10-20-2009, 11:25 PM
Iyengar in his article, "Non-Fissile Doubts" in the Outlook makes 2 excellent points (apart from other points):
1. He writes, <b>"Taking the Pokhran I yield as close to 8 kt as I know it as its project head .."</b> . This is a direct challenge to RC and AK's assertion that there is an international agreement about the Pokhran I yield.
2. He asks about the depth of the S1 device. What is the need for secrecy about the depth since it does not have anything to do with the weapon design? The only reason for keeping the depth a secret is to hide the failure of the device to generate the design yield.
1. He writes, <b>"Taking the Pokhran I yield as close to 8 kt as I know it as its project head .."</b> . This is a direct challenge to RC and AK's assertion that there is an international agreement about the Pokhran I yield.
2. He asks about the depth of the S1 device. What is the need for secrecy about the depth since it does not have anything to do with the weapon design? The only reason for keeping the depth a secret is to hide the failure of the device to generate the design yield.