Sunday, May 22, 2022

Non-Fissile Doubts

One nuclear lie puts our entire strategic decision-making at stake

Non-Fissile Doubts
Non-Fissile Doubts Non-Fissile Doubts

What DAE Says

  • Combined yield of Pokhran-II tests was 57 kt: 12 kt for the fission device; 45 kt for the TN one
  • International seismologists got yield wrong because of the geological nature of Pokhran-II site
  • Claims Pokhran-II yield was 4.45 times Pokhran-I, so TN device worked
  • Iyengar can’t be sure about his calculations because he doesn’t know the parameters of the device.
  • The radiochemical test of the Pokhran-II site proves its yield measurements were as expected
  • The ratio of Mn54 to Ce144 shows fusion took place in excess of fission.


What Iyengar Says

  • If so sure, why doesn’t DAE make public the video recording of the ground motion during the test?
  • If international seismologists got Pokhran-I readings right, they wouldn’t get Pokhran II wrong, since site geology was more or less the same
  • Pokhran-I yielded 8 kt. So, total yield at 4.45 times works to 36 kt. Since DAE assigned 12 kt for fission device, leaves only 24 kt for TN one.
  • Says only 10 per cent of LiD fusion material burnt. His formula was confirmed by S.K. Sikka, then head of the BARC design team.
  • Says error margins in the radiochemical residual analysis too large
  • Both fission & fusion neutrons produce Mn 54, DAE ratio no confirmation