India - Nuclear News and Discussion

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 18 Jul 2007 17:51

July 18, 2007:: US hopes to get a deal as hard talks continue

Exactly two years ago this mess started.
[/url]

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

Postby Rye » 18 Jul 2007 18:00

Ron Somers, president of the US-India Business Council, told rediff.com that the USIBC and "the core committee of the Coalition for Partnership with India (which includes the USIBC and the US-India Friendship Council, under the aegis of the US Chamber of Commerce) is meeting on Thursday itself, and will be reviewing talking points that we will convey on Capitol Hill, fortifying the logic in support of civilian nuclear cooperation with India."

He noted that "the entire membership of the USIBC, backed by the 3 million strong US Chamber of Commerce are actively engaged in support of this initiative," and said that Tom Donohue, the president and CEO of the Chamber "is personally committed to ensuring a successful outcome."


All of these American madarch*ds mouthing such platitudes are also the same ones that pushed for all the deal-killers in the Hyde act. The gall of these folks to now pretend that the Hyde Act is the same as 123 is just fascinating.

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

Postby Sanjay M » 18 Jul 2007 18:33

Amitabh wrote:Not sure if it was possible to have a worse capitulation. You might want to keep your political views from clouding your judgment and realise that in most previous cases of hijacking under the Congress, the answer has been a commando's bullet. Sure, Kandahar was a unique situation, but trying to defend the BJP's conduct by comparing it to some notional Congress surrender is ludicrous.


A nationalist party is always better on defense than a graft-dependent dynastic party. Sorry, but I'm not a fan of the Nehru monarchy and their poor track record. Certainly, the BJP cave-in during the hijacking was deplorable, and even the international community condemned it. Those actions don't speak well of the BJP -- they also particularly reflect poorly on the families of the victims, who did not behave like people from other countries in similar circumstances. The families began their dharnas, their fasts, etc, and became a bunch of troublemakers totally discarding the national interest. When I compare their behaviour to that of families of hostages of other countries, these Indian families showed themselves quite poorly.

BJP did not have the backbone to stand up to this pressure, and quickly caved in like that Rubiya Saeed case. The Pakistanis diagnosed our spinelessness quite correctly.

Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Postby Karan Dixit » 18 Jul 2007 20:15

Sanjay M wrote:
Amitabh wrote:Not sure if it was possible to have a worse capitulation. You might want to keep your political views from clouding your judgment and realise that in most previous cases of hijacking under the Congress, the answer has been a commando's bullet. Sure, Kandahar was a unique situation, but trying to defend the BJP's conduct by comparing it to some notional Congress surrender is ludicrous.


A nationalist party is always better on defense than a graft-dependent dynastic party. Sorry, but I'm not a fan of the Nehru monarchy and their poor track record. Certainly, the BJP cave-in during the hijacking was deplorable, and even the international community condemned it. Those actions don't speak well of the BJP -- they also particularly reflect poorly on the families of the victims, who did not behave like people from other countries in similar circumstances. The families began their dharnas, their fasts, etc, and became a bunch of troublemakers totally discarding the national interest. When I compare their behaviour to that of families of hostages of other countries, these Indian families showed themselves quite poorly.

BJP did not have the backbone to stand up to this pressure, and quickly caved in like that Rubiya Saeed case. The Pakistanis diagnosed our spinelessness quite correctly.


Ironically the culprit is Congress not the BJP.

There was an incident where Jeehadis captured daughter of a Muslim minister from J&K. Then they demanded the release of some Jeehdis in the Jail. Congress govt. complied.

BJP was reminded of this incident and hence they had no choice.

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

Postby Rye » 18 Jul 2007 20:30

deleted OT
Last edited by Rye on 18 Jul 2007 21:00, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby vsudhir » 18 Jul 2007 20:34

At least now Parliament has been suitably chastened and has passed a law declaring 'no more negotaiating with terrorists and hijackers etc'.

makes sense in a post 9/11 world.

Regarding pitfalls like the nuke deal, it would be nice to require by law all international treaties to be subject to parliamentary voice vote approval.

Just a thought.

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 18 Jul 2007 20:47

Some more nuggests...next in the sequel.

