Talk:Smiling Buddha

Untitled
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. 68.96.162.252 08:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 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 2XL 13:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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. --Fastfission 23:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Sacred Mushrooms
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)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Controversy regarding the yield
The reference quoted on the yield states

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaSmiling.html

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?.

If you click the link "What Are the Real Test Yields?" you get this page http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaRealYields.html

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)


 * This is true but the range is still 3.2 kt to 21 kt. BernardZ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * What you have in the article is acceptable
 * pics or it didnt happen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.134.192.58 (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

BernardZ (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Canada/USA Reaction Section Discrepancies
This section states that the plutonium for the bomb was produced in a CIRUS reactor. However, this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor#Nuclear_nonproliferation states that this is a common misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.90.25 (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—121.244.200.9 (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC) yhj tu yuuy yudftjy ukuuut u u uyi urdrty rtruut my ]


 * 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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Smiling buddha aftermath - ground results.jpg