This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
I'm curious - "the device was hexagonal" - it was two dimensional? CGS 17:57 20 May 2003 (UTC).
Would anyone in the know mind injecting how, precisely, a nuclear explosive can serve any peaceful purpose which India could hope to achieve under any realistic circumstances? "Peaceful" seems vaguely propagandistic in context, and is certainly a loaded term to apply to a weapon, and while I'm no expert on military history or the foreign relations of the Republic of India, I'm vaguely skeptical about the NPOVness of calling it such. 68.96.162.25208:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs) are nuclear explosions conducted for non-military purposes, such as activities related to economic development including the creation of canals. During the 1960s and 1970s, both the United States and the Soviet Union conducted a number of PNEs, but subsequently halted their PNE programs. The definitions are covered in the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty of 1976 DV8 2XL13:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it was meant to imply that they did not weaponize it (i.e. they had not developed a model which could be fit into a missile warhead or dropped from a plane). I think the current version, which says that it was claimed to be a "peaceful" design but doesn't really take any side in it, is pretty neutral. Nobody doubted that India had in fact developed a "nuclear weapon" and I suspect nobody doubted that they could quickly weaponize it if they hadn't already. Claiming it was "peaceful" was an attempt to eat their cake and have it too -- have a nuclear bomb but hopefully avoid international outcry and sanctions and things like that. --Fastfission23:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was the weapon really 107 meters long? Or was the test shaft, the bottom of which hosted the device, 107 meters long? Is it typical to refer to the test in this way? I suspect the nuclear device itself was certainly not 107m from end to end. --Jmeden2000 (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The curious appellation of the program or device suggests some historical association with Robert Oppenheimer's famous invocation of Vishnu at the time of America's first nuclear test. Has this been looked into? Orthotox (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Careful analysis of hard rock cratering effects establishes a tight bound around 8 kt for the yield however. For a detailed discussion of this issue see What Are the Real Test Yields?.
There is a detailed comparison which you are doing which compares the crater features to U.S. descriptions of crater morphology for various underground test conditions.
The conclusion of this study is
"The 8 kt yield range suggested by comparison with US cratering data is well within the range that seismic scaling laws provide - which extends from 3.2 kt to as high as 21 kt for a mb of 4.9 (though not all yields in this range are equally plausible), and matches some values given by Iyengar. It is significantly higher than estimates favored by seismologists for Pokhran, and the reported estimates of U.S. analysts, but is well within the uncertainties characteristic of seismic yield estimation."
In other words the crater study is giving a result not of 8 kt but 3.2 kt to 21 kt. What you are writing in the wikipedia is WRONG.
As I read these very same quotes, the author is arguing strongly that the most reliable yield estimate comes from cratering data and is closely constrained to 8 kt. Two reference tests from Operation Plowshares in different geologies tightly bracket this yield estimate for the Indian test. He compares this to seismic data (a very different thing!) and concludes that the cratering data are consistent with the seismic data but much more tightly constrained. He dismisses a yield of 13kt (well within the seismic range) as not credible. NPguy (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what the range actually is? The range you cite is merely the best estimate one can get using only seismic data, with no knowledge of the local geology to constrain the parameters of the seismic yield model. Any additional information, such as cratering or data to calibrate the seismic properties of the local geology, will reduce the uncertainty of the estimate. The cited source says that cratering data give a tight bound. If you disagree, find a source that supports a different conclusion. Claims need to be backed by reliable sources, and not just opinion.
One thing to bear in mind is that the actual yield is a number, not a range. The question is how well we can estimate that single number with the available data. NPguy (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. The claim in that article is not supported by any citation. A later citation explicitly contradicts it. So it is dubious and likely false. NPguy (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't explained what is erroneous. I've tweaked the coordinates somewhat, but if you still think that there is a problem, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