End of the road? - 6

[quote]The key to successful EURATOM and Chinese nuclear negotiations with the US was that they demanded and got equal terms. At one point of the sensitive and touchy US negotiations with EURATOM, for example, EURATOM officials described the United States as a “junior partnerâ€

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 18 Jul 2007 21:00

Sparsh wrote:So are we back to calling people sellouts and traitors? That idiotic nautanki continues?

Satya:

The pentagon part of the pentagon visit is also incidental. Look at who is sitting at the top of the pentagon. Under whom did the effort to improve Indo-US relations originally begin all those years ago? And how is Gates related to him?

Boss, think about these things before you go farting away in the wind.


Sparsh,

There are no logical operators with whose help one can understand the steps being taken and the way they are being taken by MMS's administration. This exercise is coming across as something the chosen few know what is good for India and the Indians even when the vision was not shared completely with all the stakeholders and a large section of stakeholders who have a clue do not seem to agree with the vision.

What do you call such a process? IMO, It is the unquestioned faith in whoever that is at the helm with out regard to the past actions of the so called visionary is what is idiotic.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 18 Jul 2007 21:19

US, India N-talks drag on as Brazil, South Africa back New Delhi

Just a thought.

Rice said that the US cannot move away from the Hyde Act. Something Burns had said (just that his boss validated it and gave him more weight).

Now Tellis made the same statement.

So, what, from a GoI PoV has changed for the GoI to send such a high powered team?

Also, the US is treating this deal as a political event, while India is split: with GoI treating it as a political event, but DAE as a technical one.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6965
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 18 Jul 2007 21:21

About nuclear testing. One, India should have never signed up to the above ground test ban treaty from 1963 (PTBT). It was something Kennedy was concerned about because US scientists were worried about Strontium-93 collecting in the bone marrow of children if the Soviets continued testing their 50 MT H-bombs above ground. Secondly, the NDA in 1998 didn't have the political guts to continue testing varied yields knowing that they were going to declare a self-imposed moratorium.

About nuke scientists claiming re-processing under safeguards will affect nuke program? Good psyops. It gives the impression that India is giving up something in this negotiation.

BTW, I will celebrate with beer if this deal goes ahead AND the price of electricity drops significantly by 2010. So my beer party is delayed by a few years.

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

Postby Rye » 18 Jul 2007 21:42

From the above link:

Meanwhile, an expert attached with a leading American think tank has ruled out the possibility of an India-US nuclear deal, in spite of several rounds of negotiations.

"We (the US) can't do the things that the Government of India wants, and even if we did, all the other people - the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) - they're not going to say yes either. And so, you know, I'm not sure," Michael Krepon, president emeritus of the Washington based Henry L Stimson Center, said in an interview with Asian News International.


The NPAs of Creepon's ilk are confident/smug that they have successfully killed the deal.

However, India's quest for global civil nuclear cooperation got a fillip with Brazil and South Africa showing a willingness to back New Delhi in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

"We are having cooperation from Brazil and South Africa in NSG. Unless the 123 civil nuclear agreement (with the US) is finalised, the NSG can't formulate its position. One has to follow the other," external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee told reporters at a joint interaction with his counterparts, Celso Amorim of Brazil and Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma of South Africa.

Both Brazil and South Africa are important members of NSG.


http://www.inb.gov.br/english/reservasBrasil.asp

Brazil and South Africa have loads of Uranium, and they are not encumbered by the Hyde act.

"The ministers agreed to explore approaches to cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy under appropriate IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards," said a joint communiqué issued after the IBSA trilateral commission of the foreign ministers of India, Brazil and South Africa.

Underlining the "inalienable right to states" to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the three ministers "reaffirmed their will to intensify such cooperation" among their countries through "acceptable forward-looking approaches, consistent with their respective national and international obligations".



How come the geniuses who are so good at playing vote-bank politics and pitting one Indian against another in India do not have the brains to create legislation at India's end and approve a version of the 123 that would be unacceptable to the US? That would give India the excuse that "it is only internal Indian law that India would have to follow...just like the Hyde act". Any breakdown in 123 due to US actions will result in an escalation from the Indian side too, one would think. If the US has trashed 123, India should do so too, and do it right now, and approve a version of 123 that will be unacceptable to the US.


The politicians in charge of India are so good at playing Indians against each other but these effing cretins can't play such politics and use their skills against americans or foreigners. Go figure.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 18 Jul 2007 22:26

A Indo-Brazilian-SAfrican cartel?

Hmmmm....

We may need a Hide Act and export thorium reactors in say 15 years - small turnkey projects?

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

Postby Rye » 18 Jul 2007 22:30

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_10/Oct-Brazil.asp

[quote]
Seven years ago, Brazil joined the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Standing in the gilded treaty room on the top floor of the U.S. Department of State, then-Foreign Minister Luiz Felipe Lampreia formally deposited the instrument of ratification before Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and a small group of nonproliferation experts.

Calling Lampreia the “Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire of international diplomacyâ€

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50624
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 18 Jul 2007 22:34

Mortji, I too thought it was due to health concerns but after reading the DGeer pdf linked in the 1962 thread another compelling reason was that design info was getting into the hands of those who dont need to know contributing to proliferation. So this PTBT was a first step of the NPT four step tango- PTBT, NPT, CTBT and FMCO.


Also there were six shafts dug at POKII and the scientists had the latitude to test what ever the site could handle. The last test was cancelled by RC and the device pulled so as to not waste it. As to the different yields, the S-1 shaft cant handle much more than what was tested and the site as a whole cant take more than 60kt per AK in his Economic Times interview without evacuating the villages which would trigger international attention and lose the surprise. One reason why PVNR did not test in 1995 was the loss of surprise with the US news reports.

Now after the POKII if India test there is no surprise for digging a deeper shaft nor any other legal constraint unless they sign up to the draft 123. In fact in 2003 there were reports that GOI was going to test a full yield weapon and these were allowed to rest. So probably there is a shaft and a weapon to test which would definitely breach the NPT club and hence the 'no test' clause etc in the Hyde and draft 123.



Rye, The reason is in India its the bureaucrats who make the rules and not the politicians. So unless the babulog see a need for a law it wont be passed.

Also note how Crapon claims to be a NPA but always toes the US govt line. IOW he is a Cold Warrior masquerading as a NPA. Same with Perky. True NPAs are those who are never in govt.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6965
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 18 Jul 2007 23:06

Ramanaji,

If you could point me to the pdf in question, I would appreciate it. I thought the time between the PTBT and draft NPT was several years, and all of the major actors had changed. So, the 4-step NPT tango wasn't something the original authors of the PTBT had in mind. From what I understood, Kennedy was concerned about Khrushchev's statement that a 100 MT H-bomb was ready in 1962. The 50 MT yield that was tested in 1961 by the Soviets actually had a design yield of 100 MT, but was never utilized since the previous test was held within the arctic circle and was literally felt all in the Scandinavian countries and registered over 5.0 on the Richter scale.

Wow, 100 MT yield. Just think if India tested something like that, a lot of people all around the world would sh1t in their pants.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50624
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 18 Jul 2007 23:09


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 19 Jul 2007 00:10

another compelling reason was that design info was getting into the hands of those who dont need to know contributing to proliferation


There is also the matter of hobbling designers. Atmospheric tests were needed to accurately calculate yield and thus allow designers to refine their designs. France and China declined to sign the PTBT. They continued to test aboveground until 1974 and 1980 respectively. It was also thought that underground testing was technically challenging for a newcomer. It also prevented flight testing of actual nuclear warheads.

The yield of underground tests were determined seismically, and the constants for various rock types used were determined empirically, by detonation of a weapon whose yield was known from previous atmospheric tests of that design. This was the only way to calibrate a test site.

The US actually tested a bomb in Alaska so that they could calibrate for the arctic Soviet test site in Nova Zemlya (it was known that both islands had similar geology and were located in the same region.

Yield estimates are dependent on these constants. A small variation gives a quite different yield result. You can produce any yield you want by just manipulating the constants.
When talking heads proclaim that the yield of this North Korean test was xx and the yield of that Indian test was yy, they are talking out of their musharraf. They are using constants for the Kazakh or other test ranges, a geological location quite different than the actual test sites.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 19 Jul 2007 00:17

Good idea. I think India should test to calibrate for potentials tests from other nations. :twisted:

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Postby Satya_anveshi » 19 Jul 2007 00:48

Well..long memories..my ash..I am posting this here as Mr. Sen is an esteemed member of our negotiating team and to show to what length the team is going to favor US Corporations. That sabotage was not less than a WMD attack in the heart of India.

Union Carbide owner to return to India

The Indian government has been quietly trying to facilitate the entry into the country of Dow Chemical, now the parent company of Union Carbide. New Delhi appears to take the view that Dow Chemical bears no responsibility for the December 1984 gas tragedy at Union Carbide’s plant in Bhopal, in which at least 7,000 people were killed immediately and 15,000 more died over the years.
Union Carbide, whose operations in India were shut down shortly after the Bhopal disaster, has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical since 2001.

Documents available with this newspaper indicate that India’s ambassador to the United States, Mr Ronen Sen, has been playing a key role in efforts to create a climate in which Dow Chemical can enter India and do business unencumbered by the baggage of Bhopal. The government had in the aftermath of the gas disaster been engaged in protracted court battles with Union Carbide both in India and in the United States, and had even launched criminal proceedings against the company and its officials, including then chairman Warren Anderson. Some of these cases are yet to be resolved.

ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Postby ShibaPJ » 19 Jul 2007 02:22

ToI spins (DDM?) that both GoI & USG feel that it is impractical to revisit HA.. What hogwash is this? How the hell do you get around to a 123 ~ J18, when USG says, 123 can only be from HA.. Let's wait & see.

Rice and pasta hasten N-deal

Guarded comments to TOI by key officials suggested the two sides are still grappling with contentious issues relating to reprocessing rights and assured fuel supply that has held up the so-called 123 Agreement to operationalise the civilian nuclear agreement.

"The talks will continue today (Wednesday) and tomorrow (Thursday)" one official said, declining to even confirm if there was any progress after Tuesday's parleys. Acknowledging that there were several rounds of talks and discussions on Tuesday, the official said "one round feeds into another."

A second official said it was difficult to characterise the negotiations, and added, "we are still grappling with some difficult issues."

Taken together, the comments suggested little forward movement. India is said to have proposed setting up a dedicated reprocessing facility under safeguards to overcome US reservations about the use of its nuclear fuel, and discussions appear to have centered round this, with ideas and clarifications on how to incorporate this into the 123 Agreement.

The one thing both sides agree on is that it is impractical to rewrite or revisit Congress' Hyde Act which essentially put a spanner in the Bush-Singh July 18 agreement.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Postby ramdas » 19 Jul 2007 03:10

Even though we are "falling back to calling people sellouts" , the unfortunate situation is that a sellout is indeed what is happenning. For the deterrent to be credible, the military must have confidence in our thermonuclear weapons. Clearly, the one test of 1998 is insufficient. A credible arsenal thus requires further testing. Moreover, it requres sufficient numbers. That will not be possible if we sign this deal owing to the FMCT we will then be forced to join. The deal thus qualitatively and quantitatively renders our deterrent trivial. So what else are MMS and his ilk other than sellouts or traitors?

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 19 Jul 2007 04:05

ramdas wrote:Even though we are "falling back to calling people sellouts" , the unfortunate situation is that a sellout is indeed what is happenning. For the deterrent to be credible, the military must have confidence in our thermonuclear weapons. Clearly, the one test of 1998 is insufficient. A credible arsenal thus requires further testing. Moreover, it requres sufficient numbers. That will not be possible if we sign this deal owing to the FMCT we will then be forced to join. The deal thus qualitatively and quantitatively renders our deterrent trivial. So what else are MMS and his ilk other than sellouts or traitors?


I have refrained from commenting on some of the innane comments on this thread. India tested in May 1998, two months after the NDA government assumed office. Almost immediately it announced a moratorium on further testing. Why ?? Did not Indian scientists advise the Government in power then, that further testing would be necessary to refine the reliability and yield of Indian nukes? So did the scientists not advise the Government correctly, or did the Government not heed the scientists advise ? Who dropped the ball? Testing involves political and economic costs as India has found out ever since 1974. As such, once the testing began in 1998, over the 5 years of the NDA government, there should have been a series of tests to ensure the perfection of the Indian deterrent. There should also have been an all out effort to increase the stockpile of fissile material by running all unsafeguarded reactors for maximum yield so that eventually FMCT would be of no concern to India. The fact that immediately after the testing, the NDA government announced a moratorum on testing and the Jaswant Singh-Talbott talks began, indicates clearly that the NDA government did not want to remain a pariah for long. But having crossed the rubicon, they should have gone for broke and ridden that bucking horse for a few years rather than caving in within weeks. Paying an economic price every 10 years or so by doing further testing in the current global political climate is similar to letting an injury heal after a long period of convalescence and then just as recovery is complete and the patient is becoming strong, to go and injure yourself all over again. It just does not make sense.

Whatever be the merits of the current negotiations with the US, the present Government has to be commended on getting out of the *sitting on the fence* mentality which has been a hallmark of most Governments in India. The NDA government by conducting the tests in 1998 jumped off that fence for once, for a few weeks, but then by announcing the moratorium jumped right back onto the fence. Having crossed the rubicon, if the NDA government had conducted a series of 50-80 tests or as many as Indian scients deemed necessary during its tenure and run Indian reactors in partial burn mode for those 5 years, India would have no need to gnash its teeth in anguish today about the testing clause in the 123 negotiation as well as a possible FMCT ramifications. But hey, everybody does discover religion at some point of time. The critics of the present government should figure out whether Indian polity collectively has the intestinal fortitude to go through with what is needed in its entirety. The NDA government certainly did not. They held their feet to the fire for a few weeks, before copping out. What is needed is years of fortitude to unquestionably establish India as a power to be reckoned with. If all that has happened in the 33 years since 1974 is for one Indian government to become brave for a few weeks, then any new strategy should be looked at seriously.
Last edited by ldev on 19 Jul 2007 04:18, edited 1 time in total.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Postby ramdas » 19 Jul 2007 04:15

1. A mistake of not going all out to build a deterrent in 1974 was repeated in 1998. But just because we want to stop stiiting on the fence, we should not jump to the wrong side of the fence- which is what we are in danger of doing. We must bite the bullet , pay the necessary economic price and ensure that an effective deterrent is built. In any case, how severe was the economic price paid in 1998 ? Negligible compared to the strategic gains made. Instead, even the option of biting the bullet is sought to be made much more difficult at the least. Hence the very valid cries of a sell-out.

2. Also scientists being confident may be different from the military being confident.

3. Regarding running all rectors in partial burn up mode - what about the production of uranium in mines ? what about the reprocessing capacity available ?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36017
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 19 Jul 2007 04:23

ldev, you must be kidding in saying 50-80 tests.. I hope you are not talking to remove all the weapons in hand [say as of pok-2 date]. Furthermore, its a well know from sources that we don't have that requirement and our strategic forces would easily agree to a deployment of 10 against one attack from the NFU angle.

what about testing next gen weapons, etc.. and furthermore, the super p5s 'd come out testing since, their stock piles are aging, and need to be redesigned/retested. it could be the genuine case of not having enough pluts for the nukes.. and thus constraining test plan. but, nda deciding to go on the morotarium was indeed supported by many in the gorilla group. I doubt, the political club then had an guts or sanity to conclude about testing.

actually, imho, the self imposed test ban could have come after some well laid tests.. within those pok-2 period.. we did abruptly stop after the second announcement of pok-2/b. we should have continued and announced that we have already planned these, and the world could expect about 5 or 10 more to come, in fact increasing the psy op value, and say the 8,9,10 were about the megatons and neutrons.

I think we have very poor political club to handle intl psy-op and strategic deterrance based on such threat values, by shear power projections. we failed there actually to have done in discussion with a strategic community rather scientific community which could have been a sub-sect gorilla gang.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 19 Jul 2007 04:47

ramdas wrote: We must bite the bullet , pay the necessary economic price and ensure that an effective deterrent is built.


In my previous post I had stated that IMO Indian polity collectively does not have the intestinal fortitude to play in these high stakes games. Let me illustrate this by reminding you as to how the PV Narasimha Rao government buckled in to US pressure after the US found out about India's impending tests which PVN had planned. The tests were promptly cancelled. Even during the May 1998 tests, the constraining factor on the yields was the proximity of villages the inhabitants of which the Government did not want moved because that would have telegraphed in advance Indian intentions to test and opened the Government to foreign pressure, something which it was not sure it could withstand. Hence the tests were conducted to surprise foreign governments rather then moving those villagers and conducting full yield tests which would have definitely had far more psychological impact besides validating many more underlying scientific assumptions.

As such given this demonstrated lack of intestinal fortitude certainly over the last 15 years plus, maybe the present Government is wise in that it knows its own limitations and the limitations of Indian polity in general and has decided to take a more nuanced approach to the nuke issue.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Postby ramdas » 19 Jul 2007 05:13

if this "more nuanced approach" means eventually becoming nuke-nude, is that agreeable ? If it means giving up the option to develop a credible deterrent , it is nothing but a sellout - or jumping into the wrong side of the fence. A Japan like future -rich but unable to defend oneself is unacceptable for India. Our history shows what that kind of state leads to.

Nothing so far prevents us from building a large stockpile of weapons to compensate for the lack of reliability of our warheads. This is what this deal and those who want to be more "nuanced" want to prevent by getting us into the FMCT by all kinds of backdoor means. This is the real compromise that those selling out are foisting upon the nation

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 19 Jul 2007 05:32

ramdas wrote:if this "more nuanced approach" means eventually becoming nuke-nude, is that agreeable ? If it means giving up the option to develop a credible deterrent , it is nothing but a sellout - or jumping into the wrong side of the fence. A Japan like future -rich but unable to defend oneself is unacceptable for India. Our history shows what that kind of state leads to.


As of today, nobody outside very very few within GOI knows exactly how large India's stockpile is. Whatever is out in the public domain is by way of guestimate. So terming something as a sellout or stating that India does not have a credible deterrent as of now is mere guesswork and to some extent the talking heads including those who are regarded as strategic analysts blow whichever way their political winds blow.

Nothing so far prevents us from building a large stockpile of weapons to compensate for the lack of reliability of our warheads.


Nothing! Nothing except b*lls from both sides of the political spectrum as amply demonstrated. One side railroading India into an ill advised moratorium and the other side talking of a minimum credible deterrent. And you are talking of building a large stockpile. Who is going to supply the politicos with the b*lls to build that large stockpile?
Last edited by ldev on 19 Jul 2007 05:46, edited 1 time in total.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Postby ramdas » 19 Jul 2007 05:39

1. Building a large stockpile does not require b*lls. As long as we do not sign off our nuclear soveriegnity , the course that we will take will provide us with large amounts of weapon-grade fissile material that will enable the building of a large stockpile without too much additional costs. As long as this buildup happens without to much "publicity", the political b*lls shall not be tested.

2. Even if political b*lls are lacking the current generation of politicians has no right to force this lack of b*lls on the future generation. A sell-out therefore cannot be justified on the basis of pragmatism.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 19 Jul 2007 05:43

ramdas wrote:
2. Even if political b*lls are lacking the current generation of politicians has no right to force this lack of b*lls on the future generation. A sell-out therefore cannot be justified on the basis of pragmatism.


Current generation cannot put the nation to future blackmail just because they did not have the b-lls.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Postby ramdas » 19 Jul 2007 05:48

Current generation cannot put the nation to future blackmail just because they did not have the b-lls.


This is precisely the point I am making. By wilfully doing this, MMS and his ilk have shown themselves to be elements uncompromisingly against the acquisition of national strength - to say it politely.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 19 Jul 2007 05:55

There was a strong and credible reason for the NDA to announce the moratorium. As I understand it, they were rooted in

- The scientists claiming that further tests were not necessary
- To reduce the negative economic and geo-political impact of the tests (Anyone remember Resurgent India Bonds). Essentially, these bonds were announced at significant interest rates, with the idea of raising $2 billion to reduce the economic impact. They reaised about $4 billion due to over subscription.

Although, technically speakin from the scientists point of view, further tests may not be needed, from a military stand point it has been recognized on this very thread that the folks who will fight wars with these weapons need to have confidence on these weapons and towards that effort, future tests will be required.

So, Idev, when you talk of NDA buckling et al, I will submit, it was not buckling and POK II was not showmanship. NDA did what was needed in the supreme interests of India and tried to balance the economic impact of these tests (impact which was a result of the cumulative effects of the foreign/military policies of all previous governments) in the best way possible through

- the RIB bonds
- Moratorium
- CMD
- No first use

The military weapons experts on this board can speak further but from my perspective further tests will be best, when the full triad of India's nuclear doctrine is fairly ready.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 19 Jul 2007 06:10

Ramdas, ShauryaT,

From a lot of indications the nuclear deal appears to be the tip of the iceberg of a far larger India-US engagement. I really do not think it was necessary for any kind of nuclear cooperation to be included at all in any dialogue between the US and India, there could have been economic, political and military cooperation. Furthermore IMO, India could have all the economic progress without any kind of nuclear power generation. But talk of nuclear cooperation invites in all kinds of yahoos including hardcore NPAa as well as jingos on this board and makes the entire issue wholly emotional and non rational.

Having said that, the reason I am stating what I have in the previous posts, is that because Indian governments of all stripes have exhibited a singular lack of purpose, will and stamina over the last 30 some years to make the kind of sacrifices that are necessary to become a world class power without compromise. Note the US, Russia, China, at some point of time, all of them put the entire nation on the line. Where does India stand? If India does not have the fortitude to make the kind of sacrifices that are necessary in the pursuit of this endeavour one should either sh*t or get off the pot. The point is, does one have to make a choice now? One cannot really answer that question, because nobody knows the entire contours of the India-US engagement i.e. the 90% portion of the iceberg which is below the water. And that is why it is illinformed to talk of traitor and sellout.
Last edited by ldev on 19 Jul 2007 06:15, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 19 Jul 2007 06:12

The one thing both sides agree on is that it is impractical to rewrite or revisit Congress' Hyde Act which essentially put a spanner in the Bush-Singh July 18 agreement.


IF that statement is close to GoI stand/view, then clearly GoI is all goofed up to be polite.

How can MMS on one hand say that he will not ...... and then a GoI person say that they do not expect a re-write of the Hyde Act?

What could GoI send a high level team for if not to give up one point after another?

Of course, if the deal falls thru' then GoI can always say we told you so.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 19 Jul 2007 06:20

ldev wrote:From a lot of indications the nuclear deal appears to be the tip of the iceberg of a far larger India-US engagement. I really do not think it was necessary for any kind of nuclear cooperation to be included at all in any dialogue between the US and India, there could have been economic, political and military cooperation. Furthermore IMO, India could have all the economic progress without any kind of nuclear power generation. But talk of nuclear cooperation invites in all kinds of yahoos including hardcore NPAa as well as jingos on this board and makes the entire issue wholly emotional and non rational.
Agreed and this government, essentially did not read the signals right and went ahead with a kicking the can game with the US to see who can kick it further, the most.

Having said that, the reason I am stating what I have in the previous posts, is that because Indian governments of all stripes have exhibited a singular lack of purpose, will and stamina over the last 30 some years to make the kind of sacrifices that are necessary to become a world class power without compromise. Note the US, Russia, China, at some point of time, all of them put the entire nation on the line. Where does India stand? If India does not have the fortitude to make the kind of sacrifices that are necessary in the pursuit of this endeavour one should either sh*t or get off the pot. The point is, does one have to make a choice now? One cannot really answer that question, because nobody knows the entire contours of the India-US engagement i.e. the 90% portion of the iceberg which is below the water.


I would say this. Very few in the Indian polity know the entire gamut of inter-relationships of where India comes from, what it went through and most importantly, where it needs to go.

Even the people, who know this best have to fight against diverse internal, other parties and institutional resistance to change.

So, if you are saying that Indian leaders do not have a mad man like Stalin or Mao at its helm or even an IG, who gave two hoots to the constitution, I agree and we may be better for it.

What is needed are leaders, who can steer the nation for 30-50 years in a certain direction, largely different from the one's followed so far and most importantly an electorate that reposes faith in these leaders and a system that allows these leaders to execute.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 19 Jul 2007 06:27

ShauryaT wrote:So, if you are saying that Indian leaders do not have a mad man like Stalin or Mao at its helm or even an IG, who gave two hoots to the constitution, I agree and we may be better for it.


I meant somebody like a John F Kennedy who (no matter how the Cuban Missile Crisis was finally resolved) was willing to put his nation on the line because he knew instinctively that should he buckle in then, that all would be lost for the future. That mixture of bold steps and pragmatism is what I meant. IG certainly had it, in 1971 she dismembered Pakistan and created Bangla Desh but was pragmatic enough to know that should she go after West Pakistan, the US would have intervened.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Postby ramdas » 19 Jul 2007 06:35

How can it be assumed that India lacks the necessary fortitude to become a power without compromise just because politicians so far lack it ? Making a permanent compromise under this assumption is bad enough. Over and above that, even from the ecoomic point of view, our nuclear pariah status may actually lead to our being in a position of "energy control" when breeder reactors become a necessity - something that is bound to happen in the long term. So why this compromise for short term gains unless elements like MMS are either acting against national interests or are so enslaved in their thinking that they honestly believe that being a japan-like stooge would be in the national interest. Could be the latter as well, but the end-effect is the same -a sell-out.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 19 Jul 2007 06:45

ldev wrote:I meant somebody like a John F Kennedy who (no matter how the Cuban Missile Crisis was finally resolved) was willing to put his nation on the line because he knew instinctively that should he buckle in then, that all would be lost for the future. That mixture of bold steps and pragmatism is what I meant.
Then you surely do not consider Parakram to be in the same league. Sure, Parakram's end result was a compromise and so was the cuban missile crisis - US had to take of nuclear missiles from Turkey - an official NATO ally - quietly.

IG certainly had it, in 1971 she dismembered Pakistan and created Bangla Desh but was pragmatic enough to know that should she go after West Pakistan, the US would have intervened.
IG did act, maybe reactively but credit should go to her for the actions taken in Indian's supreme interest, even if, what was won by the gun was largely lost on the table.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 19 Jul 2007 06:57

ramdas wrote:How can it be assumed that India lacks the necessary fortitude to become a power without compromise just because politicians so far lack it ?


Because India is a democratic country and the elected politicians represent the will of the people. And everything is about perception. The perception is that India has made a series of compromises on issues that affect its national security whether it be Tibet or Pakistan acquiring nuclear weapons or internal law and order issues, or those involving hostage taking or the LTTE issue or the border problems with the Bangladesh Rifles. Maybe other nations also make such compromises but are careful to ensure that a different spin is put out. The right perception is more than half of the battle won.

Over and above that, even from the ecoomic point of view, our nuclear pariah status may actually lead to our being in a position of "energy control" when breeder reactors become a necessity - something that is bound to happen in the long term.


Look, nobody other than some jingos sitting at their keyboards typing away are bothered about the long term. The short term is what gets politicians elected. The energy control you talk about is currently resulting in 10 hour power cuts in certain places in India. Now, unfortunately that has got nothing to do with this 123 agreement. But it is being spun as such.

So why this compromise for short term gains unless elements like MMS are either acting against national interests or are so enslaved in their thinking that they honestly believe that being a japan-like stooge would be in the national interest. Could be the latter as well, but the end-effect is the same -a sell-out.


OK, so you call it a sellout. If it is a sellout and the country realizes it as such, how far away are the next elections? And what will happen in terms of realization of this 123 agreement between its signing and the next elections? If the NDA which is the logical opposition capitalizes on this, it will be the biggest issue that it can campaign on - the Kangress party selling out India!! And they can come to power 2-3 years from now and promptly abrogate and cancel this agreement. Correct? Or do you think that true to the nature of all Indian governments, they will not have the ba**s to cancel it?

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

Postby Sanjay M » 19 Jul 2007 07:01

Karan Dixit wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:BJP did not have the backbone to stand up to this pressure, and quickly caved in like that Rubiya Saeed case. The Pakistanis diagnosed our spinelessness quite correctly.


Ironically the culprit is Congress not the BJP.

There was an incident where Jeehadis captured daughter of a Muslim minister from J&K. Then they demanded the release of some Jeehdis in the Jail. Congress govt. complied.

BJP was reminded of this incident and hence they had no choice.


That was the Rubiya Saeed case which I mentioned.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 19 Jul 2007 07:02

ldev wrote:
ramdas wrote:How can it be assumed that India lacks the necessary fortitude to become a power without compromise just because politicians so far lack it ?


Because India is a democratic country and the elected politicians represent the will of the people. And everything is about perception. The perception is that India has made a series of compromises on issues that affect its national security whether it be Tibet or Pakistan acquiring nuclear weapons or internal law and order issues, or those involving hostage taking or the LTTE issue or the border problems with the Bangladesh Rifles. Maybe other nations also make such compromises but are careful to ensure that a different spin is put out. The right perception is more than half of the battle won.


National security is much more than will of the people. Always there is a critical group in a country which is the owner of the security of the country. Especially in a rough neighborhood security decisions are critical.
Long term security and force of history for the nation is debated by critical group in the nation.

Elected official may not represent the best for the national security decisions.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest