Reply to comment

It is clear that we cannot stop with one test which yielded low results, even if the thermonuclear (TN) device (H bomb) worked. We need to test six or seven TN devices to gain adequate confidence and design capability in making these bombs. Computer simulations are not adequate. As for Shakti 1, the TN device, the yield was low, perhaps, due to poor design. After all, this is the first time BARC made this device. As for Santhanam’s assertions, one would doubt whether DRDO instruments performed well enough to draw any conclusions.

Seismic data analysed by Sikka et al, Douglas, Wallace and others point out the yield could be 55 kt plus/ minus 20 kt. Note that the seismic results are subject to a lot of calibrations/ assumptions to calculate the yield.

The third method — radiochemical analyses of debris are of great value which is available only to BARC. Only this data can confirm the achieved/ claimed yield. Santhanam may not have access to this data. It is high time that Chidambaram, Kakodkar et al release these data and explain fully their claims for 45kt yield. Such a step is required before further thinking is bestowed on this vexed, but important issue.

Dr NK Srinivasan
Via email