International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby ramana » 29 Sep 2009 00:36

Google cache of Japan calls on China to cut nuke arms

Good move.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 29 Sep 2009 10:03

German Nuclear Industry to Benefit from Centre-Right Electoral Victory

So why doesn't India try to court the new centre-right German govt on nuclear equipment purchases, if their govt is better disposed towards the nuclear industry?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23755
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 29 Sep 2009 17:46

Nuclear Disarmament: Building the Momentum

I see new threats emerging now to India. Gareth Evans, like most of his tribe from political Australia, is a wily character as far as India goes. The proposals he makes here are to defang India, but couched in terms of great even handed principles based on a high moral ground. We have seen such great forked-tongue moral preaching from the Australians even while enjoying the nuclear weapon umbrella from the US.
India’s great founding Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, worked energetically to defuse global tensions during the Cold War, commissioned the first study on the human effects of nuclear explosions, and campaigned tirelessly to eliminate what he termed these ‘frightful engines of destruction.’ It is our ambition to carry forward Nehru’s vision into the 21st century.{This is undisguised flattery. The Australians or their masters, the USofA were never interested in anything that India proposed in those days. They were contemptuous in dismissing them. While situations are vastly different today, it is still a moot point whether are genuinely interested in eliminating nuclear weapons. They are only finding new ruses to retain their weapons and indeed increase their potency. This flattery by Evans betrays probably the agenda}

Leadership from Russia and the U.S. is crucial, but so too is the commitment of other nuclear armed states if nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament momentum is to be regenerated.{He is building the story step-by-step. He is laying the foundation for saying later on that 'other nuclear armed states' must do more and eventually that India should do the most}
The countries of South Asia have made it clear that they share with most other nations the conviction that every effort should be made to eliminate the world’s store of nuclear weapons. But it is clear that there are still major regional challenges to be addressed to bring about the circumstances whereby this process can be moved forward. The effort has to be global but it must be matched by addressing regional challenges.{It doesn't take him too long to come to 'South Asia' even as he praises the sagacity of 'South Asian' leaders. I really do not know if Indian policy makers fall for flattery but the Westerners make it a point to use flattery as a tool nevertheless}
While the Commission’s immediate focus will be on the May 2010 conference that will review the architecture of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it will look beyond that conference and grapple with the pressing issue of the engagement of those countries who have not joined the Treaty (India, Pakistan and Israel){there you go. . .Everybody knows Israel cannot be touched. Its status as a NWS is ambivalent though everybody knows it has weapons. So, this conference is to tackle India and Pakistan. By equating India with Pakistan, Gareth Evans and his Japanese counterpart are completely targetting India only. Let's remember that Japan is part of the 3½ friend grouping of Pakistani friends}, and those who have either purported to walk away from it or whose commitment to it remains uncertain{the biggest betrayers of such committment are China and the US}
Indian leaders have declared their commitment to nuclear disarmament — a commitment which must be shared by the entire region. {That's the mistake. India is not asking for a regional nuclear free zone. That would be meaningless especially when a P-5 member and neighbour is a nuclear threat to India. Its reckless nuclear and missile proliferation has created a security nightmare for India and even the rest of the world.} In recognition of India’s regional and global roles in matters of international security, and the importance of the South Asia region more generally the Commission will meet in New Delhi in October, at a conference held in consultation with the Delhi Policy Group. The meeting will be regional, to consult with South Asian nuclear and strategic experts from government, academia and, those involved in developing the nuclear power industry. We have invited representatives from key regional states — Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka {So, India is just another key regional state along with countries like Pakistan, Nepal, SL and Bangladesh ?}and look forward greatly to hearing regional perspectives on the full range of issues on which the Commission is working. {I hope the commission hears a mouthful from Indian interlocutors}

AnimeshP
BRFite
Posts: 514
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 07:39

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby AnimeshP » 30 Sep 2009 00:47

French Atomic Pique

President Obama wants a unified front against Iran, and to that end he stood together with Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh on Friday morning to reveal the news about Tehran's secret facility to build bomb-grade fuel. But now we hear that the French and British leaders were quietly seething on stage, annoyed by America's handling of the announcement.


"We are right to talk about the future," Mr. Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. resolution on strengthening arms control treaties. "But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises," i.e., Iran and North Korea. "We live in the real world, not in a virtual one." No prize for guessing into which world the Frenchman puts Mr. Obama.


We thought we'd never see the day when the President of France shows more resolve than America's Commander in Chief for confronting one of the gravest challenges to global security. But here we are. :rotfl:


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Oct 2009 04:31

U.S. Rethinks Nuclear Strategy

The Obama administration's Quadrennial Defense Review and a parallel review of U.S. nuclear posture could give the go-ahead to two long-debated programs: a next-generation missile-launching submarine (SSBN) and a new nuclear warhead. If so, it will be a relief to nuclear insiders who worry that the topic of deterrence has been ignored for too long in the U.S., while nations like France, the U.K., Russia and China outpace U.S. modernization plans.

"It's been the better part of two decades since most of us in the Defense Dept. invested the necessary time in the topic of strategic deterrence," Lt. Gen. Kevin Chilton, leader of U.S. Strategic Command, said here in July, kicking off the biggest conference in years on the subject, the U.S. Stratcom Deterrence Symposium. "We've allowed an entire generation to skip class. We've allowed our understanding to plateau--but it turned out that the plateau was a ledge, and we've stayed too long on that ledge."

The Obama administration entered office with a commitment to reduce the "numbers, roles and emphasis" associated with nuclear weapons and start the world on a "path to zero." Arms negotiations with Russia have restarted and there is renewed emphasis on non-proliferation measures such as test bans and controls on fissile material.

But at the same time, some planners, theorists in deterrence and military leaders are concerned that there is a new nuclear calculus that U.S. leadership's actions may not reflect. As John Hamre, former deputy Defense secretary and now president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, puts it, "We [in the U.S.] don't think nuclear weapons are useful. We think they are dangerous. But most countries think they are useful."

Indeed they are. Vice Adm. Robert Harward, deputy commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command, reported on a five-day Joint Operating Environment war game held last November. It reflected some probabilities: That rising nuclear powers might be willing to use tactical nuclear weapons, and that both state and non-state actors "would not view nuclear weapons as a first resort, but might not see them as a last resort." The result: "The presence of nuclear weapons brought on operational paralysis."

Adds Frank Miller, a former arms policy official under the George W. Bush administration: "Iran and North Korea are not using nuclear weapons to deter U.S. nuclear weapons; they are using them to deter our conventional forces."

It is not only rogue states and new nuclear powers that are developing weapons. Russia and China, with all three "new nuke" states on its borders, have programs for delivery vehicles and new warheads. Later this year, France will become the first nation to publicly field a nuclear warhead--the TNA (airborne nuclear warhead) for the ASMP--A air-launched missile--that has been designed and developed without nuclear testing. The TNO oceanic warhead for the submarine-launched M51 follows next year. Despite a current debate, the U.K.'s decision to develop a nuclear warhead (also without testing), together with a new missile submarine class, stands as official policy.

The U.S. is reviewing its nuclear posture. The Clinton administration renounced nuclear testing in 1996 and directed the Energy Dept.'s national laboratories to find ways to measure the reliability of stockpiled weapons, and develop new warheads, without testing. This has been accomplished and the labs are confident that a new Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) can be developed, but Congress routinely blocks spending on it.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Director George Miller comments: "There is an increasingly rare group of people who have developed a nuclear weapon and added it to the stockpile." He adds, "I read that the three of us"--Miller and his counterparts at Sandia and Los Alamos Laboratories--"have certified the stockpile, but what we do is assess it and tell people, and there are reasons why those assessment letters are classified." In the current "stewardship" program "there are a lot of issues that have tested our mettle and we see more looming on the horizon."

Veteran technologist John Foster, who started at Livermore in 1948, is more direct. "If the labs are not permitted to practice design, then the development of any warhead can't assume competence and proficiency, and a credible deterrent cannot be maintained."

RRW opponents argue that concerns over the aging of warheads are overstated--after all, the life of plutonium is pretty well unlimited--but lab directors are not so sure. Livermore's Miller calls a nuclear warhead "a wonderful chemistry experiment" in which, over time, low-level radiation from the plutonium "pit" affects almost every component in the system. Old technology is another issue. Sandia Director Tom Hunter's reaction to a call to rebuild one warhead subsystem was that "I was being asked how much it would cost to make an eight-track player."

If there is one big upside to the development of an RRW, aside from hedging against unexpected aging issues, it is summed up as "surety." A great deal of the cost of sustaining nuclear weapons has to do with safeguarding against accidents and theft. But if the weapon were made inherently safer (for instance, by using even more insensitive explosives) and virtually impossible to exploit if stolen, it would be much easier to handle.

Work along these lines has proceeded in the U.K. In a 2005 interview, Livermore Weapons Director Bruce Goodwin remarked that work at the U.K.'s Atomic Weapons Establishment was "vibrant" and aimed at fielding a comprehensive test ban treaty-compliant warhead. He referred to the U.K.'s emphasis on what he called a "smug bomb," known formally as the High Surety Warhead. Goodwin also said U.S.-U.K. cooperation was closer at the time than it had been for years. Since late 2008, AWE Management Ltd., which operates the U.K. research center, has been majority U.S.-owned, with Lockheed Martin and Jacobs Engineering holding one-third each.

A new deterrent posture could include conventional ballistic missiles (CBMs), a new factor in deterrence, but so far more dangerous to careers than to adversaries. Asked about CBMs at the Space and Missile Defense Conference in Huntsville, Ala., in August, Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responded: "You want to see the scar tissue?"

The case for CBMs is strong. "The only systems that we have that can get to the fight in minutes have been nuclear warheads," Cartwright says. "Is that prudent? It is relevant, in that the enemy believes we will use it." Air Force Gen. (ret.) Eugene Habiger, involved in the CBM effort, notes, however, "a 1,000-lb. conventional warhead with a few meters CEP (circular error probable) has the same effect as 50 kilotons at 3,000 ft."

CBM, Habiger told the Omaha conference, "was a great idea. The Navy calculated that they could provide 100 CBMs for $500 million. But Stratcom didn't get the regional [commanders-in-chief] involved to persuade the secretaries of State and Defense that we needed it, and that was a great way to kill it."

However, as Cartwright noted, the initial CBM--Conventional Trident--is being brought to a point where it could be fielded within 18 months (as Congress directed). Also, tests being conducted in "four to five months" will demonstrate technologies to deal with "ambiguity issues"--the problem of demonstrating that a missile launch is not nuclear. "That's seen as more of a way forward."

CBM at least begins to respond to another important question: Are nuclear weapons a credible deterrent against a chemical or biological threat? "Is it credible to use the threat of a nuclear warhead against a chemical attack that kills 1,000 people?" Hamre asks, adding, "It's not helpful to have policies based on your own confusion."


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 09 Oct 2009 17:36

Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".
He specifically mentioned Mr Obama's work to strengthen international institutions and work towards a world free of nuclear arms.




Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 13 Oct 2009 17:07

North Korea begins 'Plan C'
Plan C envisages the US belatedly learning to live in peace with a nuclear-armed North Korea and putting to rest scores of years of hostility between the two countries through signing a peace treaty and establishing full diplomatic ties. It also involves recognition of the DPRK's responsible behavior as a nuclear power and desire to join the US in its efforts to achieve global nuclear disarmament

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 15 Oct 2009 03:01

Russia to Allow Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strikes
A leading Russian newspaper is citing a top security official as saying Russia is reserving the right to carry out pre-emptive nuclear strikes to safeguard the country in the modern age.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Oct 2009 06:32


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 17 Oct 2009 05:20

Diego Garcia: A thorn in the side of Africa's nuclear-weapon-free zone

French Nuclear Plant Criticized for Poor Plutonium Tracking
Located near Marseille, the Cadarache research center had certified that approximately 18 pounds of plutonium was being kept at the plant scheduled to be vacated and stripped. However, during dismantlement of the site, 48.5 pounds of plutonium was discovered.


Draft proposes cutting number of nuclear warheads to less than 1,000 by 2025


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 22 Oct 2009 04:37

British nuclear expert falls 120ft to his death in Vienna
He worked for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Four months ago another UN worker also believed to be British fell a similar distance at the same building, according to other staff working there.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby ramana » 22 Oct 2009 04:38

Some 00 actions underway?


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 22 Oct 2009 06:27

Why We Need to Test Nuclear Weapons
Mr. Kyl, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Arizona

Ayatollah Lewis comments
As Las Vegas has sprawled toward the Nevada Test Site, there is no chance that any politician in Nevada or neighboring Utah will permit the United States to resume yield testing at NTS. Zero, none, nada, zip. Like Yucca Mountain, but times 10.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 23 Oct 2009 21:44

Stoke China’s Fears
Apparently U.S. leaders don’t know even the basics about playing international diplomatic chess. Obligingly eliminating the specter of a nuclear-arms race in northeast Asia is akin to casually surrendering one’s queen in a chess match with Chinese officials. Granted, the United States might want to discourage Tokyo and Seoul from building their own nuclear arsenals, thereby exacerbating the global proliferation problem, but it is unwise to make high-profile public statements to that effect. Any continuing commitment to extended deterrence should be confined to quiet, private assurances to Japanese and South Korean leaders.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4432
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby putnanja » 24 Oct 2009 02:35

Yes, Virginia, There is a Mideast Nuke Deal

...
Iran's neighbor, the United Arab Emirates, has decided to skip the shadow games and enter the nuclear club through the front door, as it is now finalizing plans to spend $40 billion to build an estimated eight nuclear plants over the next several decades and become the first openly nuclear-powered state in the Middle East. And it is doing so with the blessing of the United States.

What's groundbreaking is that the U.A.E. has promised not to construct its own uranium-enrichment facilities. Instead, it will outsource the entire fuel cycle—from enrichment to reprocessing—to an established nuclear country, probably France.
The program will also be subject to strict inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency. The fact is that roughly three quarters of the countries around the world with nuclear-power plants today rely on the international market for fuel from the major producers in France, Europe, Russia, and the U.S. Only a minority actually do their own uranium enrichment and reprocessing.
...
The deal could well chart a road map for a slew of states in the Middle East that are already on their way to nuclear power. In recent years, countries like Qatar, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia have made their intentions to build nuclear-power plants clear. Though many are awash in oil, the costs, environmental concerns, and spiking demand for electricity are pushing them toward the atom. The Emirates deal sets a precedent for countries that say they want nuclear energy, but not the bomb. Why go to the expensive trouble of enriching uranium if France or the U.S. will do it for you? Nations can still insist on their right to do their own enrichment, but it's becoming much harder to convince the international community that their intentions are peaceful.
...
...
But on closer inspection, the Obama administration's more strategic aim likely is to establish a safe and replicable model for countries to roll out peaceful nuclear-power programs. A joint statement issued by the two countries late last year proclaimed that "the U.A.E. has committed to complete operational transparency and to pursuing the highest standards of nonproliferation safety and security." If there will be a number of new nuclear states in the coming years, not just in the Middle East, but around the world—Indonesia, Vietnam, and Kazakhstan are likely pioneers—the question moves from "when?" to "how?" The U.S. clearly wants to guide the process as much as possible.
...


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 25 Oct 2009 18:13

ramana wrote:Some 00 actions underway?


More on this:

Nuclear Expert Killed By 120ft Stairwell Fall


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 01 Nov 2009 06:09



Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 05 Nov 2009 02:10

France tries to calm reactor concerns
France was trying to avert a crisis of confidence on Tuesday over its new-generation EPR nuclear reactor after regulators in three countries raised questions over control and safety systems.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 05 Nov 2009 02:11

BAE to support Air Force nuclear monitors
The U.S. Air Force has contracted BAE Systems to provide nuclear monitoring support to help ensure treaty compliance around the world.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 06 Nov 2009 15:56

Iran tested advanced nuclear warhead design – secret report
The very existence of the technology, known as a "two-point implosion" device, is officially secret in both the US and Britain, but according to previously unpublished documentation in a dossier compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 07 Nov 2009 21:12

Baguette 'dropped by bird' causes LHC disruption
The spokesperson said the bread, which was "naked and unfilled", had caused a short circuit when dropped on an electrical installation that supplies energy to the massive experiment. While the bird was unconfirmed as the definite culprit, it had been spotted beforehand near the substation carrying bread, said the spokesperson.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6721
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Amber G. » 08 Nov 2009 21:08



Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 18 Nov 2009 03:12


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 19 Nov 2009 05:10

INFCIRC/754/Add.1

Agreement between the Government of India and the International Atomic Energy Agency for
the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities: Addition to the List of Facilities Subject to Safeguards Under the Agreement

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Docume ... c754a1.pdf

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 20 Nov 2009 05:10


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7657
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 20 Nov 2009 05:17

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2009

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6721
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Amber G. » 21 Nov 2009 22:25


Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 27 Nov 2009 20:13


negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby negi » 28 Nov 2009 00:25

India votes against Iran in IAEA

Interesting folks isn't this against what India has been fighting for all these years ? May be this is under Unkil's pressure in lieu of latter keeping its end of the N-deal. :-?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby SaiK » 28 Nov 2009 00:36

Gerard wrote:Iran tested advanced nuclear warhead design – secret report
The very existence of the technology, known as a "two-point implosion" device, is officially secret in both the US and Britain, but according to previously unpublished documentation in a dossier compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design.


interesting that it should be AQ khan always... wtf is in their intelligence not to think otherwise? from the land of dragons to defecated cia's owned squads, the game/venn is wide open.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dsreedhar, Karthik S, saip, sanjayc, Supratik, TKiran and 71 guests