India - Nuclear News and Discussion

ksmahesh
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 10 Jan 2007 17:55
Location: Mt Everest - its the coolest one

Postby ksmahesh » 21 Jul 2007 19:28

John Snow wrote:Once agin Indian leadership confirms that India after all is only soft power.
period.


Power? what power? India is and will remain (Till we have such polity) POWERLESS.

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

Postby vsudhir » 21 Jul 2007 19:31

ksmahesh wrote:
John Snow wrote:Once agin Indian leadership confirms that India after all is only soft power.
period.


Power? what power? India is and will remain (Till we have such polity) POWERLESS.


Go easy on the defeatism, will ya? Extreme hormone changes happening all over or what?

First, lezsee what has been lost and then lament the loss.

/No offense meant.
JMTs and IMVHOs etc.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 862
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Postby sivab » 21 Jul 2007 20:03

Agreement reached on 123 deal text

Washington, July 21 (PTI): India and the US today achieved a breakthrough in talks over civil nuclear deal with the two sides reaching an understanding on an agreement that will operationalise the deal but put off a formal announcement till completion of the political process.

After four days of intense official level negotiations the two sides reached an understanding on a common text of 123 Agreement.

"We have basically finalised the text, but the document cannot be divulged," a senior Indian official told PTI.


The official said, the document cannot be made public as it has to be approved by the Indian Cabinet. Foreign Secretary, Shivshankar Menon, and US Under Secretary of State, Nicolas Burns, held tough discussion over last four days to resolve differences on issues like reprocessing right for India and fate of the deal if New Delhi were to conduct a nuclear test in future.

National Security Advisor M K Narayanan also met with Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, Defence Secretary Robert Gates and US National Security Advisor, Stephen P Hadley.

Senior officials said that if a formal announcement has not been made, it is only within "standard procedure", in that the whole exercise will have to move away from diplomats and civil servants to the higher political levels.

"Much or all of the work has already been completed," a source familiar with the talks said, stressing that it has gone even beyond the "crossing of the t's and dotting the i's".

Sources say that an announcement, on India and the United States coming to an agreement on the 123 Accord, will be made simultaneously in New Delhi and Washington, probably during the possible visit of the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, sometime in August or September.


As the Bush administration also would have to take the senior law makers of the US Congress into confidence, just as in the manner it was done prior to the passage of the Hyde Act in December 2006.

Earlier, a joint communique was issued at the end of the final round of talks, that said the discussions were "constructive and positive" and both the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, and the Indian Foreign Secretary, Menon," are pleased with the substantial progress made on the outstanding issues in the 123 agreement." The two sides will refer the issue to their governments for final review.

"Both the United States and India look forward to the completion of these remaining steps and to the conclusion of this historic Initiative," the communique said.

The Deputy Spokesman, Tom Casey, during a briefing at the States Department stressed that a lack of an announcement on the agreement of 123 negotiations would not mean that India and the US will not be ultimately be able to have a deal or move forward on the issue.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 862
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Postby sivab » 21 Jul 2007 20:09

http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/

123 a done deal


Both sides say they've done it. Preliminary digging by me suggests the Indian side got what it wanted. But I would want to learn more before writing on where things stand now.


India-US Joint Press Statement on the conclusion of meetings on the US-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns and Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon held four days of meetings in Washington July 17-20, 2007, on the US-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative, including talks on bilateral agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation, also known as the 123 agreement.

2. In addition, National Security Advisor M.K.Narayanan and Foreign Secretary Menon met with Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rice, Secretary Gates, and with the U.S. National Security Advisor Stephen P.Hadley.

3. The discussions were constructive and positive, and both Under Secretary Burns and Foreign Secretary Menon are pleased with the substantial progress made on the outstanding issues in the 123 agreement. We will now refer the issue to our governments for final review.

4. Both the United States and India look forward to the completion of these remaining steps and to the conclusion of this historic Initiative.

Washington
July 21, 2007

edwin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 21 Jul 2007 10:08
Location: sf bay

Postby edwin » 21 Jul 2007 20:10

It seems India is being neutered from within. In the coming months, expect more joint announcements. Some of the fallouts are already evident, from our negotiations with Eurocopter, joint partolling with the US navy, our slowly changing foreign policy on Iran and not too mention, our brand new nuclear relationship.

A couple of days back, there was a news article that Boeing and GE were to lobby the N-Deal. What's in it for them? The outlook points to a critical number of key defence systems being procured from GE and the Boeing getting a certain contract for its F-18s - for 126 aircraft to be more precise. That in itself gives the US 2 important levers, over our nukes and airforce.

In the process, there are also going to be many more MNCs who are going to come in, demand SEZs, and structure their businesses to run at an IRR of 25-30%. The stage is already being set for Union Carbide to re-enter the scene. Once these MNCs build up clout, you can expect them to loot our resources, pay little tax by way of the SEZs, have an indirect leverage on our economic policys by way of foreign exchange and taxation rates, in short basically loot us and repartriate profits while giving the government the hollow claim that they have provided labour to the public. This is effectively the cheap local labour that has to be provided to allow the MNCs to piggy back on our economic growth and repatriate profits back to their shareholders in the US. Effectively the East India Company - Take 2, of course no shackles for workers this time, but never mind about the working and living conditions, we can sweep them under the rug.

As of yesterday, we had little foreign levers over us, perceived or real. In the coming months, our defence and economic posturing will be more closely aligned with the US, and effectively hinder arguably the 2 most important sectors that we have.

There are too many deals being struck or worked out in great secrecy and in a short space of time, coinciding with the end of terms for both Bush and MMS. I can't help but feel that too many pincers are coming in and working their way into our economic and defence set-up. And why wouldn't they when we Mr MMS at the helm, who is an opponent of both POK I & II. The window may be fast closing and it is in the US' interests to tie-up as much as they can. However, the ease and speed of which this seems to be happening, it's getting hard to take.

Most importantly though, our relationship with Iran needs to be carefully monitored. Any neglect or miscalculation on this front will effectively leave a "relationship vacuum" in its dealings with South and East Asia. Strictly my personal opinion, but this could lead to strengthening ties b/w Pakistan and Iran, and that is something to be wary of.

Raju

Postby Raju » 21 Jul 2007 20:36

Rishirishi wrote:
The US is not concerned with Indian transfer of tech to Iran, because they know it wont happen. It is not in Indians interest, hence that card can't be used.



http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/nov/13ram.htm

Run down a few paragraphs and look at the quoted para under this link

US nuclear policy toward Iran,

pran
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 09 Oct 2001 11:31
Location: internet

Postby pran » 21 Jul 2007 20:47

MMS and Sonia Gandhi have earned their place with Jai Chand's and Mir Jafars albeit in the 21st century.What can you expect from India , it is life as usual , Gora Sahibs are once again the master's for a few dollars more.

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

Postby John Snow » 21 Jul 2007 20:50

Dont worry there is going to be a



Image


who will save the day and keep the independence free from the foreign chips

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Why this chest beating

Postby vnadendla » 21 Jul 2007 20:54

I think we are going overboard with all this chest beating. There is nothing to suggest that
    Indian IP is being stolen
    India cannot test in future
    India will be saddles with mountains of spent fuel
    Indian Thorium plan is being affected.
What is likely is
    Iran policy change - big deal do they support us on Kashmir?
    126 fighter planes deal may go to US. Big deal its US or Europe or Russia. They are all Goras not just US.

With fuel supply, economic investments etc its a great deal.

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Why this chest beating

Postby vnadendla » 21 Jul 2007 20:55

I think we are going overboard with all this chest beating. There is nothing to suggest that
    Indian IP is being stolen
    India cannot test in future
    India will be saddles with mountains of spent fuel
    Indian Thorium plan is being affected.
What is likely is
    Iran policy change - big deal do they support us on Kashmir?
    126 fighter planes deal may go to US. Big deal its US or Europe or Russia. They are all Goras not just US.

With fuel supply, economic investments etc its a great deal.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63341
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 21 Jul 2007 21:04

I have to agree with vnadendla. no point howling at this point without full details placed on the table @ parliament house.

we can live without the iranian gas at the price they are demanding now. dont forget they signed up for a lower price and now want a 50% hike. a fleet of U-LNG tankers feeding in at hazira would be a safer option and starve the pakis of revenue also.

without knowing US intentions on regime change in Iran , India is probably just going to drag its feet on the IPI

edwin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 21 Jul 2007 10:08
Location: sf bay

Re: Why this chest beating

Postby edwin » 21 Jul 2007 21:18

vnadendla wrote:I think we are going overboard with all this chest beating. There is nothing to suggest that
    Indian IP is being stolen
    India cannot test in future
    India will be saddles with mountains of spent fuel
    Indian Thorium plan is being affected.
What is likely is
    Iran policy change - big deal do they support us on Kashmir?
    126 fighter planes deal may go to US. Big deal its US or Europe or Russia. They are all Goras not just US.
With fuel supply, economic investments etc its a great deal.


Actually, it is a very, very big deal. Assume for a moment that what you said is right and the only fall-out is the MRCA going the way of the F-18s and our foreign policy change in Iran.

Scenario A: We align with the US and move away from Iran.
That allows a foreign power to enter our sphere of influence in Iran, i.e Pakistan. History has shown that where there is a realignment or removal of one power, another will enter - 1950s Tibet, 1960s Sino-Soviet split, 1970s Indo-Pak war and realignment from NAM. Even the 1990s Soviet economic collapse that reduced thier influence on us has led us to the chain of events continuing to today and leading us closer to the US.

A hostile Iran will offer Pak real "strategic depth", not the perceived one they had in Afghanistan. In the event of hostilities, our enery supplies from the ME and Africa will have to travel waters incorporating both Iran and Pakistan. It will be a tough ask for the IN to secure SLOCs given this vast distance, not too mention with the PN acquiring Orions and Harpoons. I'm sure you can agree that our energy supplies being held ransom will be nothing short of disastrous.

Scenario 2: A succeeding PM has a change of stance and realigns with Iran.
Expect to see some, if not all of those brand new reactors sitting idle. At least the 126 aircraft sitting idle will keep them company.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63341
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 21 Jul 2007 21:24

Iranians are not stupid to ally with Pak against India. they know the paks as well as we do, perhaps better being shia. last I heard Pak was supporting a base for iranian 'freedom fighters' under US sponsorship...why on earth would iran hook in with pak ?

if the US takes out Iran and installs its own mushrador-MKI, the older mushrador-MK2 in pindi is going to consigned to dustbin. iran offers far superior route into CAR without most of afghanistan to police. it also sits on mouth of Gulf.

either way I dont see iran as a major worry for India.

edwin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 21 Jul 2007 10:08
Location: sf bay

Postby edwin » 21 Jul 2007 21:32

Singha wrote:Iranians are not stupid to ally with Pak against India. they know the paks as well as we do, perhaps better being shia. last I heard Pak was supporting a base for iranian 'freedom fighters' under US sponsorship...why on earth would iran hook in with pak ?

if the US takes out Iran and installs its own mushrador-MKI, the older mushrador-MK2 in pindi is going to consigned to dustbin. iran offers far superior route into CAR without most of afghanistan to police. it also sits on mouth of Gulf.

either way I dont see iran as a major worry for India.


I agree Singha, they are not a worry for india now and I hope it remains that way. Events in history though have pointed that sometimes the unlikely can happen. Who would have predicted the US's proximity to China in the late 60's in the aftermath of the Korean war and the Sino-Soviet friendship.

Irregardless of what the future holds, the bigger issue is that inadvertently levers are being placed on our foreign policy which may prevent us from acting in our best interests.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35979
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 21 Jul 2007 21:34

By keeping crossed fingers till we get to hear more, here is something to ponder.

As the Bush administration also would have to take the senior law makers of the US Congress into confidence, just as in the manner it was done prior to the passage of the Hyde Act in December 2006.


Going by what happened prior to hyde act dec 06, and the following act, similar "jackal act" will follow this new "sealing" of agreement, is all I can see.

Hey, this is going to be this way, since everything done so secretive, and living much to speculations. What we have to do is, narrowing and keep narrowing to what looks more likely to happen.

Mother of all Cops can't just change US acts like saying "my mother said" so. I suspect, again a Hyde-2 act that strengthens non-proliferation as seen by the cop.

Cheyney and Bush are in the losers team now.. their term is also ending.. take some logic here.

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

Re: Why this chest beating

Postby NRao » 21 Jul 2007 21:48

vnadendla wrote:I think we are going overboard with all this chest beating. There is nothing to suggest that
    Indian IP is being stolen
    India cannot test in future
    India will be saddles with mountains of spent fuel
    Indian Thorium plan is being affected.
What is likely is
    Iran policy change - big deal do they support us on Kashmir?
    126 fighter planes deal may go to US. Big deal its US or Europe or Russia. They are all Goras not just US.
With fuel supply, economic investments etc its a great deal.


Depends.

On the US Prez who is in office.

From what I can read-between-lines - they have kicked the can. They have solved nothing.

The US is still after Indian "stuff". India "got" just implies they got only till the next check up. When Bush vacates, Indian problems WILL start (because nothing is black and white). Unless India buckles up and becomes a true power to contend with (this will need more explanation).

WRT IP, etc, we will have to wait for IAEA deal - which is the next step. The US can steal or shackle thru' IAEA. The good news there is that AK is in charge. BUT, the game is not over - Lunch time.

I am very surprised that you treat the M/MRCA so lightly. The AESA tech is equivalent to testing or reproc in nukes.

I really do not think this is a good deal for India - only because there are plenty of loose ends. Future gens will be handed down the burden to straighten it out.

On the flip side, if future gens are better than today's Indians, then it is an OK deal, with a potential to become a great deal.

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Postby Nayak » 21 Jul 2007 21:55

Singha wrote:Iranians are not stupid to ally with Pak against India. they know the paks as well as we do, perhaps better being shia. last I heard Pak was supporting a base for iranian 'freedom fighters' under US sponsorship...why on earth would iran hook in with pak ?

either way I dont see iran as a major worry for India.


GD - It is called as Jundullah, a sunni-extremist front set up by Baki and Unkil to finger Iran.

I quote madam jalebi for reference -

Link

Nor should one lose sight of the rabidly sectarian outlook of the Lal Masjid leadership which would have provided a sympathetic ear for the anti-Iran rhetoric of the US. After all, if the US can use Jundullah in its efforts to destabilise the Iranian state, who knows how far its reach is in this regard? Let us recall that till the Soviet Union folded up, there was a US-Mullah alliance that ran through the anti-communist goals of the former.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 21 Jul 2007 21:57

Scenario A: We align with the US and move away from Iran.
That allows a foreign power to enter our sphere of influence in Iran, i.e Pakistan. History has shown that where there is a realignment or removal of one power, another will enter - 1950s Tibet, 1960s Sino-Soviet split, 1970s Indo-Pak war and realignment from NAM. Even the 1990s Soviet economic collapse that reduced thier influence on us has led us to the chain of events continuing to today and leading us closer to the US.
It is not Pakistan, may be China; already some indications. In a game, one may likely to play the queen against rook or bishop than against a pawn. Yes the immediate concern in US could be Iran. But the one more threatening down the line is Chi-na. That would give more headache than you expect from Iran.

the bigger issue is that inadvertently levers are being placed on our foreign policy which may prevent us from acting in our best interests.
you remind me of the statement from KS. If you want to be treated as big boy then play like a big boy. No use in shying away. French didnt surrendered its independent policy, neither China. India can be one. UK showed the middle finger in F-35. So what stops India doing one in future, when she will be much more powerful.

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

Postby John Snow » 21 Jul 2007 22:15

Where is mr Jai Sankhar who boldly asserted take it or leave it during a recent seminar in spin city? Olga Tell us was playing different tune at the same seminar?

SO PMO again sidelined anybody who is nationalist and on the look out for India?

Down with MMS
Last edited by John Snow on 21 Jul 2007 22:27, edited 2 times in total.

edwin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 21 Jul 2007 10:08
Location: sf bay

Postby edwin » 21 Jul 2007 22:19

Kanson wrote:
Scenario A: We align with the US and move away from Iran.
That allows a foreign power to enter our sphere of influence in Iran, i.e Pakistan. History has shown that where there is a realignment or removal of one power, another will enter - 1950s Tibet, 1960s Sino-Soviet split, 1970s Indo-Pak war and realignment from NAM. Even the 1990s Soviet economic collapse that reduced thier influence on us has led us to the chain of events continuing to today and leading us closer to the US.
It is not Pakistan, may be China; already some indications. In a game, one may likely to play the queen against rook or bishop than against a pawn. Yes the immediate concern in US could be Iran. But the one more threatening down the line is Chi-na. That would give more headache than you expect from Iran.

the bigger issue is that inadvertently levers are being placed on our foreign policy which may prevent us from acting in our best interests.
you remind me of the statement from KS. If you want to be treated as big boy then play like a big boy. No use in shying away. French didnt surrendered its independent policy, neither China. India can be one. UK showed the middle finger in F-35. So what stops India doing one in future, when she will be much more powerful.


Absolutely. Whatever benefits that accrue to China from Iran will aid them immensely, and Pak to a certain extent since it is after all a China proxy. Iran is our gateway to the CAR, and taking this away will leave us with little other realistic alternative.

That the shift has started is evident from India voting against Iran on the nuclear issue. We will be the net losers, as our nothern and western reaches will be covered by Pak-China-Iran.

This is also playing into the hands of outside forces that are trying to shape their spheres of influence in the IOR. While we have been cajoled on the joint patrolling of the Malacca straits, our power projection has been stymied to the west by supplying the PN with navy specific weapons to keep us in check. It is not in the US's interests for us to project power westwards as we will intersect with their sphere of influence in the ME and the Persian Gulf- fits in well with our Look East policy doesn't it?

If you start painting the picture, the only direction in which we are allowed to project power is in the direction of the Malacca Straits, in part to check the growing Chinese influence in that area and in the IOR. In every other direction, we have been checked either by the US or China.

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

Postby NRao » 21 Jul 2007 22:27

John Snow wrote:Where is mr Jai Sankhar who boldly asserted take it or leave it during a recent seminar in spin city? Olga Tell us was playing different tune at the same seminar?

SO PMO again soidelined anybody who is nationalist and on the look out for India?

Down with MMS


The language will be dilute enough for both sides to declare POLITICAL victory. MMS has not only the promise made in parliament to keep, he has one to the people of Haryana - to build a reactor for them.

Technically the problems will surface in the future.

I feel that India will have to do slight of hand - get reactors from one country and fuel from another, etc, etc , etc. It will be messy. Which will require a very strong leader.
Last edited by NRao on 21 Jul 2007 22:35, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35979
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 21 Jul 2007 22:29

boss log. we don't care if pakis align with iran or iraq.. nothing worse than their existing alignment, i.e, china and america itself.

what we are interested is both oil and nuclear security. we need oil from any middle eastern country that is willing to supply us at a decent price., be it iran or iraq or saudies. it is important for us not to antagonize them just for the sake of american interests.

can we ask americans to back off from pakistan, saudies, kuwait, and other source of oil for them? ask them to bug off!. give respect to equal values here.

dealing with us, is not going to be like dealing with any other non-p5 members. < /period >. this has to be nailed.. like it or not.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 21 Jul 2007 22:30

We will be the net losers, as our nothern and western reaches will be covered by Pak-China-Iran.
No Sir, this is not what i meant.

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

Postby NRao » 21 Jul 2007 22:40

Gnets,

Can we take the Iran-Paki allignemnet issue somewhere else?

Thanks

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

Postby John Snow » 21 Jul 2007 22:49

going back couple of hundred threads since J18

so all this agreement is about some SPMs to design better FBR?

Recall the Love triangle fest between yours truly, Alok N, and SS about SPMs for veryt very very accurate machining needs of BARC?

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

Postby ramdas » 21 Jul 2007 22:55

Ramdas - Since you are so sure, Why not educate us all by listing these assurances and how the 123 goes against it?


The first assurance was that we shall not accept any condition that prohibits our testing - now that the Hyde Act stays as it is , isnt this condition violated in spirit ? Maybe even in letter if there turns out to be anything in 123 that refers to its being bound by the Hyde Act.

The second was that the deal would be acceptable only with full unconditional cooperation even in areas like enrichment,reprocessing etc. There is no need to comment on where that stands.

Overall, there was this assurance about not compromising on the integrity of the strategic program. Where is that going to stand with hyde Act standing and a potential FMCT round the corner ?

Is the group of KS, Arundhat Ghose and Shyam Saran trying to move India towards a FMCT ?

These questions need to be answered.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3240
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Tanaji » 21 Jul 2007 22:55

I have to agree with vnadendla. no point howling at this point without full details placed on the table @ parliament house.


While I agree that more details need to come out before we can justify our chest beating, I sincerely doubt if all the details will be placed before Parliament. MMS is not beholden to release all details to the parliament. He can very well sign the deal without Parliament approval and place only the very basic details in the House.

He has already been made a choo*tiya by Americans in Hyde act. The most likely scenario that will happen is this will be spun as "masterpiece of haggling and strategy" by the Maino supporters and lifafas in the press, and no doubt the Americans will pay their usual platitudes and play along by saying "Indians drive a hard bargain" which again will be played up by our press.

In short, there will be no substantial debate on this topic, unless of course AK steps forward.

This has been a grand strategy by MMS et al by asking AK to accompany him without him having any real veto. Menon was already asked to acquiesce to whatever the Americans wanted and AK was tagged along so the blame can be laid at his door. Expect some more articles by the English press which will do a hatchet job on AK in case the deal comes under too much scrutiny. Expect articles by lifafas that will say how AK kept quiet and did not warn about dangers when in fact he probably was forbidden to do so by MMS. This strategy has succeeded.


Lets wait for the deal details to emerge (if at all they do). If its really bad or none are forthcoming (the latter is indicative of the former), the only worthwhile option is for the SciCom community to threaten mass resignations. (Yes, its easy for me to say it, after all I am not affected... but unless anyone has a better idea?)

--------------------------------
Allakh Niranjan!

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3240
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Tanaji » 21 Jul 2007 22:59

Spinsterji,

I was not around for your love fest. Can you tell me what SPM means? Also are there any archived copies of that discussion?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35979
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 21 Jul 2007 23:08

strategic planning and mgmt.?

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

Postby John Snow » 21 Jul 2007 23:21

no no not that complicated

Special purpose machines

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

Postby Arun_S » 21 Jul 2007 23:46

On the need to proof test thermonuclear weapons, here is an old article. My 3rd sense says that Indian test in 2003 was closer to reality than most people realize. Recall that "Op Parakram" was in swing that time.

http://ptg.djnr.com/ccroot/asp/publib/s ... num=966697


U.S. BELIEVES SOME INDIAN OFFICIALS PRESSING FOR MORE NUKE WEAPONS TESTS
Mark Hibbs, New Delhi

03/31/2003

U.S. government officials have informed other Western counterparts that the organizations responsible for India's nuclear weapons program are seeking authorization from the Indian central government to carry out three additional weapons tests, Indian defense sources said last week. According to these sources, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC), and the Defense Research & Development Organization (DRDO) are requesting permission to conduct a new series of tests, in part aimed at verifying the credibility of the design for a thermonuclear or boosted fission device with a yield of about 200 kilotons (KT).

DAE has overall responsibility for India's nuclear weapons production, BARC for fissile material production and design science, and DRDO for weaponization. On May 11, 1998 India tested six nuclear devices, one of which India afterward identified as a thermonuclear weapon or H-bomb with a yield of 43 KT.

During 1999 and 2000, U.S. officials have said that experts at DAE and BARC continued to press to test again, in part because it was believed that the secondary stage of the H-bomb failed to perform as expected (Nucleonics Week, 26 Nov. '98, 1). India has continued to claim that the H-bomb test was a complete success on the basis of geoscience analyses by BARC scientists--analyses that independent experts in the U.S. assert were flawed and greatly exaggerated the results (NF, 10 June '99, 1). Since then, P.K. Iyengar, former head of DAE and the chief physicist responsible for India's first 1974 blast, claimed that India should test again because the energy from the fission reaction failed to ignite all but a small portion of the lithium deuteride fuel in the fusion secondary stage of the device.
Last week, defense sources downplayed Iyengar's remarks, asserting that they were based on problems that Iyengar's H-bomb group faced during the late 1980s and early 1990s but that DAE later solved. According to Indian officials, DAE is nonetheless convinced that the development of nuclear weapons by India must continue, since the test of the thermonuclear device in 1998 was meant to demonstrate the viability of a design with a range of possible yields from about 40 KT to about 200 KT. Brahma Chellaney, an expert at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, said that DAE ``has announced that the (1998) tests were fully successful, and that they can simulate to raise the yield'' to about 200 KT. ``So there's no desire by anyone to test again.'' Defense officials and other sources , however, said there was no consensus inside the government on that point. They said that, while DAE chairman Anil Kakodkar has said that India has ``some'' capability in the area of nuclear weapon test simulations, on the basis of the results from the 1998 explosions, the military was insufficiently confident that a nuclear weapon with a yield of 160 KT or more will perform as expected in a crisis. That message, one source said, has been conveyed to the office of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. ``It is up to the prime minister to decide this, and then for DAE and BARC to prepare for it,'' he said.

According to one Indian defense source, by 1992 India had prepared ``about 10'' plutonium-based nuclear explosives, prompted by a perceived military threat from Pakistan. But India's desire to develop fission-fusion weapons with yields of 160-200 KT is prompted instead by its greater concern about the nuclear weapons threat from China, which continues to develop ICBMs and has an arsenal of perhaps 20 such long-range missiles.
Because of the key future role which such a device would be expected to play in deterring a nuclear attack by China, sources said, India's military may not be willing to trust claims by DAE and BARC that they can rely on simulations in an acute crisis.

Under India's emerging deterrence strategy, these experts said, New Delhi seeks to develop a credible weapon during the next decade with enough destructive force to destroy a handful of key and populous coastal Chinese port cities, should China attack India with its larger arsenal of nuclear weapons using long-range missiles as delivery systems. Based on the timetable for development of such a capability by India, these sources said, there is no immediate need to test a more powerful device. India is currently working on the development of the Agni-3 missile, designed to hit a target up to 3,000 kilometers away. The missile which DRDO and the military want to have to reach Chinese cities with a nuclear warhead of 160 KT or more, sources said, is Agni-4, a project still in the early concept development stage. ``We'd want to test a bigger H-bomb sometime in between Agni-3 and -4, and that could be five to 10 years away,'' according to the government consultant. India tested nuclear weapons and declared itself a nuclear weapons state in 1998 after the BJP Hindu nationalist party came into power. BJP will face a national election in two years. Should the BJP lose control to a government led by the Congress Party, support to DAE, BARC, and DRDO may wane, some political sources ventured. But according to Chellaney, right now it is the BJP which is timid. ``The BJP's legacy is our weapon state status, but they're resting on their laurels and they don't want to take any initiatives,'' he said. The next government, whether led by Congress or BJP, ``is going to be led by a younger generation of politicians and they are going to be more hawkish.''


U.S. CONFIRMS IT HAS INTELLIGENCE POINTING TO DAE PLANNING ARMS TESTS
Mark Hibbs, Bonn

04/14/2003

U.S. government agencies last year obtained information prompting the conclusion that all three organizations responsible for India's nuclear weapons program have requested authorization from the central government in New Delhi to carry out another series of nuclear tests, U.S. government officials confirmed last week.

Last month, Indian defense officials told NuclearFuel the Indian government had learned through back-channel diplomatic sources that the U.S. had informed other Western governments that India's Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC), and the Defense Research & Development Organization (DRDO) had asked Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to allow them to test three nuclear devices (NF, 24 March, 3).

U.S. officials said last week that account was correct. They said that about six months ago, the Indian organizations filed a request with Vajpayee to conduct fresh nuclear weapons tests, the first since India tested five devices May 11, 1998. The officials said that, in their view, the permission to test was handed up to the prime minister's office at a time when Indo-Pakistani saber-rattling and tension over Kashmir had flared up, with leaders and politicians in each country asserting that their respective state would win a military conflict in which nuclear weapons might or could be used.
Indian defense sources, however, denied that bilateral tension between India and Pakistan had anything to do with the move by India's nuclear program directors to ask for more nuclear weapons tests. ``The U.S. seems to think that the only reason we want to move this program forward is in reaction to what goes on on our border with Pakistan,'' one expert close to Vajpayee said. ``They couldn't be more wrong.'' Instead, Indian sources said, India must test more nuclear devices because experts need to confirm the reliability of a thermonuclear bomb design that was first tested in 1998. India seeks to have an H-bomb with a confirmed yield of between 160 and 200 kilotons (KT), they said. According to DAE and BARC, the 1998 test produced a yield of just over 40 KT. U.S. government laboratory analysts, however, nearly immediately disputed that claim, and a former head of DAE, whose H-bomb team was tasked to build a thermonuclear weapon during the 1980s, has also asserted that the 1998 H-bomb test did not ignite all the fuel in the secondary stage of the device.

Indian defense sources said last month that, for strategic deterrence reasons related to India's rivalry with China, new tests must be carried out to develop a nuclear-capable payload of at least 160 KT for the Agni-4 missile. A week later, Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes announced that India would this year conduct a test of the Agni-3 missile. In Indian media interviews, Fernandes would not say when the Agni-3 test would be conducted. But defense sources told NuclearFuel that, unless the test is carried out before the end of this month, the next likely date would be in September. Indian officials said that, while DAE, BARC, and DRDO have urged the government to allow them to test again, fresh tests may not be technically required for several years at least, since Agni-4 is in early stages of development. But according to U.S. officials, it was not a coincidence that the nuclear weapons program planners requested the permission last fall to test. The officials said DAE is apparently convinced that the U.S. would first object to fresh Indian tests as an obstacle to ties between the two countries, and then would brush off the issue after two or three years. The officials said DAE's view is based on U.S. official diplomatic behavior since the 1998 tests and U.S. courting of India in its
war on global terrorism.

India has taken note of growing interest in the U.S. government for warmer overall ties to New Delhi and greater bilateral nuclear cooperation, despite deep opposition to such a development by nonproliferation officials in the Department of State. Western officials surmise that India may believe it prudent to carry out any further tests sooner rather than later, since currently Indo-U.S. nuclear cooperation is limited to a program for nuclear safety work between the U.S. NRC and India's Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. ``If we test now there wouldn't be any serious damage'' to existing U.S.-Indian nuclear ties, one Indian expert said. Concurred a U.S. official, ``They might as well test now because, if they wait, the potential damage would be greater should they miscalculate'' and the U.S. were to halt cooperation that developed after then-NRC chairman Richard Meserve visited India in February. This source surmised that India is now betting that any U.S. sanctions that could be imposed on India after new tests ``would be lifted in about two or three years,'' given how Washington responded to the 1998 tests.

U.S. bilateral nuclear cooperation was shelved immediately after the 1998 tests were conducted. During his visit this year, Meserve restored cooperative programs and added two more issues to the Indo-U.S. nuclear agenda that had been sought by India. Meserve also largely ignored the advice of State Department nonproliferation officials who had urged him
not to visit the Cirus and Dhruva research reactors at BARC. Those reactors, which Meserve visited Feb. 25, produced most of the weapons-grade plutonium used by DAE during the 1998 tests as well as India's initial test in 1974.


{Edited to put two news reports in proper sequence}
Last edited by Arun_S on 22 Jul 2007 00:00, edited 1 time in total.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1015
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Postby Rishirishi » 21 Jul 2007 23:54

How much damage can a 10kt bomb do? Is it sufficient to take out a city the size of Delhi or Chennai?

Just wondering

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Postby vnadendla » 22 Jul 2007 00:02

SaiK wrote:boss log. we don't care if pakis align with iran or iraq.. nothing worse than their existing alignment, i.e, china and america itself.

what we are interested is both oil and nuclear security. we need oil from any middle eastern country that is willing to supply us at a decent price., be it iran or iraq or saudies. it is important for us not to antagonize them just for the sake of american interests.

can we ask americans to back off from pakistan, saudies, kuwait, and other source of oil for them? ask them to bug off!. give respect to equal values here.

dealing with us, is not going to be like dealing with any other non-p5 members. < /period >. this has to be nailed.. like it or not.


Guys am I listening right - Align with Iran over US because Iran has oil and is next to Pakistan? Even without Nuke deal this is not in our best interests. I will choose US over Iran because I want to pick the more powerful, richer and most likely winner. Why do we need to side with losing side? Didn't we pay once for siding with USSR. This is not a movie where its nice to side with underdog. In real world you place odds on likely winners.

Nrao - This belongs in this thread since this is part of nuke deal.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1015
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Postby Rishirishi » 22 Jul 2007 00:13

I answer my own question.

Here is a calculator

http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?for ... tentId=367


Seems that a 30KT bomb will only case 6-7 km diameter destruction. A furter 3-4 km may face moderate destruction.

Basically if India gate was hit, Chandhi Red fort would probably face only moderate damages.

So yes, India requires at leat 200kt weapons. 1 MT to be on the sure side.

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

Postby John Snow » 22 Jul 2007 00:27

so in one shot of ball less MMS is not only castrated India but also sold India

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

Postby Sanjay M » 22 Jul 2007 00:35

Iran combining with Pak would cause the Wahabbis heartburn, since they don't like Shia heretics. Also, we're forgetting that Saudi is a key financier for Pak, and there's no way that Saudi likes Iran.

Pak moves closer to Iran at the expense of ties with Saudi. I would say that Pak has more to lose from that than it gains.

There's no way that Pak can move out of the US orbit, which is what would be required for serious ties with Iran. Whatever accommodation India and US come to on Iran, the Pakistanis would have to accept.

Nextly, it doesn't seem at all likely that the US will accept Iran going nuclear. So they are going to hit Iran next. It would be best for India if the US achieves regime-change against the Tehran mullahs, because limited raids will just create an angry wounded tiger which will lash out far and wide. Oil supplies would be disrupted, which would raise prices and make our lives more difficult.

I would also worry at that point about what stuntsmanship the US would have to resort to, in order to keep the US-Pak alliance afloat. The Muslim masses would be protesting in the streets at any attack on Iran, and any Pak govt will look shaky in front of that. US might feel inclined to give Pak all sorts of goodies, as it becomes a new frontline state in the war on Iran.

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 663
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Postby milindc » 22 Jul 2007 00:53

Unless, Grover (AK's point man), Menon, MKN and other negotiators all collude to sell out, no point raising our BP. Remember even AK is in the background. If they really wanted to sell out, they could have simply asked him to be India.

I know the critics will state they took him to maintain the facade of sci-com acceptance, but I tend to think otherwise. I have yet to see Babus sell India down the drain, unlike political leaders. This is all Babu show, so hold your breath.

Menon, couple of weeks ago stated that the agreement can be done if they accept India's demands.

Also, if you consider the current Geo-Political scenario (China rise, US Dollar held hostage by China, Iraq Mess, Iran's Nuke program ) they simply don't have choice but to include us in their camp.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35979
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 22 Jul 2007 01:07

This issue is not about siding with poor or the rich, powerful or countering the terrorists here. Its all about inter linking of not required and point of interests of american policies and giving into those in the form of writing into these documents.

We may choose wage a war against china or pakis or even iran that is entirely not strategic to this deal. Writing down our support to american policies against Iran could come in entirely different deal or discussion point.. but it can't be a qualifier to indo-us civilian nuclear deal.

If that is the case, we can write down many other things strategic to our requirements.. and that we don't and would never do it.

Just remove Iran word or anything that shows we are bootlickers. MMS team has to understand this very clearly.

---

w.r.t to SPM on FBR, what ever special that may be can't come at a cost lesser than generating electricity using thermal and natural gas. That would increase .. or govt should guarantee enough interests for plans that BARC has charted, with dedicated facilities, under increased defence budget. Rather that money going into pockets of Boeing, it could rather be shared by HAL and BARC, et al.

There is a serious interest shown without even seeing the RFP, means they are out to thrust on us to accept the deal on cr@ppy carrots. Speculating, I think we have postponed discussing about reprocessing, but in general @merica agreeing to reprocessing that 'd be discussed at a later stage.. but, its important not to put in an abstract word like "intl inspection is mandatory for all civilian sites", unless we are clear about the SPM, and how the SPM measures to ensuring the AThwRs and ADS, and CHTRs happen with Pus coming from Russian missiles or reprocessed spent fuel.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 22 Jul 2007 01:08

AK is nobodys toy. If he fears a sell out or sees it, the Indian Scicom will speak up. They have in the past, they will in the future.
Gents, I have had occasion to interact with diverse people who have served India in various disciplines. They may be poorly paid, may be mocked by our elite DDM and some of the more immature IT-Vity crowd and others with an import fetish, but these chaps will not back down from a fight, if they feel India has been shortchanged. Their silence and diffidence is often mistaken for weakness, its not. They always speak up when the national interest is at stake. If AK was at the negotiations, and they went through, that is positive news.

vnadendla
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 09 Mar 2006 00:40
Location: USA

Re: Why this chest beating

Postby vnadendla » 22 Jul 2007 01:13

NRao wrote:
I am very surprised that you treat the M/MRCA so lightly. The AESA tech is equivalent to testing or reproc in nukes.



To be powerful you have to make your planes. Buying them only gives reflected glory. That said I don't take MRCA lightly. I just look at it as a necessary stop gap 10 B $ deal. If we can use it to gain some larger objective good!!!!! And NPT +1 (whatever one may say it is that) is a good objective


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest