India-US Nuclear Deal continued

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 25 Dec 2006 10:47

Oh! that reminds me. Anyone know of a good place to learn Mandarin, so I can apply for a job with one of the new Chinese War Malt type Nuclear Utility Building MNCs?

I already know where to get my required subscription to "Deshabhimani" and my CITU badge and DYFI headband.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2006 11:58

Alok_N wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:Once FMCT is in place - the question of a non civilian reactor does not arise.


let's be realistic ... how the heck can anyone enforce an FMCT if the military reactors stay out of the inspections regime? ... if you are going to persist with this bogey, at least give it some teeth ... so, you envision that one day uncle and bear and panda will suddenly open all reactors for inspection? ... if not, then why would India do so?


No. The NWS will not budge a dime. i.e: They will not offer to move their military reactors to in scope, even on a voluntary basis. India would do so because it has agree to. Let me explain.

Uncle and Bear have enough material with them to blow earth about 50 times over, so they do not need more material. Panda is not in the same league but has enough - as far as the treaty does not prohibit the production of additional weapons from existing stock pile, Panda will go along. There are many ways to get Panda to sign on the dotted line, carrots and if it is non-verification based, Panda may go for it.

All the treaty requires is the cessation of production of fissile material for weapons use.

The States Parties to this Treaty (hereinafter referred to as the "Parties"), have agreed as follows: Article I No Party shall, after the entry into force of the Treaty for that Party, produce fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or use any fissile material produced thereafter in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.


The treaty does not even need India to come into force. The plan is to shove it down India's throat.

1. This Treaty shall enter into force on the date on which an instrument of ratification has been deposited by all of the following States: the People's Republic of China, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America.


Will a non inspections based treaty work with the NWS? I am inclined to say yes. But It will certainly work on India.

Here is how it works. Focus on the word "Civilian" in the nuclear agreement. All future civilian reactors of India will automatically be in perpetual safeguards. Once, FMCT is in place, All future reactors automatically become civilian - hence under perpetual safeguards (of the non-NWS type for India).

The US is not proposing an FMCT out of some desire to do good. It is just another instrument proposed by them so that they can limit others. It is another instrument to further their non-proliferation goals. Russia does not need more, China has enough, who else remains? India.

The nuclear agreement along with FMCT would serve to CAP India's qualitative and quantitative arsenal. I do not know, if India has enough for 200 or 2000 but every foreign source report I have seen, says it is more close to the lower number. If true, and if China's number is closer to 2000 then a case has just been made for China to be interested in such a treaty.

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

Postby Alok_N » 25 Dec 2006 12:11

ShauryaT wrote:They will not offer to move their military reactors to in scope, even on a voluntary basis. India would do so because it has agree to. Let me explain.


I read the rest of your post and failed to see the "explanation" ... all you have is a declaration that "India has agreed to FMCT" ... what is the basis of that assertion?

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

Postby Rye » 25 Dec 2006 12:14

SharyaT wrote:
The treaty does not even need India to come into force. The plan is to shove it down India's throat.


ShauryaT,

If the Indian govt. accepts this throat shoving and meekly accepts itself as a signatory without a verifiable means (via inspection of their facitlities) of proving that the P-5 have completely ceased production of FM, then I think your contention that there can be no future military reactors may end up being true.

This FMCT coming into force without our signature is just ridiculous --- I cannot see how the GoI will find this acceptable?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2006 12:26

Alok_N wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:They will not offer to move their military reactors to in scope, even on a voluntary basis. India would do so because it has agree to. Let me explain.


I read the rest of your post and failed to see the "explanation" ... all you have is a declaration that "India has agreed to FMCT" ... what is the basis of that assertion?


I did not say India has agreed to FMCT. It has agreed to make all future civilian reactors to be in perpetual scope. Apologies, if there is a confusion.

I think Rye understood the post. Also, Rye, to be clear. India would have to sign the FMCT to apply to India. But, India's signature would not be required for FMCT to come into force. With the declatation by India to work with the US on FMCT, it is only a matter of time. How much time is a very key question.

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

Postby Alok_N » 25 Dec 2006 12:39

ShauryaT wrote:I did not say India has agreed to FMCT. It has agreed to make all future civilian reactors to be in perpetual scope. Apologies, if there is a confusion.


try this for confusion ... I have agreed that all my future ******** daughters will be whores ...

what conclusion do you draw about my future daughters?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2006 12:52

Alok_N wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:what conclusion do you draw about my future daughters?


All of them would be whores, if production of future ******** daughters has been disabled. Please, can we go to some other analogy. PG13, remember.

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

Postby Alok_N » 25 Dec 2006 13:00

ShauryaT wrote:... if production of future ******** daughters has been disabled.


boss, as long as you continue to peddle that crap out of your musharraf, there is no room for PG13 here ... this is the nth time I am asking you for substantiating that claim ...

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

Postby Alok_N » 25 Dec 2006 13:02

ShauryaT,

I have another logic that works along your line of argument:

If I had some some ham, I'd make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs ....


:)

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2006 13:12

Alok_N wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:... if production of future ******** daughters has been disabled.


boss, as long as you continue to peddle that crap out of your musharraf, there is no room for PG13 here ... this is the nth time I am asking you for substantiating that claim ...


What crap are you talking about? Be specific and direct.

Added: On second thoughts, I will catch some sleep and you can re-read the posts, maybe you will find some more hams, eggs and finally figure out that the cheese has moved 8)

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

Postby Alok_N » 25 Dec 2006 13:55

ShauryaT wrote:What crap are you talking about? Be specific and direct.


For the (n+1)th time ... you claim that India signing on to FMCT is all but obvious ... why?

any more direct than that and I would be accused of being an Airbus 380 ... :)

to recap your memory, you wrote:

I did not say India has agreed to FMCT. It has agreed to make all future civilian reactors to be in perpetual scope. Apologies, if there is a confusion.


to which I replied that it is up to India to designate future reactors as civilian or military ... are you disputing this point? ... if not, then why is your musharraf acting up? ... if yes, then please state your claim more clearly ...

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 25 Dec 2006 14:50

Ooo! Is this what Burns described as

Tense Negotiations
??
:eek: :eek:

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7044
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby JE Menon » 25 Dec 2006 15:32

FYI – Extracts from a Q&A at a Press Briefing by Stephen G. Rademaker, US Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Security and Non-Proliferation, on May 18, 2006 at the Palais de Nations in Geneva -

http://www.usmission.ch/Press2006/0518R ... Press.html

QUESTION: I’d like to go back to this issue of verification. It has been a mantra forever, of trust but verify. How can you go away from this now? And so if you trust countries to stop production, how can you really trust it without verifying this? Do you have any support from other countries on this and is it really more difficult to create a verification regime for this particular treaty than for others? You mentioned the Chemical Weapons Treaty for one.

RADEMAKER: Yes, we do have support from a number of other delegations for our position on this. The quote about trust but verify came from a very important source, former President Reagan. He made that comment in the context of bilateral US-Soviet arms control where verification was a critical component of the willingness of the United States to commit to reductions in strategic nuclear forces.

There was a very elaborate verification regime ultimately negotiated there which our experts judged gave them satisfactory insight into Soviet compliance with the arms control obligations. The difference here is that this is not a bilateral negotiation; it is a multilateral negotiation. Sixty-five countries are going to have to agree by consensus on any verification mechanism that is structured here. We have taken into account what positions those 65 countries are likely to take, what types of measures those governments will likely be prepared to agree to, and reviewed what we think will be the result. We also asked ourselves the question of whether that resulting verification regime could give us a reasonable level of assurance that cheating can be detected by that mechanism. Our answer to that has been no.

This does not mean, and I’ve referred to this in my statement, that the FMCT would be unverified. It would be the responsibility of all of the parties to use the means and methods at their disposal to reach judgments about whether other parties to the treaty were complying with the treaty. Should concerns emerge, our text does include a mechanism for asking the Security Council to consider whether there has been compliance or non-compliance with the treaty. We think that as a practical matter that national means and methods will work more effectively than spending many years here. We should not kid ourselves -- it would take man years to negotiate something similar to the verification regime established under the Chemical Weapons Convention. We think that resulting regime would not give us any better assurance that cheating will be detected than relying on the ability of the individual states parties to use information at their disposal to make the same judgments.

Now when you consider that the US Senate rejected even the CTBT, I'm not sure what the fuss is about...

On the other hand, if it is taken for granted that the plan is to shove FMCT down our throat and our plan is to open our mouths for the same, as no doubt we have done time and time again with the NPT, CTBT, etc... then I submit that we are up the creek with the only paddle lodged firmly in our rears...

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 25 Dec 2006 17:43

JEM:

Have u been to India recently?
Last edited by enqyoobOLD on 26 Dec 2006 09:24, edited 1 time in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 25 Dec 2006 18:47

FMCT is not like the NPT.. India can sign on the dotted line at the right time.
Question is.. when ?
How many years to accumulate the fissile material for a great power sized arsenal .. 400-500 bombs plus surplus pits and ingots for about one hundred more?
Five years ? Ten years?

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7044
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby JE Menon » 25 Dec 2006 19:26

N,

No boss... wish I was though.... Its been over a year since I last smelt the Mumbai air, or the fragrance of the Cooum in Chennai, or even the bus station of Palakkad...missing it :twisted:

Raju

Postby Raju » 25 Dec 2006 19:32

So your olfactory senses are active only around these areas ehh ?? :eek: :twisted:

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2006 19:39

Alok_N wrote: it is up to India to designate future reactors as civilian or military ... are you disputing this point? ... if not, then why is your musharraf acting up? ... if yes, then please state your claim more clearly ...


No. I am not disputing that point. That decision is certainly sovereign. But before thumping our chests, let us look at the word "Civilian"? How is it defined? We do not have 123, so we do not know. Read that word in light of J18, US goals, Hyde and proposed FMCT. My submission is the definition of Civilian is likely to be clear and unambiguous.

Here is a sample definition.

Civilian means any reactor and/or site not used to produce fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.


In plain words, India has made a commitment to sign FMCT, when we do not know. The US position is, it has to be soon.

Why FMCT is likely to be in place? Except for China, there is a unilateral cessation of fissile materials production by the other NWS, so they will be making a dejure commitment to defacto.

How will India handle this, is upto anyone's guess. Till the other day, we were not part of any of these regimes NPT, CTBT, FMCT. The US goals have never changed. What has changed is that now the US has engaged with India in a process, that to me seems committed to achieving US goals to the maximum extent possible. We are now in a NPT+ category but applied non-NWS provisions, where possible, with a bi-lateral CTBT (if Hyde does not change - regardless of the protestations of volunatary moratarium) and a commitment to work on FMCT with J18.

India can stall but not hide. The trajectory is clear. Unlike before, the US will have more leverage to push for their goals, which would be an earlier cessation than later.

How do US officials say that upto 90% of the Indian program will be under safeguards. It makes sense only in light of FMCT and most reactors in the future being in the automatic "civilian" designation.

How much time do we have is anyone's guess. Will we able to match China's reserves, is an open question.

Gerard: Why is 400-500 enough for great power? The US and Russia have dozens of tons of material - to qualify as a great power in the nuclear realm. Also, apart from quantitative there is a qualitative issue in India's weapons.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 25 Dec 2006 19:56, edited 1 time in total.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7044
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby JE Menon » 25 Dec 2006 19:50

Raju, unfortunately yes... the result of ODing on nasal drops some years ago... :-?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 25 Dec 2006 20:40

Gerard: Why is 400-500 enough for great power? The US and Russia have dozens of tons of material - to qualify as a great power in the nuclear realm. Also, apart from quantitative there is a qualitative issue in India's weapons.


The US and SU were not great powers.. they were superpowers. They moved beyond countervalue targeting (cities) and had an arsenal (25 000+ each) designed for counterforce (silos, bases, TEL garages etc) attacks. These weapons were meant for nuclear war fighting.
Even today, they have 6000+ warheads apiece...

Both the US and Russia are keeping a huge number of pits in reserve, enough for several thousand weapons.

The great powers - France, the UK had arsenals of less than 500 each.
Their weapons were for deterrence only, strictly countervalue.

In the present situation, both the US and Russia seek arsenals of ~1000 - 1500. The UK will have <200. France will have perhaps 100 more than the UK.

China is another story. While they were satisfied to have about 20 weapons capable of striking the US, and another 400 or so available for shorter range strikes, BMD may force them to increase their arsenal to levels closer to the future Russian and US arsenals - 1000+ perhaps.

What does India need for French style deterrence and independent action?
What would deter the big lizard? Destruction of the 20 largest Chinese cities? How many 200kT weapons would be needed for each? Six ?
Therefore would not an arsenal a bit larger then France's be enough?

A future security environment that requires India to build 2000+ warheads is one where the NPT no longer exists and there are perhaps twenty nuclear powers..

By qualitative I assume you mean miniaturized 200 - 300 kT weapons.. each warhead weighing 200 kg or so (RV+warhead = 300 kg).. small enough for 3 to fit on an Agni MIRV bus.

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

Postby Rye » 25 Dec 2006 20:43

ShauryaT wrote:
Why FMCT is likely to be in place? Except for China, there is a unilateral cessation of fissile materials production by the other NWS, so they will be making a dejure commitment to defacto.


I think you should recalculate the odds --- all the material required for doing that is right here on this thread. You really think the P-5, especially China, is going to sign up? I would wager not. As JEM points out, the NPT and the CTBT have not been shoved up our throat and there was far more consensus on those treaties than there is on the FMCT in its present form.

As long as India sticks to its stance that any FMCT must be legally binding on all parties and must be verifiable and multilateral before it will adhere by it, what is the problem?



The sequence is this:

1) India signs up for a verifiable and multilateral FMCT
2) India then places all plants after that as civilian

Why are we worried about step 2 first instead of step 1....isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

India can stall but not hide. The trajectory is clear. Unlike before, the US will have more leverage to push for their goals, which would be an earlier cessation than later.


But India is a responsible country that is neither stalling nor hiding from a treaty like the FMCT that is necessary for our children and our children's children and therefore would like a multilateral, verifiable FMCT to come into force as soon as possible, and India will work with the P-5 to bring about such an agreement to a successful conclusion. That should be our story and we should stick to it.

The optimal time for signing the FMCT would be a week after the P-5 comes to a consensus on supporting the issue of a verifiable and multilateral FMCT.

I am sure the P-5 would *love* to get a non-verifiable treaty into force, so that only the non P-5 states would have to subject themselves to verification....it would be the GoI's fault if it lets such an abomination see the light of day.
Last edited by Rye on 25 Dec 2006 21:20, edited 5 times in total.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 25 Dec 2006 20:47

We need at least 750 to 825 numbers of Bums to be counted into the club.

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

Postby Alok_N » 25 Dec 2006 21:27

ShauryaT wrote:
No. I am not disputing that point. That decision is certainly sovereign. But before thumping our chests, let us look at the word "Civilian"? How is it defined? We do not have 123, so we do not know. Read that word in light of J18, US goals, Hyde and proposed FMCT. My submission is the definition of Civilian is likely to be clear and unambiguous.

Here is a sample definition.

Civilian means any reactor and/or site not used to produce fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.


that is a definition prejudiced by your claim ... and it is not simple ... here is a simpler definition:

civilian = non-military

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 25 Dec 2006 21:36

Has everyone actually read that 109 page Hyde law?

Specifically has anyone read the analysis after page 72?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 25 Dec 2006 21:42

any FMCT must be legally binding on all parties


The treaty must address the stockpiles held by the P5.
It must also have tough verification provisions.

Haggling over the amount of Pu to be transferred to civil power and the details of verification should take 5-10 years... enough time for Indian stockpile to grow.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 25 Dec 2006 21:46

ShauryaT wrote:Here is how it works. Focus on the word "Civilian" in the nuclear agreement. All future civilian reactors of India will automatically be in perpetual safeguards. Once, FMCT is in place, All future reactors automatically become civilian - hence under perpetual safeguards (of the non-NWS type for India).


Have you actually read that law document?

The word "civilian" reactor does not occur among the definitions - and in fact nowhere in the document. There is a clear statement that it is impossible to disinguish between fissile material for "civilian" use and diversion towards military use. Hence the term "safeguards" tends to get used.

There is a very specific set of definitions and words around which that law is built.

IIRC nowhere does it say that India is to sign the FMCT. I am giving myself another 2-3 days to finish reading that document and some related material and I might well start a new thread if I can gel some of the info.

It is possible that a lot of the stuff that is being discussed in this thread could be hot air generated by a lack of knowledge of the specifics of the law and Indian nuclear programs. But I may be mistaken.

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

Postby Rye » 25 Dec 2006 21:51

From the Hyde act: Page 4.

The prohibition concerning a recipient country not engaging in activities
involving source or special nuclear material under Section 129 are permanently waived for India, as India will undoubtedly continue to produce fissile material, until such time after it is able to fulfill its commitment in the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement to work with the United States toward conclusion of a future Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.



Nothing more than what is written can be inferred.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 25 Dec 2006 22:03

Rye wrote:From the Hyde act: Page 4.

The prohibition concerning a recipient country not engaging in activities
involving source or special nuclear material under Section 129 are permanently waived for India, as India will undoubtedly continue to produce fissile material, until such time after it is able to fulfill its commitment in the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement to work with the United States toward conclusion of a future Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.



Nothing more than what is written can be inferred.


Indeed. There is also a "subsection b" that says that India and the US should work towards cut off of fissile material for weapons that BOTH countries will be parties to.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2006 22:08

shiv wrote:
Have you actually read that law document?

The word "civilian" reactor does not occur among the definitions - and in fact nowhere in the document.


Yes. I have read and know that the word "Civilian" is not defined in the Hyde law and neither clearly defined in the separation plan of M2. I have contemplated a possible definition of "civilian" in 123, in light of the events so far and the understanding of US goals, in the posts above. How far India will allow them to succeed is anyone's guess.

here is a clear statement that it is impossible to disinguish between fissile material for "civilian" use and diversion towards military use. Hence the term "safeguards" tends to get used.


From draft FMCT: For the purposes of this Treaty: 1. "Fissile material" means

(a) Plutonium except plutonium whose isotopic composition includes 80 percent or greater plutonium-238. (b) Uranium containing a 20 percent or greater enrichment in the isotopes uranium-233 or uranium-235, separately or in combination; or ( c) Any material that contains the material defined in (a) or (b) above.

IIRC nowhere does it say that India is to sign the FMCT.


No it does not, not in those words. It says India will work with the US to get an FMCT in place - BTW: It also does not say that the FMCT envisaged needs to be verifilable. The current draft treaty circulated by the US does not envision a verification regime. If accepted, what are the chances that India can unilaterally change FMCT to a verification based one? None.

It is possible that a lot of the stuff that is being discussed in this thread could be hot air generated by a lack of knowledge of the specifics of the law and Indian nuclear programs. But I may be mistaken.


No. It is possible that I am mistaken. However, I remain skeptical of current Indian governements ability to protect our interests in light of the process started by J18 and the slippery slope, since then. The Hyde act is nothing but a slap on the face of MMS' Aug 17 statement to Parliament. How they get reconciled is something, I have not yet heard on this thread.

The issue is not that that GoI does not understand the issues but there could be very different interpretation to what our nuclear interests actually are and hence different perceptions on what and how much we need and hence different solution templates.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 25 Dec 2006 22:58, edited 2 times in total.

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

Postby Rye » 25 Dec 2006 22:11

ShauryaT wrote:
The Hyde act is nothing but a slap on the face of MMS' Aug 17 statement to Parliament. How they get reconciled is something, I have not yet heard on this thread.



Let's leave the H&D stuff to the direct descendants of the Arab civilization to the west of India. I think we just have to live with a "slap in the face" as we weep uncontrollably due to this H&D loss...all the way to the bank.

No it does not, not in those words. It says India will work with the US to get an FMCT in place - BTW: It also does not say that the FMCT envisaged needs to be verifilable. The current draft treaty circulated by the US does not envision a verification regime. If accepted, what are the chances that India can unilaterally change FMCT to a verification based one?


Please read the responses to your concerns before repeating them.

Specifically, Shiv has pointed out the part of the Hyde act that precludes what you say from happening....I get the feeling that your objections are gratuitous when you ignore the responses and repeat yourself.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2006 22:16

Gerard wrote:What does India need for French style deterrence and independent action?


The difference is UK/France are backed up by NATO and hence US aresenals too. Also, UK/France are not in the same league as India in terms of geographic size, population, threat perceptions and very soon economic sizes too.

What would deter the big lizard? Destruction of the 20 largest Chinese cities? How many 200kT weapons would be needed for each? Six ?
Therefore would not an arsenal a bit larger then France's be enough?


Do not disagree, but assuming a successful Chinese BMD in place in the future, the numbers change again? Right?

By qualitative I assume you mean miniaturized 200 - 300 kT weapons.. each warhead weighing 200 kg or so (RV+warhead = 300 kg).. small enough for 3 to fit on an Agni MIRV bus.
Primarily, Yes.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 25 Dec 2006 22:47, edited 1 time in total.

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Postby rocky » 25 Dec 2006 22:30

ShauryaT wrote:
What would deter the big lizard? Destruction of the 20 largest Chinese cities? How many 200kT weapons would be needed for each? Six ?
Therefore would not an arsenal a bit larger then France's be enough?


Do not disagree, but assuming a successful Chinese BMD in place in the future, the numbers change again? Right?
An NFU will invite an extremely large and catastrophic first strike.

An NFU will also invite equally large second strikes, and these second strikes may come from states that didn't carry out the first strike. Think about it in terms of India.

The Indian inventory needs to not only be significantly large, but also geographically disperesed, and deliverable from anywhere, to cause any real deterrence.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Dec 2006 22:40

Rye wrote:ShauryaT wrote:
Let's leave the H&D stuff to the direct descendants of the Arab civilization to the west of India. I think we just have to live with a "slap in the face" as we weep uncontrollably due to this H&D loss...all the way to the bank.


Please read that as an analogy. In FP diametrically opposite positions to our PM by the other side (A greater power) is tantamount to a slap. It is not an H&D issue. The issues are real and been raised by the Indian opposition.

No it does not, not in those words. It says India will work with the US to get an FMCT in place - BTW: It also does not say that the FMCT envisaged needs to be verifilable. The current draft treaty circulated by the US does not envision a verification regime. If accepted, what are the chances that India can unilaterally change FMCT to a verification based one?


Please read the responses to your concerns before repeating them.


My concern is a proposed theory of how the US is thinking and the likelihood that it will succeed. I think, I have wriiten enough on the issue and anything more, would be simply repeating myself. So, I will take your advice and shut up now.

asprinzl
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 08 Sep 2004 05:00

Postby asprinzl » 25 Dec 2006 23:04

rocky wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:
What would deter the big lizard? Destruction of the 20 largest Chinese cities? How many 200kT weapons would be needed for each? Six ?
Therefore would not an arsenal a bit larger then France's be enough?


Do not disagree, but assuming a successful Chinese BMD in place in the future, the numbers change again? Right?
An NFU will invite an extremely large and catastrophic first strike.

An NFU will also invite equally large second strikes, and these second strikes may come from states that didn't carry out the first strike. Think about it in terms of India.

The Indian inventory needs to not only be significantly large, but also geographically disperesed, and deliverable from anywhere, to cause any real deterrence.


India will NOT have credible deterence vis-a-vis China unless India posseses Megaton nukes. Kiloton nukes are for little boys like Noko, Satanistan and Iran. Until India builds the Megaton warhead, India will only be in the little boy club and feel inferior to China. That is why capping the nuke test after 1974 was extremely moronic and delusional. 24 years were wasted instead of perfecting and developing better warheads. The trintium charged test in 1998 can be said as partial success and though it was a high yield test but it was still not a megaton explosion.
At present American NP Ayathollahs are not so much worried about India increasing her number of warheads or amt of fissile materials but the worry that with enough advances in research India would be able to acquire a megaton capability. That is why the FBR worries them. That is why they want to reduce as much as possible the numbers of military reactors.
Too bad. India could have achieved this in the 70s, 80s and 90s. I believe if instead of moronic selfrighteous stupidity, India had conducted more tests right after 1974, after initial misgivings and animosity, the powers that be probably would have come to accept Indian nukes much earlier and perhaps would have accomodated India in their high council too. And Indian nuke warheads would by now be a lot more advanced and of higher yielding type than the present reality.

I think Indians should institute something like a Siberian deathcamp high up in the cold Himalays for anymore bumbling fools who would want to curb Indian strategic advances.
Avram Sprinzl

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

Postby Rye » 25 Dec 2006 23:24

ShauryaT wrote:

Please read that as an analogy. In FP diametrically opposite positions to our PM by the other side (A greater power) is tantamount to a slap. It is not an H&D issue. The issues are real and been raised by the Indian opposition.


I think it may be unreasonable to expect the US senate/congress to pass a bill that is exactly to the liking of the GoI, since their nuclear concerns are very different from ours, and their laws will reflect their concerns, but will not be binding on us, except via other instruments that we may end up signing in due course. The US govt. will be unable to enforce the clauses it has passed in the Hyde amendment without other instruments coming into force, no?


My concern is a proposed theory of how the US is thinking and the likelihood that it will succeed.


Their likelyhood of success may be directly proportional to the likelyhood of failure of the GoI to maintain its bottomline. Don't see why the GoI should stop doing that now -- I think our institutions are robust enough to not be compromised by one or two individuals, if such people exist.


ShauryaT: The Hyde act requires both US and India to agree to the FMCT....and India would obviously require the verifiability clause in there to find it acceptable.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Postby Victor » 26 Dec 2006 01:18

Regarding the number of warheads that are enough to count us in the club, the genie is out of the bottle and the situation even 10-20 years from now is a total unknown. There is no way of knowing what is enough for tomorrow and our options must be left open at all costs. Let's not tie the hands of future Indians just because today's leaders are doling out free electricity in exchange for votes and are unable to mine the uranium we need because they are scared of NGOs.

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

Postby Alok_N » 26 Dec 2006 01:34

avram,

the megaton issue has been discussed many times before ... as accuracy of delivery improves, the required tonnage drops ... why bother with megaton shotguns when you have laser guided rifles?

secondly, what do FBR's have to do with megatonnage? ...

in fact, can anyone point to a strategic advantage that FBR's provide? ... the economic arguments have all been discussed ... what am I missing on the strategic front?

[except for research in futuristic weapons like isomer based bums as suggested by kgoan]

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1309
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Postby Rishirishi » 26 Dec 2006 02:40

the megaton issue has been discussed many times before ... as accuracy of delivery improves, the required tonnage drops ... why bother with megaton shotguns when you have laser guided rifles?


For MAD (mutually asussured destruction) to work, megaton bombs are a requirement. In the nuclear senario, accuracy is not the main issue, rather it is the level of destruction.

One can however debate the validity of the MAD doctrine. The question is if China or any other nation could accept the damage of 40 25KT bombs. In most cases it would be unacceptable damage. Hence the nuclear equilibriam can be maintained even with small nukes that India has. But a megaton bomb would be desirable.

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

Postby Alok_N » 26 Dec 2006 03:01

Rishirishi wrote:In the nuclear senario, accuracy is not the main issue, rather it is the level of destruction.


which causes more strategic destruction, a 15 kT bomb hitting downtown Beijing or a 1 MT bomb falling 10 km away? ... answer: about the same ...

IMO, India needs bigger and better rockets, not bigger and better bombs ...

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 26 Dec 2006 04:35

Alok_N wrote:
Rishirishi wrote:In the nuclear senario, accuracy is not the main issue, rather it is the level of destruction.


which causes more strategic destruction, a 15 kT bomb hitting downtown Beijing or a 1 MT bomb falling 10 km away? ... answer: about the same ...

IMO, India needs bigger and better rockets, not bigger and better bombs ...


Right said Fred.

The chinis and porkis are threatening us with JDAMs besides, something we got no real defense against. Unless there's a doctrinal change that says that if and when we're threatened with nukes, all restraining clauses and agreements (FMCT, nuke fuel end-use restraints etc) become null and void, or at least optional. :twisted:


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest