India Nuclear News and Discussion 17 August 2007

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3251
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

India Nuclear News and Discussion 17 August 2007

Postby Tanaji » 17 Aug 2007 18:07

Old thread
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=320
----------------------------------
The 123 does create a strong, extraneous and motivated lobby and power center in India that would be against testing.

Currently, we have only the Wagah candle kissers brigade, Commies and other NGOs that are opposed to testing. Post 123, when the Birlas, Ambanis and others are heavily invested in nuclear power plants, there will be a strong economic set back for them in the event of a test by India. They will surely oppose such a move.

And given current scenario, guess who has more clout with the Congress / BJP etc: the American Jekyll/Hyde/123 acts or the Birlas and Ambanis? The latter control the party purse strings and why should we expect the political leaders to pay more attention to doing what is right than to what is good for the party?

IF someone is going to argue that Ambanis and Birlas are not relevant in this given their hold over the political spectrum, then I am interested in those arguments. Testing post 1998 is now as much a political question than a scientific and security related one.

123 creates a powerful anti testing lobby within the country. Unless there is a way to side step this lobby, 123 will affect our resolve to test for sure.

Follow the money they say, it usually leads us somewhere!

-------------------------------------
Allakh Niranjan!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 17 Aug 2007 18:14

see by the examples.. and history, would tell us, we need this deal as is.. why?

lets say we test, and our 35KMw are in jeopardy for fuel, then that is exact crisis i am searching for us.. under crisis, we come up with mind boggling answers.

we had the crisis during pok1, then we made leaps and bounds in nuclear field. russia failed to keep promises (cyrogenic, kudankulam, etc..) and it took money and poodling of the other kind to get them.. now we have own cryogenics from that experience.

i want the constrains.. that we are on the have not of U235, but haves on the Thorium.. lets get the brains out on this. the only way that would happen, is another sanction.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16412
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 17 Aug 2007 18:26

Whether you are for the deal or against it my dear Robinder, but your above analysis is pitiful.


There is logic, then there is a (US) super power, and, then there is Indian politics.

The first seems to be a non-issue.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16412
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 17 Aug 2007 18:38

Tanaji,

IIRC Indian corps have stated that that is not an issue. That they will look after national interests first.

IMHO, IF Chicom tests, it is a no brainer - even for the US.

The issue I would imagine is NPAs. In the next 5-10 years we need to help them find other constructive jobs.

The other issue is political parties - as in AussieLand - making Indian strategic issues their internal politician ones. This is as bad as the US taking over Indian foreign policy WRT Iran.

IMHO, India has enough things to counter all this. India, if in her sleep, she move, that movement should be registered. Perhaps it is a matter of time.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 17 Aug 2007 18:41

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


Thanks. France obviously negotiated the protected status of the "Force De Frappe". But France also insisted that b4 signing CTBT, they had to complete testing their megaton level babies, and destroyed a few more idyllic islands in the Indian Ocean. In 1996-98, when there was no Soviet Union, and Germany had no nukes, and no one was threatening France. There was no demonstrable national security imperative for France to test. In what way did this constitute "responsible international behavior"?

The 'roos now claim that testing would not be "responsible international behavior" But who are they to give advice?

Australia had no moral qualms about continuing to sell to France. Which party was in power in Australia? The present moralistic Beer-soaked 'roos or the even worse Opposition drunks? Either way, the desi media, if they had any balls or H&D or anything, would be focusing on this hypocrisy and making the Australians squirm.

Also, the Australians provided the testing grounds for Britain.

So the media might suggest that Australia is trying to corner the market as a global test site, and may next be offering that to the Pakis and the Chinese.

Australians need some solid focussed public analysis of their own actions, to give them something to think about.

RonyKJ
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 30 Jan 2001 12:31
Contact:

Postby RonyKJ » 17 Aug 2007 18:51

The best way to clear the muck is to sign the agreement and immediately announce a nuclear test. India should make use of these tests to fine tune weapon design. It has to be a series of tests, about 10, so that further tests are not needed. Testing may be done over a 2 year period so that it allows for design changes to be made. If the agreement falls through, not much damage would have been done. If it withstands, then we know we have a good agreement. If it falls through, go back and say we won't test and do a fresh agreement.

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

Postby saty » 17 Aug 2007 18:57

JE Menon wrote:>>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.


Yes and no; without 123 the nuke program is controlled in its extent yes; after 123 it could grow in extent BUT get controlled in the "real" freedom to use it as we see fit. Sort of like having a General having a Agni instead of Katuysha under his command; expect that he has to first talk to the PM to use the Agni. Does he have more? Sure? Can he use the more? Of course but not as easily.

Others have since then already mentioned the stake of internal power house restricting policies. A bit like India partly avoided going to war for economic considerations; good thing or bad? Bit of both.

Similarly I would expect a bit greater restrain. The need to test when arises; a lot of care would be needed to make sure that the test goes through without wreaking things.

The cost of testing may indeed go up significantly.

It is important to look at the truth; to not accept it is folly.

The second part is crucial; the deal is about trust. Internationally it is between India and US and domestically it is in the Long Live the Queen Singh.

And therein lies the rub
1) One poster had mentioned that since the whole thing was about trust; the manner in which Hyde act was passed and 123 deal done already destroyed the trust aspect of things. The fact that 123!=J18 is something to think about when considering "the remorse". The nature of 123 clearly brings out how much can we trust the US and just how far will US go to accommodate us. That is clear to see.
2) MMS Singhs track record so far has been stellar at not standing up; usually he was just a good Babu for PVN who did the real ballsy things.
I trust him under Sonia's thumb not a whit. It does not do good for such steps to be taken by a puppet PM under a Sonia like extraordinarily shady figure.

As I said before; I think this deal is better than no deal in terms of opportunity.

But opportunity alone; the risks are also many; it remains incumbent on future Indian leadership to use the opportunity well without slipping.

Dance by all means; but watch out for who is waving the baton.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2007 19:02

One point is that after the J18 agreement, MMS/UPA said India woul get the same rights and treatment as a de-facto nuclear weapon state. The current US law does not call for sanctions if any of the P-5 violates their assent to the CTBT which they all signed and most have not ratified.

So the question is, "Is India getting less than what was stated after the J18 agreement?"

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

Postby svinayak » 17 Aug 2007 19:03

shiv wrote:
India never had the balls to test comprehensively and 123 is an admission of that. Why chafe at the truth?


Then why be in the business of nuclear weapons. Sign NPT and be happy.

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

Postby saty » 17 Aug 2007 19:06

shiv wrote:
Do we have the balls?

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


Shiv; w.r.t to the above and Ramana's post.

No one is saying we dont have the balls (as a nation; MMS is another thing) everybody understands testing has to balance the need to test for techincal and political reasons and the cost thereof.

People are just wondering with increasing costs under 123 how is testing when needed will be done.

Why spoil the discussion by mocking at people who hold a different POV and humiliating them?

Raju

Postby Raju » 17 Aug 2007 19:07

Look at all the US 'allies' in Asia viz South Korea, Japan, Thailand? almost everyone is non Nuclear Weapon State and rely heavily on conventional weapons. Ofcourse this opportunity created by forced strategic inequality gives unkil a chance to sell a lot of conventional weapons to these countries.

in case of a war, these 'allies' will be swaha-ed by their nuclear armed rivals and then unkil will finish off the NK's.

Same is being attempted in the India-China context.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 17 Aug 2007 19:10

It's far smarter to sign now, get moving, an d do what makes sense to do.

Continue weapons programs.

If the security environment requires it, the suppliers of fuel and plants are also going to feel it, assuming India is not going to use enemies as suppliers.

So if the need arises for testing, these guys have a vested interest in seeing that it gets done with minimum fuss. At that time, the most probable course of events is that the COTUS, WHOTUS and Kangaroos for instance will fully support the need for India to test, and will just make some tut-tut noises.

When their own companies call up and tell them to shut up and let India decide what needs to be done, they will all find good reason to agree with India, or at least to do nothing.

So the only thing that hurts India now is all these hordes of idiots jumping up and down demanding

BUT WILL WE BE ALLOWED TO TEST NOW?


This is what comes of having a whole generation of netizen weanies who had to get PERMISSION from their parents, dadas, mamis, etc. etc. even to get married.

Start the Romance Thread, I say, and let us at least inspire a new generation to show a little more spine! :(( :((

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

Postby John Snow » 17 Aug 2007 19:22

Dr. Shiv Saab is always in short fuse mode! Saty, he will take the bat and the ball and call the game is over. Be careful :D

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 17 Aug 2007 19:23

for test lovers:-
if we need to test, merge it along with those 7+ richter earth quakes from deep sea java islands. don't we have MKI base there already? all it takes is a deep sea dive to install the device.


announce tsunami only after the test, to cover your musharrafs.

sraj
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Postby sraj » 17 Aug 2007 19:47

A Bad Bet
Copyright: India Today

Rather than chase a misbegotten deal, a rising India can get a better bargain in the years ahead

GUEST COLUMN: Brahma Chellaney

[quote]Behind the political storm triggered by the civil nuclear deal with the US lies deep-seated national concern over its long-term implications for India’s security and strategic autonomy. The deal has divided India like no other strategic issue since independence. After all, the deal is not just about importing nuclear reactors for electricity. It will determine what kind of India emerges in the years to come — a major independent power with the requisite economic and military strength, or a middling power trimming its sails to the prevailing American winds and still relying on imports to meet basic defence needs.

India stands out as the only large country still deeply dependent on arms imports, to the extent that it has emerged as the world’s largest weapons importer. The nuclear deterrent is the only strategic programme it has pursued somewhat successfully. While its nuclear posture calls for a “credible minimal deterrentâ€

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 17 Aug 2007 19:48

Tanaji's note that the passing of the deal will create a powerful anti testing lobby inside the country is worth noting.

Members who say that the deal will mean business as usual should remember two facts.

1. It was the pressure from the IT vity 'leaders' due to which Vajpayee backed down from attacking pakistan in the afternath of the attack on the parliament. A program series by Thomas Friedman on Discovery channel showed that Nandan Nilekani was actually proud of having got the Indian government to back down. Such is the leadership quality of India's businessmen.

2. The west got a foothold in the strongly independant South Korean economy after the country was destabilised by precisely these kind of SK IT vity types. Educated in the west, having western outlook, and wanting to integrate into the western frame of reference as good boys, those jokers destroyed what had been created by their fathers and grandfathers at enormous cost.


------------
It's far smarter to sign now, get moving, an d do what makes sense to do.

Continue weapons programs.
N^3. You really thing that it will be that easy to do both now? Just - 'Get moving'?


----------------
One point is that after the J18 agreement, MMS/UPA said India woul get the same rights and treatment as a de-facto nuclear weapon state. The current US law does not call for sanctions if any of the P-5 violates their assent to the CTBT which they all signed and most have not ratified.

So the question is, "Is India getting less than what was stated after the J18 agreement?"

Isn't it obvious? :)

MMS has been lying to the nation and to the parliament. In doing so, he is only carrying out the great kangrezi PM tradition of lying to the highest authority of the country. Nehru had lied about Patel's prefernce for Kashmir solution on the day Patel could not attend parliament due to illness. Rajiv Gandhi and his 'no one from my familee has taken money on Bofors' thingy.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 17 Aug 2007 19:48

Acharya wrote:
shiv wrote:
India never had the balls to test comprehensively and 123 is an admission of that. Why chafe at the truth?


Then why be in the business of nuclear weapons. Sign NPT and be happy.


Absolutely.

But we do not want to sign the NPT because it is "discriminatory".

Then we take our own time, and in a recessed way develop weapons and we test them JUST once - as ramana says because of political considerations.

That is the hitch. Political considerations. Political obstacles to testing have been there from 1974. There was no 123 from 1974 to 2007. Despite that there were "political considerations" that stopped us from testing for 33 years - except once, after which existing sanctions were expanded. (LCA, visa restrictions etx)

Until the July 18th agreement, India had planned to go on developing a 3 stage civilian program on its own, and "retain the right to test" - but that "right to test" was already under the heavy cloud of "political considerations"

What were these political considerations?

These political considerations were a toss up to decide if inevitable sanctions and censure were worth it compared to the gains from testing.

