Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 74 of 74

Thread: Great democracies should also have the world’s greatest militaries

  1. #61
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    When i looked up the usgs data, both pak tests registered.

    With India just one did, the first. Nothing picked up for the second.

    So who got the duds ?

    We are both two a piece, their two in '98 and our two, in '74 & '98
    Pakistani claims do not match USGS data and the claims of sub-kiloton blasts were just cover ups for duds. If we follow Pakistani claims, then one other device even failed to achieve nuclear initiation.

    We do know that the Indian boosted fission device failed but again, Indian devices were test devices, not readied warheads. The Pakistanis grabbed theirs from the readied arsenal.

  2. #62
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,133
    How many tons does it take to register 5.5 on the richter scale.

    Don't know about their claims but both their tests scored as high.

    The paks had a readied nuke arsenal in 1998 ? didn't Mush say the opposite at the time Kargil rolled over a year later

  3. #63
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    How many tons does it take to register 5.5 on the richter scale.

    Don't know about their claims but both their tests scored as high.
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/w.../nuke-test.htm Scroll down to the table of tests and measurements. The sub-kiloton announcements is a farce. No one builds a sub-kiloton nuke. What's the point? Thermobaric and HE could do the job better.

    The last test claiming that the Pakistani did not test the last warhead is a farce. It didn't go off.

    So, all duds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    The paks had a readied nuke arsenal in 1998 ? didn't Mush say the opposite at the time Kargil rolled over a year later
    Precisely why Musharraf said their nukes were not ready. They found out that they were duds in 1998.

  4. #64
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,133
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/w.../nuke-test.htm Scroll down to the table of tests and measurements. The sub-kiloton announcements is a farce. No one builds a sub-kiloton nuke. What's the point? Thermobaric and HE could do the job better.

    The last test claiming that the Pakistani did not test the last warhead is a farce. It didn't go off.

    So, all duds.
    Leave the sub killtons aside, you have two tests,

    one measuring 4.8 on May 28 , there were two stated yields, 25-36kt and 12 kt, but after the test its estimated that the yield was only 7-8kt. So 7-8kt corresponds to 4.8 on the richter scale. This means either the 25-25kt ended up producing just 7-8kt or the big one didn't go off at all and what we see is just the 12kt

    if the readied arsenal has 12kts, then they work. Maybe the higher yields do not

    second measuring 4.6 on May 30, the stated yield here was 12kt but the estimate was that it was just 1-3kt yet it still registered 4.6. Shouldn't it have registered lower than 4.6 in that case ?

    Like 3.6. assuming each digit up is a factor of 10

    Not all duds, the 12kts worked i think

    The 1974 test of 12kt registered 5.0 and the one on may 11 got 5.2

    We have nothing to show for May 13 (!)
    Last edited by Double Edge; Yesterday at 00:35.

  5. #65
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Leave the sub killtons aside,
    You cannot leave them aside. The Pakistanis knew the world was watching them and was prepared for detecting any nuclear event. They were unsure if the world detected those failed warheads. Better to tell the world of sub kiloton events and claimed success than to be told duds were detected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    one measuring 4.8 on May 28 , there were two stated yields, 25-36kt and 12 kt, but after the test its estimated that the yield was only 7-8kt. So 7-8kt corresponds to 4.8 on the richter scale. This means either the 25-25kt ended up producing just 7-8kt or the big one didn't go off at all and what we see is just the 12kt
    It doesn't work that way. These are precise instruments. The implosion was imperfect in that the fissile material was being thrown out faster than it can be initiated. You have no way of knowing which vector the fissile material is travelling. Today, it's 7 kt. Tomorrow might be zero. The next day, it might be 22 kt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Not all duds, the 12kts worked i think
    Without going in detail, the Pakistanis only had one warhead design. The Indians had several including a boosted fission device which again were test devices. That means out of 7 Pakistani devices, not one performed upto spec. All duds.

  6. #66
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,133
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    The sub-kiloton announcements is a farce. No one builds a sub-kiloton nuke. What's the point? Thermobaric and HE could do the job better.
    What if it allows for an undetectable test. Which can be scaled up without needing a further test. Recall reading reports alluding to this when people said the may 13 test was a failure.

    If the second Indian May 13 tests (all sub kilo ton) didn't register but is still considered successful ( we don't know if they were or not) then the testing problem has been alleviated somewhat


    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    You cannot leave them aside. The Pakistanis knew the world was watching them and was prepared for detecting any nuclear event. They were unsure if the world detected those failed warheads. Better to tell the world of sub kiloton events and claimed success than to be told duds were detected.
    Meant to say momentarily as i wanted to address the measured results in that post. India also did sub kiloton. So there is a commonality of purpose here

    We do a sub kilton test and see whether it can be detected. If outside observers say nothing happened then we got our answer.

    It doesn't work that way. These are precise instruments. The implosion was imperfect in that the fissile material was being thrown out faster than it can be initiated. You have no way of knowing which vector the fissile material is travelling. Today, it's 7 kt. Tomorrow might be zero. The next day, it might be 22 kt.
    Fine, the Pak 25-36kt is unreliable

    Without going in detail, the Pakistanis only had one warhead design. The Indians had several including a boosted fission device which again were test devices. That means out of 7 Pakistani devices, not one performed upto spec. All duds.
    ok, but you've not addressed the results of the second Pak test on May 30
    Last edited by Double Edge; Yesterday at 09:48.

  7. #67
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    What if it allows for an undetectable test. Which can be scaled up without needing a further test. Recall reading reports alluding to this when people said the may 13 test was a failure.

    If the second Indian May 13 tests (all sub kilo ton) didn't register but is still considered successful ( we don't know if they were or not) then the testing problem has been alleviated somewhat

    Meant to say momentarily as i wanted to address the measured results in that post. India also did sub kiloton. So there is a commonality of purpose here

    We do a sub kilton test and see whether it can be detected. If outside observers say nothing happened then we got our answer.
    India did not do a sub-kt test. There's a lot of reasons for this.

    1) Fissile materials are an expensive and limited resource. You cannot waste them on designs that have no practical results. BTW, reacall the first North Korean test with a sub-kt result and we detected it. No, the NKs did not go for a sub-kt nuke, it was a dud.

    2) There's no need to test a sub-kt nuke. That's a simple gun type nuke and all the inherent faults and inefficencies with that type of nuke. You get a guarrentee initiation but you also get a lot of wasted fissile materials.

    3) Colonel DCL is not going to wait through a cabinet debate to destroy a target he can do with a battery of howitzers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Fine, the Pak 25-36kt is unreliable
    We did not even detect that test. We detected a 7-8 kt event which the Pakistanis said it was a 12 kt nuke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    ok, but you've not addressed the results of the second Pak test on May 30
    I did. 7 devices altogether. All duds but if you want me to address 30 May specifically. Pakistan claims 2 devices on 30 May, 1998. A 12 kt device which we measured 3 kt and the 2nd device did not detonate. Both duds.

    BTW, the CHAGAI-1 blueprint found in Switzerland from an AQ Khan associate was a 12 kt design.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; Yesterday at 16:10.

  8. #68
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,133
    About the NK test in 2006, registered as 4.3

    US intelligence says it wasn't more than 0.2kt. The North Koreans had informed the Chinese government that the planned test would produce a 4-kiloton explosion. The nuclear test was reported to have had a yield equivalent to between 500 and 2000 tons of TNT.

    0.2kt gives a 4.3 reading ? hmmm...

  9. #69
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,133
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    India did not do a sub-kt test. There's a lot of reasons for this.

    1) Fissile materials are an expensive and limited resource. You cannot waste them on designs that have no practical results. BTW, reacall the first North Korean test with a sub-kt result and we detected it. No, the NKs did not go for a sub-kt nuke, it was a dud.

    2) There's no need to test a sub-kt nuke. That's a simple gun type nuke and all the inherent faults and inefficencies with that type of nuke. You get a guarrentee initiation but you also get a lot of wasted fissile materials.

    3) Colonel DCL is not going to wait through a cabinet debate to destroy a target he can do with a battery of howitzers.
    Was going by what globaslsecurity said abut the indian test

    The three underground nuclear tests carried out on 11 May were reportedly of three different devices - a fission device with a yield of about 12 KT, a thermonuclear device with a yield of about 43 KT and a sub-kiloton device. All the 3 devices were detonated simultaneously. The two tests carried out at 1221 hours on 13 May were also detonated simultaneously. The yields of the sub-kiloton devices were claimed to be in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 KT."
    They were simultaneous. There was one sub kilo ton on the 11th and two sub-kilo tons on the 13th. The tests on May 13 weren't picked up

    We did not even detect that test. We detected a 7-8 kt event which the Pakistanis said it was a 12 kt nuke.
    heh, this time their 12kt yielded 7kt

    I did. 7 devices altogether. All duds but if you want me to address 30 May specifically. Pakistan claims 2 devices on 30 May, 1998. A 12 kt device which we measured 3 kt and the 2nd device did not detonate. Both duds.

    BTW, the CHAGAI-1 blueprint found in Switzerland from an AQ Khan associate was a 12 kt design.
    Ah, the point being the 12kt yields whatever it likes, 3kt in this case hence dud



    My problem is how to correlate the readings usgs states to what intel deduces the yield actually was

    NK 2006, 0.2kt estimated, supposedly dud test, registers 4.3

    Indian May 13 test sub kiloton doesn't register at all with usgs. Pretty sure it wasn't a pretend test : D
    Last edited by Double Edge; Yesterday at 17:32.

  10. #70
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    91
    Then, those sub-kt devices were either duds or zero-yield devices (ie, no fissile material). The critical mass of U-235 in an implosion device is 15 kgs. That's a 12-15 kt bomb. As stated before, you don't need to test gun type nukes.

    As for sesmic readings, different test sites gives different readings for the same yield. That's because we're recording vibrations in the rock. Different rocks gives different readings. For India/Pakistan, we have the 1974 test as the baseline for our measurements.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; Yesterday at 19:02.

  11. #71
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,492
    Sir, Supercomputers are doing everything, right from quantum mechanics, weather forecasting, climate research, oil and gas exploration, molecular modeling, and physical simulations (such as simulations of the early moments of the universe, airplane and spacecraft aerodynamics, the detonation of nuclear weapons, and nuclear fusion).

    So why do you think Indian nukes aren't capable when we have Supercomputers? Isn't data from the 74 & 98 tests enough for simulated nuke testing scenarios?

  12. #72
    Regular
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    91
    Supercomputers can't overcome the laws of physics. The smallest U-235 implosion bomb possible is 12-15 kts. That's just simple physics. 15 kg of U-235 is critical mass for nuclear initiation.

    If India claims sub-kt tests, then they were duds. You don't need to announce zero yield tests and you certainly don't need to test gun type nukes.

  13. #73
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    2,492
    The Canadians are so circumspect, I guess we'll need to do a demo in the future. Keep the Canadians and Chinese away.

  14. #74
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    6,133
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    As for sesmic readings, different test sites gives different readings for the same yield. That's because we're recording vibrations in the rock. Different rocks gives different readings. For India/Pakistan, we have the 1974 test as the baseline for our measurements.
    Of course, yes. The NK and Pak tests are going to register higher for the same yield in mountains than in the desert

    There are no mountains in Pokhran

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 12 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 12 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 70th Anniversary Of Death Of World’s Greatest Inventor
    By Doktor in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09 Jan 13,, 17:07
  2. Perhaps the world's greatest sports champ?
    By bigross86 in forum Sports Bar
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 07 Nov 11,, 06:30
  3. Great General of the Ancient World
    By Praxus in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 13 Nov 09,, 17:05
  4. Greatest Militaries of All Time
    By zraver in forum Warfare in the Modern Age
    Replies: 194
    Last Post: 14 Oct 08,, 13:46
  5. The secularization of democracies has gone too far
    By Ray in forum International Economy
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12 Jan 05,, 07:09

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •