line in his public pronouncements.

On the fifth anniversary of Pokhran-II, for example, he said in an article in Outlook that “the asymmetry with respect to China stands largely removed” thanks to the 1998 tests. Since China was a proven thermonuclear power at the time and India was not, it is hard to reconcile this optimistic assertion with the scientist’s current claim that the thermonuclear device India tested was “a fizzle.”

Similarly, in June 2007, Mr. Santhanam declared on CNN-IBN on a programme about the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in which this correspondent was also a participant: “After May 1998, there was a clear declaration from India that we don’t have to conduct any more nuclear tests. India should not have any problem legalising this position. But this is subject to the condition that if the international security condition changes, then we should be allowed to test."

Link :: Bharat-Rakshak.com - Indian Military News Headlines ::
 
.
Pokhran II was successful: Kalam

NEW DELHI: In a bid to stamp out newly-raised doubts about the success of the Pokhran II nuclear tests, former president APJ Kalam and principal
scientific advisor R Chidambaram dismissed all allegations about the quality of the tests and maintained that all parameters were successfully met.

“The tests in Pokhran were completely successful... All parameters of tests were successfully met and there is no ambiguity on its success,” Mr Kalam was quoted as saying. The nuclear scientist, who spearheaded India’s nuclear tests, further refuted the suggestion that the yield of the 1998 tests was much lower then what was officially recorded.

“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,” Mr 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,” he added.

Adding weight to Mr Kalam’s statement, R Chidambaram, who led the team of scientists during the 1998 nuclear tests, said it was an “absurd” suggestion that the 1998 tests did not yield the desired results.

“There is no controversy over the yield of Pokhran II nuclear tests. The claims are absurd,” Mr Chidambaram told a news agency.

Both Mr Kalam and Mr Chidambaram were reacting to former DRDO scientist K Santhanam’s assertion that the hydrogen bomb in May 1998 was of low yield and did not meet the country’s strategic objectives. Mr Chidambaram said that if Santhanam had new data, he should share it with the government.

“If he has any new scientific data which has not been answered in the results of the test published by us, we will be happy to look into it,” said Mr Chidambaram. He added that the results of the 1998 nuclear tests were published in great detail in international journals and it also take into account studies by several global experts.

“If he has any new scientific information which we are not aware of, it will be nice to have that data. He is a scientist, not a politician. Let him tell exactly what made him give that comment. Who are the seismologists he is referring to. We will go and look back,” Mr Chidambaram said.

Both Mr Kalam and Mr Chidambaram were key players in the Pokhran II nuclear tests along with Anil Kakodkar who was then director of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre. Mr Kalam was scientific adviser to the defence minister while R Chidambaram was chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Link Pokhran II was successful: Kalam- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom