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.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 11 Aug 2009 22:46

Thorium Power loses $1.3M
The McLean-based U.S. nuclear energy company lost $1.3 million compared to a loss of $997,000 in the second quarter of 2008.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Arun_S » 11 Aug 2009 23:58



wasu
BRFite
Posts: 110
Joined: 24 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby wasu » 14 Aug 2009 12:35

China appoints new nuclear chief
Source: Xinhua | 2009-8-14 | ONLINE EDITION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUN Qin, deputy director of the National Energy Administration, was appointed general manager of the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) to replace Kang Rixin, who was sacked due to alleged "grave violations of discipline," Xinhua learned from the Organization Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee today.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 14 Aug 2009 17:46

allegations of corruption wrt contracts signed with foreign reactor suppliers IIRC

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 16 Aug 2009 04:48


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 16 Aug 2009 19:32

The hawkish case for nuclear disarmament
Traditionally, military power was measured in relative, not absolute, terms, meaning that your security was a function not of how many weapons you had, but of how many more you had than your enemy. The advent of nuclear weapons skewed that calculation. Because it would take only a few nuclear weapons to destroy a civilization, the atomic bomb became an equalizer for Davids confronting Goliath-sized enemies.

During the Cold War, one could argue that that dynamic helped the U.S. because Warsaw Pact forces outnumbered NATO's. But today, with the specter of rogue-state nuclear programs, it's more likely that we are the ones who would be deterred. For example, would we have waged Operation Desert Storm (let alone Operation Iraqi Freedom) if Saddam Hussein had been able to strike New York or Washington with a nuclear weapon? Probably not. Our half-trillion-dollar-a-year military can, in essence, be defanged by any dictator with a handful of A-bombs.

That is a remarkable waste of America's incredible conventional superiority.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Sanatanan » 17 Aug 2009 08:11



Is India not able to utilise this opportunity to increase its exports and meet the demand? If so, why?

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

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 17 Aug 2009 18:17

NASA has developed a nuclear reactor coupled to a Stirling engine, which they say would be more reliable and robust for missions to the moon and mars:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23247/

I'm wondering if this type of reactor wouldn't be useful as a submarine powerplant. The Stirling engine would be extremely quiet in comparison to the noisy pumps of a conventional reactor design, and that's important for submarine stealth.

Is it possible that India could develop something like this for that purpose? Is this design only capable of mere kilowatts, or is it scalable to megawatts? It might also be useful for a lunar mission.


rohiths
BRFite
Posts: 399
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 21:51

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby rohiths » 17 Aug 2009 20:41



Can gurus speculate why it may be so ?
Do they have enough nukes or their game is up?

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

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 18 Aug 2009 02:25

Naturally, they're frightened of being frozen into nuclear inferiority, fearing that they won't have enough fissile material. Let's see what kind of pressure is put on them.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6944
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Anujan » 18 Aug 2009 07:22

Sanjay M wrote:Naturally, they're frightened of being frozen into nuclear inferiority, fearing that they won't have enough fissile material. Let's see what kind of pressure is put on them.


Pakis are trying to move their bum from uranium to plutonium. They are massively expanding facilities in Khushab, and the pu route is needed for the thermonuclear bum.

There was some noises of a cheeni suppled pu bum being tested in '98.

Some with tinfoil hats speculate NoKo Pu bum tests had something to do with pakis.

Nevertheless, the ingredient for the bum, pu, has been produced only in small quantities in current reactors pakis have. So they probably have a U stockpile but not Pu stockpile. Hence all this takleef.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 18 Aug 2009 19:35

Africa Renounces Nukes: Treaty's Entry Into Force Makes Entire Southern Hemisphere Free of Nuclear Weapons

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/200 ... unces.html

The entry into force of the Treaty of Pelindaba ensures that Southern hemisphere territories are now a zone free of nuclear weapons. In fact, similar Treaties are in force in South America (Treaty of Tlatelolco), the South Pacific (Treaty of Rarotonga), Southeast Asia (Treaty of Bangkok), and Antarctica (Antarctic Treaty).


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 20 Aug 2009 18:31


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 21 Aug 2009 04:11


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 23 Aug 2009 22:30

US Navy removes top nuclear weapons facility officer
The Navy has removed the commanding officer at its Bangor nuclear weapons facility, citing a loss of confidence in his ability to lead.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 24 Aug 2009 06:30


a_bharat
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 09:54

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby a_bharat » 24 Aug 2009 18:43

'Evidence lacking' of Burma's nuke plans

...
Media reports last month claimed Burma had embarked on a secret nuclear weapons program, aided by North Korea which has long conducted a clandestine nuclear weapons program, testing devices in 2006 and 2009.

Mr Selth said the US had steadfastly refused to accuse Burma of a secret WMD program, probably because it did not feel there was sufficient reliable evidence to mount a public case.

"Understandably, foreign officials looking at this issue are being very cautious. No one wants a repetition of the mistakes which preceded the 2003 Iraq War, either in underestimating a country's capabilities, or by giving too much credibility to a few untested intelligence sources," he said.
...
"The exposure of a WMD program would probably see Burma expelled from ASEAN," he said.


http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-na ... -ewf7.html

BijuShet
BRFite
Posts: 1575
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 23:14
Location: under my tin foil hat

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby BijuShet » 27 Aug 2009 01:44

Russia regains foothold in Mongolia's uranium mines
By: Reuters
25th August 2009
ULAN BATOR - Mongolia welcomed Russia as its partner in a uranium mining venture on Tuesday as part of a wider pact to boost co-operation in infrastructure and farming, raising concerns for the Canadian miner that owns the deposit.

Russian and Mongolian state-owned companies formed a joint venture to develop the Dornad deposit, which holds seven times as much uranium as Russia produced last year, after the Soviet-era allies settled a $150 million debt owed to Moscow.

Toronto-listed Khan Resources, which still owns a 58 percent interest in the mining licence, is seeking to determine how Mongolia's new law on nuclear energy will affect its investment in the country.
...

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 27 Aug 2009 07:14

The Leaking Game
Western officials are leaking stories to the Associated Press and Reuters aimed at pressuring the outgoing chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, to include a summary of intelligence alleging that Iran has been actively pursuing work on nuclear weapons in the IAEA report due out this week.

The aim of the pressure for publication of the document appears to be to discredit the November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the Iranian nuclear programme, which concluded that Iran had ended work on nuclear weapons in 2003.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 29 Aug 2009 08:17





Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 01 Sep 2009 05:43

Nuclear scientist says first Soviet A-bomb 'miracle'
Arkadi Brich also criticised banning atomic tests, saying they boosted scientific research and produced "very nice" mushroom clouds.

Ananya
BRFite
Posts: 282
Joined: 27 Dec 2008 23:21

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Ananya » 01 Sep 2009 05:51


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 02 Sep 2009 07:33


sukhdeo
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 02:02

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby sukhdeo » 05 Sep 2009 09:04

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/sep/ ... ii-row.htm

Whats everybody's take on this.

Why cant we test again ?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 05 Sep 2009 20:56

Disarmament concerns and Pakistan
At the Geneva-based conference, where until recently there was consensus to work towards a verifiable fissile material treaty (FMT), there are now attempts to set aside the principle of verification to cater to some specific interests
This was a clear indication that India intends to seek exemptions in the FMT similar to those it has been granted under the US-India nuclear deal. It means that India would be free to keep its eight ‘civil’ nuclear reactors and the breeder programme outside safeguards. These reactors can produce a significant amount of plutonium. Any FMT with such exemptions will obviously be meaningless. But no one in the Geneva session sought to question India’s conditionalities.


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 05 Sep 2009 21:17

80-ton test of explosives in the Negev
The surface explosion left a crater six meters deep and 27 meters in diameter. The blast was equivalent to an earthquake measuring 2.5 on the Richter scale.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 07 Sep 2009 01:27

Louis Rosen, 91, dies, worked on first nuclear bombs
On May 9, 1951, on a coral atoll in the Pacific, scientists ignited what they hoped would be the first man-made thermonuclear reaction, the basis of the hydrogen bomb. A fireball rose 1,800 feet.

But the explosion alone, awe-inspiring though it was, was not enough to convince one eyewitness, Edward Teller, considered the father of the H-bomb, that thermonuclear fusion had indeed occurred. For that, he had to wait for the results of a test devised by two young fellow physicists who worked with him at Los Alamos, N.M., where the first atomic bombs had been built.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 07 Sep 2009 03:37


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16406
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby NRao » 09 Sep 2009 19:15


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 12 Sep 2009 03:01



Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 12 Sep 2009 03:46

Attacking Iran unacceptable: Putin
Mr. Putin drew an interesting parallel with India's nuclear programme. "What Iran is doing today is little different from what India did several years ago," he remarked to general laughter.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7673
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Postby Gerard » 12 Sep 2009 03:53

Too soon to talk disarmament: Canadian government
"Canada supports the principle of creating a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) as the final step in a progressive, incremental effort to end the capacity of states to produce and develop nuclear weapons, and to reduce and eventually eliminate existing nuclear stockpiles," DFAIT spokeswoman Dana Cryderman wrote in an emailed statement.

The statement said it is too early to negotiate an NWC. Necessary prerequisite treaties must first be in force, Ms. Cryderman wrote, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a functioning Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

"Until other treaties are in place to end the capacity of states to develop and produce nuclear weapons, it would be premature to launch NWC negotiations," the email said. "Canada is taking action to urge all states to support the treaties that must first be in place before a NWC should be considered."


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: g.sarkar, komal, Lekhraj, Rony, vijayk and 57 guests