Nuclear Thread - 4

[Shaurya]

Arun: I will start posting here too.



Doubts from a skeptical mind.

Anil Kakodkar: No, I think this is a totally erroneous conclusion. The yield of thermonuclear tests was verified, not by one method but several redundant methods based on different principles, done by different groups. These have been reviewed in detail and in fact I had described the tests in 1998 as perfect and I stand by that.

He had a perfect opportunity here to spell out, these multiple redundant methods and to which organization these groups belonged, but he did not. It would have gone a long way to clarify that the results were indeed verified by multiple methods and organizations, raising the credibility of the claimed test results.

Anil Kakodkar: Well, let me first of all say that that DAE and DRDO we both work together as a team. DRDO did deploy some instruments for measurements but the fact is that the seismic instruments did not work. I myself had reviewed all the results immediately after the tests and we concluded that the instruments did not work.

All the seismic instruments, including the ones being used by the ARC did not work? Who is this we? AK at that time represented the BARC and the DRDO did not agree to the view of AK, that the instruments did not work. So, there is no question of “we” concluded that the instruments did not work. If the discarding of results based on DRDO instrumentation is not brushing it aside then what is? Did they have similar instrumentation at the site? Why rely on seismic instrumentation in Karnataka?

Anil Kakodkar: Well that's not true because the instrument measure and the ground motion at the place where the instrument is located - we had to separate out the information which was coming out from the thermonuclear and which was coming from the fission test. So the point that I am making is that the seismic instruments did not work.



So there is no question of the yield of the fission test being right and the thermonuclear test being wrong because no conclusion can be drawn from those instruments either ways.

Discard and be done with it making any external validation and doubt of the test results moot? Is this how, BARC will get credibility?

Anil Kakodkar: Well, it's unfortunate but it doesn't worry me because facts are facts and there is no question of getting worried about this. The point is that the measurements which have been done, they have been done--as I mentioned earlier--by different groups.



People who carry out the measurements on seismic instruments is a different group. People who carry out the measurements on radiochemical instruments are a different group. There are other methods that you can use, for example the simulation of ground motion. That's another group and all these groups have come to their own conclusions which match with each other.

The results from the agency/group responsible for seismic and ground motion sensors were discarded, so who were these other groups, and where was their instrumentation. While at it, why not discard the ARC results also?

Anil Kakodkar: That's a layman’s way of looking at it. The fact of the matter is the fission device yield was 15 kilotonnes, not 25 kilotonnes.

AK is on national TV, a layman’s medium. Instead of explaining, Why KS is wrong, he is only sticking to his earlier claims. It was a perfect opportunity to discredit KS on any of his data points, such as the instrumentation being faulty, resulting in showing a higher yield than designed, the DOB of S2, crater size, etc. But, he chooses not to.

Anil Kakodkar: Well, I think you must understand the phenomena of ground motion when a nuclear test takes place. Depending on the depth of burial and of course the medium in which it is buried, you could get several manifestations on the surface.



You could get a crater and there are different kinds of craters that one could see. You can just get a mound - the ground rises and remains there and on the other extreme it can vent out. So in case of the thermonuclear device, the placement was in hard rock—granite--and with the depth and the yield for 45 kilotonnes, one expects only a mound to rise, which is what happened.

Another perfect opportunity, to discredit any of the KS data points on the DOB of S1. Must be one amazing change of topology between the S1 and S2 shafts within 1.5 KM, at similar depths?

Anil Kakodkar: Yes, yes, it has been seen in detailed simulations and by the way I must tell you that this simulation, which I am telling you about, 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.

“test data available” from public sources abroad (from the blotched US test, that is), validated in simulation and published in international journals, but unable to convince his own partners in the test?

Anil Kakodkar: Well, first of all I respect everybody. I respect Dr Iyenger, I respect Dr Santhanam, but the fact is that Dr Iyenger was nowhere involved in the 1998 tests. He was of course a key figure in the 1974 tests. Also, the fact is that before the 1990 and 1998 tests, all work was done under cover - we were not in the open - and we required a lot of logistical support and all and that all was being provided by DRDO.



But things were still being done on a need to know basis. So to assume that Dr Santhanam knew everything is not true.

Who is exactly claiming that KS knew “everything”. He knew enough since he was director of the test program since 1996. If Dr. Iyengar enjoys his respect, why did RC et al, refuse to meet him and clarify the issue?

Anil Kakodkar: He knew everything within his realm of responsibility.

Again, hiding behind, the iron fence around which “all things nuclear weapons” is the realm of one institution. The right thing to do, when you have a partner, who is not convinced and is not on the same page as you are is to convince that partner, through evidence and facts and reason, not brush aside their work.

Karan Thapar: You are also saying that Dr Iyenger isn't fully in the picture and therefore his opinion is not necessarily valid.



Anil Kakodkar: He is not in the picture as far as the 1998 tests are concerned.



Karan Thapar: So he doesn't really know about the 1998 tests.



Anil Kakodkar: Well, he knows only as much as has been published and nothing more.



Karan Thapar: His comment therefore is not backed by knowledge and insight.



Anil Kakodkar: Well, that's for you to judge.

Some way to deal with a person, you respect!