Even after 123 the same problems persist. If we want to test we can test, but we have to decide if the gains are worth the losses - of which some are clearly known to us now as clauses of 123.

So what is different?

The only thing is that we can now negotiate with the usual culprits who would previously not negotiate at all with us to supply us with stuff for civilian reactors.

In short:

Before 123: "Freedom to test" was there subject to
a) Uncertain Political considerations
b) No external assistance to speed up our civilian energy production

After 123: "Freedom to test" is subject to
a) Uncertain Political considerations and the stated conditions of 123
b) External assistance to speed up our civilian energy program

After 123 - what we get in clause "b" can be taken away by the new condition in clause "a"

How good or bad this is remains a moot point - on which I will state some personal opinions in another post.

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

Postby menon » 17 Aug 2007 19:51

ramana wrote:One point is that after the J18 agreement, MMS/UPA said India woul get the same rights and treatment as a de-facto nuclear weapon state. The current US law does not call for sanctions if any of the P-5 violates their assent to the CTBT which they all signed and most have not ratified.

So the question is, "Is India getting less than what was stated after the J18 agreement?"

this is exactly why i have been clamouring for the ratification provision in the constitution. A few years ago I applied for a job in an org dealing with nooclear matters they said "India is not a signatory" so I am disqualified. Then I mentioned America has not ratified, they said thats diff.
If we had that clause we could have just gone and signed a lot of worthless papers and not ratify like US of A. Then we would have had the benifits and not the responsiblities. NPT, ICC treaty etc are examples when US had signed but not ratified.

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

Postby svinayak » 17 Aug 2007 20:02

menon wrote:
If we had that clause we could have just gone and signed a lot of worthless papers and not ratify like US of A. Then we would have had the benifits and not the responsiblities. NPT, ICC treaty etc are examples when US had signed but not ratified.

India can still do it. It needs a sophisticated polity which can understand power politics.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 17 Aug 2007 20:13

abhischekcc:-

the two contexts are different. those scenarios are well within the threshold of using the nuclear weapons or that crosses the barrier to do the test.

and for that matter what we had in Kargil was more an oppty rather some dire strait situation, that we need to deploy the unthinkable. if we keep saying that, then we are losing out on the responsibility & sensibility front.

thomas friedman type analysts are not strategic types.. yes, we can base all that happy stories for the other jingo types that pull capitalizm the rich way.

when push comes to shove, that is when we measure situation that crosses the threshold values, the trigger will happen.. be it friedman or nilekani can't stop or even think about publishing a story, and create a capitalism strong base.

hey.. its hard for some people to accept certain brutal truth.

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

Postby svinayak » 17 Aug 2007 20:17

sraj wrote:A Bad Bet
Copyright: India Today

Rather than chase a misbegotten deal, a rising India can get a better bargain in the years ahead

GUEST COLUMN: Brahma Chellaney


I think this article sums it up

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 17 Aug 2007 20:23

imho, it aggregation of many bargains.. a new bargain can't overrule our previous agreements that we would have to base it. this is exact same mentality that we are losing out on production of new technology in the defence field., when we want to jumpstart and leapfrog things up. not gonna happen. in that sense, BC is the marut who will sleep till lca needs to chase future raptor.

i say, we need to tinker this 123 and see how much we can add/modify/delete. wtf.. who is saying that this is the final? MMS and who does not appear to listen to anyone! dont make him a musharraf!.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 17 Aug 2007 20:23

Before and after 123 - changes in green color

BEFORE 123

1) Situation for P5
  • Not allowed to test
  • Allowed to update weapons without testing overtly
  • Sharing of nuclear material allowed except with pariahs
2) Situation for pariah India
  • Not allowed to test
  • World could do bugger-all about weapons updating
  • sharing not allowed
3) Situation for non P5
  • Not allowed to test
  • Not allowed to update or have weapons
  • Sharing of nuclear material allowed except with pariahs

SITUATION AFTER 123 (changes in green)

1) Situation for P5
  • Not allowed to test
  • Allowed to update weapons without testing overtly
  • Sharing of nuclear material allowed including pariah India
2) Situation for pariah India
  • Not allowed to test
  • World could do bugger-all about weapons updating
  • sharing allowed - not a pariah
3) Situation for non P5
  • Not allowed to test
  • Not allowed to update or have weapons
  • Sharing of nuclear material allowed including pariah India

Raju

Postby Raju » 17 Aug 2007 20:27

When talking of nukes, we must always remind ourselves on the sort of people we are dealing with:

"Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries"

Henry Kissinger

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 17 Aug 2007 20:27

From Wikipedia, the main technical persons involved in the Shakti series of tests in 1998 are given below. It was based on their advice presumably that the tests were successful that the Vajpayee government announced a unilateral moratorium on testing. Have any of these gentlemen in the list below, since 1998 ever spoken out about the need for further testing? If not, why do the BCs and the BKs and other assorted EBs continously jump up and down asking for testing right here and right now? Do the EBs regard themselves as better qualified than the distinguished gentlemen who were actually responsible for the tests as to the need for further testing?


The main technical personnel involved in the operation were:

Project Chief Coordinators:

Dr.A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister and Head of the DRDO.
Dr.R.Chidambaram, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Atomic energy

Development and Test Teams:


Bhabha Atomic Research Centre(BARC):

Dr.Anil Kakodkar, Director of BARC
Dr.Satinder Kumar Sikka, Director; Thermonuclear Weapon Development
Dr.M.S. Ramkumar, Director of Nuclear Fuel and Automation Manufacturing Group; Director, Nuclear Component Manufacture
Dr.D.D. Sood, Director of Radiochemistry and Isotope Group; Director, Nuclear Materials Acquisition
Dr. S.K. Gupta, Solid State Physics and Spectroscopy Group; Director, Device Design & Assessment
Dr.G. Govindraj, Associate Director of Electronic and Instrumentation Group; Director, Field Instrumentation



Defence Research & Development Organization(DRDO):

Dr.K. Santhanam; Director, Test Site Preparations
Dr.M.Vasudev; Range Safety Officer

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 17 Aug 2007 20:28

shiv.. a small request.. lets use the "outcaste" word than the derogatory p-word.

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 17 Aug 2007 20:29

shiv wrote:
Acharya wrote:
shiv wrote:
India never had the balls to test comprehensively and 123 is an admission of that. Why chafe at the truth?


Then why be in the business of nuclear weapons. Sign NPT and be happy.


Absolutely.

But we do not want to sign the NPT because it is "discriminatory".


But the new 123 is also discriminatory. India does not have same rights and freedom of action as USA has. We have put more reactors on IAEA inspection than than the combined number of US, UK, France, Russia, PRC. Forget about being == to US, UK, Russia; we are not even = to PRC.

We remained a nuclear pariah BECAUSE we wanted to keep our freedom of developing nuclear weapons open. Using the logic that we need civilian energy more and after 40 years we can go back to testing nukes begs the question that we could do the same with NPT too---i.e. sign now and develop the nation and then exit the NPT and test.

s

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2007 20:34

I had a tubelight moment.

What GOI did by putting the deal on the table is buy time for strategic, economic and political space. Strategic for it morgantically legitimizes the Indian weapons and tests. Economic for it assures energy supplies albiet with conditions and political for it moves India out of the doghouse to which it was confined since 1974.

US also has its reasons for the deal- large market to support US high technology/high cost goods, hedging for a transforming PRC, and Middle East reform and the price of re-admitting India is not too high as its only an image problem.

How it(GOI) uses this space to advance Indian interests is the thing to watch for. It can hedge for the the disincentives in the deal with the US by seeking to advance other interests.
Eg. -
- Buy the new power reactors and fuel from a variety of sources not subject to US dictats or fiat.
- Fully develop the AHWR and the non U based reactors.
- Preserve its strategic autonomy and not be seen as a poodle

surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1421
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Postby surinder » 17 Aug 2007 20:37

shiv wrote:Before and after 123 - changes in green color

BEFORE 123

1) Situation for P5
  • Not allowed to test
  • Allowed to update weapons without testing overtly
  • Sharing of nuclear material allowed except with pariahs
2) Situation for pariah India
  • Not allowed to test
  • World could do bugger-all about weapons updating
  • sharing not allowed
3) Situation for non P5
  • Not allowed to test
  • Not allowed to update or have weapons
  • Sharing of nuclear material allowed except with pariahs


Shiv:

I am not sure I agree with the two items in your list (Bolded in the quote above). The P5 are allowed to test, as per NPT. It was the CTBT that never went into force that would have banned testing. Also, India not being signatory to any aggreement was also "allowed" to test. The difference between before and after the new 123 for India is simply this: Cost of testing was small before 123; cost of testing is huge after 123. The question then is the following: Has the increase in cost crossed a threshold?

s

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

Postby Rangudu » 17 Aug 2007 20:41

There are different types of discrimination at a country club. One type disallows secnd class members from eating at the VIP table, with all the fancy food. Another type allows VIP members the ability to not wear underwear.

You are a normal person who likes to eat and you are offered a seat at the VIP table, minus the "underwear" privilege. Do you take it or do you whine about not getting the underwear ability?

As to BC's :(( article, how about India ACCEPT this deal today and STILL GET a better deal down the line? Has anyone considered that by getting a foot in the door and entering the club with a "Semi VIP" pass allows India to sit at the table when the next NPT order is discussed?

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 17 Aug 2007 20:43

surinder wrote:Shiv:

I am not sure I agree with the two items in your list (Bolded in the quote above). The P5 are allowed to test, as per NPT. It was the CTBT that never went into force that would have banned testing. Also, India not being signatory to any aggreement was also "allowed" to test. The difference between before and after the new 123 for India is simply this: Cost of testing was small before 123; cost of testing is huge after 123. The question then is the following: Has the increase in cost crossed a threshold?

s


Accepted Surinder, but the cost was high even before 123 although we are pretending on this thread that it was minimal. That is why we tested so often in 5 decades.

The cost will get higher only if we choose to take the bait of starting a civilian program on imported material without thinking through the consequences of subsequent testing. Until we do that the consequences will be no more that it has been.

We need to think seriously about the need to test before embarking on any civilian deal, rather than leaving all thought for an unspecified future date as we used to do before 123 under the heading "We are free to test"

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2007 20:51

R, You are back to the old arguement about foot in the door business. The guys are saying clearly they will amputate the foot if you want to go back out again.

The question being is asked is GOI prepared for that and does it have some back-up plans to mitigate the risk?

It is important for all voices be heard so that it can happen atleast outside the Parliament as it wont be allowed inside. So let them talk atleast.

CNN-IBN

New Delhi: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has claimed that the BJP leaders had wished death for him because of his resolve to sign the nuclear deal. He said this three months back in an interview to the India Today news magazine.

The Prime Minister had given the interview in June with the understanding that it will come out only when the 123 Agreement is signed.

Speaking on the attitude of Opposition party, the Prime Minister said: "It requires a big leap in approach and the attitude of the BJP is disappointing. They didn’t even believe I would last as the Prime Minister and some leaders even did havans that I should die on a certain day."


"But I have faith on higher force. I believe it was my destiny to be PM. I have the courage of conviction," he said.

The revelation came in the context of remarks made by NDA convenor George Fernandes against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in which he reportedly said if it was China, they would have shot him in the head by a bullet.


The UPA has demanded an apology or withdrawal of the remark by the former defence minister but Fernandes says he won't apologise.


Singh, who has been under attack from the BJP-led Opposition and the Left allies over the nuclear cooperation agreement, also claimed that the nuclear deal was a 'logical fallout' of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership that the NDA Government headed by Atal Behari Vajpayee had begun with the US.


"It was an outcome of that process... while we had successfully made nuclear weapons, on the power front, there were too many shifting targets. We had set a target of 10,000 MW of nuclear power almost 35 years ago and now we have only around 3,700 MW. The deal would help us meet our targets for nuclear power," he said.


In the same interview, the PM also made his stand clear on India's stand on nuclear test vis-à-vis the Indo-US civil nuclear deal.


The PM told India Today that he had made it clear to US President George W Bush during negotiations on the Indo-US nuclear deal that India could not agree to a 'bilateral' NPT or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).


He said it was not in India's interest for Iran to become a nuclear weapons power, although it had the right to have nuclear energy as an NPT member.


"I told President Bush, I can't be a cheerleader or be part of a war-mongering group. The nuclear dispute with Iran should be resolved through peaceful processes,"
he told the India Today magazine.


The Prime Minister's comments came in an interview conducted over two months back while he was returning from the G-8 Summit of Industrialsied countries in Germany. Singh had met Bush and other world leaders during his trip in June.


The magazine said its understanding was that excerpts of the interview could be published once the 123 Agreement was reached.


Singh recalled that the US President had told him in July, 2005, "Don't expect me to help you to build bombs. I told him I didn't expect the US to do that because with our previous achievements, we didn't need anyone's help."


The Prime Minister said: "I made it clear during the negotiations that we can't agree to a bilateral NPT or CTBT. We have a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing and we will exercise restraint."


Describing President Bush as a 'very easy person' to deal with, Singh said: "He is very nice to me and of all the US Presidents, he is the friendliest towards India."

{So GOI has seen through the hype of Clinton!}


Noting that the US had become the 'sole superpower' almost 15 years back, he said: "But all these years, no Indian government had the courage to change our policy towards the US." It was felt during foreign policy review that Indo-US relations were the key in a globalised world and "we needed to give them the highest importance. We have stayed the course."

{This is the KS Task Force report parts of which have been made public here and there.}


(With PTI inputs)
Last edited by ramana on 17 Aug 2007 21:03, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 17 Aug 2007 20:56

Why have nuclear bombs?
To kill some designated enemy in large numbers

Why test a nuclear bomb?
To validate design. Inventory checking.

Is testing absolutely necessary?
I'm not an expert - but I think it is. No use pretending it isn't. Testing could possibly be largely done away with, and that is how weapon powers will update themselves in the absence of testing.

If you have nuclear weapons, does it mean you are going to use them?
Yes. The idea is to use them. All countries with nuclear bombs are potential genocidal population killers. Some may be more capable, some less, but all are that way.

Why is there a general consensus on banning tests, with or without treaties?
Because nuclear bombs are easy to make and everyone can have one soon, and the chances that someone will randomly use one is increasing. Machogiri aside - you don't want one on you, and you don't want to nuke someone else.

Then why this dichotomy of discouraging testing while keeping existing weapon inventories?
Nobody who has weapons wants to give them up. Many who don't have weapons do not want them. Some who do not have nukes want them. A clear caste system has been devised to let those who have them keep them, while preventing those who want them from getting them, and binding those who DO NOT want them by treaties so they don't change their minds. Hopefully lack of testing will eventually, perhaps over many decades, reduce the threat, the need and the inventories of the biggest nuclear armed powers. If proliferation can be checked and peace maintained, pehaps new agreements can be reached for peacful use and no war.


What's the point of the caste system?
The point is to reduce the number of leaders on earth with access to nuclear weapons in the hope that an eventual agreement can be rached on eliminating them. Note the word "hope"

What does 123 do for India?
It changes India's caste, but does not make weapon testing any easier.
Last edited by shiv on 17 Aug 2007 20:58, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby saty » 17 Aug 2007 20:57

shiv wrote:The cost will get higher only if we choose to take the bait of starting a civilian program on imported material without thinking through the consequences of subsequent testing. Until we do that the consequences will be no more that it has been.


Saar; and doesn't it seem that is exactly what we are going for? Not because of the 123 but under the guise of?

That is my whole point and testing is just one part of it; are we beholden to others for power going forward arresting our geo-pol maneuvering space?

Big question is can the good parts of the deal be used without getting into bad one.

Or this "ek raat kee bhool" by the Her Majestys govt. going to cost us long and dear.

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

Postby saty » 17 Aug 2007 21:04

ramana wrote:I had a tubelight moment.

What GOI did by putting the deal on the table is buy time for strategic, economic and political space. Strategic for it morgantically legitimizes the Indian weapons and tests. Economic for it assures energy supplies albiet with conditions and political for it moves India out of the doghouse to which it was confined since 1974.



Accepted this is what WE HOPE that GoIs plan is; my concern is whether BRF worthies are on the same page as GoI.

With the current dispensation I worry on this count a lot; Sonia has never had a stake in the country; even today she is currently milking the system for here and kids. That is obvious to see.

Will the good start by NDA turned on its head?

We have already seen that GoI has completely failed to hold the Bushies accountable for his J18 promises.

The question needs to be asked why is J18 != 123 and therein lies the answer as to whether the 123 deal is a honey pot or a genuine opportunity.

However in either case we should accept the deal and turn it on it head in the future; however knowing what the reality is; is obviously the first step in tackling it.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 17 Aug 2007 21:04

saty wrote:
shiv wrote:The cost will get higher only if we choose to take the bait of starting a civilian program on imported material without thinking through the consequences of subsequent testing. Until we do that the consequences will be no more that it has been.


Saar; and doesn't it seem that is exactly what we are going for? Not because of the 123 but under the guise of?


What it seems like is not a problem until something happens. We won't be buying paan - we will be attempting to do a watertight deal that leaves our options open. if we negotiate a deal well - we win - if not we don't.

Each deal for each reactor will have to be negotiated letter by letter until it satisfies us.

Oh - I forgot that our polity is untrustworthy - so that means that everything will be done wrong.

Be that as it may. Nothing is lost yet. The only thing that has happened is that a door has opened for us. As soon as this door opened we have people saying "We have lost everything"

Fine. OK we have lost everything. Why cry over spilt milk - or argue with strawman arguments that speak of things that have not yet happened as being "already lost"?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 17 Aug 2007 21:07

Canberra’s terms for uranium sale
(1) Conclusion of a suitable safeguards agreement between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), covering all designated civil nuclear facilities;
(2) Conclusion by India of an Additional [IAEA] Protocol on strengthened safeguards;
(3) Satisfactory progress in implementing India’s commitment to place designated civil nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards in perpetuity;
(4) A consensus decision by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to make an exception to its guidelines enabling international civil supply to India;
(5) Conclusion of a bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement between India and the United States;
(6) Conclusion of a bilateral Australia-India safeguards agreement.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1664
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 17 Aug 2007 21:07

From the Brahma Chellaney article posted above:

New Delhi needs to realize time is on its side. As a rising power, India could easily get a better deal, if it were patient and waited a few more years.


India is a rising power because India's rising economy is the bedrock of its rise. Greater military spending is possible only because of economic growth. As the person responsible for steering India's economy from the brink of disaster in 1991 more than anyone else, MMS is aware of India's economic and infrastructure strengths and weaknesses. If as Brahma Chellaney says that India can get a better deal in the future, should MMS have also said in 1991 that India could have got a better deal rather than transferring gold reserves abroad in 1991 to help with the balance of payments crisis India faced? The fact is that as the primary economic manager for India, MMS more than anyone else is aware of the structural faults inherent in India's power sector as well as what can and cannot be done to remove the structural problems inherent in the power and labor sectors. Clearly in his opinion, the optimum time to strike this deal is now. Left later, it might become even more painfully apparent how desperate India's power situation is. That obvious weakness might in fact turn out to be counter productive - the US may have demanded more at a later date.

What is painful in reading articles written by people such as BC is that they have already made up their mind that they do not like this deal and then scrounge around for reasons, some of them far fetched to justify their decisions. When in fact supposedly as strategic thinkers or analysts they should be looking at this issue from all angles. This inability to give up their partisan attitude and think from an India standpoint is what is galling from most of these strategic thinkers and for that matter from the BJP stalwarts including people such as LKA who I thought had more lofty ideals rather than mere partisan bickering.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2007 21:11

Saty, Read MMS interview in IT posted above. Its makki ka makki BRF opinion.
- Testing- Voluntary morotarium. No bilateral or vilateral.
- Iran - No nukes but peaceful resolution required.
- Electric power - Need to raise the output to help the economy

I think BRF by and large has the India centric view on strategic matters. Only non India centric folks will differ with BR views.

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

Postby svinayak » 17 Aug 2007 21:11

ldev wrote: If as Brahma Chellaney says that India can get a better deal in the future, should MMS have also said in 1991 that India could have got a better deal rather than transferring gold reserves abroad in 1991 to help with the balance of payments crisis India faced?

Apple and Orange comparision.

Other wise the post is OK.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest