Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 25 Jul 2007

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

Post by rocky »

John Snow wrote:We need 850 warheads of all (assorted) kinds to take care of any situation.
In correct. The number of warheads you come up with can deal with the current situation. The future ... not.

Otherwise why would the USA or Soviet Union move from a few nuclear devices to ten thousands of them within a decade!
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

R,

Testing and it's old consequences will remain the same - that is true.

What needs to be answered is what happens to the US hardware - does THAT have to be returned and then what happens to the fuel supply.

It is a huge financial risk if India is expected to even stop the US supplied reactors, etc, leave alone returning them.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

IMHO, there is another misconception: that other nations will make better deals with India. Never will happen. Not even Russia or France will enter a deal that they cannot control events in India (even in AC industry they will never make India better than them).
Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Post by Rangudu »

NRao wrote:R,

Testing and it's old consequences will remain the same - that is true.

What needs to be answered is what happens to the US hardware - does THAT have to be returned and then what happens to the fuel supply.

It is a huge financial risk if India is expected to even stop the US supplied reactors, etc, leave alone returning them.
The US has still not asked for nor expects to get the spent fuel from Tarapur 33 years after Pokhran-1.

If India was to test, what will likely happen is that some mid level US NPA is going to ask India for the stuff back. Things will drag on and based on the political context of the time.

Do you think the Americans are going to send a Marine Expeditionary Unit to extract their supplied stuff should India test?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Do you think the Americans are going to send a Marine Expeditionary Unit to extract their supplied stuff should India test?
Some NPAs may ask for that.

However, it is not the US that I do not trust - they are behaving - so far - very predictably.

It is the Indians that I do nto trust. I can see some yahoo say that we signed a treaty, so shut down the reactors. They will remain shut down for eons. At a cost of Billions of dollars.

Check next post and let me know.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

There is a separation plan in place and everyone seems to be happy enough to accept it today. So, forget the military side of the equation (for a minute).

What I feel India should do is buy just enough foreign (NOT US) reactors to tide over. At the same time build her own designed reactors galore and when the critical mass of Indian designed reactors is reached shut down the Phoren ones.

Can India do that? Is this technically (not politically or financially) feasible?
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Post by Sanjay M »

Rangudu wrote: Do you think the Americans are going to send a Marine Expeditionary Unit to extract their supplied stuff should India test?
No, they'll send Sonia, Monmohan and Pratibha to do it. Why do it yourself when you can hire somebody?

When 1948 Kashmir War was going on, Vallabhai Patel wanted to halt Indian treasury payments to the fledgling Pakistan, to punish their perfidy. Pak didn't have to send any marine expeditionary force to obtain the resumption of money transfers. Our own Gandhi served as the expeditionary force.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

Calvin wrote:Estimating 5 kg/WGP per weapon, including scrap etc, India presently produces 30 - 40 kg (6 - 8 weapons per year). By 2010, that number is estimated to rise to 150 kg per year (30 weapons per year).

http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/talk2 ... nceton.pdf
Adding the production of Dhruva and the unsafeguarded PHWRs, Ayatollahs MV Ramana and F Von Hippel estimate 200 kg (40 weapons) per year.

An arsenal of ~550 weapons by 2020 ?
Last edited by Gerard on 28 Jul 2007 22:33, edited 1 time in total.
rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Post by rgsrini »

Otherwise why would the USA or Soviet Union move from a few nuclear devices to ten thousands of them within a decade!
We have to learn from others stupid mistakes otherwise we will be condemned to learn from ours.
nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Post by nkumar »

Shourie: Centre misleading us
New Delhi, July 28: Only a careful study of the text of the 123 agreement would ascertain whether national security adviser M.K. Narayanan and the other Indian negotiators were indulging in "verbal camouflage", or whether there was a "substantive gain" for India from the nuclear deal with the US, according to a BJP leader.

Rajya Sabha member and former Union minister Arun Shourie on Saturday said the UPA government’s claim that the 123 agreement does not contain any reference to detonation or testing was "completely misleading" because in the event of cessation of cooperation, each country will be governed by its national laws, which meant that the US will continue to be governed by the Hyde Act and the US Atomic Energy Act.

He told this newspaper: "Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [told Parliament] about [India’s] unfettered right to build a fuel reserve. He had said India will be able to buy more fuel to stock. I had then pointed out that the Obama Amendment allowed only so much fuel as was required for operating a plant, so there was no question of reserves. So does the government now say it can build up a fuel reserve?"

Mr Shourie said there was no disagreement in the BJP on its opposition to the nuclear deal and the BJP will want to study the text of the 123 agreement when it is made available to it. "These are serious matters ... [let the] text come up and [let] all study [it] and not be misled by the spin [given by the government]," he said in response to a question.

The US daily Washington Times has quoted anonymous Congressional officials, who were briefed by state department officials, as suggesting that the 123 agreement was deliberately written in a way that can be interpreted differently by India and the US. "The way the Indians are reading it is not correct from the administration’s point of view," an official told the newspaper. "The idea that the Indians will test, and we’ll help others circumvent our laws to send them fuel, is ridiculous," the official added.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

NRao wrote:For those who thought this a serious deal, here is the first disagreement between the to be signatories of this deal.

Nuke test will spike deal: US



India will accept it.

The US Congress will accept it.

The US is where it always was.

On the Indian side "it" will only add more confusion. More importantly, I do not think current Indian leadership will have the guts to take action with this deal in place as compared to when there was no deal.


Burns talks about four-Five years for this deal to hold before some provisions from the US is invoked. From his talk they are balancing the international law to how much they can accept.


http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2007/89559.htm

On-The-Record Briefing on the Status of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative and the Text of the Bilateral Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation (123 Agreement)

R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Washington, DC
July 27, 2007

What I presume will happen over the next four or five years is that we'll go full speed ahead with India and the United States. If, in the future, some hypothetical situation arises that should knock that off course, then we have the legal protection that the Hyde Act demands and that American law demands.
Last edited by svinayak on 29 Jul 2007 00:12, edited 1 time in total.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Rangudu wrote:Let's assume this deal were not there. Does anyone think that the consequences of an Indian n-test is going to be sweet and honey?

It does not matter what laws or treaties exist. The consequences of India's n-test is always going to be more affected by India's political relationship with the US and other powers thant it is by "rules."
That is why n-test must be completed before bilateral trade increases to $100-300B over next decades and India's engagement with the rest of the world reaches its peak. This is common sense.

"The idea that the Indians will test, and we’ll help others circumvent our laws to send them fuel, is ridiculous," the official added
.
Last edited by svinayak on 28 Jul 2007 23:46, edited 2 times in total.
milindc
BRFite
Posts: 740
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Post by milindc »

Acharya wrote:
Rangudu wrote:Let's assume this deal were not there. Does anyone think that the consequences of an Indian n-test is going to be sweet and honey?

It does not matter what laws or treaties exist. The consequences of India's n-test is always going to be more affected by India's political relationship with the US and other powers thant it is by "rules."
That is why n-test must be completed before bilateral trade increases to $100-300B over next decades and India's engagement with the rest of the world reaches its peak. This is common sense.
I believe the opposite should be logical. Test after India's engagement has reached peak. What will they do, stop the mutually beneficial engagement.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

milindc wrote:

I believe the opposite should be logical. Test after India's engagement has reached peak. What will they do, stop the mutually beneficial engagement.
Will they allow India to grow if India is hesitating?
milindc
BRFite
Posts: 740
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Post by milindc »

NRao wrote:R,

Testing and it's old consequences will remain the same - that is true.

What needs to be answered is what happens to the US hardware - does THAT have to be returned and then what happens to the fuel supply.

It is a huge financial risk if India is expected to even stop the US supplied reactors, etc, leave alone returning them.
You mitigate the risk by requesting that US based companies invest in the reactors and supply electricity. This should be definitely different than Enron where majority of the funds were borrowed from Indian Financial Institutions. It also depends on the strategic fuel reserve we built to handle this scenario.

Let's wait on the of document review, to figure out how they handled the text around perpetual fuel supply for perpetual safeguards.

The bottom line is that if we are afraid of testing b'cos we might break some treaty, then we shouldn't be in business of possessing nukes.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Neshant »

Why don't they just test it now.

I don't see how its possible to build an arsenal of n-weapons based on one questionable H-bomb test which nobody is even sure succeeded.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

milindc wrote:
The bottom line is that if we are afraid of testing b'cos we might break some treaty then we shouldn't be business of possessing nukes.
Please repeat this again
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

The more Indian politicians claim they have got it!.. the more yankess says they have our balls in their hands. The language is everything.. No logical conclusion can be met satisfying our demands nor their demands keeping a stance currently taken by both the countries.

How in the world, one could keep on assuming and creating all sorts of hulla-bulla I can't understand. I don't think Indian democracy will allow anymore what this govt and US govt is trying to take us for a ride. Its time for them throw open to public what the bloody heck they were doing all this while.

People in democracy are the final bosses for these men. They can't just keep on hiding and hyding. Lets start a movement asking the govt to show us the deal as is.

Let them not interpret and misinterpret anymore.. lets take that as public responsibilities., and save the stock market dealers making money till the deal is kept secret. there is a conspiracy from that angle.

"show us the deal" should be the caption for our campaign.
rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Post by rocky »

Acharya wrote:Will they allow India to grow if India is hesitating?
Who cares if anybody allows or not?
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Gerard wrote:
Calvin wrote:Estimating 5 kg/WGP per weapon, including scrap etc, India presently produces 30 - 40 kg (6 - 8 weapons per year). By 2010, that number is estimated to rise to 150 kg per year (30 weapons per year).

http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/talk2 ... nceton.pdf
Adding the production of Dhruva and the unsafeguarded PHWRs, Ayatollahs MV Ramana and F Von Hippel estimate 200 kg (40 weapons) per year.

An arsenal of ~550 weapons by 2020 ?
Wake up gents. What wodoo science says that PHWR are incapable of geenrating Weapon Grade Pu? Must be a new psudo science taught at Montray NPA Academy.

Pls see following report at India Research Foundation
Impact of Indo-US Agreement on Indian Strategic Weapon program
Current Indian PHWR reactors that are outside IAEA safeguard annually require 116 tonnes of natural-uranium when operated in a mode optimized for power generation. When operated in a mode optimized to generate weapon-grade Plutonium they require just 747 tonnes of natural-uranium annually, in the process they generate 745 Kg weapon grade Plutonium, which is enough for 248 nuclear weapons per year
This report was written when Tarapur-3 was not yet online, so add 394 kg/year of WgPu if fully operated in low burn mode.

Look at the tabe at the end.
If one considers only 12 current reactors that will remain in military mode after seperation they generate Recator Grade Pu @ 1,453Kg/year for FBR & AHWR. However when operated fully for low burn to generate Weapon Grade Pu it can generate 2,500Kg/year. Now if we wish we can use for another 5 years the other 4 operational rectors of Rawatbhata and Kaiga that wil eventually be seperated and assigned to civilian pool under safeguard.

Ayatollahs MV Ramana and F Von Hippel can drown in their black-magic estimate of 200 kg when they consider just 395kg of Tarapur-3 in their highly scintific anal-asys(sic) much less thousands of Kg RgPu or WgPu India is making today from its all operational non-IAEA reactors.

Princeton Univ is made toilet by such eminent NP Ayutullahas :twisted:
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

The bottom line is that if we are afraid of testing b'cos we might break some treaty, then we shouldn't be in business of possessing nukes.
Is there such a treaty that India has signed?

It is not the military side that will shackle India, it is the civilian side - IF at all.

My argument is, why would even that bother India? It is not to poke fun at anyone, but I think the US and all need India a lot more than India needs them. And, if India were to be responsible enough, there should be no fear at all.
milindc
BRFite
Posts: 740
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Post by milindc »

Acharya wrote:
milindc wrote:

I believe the opposite should be logical. Test after India's engagement has reached peak. What will they do, stop the mutually beneficial engagement.
Will they allow India to grow if India is hesitating?
It's in no one's interest to help us grow and never was.
Who wants to test now, except us Jingos. Is the scicom ok with the Pok-II tests? If we need to test, then we need to test. Lets suffer the consequences at a later date when we are ready to test. Based on the current growth trajectory we are better off testing in future.

NPA supported COTUS folks are in knots and don't know what to do apart from bitch/whine and try to pick some scraps with some unpleasing quotes. It similar to the whining one hears, when u hit the barking street dog...

Don't let quotes from Markey's staffer affect us.. Just make sure u rub salt on their wounds .. (of course with curry powder)
btw, there was a VDM moron in Burns's briefing who went on bitching about India's relation with Iran and how US is rewarding India's transgressions . He went on with his tirade because the briefing was on record.
I chuckled just thinking about the moron's BP level.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

The bottom line is
India is a Nuclear Weapons State.

Has been.

IF they do not want to acknowledge that fact, then let them dismantle what they have built.

My gut feel is that the Bush admin wanted a half way solution to this fact and came up with this half backed solution.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

The Tellis paper

Atoms for War?: U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India’s Nuclear Arsenal

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/ ... final4.pdf
gives good background on PHWR refuelling etc.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Question: What happens to the "sovereign" right to decide, which reactors are "civilian", once FMCT is in place?

Will not the US argue that since a fissile cutoff has been decided upon, all reactors should be civilian and hence under perpetual safeguards?
nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Post by nkumar »

Same facts, two fact-sheets

Here is an example how the governments are trying to sell the deal to their respective countries.

[quote]
New Delhi: On the surface, India and the United States choreographed the “outingâ€
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

ShauryaT wrote:Question: What happens to the "sovereign" right to decide, which reactors are "civilian", once FMCT is in place?
Once FMCT is in place, there are NO military production reactors.

FMCT is a cutoff treaty.. the only fissile material produced is that for civil power. The only weapon grade material produced will be for military naval reactors (HEU for submarines).
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

Rangudu wrote:Let's assume this deal were not there. Does anyone think that the consequences of an Indian n-test is going to be sweet and honey?
C'mon R'man you have to be kidding. Obviously the consequences of a N-test with tens of billions (even a few will do!) locked up in power reactors that are *useless* without fuel is > than the consequences without the same!

Surely one cant ignore this?!
It does not matter what laws or treaties exist.
It matters 4000% as India always sticks scrupulously to the law on account of its desire to be squeaky clean.
The consequences of India's n-test is always going to be more affected by India's political relationship with the US and other powers thant it is by "rules."
Our relation will be affected if the US gets more economic leverage.
Locked