India Nuclear News & Discussion - 13 Aug 2007

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63090
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 17 Aug 2007 15:08

crux of matter is this:

(a) can a intermediate economic and military power (India) become a
economic and military superpower in current global scenario by

(a1) first trying to be a eco superpower and letting military capability
trail a bit behind, exploiting opportunities for ToT and JVs along the way

OR

(a2) paying more attention to military power area but paying an economic
price with being cutoff from global technology transfers in hi tech area

ultimately it boils down to "how important is it in next 25 years to target Massa with ICBMs ?"

if its more important than power technology (not just nukular) and greater eco integration with Massa....

99% of indians living in India think power and economic growth more
important than improving a 1995 design nuke to be 12% more efficient
with a new test in 2012.

its easy for NRIs sitting in well fed and well lighted corners of the globe
to "see the bigger picture" and call on sdre local types to "make sacrifices" so long as its not their lives facing the lash here.

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

Postby saty » 17 Aug 2007 15:14

vsudhir wrote:
What 123 does is make the cost much more acute by causing potential disruption much higher - targetting our energy sector. But again, what was the guarantee the P5 wouldn't gangup and impose an oil embargo or something in case we tested again, eh? Esp, if as some claim, our testing==breakdown of the world's N-power order?



Ganging up is far more difficult to do; also even while ganging up; getting people together in your sin of commission is far more difficult than letting people quietly participate in sins of omission. (Not helping India with nukes)

A gang up on petro might not have been possible either because of Iran; Russia and Chavez...

but a nuke infrastructure inputs may be more easily controlled given that they will emanate from fewer sources.

Overall; there was a nuke gangup in the past too but not a peto one. And far easier to gang up now on nukes than before if gang up needs to be done.

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7039
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Postby Muppalla » 17 Aug 2007 15:51

And if India conducts a test?

HINDUSTAN TIMES, AUGUST 17, 2007

Robinder Sachdev
August 16, 2007

First Published: 00:06 IST(17/8/2007)
Last Updated: 00:10 IST(17/8/2007)

Under the US Atomic Energy Act and the Hyde Act, there is no way that India can avoid sanctions if it conducts a nuclear test in the future. Sanctions will imply a clampdown on future cooperation, as well as the US administration being required to demand the return of materials that are of US origin. In such a scenario, how can the Indian government convince its people that investment of billions of dollars and energy supplies will not be jeopardised if India conducts a test?

The answer may lie in a simple but imaginative right-sourcing strategy: don’t procure materials and equipment from the US. If India doesn’t buy equipment and fuel from US suppliers, then its investments and energy security aren’t dependent on any US action after a test. By procuring its supplies from countries other than the US, India will insulate itself from sanctions and return of materials.

In the absence of any other compelling rationale by New Delhi to assure that its investments will not be prejudiced in the future, right-sourcing seems to be the only mechanism that can defend its position. Such a strategy to deepen strategic relations with the US, yet not be dependent on their supplies, will also dovetail neatly into India’s strategic worldview where it sees an emerging balance of powers in the 21st century global order. The US government may well be aware of this strategy. Its willingness to sacrifice narrow commercial interest of one particular industry in order to obtain a broader political and economic partnership with India may be unique in its history, and that speaks of the vision and stakes at hand.
In a world where the US is faced with a mercurial Russia, an inscrutable China, the worldwide seepage of Islamic terror, and a schizophrenic and tottering Pakistan, there is simply no other nation with India’s size and democratic ethos to counterbalance the myriad challenges of the 21st century. The overriding strategic context of the relationship with India is compelling enough for the US administration to term the 123 deal as a matter of ‘national interest’. With the issue of reprocessing seemingly resolved to New Delhi’s and Washington’s mutual satisfaction, the only issue of substance on which the Left and the Right has zeroed in is the hypothesis of a nuclear test in the future. A failure on the part of the government to satisfy the naysayers on this count can result in the issue snowballing into nationalist rhetoric.

The only way out for New Delhi to declare that it has not compromised its sovereign right to test may be to articulate the right-sourcing strategy and thereby win their support for the deal. Once out of the doghouse, India can then mitigate its risk of US sanctions by sourcing its fuel and equipment from nations other than the US. Moreover, it may look only at fuel supplies in the first instance, and source the equipment as and when needed.
As Robert Kennedy once famously said, one-fifth of the people are against everything all the time. But if more than ‘a fifth’ oppose the deal in India, the government may have to spell out its right-sourcing strategy quickly. Such a strategy also insulates India’s foreign policy from unforeseen pressures in the future to align with the US on matters where it may hold divergent views. There is no doubt that American business has been one of the main forces in favour of the deal. India’s adoption of such a right-sourcing strategy might kick off a storm in corporate America. Such a response will be myopic. If the speculation is sound, then it is only the nuclear industry that could lose out, while the sum total benefit to all other industries from a newer paradigm of US-India relations will easily outweigh the loss to the American nuclear industry.
If, on the other hand, India is unable to defend its case, then the whole deal may be off. Thus the economics for corporate America boils down to this: Is it better to have a deal that would provide a major boost for US businesses in India, although without the participation of the American nuclear industry or have no deal at all? This is not to say that the nuclear industry will completely miss the boat, for it can innovate and be a player in the Indian market — something like the Japanese nuclear industry, which is structured so as to overcome its domestic compulsions, and is still a serious player in world markets.

Beyond the economic calculus, the 21st century demands an overarching strategic calculus among nations. For how will the global markets thrive and entrepreneurs profit unless there is security and freedom in the markets? The 123 Agreement is a bold attempt to create a paradigm that will help peace in our homes, and ensure a more benign scenario for Indian, American and other businesses to operate in free markets globally.

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

Postby shiv » 17 Aug 2007 15:54

abhischekcc wrote:I was wondering. Just how have you guys figured out that we would NEVER need to test again.


I was wondering too. I was wondering how, by doing exactly one test and one test series 27 years and 41 years after independence we are now fooling ourselves into thinking that in the absence of 123 we would be doing a series of blasts and perfecting a nuclear arsenal if only --IF ONLEEEE :x this stupid 123 had not been signed.

India never had the balls to test comprehensively and 123 is an admission of that. Why chafe at the truth?
Last edited by shiv on 17 Aug 2007 15:56, edited 1 time in total.

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

PIL on Nuclear Deal in the SC

Postby Sanatanan » 17 Aug 2007 15:55



What happened to the PIL filed in the SC by a Mumbai-IITan? The last I know of was that it was to have been taken up after the SC reopened after the summer recess on July 9th (or 10th), 2007.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6975
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby JE Menon » 17 Aug 2007 16:03

>>but a nuke infrastructure inputs may be more easily controlled

Saty, but that is the point... Without 123 it is already controlled. What 123 does is remove these controls, giving the rest of the P5/NSG some sort of fig leaf coverings to say they didn't give up the house...

Essentially, we are being brought into the system... It is America showing remorse for Tarapur, in a manner of speaking - a trust-building exercise. (In fact, more than that). But a lot of us are uncomfortable because of past experience, our colonial history and a difficulty to grasp the perks of power coming our way. We haven't had this experience for a long, long time - if you catch my drift. Of course, the US is going to gain too, but not necessarily in the nuclear realm - and even if so, perhaps not in the ways we imagine.

One way or the other we need to be careful going forward, but now we have less to worry about in terms of inputs.

Of course the concerns of influence, bribeability, etc. exist, but they do in any case. We just need to watch out for it. This is not a one way street.

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

Postby shiv » 17 Aug 2007 16:06

Just who are we trying to convince with nuclear tests. Half the folks in the world did not even believe India's claims on the 1998 tests. All sorts of people -including BRF argued for India's nukular H&DEE.

Even after that significant numbers of peopel do not believe India has the capability to produce effective nukes.

That may be so, but I want to point out a significant problem. India did not demonstrate the capability or intent to test even when we could have done that with NO extra punishment and certainly no reward.

Now we are being rewarded for not testing a 400 degree u-turn on what was threatened, with a promise of going back to square 1 if we do test and we are feeling subjugated.

We need not take the bloody reward. It's that simple. Test tomorrow and say "Screw 123"

Do we have the balls?

We don't. So what's the angst about?

If we don't trust our polity what makes us sure that they will even use a nuclear deterrent even if it has been tested 10000000 times? Are some of us thinking that it is testing that scares people away?

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6975
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby JE Menon » 17 Aug 2007 16:15

>>Just how have you guys figured out that we would NEVER need to test again.

Boss, what we have is a voluntary moratorium. Who has ruled out testing forever? Certainly no GoI official has said it, and I doubt anyone on the forum has said it either.

Conditions may arise in future where testing may become necessary, and not only by India.

Here's a prediction: there will come a time in the not too distant future when scientists from India and the US or India and Russia or India and the EU will work together on updating their nuclear weapons knowhow/capability. :twisted:

15 years ago, could you have imagined that Indian soldiers would be conducting joint exercises with US forces in Alaska? Or joint exercises with Australia/Japan/Singapore/US? Indian strategic diplomacy post 1991 has been fairly nimble in this regard. Its a new world disorder, and we have a lot to gain from the changes underway.

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

Postby Sanatanan » 17 Aug 2007 16:48

JE Menon wrote:
... It is America showing remorse for Tarapur, in a manner of speaking - a trust-building exercise. (In fact, more than that).


Does the new 123 allow us to reprocess the large quantity of spent fuel from Tarapur 1&2, accumulated and stored away from the reactors at some risk?

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 17 Aug 2007 16:54

OK, now that we have established clearly that "testing" nuke weapons is about "balls" and not "H&D" :roll:


let me post again the critical excerpt from what the Kangaroostani Pradhan Mantri actually said:

Howard last night reached an in-principle agreement with his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh, (a.k.a. "Mole-Mohini-Mooshik Traitor" ) despite India being one of the only four countries not to have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).

"It's a different approach and India has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. But we believe that these arrangements will deliver effectively the same outcome," he said.

Howard said both countries would enter a bilateral safeguards agreement, and India would have to enter a similar agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"And the sort of conditions that are going to be imposed on India are the same as the conditions that are being imposed on countries like China and Russia and I think also France ... and we've been selling uranium to France for many years," he said.


Also, what he is saying is that Australian-source nuke fuel cannot be used in weapons programs. Which is completely in line with the 123 agreement.

In addition, he is considered to be saying that if there is a test Australian cooperation will stop. Like it has stopped with France, which blew 5 megaton-level bumbs in 1997-98?

Let me repeat: His country is confident enough of India's bona fides, so 2 speak, that within a couple of weeks of the US signing the 123 with India, he has already
reached an in-principle agreement with his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh


OK...

RHETORIKEN UBER FACTEN!!

Slogan of the Energizer Bunny WehrMacht

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50371
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2007 17:03

I expect a good faith gesture from US to allow Tarapur spent fuel reprocessing on an expeditious manner.

Shiv, Go back to the BRM summary paper on the tests. Its the primary that has to be tested. The time line you give is not based on technical but political considerations.

The Indian Nuclear tests- Summary Paper

N^3, France has a different NPT status. Again oranges and apples. Mix them up you get fruit punch.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63090
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 17 Aug 2007 17:03

our two southern bhais brazil and SA need to line up with katora in hand next. we shouldnt single source but obtain a competitive market price by diversifying the suppliers.

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

Postby NRao » 17 Aug 2007 17:04

ramana wrote:I was told by an investor type that the deal must go on for world stability. :shock:

the guy has no geo-political connections. onlee money.


BUT, he will invest ONLY where he finds good sense, including geopolitical stability. Most currency traders are very well tuned into such things - they may not understand it or dissect it like we do.

There is a similar theory WRT the Iraq fiasco.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50371
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2007 17:07

Apropos the Sachadev article, in Hind Times,

Mr Sachadev might not be aware that except for the Russian reactors all else are US derivatives from GE or Westinghouse. Nice try but not relevant. Fuel is another matter but they also want their own 123/456 agreements.


ramana

A lot of doctors of divinity are rushing forward to give op-eds on matters beyond their ken.

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

Postby NRao » 17 Aug 2007 17:13


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Postby Philip » 17 Aug 2007 17:21

An excellent report by Frontline,whose latest issue is devoted to the controversy.


COVER STORY
http://www.frontline.in/stories/20070824501401800.htm

Euphoria and fear


T.S. SUBRAMANIAN
Some nuclear scientists welcome the agreement, while others are concerned about the consent clause on reprocessing spent fuel.

MOHAMMED YOUSUF

S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited.

OPINION is divided sharply among informed nuclear scientists and engineers on whether the 123 Agreement will benefit India in the long run. While officials of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), a public sector unit that undertakes the construction of nuclear power projects, are “thrilledâ€

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

Postby rocky » 17 Aug 2007 17:34

Victor wrote:We have obviously broadcast our intention to buy uranium from a lot of potential suppliers but I don't see where India has "begged" for Ozzie stuff. In fact, it seems like the other way around. There is total silence from the Indian side and it is the Ozmonkeys who have taken every opportunity to announce flip-flops like yes, they will and no, they won't, in general making complete asses of themselves and the DDM. One gets the feeling that they are at sea without a paddle on this one, unsure of whether to whine or cry. Must be the beer. They will get their wedgies soon enough to shut them up.
This should surely count for post of the month! :D

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

Postby John Snow » 17 Aug 2007 17:40

avram et al>>> the largest Uranium deposits are in Inner mangolia and Khzak repulics.
Read the book into Tibet

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
Fought in the remote corners of the world, the cold war had many victims--among them the ancient kingdom of Tibet. China invaded that land in 1950, charging that Tibet was playing into the hands of enemy imperial powers. The Communist government may have had a point, to judge by Thomas Laird's reconstruction of a little-documented CIA mission into Tibet intended at least in part to keep the country's uranium stores from falling into Russian hands. Long disavowed and involving only a handful of agents, the mission also delivered arms to the Tibetan resistance--which, Laird maintains, the CIA funded and supplied until the 1970s, when it abandoned the Tibetan freedom fighters. The mission was a failure on all counts, and the surviving participants were carefully hidden away; half a century later, the CIA "cannot affirm or deny" the existence of leader Douglas Mackiernan, "shot dead on the borders of Tibet and Sinkiang," the first agent to die in a covert operation. Though sometimes disjointed, Laird's eye-opening account probes this forgotten episode, blunders and heroic moments alike. --Gregory McNamee



Image


Why do you think soviets and PRC went war in 1969?

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6146
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 17 Aug 2007 18:03

Muppalla wrote:And if India conducts a test?

Robinder Sachdev

The answer may lie in a simple but imaginative right-sourcing strategy: don’t procure materials and equipment from the US. If India doesn’t buy equipment and fuel from US suppliers, then its investments and energy security aren’t dependent on any US action after a test. By procuring its supplies from countries other than the US, India will insulate itself from sanctions and return of materials.



Whether you are for the deal or against it my dear Robinder, but your above analysis is pitiful. Not one leaf moves in any corner of the world, if it is percieved in the corridors of power in Washington that it would not be in US empire's interests. Thus, in theory, India can procure its material and equipment from 'others', most likely poddles like Ozzies, and do you honestly believe that should India test, USA's poodles will continue on course? Even those like say Russia who have some semblence of resistence to Unkil's centrifugal force will be made to fall in line.

This deal is between US empire and India; all others are just bit poodles of USA. In fact, should India test, I can forsee his master's voice types, Ruchard 'suck up' Butlers (remeber this odious ozzie), who will be unleashed on CNN, sanctimonoulsy berating India with the 'us Vs them' tone, and then state dept spokesman will pompously declare that the 'international community' has declared sanctions on India. But all this is moot anyway, India is nowhere near conducting a test; my only hope is that whatever we have is operational to deal with TSP/Chincom hanky panky, and perfecting our delivery systems is on the anvil.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests