E
This is a rejoinder to member and moderator (for the Indo section) @Nilgiri
and his comment found in a different topic:
Top 48 air forces in 2020
Lest that discussion be derailed, I have decided to create a thread here hoping to hold a casual and informal discussion on the topic. If moderators or admins disagree, they are urged to move the thread to an appropriate section.
Regards.
Just a casual discussion.
1. Quantity ≠ quality.
2. Statistics must be understood before they are cited.
In other words, you need to know what a certain indicator refers to before you quote statistics for that indicator.
3. The quantity of papers is not an indication of anything else except just that - the quantity.
4. It is also meaningless to lump together such disparate subject areas as Economics, Econometrics & Finance with Arts & Humanities, or Physics & Astronomy with Social Sciences.
5. You are welcome to share them. However, a note of caution is in order.
Your personal experience may not reflect the entire universe of all possible experiences.
Your personal experience may have been coloured by many factors that you are cognizant of and many others that you are not aware of.
6. This is a devious trick you have used.
The trick is often called "Divide and Conquer". It has been used by the British and Americans with great success in various parts in the world, and most notably, in the wider Middle East in recent decades with tremendous success.
The division observed among various political factions and ruling regimes is, by no means, coincidental. It is the result of a well calculated, well orchestrated, elaborate strategy hatched by the same USA-UK axis. Further discussion on that topic will take us on a tangent to our original discussion.
7. As observed earlier, quantity ≠ quality.
8. Kudos to the diligent researchers, scientists and engineers who have contributed for both Indonesia and Pakistan in the listed journals at Scopus indexing service.
9. The rapid increase in Indonesian tally can be attributed to a simple explanation.
More journals popular with Indonesian authors have been indexed by Scopus in recent years (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019) than in the past.
10. Using the same trick, Scopus could index more journals popular with Chinese authors and that would rapidly catapult Chinese science, engineering, technology and mathematical paper output way past the American one.
Using the same trick, Russian STEM paper output could easily surpass the British or German one so long as more journals popular with Russian/CIS authors are indexed by Scopus.
The same trick can arguably be used to push the Iranian tally of STEM paper output, too and place them ahead of numerous other similar sized European or East Asian (Japan, RoK) developed countries in aggregate tally.
However, the same old note of caution applies: quantity ≠ quality.
10. It is not as easy.
You have not proved, and there is no way you can prove using SJR (the source you cited), that any country is able, or unable, to produce nuclear bombs.
An apt example would be that of North Korea.
Where does North Korea place in SJR ranks either by quality or by quantity?
Yet, it has mastered through collaboration or by indigenous efforts, both the technologies for producing nuclear weapons and for delivering them across intercontinental distances.
11. The ranking you have produced is mostly irrelevant, however.
As a consequence, the number of countries above Pakistan, France, UK, India, Russia, North Korea or Zionist regime/Israel in that ranking does not tell you much about the ability of the listed countries to produce nuclear weapons or their ability to deliver them to distances beyond 13,000 km.
12. Test reactors are found in abundance in various parts of the world.
However, various countries such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan and many more have failed after decades and decades of effort, painstaking effort, blood, sweat and tears of millions of their citizens in many cases, to acquire nuclear weapons. And the means to deliver them across intercontinental distances.
The first country in that list to have done so is North Korea. I note with great pleasure that North Korea has remained, so far, immune to any American invasion.
In contrast, when Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan or many other countries were devastated, none of them could retaliate against the United States - in their homelands to deter such misadventures.
You may note with great interest that Pakistan has yet to develop successfully an indigenous ICBM. A feat that has eluded the likes of Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia and the entirety of the wider "Muslim world", as well as Latin America, Africa or ASEAN, has been achieved by supposedly "starving", malnourished, oppressed, totalitarian, isolated, brainwashed citizens of a tiny, sanctioned, blockaded country of North Korea.
My understanding is that you have never developed nuclear weapons and that you have a rather poor grasp on the topic. I am not a specialist in nuclear weapons design, development or production either.
With that admission out of the way, I can safely say you have little clue on the intricacies involved in the successful development and production of nuclear weapons.
While Pakistan has built up expertise in Plutonium warheads, a technology that is not yet available to Iranians, Turks, Indonesians, Arabs and much of the "oppressed world" (such as Africa, Latin America, ASEAN, wider "Muslim world"), you talk about medical isotopes and test reactors.
I request you to consult specialists on the topic since quite clearly, you are not familiar with the intricacies involved.
13. Unfortunately, this line of false argumentation has been repeated ad nauseum in various locations despite being debunked repeatedly as well.
My earlier rejoinder to member @Indos will help you understand the flaws in this sort of argumentation.
