US put India's N-status more on par with Pak than China

[Vibs]

firstly, no one denied im simply saying why is this even brought up so its so clear already.

second, jayatl is banned, however to answer him: i comprehend English just fine. they did talk about thermonuclear weapons and i merely added the other stuff to show how far india is behind china and thus no on par at all and something so obvious needs no article to back it up. oh and FYI india is not a signatory to the NPT thus impossible to be a recognized nuclear weapons states but that is blurry now with the whole bush deal.

I'm not denying China has a better nuclear arsenal than India. But not Signing the NPT means India is not a recognized Nuclear Weapons state? What kind of logic is that?? If you have an arsenal of nuclear warheads you are a nuclear weapons state,period.

 

[lem34]

Thanks for acknowledgment.

You wecome brother I will say it again to cheer you up India is incredible

 

[CardSharp]

US put India's N-status more on par with Pak than China
TNN Sep 4, 2011, 02.08am IST

NEW DELHI: The US feels that by signing the civil nuclear deal, India has for all practical purposes chosen to forego future testing but its voluntary moratorium gave it the comfort of not formalizing a commitment never to test.

In a perceptive cable, after the 1998 Pokhran thermonuclear test was run down by a former defence scientist as a "fizzle", US diplomats argued "doubts about India's thermonuclear deterrent thus diminish India's strategic stature — putting it more on par with Pakistan than China — thereby stoking popular perceptions not only of insecurity, but also of inferiority".

The then national security adviser M K Narayanan rubbished the claims of an under-cooked nuclear bomb test.

No surprise here. I suggest this article for more information on India's thermonuclear test.



India's H Bomb Revisited

Yes, Virginia, India’s H-bomb fizzled.

K Santhanam (who was director of test site preparations for India’s 1998 nuclear tests; pictured above, handing the firing keys to the range safety officer) has admitted what everyone else has known for a long time — that India’s 1998 test of a thermonuclear device was unsuccessful:

“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 [the Times of India] on Wednesday.

[snip]

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.

This is a subject we have covered in some detail here at Arms Control Wonk.com (see The Bomb, Dmitry. The Hydrogen Bomb, 10 April 2005.)

1. Yes, India’s thermonuclear device probably probably did fizzle, looking at the seismic data.

2. Some Indian scientists, including the former chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission PK Iyengar and now Santhanam, keep pointing out this somewhat embarrassing fact because it is part of an argument for India to resume nuclear testing.

3. India’s evident need to resume testing to complete development of a thermonuclear device is the principal reason that I opposed a “clean” NSG exemption for India (See: Will India Test Again?, 23 June 2008 ).

Here is my original post on the subject, reproduced because I am lazy and I recall the reading list was somewhat helpful:

Did India successfully test a two-stage thermonuclear device in May 1998?

There are substantial reasons for skepticism. India claimed that it detonated three devices on 11 May 1998 at Pokhran (right)—a 43-kiloton thermonuclear explosion, a 12-kiloton fission explosion and a 0.2-kiloton fission explosion. (India then claims to have conducted low yield tests on 13 May 1998.)

Seismic analyses (particularly Wallace et al) conclude the cumulative yield for the 11 May tests was only 12-kilotons. A yield that low is probably “too small to have been a full test of a thermonuclear weapon”—suggesting the test fizzled.

The US intelligence community reportedly shares this conclusion. Govenment officials told Mark Hibbs of Nucleonics Week that analysts from Livermore’s Z Division “have now concluded that the second stage of a two-stage Indian hydrogen bomb device failed to ignite as planned.” Subsequently, “senior U.S. expert” confirmed to Hibbs that this account was correct.

Indian scientists have been quick to dispute these estimates, arguing that Western scientists have made inaccurate assumptions about the geography of the Indian test site. This argument has always struck me as unconvincing, in part because of data that has been presented from the 1974 test.

A former chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission, PK Iyengar, has used calculations similar to those of Wallace et al to suggest that the second stage of the two-stage thermonuclear weapon failed to ignite—“the fusion core burnt only partially, perhaps less than 10 per cent.” Iyengar, however, has an axe to grind—he wants India to resume nuclear testing.

Such failures have plagued new nuclear designers before. China’s seventh nuclear test (CHICOM 7)—and second thermonuclear weapon—also fizzled, resulting in a yield estimated at the time between 15-25 KT.

Similarly, Livermore’s first attempt at “super” also failed—resulting from what Herb York called “a simple design flaw … engendered by the novelty of the technology and by our inexperience.”

Sources:

Brian Barker et al, “Monitoring Nuclear Tests,” Science 281:5385 (25 September 25, 1998) 1967-68 (subscription).

Mark Hibbs,”India May Test Again Because H-Bomb Failed, U.S. Believes,” Nucleonics Week 39:48 (26 November 1998) 1.

Mark Hibbs, “Because H-Bomb Fuel Didn’t Burn, Iyengar Pleads For Second Test,” Nucleonics Week (1 June 2000) 6.

PK Iyengar, “Nuclear Nuances,” The Times of India (22 August 2000) (full text in the comments).

SK Sikka et al,”The recent Indian Nuclear Tests: A Seismic Overview,” Current Science 79:9 (10 November 2000) 1359-1366 (draft).

Gregory van der Vink et al, “False Accusations, Undetected Tests and Implications for the CTB Treaty,” Arms Control Today 28:4 (May 1998) 7-13).

Terry C. Wallace, “The May 1998 India and Pakistan Nuclear Tests,” Seismological Research Letters 69 (September 1998) 386-393 (preprint).]

Herbert York, Making Weapons, Talking Peace: A Physicist’s Odyssey from Hiroshima to Geneva (Basic Books, 1987) 78.

The comment section is well worth the read too. We have Indian scientists arguing irrationally with leading American experts insisting that the 1998 test was a success.

 

[lem34]

The comment section is well worth the read too. We have Indian scientists arguing irrationally with leading American experts insisting that the 1998 test was a success.

Dont really matter India is surrounded by peacefull peace loving countries like Pakistan and china

 

[CardSharp]

Here's another interesting fact that few people like owning up to. The material for India's first bomb was illegal appropriated from a CANDU reactor donated by Canada as part of a humanitarian assistance program.

India's 'peaceful' bomb - CBC Archives

An uninvited guest has joined the nuclear club, and fingers are pointing at Canada. On May 18, 1974, India detonates a 12-kiloton nuclear explosive in the Rajasthan desert. It was built using plutonium from a research reactor donated by Canada in 1956. The explosion prompts fierce criticism of Canada's nuclear exports, and a wall of excuses from officials in both Canada and India. Canadian officials say they couldn't stop it. India denies it was even a bomb.