India's National Magazine
From the publishers of THE HINDU

Vol. 15 :: No. 12 :: June 06 - 19, 1998

---

COVER STORY

'We have got everything we wanted'

Interview with BARC Director Dr. Anil Kakodkar.

Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Director, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Trombay, in northeastern Mumbai, is a satisfied scientist after the conduct of the five underground nuclear explosions at Pokhran. In an interview he gave T.S. Subramanian on May 28, he said the tests gave "us a data base on the basis of which we can go further, if required..." He added that the tests "worked exactly as planned... We feel happy all worked out well... For me, it was a satisfying technical experience... Myself and my colleagues have a feeling of fulfilling the mission given to us in a very satisfying manner."

The interview with Dr. Kakodkar was held around 10.30 p.m. at BARC, Trombay, about seven hours after Pakistan claimed to have exploded five underground nuclear devices in the Chagai area of Baluchistan. On the nuclear capability of Pakistan compared with India, he said that India was "far more advanced" than Pakistan not only in terms of "these devices" but in "all aspects of nuclear science and technology" and in the "comprehensive range of industrial activities covering the entire nuclear fuel cycle." On the yield of Pakistan's devices and whether they included a hydrogen bomb, Dr. Kakodkar said: "We have some information which we have passed on to the Government."

Fifty-four year old Dr. Kakodkar played a key role in the design and construction of Dhruva, the 100 mw high flux reactor at Trombay, which is based on a completely original concept. His work in rehabilitating both the power reactors at Kalpakkam and the first unit at Rajasthan, and his involvement in the Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) experiment at Pokhran in May 1974, are examples of an important role in the country's nuclear energy programme. His current interests include augmentation of thorium utilisation and design of an advanced heavy water reactor which will generate most of its energy from thorium and incorporate advanced safety features. Excerpts from the interview:

How did you assemble the five nuclear devices underground in less than a month? Were they already in a sort of semi-knocked down condition?

VIVEK BENDRE

It is not as if we did it fast or slow. Basically, we have been carrying on a programme after 1974 or earlier than that. The research and development has been an ongoing process. Scientific research doesn't work on a stop-go basis. You cannot switch on and off. It has to be a sustained activity. So that is how we did the tests in a short time.

But there were five devices. How did you assemble them so quickly?

We have been working on this. It is part of a continuous, ongoing activity. We had several ideas. The question was how to demonstrate or validate those ideas so that we get more data from them. It was more of a technical exercise as far as we were concerned. We configured these tests to fulfil the technical objectives. They tell us that whatever ideas we had are correct. They also gave us a data base on the basis of which we can go further, if required...

In terms of yield?

Yield, of course. Also in terms of design configuration.

As the Director of BARC, you played a key role in the tests. The technology for these tests is available academically, but engineering is most important. As an engineer of reputation, what was your role in the tests?

I used to play the role of an engineer at some stage. Today I don't restrict myself to just engineering. BARC is a multi-disciplinary organisation. We have experts in all areas, including engineering. So my role was essentially putting different teams together and integrating all activities. Of course, I played the role of the BARC Director. Besides, being an engineer, I had that much more of insight into engineering. So it enabled me to make sure that everything would work as planned. These things require attention to a lot of details. We feel happy that all worked out well.

What was the role of other BARC groups such as radiometallurgy, electronics and instrumentation in the tests?

Our Chairman, Dr. R. Chidambaram, has already replied to you and you have published it (in Frontline dated June 5, 1998).

Can you elaborate on that?

It is not necessary to add to that. But I must say that any activity of this kind requires the collective effort of a large number of leaders and team members. In each group, there were several members and everybody had to work together. It was a very satisfying, elaborate team effort. Everybody worked very hard. They are all people of very high scientific calibre. There was no compartmentalisation. Everybody did everything. It was a great experience.

What was the depth of the tunnels at Pokhran to keep our nuclear devices in? Were they all L-shaped?

I am not going to tell you that.

Are five tests enough to declare India a nuclear weapon state? The United States had done about 1,000 tests and China around 40 before the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was wrapped up.

We should not go by numbers. These five tests covered a large number of parameters. This was possible because we have been having a sustained programme. This programme has evolved and benefited from the improvements in the knowledge base over the years. So there cannot be a comparison between five tests done now and five tests done say, 15 or 20 years ago. If our understanding is at a fairly high level, then it is possible to confirm several things together. We have got everything we wanted to, with these tests.

Brajesh Mishra, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, has announced a moratorium on nuclear tests by India. Don't you think we need to conduct more tests to refine and develop our nuclear weapon technology?

No further comments. It is a political point.

Pakistan has detonated five underground nuclear devices today. What is Pakistan's capability compared with ours?

I can only make a technical comparison on the basis of the information that I have. I think there is a lot of difference in terms of the comprehensive capability we have in this area, not only in the matter of devices, but in all aspects of nuclear science and technology, in terms of scientific achievements, in terms of a comprehensive range of industrial activities covering the entire nuclear fuel cycle.

We are far ahead?

We are far ahead.

Do you have any information on the yield of Pakistan's tests? Was there a hydrogen bomb (a fusion device)? Did the tests include sub-kiloton devices?

Let me put it this way. We have some information. We have passed it on to the Government.

Do you think Pakistan's tests will heat up the nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan?

That is a political question. I am not going to answer that.

How did Pakistan assemble five devices in just 17 days after we conducted the tests on May 11 and 13? Did China help it in assembling the devices, bringing big drills to dig the shafts and so on?

That I do not know.

You don't want to say anything?

I can say what I know. I don't want to say something I do not know.

Back to our tests, why was there a gap of one day between the three nuclear explosions on May 11 and the two on May 13?

We had planned the tests with an objective. Our objective was to prove a standard fission device and a thermonuclear device. The objective was also to prove the capability of our computer codes to predict with accuracy. Then it was to generate data on the basis of which further work can be carried out. That is how the devices consisted of one standard fission device, one thermonuclear device and three sub-kiloton devices of different configurations. Our Chairman (Dr. Chidambaram) has already told you about the yield of these devices. Now, the total yield of these devices had to be limited in such a way that the seismic damage to the buildings in the nearby village, 5 to 5.5 km away, is kept to a minimum. We did not want any damage to occur. So that put a limitation on the maximum yield.

Then, there was the question of these two shafts - the big ones where the major tests were carried out. They were separated by a little more than a kilometre. So this required the tests to be carried out simultaneously. So we tested together. The two big shafts were for the fission device and the thermonuclear device. The small sub-kiloton device was in another shaft. That is how the three came together. We wanted to do two more tests together. They were done after a gap of one day. The first day, we did the tests around 3.45 p.m. Then we had to carry out an assessment and see what the data were. It takes time and we had to prepare for the other two tests. That was how there was a gap (of one day). There was no other reason. It was a straightforward technical matter.

You spoke about the yield of our tests. There is a lot of scepticism in Western countries about the yield, particularly that of the thermonuclear device. International seismic stations reported picking up a faint rumble on May 11, and have estimated the yield to be 25 kilotons, not even 45 kilotons as claimed for the thermonuclear device by India. But the power or yield of a thermonuclear device or the hydrogen bomb is always in megatons, not in kilotons. Western experts say that there is no evidence to back up India's claim that it was a genuine hydrogen bomb. They say that "big claims require big evidence." What evidence do you have to prove that it was a hydrogen bomb?

We go by our measurements. In international (seismic) measurements, I have seen all kinds of numbers, some low, and some, in fact, higher than what we have predicted.

Some higher than what we had predicted?

Yes. Also some of them had classified them as an earthquake. For example, the International Data Centre which puts out information based on a large number of centres, initially classified it as an earthquake some 47 km deep (in the earth). Afterwards, they revised it and also revised the magnitude upwards."

The second thing is that they feel that the yield of a thermonuclear device should be in the megaton range. This is not true. As I said earlier, we were limited in the yield because we did not want any significant seismic damage to the buildings in the nearby village. So we designed the systems to suit that. Totally, we wanted to have a yield of around 60 kilotons. Of the three tests done together (on May 11), the yield of one (the standard fission device) was between 12 and 15 kilotons. The yield of the thermonuclear device was around 45 kilotons. The other was small, less than one kiloton.

So what is important is the right design configuration. It had the configuration of a regular thermonuclear device. You can always adjust it to whatever yield you want. There was no way we could have gone for a higher yield at that location. With the same design, by altering the dimensions and the quantity (of the fuel), we can take the yield to a much higher value. There is no problem in that. But the principle and the design remain the same. What more evidence do you want now?

Nuclear engineer Dr. B. Kota Subba Rao has quoted Gregory E. Van Der Vink, Director of Planning at the Incorporated Research Institution of Seismology, to say that the yield of the May 11 tests was only 10 to 25 kilotons.

He is showing a seismic magnitude of 5.4 (on the Richter scale). Isn't he?

Yes. 5.4.

5.4 at that location will correspond to even higher yield than that we had logged.

Higher than 45 kilotons?

Higher than 60 (kilotons). 5.4 corresponds to much higher than 60 kilotons at that location. According to me, such scatter does appear and this is not important. What is important is the confidence we have. We are quite satisfied. For us, it has matched. It is a technical exercise. It has generated a lot of data.

Dr.Kota Subba Rao has quoted Dr. Chidambaram as saying that the simultaneous explosions resulted in the interference of shock waves travelling through the earth, which in turn led to a low recording of seismic data on the global network of seismic sensors. How was it that the shock waves did not interfere with the seismic sensors located at Gauribidanur in Karnataka which recorded the seismic value (equivalent to 45 kilotons) put out by Dr. Chidambaram? Dr.Kota Subba Rao has raised this question.

It was a simultaneous explosion. The interpretation of these signals is not very simple because the events have taken place simultaneously. There are people who keep talking all kinds of things. I can enter into a debate only with technical people. Otherwise, there is no end to this.

Some Western experts say that the yield of the 1974 explosion at Pokhran too was hyped up to 12 kilotons. They say it was only two kilotons.

On that, a lot of further modelling and further assessment has been done. There is no doubt on the 12 kiloton yield.

Will China stop supplying enriched uranium to run the power reactors at Tarapur?

I have no comments to make on that. But we have been pursuing developments on all fronts in a comprehensive manner. We are not ignoring any technology. So we will carry forward our programme on our own steam. There is no difficulty in implementing our programme.

Brajesh Mishra said that India would consider adhering to some of the undertakings in the CTBT, depending on a number of reciprocal activities. India had earlier said it would not subscribe to the CTBT. But now, after only five tests, Mishra said India might consider adhering to some of the provisions of the CTBT. Are we not swinging from one extreme to another?

I am not going to answer political questions. We will stick to technical matters.

Supposing we accede to the CTBT, will it not affect our weaponisation development? Don't we need to test to improve?

I am not going to answer this question.

Will sanctions affect BARC?

They have never affected (us) in the past and they will not affect (us) in the future. BARC is carrying on, on its own (programme) despite all constraints... restrictions and technology control regimes.

Personally how do you feel about the five tests at Pokhran?

For me, it was a satisfying technical exercise. Myself and my colleagues have a feeling of fulfilling the mission given to us in a very satisfying manner.