Nuclear Thread - 4

[Shaurya]

Anil Kakodkar: Immediately after the tests, we carried out a review with both teams present: BARC team as well as the DRDO team.



We looked at the measurements done by the BARC team and we looked at the measurements done by the DRDO team and I told you the conclusions and on the basis of that review, it was clear that what basis we could go by and what conclusions we could draw.



Now, the question is that if the instruments didn't work, where is the question of going by any assertions which are based on ... what is the basis of any assertions?

The BARC will conveniently judge, if the DRDO instruments worked or not and the nation is supposed to believe in BARC’s objective assessment because?

Anil Kakodkar: No, they were not brushed aside.

Where is the question of not brushing it aside if the instruments themselves were being claimed as faulty. Instruments that were being prepared, since at least 1996, at the site. An explanation of the actions taken, based on the 1998 DRDO report would have gone a long way, to explain to the layman, the credibility of the process and hence the results.

Anil Kakodkar: 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?

Why hide behind Dr Ramanna, who cannot speak for himself. Are the other stalwarts of AEC/BARC not “respectable” enough? There are indeed limits to what can be revealed but folks, such as Chengappa and Ramachandran can seemingly get preferential access to BARC/AEC but not its ex heads.

Anil Kakodkar: Well, let me first repeat what I said earlier. 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. The fact is that 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?

All these groups, operate within the purview of the BARC? These groups operate independently and on a need to know basis, as claimed. So, who takes these results and compiles and cross matches them? Who provides instruction to these groups about their scope of activities?

Karan Thapar: So there is no need for a peer group review yet again?



Anil Kakodkar: That's what I would say.

A person party to a dispute, says, there is no need for a review, is akin to an accused charged for something saying, there is no need for a trial.

Anil Kakodkar: Well, I would say no because the important point to note is that 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. And so we think that the design which has been done is validated and within this configuration which has been tested one can build devices ranging from low kilotonne all the way to 200 kilotonnes. And that kind of fully assures the deterrence.

….

Anil Kakodkar: Well if you go by 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 kilotonnes.

Why obfuscate?

“One can build a range of systems right upto 200 kilotonnes”? Can mean multiple things. Why not come out straight, India has built a deployable TN weapon in the range of X-X KT?



Must be the only weapons designing team in the world, not needing a test, just after a total of 6 tests, only one of them being a weapon and only one TN test, that too of not a weaponized design. BARC is to only be partially blamed for this, the serious lack of a strategic culture, shows through.

Karan Thapar: I want to pick up on that last point that you have just made. Given that doubts continue and given that there are going to be no further tests and you are not saying that there is any need for further tests - can you say India has a credible thermonuclear bomb?



Anil Kakodkar: Of course.



Karan Thapar: We have a credible thermonuclear bomb?



Anil Kakodkar: Why are you using singular? Make that plural.

How does one define a credible TN bomb? It seems, BARC has a unique definition. First, this “bomb” has not been tested. It seems to be based on “simulations”. The one test of a full TN device, is disputed (at least by other agencies). The military is nervous on the “credibility” of this device – due to lack of tests and DRDO not being on the same page as the BARC. To make matters more interesting, the claim is we have not one but multiple “credible” TN bombs.

Karan Thapar: The reason I ask is because Dr Santhanam writing in ‘The Hindu’ says that the thermonuclear device has not been weaponsied even 11 years after the tests.



Anil Kakodkar: How does he know? He is not involved.

Hiding behind the iron fence the BARC has created for itself? Some way to deal with ALL scientists and partners he “respects”, who doubt. He could have simply clarified by saying, if these respected individuals have any doubts, he will do X and X to convince them. No, nothing, shut them out, because, he has the power to do so. No one, except for the few in BARC/AEC and the PMO are supposed to “know”, is quite clear from the structure we have. However, when such a level of secrecy is in place, it becomes more critical to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt, to all concerned.

Anil Kakodkar: Yes. I told you we have the possibility of a deterrence of low kilotonne to 200 kilotonnes.

Again obfuscation. Who the hell wants a low KT TN weapon for deterrence? A perfect opportunity to shut everyone’s mouth by saying, we have a deployable TN weapon of X-X yield. Did not even have to be precise, a weapons range would have been sufficient. It is statements such as these, that raise doubts, if the person recognizes the difference between a device in a lab and a weapon.



Anything is possible, in a lab is the expectation. No one doubts that in the labs of BARC, there are multiple TN weapons of varying yields, “credible” in the eyes of the BARC, through “credibility” tools, as defined and validated by themselves. On a larger point, this is where India’s polity has failed by not involving other stake holders in a crucial area of national security.

Karan Thapar: So when people like former Army chief, General Malik say, that because of the doubts in the public arena, the Army wants assurance of the yield and the efficacy of India's thermonuclear bomb, what is your answer to them?



Anil Kakodkar: 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.

The army has in addition to other weapons of varying yields, TN weapons of x-x range at their command, would have been a direct answer. The above, can go multiple ways, and hence not clear.



On Karan Thapar: His biases are well known and hence would have preferred the interview to be with a less biased individual. It would have helped the overall image.



Overall, An opportunity to refute any key data points of KS not taken advantage of leading credence to the statement Austin made, that AK/RC know, KS is not lying.



Hence, the saga continues.