Opposition to the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36394
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 04 Nov 2005 21:44

strategically speaking, even if we don't get f18s for our airforce, we should allow the indo-us nuclear deal. with a few straight clause, to eliminate or just include all current and existing nuclear establishments are military ones. just declare it.., and slowly on a phased manner dedicate to the nation one reactor after another.

All new reactors could be under IAEA direct inspection regime. Of course, there should be clause to say, military reactors can supply and sell energy to civlian needs.. after all who are they trying to protect and give life to.

simple strings, even bigger puppets can be made to dance. but if you take either extreme right or extreme left positions, we get no where except back to 1945.

let allah absorb these lefties.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 04 Nov 2005 21:55

SaiK wrote:with a few straight clause, to eliminate or just include all current and existing nuclear establishments are military ones. just declare it.., and slowly on a phased manner dedicate to the nation one reactor after another.


then there is no rush to pursue this deal ... for zero civilian reactors, the need for fuel will also be zero ... this whole thing will quickly became one major chai-biskoot ...

IMO, there is plenty of room for compromise ... taking maximalist positions will not lead to progress ... for those habitually bashing uncle, consider for a moment the contrast with russia that bowed to american pressure ... will america bow to chinese pressure?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36394
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 04 Nov 2005 22:59

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/nov/04nd ... &file=.htm
China attacks Indo-US nuclear deal

"Now that the United States buys another country in with nuclear technologies in defiance of international treaty, other nuclear suppliers also have their own partners of interest as well as good reasons to copy what the United States did,"

What did china do with Pakistan.. what is all the clandestine activities they did with pakistan?

Alok_N wrote:for those habitually bashing uncle, consider for a moment the contrast with russia that bowed to american pressure ... will america bow to chinese pressure?


nope.. it will definitely bow to congress pressure, who might be funded by the chinese empire.

Alok N, I am not saying zero civilian reactors, but that is some number to start with.. on the deal lets say westinghouse installs 10 nuclear reactors allover india, then we have 10 nuclear reactors that will be requiring NSG supplies.

all this is to just kick off the deal fast.. the rest will join slowly.
?

RonyKJ
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 30 Jan 2001 12:31
Contact:

Postby RonyKJ » 05 Nov 2005 00:04

I wish the GoI had a backbone

Every time China attacks India, there should be an automatic statement issued in support of Taiwan.
The GoI should put out the info on Chinese nuclear proliferation.

But what can you expect with the 'nut' minister in charge of external affairs.

I think BR should start and maintain a website dedicated to exposing and needling China. With adequate links to the forum, it should get high visibility.

George J

Postby George J » 05 Nov 2005 00:36

RonyKJ wrote:........I think BR should start and maintain a website dedicated to exposing and needling China. With adequate links to the forum, it should get high visibility.


Umm what BR and BRF current do is much to chagrin of them chincoms. Thats why BR get hacked so often and they got BharatRakshek registered in some sweatshop city in China.

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Postby VikramS » 05 Nov 2005 00:55

It might be a good idea to make sure that the Chinese opposition to the India-US nuclear deal makes it to the front page of WaPo and other sources of information for the US Congress. The more publicity the Chinese whine gets, the stronger the message the Congress gets, that the US needs to get the deal through if they are serious of having a regional counter-balance to China.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 05 Nov 2005 01:12

Here is a list of the Chinese Communist Pathetic Record vis-à-vis India thus far:
1. Takeover of Tibet by force, resettlement of the Han race from hinterland China into Tibet. Driven out the Dalai Lama and harass other Buddhists leaders. Purge of opposition by violent deaths.
2. Land grab from TSP – Aksai Chin in Kashmir India
3. 1962 war with India
4. Border wars in the Northeast India with territory disputes
5. Blatant Proliferation of nuclear and missile technology to TSP
6. Encircling India with supplies to surrogate states – TSP, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmmar
7. Instigating insurgencies with the Maoist, Communist in India and neighboring countries.
8. Opposition to India’s UNSC entry
9. Opposition to India’s US Nuclear deal

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36394
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 05 Nov 2005 01:53

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/nov/04gu ... &file=.htm
For the US, it's advantage India

Joseph advised the Senate 'to resist the temptation to pile on conditions' on India at this juncture -- conditions that Talbott was persistently seeking, such as implementing a moratorium on fissile material production, ratifying the CTBT or joining the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.

'Rather than layer on additional conditions or seek to renegotiate the Joint Statement, it would be better to lock-in this deal and then seek to achieve further results in subsequent non-proliferation discussions', he counselled.

In other words, like Charles Dickens' Oliver, Washington can be expected to ask Indian officials for 'more' as time passes by.

What makes the task easy for Washington is that it is well placed to drive home the advantage of dealing with an India that is today a hopelessly divided house on issues of foreign and security policy.

Perhaps it is for the first time in India's post-independent history that the US enjoys such an advantage vis-à-vis India.

Paradoxically, India appears to be at its most diffident when in actuality it ought to feel much stronger than at anytime in the decades since independence.


there lies the strategic depth from our political system. where we can say, that is the #1 enemy to the indo-us nuclear deal.

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

Postby Arun_S » 05 Nov 2005 01:55

RonyKJ wrote:Every time China attacks India, there should be an automatic statement issued in support of Taiwan.
The GoI should put out the info on Chinese nuclear proliferation.

But what can you expect with the 'nut' minister in charge of external affairs.

I think BR should start and maintain a website dedicated to exposing and needling China. With adequate links to the forum, it should get high visibility.


Get NSN to report nukleer co-operation with Tajakistan, Chinese-Ugihir, Bhutan, Laos, Vietnam and S.Korea:twisted:

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 05 Nov 2005 03:56

{ read this fairy tale that only Khan did it for TSP in the atlantic }

The Wrath of Khan

Dr. Abdul Quadeer Khan, the metallurgist who after a stint in Europe had returned to Pakistan in the mid-1970s with stolen designs, and over the years had provided the country—single-handedly, it was widely believed—with an arsenal of nuclear weapons. He was the head of a government facility named after him—the Khan Research Laboratories, or KRL—which had mastered the difficult process of producing highly enriched uranium, the fissionable material necessary for Pakistan's weapons, and was also involved in the design of the warheads and the missiles to deliver them.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36394
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 05 Nov 2005 04:30

bala wrote:{ read this fairy tale that only Khan did it for TSP in the atlantic }

The Wrath of Khan


do you have the complete 8 pages..

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 05 Nov 2005 04:38

From the Wrath of Khan Fantasy:

He was the head of a government facility named after him—the Khan Research Laboratories, or KRL—which had mastered the difficult process of producing highly enriched uranium, the fissionable material necessary for Pakistan's weapons, and was also involved in the design of the warheads and the missiles to deliver them.


If this was the case, maybe this dork can explain why Libya and Iran (which has not been shy about its nuclear program) returned all the junk sold to them by this nuclear wizard Xerox Khan to western countries by the plane load. If Khan really was the master of the nuclear enrichment, the Iranians would not have returned Khan's centrifuges.

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby jrjrao » 05 Nov 2005 04:50

Note the footnote also...

No trivial gains, these -
Look how India benefits from the nuclear pact with the US

by
RAJA MENON
http://indianexpress.com/full_story.php ... t_id=81339

(The writer worked for three months in the US with Sandia Labs under the US Department of Energy to write an execution plan for the Bush-Manmohan Singh Agreement)

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 05 Nov 2005 05:00

SaiK theatlantic is subscription only.. i leafed through the stuff at a local library. the article is a rehash with many stuff not true per BRF's longstanding research on the topic. mainly discusses how U-239 heavier than U-235 gets spun out using URENCO centrifuges. Bomb grade requires 90% U-235. Khan put together centrifuges from the parts suppliers in Europe (talk about proliferation centers!) but we know that the first attempt in 1998 by TSP was a dud (Germans & Japan reported this) and Khan's prototype fizzled. Next Nawaz Sharrif made a mad dash to China for the face saver and China supplied a plutonium device for the finale. US planes circled over TSP collecting the plutonium trace after the explosion to make sure that TSP did not have plutonium making capabilities (maybe they verified that it came from China). Meanwhile Mubarrak Samarkand (??) the man who held the switch for the nuke explosion and Xerox Khan got into a public fisticuff about who the father of the TSP nuke. And Khan thrust himself in the photo ops.

Tim
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: USA

Postby Tim » 05 Nov 2005 07:36

Rye,

I was unaware Iran had returned all the technology it received from Pakistan. If that's the case, why is there a crisis? I think Iran has not returned the items in question. There are an awful ot of centrifuges and other nuclear enrichment equipment in question.

Libya is a different matter. It had been trying to restore itself into the international system for at least five years (it began negotiating with Clinton). Evidently, Qaddaffi decided that turning over illicit nuclear (and CBW) components made more sense than risking invasion in the post-911 world.

If one is feeling particularly gung-ho about the Iraq experience, it could be argued that OIF may also have played into Qaddaffi's thinking, since he might be worried that he would be next unless he made some kind of dramatic gesture. I'm not sure what the cause and effect relationship actually is, but it certainly has been argued by supporters of the Iraq campaign.

P-1 and P-2 enrichment technologies are perfectly adequate, in sufficient numbers, to produce HEU for fission weapons.

Bala,

The persistence with which governments and intelligence agencies seem to disagree with the BRF research can only have one of three explanations. Either 1) BRF is right and everyone else is wrong; 2) not nearly enough governments and intelligence agencies access BRF for updates on important matters on a regular basis; or 3) alternative explanations are not only plausible but perhaps even accepted.

I certainly wouldn't want to impose my decision on anyone else. But it seems to me that an argument can be made for #3 (and I cheerfully accept that arguments can be made for #1 and #2, too - which is why I made them up :D ).

Tim

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 05 Nov 2005 07:45

I was unaware Iran had returned all the technology it received from Pakistan. If that's the case, why is there a crisis?


Tim,

They did return a planeload of them -- whether that consitutes ALL of Iran's centrifuges I do not know. Libya however returned all of its centrifuges IIRC.

P-1 and P-2 enrichment technologies are perfectly adequate, in sufficient numbers, to produce HEU for fission weapons.


Enrichment tech. is a necessary but not sufficient condition to produce fission weapons, no? Khan's own failure in producing such weapons, if we assume that he was indeed a master of enrichment (as the Atlantic Monthly article claims) would point to that, I think.

Prateek
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31

Postby Prateek » 05 Nov 2005 08:08

bala wrote:Here is a list of the Chinese Communist Pathetic Record vis-à-vis India thus far:
1. Takeover of Tibet by force, resettlement of the Han race from hinterland China into Tibet. Driven out the Dalai Lama and harass other Buddhists leaders. Purge of opposition by violent deaths.
2. Land grab from TSP – Aksai Chin in Kashmir India
3. 1962 war with India
4. Border wars in the Northeast India with territory disputes
5. Blatant Proliferation of nuclear and missile technology to TSP
6. Encircling India with supplies to surrogate states – TSP, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmmar
7. Instigating insurgencies with the Maoist, Communist in India and neighboring countries.
8. Opposition to India’s UNSC entry
9. Opposition to India’s US Nuclear deal


Find out how much of Arunachal Pradesh is controlled by India and how much by China, there lies the buggest surprise for Indians and how the GOI misleads Indians.

Tim
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: USA

Postby Tim » 05 Nov 2005 09:25

Rye,

I guess our main difference is that I'm not sure Khan failed.

I'll have to track down more of the Iran story.

Tim

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 05 Nov 2005 09:37

Gerard wrote:To hell with it. If Tarapur cannot be safely refuelled with MOX, decommission the reactors. Reprocess ALL the Tarapur fuel and add it to the plutonium stockpile.


Tarapur is the only reactor specifically mentioned in the "Bilateral" agreement.

Precisely.

Dr. MMS to Dubya: What shall we do with the IAEA safeguarded stockpile at Tarapur?

Dubya: Sorry, i don't know the complicated historical details, (as usual).
You are asking me a very complicated question. But, let me check with Condi.

Dr. MMS asks Dr. Anil Kakodkar-Dr. AK(AEA,Chief) to come to D.C. ASAP from Beijing on 17-07-05, where he was then (advising chincoms, how to operate CANDU variants).

Dubya to Dr. MMS: They told me, you folks(India) need to seperate civilian and military use. I will get you...(not give you) what you want for the civilian use. I love doing business with you. You are an honorable man.

Dr.MMS to Dr.AK: Do you think its feasible?

Dr.AK: Sure. Get the agreement signed and commited.
We will sort out the security or separation aspect of our plutonium production. We have too many reactors, producing Pu periodically, rather than generate continuous Electricity.
We are used to load-shedding.

As such, we need Pu, more for Security stockpiling, for now.
But, we also need it for PFBR.

So if we(India) are getting Supplies for Tarapur, (without any reciprocal commitments from our side), so be it.
Lets put Tarapur on the priority, without any quid-pro-quo, and test unkil out.

Lets test their sincerity with Tarapur.

If they dont deliver on Tarapur, its not our fault on reciprocacity.

If they deliver on Tarapur, we will give them an outline of separation in a "phased manner" a pie in the sky.

Worst case scenario, Congress, refuses to change laws.

Still, Dubya has to arrange( or lobby) supplies for Tarapur from NSG members to keep his word. (As was done by Carter, with France in 1978).
Or Tarapur's stockpile(lots of Pu) is ours to keep.

Once NSG's guidelines are circumvented or exempted to supply Tarapur, flood gates will open.

Even worst,

Dubya to Dr. MMS: "sorry" This folks in congress are too retrograde. Even, NSG, our own baby. But I will do anything to fulfill my 'word'.
I hate to tell you, I am pissed, but i have limitations( The way you have with Reds in your country...condi, just told me).

Dr. MMS to Dubya: OK, If you are true to your word, just make sure your admin. dont oppose India's bilateral approch to some Uzbekistan, Niger, and Namibia(All non=NSG members).

Dubya to Dr.MMS: No brainer. Make my day.
Buy as much you can afford. Thank you, for letting me swallow my pride. I owe you a lot.
You are really an honorable man.

......but wait a minute, slow, i may be, but why did you took so much time to figure this way out?
You were supposed to be the smarter one. Why have n't you purchased it so far?

Dr.MMS to Dubya: I am an Economist.
I have a dense Singh, unlike you having Condy.
But, If smart folks at BRF dont know about this countries, how do u expect me to know about that?

Thanks Gerald to spot Tarapur as the Achilles heel for the US in the agreement.
I just feel, lets not blow this out of proportion on BRF, so as to get an adverse attention from the staffers on the Hill.
Last edited by Jaikissan on 05 Nov 2005 10:50, edited 3 times in total.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 05 Nov 2005 10:24

Prateek wrote:
Find out how much of Arunachal Pradesh is controlled by India and how much by China, there lies the buggest surprise for Indians and how the GOI misleads Indians.


the suspense is killing me ... why not just post the fractions?

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 05 Nov 2005 10:27

Jaikissan wrote:
Lets test their sincerity with Tarapur.



I don't get it ... let's say that Tarapur is designated as civilian ... what would it do for India's power needs? as I recall those units are puny ...

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 05 Nov 2005 11:26

Alok_N wrote:
Jaikissan wrote:
Lets test their sincerity with Tarapur.



I don't get it ... let's say that Tarapur is designated as civilian ... what would it do for India's power needs? as I recall those units are puny ...


Where were you all this days, when important in-puts were required from you?
Ex: Japan in NSG opposed to India. Despite G-4 comradeship for UNSC.
I believe, India's superiority in Reprocessing expertise, and an economical jealousy, to capture an over $100 Bil. global reprocess market was the impetus. but, i left it to your prudence.

Now, Tarapur will be declared as civilian, and has been, and it is safeguarded by IAEA since 1969.
It sure is puny, with less than10 yrs. left for its expected life.

Sticking point is, India telling all: We have maintained self-discipline wrt Tarapore.

Eventhough, "you", the Cartel, "Unkil and NSG" have violated good-faith agreements to support Tarapore. We never took any materials out of it.

Now if you dont respect our "impeccable" record( not touching the Tarapore stockpile ), we will use all the Tarapore stockpile.
US-Congress, NSG, NPT or not.

If nothing materialises, we will use Tarapore's huge stock-pile of spent fuel for Pu reprocessing.

So india is "better in the non-prolif regime(not reprocessing Tarapore fuel)" than outside and defiant. Meaning=India will eventually get its Pu from Tarapore, if July agreement suceeds or fails.

Tarapore, in the july deal does not have any reciprocacity.

It is a test case for Unkil and NSG to show their sincerity and commitments and India's final ultimatum to them.
Give us the civilian supplies and dont doubt and mix it with our security needs.
If you continue to doubt us, as has been over 30 years, we will take IAEA safeguarded material from Tarapore and convert it to our Pu needs.
This is the longest nuclear moratorium we have observed.
Tarapore was specifically and strategically mentioned in the July agreement, puny or not.
Go figure why?

It is a pride for India's scientist, to have not touched its(Tarapore's) stockpile, eventhough Unkil has violated norms and abandoned it.
The Indian Scientific community never wanted to be labeled as clandestine or as thief, which NPT ayatollahs are ganged up and determined to label them. And That they are determined to not allow.
Last edited by Jaikissan on 05 Nov 2005 11:55, edited 1 time in total.

rgosain
BRFite
Posts: 420
Joined: 10 Jan 2003 12:31

Postby rgosain » 05 Nov 2005 11:43

Re: Tarapore. Back in 1998, after the tests, I had advocated that India should consider reprocessing the Tarapore stock after sanctions had been imposed, especially when Clinton announced his papal-bull with the PRC. Just the hint of reprocessing the Tarapore Pu, would have altered the contours of any subsequent talks involving the likes of Talbot. I still believe this was a missed opportunity. What are the proportion of Pu isotopes from the Tarapore reactor?

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 05 Nov 2005 11:53

JaiKissan wrote:
If nothing materialises, we will use Tarapore's huge stock-pile for Pu reprocessing.


I am no physicist even on TV, but isn't this sorta the nuclear equivalent of the perpetual motion machine? Or are you saying that we will be getting uranium cakes from Niger to produce Pu?

Give us the civilian supplies and dont doubt and mix it with our security needs. If you continue to doubt us, as has been over 30 years, we will take IAEA safeguarded material from Tarapore and convert it to our Pu needs.


That still does not solve the long-term energy deficit problem does it? If I am wrong please explain, I am interested to know how India can bypass the NSG and still produce all the energy it needs in the nuclear arena. I mean, if you have a solution, I recommend you spell it out here as Indian policy makers will surely be interested.

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 05 Nov 2005 12:04

Rye wrote:JaiKissan wrote:
If nothing materialises, we will use Tarapore's huge stock-pile for Pu reprocessing.


I am no physicist even on TV, but isn't this sorta the nuclear equivalent of the perpetual motion machine? Or are you saying that we will be getting uranium cakes from Niger to produce Pu?

Give us the civilian supplies and dont doubt and mix it with our security needs. If you continue to doubt us, as has been over 30 years, we will take IAEA safeguarded material from Tarapore and convert it to our Pu needs.


That still does not solve the long-term energy deficit problem does it? If I am wrong please explain, I am interested to know how India can bypass the NSG and still produce all the energy it needs in the nuclear arena. I mean, if you have a solution, I recommend you spell it out here as Indian policy makers will surely be interested.


Uzbekistan, recently being odds with Unkil for closing(kicking) US bases. @6% worlds proved Uranium resorces.
Namibia: India, has a long history and action for its independebce, has over 8% of worlds Uranium ores.
Both are non NSG, never approached by India.
India simply has no legal mechanism or entity to import Uranium ores, Unlike ONGC Videsh.
I Invite a healthy discussion for this 2 countries, and their potential.

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 05 Nov 2005 12:16

rgosain wrote:Re: Tarapore. Back in 1998, after the tests, I had advocated that India should consider reprocessing the Tarapore stock after sanctions had been imposed, especially when Clinton announced his papal-bull with the PRC. Just the hint of reprocessing the Tarapore Pu, would have altered the contours of any subsequent talks involving the likes of Talbot. I still believe this was a missed opportunity. What are the proportion of Pu isotopes from the Tarapore reactor?


Modest to Great, but enough for our PFBR and AFBR to get our hands on.
We will have to decommission 'puny' Tarapore ReactorsI-II, in 2006, and get all the spent fuels, if no fuel is supplied.
Last edited by Jaikissan on 05 Nov 2005 12:24, edited 1 time in total.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 05 Nov 2005 12:23

JaiKissan wrote:
Uzbekistan, recently being odds with Unkil for closing(kicking) US bases. @6% worlds proved Uranium resorces.


How much does that translate to, in terms of what India needs energywise?

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 05 Nov 2005 12:30

Rye wrote:JaiKissan wrote:
Uzbekistan, recently being odds with Unkil for closing(kicking) US bases. @6% worlds proved Uranium resorces.


How much does that translate to, in terms of what India needs energywise?

Their Ores are very high-graded, 3x times India's. And quantity-wise(proven reserves) @ 8 times India's.
India's reserve, if fully exploted, going to last at 20GW for 20 years., You do the maths.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 05 Nov 2005 12:35

India's reserve, if fully exploted, going to last at 20GW for 20 years., You do the maths.


Okay, that seems to imply that India is self-sufficient nukewise, is that true? If so, why even bother with the NSG? Please point to sources for your claims, as you are making some pretty substantial claims.

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 05 Nov 2005 13:00

Rye wrote:
India's reserve, if fully exploted, going to last at 20GW for 20 years., You do the maths.


Okay, that seems to imply that India is self-sufficient nukewise, is that true?

Yes, India is self-sufficient Noookewise,,,, do you need proofs, when you wake up?
Have you been sleeping or on Cannabinol?

If so, why even bother with the NSG?

Yes, NSG is required for every corrosive resistant Alloy steel, Valve or welding elecrodes, that have to be manufactured by the Indian "request forTender" winner, supplier.

Please point to sources for your claims, as you are making some pretty substantial claims.


Self-sufficient for shorter periods.

Nuclear power plants, these days are capitalised with 60 yrs. operational life.
Pointing sorces? sure, I will, if yoy are not in a hurry, and dont get it on your own.
But before you need to do your own Maths.
Last edited by Jaikissan on 05 Nov 2005 13:16, edited 1 time in total.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 05 Nov 2005 13:06

Self-sufficient for shorter periods. Nuclear power plants are capitalised with 60 yrs. operational life. Pointing sorces? sure.
But before you need to do your own Maths.


Dude, to do any math, some info is needed

Added later: Thanks much, Gerard, for the links.

The fourth alternative is to forge a global alternative to the US-led Nuclear Suppliers Group. Uranium is found in many countries which are not part of the NSG. But these countries are afraid of the US ire hence have not developed their resources and are reluctant to export the same to us. We can provide nuclear power generation technology to countries like Venezuela. Brazil and South Africa and obtain uranium supply in return.


Jaikissan, I guess this is what you are suggesting...this sounds workable if the Indo-US deal falls through...only problem is the goody-two-shoes attitude of the GoI in such matters....but maybe they will get desperate enough by then.
Last edited by Rye on 06 Nov 2005 04:51, edited 2 times in total.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 06 Nov 2005 02:33

Jaikissan wrote:Where were you all this days, when important in-puts were required from you?
Ex: Japan in NSG opposed to India. Despite G-4 comradeship for UNSC.
I believe, India's superiority in Reprocessing expertise, and an economical jealousy, to capture an over $100 Bil. global reprocess market was the impetus. but, i left it to your prudence.


if you are saying that India has an economic edge over Japan in terms of costs of reprocessing, I would agree with you ... it is a labor intensive process and India should win ... I have no clue what the differential cost is per Kg of fuel ... I also have no clue whether the market is $100B or not ...

as for "superiority in expertise" I am not sure ... the one area where India has the leadership is in Nitride fuel reprocessing ... this is relevannt for the breeding program ...

now, back to Tarapur issue ...

If nothing materialises, we will use Tarapore's huge stock-pile of spent fuel for Pu reprocessing.

So india is "better in the non-prolif regime(not reprocessing Tarapore fuel)" than outside and defiant. Meaning=India will eventually get its Pu from Tarapore, if July agreement suceeds or fails.

Tarapore, in the july deal does not have any reciprocacity.



I suppose that I was confused between Tarapur -1&2 and Tarapur - 3&4 ... from what you have written, I gather that India has a large stockpile of spent and IAEA safeguarded fuel from Taraopur - 3&4 ... is that a correct understanding?

if so, what is the standard procedure for the future of this fuel? Is it to be disposed of or re-exported? Why does the question of reprocessing fuel which is not of Indian origin even come up for discussion?


It is a pride for India's scientist, to have not touched its(Tarapore's) stockpile, eventhough Unkil has violated norms and abandoned it.


now, it seems like you are talking about pre-1974 fuel ... I am confused ... please explain the issues clearly with respect to which reactor, which fuel and from when ... thanks.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7686
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 06 Nov 2005 02:58

Some 1998 Ayatollah Rantings
India Cheated
There is also the matter of a 1963 agreement covering two U.S.-supplied nuclear power reactors at Tarapur and their fuel. The radioactive used fuel from these reactors is in storage and contains most of India's "reactor-grade" plutonium. India has said it will reprocess the used fuel to extract the plutonium for use as civilian power-reactor fuel. But reactor-grade plutonium also is explosive and, once separated, it could be used by India's scientists for rapid deployment in warheads. There is enough Tarapur plutonium for hundreds of them.

Under the 1963 agreement, India must get U.S. approval to reprocess. India disputes this and insists it is free to reprocess the used fuel at any time. The State Department, historically reluctant to tangle with India, rationalized Tarapur as an unnecessary irritant in U.S.-India relations and put this disagreement in the sleeping-dog
s category.


1987 Grand Ayatollah ranting
STOPPING THE INDIAN BOMB

India relies on an implausible and stubborn reading of the expiration clause of the Tarapur agreement. This reading, which will be discussed below, would give India about 1,800 kilograms of completely unrestricted plutonium, enough for 225 atomic bombs. By using only the "weapon grade" plutonium in this stockpile, India could make about 36 bombs.
Last edited by Gerard on 06 Nov 2005 03:12, edited 2 times in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7686
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 06 Nov 2005 03:05

Nuclear freedom
The fourth alternative is to forge a global alternative to the US-led Nuclear Suppliers Group. Uranium is found in many countries which are not part of the NSG. But these countries are afraid of the US ire hence have not developed their resources and are reluctant to export the same to us. We can provide nuclear power generation technology to countries like Venezuela. Brazil and South Africa and obtain uranium supply in return.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 06 Nov 2005 03:51

Gerard wrote:
Under the 1963 agreement, India must get U.S. approval to reprocess. India disputes this and insists it is free to reprocess the used fuel at any time. The State Department, historically reluctant to tangle with India, rationalized Tarapur as an unnecessary irritant in U.S.-India relations and put this disagreement in the sleeping-dogs category.


wow ... I hadn't realized that the quantities were that large ... now Jaikissan's comments make sense ...

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 06 Nov 2005 10:12

Tim wrote:Rye,


Bala,

The persistence with which governments and intelligence agencies seem to disagree with the BRF research can only have one of three explanations.

Tim


There is no attempt by anyone to disagree with BR, except some NGOs who have always painted the image of Pak nuclear programme better than India.

And if in any case, even if all of them disagree, we in BR have a right to hold our views.

I don't even see western govt publically coming out withh "pak terrorism" or acccusing pak of kargil adventure.

In fact even Iraq was supposed to have WMDs, the Paki weapons are as non-existant as Iraqi ones.

It is all spin in favor of Pak nuke programme, to frighten Indian public opinion against action against Pak. It is maintained with lot of effort.

See how much effort Johann makes to say - "do nothing" in hundred of lines, or much effort you make to say how good Pak nuke programme is. Every time somebody says anything against Pak nuke programme, you pop up like clock work :twisted:

(Due respect, regards etc)

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 06 Nov 2005 10:24

JaiKissan wrote:
Yes, India is self-sufficient Noookewise,,,, do you need proofs, when you wake up?
Have you been sleeping or on Cannabinol?


Sorry, should have been more specific. I meant "self-sufficient in nuclear fuel" which appeared to contradict everything else I have read here on BR on the reasons for needing access to NSG. But from what little I can gather from your responses, you are saying NSG access is for reasons other than nuke fuel. Since you are unable or unwilling to elaborate, I will stop asking.

Also, Thanks to Gerard for pointing to the info. sources. Clearly, I understand a lot less than I thought I did, which was not much to begin with.

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 06 Nov 2005 11:48

Alok_N wrote:
Gerard wrote:
Under the 1963 agreement, India must get U.S. approval to reprocess. India disputes this and insists it is free to reprocess the used fuel at any time. The State Department, historically reluctant to tangle with India, rationalized Tarapur as an unnecessary irritant in U.S.-India relations and put this disagreement in the sleeping-dogs category.


wow ... I hadn't realized that the quantities were that large ... now Jaikissan's comments make sense ...


Thank you.
I was reluctant to name Tarapur a month back, with respect to its being specifically named in the july agreement. Your elusive search for Pu temporarily, though, ends at Tarapur-I,II.

Too much publicity will cause more problems.
Last edited by Jaikissan on 06 Nov 2005 13:34, edited 1 time in total.

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 06 Nov 2005 13:04

Gerard wrote:Nuclear freedom
The fourth alternative is to forge a global alternative to the US-led Nuclear Suppliers Group. Uranium is found in many countries which are not part of the NSG. But these countries are afraid of the US ire hence have not developed their resources and are reluctant to export the same to us. We can provide nuclear power generation technology to countries like Venezuela. Brazil and South Africa and obtain uranium supply in return.


SouthAfrica and Brazil are the biggest critic of India's accomodation at NSG

Jaikissan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 00:03

Postby Jaikissan » 06 Nov 2005 13:25

Rye wrote:
But from what little I can gather from your responses, you are saying NSG access is for reasons other than nuke fuel. Since you are unable or unwilling to elaborate, I will stop asking.

Also, Thanks to Gerard for pointing to the info. sources. Clearly, I understand a lot less than I thought I did, which was not much to begin with.

The significance of NSG is both for fuel and sophisticsted components=Dual use high-tech items, the list of the complex tech items is very long.

Yes we are self-sufficient, but NSG has lot of design sophistication advantages acquired through their competitive markets and over 400 N-reactor customers.

To give you an example, the cost of setting up a 500MW N-plant in NSG countries is the same as in India, which ideally should not be considering the savings in the labor cost.
All our equipments are custom made one reactor at a time rather than in bulk.

Since Gerard has posted a link to estimate quantity of Pu, India has at Tarapur, I will not do the Maths. But those figures were based on 1987 estimates. Not on 2005-6.

I have been reluctant to go in to the details, becuse, i dont want NPT-ayatollah catch this subject.

Even Alok_N fell off his chair, when the facts dawned on him :D


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest