India Nuclear News & Discussion - 13 Aug 2007

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50080
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 16 Aug 2007 01:23

JE Menon wrote:Acharya,

I thought you were saying that we must test now. I guess you were not. As for the quote from Ramana, the main point is below:

"An Indian test can break the world order and will ensure the US does what is needed to assure that India does not need to test. "

Are you saying this has not already been done? This was what POK II did. And the Indo-US deal is an indication of the latter part... We will not need to test because what we need will come our way. If, nevertheless, we find at some point that we need to test, we will.


1998 only shook up/rattled the order. The next one will shatter it. That is the importance of keeping the option to test.

BTW of the P-5, only three have test sites available- US, Russia and PRC. And of them I don't see what the first two will gain by such a breakout.
If the deal makes the US and India closer one can expect the other two to get closer.
The game is now reducing to four players as K.M. Pannikar predicted in 1942.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6957
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby JE Menon » 16 Aug 2007 01:26

Of course. We should go no further than a voluntary moratorium, which is what we have now.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 16 Aug 2007 01:30

The obvious problems with getting too cozy with the Eyeranian pipeline are two:

1. Danger of paying the Paki terrorists to watch the pipeline (and bomb it) and then pay them for the repairs and the environmental damage to their Allah-forsaken deserts from the oil/ gas spillage. This is no deal at all.

2. Danger that if oil / gas actually starts flowing to Guj and Mumbai through the pipeline, it's a short-lived thing, because sooner or later the Yankees or the Yehudis are going to blow up the pipelines at source, including the wells, refineries and all.

IOW, the pipeline is a great thing to make speeches about, as long as u don't go beyond that. So far MMS&Co seem to be doing fine on the Eyeran issue: promenading along the high wire with total unconcern, tails high in the air.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6850
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 16 Aug 2007 01:32

About testing. Yes there is a price to pay and unfortunately none of the political parties have given the authorization to continue testing after 1998, otherwise we could all feel more comfortable today. The US-India agreement doesn't really change this as there are other laws in the US that cut off cooperation and assistance if a NNWS tests. Again, spending a lot of money on a nuke defense doesn't make sense from an operational point of view if the testing isn't satisfactory to the military commanders. If you recall the US Castle Bravo and Romeo tests in 1953/54 where the yield was greater than thought due to the fast fission of the U235 tamper. Those extra neutrons had to do something and somehow it went unaccounted for. Also, what confidence do the planners in DAE have with Li-6 or Li-7 isotopes for fission fuels?

Dial-A-Yield is great from a tactical PoV, but megabums that are city busters work very differently in strategic calculation.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6957
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby JE Menon » 16 Aug 2007 01:36

Disha wrote:

Very prescient.

[url=http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=388858&sid=NAT&ssid=&news=
India%20gets%20Russian%20backing%20for%20lifting%20
NSG%20curbs%20on%20nuke%20co-op]Link[/url]


Not really prescient on my part. I saw a report earlier from ITAR-TASS about Saran's new role, but forgot who stated it until I saw your post and checked back...

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50080
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 16 Aug 2007 01:39

JEM, Thanks for being modest and not claiming oracle powers!

What is the agenda for Saranbhai?

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6957
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby JE Menon » 16 Aug 2007 01:55

Ramana,

Can't speak of one cause I don't know enough. But from what is in the open, we can conclude that MEA has a plan of action in terms of diplomacy with regard to upcoming talks IAEA/NSG. Thorough briefing is going on: Saran in Moscow, Narayanan in Tokyo, etc. All concerns will be assuaged and national egos massaged to ensure a smooth passage...

We will take the heavy hitting at first, with US back up. They will then kick in if anyone starts to act uppity. Just a prediction, of course. We can safely expect a relatively challenging but successful process.

In general, I expect the "Australia model" :twisted: to be applied to the rest of the NSG. There will be some stragglers (Scandinavia), and some who wish to make a bargain (China), but no one will stand in the way. China does not want to be the only one to bring in blocking measures...

Basically, as mentioned before, this one should be in the pocket. Of course, not to rule out some crappy force majeure thing - you never know!!!

Above all: we must continuously keep in mind the breaking into parts, easier to digest scenario (chankian mallu mind does not allow anything but the worst case scenario as bottom line)... yet we must not be transfixed by fear of that into not taking the rather bold (but entirely doable) moves that we need to take to prepare for the decades ahead...

Mohan Raju
BRFite
Posts: 217
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Mohan Raju » 16 Aug 2007 03:24

That link is messed up. Let me see if I can fix it here.

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

Postby NRao » 16 Aug 2007 04:03

1998 only shook up/rattled the order. The next one will shatter it. That is the importance of keeping the option to test.


Is that conditional or unconditional testing?

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

Postby Rye » 16 Aug 2007 04:17

deleted.
Last edited by Rye on 16 Aug 2007 04:57, edited 2 times in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35726
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 16 Aug 2007 04:39

bossN.. even the spine-ful and swelled balls janata party has lost their leaders' knees to stand for testing. you guys are expecting testing within two years, its like going back to WWI (think in terms of politickal possibilities).

spines, balls and knees are all disappearing and none of the bah-booze logs have any alpha lipoic acid left in their guts to chew both on mil and civil front. why is this mulberry bush cyclical chase for validating and verification of yields happening in brite minds here?

lets say, we have frozen on testing.. what next? lets wait for the next ice-age for testing. though barc is gone super computing, we still have brites barking for manual verifications.

unless we change our doctrines (from NFU to MAD), n-testing will not happen. It will happen in only non nuclear weaponization form without the actual N-fuel to verify mechanical and electronics working status.

going by our history, and doctrine, these weapons will be never used.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22788
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Postby SSridhar » 16 Aug 2007 04:50

Guys, quit quibbling about testing, conditional or otherwise. When and if the time comes for that, we should be in a position where our decision to test will be justified by the very same countries whom we see as villains today. That should be our goal.

In the meanwhile, things seem to be moving fast in multiple directions, from procuring yellowcake, to choosing sites to acquiring stakes in overseas Uranium mines.

30 GW to be added with imported fuel. Five coastal sites identified - NPCIL Chief.
[quote]The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) plans to add 30,000 MW of power based on imported nuclear fuel in the near future. The site selection committee of the DAE has already identified five coastal sites for setting up the nuclear power plants, said Dr S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL).

Dr Jain said that the committee has identified sites in Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal for setting up the plants. Each plant would have a capacity of 6,000 MW to 8,000 MW. It would require six large reactors, each having 1,000 MW to 1,650 MW configuration.

Dr Jain said that the Indian nuclear industry has waited for the last two years for the agreement to be concluded. Now that an important milestone has been crossed, prospects of a major thrust to nuclear power generation capacity look bright. The agreement facilitates the process of discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, he said. The agreement will give global access to Indian nuclear industry and help the indigenous industry in becoming a global player.

He said that NPCIL was also considering exporting small and medium reactors (220 MW to 700 MW) to countries in the Asian region. It has all the necessary infrastructure and designs for servicing this segment of the market.

Many countries want reactors in this range but they also seek lifetime guarantee of fuel.

Therefore, NPCIL and DAE are considering of having stakes in uranium mines overseas, either through joint venture or independent investment, he added.

“New and emerging Uranium mines in Nigeria, Mozambique, Mongolia and Kazakhstan could be considered for this venture,â€

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 16 Aug 2007 05:28

Megabums were best when hoi polloi did not have them. Now that they do it is worth shifting the goalposts and make outcastes out of the megabum aspirants.

This is what I see as happening.

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

Postby svinayak » 16 Aug 2007 05:44

shiv wrote:Megabums were best when hoi polloi did not have them. Now that they do it is worth shifting the goalposts and make outcastes out of the megabum aspirants.

This is what I see as happening.

Did Indians not figure this out in the 60s. Why not

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Postby Baljeet » 16 Aug 2007 06:08

SSridhar wrote:Guys, quit quibbling about testing, conditional or otherwise. When and if the time comes for that, we should be in a position where our decision to test will be justified by the very same countries whom we see as villains today. That should be our goal.

In the meanwhile, things seem to be moving fast in multiple directions, from procuring yellowcake, to choosing sites to acquiring stakes in overseas Uranium mines.


Sridhar
I agree. If the reports about sites is correct, I am wondering why not put a 2x1000MW plant in Mizoram Hill side, Since we have CT school there, it will prepare our forces to train on a real site. That plant by itself will suffice the entire NE region plus we can mine uranium from Manipur. In one shot we can have one part of the nation on fast track of economic prosperity. It will nail the entire NE insurgency to the cross.
In any nations prosperity, aam janta want to feel like soldier that has contributed to the nation, not some chumps left on the sideline. Again, I am not a policy maker or beaurocrat. Just my opinon.

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

Postby Arun_S » 16 Aug 2007 06:11

Thanks Austin for this 20 page paper by Shri Bharat Karnad. A must read for all BRFites

http://www.cprindia.org/admin/paper/karnad.pdf
OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 8
Dealing with Reality: India’s Thermonuclear Force as Strategic Safety-Net and Security Stabilizer in the Indian Ocean Region
March-2004
BHARAT KARNAD
CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 16 Aug 2007 06:17

shiv:

There is a real reason why the megabums are stupid today. Missile accuracy has increased by a huge factor. Also, since "MIRV"s were invented, the better use for a large launcher is to send a gazillion warheads and decoys in, rather than one big bum,.

There is one application for a big bum - to wipe out a command center deep, deep underground. But you have to ask whether it is worth winning a war where you had to use these big bums to dig the megacraters and glassify those very large areas.

Money spent on the big bums is money wasted. The most horrible weapon these days is the tactical nuke - and PRC, Russia and AmirKhan all have those in huge numbers. These are not counted among the START numbers because they are not "strategic". IOW, there is NOOO move to reduce these, in DupliCity or Beijing or Moscow.

So we are talking about tens of thousands in each of these countries. TSP also acquired some, but I think these are gone too - otherwise they are the worst risk in case of a coup or a fedayeen.

With tactical nukes, every cruise missile, every fighter aircraft and every jeep is a potential nuclear delivery vehicle, so the fear is far greater. The threshold of use is also not that high. And clearly, India has tested enough in that class already.

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Postby Baljeet » 16 Aug 2007 06:17

JE Menon wrote:Ramana,

Can't speak of one cause I don't know enough. But from what is in the open, we can conclude that MEA has a plan of action in terms of diplomacy with regard to upcoming talks IAEA/NSG. Thorough briefing is going on: Saran in Moscow, Narayanan in Tokyo, etc. All concerns will be assuaged and national egos massaged to ensure a smooth passage...

We will take the heavy hitting at first, with US back up. They will then kick in if anyone starts to act uppity. Just a prediction, of course. We can safely expect a relatively challenging but successful process.

In general, I expect the "Australia model" :twisted: to be applied to the rest of the NSG. There will be some stragglers (Scandinavia), and some who wish to make a bargain (China), but no one will stand in the way. China does not want to be the only one to bring in blocking measures...

Basically, as mentioned before, this one should be in the pocket. Of course, not to rule out some crappy force majeure thing - you never know!!!

Above all: we must continuously keep in mind the breaking into parts, easier to digest scenario (chankian mallu mind does not allow anything but the worst case scenario as bottom line)... yet we must not be transfixed by fear of that into not taking the rather bold (but entirely doable) moves that we need to take to prepare for the decades ahead...


Menon Sahib
I agree heartily. You are right on money with your analysis. No nation who is part of NSG with first rate economy want to be seen as surrendering to Indo-US deal. Point an example, Japanese are saying, "Wait and See"= Waiting for phone call from Unkil and seeing what china has to say about it. All the while they all know, chinese were first to oblige for Heavy Water sale in 1980's when we were everyone's whipping boy, Russians were in Afghanistan, Zia was riding high on handouts. What amazes me the most is the U-turn in Aussie's attitude. Indian doc was labelled as a terrorist in media, John Howard refuses to apologize for slandering an innocent man but very quickly makes a decision to sell yellow cake to India. Hmmm...Money talks and Aussie walks.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 16 Aug 2007 06:37

enqyoob wrote:s
With tactical nukes, every cruise missile, every fighter aircraft and every jeep is a potential nuclear delivery vehicle, so the fear is far greater. The threshold of use is also not that high. And clearly, India has tested enough in that class already.


The impression I have gained is that these require a level of tech expertise that is higher than the ornery bum or megabum.

These actually require:

1) Knowledge of equations of state - the behavior of materials at very high temperature and pressure

2) High computing power for simulation

In fact if you simulate using these two you get certain answers - i.e certain by-products. The presence of these byproducts in a test is confirmation that your simulation is accurate.

In his talk in IISc Chidambaram (RC) spoke of the validation o simulation after testing the underground cavity for post-fission/fusion byproducts.

The Last US test was in 1992. CRAY was established in 1989 and went bust in 1995 - which gives you a picture of what degree of simulation the US has been doing since 1992.

India got its chance to test the simulation in 1998 - by which time the computing ability in India had exceeded CRAY - a fact that made RC quip that he told his US counterparts "We have more recent information than you do"

However - as Diwali restrictions get widespread - crackers get smaller and the possibility of doing little ones under lab conditions get higher. Testing shifts to labs.

It is necessary to create a caste system - a clear heirarchy where those who have the most expertise in bums retain that expertise while retarding the possibility of others getting there. That way the eral chotus stay in the hands of a select few while the megabum wielders are outcastes.

The Indo-US deal was all about letting the US know that civilian restrictions in India will not prevent india from staying in the hi-tech simulation/lab tester club. It will only slow down our civilian cycle as we painfully buid up stocks.

Might as well buy Indian cooperation by speeding up our civilian program. It will change nxt to nothing as regards weapon capability.

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

Postby vsudhir » 16 Aug 2007 06:48

US group flays Aus over uranium exports to India (ET)

Brazen psy-ops on the frontpage, top 3 headline space to arsol daryl kimball's group. Why I wonder. Is the ToI group batting for the other side? or is it a simple commercial transaction where kimball bought frontpage headline space like others routinely do in TOI group 'newspapers'.
:evil:

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

Postby Karan Dixit » 16 Aug 2007 06:52

In my humble opinion:

Tactical nukes have their place. And, city busters (aka mebabums) have their place. They are both needed.

The notion that tactical nukes are enough is not correct. A country holding city busters can easily blackmail a country, which does not possess them. In all our conventional confrontations with China, it has threatened us with city busters.

If my guess is correct, India had tactical weapons since 60s and acquired city busters sometime during 70s.

At least one of the bombs tested in 1998 by India was a city buster. So, I agree that at this moment, we do not need to test any more city busters. But to suggest that tactical weapons are enough to deal with all crises is not correct.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 16 Aug 2007 06:58

The CTBT was brought in when computing power reached terraFLOP level, IIRC. That was circa 1996-97. That was 10 years ago, when they were able to confirm that they could do first-principles simulation of nuke blasts to the accuracy and fidelity needed for design validation. These days TerraFLOP computers are not that uncommon - I think there is one next door to moi's cave these days. A huge number of basically the same processors as are used in PCs. Which means that ppl who have the basic simulation problem figured out, and have no shortage of Oracle Operators and PC chips, can get there pretty quickly. Esp. if they had succeeded a decade ago in doing validation of predictions using much more rudimentary capabilities such as Param.

So you are right - the deal is basically an acknowledgement that the stable doors can be left open now, because the horse has bolted long ago. Same in Space, because India figured out the cryogenic third stage. So all the noise about if-u-test - but v will test etc. is all nonsense, because both sides know that hardware testing is just a waste of fuel these days.

Convincing the uniform guys that their toys will work when needed, is a different issue. As they say, "Half the fun is in watching the buildings fall.." and there is no way to let them indulge in that. Maybe they could be given a large IMAX theatre connected to the mega simulator, and they can blast away to their hearts' content.

Anyway, megaton weapons may have been needed to "cover" a city in a country where population density is really small, or to wipe out an airbase that launches strategic bombers. Same thing can be done, however, by hammering the place with 10 kiloton-range devices.

In India, Pak, BD, and most of China, the cities are densely packed. A Hiroshima-type gadget would kill a few hundred thousand, still, and essentially end the city.

The other use for a megaton class device may have been to "take out" a carrier Task Force. But those things are now very heavily defended, so it is dubious whether a few megaton-level re-entry vehicles would get through the terminal area air defense system.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35726
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 16 Aug 2007 06:59

what tactics we need to strike with a NFU doctrine? the moment you talk tactical, means you are changing this very doctrine.

just drop what we have who ever attacked us.. right in the middle of thickly populated and highly industrialized places.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 16 Aug 2007 07:02

We have more recent information than you do


When this is the case I am assuming that the US has some curiosity to know more about recent data. There can be a quick swap of data from INDIA to US and vice versa. Effectively, India has old data from the US classic bum (iPod) collection and US gets the recent one from India micro mini iPod, all bases covered, no need to ever test before the big guys decide to blast one from their newer iPhone multifunction series.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 16 Aug 2007 07:06

NFU has to face the reality that TSP will use tactical nukes against Indian tank formations moving towards RYK or Muzzafarabad. What happens when those are used? Send city-busters? Probably the need of the moment is to wipe out the launch sites and C^3, to save the remaining military formations. Which means a number of tactical strikes on airfields and infantry/ Armored Corps Headquarters. Need is still for small weapons.

NFU and Second Strike are designed to counter the F-16 / Dongless attack on Dilli and Mumbai. Not good for field weapons. It's useful to remember that Mush was an artillery aphsar. Probably thinks like one, and relives the Battle of Khemkaran every night, waking up shaking and P-ing.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 16 Aug 2007 07:11

Karan Dixit wrote:In my humble opinion:

Tactical nukes have their place. And, city busters (aka mebabums) have their place. They are both needed.

The notion that tactical nukes are enough is not correct. A country holding city busters can easily blackmail a country, which does not possess them. In all our conventional confrontations with China, it has threatened us with city busters.

If my guess is correct, India had tactical weapons since 60s and acquired city busters sometime during 70s.

At least one of the bombs tested in 1998 by India was a city buster. So, I agree that at this moment, we do not need to test any more city busters. But to suggest that tactical weapons are enough to deal with all crises is not correct.


There is no doubt that city busters "have a place"

But there is a concerted move across the world among nuclear "haves" to make city-busting intentions very costly for all aspirants. The idea is to make city busting unfashionable by threatening to inflict inordinate punishment on any city-busters, while retaining an ability to use tactical nukes to further degrade any power ambitions among upstart city-buster powers.

Leave alone the ethics of retaining any nuclear weapon capability, the intent of making city-busting punishable at the world level is a noble one worthy of support.

The "haves" who espoused this cause were restricted by their inability to pin India down, because moralistic India took its own independent route to get where it is. India is indeed a special case, and any world-wide cooperation to restrict city busting must involve India whose weapons cannot be restricted by sanctions on technology that they do not use.

Reducing the possibility of city busting in the world involves:
1) The major players NOT using their own city busters
2) New entrants and nascent entrants (Pakistan, Korea, Iran) being relentlessly pressured (carrot and stick) to avoid taking that route
3) Making it prohibitively costly for any others to get in.

If China uses or threatens to use city busters - all bets are off. But China should be reassured and made to feel secure that if it does use city busters, it will equally be treated to "return gifts" of city busters. The Indo-US treaty actually puts China on a less sure footing than previously.

China now has more incentive to stick to its side of the worldwide nuke bargain and NOT use city busters in the longterm aim to make city busting passe.

Other than Al-tutti-pishaap types, most of the world is now sure that city busting is not a healthy thing.

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

Postby Karan Dixit » 16 Aug 2007 07:19

Once again, tactical nukes have their place and city busters have their place. They are two different weapons with two different purpose. Both of them are needed. We have them both. One is not meant to replace the other.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35726
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 16 Aug 2007 07:19

imho, we don't need nukes to take air fields and head quarters.. if we do find that mullahs have conglomerated formations & quarters in their orbat, then so be it.. we can drop one there.

all we need is the locale (lat & long). say, 10 sites, and 10 cities.. A1-45-175KT - about 20 numbers will be dispatched in 2 minutes flat!.

btw, I consider taking one tank or one city with a nuke tactical or not, as the first strike.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50080
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 16 Aug 2007 08:04

karan, Late ACM Mehra saab said it best when he told the Stanford folks there are no tactical or strategic nukes only low and high yield nukes dependent on target characteristics. Because once the decision to use nukes has been reached its a different playing field. And they said wah! wah!

Only yindoo mind brought up on Mahabharata can articulate this.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 477
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

5 Coastal Sites identified

Postby Sanatanan » 16 Aug 2007 08:08

SSridhar wrote:

30 GW to be added with imported fuel. Five coastal sites identified - NPCIL Chief.

. . .

Dr Jain said that the committee has identified sites in Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal for setting up the plants. Each plant would have a capacity of 6,000 MW to 8,000 MW. It would require six large reactors, each having 1,000 MW to 1,650 MW configuration.

. . .



If my memory serves me right, the coastal sites in Andhra and Orissa had been considered even earlier for location of npps and had been rejected because of safety issues associated with cyclones and tsunamis.

We can soon see a spate of agitations from local populations and pressure groups against setting up npps in these areas.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50080
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 16 Aug 2007 08:24

Sanantan, Those pzr groups were funded mainly by uncle. So wont happen this time.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6850
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 16 Aug 2007 09:13

I think the question to ask is what is needed for India's survival? That would be the threat of nation killing capability the kind Gen. Curtis LeMay planned for during the early part of the Cold War. For this you need megabums, and lots of them. However, from the reading of this thread and what other in the establishment are saying is, this isn't necessary for India. Fine, we can accept that and move on and welcome the US-India agreement with open arms and open legs to be seduced by unkil and accept his winks, kisses and sweet whispers in our ears. Case closed and now lets move on to how to get started on the 40,000 MWe nuclear parks that are desperately needed.

Now the big caveat. If we understand and are interested in the LeMay theory, we then have to look at what it would take to get an unconditional surrender from Pakistan and China? I would say start with decimating Pakistan's population - that is 1 out of 10 killed. In other words kill off 16 million+ Pakistanis. For China those numbers would be significantly higher, in fact the commies in China may be happy with 120 million less people to take care of, and the numbers would have to go up to eliminating 25% of their population. But I doubt anyone in India can even contemplate this hellish nightmare of destruction. It is very much against the Indian ethos and pschye - I would say even if India is hit first.

It is an interesting dillema and it appears everyone has accepted the US-India agreement because electricity is first and most before bums of any kind.
Last edited by Mort Walker on 16 Aug 2007 09:38, edited 2 times in total.

menon
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 02 Dec 2005 09:23

Postby menon » 16 Aug 2007 09:31

The fact as I see it is that none other than TSP will ever contemplate using a nuke. To destroy India they will needs lots of bombs that will usher in a nuclear winter and end of civilisation. So there are no possiblities on that. Porkis cannot and do not have 100s of bombs. They only had a few that were donated by PRC. of these 5 were used for test demo. how many have they left? Are they producing any? I doubt not many. But a few KT versions are enof to take out less than 6 cities that they have and TSP will cease to exist. If someone can drum it in to porkis things will be OK. :twisted:

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Postby negi » 16 Aug 2007 09:35

Mort ji you have asked very relevant questions ,having said that prior to answering this I would like to know about the worst case scenario i.e. if the deal doesnt go through what do we loose ? in any case if our nuclear programme is so advanced as talked about on this forum then we should be able to meet our energy req on our own without having to concede any thing.

All in all pardon me for my ignorance does anyone know as to whose idea was it anyways ? Was this something that originated from our nuclear establishment which present Govt got hold off or it is Unkil's idea which MMS and CO are selling ?

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6850
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 16 Aug 2007 09:53

negi wrote:Mort ji you have asked very relevant questions ,having said that prior to answering this I would like to know about the worst case scenario i.e. if the deal doesnt go through what do we loose ? in any case if our nuclear programme is so advanced as talked about on this forum then we should be able to meet our energy req on our own without having to concede any thing.


We have a lot to loose if the deal doesn't go through, namely electrical power capacity. No political party will likely test if they come to power. The idea of megabums is an anathema for Indians and the very idea of using nuclear bums raises all sorts of moral questions for Indian leaders. Perhaps it is a good thing that India's leadership is that way and ultimately God will smile down upon us in the future.

The radical monotheists and communists will not hesitate in killing hundreds of millions using the most efficient and effective methods. History is full of examples.

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

Postby Arun_S » 16 Aug 2007 09:58

Karan Dixit wrote:In my humble opinion:

... .. . . If my guess is correct, India had tactical weapons since 60s and acquired city busters sometime during 70s. .


Where originate this gospel?
First Indian nuke test in 1974 was a very basic nuclear device.
AFAIK city bursting gas boosted fission 200kt weapon were crafted late 80's.

If India had nukes in 60's India would have been in P6 when NPT was crafted. Missing the nuke bus by those years sucked India out of the NPT tent into a very vulnerable setting.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35726
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 16 Aug 2007 10:11

unfortunately yes.. that is a given.. we have to face the first strike... we need to change our doctrine to avoid that, but imho, we don't / would not have that situation where we need to change to MAD (context: our neighborhood).

however lightning fast we detect the first strike launch by enemy, under this doctrine our babooze needs to push that code, and enable the strike, say within 1 minute. May be our PM, carries a PDA that is always networked at high bandwidth to send the transaction to happen.. and we increase our technology to that level.. but our desi psyche will put the biggest blocker in really finding out if it was really the nuclear weapon that was launched and not a dummy or conventional one.

like the IFF, international missile based friend or foe signals could be exchanged as part of a treaty, that engages all NWS countries to return a signal of attack. That way, we can take away the human psyche to computer systems that decides to dispatch the second strikes. What if they cheat us, or cr@p like UNKill who normally does after attacking chinese embassies that it was by mistake.. bad luck.. we have to face it.. and this time, the psyche has to change to destroy a whole country and its people.
Even after a cheating us on the first strike, the computers could be fed with seismic data, about the attack and become hollywoodic enough to automatically calculate the source/origin of attack, and further gather from inputs from other feeds, and begin attack.

I am saying, we can find measures to minimize human brains involve in the decision making process to strike second. and still, we would go what if those systems fail?

we have to face the first strike.. and after that we just cant talk. only act.

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

Postby Arun_S » 16 Aug 2007 10:38

SSridhar wrote:. .. . .
30 GW to be added with imported fuel. Five coastal sites identified - NPCIL Chief.
The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) plans to add 30,000 MW of power based on imported nuclear fuel in the near future. The site selection committee of the DAE has already identified five coastal sites for setting up the nuclear power plants, said Dr S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL).

Dr Jain said that the committee has identified sites in Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal for setting up the plants. Each plant would have a capacity of 6,000 MW to 8,000 MW. It would require six large reactors, each having 1,000 MW to 1,650 MW configuration.

Music to my ears. Each cluster of 6000-8000 MW.
"Tatha-Astu-Sheegram"

[quote]The agreement will give global access to Indian nuclear industry and help the indigenous industry in becoming a global player.

He said that NPCIL was also considering exporting small and medium reactors (220 MW to 700 MW) to countries in the Asian region. It has all the necessary infrastructure and designs for servicing this segment of the market.

Many countries want reactors in this range but they also seek lifetime guarantee of fuel.

Therefore, NPCIL and DAE are considering of having stakes in uranium mines overseas, either through joint venture or independent investment, he added.

“New and emerging Uranium mines in Nigeria, Mozambique, Mongolia and Kazakhstan could be considered for this venture,â€

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19380
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 16 Aug 2007 12:09

I still haven't had an answer to my basic point put forward.Where is the official "white paper" put out regarding our energy policy and future generation of power through nuclear,hydel,coal,gas,renewable energy,etc.The growth/consumption expected in the future,the costs per unit of power from each of these options,the environmental aspects of each,etc.Plus,the future potential of generating more power from each option,which might escalate for certain options due to various factors (nuclear plants,spent fuel storage,clean-up costs, etc.).We must first adopt a holistic approach to the problem of power generation,before deciding to go whole hog with questionable TOT of the nuclear option.

One presumes that a certain figure has been reached for nuclear power generation by the experts.Has this been seriously debated in the country by all our energy experts?This whole deal is based upon India's "peaceful" uses of nuclear fuel and technology,not militarily.I haven't seen anywhere in the current parliamentary debate a comparison with other options.Surely,other state-of-art technology is availablefor the other options too,which are less controversial.We have massive coal reserves.Canada today is exploiting its oil and gas wealth,despite the high coistof doing so because of the higher prices today which make it worthwhile.We can do the same with our coal.

The danger in this deal is that we put on the line for civilian use our strategic deterrent and its future capability,and allow the thin end of the wedge for the nuclear hypocrasies to penetrate into our secret nuclear environment,hitherto off limits to them.This is achieved through the US's Jekyll-&-Hyde act,well demonstrated by the latest Foggy Bottom statements about any future testing by India.We havegone it alone so far with regard to our military programmea and need not compromise any future option.Ifsomeof our scientists are also working on military aspects,we will be open to future charges at an opportune time for the US to sabotage the deal.Is it possible for India to have two completely different nuclear institutions,one military and the other civilian?Can we afford duplicating our scientific human resources and al facilities too?It is going to be a very extensive and expensive task,that will still be subject to US interference60 yeras after independence,after achieving so much,we now want "dependence" in our nuclear industry!

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 16 Aug 2007 12:38

I completely agree with Philp in the above point; while a lot of us here on BRF have elucidated the possible ways in which India can benefit from the deal; the big question is: is the GoI working towards reaping the advantages after already paying a cost up front?

Where are the next steps which India get in 123 plan? Where is the white paper.

The nature of the current top brass makes me extremely wary on this count.

The is so eloquently pointed out in the column by Bhanu Pratap Mehta where he clearly points out that our Sir British rule good for India Singh show balls only on the nuke deal and nowhere else.

Dr Do Little?

Whats the source of this mysterious burst of testosterone wonders me no end.[/url]


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests