Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 01 Aug 2007

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63652
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - 01 Aug 2007

Postby Singha » 01 Aug 2007 12:46

Starting a continuation thread
Previous discussion thread is here -Arun_S (admin hat on}
---------------------------------------------------------

some sobering nos from India Today.
========================

- to sustain 8+ % GDP growth for next 25 yrs we must in this period
quadruple our generation from 1.6 lakh MW to 8 lakh MW. ie. a growth of
around 5.5% per annum for 25 yrs

- current nuclear capacity even if made 20X will still supply only 4.5% of
expected demand in 2030

- energy demands may further increase from current models due to increasing wealth

- we have 95 billion tons of proven coal and 250 billion tons of indicated
reserves but our production is only 350 MT / annum due to antique coal
mines, domination of PSUs and blocking of reforms in this sector

- every hydro project faces major people and enviro objections

- coal is the only and cheapest source to scale up fast but its being
blocked by political interests and unionism. a reform bill is lying dormant
since 2000

- no major oil discovery in last 29 yrs after bombay high

- no pricing model yet for east coast gas , india buys gas at widely
varying rates from all over the place. no clarity means the gas is not
being used today.

we are screwed if the ultra-mega coastal power projects and their
linkages to captive and new mines dont get installed within next few years.
the Coal India type uber-PSUs need to be dismantled and the market
open to pvt mining players which will reduce cost of the product.

Sparsh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 78
Joined: 30 Jan 2007 12:57

Postby Sparsh » 01 Aug 2007 13:00

ShauryaT,

As Arun has pointed out and extensively tabulated, we do not need a FBR to generate weapons grade plutonium in how much ever quantity we could possibly need. The existing PHWRs are sufficient for that. It is useful in augmenting existing capacity but not critical. It is however uniquely useful as an efficient laundry for our reactor grade plutonium stockpile.

Then there is also the question of enriched Uranium. This is a bit problematic as hard info on RMP is difficult to come by.

I think the opposite of civilian should be non-civilian and not military. We are using the military label for both military activity and proprietary research for civilian power generation that we wish to hide from prying eyes. So calling everything military is not accurate.

More on the FMCT later when I have some more free time. In short, I think there are irreconcilable contradictions that make a true FMCT a pipe dream.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 01 Aug 2007 13:05

Singha,

The figures for coal production you use are probably the official figure.

There are indications that actual coal production may be as much as 10 times the official figures.

The rest of the non-reported figures are stolen by the NBJPrie (or some combination thereoff).

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

Postby ksmahesh » 01 Aug 2007 13:18

Ok so we donot need FBR for Wpn but placing them undersafeguard can be sure way of letting unkil et al steal the IPR. However PURELY GOI discretion in deciding the status of Indian reactors gives me more reason to relax.

And as I understand from Singhaji's post that power situation shall be precarious even after having 20X the nuclear energy from today's level. :(

we need to push for Burmese/BD gas (in better way than now). Fund research in alternative energies.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 01 Aug 2007 13:41

Unkil may or may not steal the IPR for the FBRs. But that is only part of the problem. Their real concern regarding the FBRs is to figure out how much fissile material they produce. This is important from the swecurity angle, since it allows the yanks to figure out our bomb making potential.

Now by all accounts, we have enough Pu to make as many bombs we need, even if we consider that only 6 kgs of Pu is needed for a fission bomb or fusion trigger. However, if we consider that actual material required these days is only 1 to 2 kgs, our bomb production potential goes up even higher.

That said, unkil does not how to rest in the battle even after having lost the war. So, they keep trying to prod. Interestingly, our insistance to keep FBR's away from inspections was one of the road blocks some time back. That the Americans gave in to our demand shows that they were more desparate than us. However, it also indicates that the yanks had long given up on making up give up our weapons program. So no CRE issues there.

-------
That the negotiations were stuck on reprocessing was interesting in itself. Kgoan post throws an interesting light that the reason was that the US did not want to let India emerge as an independant reprocessing power.

If that was the crux of the issue, then does our (possible future) dependance on US for nuke equipment mean that they will be able to pressurise us on whom we can reporcess for, etc. The (not-so) subtle pressure is already mounting, if you notice that the yanks have been questioning our ties with Iran, and have been hinting that India's links with Iran are not welcomed in US. Read the WSJ report of today. Also, recall Rice's less than diplomatic comments on India's ties with NAM.

While we may not be in the US camp, the US seems to think so. I hope to gods that we don't select an American fighter in the MRCA. Otherwise, they will have leverage over our strategic options to the point of micro managing it.

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

Postby ksmahesh » 01 Aug 2007 14:08

Very true Abhishek. No doubts yanks will continue to prod but I have full faith in our babudom (which is as nonresponsive as a rock to anything they donot like) to continue their present status. Infact I would love if they go one more step further and keep proding US to agree to those Indian arguments that were sidelined in this deal.

Image

It is us who will decide the status of a reactor. It may be 10 decade before we finally identify the first FBR as civilian. :lol:

We can reprocess for ourselves and loss of commercial opportunities for not being able to reproc for some of unkil's unfriendlies doesnot seem great. This could be another point where we can continue to push for more agreement from our pov.

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

Postby Gerard » 01 Aug 2007 16:16

but placing them undersafeguard can be sure way of letting unkil et al steal the IPR.


Please note how Brazil handled the issue of IPR with respect to their Resende centrifuge plant and the IAEA.


Brazil refuses IAEA access to Resende enrichment plant

The Brazilian government has refused to allow U.N. nuclear inspectors to examine a facility for enriching uranium under construction near Rio de Janeiro, according to Brazilian officials and diplomats in Vienna, home of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Brazil maintains that the facility will produce low-enriched uranium for use in power plants, not the highly enriched material used in nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, Brazil refuses to let IAEA inspectors see equipment in the plant, citing a need to protect proprietary information.

Brazil and IAEA reach agreement in principle on inspections at Resende enrichment plant

"We have been able to reach an agreement in principle with the Brazilian government on a safeguards approach to verify the enrichment facilities in Brazil, at the Resende facility. An approach which will enable us to do credible inspections but at the same time take care of Brazil's need to protect certain commercial sensitivity inside the facility. That approach has been, as I have said, agreed on principle and I expect in the next couple of weeks, to be finalized in a formal way." (IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei in a press briefing on Nov. 25, 2004)


Ayatollah Milhollin is still smarting over this...

Brazil has built a physical screen around its centrifuges at Resende for the express purpose of preventing inspectors from seeing them. Brazil says it has done this to protect its advanced technology from leaking out to competitors.
Brazil contends that the inspectors will be allowed to see everything going into Resende and everything coming out and that that should be sufficient.

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

Postby Gerard » 01 Aug 2007 16:31

Please note that even Ayatollah Gary Milhollin now admits the potential of the PHWRs and the nature of any IAEA inspection regime in a SNW (as opposed to a NNWS)

[quote]Myth #2: India’s agreement to allow 14 of its 22 power reactors to be inspected is a “gain for nonproliferation.â€
Last edited by Gerard on 01 Aug 2007 16:43, edited 2 times in total.

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

Postby ksmahesh » 01 Aug 2007 16:32

Even better. btw the need to put brazilian eshtyle screen arises when we place FBR in civil category. Unkil wil have to wait for looong decades before that may happen and finally when it happens it shall be ala brazil.

I will pay one day's pay to see US e_spy's face when this happens :lol: .

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 01 Aug 2007 16:49

These from Nonprollotullah Mulhollin are Particularly Enlightening Nuclear Informational Statements:

Among the eight reactors off limits to inspectors will be India’s fast breeder reactors, which will generate plutonium particularly suited to bomb-making.


Moi once had a long conversation with some1 hu had spent his entire career in the nuclear technology program of a P-5 nation that shall remain unnamed. Asked him what was the big deal about "breeder" reactors, and whether the reason for their lack of popularity among the ayatollahs was that the amount of waste generated was huge. He said quite the contrary - the reactors ate waste, generated more fuel, and were an excellent idea. BUT... a certain P-5 nation, for reasons best known to those who did it, had decided in the 1960s/70s to shut down the breeder program. There are a couple of very expensive facilities that were built specifically for FBR research, but, he said, even the lights had never been turned on in these bldgs because of said decision.

Hence, most of the "opposition" to FBRs is simply that someone is not doing it, and it may destroy the monopoly on fuel that some ppl may want to perpetuate.

So Mulhollin is doing what NPAs do best - give informed-sounding half-truths.

In addition, the inspections themselves will waste resources. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a limited number of inspectors and is already having trouble meeting its responsibilities. To send inspectors to India on a fool’s errand will mean that they won’t be going to places like Iran, where something may really be amiss.


NOW he tells us - ain't nothing goin' on in India that's "amiss". OK, so what's wrong with cooperating with India? Mulhollin's paymastels may not rike it, eh?

Unless the Agency’s budget is increased to meet the new burden in India, the inspections there will produce a net loss for the world’s non-proliferation effort.


OK, he's trying to get a job with the IAEA PR office, now that the $$ is drying up fast in the NonProllotullah business. I mean, why would the Peopre's Lepubric continue to fund the NPAs now, given that the only possible interest remaining is to focus on China's plorifelation?

Myth #3: India has made other new commitments that will help stop proliferation.

Fact: India made only one new promise under the deal, which is to adhere to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol. The protocol allows for more extensive inspections, but is irrelevant to India because the purpose is to unmask hidden nuclear weapon activities. India, however, has a known nuclear weapon program, so there is nothing to unmask.


OK, so
(a) how does continuation of India's military program then constitute PROLIFERATION? and so what is mythical about this?
(b) other than allowing the Additional Protocol (this is where there will be IAEA Inspectors in every toilet bowl) what else is India supposed to do, to prevent proliferation? Send bombers to Pakistan? Mulhollin is using FOSA/FOIL "logic" here, calling this a "myth".

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 01 Aug 2007 16:57

wow :eek: this thread moves fast.

I better do this before it stops : IB4TL :P

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

Postby NRao » 01 Aug 2007 16:58

Manne wrote:rocky,

Yes, I meant the Basu report. Wasn't sure about the name though I remembered the photo ramana snip-snipped.
Why just recycle amreekee maal? What have our techies done in US? Vinod Khosla et al? Think big, boss.
AK has mentioned in few of his interviews that India will pick up what fits in her overall plan. That means they already know what they want and will look at specific things - components, subsystems and reactor designs. I personally do not have the details but this much is easy to surmise.


AK had also stated 'all or nothing', so where does that fit in into this current picture? AK has always been very selective - he wanted total control all along. I recall DAE stating they need about 8 reactors, so let us see if they get more. Clearly this deal is not just a compromise between the governments, but one between GoI and DAE. AK has fallen in line to some extent.

some sobering nos from India Today


How about losses during transmission? I have heard figures as high as 25%.

What %age is stolen?

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 280
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 01 Aug 2007 17:17

I have some very basic questions,

1. Does Hyde allows India to test incase of supreme national interest is jeopardised?

2. Does Hyde interefered anyway into our mil programme by imposing things like FMCT et al.

3. Does Hyde Act intereferes with our future FBR programme being civilian or millitary?

4. The FBR's Indian made under civilian, which will be under safeguards, Does GOI has comprehensive policy to stop IPR leaks?

5. Does Hyde act prevents us from commericalizing internationally the FBR cycle? What needs to be done to make a GE type company who will sell reactors elsewhere. This is very important.

6. GOI should immediately form a experts bench with nuke guys to formulate a strategy and look into seperation plans, IPR protection, commercialization of our reactors et al.

Somehow I'm not much worried about weapons, but more about how can we make the FBR a commercial success!! with India having the full IPR! because I know we have enough weapons.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 01 Aug 2007 17:31

That said P-5 cuntry which stopped fast breeder work would be the yoonited shtates of umrika onlee.

They are the only ones stopid enought to waste billions of dollars of tax money into a dead, and then try to revive it. Oh, if only they had one Col. Shukla, Pandit, Purefool types. :D

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

Postby Gerard » 01 Aug 2007 17:35

Asked him what was the big deal about "breeder" reactors


The Ayatollahs seem to get their panties in a twist over the supposed ability of breeders to produce "super grade" Pu

Plutonium is classified according to the percentage of the contaminant plutonium-240 that it contains: Super grade 2-3%; Military grade less than 7%; Fuel grade 7-18%; Reactor grade 18% or more.


MANAGEMENT OF SUPER-GRADE PLUTONIUM IN SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/pur ... 752902.pdf

[quote]The Department of Energy (DOE) owns some 57 MT of
spent nuclear fuel that contains approximately 260 kg of
super-grade plutonium, i.e., material comprised of at least
99% 239Pu. This fuel, from the blanket regions of two of
DOE’s demonstration and test reactors used in the liquid
metal fast reactor program, is not considered to be “self-
protectingâ€

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

Postby Gerard » 01 Aug 2007 17:52

1. Does Hyde allows India to test in case of supreme national interest is jeopardised?


If India's "supreme national interest" requires testing, I sure hope India doesn't need somebody to "allow" it to do anything. AFAIK the colonialists left in 1947.

Domestic US law does not bind the Republic of India.

I can "allow" or "not allow" you to inspect Mallika Sherawat's breasts. That doesn't mean a thing. Neither you nor I will be getting anywhere close.

GOI should immediately form a experts bench with nuke guys to formulate a strategy and look into seperation plans, IPR protection, commercialization of our reactors et al.


The DAE has decades of experience negotiating these things with the IAEA and the US (the previous 123 agreement - Tarapur).

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

Postby John Snow » 01 Aug 2007 17:59

I hope Sanjay M is not Sanjay Badri Maharaj

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 01 Aug 2007 18:00

I was just mulling over my own last post:
Interestingly, our insistance to keep FBR's away from inspections was one of the road blocks some time back. That the Americans gave in to our demand shows that they were more desparate than us. However, it also indicates that the yanks had long given up on making up give up our weapons program. So no CRE issues there.


Uncle's no objection to the FBRs' (and its tonnes of WgPu) is a technical admission of India's status as a nuclear weapons state.

Just a small thought :D

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

Postby NRao » 01 Aug 2007 18:15

joey wrote:I have some very basic questions,

1. Does Hyde allows India to test incase of supreme national interest is jeopardised?

2. Does Hyde interefered anyway into our mil programme by imposing things like FMCT et al.

3. Does Hyde Act intereferes with our future FBR programme being civilian or millitary?

4. The FBR's Indian made under civilian, which will be under safeguards, Does GOI has comprehensive policy to stop IPR leaks?

5. Does Hyde act prevents us from commericalizing internationally the FBR cycle? What needs to be done to make a GE type company who will sell reactors elsewhere. This is very important.

6. GOI should immediately form a experts bench with nuke guys to formulate a strategy and look into seperation plans, IPR protection, commercialization of our reactors et al.

Somehow I'm not much worried about weapons, but more about how can we make the FBR a commercial success!! with India having the full IPR! because I know we have enough weapons.


The following from the Hyde Act and "JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE":

As further clarified in the section-by-section analysis included in this report, the
conferees believe that there should be no ambiguity regarding the legal and policy
consequences of any future Indian test of a nuclear explosive device
.


No testing of any sorts.

(As a fyi: there are 19 refs to "test" in the Act and explanation section.)

To any thought of copying a tech, this from the Act itself:


the replication and subsequent use of any United States technology by India in an unsafeguarded nuclear facility or unsafeguarded nuclear weapons-related complex, or for any activity related to the research, development, testing, or manufacture of nuclear explosive devices


More l8r

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 01 Aug 2007 18:21

Does the Hyde act allow India to do x


This is a stupid question. The Hyde Act is not an Indian law or an international treaty signed up by GoI.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 876
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Postby sivab » 01 Aug 2007 18:40

Arun_S wrote:As for stockpile, last year they finsihed it all and they had to reduce power generation to tide over short supply, before DAE gets to reactivate the Uranium mines closed by Finance Minister Dr MM Singh ~1992 when there was much yellow cake in stock and GOI was cutting budget left and right if he can get a wiff of Rupees.


Arun: It is also possible that DAE heard FMCT noises and decided to use all PHWR's in low burn mode. This explanation is also consistent with reduction in power production/efficiency. If there is a Uranium shortage now, it would have been foreseeable 5 years ago and its hard to believe professionals who have dedicated their lives for this thing would have ignored that. So it is quite possible that there is no real Uranium shortage now and reduction in power production is related to low burn mode.

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

Postby NRao » 01 Aug 2007 19:29

Rangudu wrote:
Does the Hyde act allow India to do x


This is a stupid question. The Hyde Act is not an Indian law or an international treaty signed up by GoI.


[quote="Arun_S"]Deccan Herald: US warns India on N-test, Iran
[quote]New Delhi, July 30: [color=darkblue]India has for all practical purposes foregone her right to conduct a nuclear test without attracting consequences in return for getting advance consent rights for reprocessing spent fuel, US ambassador to India David C. Mulford said. “The US law is very clear. India knows what that law is. Right of return (of fuel, reactor and technology) is (clearly) preserved (in line) with the Hyde Act,â€

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

Postby John Snow » 01 Aug 2007 19:38

Rangudu wrote:
Does the Hyde act allow India to do x


This is a stupid question. The Hyde Act is not an Indian law or an international treaty signed up by GoI.


WHile it is true in letter, in spirit, Hyde act binds USG to activate processes which is party to an agreement with India, While the punitive action or constraints is/are on the USG it will translate or transfer the net effect to the bilateral receiving party India.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 01 Aug 2007 19:42

Various US laws call for tough action on TSP. How many of you believe that any President is going to carry them out as mandated?

The Hyde Act, other than the "no-reprocessing equipment" clause, has a lot of statements reflecting frustrations of NPAs and Cold Warriors who were angry at being caught off guard by J18. None of that matters if the political ties between India and US remain in the current trajectory.

What we need to focus on is the 123 agreement and the NSG rules on the India exception. Hyde and Seek don't matter if the 123 and NSG are okay.

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

Postby John Snow » 01 Aug 2007 19:56

pray what is the intent and reason for Hyde act, kinda thick skinned ( at very high level no need to read clause by clause)

Raju

Postby Raju » 01 Aug 2007 19:58

enqyoob wrote: BUT... a certain P-5 nation, for reasons best known to those who did it, had decided in the 1960s/70s to shut down the breeder program. There are a couple of very expensive facilities that were built specifically for FBR research, but, he said, even the lights had never been turned on in these bldgs because of said decision.

Hence, most of the "opposition" to FBRs is simply that someone is not doing it, and it may destroy the monopoly on fuel that some ppl may want to perpetuate.


The goal of Unkil and its groupies is to first establish an energy source that serves their interests best, enforce it all over the globe and make it the only predominant global energy medium. And then curb with a vengeance all forms of alternative technologies.

The Earth with all its mass is constantly rotating around the Sun...I wonder often what energy is that...oil provided by Saudis and fumes let out from an exhaust near the end of the Earth ?

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 01 Aug 2007 20:12

The Hyde Act basically originated from the Bush Admin's request for Congress to change US law to permit nuclear trade with India. Once deal-haters realized that they cannot stop the bill from passing, they settled for the next-best option - to add clauses and "intents" to express their frustration.

Yes, the broader message for India is that there are many Cold Warriors and NPAs still hiding in the shadows in the US Congress but that is something that we already knew.

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

Postby ShibaPJ » 01 Aug 2007 20:13

John Snow wrote:pray what is the intent and reason for Hyde act, kinda thick skinned ( at very high level no need to read clause by clause)

NPAs and the old-school warriors probably thought, they can get away with putting 'poison pills'. Any capitulation by India on any points would have been a bonus to these groups (bigger bone to chew)..

Lkawamoto
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 49
Joined: 26 Oct 2006 09:56
Location: zz_ota-ku

Postby Lkawamoto » 01 Aug 2007 20:34

again there is too much excitement and champagne pops before any sign of payoff from the 123 treaty.

not only it needs to be ratified and approved by the two countries but also the international community (e.g. europe) need to bless it

after that price and modality negotiations for the actual transaction

i think it will be 10 years or more before the first rod of uranium arrives from usa or canada

in the long term india must independently carve out its energy security with a strong will (can not trust the west to solve india's problems)

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

Postby NRao » 01 Aug 2007 20:36

Rangudu wrote:The Hyde Act basically originated from the Bush Admin's request for Congress to change US law to permit nuclear trade with India. Once deal-haters realized that they cannot stop the bill from passing, they settled for the next-best option - to add clauses and "intents" to express their frustration.

Yes, the broader message for India is that there are many Cold Warriors and NPAs still hiding in the shadows in the US Congress but that is something that we already knew.


Rman,

I can more than live with that.

Your previous post I feel says a lot: Hyde Act and 123 are both done, move on. But, we need to put to bed the talk of the Hyde Act being internal. It will only divide a house - which is one of the intents. However, putting it to bed is not the same as an Indian asking what does the Hyde Act say - for India needs to watch her back, Mr. Hyde has lost his election, but is still "present" in the US Congress.

WRT TSP, who cares. TSP is setting a new standard for a failed state. And, the bigwigs in the US are burying their heads in the sand.

not only it needs to be ratified and approved by the two countries but also the international community (e.g. europe) need to bless it


Which version? Indian or American?
Last edited by NRao on 01 Aug 2007 20:45, edited 1 time in total.

Raju

Postby Raju » 01 Aug 2007 20:45

Hyde Act could be an insurance policy, if anything goes wrong or they fail to get India completely under their thumb by some point of time in the future. They can then withdraw quoting Hyde Act and domestic legislations.

If we are forced to invest in too many imported reactors citing 9% growth then with such a move we will become South America ver 2.0

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 862
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby jrjrao » 01 Aug 2007 21:01

Not sure if this was posted earlier. From the Wall St. Journal yesterday.

Looks like Bret Stephens has picked up a few of Madam Shrilleen Mazari's articles on "proliferation by the bad Yindoos" and then created a garbage mash-up for this WSJ article:
GLOBAL VIEW
By BRET STEPHENS

Bad Company

American and Indian diplomats have now completed negotiations for the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Accord, also known as a 123 Agreement (after a section of the 1954 U.S. Atomic Energy Act that governs such deals). The agreement, which bridges the gap between what Congress approved late last year and the conditions demanded by India's government, would allow India to purchase U.S. nuclear technology and fuel, ostensibly for civilian purposes only. Whether New Delhi abides by that commitment is another matter: India first tested a nuclear device in 1974 using plutonium it had illicitly diverted from a Canadian-built reactor -- a point apparently forgotten by Undersecretary of State Nick Burns, who noted in a press conference Friday that "unlike Iran. . . . India has not violated its nuclear obligations."

But never mind. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is not the noxious Indira Gandhi, 2007 is not 1974, and there are defensible reasons to support a deal -- cementing a strategic relationship between two great democracies foremost among them. But that doesn't mean any deal, under any circumstances. Nor does it mean that Mr. Burns is entitled to shade what some of those circumstances entail, especially as they relate to India's curiously solid ties to Iran.

Take the following statement by Mr. Burns: "I would disagree . . . that somehow there's a burgeoning military relationship [between India and Iran]."

Now take an item from the March 19 issue of DefenseNews, under the headline: "India, Iran Form Joint Group to Deepen Defense Ties." According to the report, the agreement, "which follows the broader strategic partnership accord the two countries signed in 2003, emerged from high-level talks held here during the March 4-9 visit of Rear Adm. Sajjad Kouchaki Badlani, commander of Iran's Navy."

Or consider this Burnsian nugget: "We've made the argument that India has not proliferated its nuclear technology, that India, in effect, outside the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] system, has played by the rules. . . ."

Yet in September 2004 the U.S. sanctioned Chaudhary Surendar and Y.S.R. Prasad, both former chairmen of India's state-run Nuclear Power Corporation, "for allegedly passing nuclear secrets to Tehran," according to a March 2005 report in this newspaper. Though State later dropped the sanctions on Dr. Surendar, they remain in force against Dr. Prasad, who is believed to have passed on "the technology needed to extract tritium from heavy-water nuclear reactors." Iran is currently building such a reactor in Arak; tritium can be used to boost the yields of atomic bombs. :roll: Dr. Prasad denies the charges.

That is not all. Last year, State slapped sanctions on two Indian companies for selling Iran precursor chemicals for rocket fuel and chemical weapons. In April, the Department of Justice released a 15-count indictment against two Indian individuals "on charges of supplying the Indian government with controlled technology," including "electrical components that could have applications in missile guidance and firing systems."

In an eye-opening article in the current issue of the Washington Quarterly, Christine Fair notes that "India has developed intelligence outposts in Iran, including the Indian consulate in Zahedan and a relatively new consulate in Bandar Abbas, which. . . . provides India significant power-projection advantages in any future conflict with Pakistan."

Ms. Fair, a research associate at the United States Institute of Peace, also notes that "in the past, India helped Iran develop submarine batteries that were more effective in the warm-weather Persian Gulf waters than its Russian-manufactured batteries and is planning to sell Iran the Konkurs antitank missile."

Advocates of the U.S. nuclear deal with India recognize these facts. But they argue that they are largely driven by India's need for energy, which explains the 700-mile gas pipeline being built between India and Iran. Thus, says Mr. Burns, "the agreement also gives India greater control and security over its energy supplies, making it less reliant on imports from countries . . . like Iran."

Would that this were even half-true. India's relationship with Iran is driven as much by the desire to encircle Pakistan and gain access to Afghanistan as it is by energy concerns. Then, too, nuclear power, which can only provide base load electrical demand, cannot by itself supplant the need for hydrocarbons. "Any time you increase the base load generating capacity of a country, you generally must increase the amount of peak load capacity to match it," says nonproliferation expert Henry Sokolski. "And the most efficient peak load generators are natural-gas fired." Put simply, it's hard to see how building nuclear power will reduce India's interest in Iranian natural gas.

None of this has gone unnoticed in Congress. In May, seven members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs sent a letter to Prime Minister Singh raising concerns about the Indo-Iranian relationship. Mr. Singh received a similar letter from eight U.S. Senators, including Republican Jon Kyl and Democrat Barbara Boxer. The letters were never answered. "You can take a sledgehammer to the heads of the Indians about this issue and they still won't get it," complains a Congressional staffer. :D

Actually, the Indians are starting to get it. "We are aware of our responsibilities and we know the danger of an Iran with nuclear weapons," says Raminder Singh Jassal, India's deputy chief of mission in Washington. He dismisses the naval visits as "ceremonial" and insists "we know how to calibrate our relationship [with Iran] without compromising on essentials."

Maybe that's true. Or maybe the U.S. and India have different notions of what a "calibrated" relationship means. But if Congress is going to punch a hole in the NPT to accommodate India -- with all the moral hazard that entails for the nonproliferation regime -- it should get something in return. Getting India to drop, and drop completely, its presumptively ceremonial military ties to Iran isn't asking a lot.


URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118584639256682969.html

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

Postby Arun_S » 01 Aug 2007 21:16

sivab wrote:
Arun_S wrote:As for stockpile, last year they finsihed it all and they had to reduce power generation to tide over short supply, before DAE gets to reactivate the Uranium mines closed by Finance Minister Dr MM Singh ~1992 when there was much yellow cake in stock and GOI was cutting budget left and right if he can get a wiff of Rupees.


Arun: It is also possible that DAE heard FMCT noises and decided to use all PHWR's in low burn mode. This explanation is also consistent with reduction in power production/efficiency. If there is a Uranium shortage now, it would have been foreseeable 5 years ago and its hard to believe professionals who have dedicated their lives for this thing would have ignored that. So it is quite possible that there is no real Uranium shortage now and reduction in power production is related to low burn mode.


DAE should have been doing it overtly ever since Buddha smiled, on all power plants. The missing piece of the puzzle is how much reprocessing has been completed and if the residual good U was ploughed back to produce power. In which case the fuel loader cpacity and their utilization % will limit fissile mtl production.

OTOH it is naive to think that India will ever sign FMTC, because that will by definition mean end of 3 stage fuel cycle and non-civil facility seperation. Not to mention end of ATV or its future varient.

123 & Hyde are clearly the last nail in the coffin of a dead FMTC horse. RIP FMTC.

ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 522
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Postby ramdas » 01 Aug 2007 21:33

OTOH it is naive to think that India will ever sign FMTC, because that will by definition mean end of 3 stage fuel cycle and non-civil facility seperation. Not to mention end of ATV or its future varient.

123 & Hyde are clearly the last nail in the coffin of a dead FMTC horse. RIP FMTC.


In theory that is indeed the case.. but what is this commitment to work towards an FMCT in the 123/J18 agreement/Hyde Act ? Does this still leave us with the option of opposing the FMCT if the FMCT does not suit our interests?

Also, how do the NPA's keep claiming that our plutonium stockpile is 500-600kgs ? Is it that we have not reprocessed much ? Assuming we have 4000kg WGpu in 4000t spent fuel - wont that take about 13-14 years to reprocess - given that our reprocessing capacity is abt 300tHM/yr ?

Also, when key Shakti-Sadhaks say that we have "enough" , how can we be sure that "enoungh" is not the approx. 100 weapon stockpile that "moderates" peach about ?

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

Postby Rye » 01 Aug 2007 21:38

ramdas wrote:

In theory that is indeed the case.. but what is this commitment to work towards an FMCT in the 123/J18 agreement/Hyde Act ? Does this still leave us with the option of opposing the FMCT if the FMCT does not suit our interests?


India' s stance always has been that it will work towards a universally-verifiable FMCT -- if the P5 refuse to accept a universally-verifiable FMCT, it is not India's problem.

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

Postby NRao » 01 Aug 2007 22:35

Nothing to do with Indian nukes, but this provides a peek into Obama's mind.

Obama 'would strike' in Pakistan

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36084
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 01 Aug 2007 22:53

barking dogs normally don't bite is a say!.

sitting in the valley, it could bark a big mountain, and at the most it can get some echoes.

We all should know that yanks know that their game against India can't be achieved without giving into much of the strategic programs. At the same time, Indian babooze are some how been mesmerized by yanks' show of strength, and still they have not realized we are the mountain against those barking dogs (NPA and its supporters).

Its important to note that while americans can hide under hyde and their laws.. at the same time, we have forgotten we should be more bothered at what we want, rather what the americans want. If this equation is not understood, we are lost.. just like one big haggle in delhi streets, and suddenly you realized you have been cheated, with a bad product at a decent price.

Mantikos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 11:48
Location: Texas
Contact:

Postby Mantikos » 01 Aug 2007 23:00

SaiK wrote:barking dogs normally don't bite is a say!.

sitting in the valley, it could bark a big mountain, and at the most it can get some echoes.

We all should know that yanks know that their game against India can't be achieved without giving into much of the strategic programs. At the same time, Indian babooze are some how been mesmerized by yanks' show of strength, and still they have not realized we are the mountain against those barking dogs (NPA and its supporters).

Its important to note that while americans can hide under hyde and their laws.. at the same time, we have forgotten we should be more bothered at what we want, rather what the americans want. If this equation is not understood, we are lost.. just like one big haggle in delhi streets, and suddenly you realized you have been cheated, with a bad product at a decent price.


HUH??

it sounds like u wanna move to north korea....

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7002
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 01 Aug 2007 23:05

Mantikos wrote:
SaiK wrote:barking dogs normally don't bite is a say!.

sitting in the valley, it could bark a big mountain, and at the most it can get some echoes.

We all should know that yanks know that their game against India can't be achieved without giving into much of the strategic programs. At the same time, Indian babooze are some how been mesmerized by yanks' show of strength, and still they have not realized we are the mountain against those barking dogs (NPA and its supporters).

Its important to note that while americans can hide under hyde and their laws.. at the same time, we have forgotten we should be more bothered at what we want, rather what the americans want. If this equation is not understood, we are lost.. just like one big haggle in delhi streets, and suddenly you realized you have been cheated, with a bad product at a decent price.


HUH??

it sounds like u wanna move to north korea....



Welcome back Mr. T.S. Jones.

Manne
BRFite
Posts: 172
Joined: 26 Jul 2002 11:31
Location: Mumbai

Postby Manne » 01 Aug 2007 23:08

NRao,

My honest opinion is that to a certain extent AK too was employing a strategy. He is a technocrat but even a technocrat needs to do what is required for upholding the supreme national interest. All or nothing is a good war-cry. What matters at the end of the day is whether we have given all away or we have given nothing away. If one follows that line of thought one can see what Milholin is chaffing at. :twisted:

So, there may be some adjustment but the adjustment is over what we have received not over what we have given away. Chinese are not the only ones who can do that methinks.

Lastly, it may well turn out that what we are not receiving doesn't matter because our real needs are met from what we can receive. And it is not just hardware that we will be receiving - that much is clear and I hope you will agree with that.

When TAPS-4 went live I had said it was important for Indians to realise what this means for the country. Some of those aspects are now being alluded to. Some may not come out for some more time. TSS' articles on these two projects are worth re-re-reading.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest