Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 22 Jul 2007

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 22 Jul 2007 22:07

Gerard wrote:
Indeed .. once the US has to take back everything not just new fuel rods or reactor control equipment.. the concrete, the spent fuel, the works...
While the details of how radioactive concrete containment shields can be shipped back to the US is being worked out, India can reprocess the spent fuel as a safety measure...

I do not think US will take back everything. If I remember correctly, the problem in Tarapore is that the US did not allow India to reprocess the spent fuel, nor would it allow us to return it back to the US. As a result we have a huge radioactive storage problem with no end in sight. And this was done against the agreement that we thought we had.
Gautam

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 22 Jul 2007 22:10

All said and done to test or not all depends ont the political and economic strength at that time

nothing can be more correct but the point is as of today that particular strength is sadly missing in our political leadership

We have agreed US can take back everything if we test another weapon

which implies we are not going to test another weapon for the duration of the agreement safeguards which is in fact perpetuity

So while the other nuke states test and perfect more reliable more potent more powerful weapon stockpile we indians risk our entire nuclear power pro gramme even if we think of testing a single device just to make sure it works when required ou cannot have a viable nuclear weapon credibility if you cannot even preserve your right to test let alone use .

In one smart stroke bush/condi have neutered our potent weapons pro gramme in the eyes of the world in the name of economic groth and energy security

in one stroke we have been reduced from an independent nuclear weapon state acknowledged or not to a a state with an ambiguous nuclear weapon state like south africa despite our entire nuclear weapons pro gramme is our very own

It is time to push open the debate on a national level thru media so that common people on the streets know the long term consequences of this great indian sell out

This is a cap on our nuclear weapons programme clear and simply -try to justify it any way you want .Y

menon · Post by **menon** » 22 Jul 2007 22:17

g.sarkar wrote:
Gerard wrote: I do not think US will take back everything. If I remember correctly, the problem in Tarapore is that the US did not allow India to reprocess the spent fuel, nor would it allow us to return it back to the US. As a result we have a huge radioactive storage problem with no end in sight. And this was done against the agreement that we thought we had.
Gautam

Thats because of our political dadas' servile attitude to white goons.

nkumar · Post by **nkumar** » 22 Jul 2007 22:19

Shankar, take it easy at the moment, let the details emerge.

I think deal if settled as it has been portrayed in the media, then it is a good one because in China tests [Pak will never test unless India tests], then we should test not one but 5 or whatever designs are to be tested, it will be a good excuse for us to test. And the deal does mention about a waiver by US president if we test in the deteriorating geopolitical scenario.

Another thing, with so much investment to be made in India in the next 10 years, sanctions will not stand nor will the deal be called off.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 22 Jul 2007 22:29

It seems to me that the only sensibel thing to do is to conduct tests before this N-deal becomes law.

That way the sanctions etc codified in the treaty would have yet to come into force, no?

IIRC, there're domestic US law provisions that would kick in at once should we test. That maybe why we're not going this route.

The only other 'material change' in our security environs that could force us to test which I see (apart from PRC/TSP testing) is an open test by Iran. Wonder if DC not to mention Tel Aviv will allow things to drift that far though.

JMTs etc.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 22 Jul 2007 22:50

Arun:

Rishirishi where did the 25kt device come from? any reference?

Joey: Please see Weapons Options in BR Agni Page

The Thermonuclear weapon's second stage Fusion yield is reportedly 23kt (from fusion of 400gm of LiD fuel), this stage generates High Energy neutron (14Mev and 2.54MeV) that are used to fission the third stage of the weapon which cinsist of issile material like U238 (sic), U235, Pu239, U233 etc etc) (S-1 did not have fissile 3rd stage material to limit the yield).

The 23kt fusion neutrons allows the weapon designers to build a range of third stage yield by use suitable thickness of either depleted Uranium, or moderately enriched Uranium or Pu (this is fundamental nuclear physics property) for the second stage tamper and surrounding radiation case.

A one through use (as against addition yield from regenerative fission) of these high energy neutron can generate additional tertiary yield of 170 -230kt depending on choice of material and thickness of the material (that determines mass of the pkg) within the approx 250kg package weight. If one considers use of highly enriched material for 3rd stage the regenerative effect will increase the 3rd stage yield significantly higher. BTW as Dr Chidambram and others have hinted Indian TN's are designed to be of adjustable 3rd stage yield.

From the 3rd stage yield above Indian TN yield can safely be stated as adjustable from 45kt to 330kt.

Thanks for the post.

But according the independant comentators, the second stage failed to ignite, during the 98 tests. Would really appreciate if you could comment on this.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 22 Jul 2007 23:05

We have agreed US can take back everything if we test another weapon

which implies we are not going to test another weapon for the duration of the agreement safeguards which is in fact perpetuity

Even if we got an agreament that US will not take back bla bla bla bla, then it still can pose economic sanctions on India, when ever it suits its interests-. Be it Nuclear or economical or political.

Also we should dare to think of an world, that depends on India, just as much as India depends on US, China etc. If India within 15 years has a large nuclear Industry, has the thorium reactors in place and an economy larger then Germany, then the very question on sactions become irralevant.

The thing that maters most now is to somehow meet the demand for the growing economy. Without a large economy, India has no leverage

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2007 23:12

Rishirishi wrote:Arun:

Rishirishi where did the 25kt device come from? any reference?

Joey: Please see Weapons Options in BR Agni Page

The Thermonuclear weapon's second stage Fusion yield is reportedly 23kt (from fusion of 400gm of LiD fuel), this stage generates High Energy neutron (14Mev and 2.54MeV) that are used to fission the third stage of the weapon which cinsist of issile material like U238 (sic), U235, Pu239, U233 etc etc) (S-1 did not have fissile 3rd stage material to limit the yield).

The 23kt fusion neutrons allows the weapon designers to build a range of third stage yield by use suitable thickness of either depleted Uranium, or moderately enriched Uranium or Pu (this is fundamental nuclear physics property) for the second stage tamper and surrounding radiation case.

A one through use (as against addition yield from regenerative fission) of these high energy neutron can generate additional tertiary yield of 170 -230kt depending on choice of material and thickness of the material (that determines mass of the pkg) within the approx 250kg package weight. If one considers use of highly enriched material for 3rd stage the regenerative effect will increase the 3rd stage yield significantly higher. BTW as Dr Chidambram and others have hinted Indian TN's are designed to be of adjustable 3rd stage yield.

From the 3rd stage yield above Indian TN yield can safely be stated as adjustable from 45kt to 330kt.
Thanks for the post.

But according the independent commentators, the second stage failed to ignite, during the 98 tests. Would really appreciate if you could comment on this.

Rishi^2, It would help to read the many BRM articles on the subject. Pray tell if the second stage gave 23kt of fusion how did it fail to ignite?

The perception is due to not knowing what was really tested. RC tested the primary and secy in S-I. The full yield was not proofed due to many factors which have been enumerated many times by AK & RC.

jerry · Post by **jerry** » 23 Jul 2007 00:39

nothing can be more correct but the point is as of today that particular strength is sadly missing in our political leadership

I believe MMS has already said in parliment that the option to test will remain open to future gov. Btw what stops any future gov. to show 'Balls',nessecity just like BJP did and test.

which implies we are not going to test another weapon for the duration of
the agreement safeguards which is in fact perpetuity.

Do we want to get into an arms race like us ussr or hv limited deterent.

in one stroke we have been reduced from an independent nuclear weapon state acknowledged or not to a a state with an ambiguous nuclear weapon state like south africa despite our entire nuclear weapons pro gramme is our very own

It is time to push open the debate on a national level thru media so that common people on the streets know the long term consequences of this great indian sell out.
Dont worry have curry. Oh wheres GJ & Alok

This is a cap on our nuclear weapons programme clear and simply -try to justify it any way you want.

All that matters is that as AK said he must have unfettered acess to fast breeder programe.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 23 Jul 2007 00:59

ramana wrote:
Rishirishi wrote:Arun:
Thanks for the post.

But according the independent commentators, the second stage failed to ignite, during the 98 tests. Would really appreciate if you could comment on this.
Rishi^2, It would help to read the many BRM articles on the subject. Pray tell if the second stage gave 23kt of fusion how did it fail to ignite?

The perception is due to not knowing what was really tested. RC tested the primary and secy in S-I. The full yield was not proofed due to many factors which have been enumerated many times by AK & RC.

Dear Ramanaji,
I have read all the articles and the forum discussions. Unfortunately, there is still the perception that the boosted fusion 2nd stage partially failed. In the Great Game, the truth does not matter, only the perception does. The Maha Lizard has always been perceived to be more powerful than us, even though it was going through umpteen political unrests and famine that took the life of millions. Today we know, India may have been only marginally behind, economically and militarily during the 60s and 70s when the upteen Lizard nuke explosions were going on. Ultimately, to correct the wrong perception we have to have another series of bums to clear all the doubts once for all. I think the Indian sc community also understands this.
Regards,
Gautam

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2007 01:06

On testing:

Big deal: Both sides happy

While the US reserves the right to cease cooperation in case India conducts a nuclear test, the agreement reportedly sets out benchmarks or conditions under which cooperation would cease. These conditions would be technical in nature, which will make it much more acceptable to Indians still skittish about this particular provision of US law.

And, then:

Besides, the agreement deals in detail with the â€œtermination clauseâ€

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 23 Jul 2007 01:15

the 'deal' includes a push for the MRCA contract of 126 fighter planes which the US wants to sell to India.

In a roundabout way, it will serve as a lesson to Russia, France and others. The first one to broker a nuclear deal with India should win the 126 contract and in this case, it is the US.

After 123, is it turn of 126 jet deal?
http://tinyurl.com/2aadnw

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2007 01:37

There is a saying "Akhalmand ko ishara kafi hain!" and my continuation is "ulloo ko jahapad chahiye!"

While some members are hung up on the yield vield the realist powers have moved beyond that.

Sparsh · Post by **Sparsh** » 23 Jul 2007 01:52

NRao,

Here is that first post to you that I talked about in the last thread:

This talk of there is more to Indo-US relations that the nuclear deal or that this deal is a minor affair in Indo-US relations is all hogwash.

The nuclear part of the nuclear deal happens to be incidental. This deal was an exercise in trust building, a confidence building measure of sorts. There exists a gigantic brick wall of mistrust in American intentions within the national security establishment in Delhi and this deal was a key step in trying to overcome this mistrust. It was a way for the Americans to demonstrate that they were serious when they talked about significantly improving their relations with us and that we could trust them on this. This was a way for the Americans to deposit political capital with us for when we worked with them on common interests as a part of the improved Indo-US relations that they wanted. I know I am bringing up the much maligned trust word again but believe me it is central to this whole exercise.

All the chutyagiri on display in Washington over the last year or so will only serve to reinforce much less overcome that brick wall of mistrust I just mentioned. The credibility and stock of those who advocated closer ties with the US will take a beating and a lot of "I told you so" conversations will happen privately in Delhi. The trust gap that the Americans will face in Delhi will only get wider than what it was before J18/M2 and as such there is no going back to square one on this issue. Don't get me wrong, on the surface Indo-US relations will remain cordial and people will continue to mouth platitudes but below the surface nothing much of substance will happen.

From this point of view, the deal died a long time ago. It was about the process and the end product, not just the end product. Even if the Americans acquiesce to our demand that they deliver what they agreed to in J18/M2, the deal is dead in spirit just because of the headache that we had to go through for what was supposed to be a relatively straightforward trust building exercise. If this is exactly the sort of headache and chutyagiri we will have to face every time we want to do business with the Americans, then is it worth expanding our business with them or paring it down to the bare minimum? You see, this is where that damned trust word comes in.

At this point in time I am not entirely averse to seeing a very public meltdown of the deal with a lot of egg on a lot of faces. What worries me most is the outcome in which the Americans come through and deliver on their promises. That would leave us in a conundrum. The deal is dead in spirit but not yet in flesh. If it stays alive in flesh then that is something the Americans will solely focus on, forget about the trust building aspect of it which was critically important to us, and then proceed to hold that apparent favour they just did over our heads.

As again, this is purely my view of things.

It now seems that we got most if not all that we were looking for in the negotiations.

Even so, I am still not averse to seeing a very public meltdown of the nuclear deal with a lot of egg on a lot of faces. The public and private acrimony and actions that ensue should at least give us a lot of data on the true attitudes towards India in the many factions that vie for power in Washington.

If you have not figured out already from the above, I am one of those who still do not fully trust American attitudes and intentions towards India.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 23 Jul 2007 02:30

It now seems that we got most if not all that we were looking for in the negotiations.

And that's a good thing, no?

Even so, I am still not averse to seeing a very public meltdown of the nuclear deal with a lot of egg on a lot of faces.

If its a good thing, then why want it broken? If its not, how come we got 'most of what we wanted'? If its because we didn't get 'all that we wanted', should we have expected to get everything in a 'tough' negotiation?

The public and private acrimony and actions that ensue should at least give us a lot of data on the true attitudes towards India in the many factions that vie for power in Washington.

If you have not figured out already from the above, I am one of those who still do not fully trust American attitudes and intentions towards India.

Fair enough. And what exactly is 'trust' in the int'l powerbroking mktplace? Its caveat emptor. Do your due diligence and don't blame the other guy because you got shortchanged.

This deal may still die. Anything can change in 2,5,10 yrs. Time will tell. In the meantime, we sign away the N-apartheid. And proceed carefully w.r.t. US flirtations.

Sparsh · Post by **Sparsh** » 23 Jul 2007 02:46

NRao,

You have had a bee up your bonnet about the Hyde act for a long time now. Let me make my views on that clear instead of skirting around it in our back and forth.

You claim you have a source that informs you that the GoI had set aside a lobbying budget for the Hyde act and that to me seems to be the primary reason why you believe MMS and the rest of the political side in the GoI support whatever is contained in the Hyde act and consequently your belief in a sellout from the political side. If you have any other reasons to believe so, please bring them up.

I had once asked you (and Mohan Raju) to go back to MMS's utterances in the RS and see what exactly he had to say about the Hyde act. I don't think you have done that. Anyway, let me reproduce his exact quote:

I had taken up with President Bush our concerns regarding provisions in the two bills. It is clear that if the final product is in its current form, India will have grave difficulties in accepting the bills. US has been left in no doubt as to our position.

That is about as crystal clear as it can get. Note that the bills being referred to are the ones that became the Hyde act and its Senate counterpart. So whom do you expect me to give credence to and believe?

Do I think the GoI had undertaken a lobbying effort in Congress, complete with that budget that you refer to? Yes. They would be foolish not to have one. That's just how business is done in Washington. Does that mean the final product, the Hyde act, was entirely according to the GoI's wishes? Of course not. How naive do you have to be to believe something like that?

I have my own working hypothesis about what happened behind the scenes that led to the Hyde act and afterwards and it does not require any contorted assumptions of a sellout from the political side and a gallant last minute rescue from our herrows on white horses from the scientific side. If you are interested I can elaborate. You also mentioned that you were interested in my conversation with Tellis. That conversation also feeds into my hypothesis. That and some of the stuff that Vijay* has said on the forum.

* - To everyone: For the last time, I am not Vijay. The admins and quite a few others know who Vijay was and they can check with him on this.

bala · Post by **bala** » 23 Jul 2007 03:02

Nuclear talks satisfactory: DAE

The top brass of the Department of Atomic Energy are â€œsatisfiedâ€

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 23 Jul 2007 03:07

K P Nayar's take on what went on behind the scenes. My apologies if posted before:

Behind nuke deal, a spymaster tale

[quote]K.P. NAYAR
Washington, July 22: In the end, it was a case of spy vs. spy.

If M.K. Narayanan, with his 37 years of intelligence work for the Indian government and a further 15 years of advisory role on clandestine activity since his retirement had not met Robert Gates at the Pentagon on July 16, the 123 Agreement to operationalise the Indo-US nuclear deal may have spilled over into another round of negotiations, maybe next month in New Delhi.

Gates, now Americaâ€™s defence secretary, and Narayanan, now national security adviser, have had parallel lives in the shadowy intelligence worlds of their respective countries.

Gates is the only career officer in the history of the Central Intelligence Agency to have risen from an entry-level operative to CIA director. But the two men also had a 17 year-old matter to settle between them.

So they were looking forward to last weekâ€™s meeting to smooth things over and take matters, which were beyond the nuclear deal, forward.

Few people now remember that when Gates arrived in New Delhi in May 1990 from Islamabad as Americaâ€™s â€˜policemanâ€™ to stop what Washington thought was an imminent nuclear war in South Asia, Narayanan was right at the top of the Indian intelligence set up.

He had been chief of the Intelligence Bureau from 1987 to 1990, then headed the Joint Intelligence Committee and again became IB chief in 1991 till his retirement in 1992.

India held the 1990 Gates mission to South Asia â€” and Washingtonâ€™s subsequent claim that it averted a nuclear holocaust as a result of that mission â€” in utter contempt then and continues to do so till this day. But neither Americaâ€™s intelligence community nor its strategic community has been able to live down the reality that India and Pakistan have managed their nuclear balance between them and on their own.

So on Monday, Narayanan appropriately went to the strategic community in Washington within 40 minutes of his arrival here for his first interaction with them since becoming national security adviser three years ago.

For two full hours, he gave them his assessment of the security dimensions in Indiaâ€™s neighbourhood and listened to their response that obviously included the nuclear-armed status on India and Pakistan.

Then he went to see Gates. There was no rancour. At that meeting, according to multiple accounts, the two men built a bond that is only shared by men and women from the cloak and dagger world of spymasters. Bygones were bygones.

Gates was instrumental in arranging the crucial meeting between US vice president Dick Cheney and Narayanan on Thursday, which sent an unmistakable political signal to the American officials connected with the nuclear deal that their mandate was to finalise the 123 Agreement, not to block it further.

Cheney and Gates go back a long time. At the time of his 1990 mission to Islamabad and New Delhi, Gates was deputy national security adviser in father Bushâ€™s White House and Cheney was doing Gatesâ€™ current job.

Gates briefed Cheney soon after he had met Narayanan, giving the vice president a comprehensive account of Narayananâ€™s presentation at the Pentagon meeting. Obviously, the defence secretary had been impressed and the account by Gates made Cheney curious enough to want to know more.

So, when Cheney met the Indian national security adviser, he quickly gave the green signal for the nuclear deal and proceeded to carve up the world between India and the US in his pet neo-conservative fantasy.

India was primarily interested in getting the 123 Agreement past the roadblocks which have held it up for more than a year. But Cheney was interested in what India and the US could do together in Asia with other democracies, such as Japan and Australia and in the volatile areas of the worldâ€™s energy supplies along with â€œgood Muslimsâ€

Sparsh · Post by **Sparsh** » 23 Jul 2007 03:12

NRao,

I forgot to mention this in my last post and don't want to edit it as it is overly long as it is.

What do I think about the Hyde act and J18/M2 and how they relate to the 123 agreement?

Very simply, the Hyde act is inconsequential and irrelevant for us as far as the 123 agreement goes. It is only the 123 agreement that is consequential and relevant for us and it has to be to our satisfaction. If that means going against the Hyde act then I for one am not going to loose any sleep over it. That is entirely America's internal problem and let them loose sleep over it.

The purpose of the Hyde act was to bring local American law in line with J18/M2 and the subsequent 123 agreement. It was not the other way around and it can never be the other way around. If the Americans insist otherwise then there is no point talking to them and we should just stop any negotiations right there until the Americans are willing to relent.

I don't think it is likely that the Hyde act can be rewritten any time soon. But then as long as the 123 agreement is to our satisfaction, I am not worried about it. As I said, it is America's internal problem and let them worry about it. It was they who screwed it up in the first place. Let them sort it out themselves.

And if Congress has a problem with the 123 agreement due to the Hyde act then they are free to vote against it. At least we will know who our friends in Congress are.

bala · Post by **bala** » 23 Jul 2007 03:35

India insisted on refuel for reactorsâ€™ lifetime

â€œAnybody will appreciate that India will not take the risk of spending billions of rupees in importing reactors when there is no guarantee of fuel supply for the life-time of the imported reactors. So we took a very clear position.â€

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 23 Jul 2007 03:39

LEADER ARTICLE: There's Nothing To Fear
K Subrahmanyam

The Indian and US delegations have finalised the draft 123 agreement on civil nuclear cooperation. This has been referred to the respective governments for review. The two delegations decided to treat the matter on a low key; therefore, there was no joint press conference.

It is expected that the draft would come up before the Cabinet Committee on National Security for approval in India and it would go up to the president in the US.

It has taken just two years and two days from July 18, 2005 - the date of the joint statement of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W Bush on enhancement of Indo-US cooperation, including civil nuclear cooperation, at the White House - to finalise the draft.

This is the fastest negotiation on such civil nuclear cooperation. Unlike other countries with which similar agreements were signed, an India-specific legislation was required to be enacted by the two Houses of US Congress to permit this cooperation, since India is not a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and yet is a state with nuclear weapons.

The speed in India's case was due to the initiative of President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and their keenness to complete the process during their term in office.

Although there is an agreed draft, the debate on the agreement is not expected to come to a close. While the exact wording of the different clauses has not yet been made public, there is bound to be speculation on the concessions and accommodations made by either side. Such give-and-take is to be expected in a democracy.

A theoretician on bargains once defined as the best bargain one in which both sides nurse dissatisfaction to some extent but still prefer the outcome to the alternative of not having it. It is too early to say whether the present agreement will fall in that category.

Those who are opposed to this agreement have threatened to abrogate it in the event of a change in government during the next elections.

A sovereign nation has the right to overturn decisions of earlier governments. The US scrapped the anti-ballistic missile treaty after 30 years. President Vladimir Putin is disengaging himself from the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty after 16 years.

Consider India's history. Those who threatened to expose secret clauses in the Indo-Soviet Treaty and Shimla agreement had to accept, after they came to power, that there were no such clauses and our non-alignment was â€˜genuine enough'. So, there is every possibility that those who oppose the 123 agreement today may not find anything objectionable in it when they occupy office.

The crucial issue is satisfying the scientific community. Right through the negotiating process, the Department of Atomic Energy was represented at the additional secretary level and during the final stages by the chairman. There is nothing to indicate that the concerns of DAE were not fully addressed.

Public reports speak of US conceding two key demands of DAE in the final stages of the negotiations - reprocessing and assurance of fuel in case India were to conduct a test.

President John F Kennedy said that a country should never fear to negotiate, nor should it negotiate out of fear. Many in India feared that negotiating with the US would trap India into some unwanted commitment.

Others tended to assume that the country was negotiating out of fear of alienating or antagonising US.

In 60 years of independent India, there has been no instance of its having succumbed to the pressures of another nation. This is not to say that such fears should not be expressed in internal debate. Such debates come handy in scoring debating points in external negotiations.

However, there must be a realistic and balanced assessment of our negotiating strategy and such debating points should not be carried too far.

There can be no denying that some US legislators and officials make provocative and threatening statements on their expectations from India in exchange for what they consider as a generous concession extended to India by way of the nuclear deal.

The impact of these announcements in terms of policymaking is limited. India should learn how to respond to them through appropriate channels. Too much attention was paid to pronouncements by US think tank experts during the debate in the US Congress, only to find that US administration took them all in its stride.

In a sense the 123 agreement marks a new beginning in the relationship between India and US. Neither US nor India has experience in dealing with strategic partners.

US has dealt with allies who have depended on it for their security. Indo-US negotiations are an example of how difficult it is to strike a bargain between two strategic partners. As the two nations enter into the agreement and start implementing it, the true nature of partnership will be put to test.

Despite difficulties, both sides have a basic mutuality of interest to make it work. The US, with no experience in dealing with partners, will not be very easy to deal with. But in a balance-of-power world it is up to India to engage US in a partnership and shape it to accept the new situation.

The wider the range of our engagements with other major powers, the greater will be our ability to engage US.

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 23 Jul 2007 04:11

Sparsh wrote:Very simply, the Hyde act is inconsequential and irrelevant for us as far as the 123 agreement goes. It is only the 123 agreement that is consequential and relevant for us and it has to be to our satisfaction. If that means going against the Hyde act then I for one am not going to loose any sleep over it. That is entirely America's internal problem and let them loose sleep over it.
............
I don't think it is likely that the Hyde act can be rewritten any time soon. But then as long as the 123 agreement is to our satisfaction, I am not worried about it. As I said, it is America's internal problem and let them worry about it. It was they who screwed it up in the first place. Let them sort it out themselves.

Let's see if the agreed 123 draft has the following language, which can be found in the US-China Agreement:

Article 2, Section 1: â€œThe parties recognize, with respect to the observance of this agreement, the principle of international law that provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.â€

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2007 04:11

Sparsh,

It is getting a little tiring.

However:

Here is that first post to you that I talked about in the last thread:

I thought you had a question in there for me in that post.

You claim you have a source that informs you that the GoI had set aside a lobbying budget for the Hyde act and that to me seems to be the primary reason why you believe MMS .....

Nope. There are more - posted

I had once asked you (and Mohan Raju) to go back to MMS's utterances in the RS and see what exactly he had to say about the Hyde act. I don't think you have done that.

No, I did not - did not see any need then and I think I am right. Why? Read my posts.

I have my own working hypothesis about what happened behind the scenes that led to the Hyde act .....

Have you or are you going to post it? Would be interested.

Very simply, the Hyde act is inconsequential and irrelevant for us as far as the 123 agreement goes. It is only the 123 agreement that is consequential and relevant for us and it has to be to our satisfaction...

Somebody forgot to tell Dr. Rice, Burns and Dr. Tellis that. (I went thru' that debate - on BR - in Dev of 2006). (BTW, is this your working hypothesis?)

I don't think it is likely that the Hyde act can be rewritten any time soon. But then as long as the 123 agreement is to our satisfaction, I am not worried about it. As I said, it is America's internal problem and let them worry about it. It was they who screwed it up in the first place. Let them sort it out themselves.

And if Congress has a problem with the 123 agreement due to the Hyde act then they are free to vote against it. At least we will know who our friends in Congress are.

For the most part, I agree.

However, we have gone past that.

I have not entirely read your current posts, they do not make much sense to me and what I have had to say I have stated in my posts. I do not want to repeat myself, specially since the two nations have come to a conclusion. The exception: as an observation - J18 is not met.

ALl the best.

One mor ething: this is a victory for Indian Scicom and not MMS. IMHO of course.

Sparsh · Post by **Sparsh** » 23 Jul 2007 04:26

VSudhir,

From my perspective, the nuclear deal was not just about the final text of the 123 agreement but also the process in which the text came about to be. Look at the past post of mine that I quoted for NRao where I talk about the trust building aspect of the nuclear deal.

This was supposed to be a relatively straightforward transaction with little or no fuss. Thats why I am not averse to seeing the deal melt down and put into cold storage until the time that it can go through as a relatively straightforward transaction with little or no fuss.

Sure, we might have gotten the text of the 123 agreement to our satisfaction but what about the process? What about trust building? Does it help that we had to fight tooth and nail the whole way through? Can we afford to go through this sort of protracted nautanki every single time we want to do business with America or is it just cheaper to reduce our business with them down to the minimum possible? Are the benefits of an expanded relationship with America worth dealing with the sort of underhanded chutyagiri shown over the last year or two?

This is where trust comes in. I know a lot of people here scoff at the idea but they do not really understand the nuances behind that word and what they mean. I can elaborate if you are interested.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 23 Jul 2007 04:33

Sparsh wrote:NRao,

I forgot to mention this in my last post and don't want to edit it as it is overly long as it is.

What do I think about the Hyde act and J18/M2 and how they relate to the 123 agreement?

Very simply, the Hyde act is inconsequential and irrelevant for us as far as the 123 agreement goes. It is only the 123 agreement that is consequential and relevant for us and it has to be to our satisfaction. If that means going against the Hyde act then I for one am not going to loose any sleep over it. That is entirely America's internal problem and let them loose sleep over it..

I differ. The 123 agreement papers are worth nothing if it does not hold integrity with internal US institutions.

Reminds me of "Khota Sikka" and "Fools Gold" Due deligence requires the goods are tested for interigty before trading wares. Like receiving a $1M cheque is meaningless unless I validate with the bank if the cheque is worth the amount written.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2007 04:40

Sparsh,

You are right about "trust". KS nailed it when he said that the US is not used to dealing with a partner (above).

The issue is what does or can India give up - there will be something to give up. Based on what Indian Scicom have stated, MMS was ready to give mor ethan what India should.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 23 Jul 2007 04:40

"You can only cheat those who trust"
Hence Regan added: "Trust but verify",
that is what is Arun guru is saying in desi language to desi vi desi log.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 23 Jul 2007 04:47

http://telegraphindia.com/1070722/asp/n ... 090412.asp

THE TELEGRAPH, JULY 22, 2007

Thank Steve, India almost at N-finish line

JYOTI MALHOTRA

New Delhi, July 21: India is the worldâ€™s sixth nuclear weapons power in all but name.

Over lunch in Washington yesterday, two years and two days after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W. Bush agreed that India and the US would enter into a special, nuclear relationship, the deal was finally done.

With his coalitionâ€™s nominee Pratibha Patil the new President and Hamid Ansari likely to follow soon as Vice-President, the nuclear deal is a big feather in Manmohan Singhâ€™s cap.

Foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon is flying back tonight and the cabinet committee on security will meet over the next week to clear the deal. With that, the US government goes back to its Congress with the text. Itâ€™s enough to make the deal public.

In the end, Delhi got exactly what it has wanted from the beginning: the right to reprocess spent fuel from civilian nuclear reactors, as well as a very delicately worded compromise on fuel assurances from the American side.

Still, when the story of the Indo-US nuclear deal is written, the award for the hero of the hour must go to Bushâ€™s key aide and US national security adviser Steve Hadley.

It was with Hadley that his Indian counterpart M.K. Narayanan has been confabulating for the last many months and to him that Narayanan made the proposal for a separately safeguarded storage facility to reprocess the spent fuel on the eve of the Heilingendamm talks in Germany in early June.

Hadley called Narayanan on Thursday morning and said: â€œOn your way to meeting the Vice-President (Dick Cheney) at 2pm, could you drop by my office please?â€

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2007 05:05

I think there were two mistakes made in this process, one by each side. MMS's statement to the parliament and the US calling India a partner.

enqyoobOLD · Post by **enqyoobOLD** » 23 Jul 2007 05:38

Ok, thanx! Beats trying to read tons of stuff, with my absence of knowledge.

So what I see is:

1. Is there anything that prohibits India from building a stockpile? As far as I can see, there is NOTHING discussed about India's military nuke program, which can become 10 times as big as the civilian, and develop its own fuel cycles using thorium of Pu or Urinium or whateverinium. And can stockpile as much as resources will allow.

I don't see any possibility of a foreign country either selling India nuclear fuel that can be turned into a bomb stockpile. As they say about Smoking in Bed:

The ashes falling on the floor may be your own

so country X would have to be pretty desperate for cash b4 they agree to sell without a condition on disposition of the fuel. The 20% enrichment limit is the condition. (I thought it was that 20% of the fuel could be enriched to 99.9% for making bums, but I c that it means that enrichment level can only reach 20%. Really? Is 20% enriched Uranium any good for anything other than Abdul Inc's Dirty Bum? I thought the stuff had to reach some 85% b4 it could be used in nuke reactors, but that shows how little i know).

Also, no "agreement" is going to spell it out:

India being a SuperPower, we are ALLOWING India to stockpile..

Only question is whether it is specifically PROHIBITED under pain of cancellation of all cooperation.

2. Parallel deal for Pakistan.

We have to quit being paranoid about this. My take is that YES, the US may consider offering some such deal, but as they say:

the ashes falling on the floor may VERY WELL b ur own

However, the US has to face reality - the Lizard will now PROBABLY offer a parallel deal to TSP, to publicize what it has been doing since 1971 at least.

So what should the US do about this? In order of decreasing stupidity:
a. Try to compete with the Chinese in being irresponsible and giving nuclear fuel precisely to those who have to be kept from sticking their hands into it.

b. Refuse to offer such a deal and let China offer such a deal and sell 50 reactors to the Pakis, and then go and give the Pakis $2000,000,000 B to buy these from the Chinese, as baksheesh for being such a Frontlyin' Al-Lie in War on Terror.

c. Do nothing and say

*&^%$^(***

and offer to DELIVER nukes to Islamabad, LaHore and Karachi and most of all, Gujranwala. Using B-52s. From 30,000 ft. With the fuses lit. Unless Pakistan disarms.

I would choose (c), but it remains to b seen what DupliCity Dummies will do. After all, v don't want to disappoint the Islamic World, do v? They are looking forward with such anticipation to getting a few nukes to deliver back to the US...

And yes, I think those 126 fighters are in the pipeline, but expect them to be paid for, at the rate of ... well, same rate as the nuke fuel coming in.

US contractors will still face penalty clauses, I assume, if they withhold nuclear fuel for any reactors that they are contracted to build and help operate. This would be meaningless if the agreement did not spell out conditions in technical detail, but now I hear that they are spelled out.

So again, I am sorry, (no, I am lying

) but I don't give a Pu about this "freedom to test megaton nukes".

It's all very well to use this "freedom" as a bargaining chip, but HAVING to test again is a defeat, and is an admission that the neighborhood is going down the drain, and we have no other clout except the thread of MAD to deal with oul deal neighbols and other nations.

V have discussed this b4, so I won't belabor the point. The age of Megaton CityBuster ICBMs and Strategic Bombers carrying them, is over. There are much swifter, nastier and far less defeatable weapons, and Rs. are better spent on those. So REMOVING the temptation to waste money on building nuclear bums, is a great favor to the Indian defense and scientific establishments.

In short, I don't hear anything to

about here.

Also, it is QUITE true that the net effect of the deal is to do precisely what some of the racist Chinese-paid NPAs were whining most loudly about:

Supplying fuel to Indian civilian reactors will free India to use its domestic resources for military use.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2007 05:56

The deal is a crowning achievement of Sri K.S. Subramanyam. One has to follow the language of discourse since 1968 to understand how much KS worked to square the circle of NPT cutoff date and India both in and out of office.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Jul 2007 05:57

Is 20% enriched Uranium any good for anything other than Abdul Inc's Dirty Bum? I thought the stuff had to reach some 85% b4 it could be used in nuke reactors

Naval reactors use HEU. Commercial LWRs use LEU.

the US has to face reality - the Lizard will now PROBABLY offer a parallel deal to TSP

That is NPA propaganda. They've been using this argument since the beginning. However China itself is buying reactors and fuel from the NSG. It is in no position to defy the NSG cartel and supply Pakistan without requiring full scope safeguards.

Chinese civil nuclear technology is behind India

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/pa ... ctors.html

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2007 06:04

CRamS wrote:
ramana wrote: One big net asset is India is a legitimate nuke weapon state and has all the rights and duties of such a power.

Any speculation on what does the actual text would say about this?

N^3: I'd recall what Uneven said in WP interview. Depending on substance of the concessions India has made, state dept could very well apply the same yardstick to TSP, which it will acquiesce in heartbeat, and do an equal equal by offering them some nuke deal dog bone so as to keep Mush happy. Thus, India's TSP problem will continue, deal or no deal.

CRS, Isn't that a self limiting exercise? If Us wants to give TSP a similar deal its their problem. Its beyond cretin behavior- its like giving petrol to an arsonist. but then Uneven is the expert.

BTW, I have come to the following conclusion-All people have four types- cretin, fool, moron & lunatic. True genius maximizes one aspect while fueling that with the rest.

Uneven is now in his cretin phase.

Sparsh · Post by **Sparsh** » 23 Jul 2007 06:26

NRao,

I have not posted my hypothesis on what I think happened behind the scenes. Here it is:

You remember the complains on our side that a lot of people were not kept in the loop when J18 (and subsequently M2) was originally conceived and negotiated? The same sort of complains were also voiced in the US. The complain was that a very tiny team from the executive branch hatched this thing in total secrecy and did not bother to inform other people in Washington including but not limited to Congress.

I am almost certain the American team from executive branch did not do so as it took Congress for granted. Remember this was the time when Bush was used to a rubber stamp Congress that did pretty much he wanted. They felt that getting this thing through Congress would be likewise a pretty straightforward thing. Our negotiating team was given such assurances and quite naturally they believed them. Recall that Vijay had access to some members of our negotiating team and he said as much.

Similarly, I was given the same impression in my conversation with Ashley Tellis. This conversation occurred in late 2005, after J18 and long before the nautanki in Congress began. I explicitly told him that significant deviations from J18 in the final agreement(s) would be unacceptable to the GoI and that trying to renege on or renegotiate the commitments made in J18 will be a complete deal breaker for the GoI. He completely agreed with this. That gave me the impression that he too did not expect trouble in Congress.

I think that used to its rubber stamp ways, they seriously underestimated the resistance that they would run into in Congress and seriously overestimated their ability to get their way with Congress in this particular matter. Then there was also the matter of the frenzied NPA mullahdom issuing fatwas like there was no tomorrow and raising even more resistance. I think all of this combined together overwhelmed whatever lobbying effort was put together by us and by the executive branch to give us the half baked Hyde act.

That the American team including Tellis now changed their tune to say that the 123 agreement should be along the lines of the Hyde act is a reflection of their thinking that somehow they could renege on their J18/M2 commitments and push that through us and also a reflection of their thinking that they would be unable to push an amended Hyde act through Congress given their spectacular screw-up right then. Thats why I said in one of the earlier posts that this Hyde act mess was an American screw-up and that they should bear the burden of sorting it out. Either that or we walk away.

I think this is the message that the GoI has always conveyed to the Americans. We might live with small acceptable deviations like the separate reprocessing plant but the cost of undoing their screw-up is theirs alone or we have no deal.

Boss, read MMS's direct quote that I gave in my last post to you. He personally told Bush that certain parts of the Hyde act were completely unacceptable to India. How much more proof do you want that MMS et. al. did not support some of the unacceptable parts of the Hyde act? You expect me to believe that MMS was lying to Parliament when he made that quote? I am the one who is getting tired here.

P.S. - I know I haven't replied to one of your previous posts to me on the three reasons why you suspect an intention to sellout from the political side, the one about the NRIs etc. I still think all those three reasons are specious but I think nothing that I could possibly say would convince you otherwise. If you are still interested I could write up a counter argument or we could just let that one slide.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 23 Jul 2007 06:53

Nuclear talks satisfactory
http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/23/stories ... 390100.htm

CHENNAI: The top brass of the Department of Atomic Energy are â€œsatisfiedâ€

Sparsh · Post by **Sparsh** » 23 Jul 2007 07:02

NRao,

I don't think MMS's statements to Parliament were a mistake. Far from it.

What was a mistake was that they were a bit too infrequent, which I suspect is a cause for a lot of angst.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2007 07:09

Well, it ended well in the end. Lets not forget that there were many anxious moments that GOI gave us half informed folks. And they also learned as they went along. The importance of coordination and need to know. The biggest gap was the role of the FBR and the need to keep them on mil side.

The no test clause was also a non starter. Many pro-deal experts didn't understand the nuance of the no test clause or the importance of asserting the right to test even if one doesnt intend to.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2007 07:12

sparsh,

Time to move on. I do not agree with your painting of this picture (for instance, MMS had a budget allocated for this bill, and, GoI was directing NRIs to support the Hyde Act, and, he is also on record thanking the NRI for helping passing the Act. I think it was the Scicom action that made him change his tune.). IMHO there are too many loop holes in your post.

But, thanks.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2007 07:25

Sparsh wrote:NRao,

I don't think MMS's statements to Parliament were a mistake. Far from it.

What was a mistake was that they were a bit too infrequent, which I suspect is a cause for a lot of angst.

OK. Accepted.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Jul 2007 07:27

Nuclear fusion
BY STEPHEN BLANK

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/02/2131793

The most important fact of America's new strategic partnership with India is not just that it recognizes India as a nuclear power, but that it also represents open American acceptance and acknowledgement of India's ambitions to be a great power in Asia. The pact was ratified in December. Signed in principle by President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July 2005, it overturns three decades of sanctions against India and gives India access to U.S. civilian nuclear technology.