3 ms·

Interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks. We would expect our resident nuclear expert / historian to know such things. I suppose it worked out in the sense that

Interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks. We would expect our resident nuclear expert / historian to know such things. I suppose it worked out in the sense that we didn't have global thermonuclear war (at least in this timeline!) but not in the sense that it seems to work as, or as consistently as, expected. We can see the same adhoc ranks-breaking and partial lack of coordination despite overall alignment in the attitude of release of UFO data by the world's militaries. There have been instances of violation of this policy, even while overall the dam has not broken. Some instances: Belgian UFO wave military officials talking to media and releasing radar and other data, Mexican navy/airforce data, leak of Japan airlines radar tracks after confiscation, US Navy data (the famous videos from 2017, and a drip of subsequent videos), possibly the French CNES data (although as their policy has always been to release, not classified radar tracks but other, data such as reports, it may not be seen as a violation rather a persistent bucking of la trend). I just skimmed the docs you listed. In the Indian case it's hard to be conclusive from the released docs without having the full classified picture, but I consider a possible (tho by no means firm) alternative hypothesis that CIA decided it would "turn a blind eye" to 1 nuclear test, because it recognized both: the utility of an Indian nuclear deterrent (perhaps strategically important as within striking distance between middle east and east asia); as well as the good will they would earn with their Indian partners by not be being seen to try to "hold India back", or embarrass them. In addition, strategic considerations could have included not revealing the full extent of their classified detection capabilities to merely prevent something so (relatively) unimportant as a test, electing instead to feign incompetence and reserve acting on knowledge for future -- with the subsequent release of classified docs supporting this feint. Or, plausibly, a combination of such things. Of course, it may simply have been incompetence, misjudgement, lack of preparation and lack of capability, as the made public docs may sketch. All this highlights I suppose is how slippery history is, particularly when concerned with the activities of secretive organizations.

defrost 3y ago
> our resident nuclear expert / historian I'm no expert and there are several on HN that know fair more about nuclear technology than myself, it's also not a matter of history for myself as I was present at the time and a number of Australians were "detained" by the Indian Government at the time (they completed the work they were there to do in any case, only with personal armed guards and no option to leave early) and later questioned at some length by US personal when in transit through US airports. If you hunt about there are many US TLA hosted documents that admit they weren't expecting either round of testing ( the 1970s not the 1990s ) when they happened, at best they had it as a possibilty. The questions posed to Australian geophysicists and field crew were heavily weighted toward the "how come you people knew there'd be atomic tests and we didn't" end of the spectrum. The answer to that is one specific Australian who organised the survey contract might have had an inkling .. but for everybody else it was just another radiometric survey with two quite large (crystal volume wise) quite sensitive radiometric spectrometers. Get to the job site, complete calibrations, begin survey area and Bang! surprise nuclear testing. As a general impression the US appears to be far less able at on the ground first hand field work than many seem to think, than is projected in movies. Much of the "evidence" for "weapons of mass destruction" came from third party non US sources and caused a stir when it was presented to the UN in a much massaged form to bolster the case Iraq had WMD's. Snippets that originated with UK, French, Australian sources were jazzed up past recognition, mobile barrage balloon equipment became chemical weapon dispensers, and so on.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Oh, I thought you were! I remember you from many nuclear related topics on here. Didn't remember anyone else tho, so in my book you're the expert. Haha! :) Holy shit you were there? That's interesting. Sounds like an Aussie survey team observing the test? But from your description of the conditions it seems India was a very wild place back then. Well your account of it supports the sincerely ignorant thesis for this. Again, the questioning could be a ruse, or different parts of the US bureaucracy, but it's very interesting. And it sounds like you've made up your mind that it was sincere ignorance. It's all new to me so I'm keeping an open mind but I appreciate your perspective and facts. A healthy does of real experience is always welcome to counter all the narratives pushed every which way. Regarding the Aussie survey team you were a member of being coincidentally present at the time of the test that to me sounds like just the kind of thing that (presumably Aussie) intelligence services would organize, a non confrontational and covert way to collect some data on it maybe? I don't know. Sounds as if you're non too happy with how the US has massaged perceptions of various things, including possibly things drawn directly from or related to stuff you've contributed to, and want to speak truth to that power or at least expose the truths and lies. Well good on you! A strong system should never be afraid of the truth, and flip flops on truth send a discouraging signal about competence, etc. Always full of surprises your account is haha! :)

defrost 3y ago

> our resident nuclear expert / historian I'm no expert and there are several on HN that know fair more about nuclear technology than myself, it's also not a matter of history for myself as I was present at the time and a number of Australians were "detained" by the Indian Government at the time (they completed the work they were there to do in any case, only with personal armed guards and no option to leave early) and later questioned at some length by US personal when in transit through US airports. If you hunt about there are many US TLA hosted documents that admit they weren't expecting either round of testing ( the 1970s not the 1990s ) when they happened, at best they had it as a possibilty. The questions posed to Australian geophysicists and field crew were heavily weighted toward the "how come you people knew there'd be atomic tests and we didn't" end of the spectrum. The answer to that is one specific Australian who organised the survey contract might have had an inkling .. but for everybody else it was just another radiometric survey with two quite large (crystal volume wise) quite sensitive radiometric spectrometers. Get to the job site, complete calibrations, begin survey area and Bang! surprise nuclear testing. As a general impression the US appears to be far less able at on the ground first hand field work than many seem to think, than is projected in movies. Much of the "evidence" for "weapons of mass destruction" came from third party non US sources and caused a stir when it was presented to the UN in a much massaged form to bolster the case Iraq had WMD's. Snippets that originated with UK, French, Australian sources were jazzed up past recognition, mobile barrage balloon equipment became chemical weapon dispensers, and so on.

keepamovin 3y ago
Oh, I thought you were! I remember you from many nuclear related topics on here. Didn't remember anyone else tho, so in my book you're the expert. Haha! :) Holy shit you were there? That's interesting. Sounds like an Aussie survey team observing the test? But from your description of the conditions it seems India was a very wild place back then. Well your account of it supports the sincerely ignorant thesis for this. Again, the questioning could be a ruse, or different parts of the US bureaucracy, but it's very interesting. And it sounds like you've made up your mind that it was sincere ignorance. It's all new to me so I'm keeping an open mind but I appreciate your perspective and facts. A healthy does of real experience is always welcome to counter all the narratives pushed every which way. Regarding the Aussie survey team you were a member of being coincidentally present at the time of the test that to me sounds like just the kind of thing that (presumably Aussie) intelligence services would organize, a non confrontational and covert way to collect some data on it maybe? I don't know. Sounds as if you're non too happy with how the US has massaged perceptions of various things, including possibly things drawn directly from or related to stuff you've contributed to, and want to speak truth to that power or at least expose the truths and lies. Well good on you! A strong system should never be afraid of the truth, and flip flops on truth send a discouraging signal about competence, etc. Always full of surprises your account is haha! :)