Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

Raja Ram wrote:After 60 pages, both camps have been reduced to sticking to their own points refusing to even acknowledge the other side being capable of thinking. That is the truth. BR deserved better, but this what it gets.

There is no gain here from further acrimony. Nothing gets added to the body of knowledge. It does take a little bit of thinking through to recognise the real issue. Unfortunately, many here have tried to do it but are held prisoner by their own beliefs and biases. This holds true for both camps.

What is the point of discussing in an endless loop is beyond me, yet page after it continues and slowly but surely the sheer meaningless nature of this "debate" will degenerate to more name calling and venting.

Let us try and look ahead for a change. It is clear that the debate triggered by the revealation by KS has made an impact. The thing that still remains unclear is whether the GOI had backed him to do what he did and is still behind the public "debate" or not? The evidence so far is inconclusive on that score.

The signals emanating from people in the GOI indicate that they are looking to move ahead with a twin track approach

1. To deflect the CTBT and other pressure, GOI wants to pull out and issue call for a time bound verifiable disarmament that is structured with the big guys giving up their arsenal, and opening access to other responsible powers in the nuclear haves (read India, Israel, SA, Brazil?) to technology. In the interim, there will be a freezing of testing across the board and that should be verifiable in the same way to all concerned - whether P5, or trishankus like India and the have nots through a CTBT.

2. If that is not acceptable, then India will do either of the following

a) Sign up to CTBT and other nonsense, but in return ask for a number of things such as UN security council seat with veto power, access to dual use technology across the board, assured investments for a set number of years to compensate for the additional cost to adhere to other agreements such as climate control, seat at the economic high table, access to R&D etc. In short a trading of our strategic options for something more tangible. It also is based on the belief or reading that nuclear disarmament will happen and there is no need for such weapons.

b) State clearly that signing up things like CTBT is not worth it if there is no clear commitment to universal verifiable disarmament that is based on equality. Assert the right to test if the assessment of threat perception by India so demands it or if the arsenal improvements warrant the same. Re-emphasise that as of now India remains committed to the voluntary moratorium in force and throw the ball back to their court. In short, reassertion of our soverign rights as a nation to retain our sovereign options. This would be based on the assessment that global real politik will ensure that no one can pressurise India that is willing to work with them but not at the cost of surrendering its sovereign options. IOW, if push comes to shove India will test and build up its arsenal and not freeze it to the levels it was in 1998.

Now (a) or (b) will be a function of the vision, belief and world view of the leadership in India. There are some here who believe that the national consensus that is there on position (b), which has stood the test of time and been served well by leadership of various parties and personalities, are not about to be compromised by this administration. There are some who believe that the present leadership in its professed statements, vision, past action are willing to settle for a good trade and hence may go for option (a).

I have already indicated where I think GOI is going. So there is no surprise there. I would be more than happy if my reading is proved wrong on that score. For then India will win.

In the meantime, it would be doing ourselves a great favour by desisting from attacking fellow postors. It serves no purpose except for polishing their ego, in their own minds of course.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not successful - scientist (2)

Post by shiv »

Someone please lock the old thread and consign it to the archives.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful - scientist (2)

Post by enqyoob »

If the stated purpose of this thread is the above, then the title should be changed. If the theme is still
Pokhran II not fully successful - scientist
then the arguments debunking that allegation must not be ignored, and I would be compelled to point out, looking at the 60 pages of the Allegation-1 thread, that each time the data conclusively disproving the above allegation are presented and the allegers invited to consider that data objectively, (i) they try bluffing and ignoring, (ii) they scoot and (iii) someone comes in all wise and soothing and philosophical about how we should all be bhai-bhai - and set the stage for starting another round of the same allegation again.

At the end of 60 pages, what has occurred is that an allegation was made- numerous times. It was rebutted - using data still on the 'net from 1945 onwards - and very simple, elementary human logic. In most debates, when an allegation cannot be proven conclusively, and in fact the allegers are compelled to hide from the facts and simple logic, it is defeated- indeed trounced. It's not a "draw", as much as people might try to make it look that way. OTOH, there is pretty good agreement (maybe not?) that

(a) India should not rush in to sign CTBT
(b) CTBT should come AFTER all the demonstrated nuclear powers have come down to the same level of nuclear disarmament, following which a test ban can be followed by simultaneous global disarmament. Until then, sayonara.
(c) More testing is always good from the military's pov - and from the scientists/ engineers/ and TV-Watchers' and Chai-Kadai Strategist's (CKS) pov - but not necessarily good from national security or broader national interests pov.

If we are to get past the useless ranting as Shri RajaRam rightly counsels us, this thread should be about The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Testing in 2009 and Beyond. Those who argue for tests should defend that as a priority that overrides the many obvious "cons" and other national and global priorities. And - to keep things sane - the allegation that the tests did not achieve, TECHNICALLY, WHAT THEY WERE INTENDED TO ACHIEVE IN MAY 1998 CE (bold letters just to be sure everyone understands that, not to yell at anyone) must not be repeated, nor any more urls posted that repeat that. (red lettering deliberately intended to warn).

It does no good to start a sane debate, and then have some (<highly revered postor> - am I PC or what?) come in and post a FRESH url saying the great news:
Ha Ha! India's H-Bomb Claims Are Hot Air and Sh1tty Non-Science!! Says Former Chief of Pokhran PaanWaalas Union, Confirming Paper By Racist Potty-Mouth ISI-Funded Alms Control Donk!
with a fresh round of riotous acclaim for the competence and deep inside knowledge of said Paanwala vs. the duly appointed serving officials of the Government of India.

This, and not any disagreement on Points (a)-(c) above, kept the first thread going round and round in a vortex past Page 3.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II not fully successful - scientist (2)

Post by shiv »

Point taken N3

Will change the name
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by enqyoob »

Thx. A recent flier seen on the web for a university presentation is titled:
JAPAN: MORE CON THAN PRO ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS


India has ALWAYS been "More Con than Pro on Nuclear Weapons" and that is the root of most of the angst since the 1950s.
Note the evolution from "Heck no v won't glo" policy articulated by Japanese leaders until recently. So "national security imperative" testing may be actually doable in international agreement, with a well-executed PR campaign. The presentation is being given by a "US new clear / alms control expert" from ellellennell etc.
Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 587
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Raja Ram »

>>>>> quote from narayanan post (iii) someone comes in all wise and soothing and philosophical about how we should all be bhai-bhai - and set the stage for starting another round of the same allegation again. <<<<<<

Deleted - a post in which I had assumed that the above quote was directed at me and indicated my displeasure at the same. The post seems to have caused hurt to shri narayanan.

I have explained myself in a separate post and hope to put the misunderstanding aside.

Rajaram
Last edited by Raja Ram on 08 Sep 2009 09:33, edited 1 time in total.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ldev »

I think the most charitable prevailing wisdom among the anti-MMS posters on this thread in particular and in BRF in general is that MMS wants India to:
Follow the Japan model.
I believe this premise is totally wrong and if the premise itself is wrong, then built on this wrong foundation are a whole lot of wrong conclusions running into pages and pages into which lots of people latch on to. I think this Japan model nonsense was proposed here sometime ago as a pet theory without sufficient data points. I think it should remain just a theory until enough evidence is found and is not used to build a whole edifice of hate for the PM of India and then by association to all serving bureaucrats of GOI including the DAE who do not do exactly what the anti MMS faction on BRF want them to do.

I think that MMS rightly realizes that without a strong, vibrant and growing economy no country can support vibrant armed forces and a growing arsenal and that includes the nuke component of the arsenal.
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16267
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by SwamyG »

ldev:
You could have written the following:
I think this Japan model nonsense was proposed here sometime ago as a pet theory without sufficient data points.
as
I think this Japan model was proposed here sometime ago as a theory without sufficient data points.
Just stating the obvious - tone and word selection will dictate the response a post gets. Hopefully we choose the adjectives, nouns, verbs and other qualifiers / highlighters with care.
Last edited by SwamyG on 07 Sep 2009 21:40, edited 1 time in total.
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3986
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by vera_k »

WRT the Japan theory, this is from Engaging India, Page 31.
Strobe Talbott wrote:He (Narasimha Rao) told me that he and his cabinet - especially his highly regarded finance minister Manmohan Singh, the architect of the nations economic reforms - understood that security depended on prosperity. Prosperity, in turn, depended on integration into world markets and close relations with the United States. That objective, he seemed to recognize, would be in jeopardy if India overplayed its nuclear card.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by enqyoob »

Gee! In Malloostan there is a saying:
Please tell me - if you look at me, can you tell from my looks that I stole the dinner plates?


Specifically regarding Shri RajaRam, IIRC, he posed a question demanding that I explain my position on that thread, pretty early in the game, and I respectfully and in detail explained it, and he professed agreement. Does that indicate any hostility from me?

So I am more than deeply disappointed to see the above from him. Do I not detect a certain hostility and eagerness to throw stones on imagined pretexts? This from someone who is totally above the fray? Who exactly has questioned RajaRam's right to post on BRF? Isn't it a bit juvenile - no disrespect intended to juveniles now, it should be an honor for anyone to be compared to Shri Raja Ram - to allege that?

Isn't it Shri Raja Ram who seems to be trying his level best to keep me from posting on BRF with gratuitous allegations?

I was stating in summary what has been happening for 60 pages of the previous thread. If any one postor wants to take credit for ALL of that (and I have no one in mind for that honor, sorry), well.. that is surely not what I meant, as should be obvious. No disrespect intended by denying the full credit to any one person!!
To paraphrase the great saying:
It takes a village to conduct a proper riot
Now back to the discussion.. I see that the flame-throwing is in full flow already. Japan is a contemporary discussion point because of North Korea's on-again/off-again nuclear testing etc. What is new is that ppl in the US arms "control" community are talking about how reluctant the Japanese are, but....

China is also getting Myanmar ready for nuclear testing, presumably by providing ready-made test articles. Surely renewed Indian testing will be used as an excuse for Myanmar to test. Even otherwise China may get them to test.

South Korea is another nation that is becoming more and more likely to test.
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4102
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Neela »

N3

I believe that the last big post you made in the previous avatar should also be included here. It contains summaries to several pages of discussion in the previous avatar of this thread.
Cratering, the use of Baneberry etc need NOT be discussed again.

Please include that post here.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by enqyoob »

Thanks, but if I did that it would be like India conducting Testing again. Intent may be totally scientific/technical but will start a whole round of Round and Round We Go Around the Mulberry Bush. The reason I did that post was to summarize what I needed to find when I wrote up what I saw of the whole discussion, will do it there and put it on a BLOG. No hope of making any serious argument here, and if I explained why it would only bring fresh :(( .
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Sanku »

There is a debate on right now on CNBC TV 18, where Karan Thapar is talking to BK, R Goplan and one other retired Sikh gentleman (a IFS officer and ambassador whose name eludes me)

They are talking of this very topic.

----------

This thread is not to a good start, I think it is going to be just what the previous thread was, because in reality the older issues have not disappeared, merely ignored, the signs are already there.
ArunK
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 94
Joined: 26 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ArunK »

I have been a vistor here for a very long time. I mostly lurk and read. I have been pretty busy recently and so I decided to the past few days reading up on the Nuke sizzle/fizzle issue here on BR. I read through the 60 pages of the first thread. I learnt a LOT ;) got fully caught up.

Anyway, I happen to be one of those guys who believe that there cannot be nuke war between two parties with out everyone getting involved in the shooting match.

Please indulge me with this. I think, we have already made it quite clear that if Pakistan nukes us, then we will hold not only the Pakis but also whoever "enabled" them responsible and we have the right to retaliate.

That means China, Saudi Arabia & North Korea to start with. I do not expect them to sit quietly sit and watch the fun. China will probably get a few off at the same time as us. We will suffer a catastrophe but so will they albeit to a lesser strength if our "Bums" turn out to be a fizzle. But they really have no idea if it could sizzle instead. This will drag everyone else into the shooting match either as a primary target or as a secondary target of radio active fallout. The whole of the Middleeast, Central Asia, Japan, SoKo, possibly SE Asia will be immedaitely in danger. It will just keep getting worse and I do not see how the planet will not be affected.

The point I am trying to make is this. Nobody in their right minds will start a Nuke exchange regardless of what they think India has. That India has a working FBF weapon itself should be sufficient deterrent. The rest is all mute.

The way forward is not more or bigger nukes but less or no nukes.
vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by vasu_ray »

ArunK wrote:The way forward is not more or bigger nukes but less or no nukes
we would like to know your arguments convincing the P-5 to reduce their arsenals that is realistic (they have invested billions)

Tactical nukes can be used in disputed border areas by chipak to deny us any conventional edge and still claim they haven't nuked Indian territory, and warn us of full scale retaliation over the hotlines and keep the whole thing still under MAD threshold

one just wonders if we had atleast contemplated the use of tactical nukes in Kargil, NFU notwithstanding, what kind of impact it would have on the Chinese incursions
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by enqyoob »

Excellent post from Arun_K. This is exactly the line of argument that I believe represents the vast majority of Indian public opinion since the nuclear bomb first made its appearance. We don't want it, but for all the many reasons, and the deeper ones pointed out by Vasu_ray, just saying "we don't want them" has never been a solution. It took India far too long (51 years) to act on this realization, though the first weapons were probably built right after 1974.

The high ground in this argument has always been held by India, no matter what all the NonProllotullahs scream. Arundhati Ghose laid it out brilliantly in the CTBT discussions.

Vasu-ray points to another huge scam. In all the "Warhead Reduction" counts in "START" announced by AmirKhan and SU/FSU, tactical warheads are not included. And we see that even live tests at sub-kiloton yield can be hidden from monitoring quite easily even today.

A "sub-kiloton" say 0.6 kT, is still equivalent to 600 TONS of TNT - compared to say, the Daisy Cutter bomb at 15 tons of TNT, or the largest bomb loads carried on an F/A-18 (probably 4tons). So a single one of these monsters is equivalent to a saturation air raid by heavy bombers.

China and Russia have a standoff involving thousands of these. I am sure Indian forces in southern Arunachal Pradesh are under threat of annihilation using these by Chinese forces in Northern (Occupied) Arunachal Pradesh.

Hence Arun_K's point needs to be at the forefront of any discussion on CTBT: What are you doing to bring nuclear weapons to zero?

Also, the other point needs to be brought up: In the NPT, the advertised deal was:

1. Sign as non-NWS, get full open doors to the best and latest of nuclear technology at cut-rate prices, build up your own R&D.
2. The NWS will immediately proceed to total nuclear disarmament.

Neither of these promises has been kept, and as of about 3 or 4 years ago, when asked flat out whether the GOTUS had any programs towards this full disarmament, the good NonProl Experts in the basement of Foggy Bottom said in a moment of honesty: "Absolutely nothing".

So the focus of all CTBT discussions should be there, and not on whether India should sign.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by enqyoob »

Here is the Statement:

Statement made by Ms. Arundhati Ghose,
Ambassador/Permanent Representative of India to the UN Offices at Geneva, in the Plenary of the Conference on Disarmament on August 8, 1996

Mr. President,

May I first of all convey to you our congratulations, on your assumption of the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament. We are convinced that your dedication and wisdom will be a great asset in guiding the work of the Conference at this stage. May I also take the opportunity to convey our appreciation to Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan for the skill with which he presided over the Conference before you. :roll:

(Brief Pause for a Listerine Gargle...)

Mr. President, I am instructed to read to the CD an extract from the statement made by the Minister of External Affairs of India Mr. I. K. Gujral to both Houses of the Indian Parliament on 31st July, 1996. I quote:

"India has taken a consistent and principled position on nuclear disarmament. This is why, since 1954, when Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru called for a ban on nuclear weapon tests, we have urged that the CTBT must be seen as a first step on the road to nuclear disarmament. The approach taken by India in the CTBT negotiations therefore calls for a genuinely comprehensive CTBT with a view to ending future development of nuclear weapons and placing the CTBT in the framework of a step-by-step process of nuclear disarmament leading to the elimination of all nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework. Ongoing testing programs, whether at test sites or in laboratories, are clear indications that the nuclear weapons states are not willing to give tip their reliance on their nuclear arsenals and consider CTBT merely as a non-proliferation measure.

Such testing programs inevitably give rise to questions relating to India's national security. While we have adopted the policy of restraint after demonstrating our capability, we remain committed to taking all steps necessary to enable us to cope with any threat that may be posed to the security of India."

Mr. President, on the 28th of June we had received a text of a draft CTBT from the Chairman of the Ad hoc committee on Nuclear Test Ban, Ambassador Ramakar. My Government gave this text contained in WP 330-Rev.1 its most careful and detailed consideration. We examined if this Treaty w as the Treaty which we had been mandated to negotiate by the CD and for which India had entered the negotiations two and a half years ago, participating in them constructively and with seriousness. it was with disappointment and regret that we noted that this text is not very different from the earlier Working Paper of the Chairman which had led us to state on the 20th of June that we could not sign the Treaty in that form. This text, while it does contain a Treaty, does not contain the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty we had been mandated to negotiate nor does it meet India's basic concerns. Therefore, our position as stated on 20th June not to sign this Treaty in this form, stands.

Mr. President, the present text not only ignores our substantive objections but also contains an Article, Article XIV, to which we have the strongest objections. The Article, as it is presently drafted, not only totally disregards the fact that we have stated that we will not sign this treaty today, tomorrow or in three years time but seeks to enforce our signature by means unprecedented in treaty negotiating practice in that it creates obligations for a country without its consent and therefore runs contrary to customary international law. We understand that this formula is not in accordance with the wishes of the majority of delegations who have but reluctantly accepted it but has been retained because of the rigid positions adopted by a small number of delegations. Clearly, those who support this formula do not wish, for their own reasons, this treaty to come into force-ever. With a view to correcting this unacceptable situation, I had proposed an amendment to Article XIV in the Ad-hoc committee which would follow the precedent of the Chemical Weapons Convention. This proposed amendment reads:

"This Treaty shall enter in to force 180 days after the date of the deposit of the Instruments of Ratification by 65 States and no less than two years after its opening for signature. "

Mr. President, I sincerely hope that it would be possible for the Ad hoc Committee on Nuclear Test Ban to accept a modification to the present text of Article XIV. If, however, the present text is sought to be retained, I am instructed to inform the Conference that India would be reluctantly obliged to oppose such efforts. While we do not wish to prevent other countries form exercising their sovereign right to adopt a Treaty to which they wish to accede, we cannot have our sovereign right not to sign the Treaty taken away and accept obligations on India that we cannot and will not accept.

Mr. President, my delegation would commend to the members of the CD, the amendment proposed by us to Article XIV to enable a just and fair solution to one of the problems currently facing the Ad-Hoc Committee.

Mr. President, India's commitment to global nuclear disarmament remains unchanged and undiminished. We will continue to work, with like minded countries towards that end. We have therefore, together with 28 other countries of the G-21 supported the phased program for nuclear disarmament presented by the Coordinator of the G-21 today. It is a statement of our belief that work on a Treaty on the total elimination of nuclear weapons must start urgently even more so in the present circumstances.

Thank you.

The big change I would suggest today is that CTBT should no longer be considered the "first step" since that obviously did not work. CTBT should come after, and only after, all present NWS (incl. India) reach the same verified total throw-weight in yield, towards total disarmament.

Of course, the trouble with nuclear disarmament is that it still leaves Pakistan with millions of soosai BakPakis, but that is a different issue.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by NRao »

The way forward is not more or bigger nukes but less or no nukes.
Verify-ably?

Even the God of CTBT - Obama - does not expect anything substantial to happen in His life. (Yes, modern Gods have a life.)

You see, the challenge is and THE achievement is to get signatureS. What happens or does not happen after that is not of importance - exception being New Delhi. And since ND is an exception, why does ND need a nuke?

I think India should keep this obfuscated status going - it will work wonders for treaties. For India will never use a nuke, even if others use them.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Katare »

India should not sign CTBT no matter what. Its unfair treaty designed to legitimize nuclear arsenals of P5 while giving them rights to continuously build and upgrade their respective stockpiles. P5 gives up nothing in return. They have all completed their testing, built their databases/models and certified/calibrated lab testing facilities beside being in possession of extra large & modern ready to use stockpiles. In other words P5 gives up nothing while rest of the world gives up its right to defend itself against nuclear blackmail for free. India must preserve option for further testing until such time when it becomes useless (global disarmament) or useful.

Best option for India right now is to "not pursue" nuclear option further since net mid/long term returns on its national security would be negative for such an action IMO. Nuclear bombs are not protecting us from cross border terrorism (Mumbai, Kargil etc) or fake currency from Pakistan. When Chinese would come rushing down from Himalayan passes to tech another lesson to India, in next Indo-Chinese border war, these nukes are not going to deter it. We have a no-first use policy for nukes, even if we had first use policy nukes can't be employed unless the aggression is so sever that it threatens national survival. Nukes are weapons of last resort that ensure against a complete defeat or occupation of large inhabited areas by an enemy. Nukes also ensure against a nuclear blackmail by another nuclear power. All of these deterrents have been realized even without a Hydrogen bomb IMO. Hydrogen bomb of large yield would come in handy in a last stand/Armageddon type of war or to avert such a war. There are no reasons to believe that any nation of this world is crazy and capable enough to attempt occupying/annihilating a nation as large as India with a billion+ hostile population using nuclear weapons and accepting limited second strike on its cities. There are no benefits anyone can gain which would justify such an act even if it was possible or doable. This is time for India to consolidate economically, technologically and socially while modernizing its armed forces so they are prepared to meet the likely security challenges that India would face in the next decade or so.
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16267
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by SwamyG »

For people like me.....CTBT
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ramana »

Sanku wrote:There is a debate on right now on CNBC TV 18, where Karan Thapar is talking to BK, R Goplan and one other retired Sikh gentleman (a IFS officer and ambassador whose name eludes me)

They are talking of this very topic.

----------

This thread is not to a good start, I think it is going to be just what the previous thread was, because in reality the older issues have not disappeared, merely ignored, the signs are already there.

Is it on Karan Thapar's War of Words? Look at CNBC's web page might have transcripts next week.
Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7113
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Muppalla »

Sanku wrote:There is a debate on right now on CNBC TV 18, where Karan Thapar is talking to BK, R Goplan and one other retired Sikh gentleman (a IFS officer and ambassador whose name eludes me)
They are talking of this very topic.

----------

This thread is not to a good start, I think it is going to be just what the previous thread was, because in reality the older issues have not disappeared, merely ignored, the signs are already there.

Is it SK.Singh?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

Maybe I should not post this without looking at the entire CTBT document, but what the heck.

There are two separate treaties to talk about

The first is th NPT and the second is the CTBT

From an Indian viewpoint this entire NPT thing appeared like a system geared to create haves and have nots. And among the have not the system created a "bipolar monotheistic" system in which you were required to believe in a God and that God could would give you a nuclear umbrella because you were allied with the Western bloc or were an ally of the Soviet Union. Nations that professed belief in neither of these two competing God ands claimed that there were many Gods were left out in a limbo. The NPT in my view is trash. The NPT is like the man from the Cape and the P5 represent the ape in this wonderful epic poem
There was a man from the Cape
Who wanted to make love to an ape
The ape said, "You fool"
"I've got a square tool"
"and I'll bu**er your a*se out of shape"

What about the CTBT?

The CTBT document helpfully linked by SwamyG is here
http://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/content/ ... y_text.pdf

Please take time to read its 191 pages while I go have a beer, and tell me about it when I get back..

No seriously . India actually took part in the CTBT negotiations and is one of the 44 so called "Annex 2 nations" of the CTBT. (More on that below)

But the basic provisions of the CTBT are:
ARTICLE I
BASIC OBLIGATIONS
1. Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any
nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear
explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear
explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control.
2. Each State Party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain
from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the
carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any
other nuclear explosion.
The CTBT requires the signature of all 44 of the annex 2 states which are:
Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium,
Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia,
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Finland,
France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic
Republic of), Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands,
Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania, Republic of
Korea, Russian Federation, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of
America, Viet Nam, Zaire.
This map explains it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CTBT_ ... pation.svg

Now I may be mistaken here - it's 6-30 AM - I have not had my beer and you guys have not told me about the document, but the CTBT is all about avoiding testing that can be detected by a monitoring apparatus defined in the treaty text.

Signing the CTBT demands that everyone stops testing - except those states who can do clandestine testing by simulation and micro-explosions that nobody else can detect. If India can do that, perhaps the CTBT can be signed - because anyway nobody else is going to test. It may be a fun thing to sign - like playing Russian roulette and see if Pakistan signs - or tests instead.

In any case the CTBT cannot come into force until all 44 Annex 2 states sign

China, US and Iraq have signed and not ratified

Now guess which 4 annex 2 states have not signed at all
Tadaaaaaa < music >
India
Pakistan
North Korea
Cuba

Now wasn't someone worrying that India was clubbed with these nations? Naturally. India is part of the group and is clubbed with them. Even when we belong to the religion we claim exemption and pretend to be secular.

India's behavior with regard to CTBT is the behavior of a bunch of frauds. Perhaps we should sign.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Rahul M »

if postors have a problem with POV of a moderator
kindly make it known through admin email or forum feedback thread only.
I've removed all such posts from this thread.
Rahul.
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Gagan »

shiv wrote:Now guess which 4 annex 2 states have not signed at all
Tadaaaaaa < music >
India
Pakistan
North Korea
Cuba
Aren't the yehudis in this exalted company?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

Gagan wrote:
shiv wrote:Now guess which 4 annex 2 states have not signed at all
Tadaaaaaa < music >
India
Pakistan
North Korea
Cuba
Aren't the yehudis in this exalted company?

Not sure. I was having toast and a crumb had fallen on the map just over Israel and I was unable to see its status on the map.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by ShauryaT »

shiv wrote: India's behavior with regard to CTBT is the behavior of a bunch of frauds. Perhaps we should sign.
It is exactly how it will be portrayed. As a bunch of hypocrites, who say one thing and when it really counts do what everyone does. Now, in this entire game no one exactly is a Harishchandra for everyone is doing b*enc*odgiri. The difference is how you do it.

The CTBT and the on coming FMCT would not have been taken up, were the principal nations with the most weapons, have a near zero impact due to the limitations, these treaties seek to impose.

India needs to learn to play this game well. We do not have the strength to go alone and change this world in our mold (whatever that is). The least our leaders can do is to play this game, where the rules are set by nations more powerful than us and ensure that India gets a seat at the high table, that a nation our size deserves.

We should sign, once we have what we need.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by enqyoob »

Curiously, from the Thanda Jehad days, do u c that only TWO Evil Empire states got nukes - SU and China, while the US, UQ, Frogistan - and Yehudistan - all got them. Whereas in 1945 only the USA had it. Just a note on Proliferation. Plus South Africa is supposed to have come very close.

I am not sure where China got it from. Did the SU give it to the hated Chinese, Communist Unity notwithstanding? Note that even in the 1970s there was near-nuclear-war on the Siberia/ Mongolia borders of China.

Or did it accidentally slip out of Los Alamos etc?

NoKo and TSP got it much later after fall of SU- from China. This is very useful to observe in considering the Nukes4Pakistan Treaty and the ChinaThermonukeBombsInTibet.

It is another aspect that the desi media has grossly failed to point out to the desi public and the world press. The NPT must die.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

narayanan wrote:
I am not sure where China got it from. Did the SU give it to the hated Chinese, Communist Unity notwithstanding?

IIRC - they got it from FSU before the fliendship ended
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Gagan »

The thermonuke - Test no 6. Where did that come from? Did someone say Los Alamos?
Because the tarrel than mountains fliendship with russian had long ended, and the russians had ditched the chinese effort midway.
China retaliated with its 596 weapon test.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

Gagan wrote:The thermonuke - Test no 6. Where did that come from? Did someone say Los Alamos?
Because the tarrel than mountains fliendship with russian had long ended, and the russians had ditched the chinese effort midway.
China retaliated with its 596 weapon test.
Gagan - let me make a few expansive statements here for which I will offer no explanations.

For a country with the required nuclear material and 1960s level technology it is not difficult to fashion a two stage thermonuclear bomb.

Now if I make 5 thermonuclear bombs and test them - and only one actually works the world will be saying "shiv has exploded a #$% MEGAton hydrogen bomb" Unless I am foolish enough to say "He he he he - me tried 5 but 4 fizzled and onlee one worked, but I am Hindu satyameva jayate"

So I am sure it would have been not such a big deal for China to test such a bomb in the 1960s or 70s. Whether that bomb was "deliverable" and whether they tested 5 and only one exploded (like shiv above) nobody will know. 1967 was the time of atmospheric tests and no international monitoring. If someone exploded a nuke in his land - and "only the primary worked and the secondary fizzled" nobody was there to pick up any signals and discuss that and say "His is bigger :(( "
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by John Snow »

Till 1970s India had a massive lead in Industry and pure Science, then the lead dissipated,

PRC graduating from Fission to Fusion just in 3 years.
The first Chinese nuclear test was conducted at Lop Nor on 16 October 1964 (CHIC 1). It was a tower shot involving a fission device with a yield of 25 kilotons. Uranium 235 was used as the nuclear fuel, which indicates Beijing's choice of the path of creating high-yield nuclear weapons right away. Of the ten test shots that followed by 29 September 1969, six are believed to have been related to thermonuclear development. The others had as their goals the adaptation of CHIC 1 for bomber delivery and test of a missile warhead (CHIC 4). The third nuclear test was conducted on 9 September 1966 using a Tu-16 bomber. In addition to uranium 235, this nuclear device, with a yield around 100 KT, this time contained lithium 6, which attested to China's readiness to test a thermonuclear explosion. CHIC 6, an airdrop test on 17 June 1967, was the first full-yield, two-stage thermonuclear test.
All this inspite of being way behind India in pure sciences and Industrial and Manufacturing systems.

While the soviest gave them a head start, they could develop really fast. The same with TSP, once they had the initial bomb given by PRC, they are going at full spead, including reverse engineering Harpoon and Tomahawk which fell into their hand literraly with out exploding, the extension of range of NoKO supplied missiles is also case in point.


All this in reference

1) We cant do things starts and spurts (like Agni go slow in late 80 and early 90s, now not quickly graduating to 8000 Km missile)

2) we cant cut funds and expect miracles from institutions we are often told after POK 1 the sanctions took bite, and progress was extremely slow paced, this is analogus to Russians withdrawing support to PRC in the late 59 early 1960s but still PRC managed to get to its stated goals.
3) there is no way to sit back and expect to catch up later, it will never happen ie. economy will grow then we will restart again wont work. The others will continue to build lead.

India is truely at cross roads on Nuclear high way, looks like our leadership wants to take an exit to nearest Restroom for relief.
enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by enqyoob »

The standard assumption is that the SU gave the mantra to the Pee All See. The question is whether they DID, really. Or did others "lose" it to cause takleef to the SU and drive a nice wedge in the KOMINTERN and their Domino Theory. Because that was the result.
Because... consider the behavior of the SU everywhere else. They did try to place mijjiles in Cuba, but nowhere else outside the SU - they were always paranoid about the dictum
Do not smoke in bed. The ashes falling on the floor may be your own


So the friendly neighbors got Peaceful Reactors, maybe, but none of the dirty books. Not Vietnam not Hungary or Poland (not happy marriages, I know), not Yugoslavia or Romania or Albania, all deserving candidates. Why then would they give it to China? I think the racial love between the SU and China outweighed the co-commie-ness even in those days. So the standard assumption needs some re-think.

Anyway, that's all water long-since under the bridge over the Ussuri River. Point is to not let the preaching get out of hand about "Proliferation dangers", but to keep pointing out where proliferation has occurred.
****

Added later:

Spinster: the amazing Gleat Reaps Folwald that you cite should be viewed in the context of much more powerful and advanced Modern PRC: they still can't make jet engines for decent fighter planes, but depend on Russian supplies.

So that very fast advance is actually quite suspicious. Note that 1 year after 1970, Kissinger was visiting. The same oiseules may have done more than that to earn Chinese goodwill.
jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by jaladipc »

John Snow wrote:
India is truely at cross roads on Nuclear high way, looks like our leadership wants to take an exit to nearest Restroom for relief.
Let them take an exit now.And let these goons loose another war with china.I am saying these goons(politicians)instead of India loosing because they are the ones who deserve it.Not the whole nation.And let them sign all the BS treaties including NPT/CTBT,.......etc etc.
I am saying all this onlee because i am pretty confident that these leaders wont stay long.India is running for a leader like Chandragupta.And chanakya is already movin the pawns.And when that dynamic leader arives he is gonna exit all these treaties one after another and will change the whole geographic scenario.
That is the only faith thats keeping me alive and put a smile on my face every morning when i hear abt the new movements.
It is clearly written,there will be few more wars, and the people whom we embrace with are going to drill a rod deep into our A holes.

Jai Hind.
csharma
BRFite
Posts: 694
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by csharma »

K Subrahmanyam responds to Gen Kapoor's statement of revisting NFU policy.

No second thoughts

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/no-se ... s/514258/0
When NFU was formulated ( I was the convenor of the National Security Board that drafted it) there were no assumptions on the size of the Pakistani arsenal. The doctrine stands by itself irrespective of the size of the potential enemy’s arsenal. There is a second component of the nuclear doctrine: the credible minimum deterrent. It is that component that may call for some adjustments if the potential enemy’s arsenal were to increase. Even that is not a necessity from the point of view of deterrence, but a question of influencing the perception of the adversary.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by shiv »

John Snow wrote:

1) We cant do things starts and spurts (like Agni go slow in late 80 and early 90s, now not quickly graduating to 8000 Km missile)

2) we cant cut funds and expect miracles from institutions

May I point out one dissonant fact with regard to what many people on the forum feel and what GoI and many other powerful people in India appear to feel (judging by their statements and behavior)

Mostly people on BRF dream of "world leadership" for India and express sentiments like "seat at the high table"

But Indian leadership is not seeking world leadership of that type and not trying to implement the the need to dominate the world which is a pre requisite for world leadership of the type that people on BRF want to see.

Indian leaders are continuously weighed down by the statistics that India already leads the world in maternal mortality, malnutrition, tuberculosis, leprosy, people living BPL, short stature, infant mortality etc and they are desperately trying to give up India's "leadership" in all these spheres.

India does lead the world in many ways. Unfortunately India's leadership is in spheres where we do not want leadership.
Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 587
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by Raja Ram »

narayanan,

I will edit out my earlier post. I think it has caused you hurt. I wrote that post because I thought that reference in your post was to me. That is why, I started the post with "if" it referred to me. I thought and still think, your reference was unwarranted when I have been civil in all my posts. I should have asked you in private whether it referred to me and not have presumed something and written something.

I do hold your views and thinking in high esteem. I may have reservations on your style at times. Just in the same way, you may have with mine. After posting that and thinking about it for a while, I think it is best that I write this in an attempt to remove any bitterness that may have crept in.

For what it is worth, I can only explain where I am coming from. I do not believe that the TN capability that was demonstrated was a complete fizzle and I believe it was a success. I agree with your basic premise and arguments on the same. I also do not believe in denigrating any of our scientists. Nor do I believe that our PM is a traitor willing to sell Indian interests. I have critiqued some of the positions and recent actions no doubt, but I think that it is a valid thing to do. I am a pro India person like everyone else in this forum and I do acknowledge the fact that my views should be subjected to the same criticism like any one else's. I do not expect others to agree with me, and I often qualify what I say with the statement that it is my take on the issue.

I do not have anything against you. In fact most of the time I have been in agreement with your views and admired at the way you have put them across. But somewhere I seem to have created an impression in you that I have an agenda against you.

My intention for this public post is to remove them. If you feel that I should not respond to you or your posts and exchange views, please let me know by mail and I shall refrain from doing so. I do hope that this sets things back to a more cordial interaction.

Best regards
Rajaram

Others,
Please disregard this OT post. Thank you, for the indulgence
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by John Snow »

I am for some reason gradually veering toward WKK, we should not be in the business of Nukes, deterrent, strategy, war gaming war mongering, it is mostly self destructive.

Every Indian news paper in massaland is full of babas, including one Peer Baba from UK who says who can cure any ailment, any pestilence, predict future, bestow peace & posperity love bewteen estaranged wife & Husband, missing son or girl friends all at one payment of $50.00 (donation mind you not fee) incase of the UK guy please add VAT at 15%.

And then there are yagnas all over massaland for Peace bot inner and outer. If GOI spends $50,00 thats it all our problems are solved and dissolve BARC DRDO like entities (white elephants in some peoples views).

I think its better to focus in Sulabh and new technology to power flush and recycle as much of its content as possible.
I am in agreement with Shiv ji as usual he revolutionises thought process...
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3986
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by vera_k »

John Snow wrote:I think its better to focus in Sulabh and new technology to power flush and recycle as much of its content as possible.
No disagreement here. But how do you propose to transport people to the toilets? In Switzerland :P
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Post by PratikDas »

My thought process certainly has not been experiencing any revolutions. Even when we have natural disasters and crores of funds at the national level are sanctioned for aid, only a tiny percentage reaches the people. Even if somehow more funds could be diverted to the people by not spending on tests and by not suffering sanctions - that corruption overhead will remain exactly the same.

Just because some people say India isn't interested in a seat at the high table, it doesn't become true. Perhaps the very recent remarks by India over the (stymied) Security Council reforms have been quickly forgotten.

If no valuable rewards at the global arena are forthcoming to India for signing the CTBT then India simply shouldn't sign it. Either way the daily life of the common man isn't going to change one iota because as long as India doesn't test there won't be any sanctions and the economy will plow on regardless.

India should tie CTBT with global nuclear disarmament - as it always has done.
Locked