14. There are no countries with nuclear weapons in their inventories today that are less advanced in industrial terms than Indonesia. Every single one of them is more advanced than Indonesia. That is precisely why Indonesia lacks any of the ingredients, or the final products, as well as the recipes, that go into making thermonuclear weapons, plutonium warheads, ICBM, SLBM, nuclear powered submarines, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, SLCM, Air launched cruise mimssiles (ALCM), LACM (Land attack cruise missiles) and such.
15. That is certainly true for all imitator countries playing catch up ever since and to this day. Including India, "Israel"/Zionist regime, other "emerging" developing powers such as Brazil or South Africa, North Korea, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia or East Asian Tigers of South Korea and Taiwan.
16. Studying a paper and building a nuclear weapons are hardly comparable.
The Turks - for decades - had not only access to papers and patents, but working land vehicle, marine and aero-engines (turboshafts, turbofans, both low bypass and high bypass) as well as Integrated Circuits of all sorts, often purchased on the international market.
Yet, the Turks, like most other countries playing "catch up" are yet to develop and mass produce a reliable engine of any sort - whether for land vehicle, marine vehicle or aviation applications. I have ignored space applications for the time being.
The same is true for any commercial or defence ICs of some degree of sophistication. This is as true of Turkey as it is of India or Indonesia or Vietnam, Philippines, Nigeria, Kenya, Venezuela, Bolivia, Myanmar and much of the world.
17. Your knowledge on the matter, once again, is unfortunately inadequate.
It was Dr Samar Mubarakmand more than Dr A Q Khan who contributed to Pakistan's nuclear programme. I won't digress on the two competing 'factions' since that will also cause this discussion to be derailed.
18. You should not pass a judgement when you lack the required experience or expertise in nuclear physics and engineering. Designing, developing and producing a nuclear bomb is not only about the fissile materials, as you are insinuating.
That is just one crucial ingredient. There is a recipe and other ingredients that are often not discussed, and that are not radioactive, that go into making a bomb. Has Indonesia, like many other countries, displayed any ability to manufacture an explosive lens for example?
19. That is, once again, a digression.
As all of those countries are highly technologically advanced and with active nuclear programmes at some time in the past or present, they would be able to build the bomb if they gain political independence.
It has been reported that both the RoK and RoC (South Korea/Taiwan) nuclear weapons programmes were sabotaged and shut down by their American protectors. It was lack of political independence which prevented them from going nuclear.
Japan, having industrialized earlier, and being a highly developed and technologically advanced country, with more people than RoK+RoC combined is able to easily build a bomb and they have shown their ability to deploy ICBMs through their civilian space programme - only if they gain political independence from their American occupiers.
20. Another one of those devious schemes by you to play the "Divide and Conquer" strategy.
It will not work.
However, to the best of my knowledge, there is no nuclear enrichment facility within the territory of Turkey, no commercial nuclear reactor, no reprocessing facility or no plutonium production facility.
The means for delivering those bombs - often called ballistic missiles - are also lacking in the required range and performance parameters.
Whatever the case may be, both Turkey and Pakistan are intricately linked and are willing and eager to share their experiences in all fields for mutual gains and advancements. There is no competition, jealousy, envy, bigotry or animosity - despite all your devious efforts, between the two brotherly countries.
On another note, you may have liked to compare the SJR stats that are relevant:
Papers in Nuclear and High Energy Physics
Sorted by their citations per document stats
www.scimagojr.com
ahead of much more populous, pompous but often found lacking India
and ahead of many other supposedly "industrially advanced" countries
You would do well to repeat the same exercise for other years apart from 2013, as well.
And if you want to play with statistics, you might want to exclude self-citations and recalibrate the stats once again for gaining more strategic clarity on where these states may stand when it comes to Nuclear and High Energy Physics, the subject category of most relevance to our discussion.
and his comment found in a different topic:
Top 48 air forces in 2020
Lest that discussion be derailed, I have decided to create a thread here hoping to hold a casual and informal discussion on the topic. If moderators or admins disagree, they are urged to move the thread to an appropriate section.
Regards.
Just a casual discussion.
I would just like to add this here (mods can move this and other parts of convo to a new/existing thread if appropriate)...given we are talking/diminishing about Indonesia and its capacity to develop N-WMD.
Looking at science+engg. outputs w.r.t N-WMD-acquired country that seem to be brought up a bunch:
SJR - International Science Ranking
A) Of course its a "raw" number very much like the OP post, but gives a general idea.
1. Quantity ≠ quality.
2. Statistics must be understood before they are cited.
In other words, you need to know what a certain indicator refers to before you quote statistics for that indicator.
3. The quantity of papers is not an indication of anything else except just that - the quantity.
4. It is also meaningless to lump together such disparate subject areas as Economics, Econometrics & Finance with Arts & Humanities, or Physics & Astronomy with Social Sciences.
I would just like to add this here (mods can move this and other parts of convo to a new/existing thread if appropriate)...given we are talking/diminishing about Indonesia and its capacity to develop N-WMD.
Looking at science+engg. outputs w.r.t N-WMD-acquired country that seem to be brought up a bunch:
SJR - International Science Ranking
A) Of course its a "raw" number very much like the OP post, but gives a general idea.
5. You are welcome to share them. However, a note of caution is in order.
Your personal experience may not reflect the entire universe of all possible experiences.
Your personal experience may have been coloured by many factors that you are cognizant of and many others that you are not aware of.
6. This is a devious trick you have used.
The trick is often called "Divide and Conquer". It has been used by the British and Americans with great success in various parts in the world, and most notably, in the wider Middle East in recent decades with tremendous success.
The division observed among various political factions and ruling regimes is, by no means, coincidental. It is the result of a well calculated, well orchestrated, elaborate strategy hatched by the same USA-UK axis. Further discussion on that topic will take us on a tangent to our original discussion.
7. As observed earlier, quantity ≠ quality.
8. Kudos to the diligent researchers, scientists and engineers who have contributed for both Indonesia and Pakistan in the listed journals at Scopus indexing service.
9. The rapid increase in Indonesian tally can be attributed to a simple explanation.
More journals popular with Indonesian authors have been indexed by Scopus in recent years (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019) than in the past.
10. Using the same trick, Scopus could index more journals popular with Chinese authors and that would rapidly catapult Chinese science, engineering, technology and mathematical paper output way past the American one.
Using the same trick, Russian STEM paper output could easily surpass the British or German one so long as more journals popular with Russian/CIS authors are indexed by Scopus.
The same trick can arguably be used to push the Iranian tally of STEM paper output, too and place them ahead of numerous other similar sized European or East Asian (Japan, RoK) developed countries in aggregate tally.
However, the same old note of caution applies: quantity ≠ quality.
10. It is not as easy.
You have not proved, and there is no way you can prove using SJR (the source you cited), that any country is able, or unable, to produce nuclear bombs.
An apt example would be that of North Korea.
Where does North Korea place in SJR ranks either by quality or by quantity?
Yet, it has mastered through collaboration or by indigenous efforts, both the technologies for producing nuclear weapons and for delivering them across intercontinental distances.
11. The ranking you have produced is mostly irrelevant, however.
As a consequence, the number of countries above Pakistan, France, UK, India, Russia, North Korea or Zionist regime/Israel in that ranking does not tell you much about the ability of the listed countries to produce nuclear weapons or their ability to deliver them to distances beyond 13,000 km.
12. Test reactors are found in abundance in various parts of the world.
However, various countries such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan and many more have failed after decades and decades of effort, painstaking effort, blood, sweat and tears of millions of their citizens in many cases, to acquire nuclear weapons. And the means to deliver them across intercontinental distances.
The first country in that list to have done so is North Korea. I note with great pleasure that North Korea has remained, so far, immune to any American invasion.
In contrast, when Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan or many other countries were devastated, none of them could retaliate against the United States - in their homelands to deter such misadventures.
You may note with great interest that Pakistan has yet to develop successfully an indigenous ICBM. A feat that has eluded the likes of Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia and the entirety of the wider "Muslim world", as well as Latin America, Africa or ASEAN, has been achieved by supposedly "starving", malnourished, oppressed, totalitarian, isolated, brainwashed citizens of a tiny, sanctioned, blockaded country of North Korea.
My understanding is that you have never developed nuclear weapons and that you have a rather poor grasp on the topic. I am not a specialist in nuclear weapons design, development or production either.
With that admission out of the way, I can safely say you have little clue on the intricacies involved in the successful development and production of nuclear weapons.
While Pakistan has built up expertise in Plutonium warheads, a technology that is not yet available to Iranians, Turks, Indonesians, Arabs and much of the "oppressed world" (such as Africa, Latin America, ASEAN, wider "Muslim world"), you talk about medical isotopes and test reactors.
I request you to consult specialists on the topic since quite clearly, you are not familiar with the intricacies involved.
13. Unfortunately, this line of false argumentation has been repeated ad nauseum in various locations despite being debunked repeatedly as well.
My earlier rejoinder to member @Indos will help you understand the flaws in this sort of argumentation.
14. There are no countries with nuclear weapons in their inventories today that are less advanced in industrial terms than Indonesia. Every single one of them is more advanced than Indonesia. That is precisely why Indonesia lacks any of the ingredients, or the final products, as well as the recipes, that go into making thermonuclear weapons, plutonium warheads, ICBM, SLBM, nuclear powered submarines, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, SLCM, Air launched cruise mimssiles (ALCM), LACM (Land attack cruise missiles) and such.
15. That is certainly true for all imitator countries playing catch up ever since and to this day. Including India, "Israel"/Zionist regime, other "emerging" developing powers such as Brazil or South Africa, North Korea, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia or East Asian Tigers of South Korea and Taiwan.
16. Studying a paper and building a nuclear weapons are hardly comparable.
The Turks - for decades - had not only access to papers and patents, but working land vehicle, marine and aero-engines (turboshafts, turbofans, both low bypass and high bypass) as well as Integrated Circuits of all sorts, often purchased on the international market.
Yet, the Turks, like most other countries playing "catch up" are yet to develop and mass produce a reliable engine of any sort - whether for land vehicle, marine vehicle or aviation applications. I have ignored space applications for the time being.
The same is true for any commercial or defence ICs of some degree of sophistication. This is as true of Turkey as it is of India or Indonesia or Vietnam, Philippines, Nigeria, Kenya, Venezuela, Bolivia, Myanmar and much of the world.
17. Your knowledge on the matter, once again, is unfortunately inadequate.
It was Dr Samar Mubarakmand more than Dr A Q Khan who contributed to Pakistan's nuclear programme. I won't digress on the two competing 'factions' since that will also cause this discussion to be derailed.
18. You should not pass a judgement when you lack the required experience or expertise in nuclear physics and engineering. Designing, developing and producing a nuclear bomb is not only about the fissile materials, as you are insinuating.
That is just one crucial ingredient. There is a recipe and other ingredients that are often not discussed, and that are not radioactive, that go into making a bomb. Has Indonesia, like many other countries, displayed any ability to manufacture an explosive lens for example?
19. That is, once again, a digression.
As all of those countries are highly technologically advanced and with active nuclear programmes at some time in the past or present, they would be able to build the bomb if they gain political independence.
It has been reported that both the RoK and RoC (South Korea/Taiwan) nuclear weapons programmes were sabotaged and shut down by their American protectors. It was lack of political independence which prevented them from going nuclear.
Japan, having industrialized earlier, and being a highly developed and technologically advanced country, with more people than RoK+RoC combined is able to easily build a bomb and they have shown their ability to deploy ICBMs through their civilian space programme - only if they gain political independence from their American occupiers.
20. Another one of those devious schemes by you to play the "Divide and Conquer" strategy.
It will not work.
However, to the best of my knowledge, there is no nuclear enrichment facility within the territory of Turkey, no commercial nuclear reactor, no reprocessing facility or no plutonium production facility.
The means for delivering those bombs - often called ballistic missiles - are also lacking in the required range and performance parameters.
Whatever the case may be, both Turkey and Pakistan are intricately linked and are willing and eager to share their experiences in all fields for mutual gains and advancements. There is no competition, jealousy, envy, bigotry or animosity - despite all your devious efforts, between the two brotherly countries.
On another note, you may have liked to compare the SJR stats that are relevant:
Papers in Nuclear and High Energy Physics
Sorted by their citations per document stats
SJR - International Science Ranking
www.scimagojr.com
| 23 |
| Pakistan | 174 | 172 | 6634 | 1471 | 38.13 | 83 |
ahead of much more populous, pompous but often found lacking India
| 71 |
| India | 1243 | 1230 | 22359 | 6948 | 17.99 | 167 |
and ahead of many other supposedly "industrially advanced" countries
| 28 |
| Czech Republic | 436 | 434 | 13779 | 2899 | 31.60 | 139 |
| 45 |
| Sweden | 550 | 543 | 14397 | 2796 | 26.18 | 159 |
| 46 |
| Canada | 786 | 777 | 20168 | 3829 | 25.66 | 199 |
| 48 |
| Israel | 325 | 323 | 8148 | 1389 | 25.07 | 141 |
| 50 |
| United Kingdom | 1781 | 1763 | 43989 | 13851 | 24.70 | 266 |
| 75 |
| Russian Federation | 2121 | 2106 | 32852 | 11456 | 15.49 | 246 |
You would do well to repeat the same exercise for other years apart from 2013, as well.
And if you want to play with statistics, you might want to exclude self-citations and recalibrate the stats once again for gaining more strategic clarity on where these states may stand when it comes to Nuclear and High Energy Physics, the subject category of most relevance to our discussion.
