India Nuclear News and Discussion 17 August 2007

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

Postby John Snow » 17 Aug 2007 21:12

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra

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

Postby surinder » 17 Aug 2007 21:13

shiv wrote: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.


Shiv, the words "less" and "more" are relative. But maybe we can agree that the cost of testing has gone up by 123. Can we? If we do, then the next question is: Has it gone up and crossed a threshold?

The threshold needs to be understood in two ways. One is the threshold to actually test. The US administration (by all accounts I have seen) is pleased that the cost has been enhanced for India to the extent that it diminishes chances to test. The Indian goverment (MMS) has tried to say the opposite that the added cost has not changed the cost materially. I am sorry to say, but I find the US positoin more credible.

The second aspect of threshold is that of perception of India in the minds of our adversaries and their supporters. It is my feeling that the perception generated by 123 in the minds of our adversaries+supprters is that India has been tamed---the elephant has been chained. Regardless of actual testing, perception creates deterrence and determines the will of the enemy to fight and confront. There is a loss of prestige, which will have consequences. This perception must never be allowed to lapse or changed. A good Prime Minister of India would seek to enhance the perception that India is more dangerous and more aggressive.

s

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 17 Aug 2007 21:14

shiv wrote: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"?

'cause our netas and their chunav politics only sees doors and windows.. that they use keep jumping here and there.

While strategists instead of using them to gain the maximum benefit from such openings, sometimes get succumbed to defeat that everything is over, all is lost.. and get into this lactose tired mode {lack of vision/due to gray cells}.

I am seeing what is the biggest defeat of UPA is that MMS accepting this deal as !final! without a joint team or a majority deal. UPA simply does not have majority to go for this deal - check ramana's argument, "can't use IG tactics by this surrogate Gandhi-giris".

This deal will fail political support.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2982
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 17 Aug 2007 21:16

Statement A

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.

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


Statement B

Rangudu wrote: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.


Exactly. What is the need of the hour is out of box thinking. Our old scripture says, "What you think is what you become". We all heard the ill/side effects of the deal from all class of people. But why no one except Siddarth(The Hindu) try to see or reason with people who are saying there are several guarantees protecting the testing scenario.

Those who take up the Tarapur incident to argue against should go further to complete the cycle of argument to get complete picture. 1. The present 123 deal take cares of that shortcomings in the Tarapur deal 2. US didnt need the Hyde act in 1974 to act against. 3. General rule is if one commit a mistake he take a punishment, if he commit the mistake second time, the punishment should be more, Isnt it? Then why for 1974 test we got nearly 20 yrs of pariah status and for the second test @ 1998, meagre few yrs followed by NSSP and this deal. If we find the answer, there lies the basis(as per the reports) of this deal. And it also answers why US couldnt able to punish China for all the wrong doing which we never committed and similarly when we test again.

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

Postby shiv » 17 Aug 2007 21:17

surinder wrote:
shiv wrote: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.


Shiv, the words "less" and "more" are relative. But maybe we can agree that the cost of testing has gone up by 123. Can we? If we do, then the next question is: Has it gone up and crossed a threshold?

The threshold needs to be understood in two ways. One is the threshold to actually test. The US administration (by all accounts I have seen) is pleased that the cost has been enhanced for India to the extent that it diminishes chances to test. The Indian goverment (MMS) has tried to say the opposite that the added cost has not changed the cost materially. I am sorry to say, but I find the US positoin more credible.

The second aspect of threshold is that of perception of India in the minds of our adversaries and their supporters. It is my feeling that the perception generated by 123 in the minds of our adversaries+supprters is that India has been tamed---the elephant has been chained. Regardless of actual testing, perception creates deterrence and determines the will of the enemy to fight and confront. There is a loss of prestige, which will have consequences. This perception must never be allowed to lapse or changed. A good Prime Minister of India would seek to enhance the perception that India is more dangerous and more aggressive.

s


Surinder - you and I are not on the same page here.

The cost remains unchanged, but we can raise or lower it - a freedom that we did not have earlier.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2007 21:21

Kanson, regarding the lifting of sanctions after 1998 think 911. Its security related and US needed India to be out of doghouse for its own strategic space.

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

Postby shiv » 17 Aug 2007 21:21

SaiK wrote:
shiv wrote: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"?

'cause our netas and their chunav politics only sees doors and windows.. that they use keep jumping here and there.


I agree with you. That is why I wrote:
shiv wrote: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"

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2007 21:30

Op-Ed in Pioneer. 17 Aug., 2007


Good pro-deal article.
Spoilers don't prosper

Gautam Mukherjee

The clamouring against the Indo-American Civilian Nuclear Agreement by the Left Front and the BJP is both obscurantist and retrograde. As a filibustering tactic in Parliament, complete with slogan-shouting scenes, general cacophony and walk-outs, it is destined to end in a whimper. This is misguided opposition to a foreign policy triumph that ends over three decades of nuclear apartheid against India.

Perhaps that is the very problem, that the agreement, after tortuous and careful negotiations, has come to fruit. Much of the present uproar may be fuelled by common jealousy and deserves to be ignored with the firmness and resolve that the prime minister has shown thus far. In the improbable event that the Left withdraws support and brings down the UPA Government over this historic breakthrough, it is unlikely that any successor Government will choose to attempt renegotiation of this nuclear agreement for fear of failure to wrest any further concessions from the only remaining superpower.

But for the moment, even as the Left's opposition to the agreement is predictable given its antagonism towards closer ties with the United States, the opposition of the BJP is somewhat puzzling. After all, it was the BJP-led NDA Government that initiated and fostered the tilt towards closer ties with the US in the first place!

And what is the fear after all? If India does need to test another nuclear device at any point in the future, we will surely go ahead and do so, guided solely by our own national compulsions. Cutting off our nuclear fuel supplies or even halting civilian nuclear cooperation, if it comes to that, will not stop us attending to our security needs. But by that time, we would be that much more knowledgeable in civilian nuclear technology and manufacturing and considerably more capable of making our own way.

It is therefore inexplicable that we should be concerned about our security interests being compromised by this agreement. Let us remember that we attained rudimentary nuclear power and weapons status despite economic sanctions and suspended nuclear cooperation from the days after our first test in the mid-1970s.

As this agreement is implemented in the years to come, we can at last go forward towards energy security, essential in a country that imports over 60 per cent of its oil. This agreement will also boost nuclear power technology absorption, not only from America but France and Canada and other nuclear powers as well. It will help diversify our sources of machinery, technology and fuel from various members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

In addition, the understanding with the US is that even though it may be compelled to cease nuclear cooperation with India, bound as it is by rigours of the Hyde Act and its national laws, in the event India tests again, Washington will not stand in the way of other nations in the NSG continuing to cooperate with New Delhi so that supply lines are not disrupted.

In terms of the perceived, and opposed, foreign policy tilt towards the US, let the opponents ask themselves whether our long-term leaning towards the oil producing nations of West Asia, including Iraq and Iran, gave us any appreciable advantages even in the pricing of the oil, let alone in other areas? And let us contrast this meagre yield from decades of unswerving loyalty to the Arabs and Persians with the defence and agricultural cooperation benefits we have already realised from Israel, a staunch US ally, within just a few years of normalising diplomatic relations.

As for the Left's ideological overlords - the People's Republic of China - the situation, right from the 1960s, when the Chinese Army conquered large tracts of the North-East with consummate ease, and from which it withdrew only in the face of intense American pressure, has always been uncomfortable for India. As China continues to demand Arunachal Pradesh and other territorial concessions, we are still forced to deal with this menacing neighbour from a position of weakness. Surely it is time for India to update its foreign policy in line with its current aspirations.

The world has come to accept India is now on an accelerated economic growth path that is likely to sustain for years to come. This will naturally make us richer, and assuming this to be so, is it not important to use our improved resources to build the military capabilities to offset any external or internal threat without compromise?

But while the opponents to the nuclear cooperation agreement with the US may not disagree with this premise in principle, they insist on ignoring the potential for this agreement to act as a great enabler towards this objective. While the agreement is indeed a civilian accord that will facilitate the building of nuclear power plants in India, it clearly represents an unmistakable strategic alliance with the US and the West that will help us achieve both energy and military security over time.

As for the other criticism about India turning into an American satellite with proscribed foreign policy freedoms, perhaps we need to welcome it for its possibilities and nod to realism. After all, for all our much publicised "non-alignment" we were regarded as a de facto Soviet satellite, and were persuaded, if not compelled, to follow the USSR's foreign policy initiatives in return for civil and military cooperation.

This long-lasting alliance forged by free India, though date-expired now, endured for decades. It served to force an American tilt towards Pakistan and China, even as we were ruled out of contention to our long-term disadvantage. That is, till very recently: This is a second chance and we cannot afford to let it pass us by.

We must also realise that our present warm relations with the US owe more to the realities of unfolding geo-politics than to any visionary diplomacy on our part, or even a sudden rediscovery of each other's virtues. But should we not at least show the good sense to grasp the opportunity that the tide of history has presented us?


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 17 Aug 2007 21:35

shiv, if you see carefully and analyze those people who say "we have lost everything".. you can see that their opinion is not their's but after blindly following someone else's opinion. And once they realize or get bumped up to a state that they feel they are on the wrong side, then latch on to a new person's opinion.

my point is, we have to set them aside though we must hear their voice like a psychiatrist. BTW, I am saying this to a doc.
Last edited by SaiK on 17 Aug 2007 21:36, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby saty » 17 Aug 2007 21:35

shiv wrote:
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"



Accepted in large parts; thats my own understanding as well; except a caveat.

We MAY have lost SOMETHING: "IT APPEARS" that we could have gotten J18 but got 123. Now whether it is really the case that 123 != J18 or J18 as such was really a policy goal and 123 is the real substance etc are matters which are worth discussing; because IMVHO this will be show the way on how to approach the future.

Manny
BRFite
Posts: 846
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Postby Manny » 17 Aug 2007 21:37

I have a good solution for folks who don't like the 123 deal and don't want to sign it. Their primary issue is...if after signing it and test, it would be too costly to walk out after investing so much in Nuke reactors. So they would rather not sign the 123 and still be able to live without imported Uranium.

Well.. here you go.

1. Sign the 123 deal but don't build any nuke reactors so no large investment in nuke reactors.

2. Get all the other benefits of being on the inside and for being recognized as a legitimate nuclear state and other benefits.

3. Test nukes whenever you feel necessary. Nothing lost. No money invested and no import of nuke anything...so you are not hostage to anyone anymore.

Now, Isn't that a better deal than not signing the 123 at all? Now, you can have the best of both worlds.. the same benefit of not signing as well as the option to take the benefit of signing 123 at any time in the future. Why cut your nose to spite your face an reject the 123?

:D

Manny
Last edited by Manny on 17 Aug 2007 21:43, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby saty » 17 Aug 2007 21:42

ramana wrote:Saty, Read MMS interview in IT posted above. Its makki ka makki BRF opinion.

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


I hope I hope I hope

Amen....

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2982
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 17 Aug 2007 21:49

ramana wrote:Kanson, regarding the lifting of sanctions after 1998 think 911. Its security related and US needed India to be out of doghouse for its own strategic space.
Yes, with passing time, the needs are bound to grow more.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 17 Aug 2007 21:50

Manny, hypothetically lets say our 3 stage program does not use Pu but only uses it as starters.. that means we need Pus only for those AthWRs that need Pu as starters.. and we can resist testing till we develop enough U233 from our Kerala Thorium [meaning on termination, we can give them back their Pus and in fact in more dangerous form].

Now, did I hear BARC is working out on an all thorium one ie, the converted U233 from the kalpakkam type FBRs. Then, we can survive with a Th+U233 MoX and what ever available Pu from say U235 derived from Sea Water.. is enough to sustain 50K MWe for 500 years.

Sope, we should judiciously use our external U235 or most preferably get the Pus stored under the mountains in America and use for FBRs. Read Arun/Alok N analysis & confirms on RC strategies.

The strategy lies there.. sope dont worry be happy, we know when to test again. Follow the genuine leaders.

America would be happy to supply those nuclear waste!

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

Postby bala » 17 Aug 2007 22:06

a deal that implicitly imposes qualitative and quantitative restrictions on the Indian nuclear-weapons capability- Brahma Chellaney


BC is smoking powerful stuff to conclude such absurd conclusions. No where does 123 talk about strategic program, it is all about civilian peaceful purposes. Qualitative - nothing stopping Indian nuke scientists from refining, conducting lab tests, etc. Quantitative - India has current capability to add x nuke weapons per year. Kya analysis BC. No, the deal imposes none of what BC claims.

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

Postby Rye » 17 Aug 2007 22:16

There are reports that Indian educational system is woefully inadequate to produce the number of quality scientific personnel to continue India's program. However, even with such public statements from the GoI on the priority of such a program, there is a lot of talk and jawing in the HRD Ministry and elsewhere, but the educational system is as pathetic as it has always been. This creates the ideal situation where the US can start to insert its own people, ideas and concepts into the Indian scientific community under the aegis of "cooperation".


Weaknesses like these are liable to hurt India a lot more in terms of withstanding the after-effects of any potential future test. JM2Paise.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2007 22:20

Two misconceptions that BC and other maximalists operate under is that, one, all the Indian PHWR are for weapons. The fact that eight reactors plus Dhruv and CIRRUS were the only ones kept out should be an indicator. The other one is fact that the option to test is for political and not technical reasons.

At the core they do feel cheated that the Indian nuke program was not an all out maximalist program like PRC. The anxiety is due to the treachery in 1962. Hence the regular demand for megatonne weapons. Mao did make some enemies with his decision to 'teach India a lesson." The core reason is qualitative parity with PRC. Its not that they are thickheaded.

However from what I read after POKII is
- the site cannot handle more than 60kt.
-And with the PTBT the two super powers had limited the tests to below 150kt. Yet they have higher yield weapons. So one has to trust RC when he says he can do the same.
-Agony accuracy makes such yields more effective than the l'oud breaks in the wind' that PRC has.

Oh BTW the language of Hyde act is to prevent lab testing too as it takes the language from the CTBT. So even sub-critical is ruled out. But then per RC the chotus are Swiss watches compared to the wall clocks of the other tests.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2007 22:55

Telegraph, 17 Aug., 2007 reports

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070817/a ... 201408.asp

[quote]
New Delhi, Aug. 16: The controversy over the nuclear deal has compelled foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee to clarify in the Lok Sabha today that India retains the “sovereign right to test and would do so if it is necessary in the national interestâ€

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

Postby Rye » 17 Aug 2007 23:18

deleted. pointless.
Last edited by Rye on 17 Aug 2007 23:59, edited 1 time in total.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7912
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Postby Mort Walker » 17 Aug 2007 23:53


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 18 Aug 2007 00:03

fernandes ko gursa kyon aata hai? and why he is after china?

may be:
Its a done deal. Signed/- PMO of India.


No more negotiation by Burns could be also the other reason.

What would America do in India's position?

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 18 Aug 2007 00:13



:shock: Wow! those are strong words, very strong words, even for a former minister.

Its a tad ticklish in that he sticks one into China in a subtle way, but the message is :shock:

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 18 Aug 2007 00:23

I am already thinking MMS chacha <-> GF kaka doing a wild-west "face off" .. let the show begin.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16404
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 18 Aug 2007 00:27

Ramana,

"Maximalists" want total control. They want to change the usage based on strategic needs or demands. I think.

J18 was expected to bring Diwali. Now it is non-negotiable.

I used to say that the US does not know what it was missing. Now, I feel India missed what it knew.

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

Postby Arun_S » 18 Aug 2007 00:52

Rangudu wrote: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.


I suggest people dwell on this
"Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good"

A bres* in hand worth two in the bra. And this deal gives India 20 houries, which is very good but it is less than 72 houries. Oh well when India is done consummating the 20 to hearts content will it go after the other 52. Now being in the doghouse and without houri any longer is not an idea 1.1 billion people relish. Give them a break.

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

Postby Rye » 18 Aug 2007 00:54

Even Tesla was rumoured to be "suppressed" by the scientific community, but the reality was that he starting delving in pseudo-science later on in his life and lost his credibility among his peers.

A scientist with results can always pass the work to a different conference/journal/set of peers, so complaints of censorship sound bogus.

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

Postby bala » 18 Aug 2007 00:54

Demand for voting on Nuke deal rejected in Lok Sabha

Speaker Somnath Chatterjee said "there is no requirement to obtain ratification from Parliament," while rejecting opposition demand for debate on nuke deal under Rule 184 which entails voting. The Speaker said the government had the "sovereign" power and "unrestricted" right to enter into any treaty or agreement like the civil nuclear deal with foreign countries and it is well-established that "there is no requirement to obtain ratification from Parliament". According to the Constitution, in the absence of appropriate laws made by Parliament, "the right of the central government to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign countries in its sovereign power, is unrestricted and any such treaty or agreement becomes effective without any intervention by Parliament," Chatterjee said. "It is also well-established that there is no requirement to obtain ratification from Parliament of any treaty or agreement for its operation or enforcement," the Speaker said.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 18 Aug 2007 01:09

A bres* in hand worth two in the bra

on the same lines..

A Musharraf in hand is worth two (in)with the Bush. :twisted:

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 18 Aug 2007 01:14

It is my feeling that the perception generated by 123 in the minds of our adversaries+supprters is that India has been tamed---the elephant has been chained.


Surinder, I'll use that to argue that it is the opposite, by a long way.

TODAY, the "elephant is chained". ABV declared a Moratorium on Tests, but got nothing as far as chains being unlocked. So weapon development is hindered by the need to share scarce fuel with the civilian reactor program. The elephant can either grow tusks or avoid starvation - but definitely does not have food for both.

Diss the 123 mahout, and the situation continues. Kill the mahout by testing those tusks, and the situation becomes far worse. More chains at least. Most probably, moves to pare down the tusks and sell off as ivory.

But accept the 123, and the Elephant's chains come off - except for one emergency one - and the Elephant gets a lot of food, so can definitely grow fast..... AND... there is no move to pare down tusks at all. Elephant expects to grow fast, and mahouts have expressed clear happiness that tusks are growing. Friends and neighbors happily park their cars etc. quite close to Elephant, and leave stereo on, so Elephant can swing ears to the music. All happy.

Which do u think causes more "P" to go in the briefs of the enemy?

Obviously, the Elephant does not plan to use those tusks, nor test them on any cars etc. IF Elephant gets mad, it is obvious to all that the tusks will be used. But since they have their cars parked nearby, the neighhbors are going to do all they can to keep the goons from coming by and tossing empty beer bottles or otherwise provoking the Elephant. And it is in their interest to convey to those goons that the Elephant is free to use them for tusk-sharpening practice if they do.

It must have occurred to everyone that there IS a reason why the US has decided to do this deal with India. Far from bullying India, this is a realization that an independent, wealthy, strong and tough India is fine and dandy with the US, allows building a huge force multiplier against those who are (as they have now realized) their perpetual enemies - the Islamists. And to keep a check on their main competitor - the Chinese.

You really have to study an elephant and try to understand why it does not insist on "testing". Maybe it PREFERS the peace and quiet (with the music) and the relatively easy life of the human world? How many wild elephants have you seen that look as well-fed and peaceful as the pampered stars of Kerala temples?

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

Postby Arun_S » 18 Aug 2007 01:15

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

Just a few reports and the assumption that since we were SOOOO advanced in 1998 (even ahead of the US, some reports suggest), now we must be ahead of Atlantis technology as well.


Let us be clear on the "NEVER need to test again" because it can be viewed differently by different people:
1. Need to test to prove a bigger bum aka a megabum
2. Need to proof test a full yield 200KT weapon
3. Need to test to prove reliability of the design & inventory.
4. Political counter-pressure to wreck the US crafted 3 letter card-house.

    1. Need to test to prove a bigger bum aka a megabum or a different yield bum.
    I do not buy this argument, at least till a force merjeure event occurs in world nuclear/military technology arena, which precludes a need to test for this reason for at least for another 30 years.
    2. Need to proof test a full yield 200KT weapon.
    This is unnecessary, because the S1 tests 23kt fusion yield DOES without doubt generate a tertiary for a total yield of 150 kt when Natural U is used as secondary pusher-tamper and 200kt when enriched fissile material is used. This is physics 101, that can easily demonstrated to any one including Indian Military.
    3. Need to test to prove reliability of the design & inventory.
    This may carry slight technical merit, but all components and subsystems for the functioning of the weapon are and can be tested (and/or system simulated) to very high fidelity. And this is a level of fidelity that even 100 Nuke tests will be unable to match. Only an idiot who want proof that apple do continue to fall down to earth at all time.
    4. Political counter-pressure to wreck the US crafted 3 letter cardhouse.
    This sovereign right to test is a trillion dollar value to India dealing with contemporary world power, and this in based on ability to test rather than testing per say. (Ramana-guru alluded to this in previous thread)
Last edited by Arun_S on 18 Aug 2007 02:36, edited 2 times in total.

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

Postby enqyoobOLD » 18 Aug 2007 01:31

And as far as I can see, the sovereign right to test will exist as sovereign only as long as India does not test for whimsical reasons.

Look at it this way: IF the security environment deteriorates to the point that testing is imperative, then investment etc. are either going to run away so that it makes no difference to the economy whether we test or not ..

or

the investment WANTS India to test, so there is no cost to testing.

I think both these are equally likely. So either way, the Sovereign Right to test is all that we need to hold on to.

OF course, I believe that the entire Paki and Chinese inventory is flawed, because I know for a fact that they have been tampered with, so I think each and every weapon in their inventories should be tested. IMMEDIATELY. As long as Pakistan does not test, I maintain that they are NOOK_NOOD! 8)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 18 Aug 2007 01:49

enqyoob, in the sense you are saying transfer the fear/need to test situation to the investment club, and if they feel, we need to test, we should test?

I'm unable to digest this.. however it may be clever to transfer the heat on to the folks who are likely to be the future anti-test lobbysts. why would they ever?

why do they care?.. if they find investment climate is becoming bad, they just move their investments somewhere else.. may be sri-lanka!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 18 Aug 2007 02:17

Seema Mustafa is morphing into Mazhari. :eek:

Deccan Chronicle, 18 Au., 2007
India fights back
By Seema Mustafa

Truth. This has been the casualty of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s decision to throw wide open the Indian doors for the United States in agriculture, defence, business, trade and of course civilian nuclear energy cooperation. Everything is being done under a cloak of secrecy, through denials, half truths, outright lies from the government that is seeking a radical change in the relationship between New Delhi and Washington without taking the country into confidence.

{With half the cabinet and MPs kids in the US why this secrecy? After the end of Cold War and collapse of FSU, no one in their right mind would dispute the need to align with US. What can be done openly the UPA does secretly. Why didnt the UPA and MMS in particulur feel the need to sell the story on its merits from the begining? There were repeated calls for him to explain the deal in Parliament and he would make some su moto statement what ever that is and have his underlings deal with the debate. Then he had his minion Sanjay Baru threaten folks in the media and control the access to the briefing.}

It was clear from the beginning that the Prime Minister was aware that he was acting against the tide of national consensus, but he was determined to go ahead regardless, and a decision had been taken somewhere along the way that if the truth was unpalatable for the people of India it could be dressed up in half truths and lies. What one is witnessing currently in Parliament is the effort by democratic India to make the Executive accountable to the will of the people, and to ensure that the truth of the strategic alliance between India and the US is placed before the country for close scrutiny.

Every perceived bottom line in relations between the two countries has been overturned. The defence framework agreement signed by Pranab Mukherjee with the US, when he was the defence minister, is already on the fast track for implementation. The US is particularly interested in the Indian Navy that has been drawn into a large number of exercises with the Americans and its allies in the region. The Quadrilateral set up by the US with India, Australia and Japan had China issuing a demarche to the participating nations asking for explanations. Instead of pausing for thought, or even attempting to understand and analyse how this quadrilateral would work for the future of India, the government is now going in for naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal with its new allies and Singapore. This will be the largest naval exercise since the Cold War.

{Why doesnt the GOI release the KS task force report so that folks understand Indian interests in this alignment?}

The US has it all worked out. It is not acting with the blindness of the proverbial monkey. Any number of strategy papers have been prepared on different aspects of India-US relations, coming at the question from all sides, offering words of caution, advice, and detailing recommendations that have all gone into determining US strategy for India. For instance, think tanks had recommended the need for the de-hyphenated relationship between India and Pakistan long before it became the official policy of the US state department.

The point being made here is that the Americans have put a lot of thought and work into the emerging relationship with India, and based it on, one, India is a huge market and cannot be ignored for business and trade reasons, at least that is what is used to sell the strategy to the big corporations and a public driven by money; two, India with its large Muslim population is a good ally for the US in West Asia; three, it is the only power in the region that can contain China; four, it has one of the most professional militaries that can now be used by the US to effect its strategic plans in the region, such as monitoring the Malacca Straits; and five, a system of checks and controls over India would boost US plans for the world.

It is a well-known fact that the Americans examine several options before finalising strategy. Theirs is not a random approach. For instance, the civilian nuclear energy agreement became the fulcrum of the new relationship between the two countries, but to make sure this happened, the US government worked hard to tango to a rhythm that represented a certain fusion of Indian (read government) and American interests. The growing inability of the Indian politician and the journalist to link a series of events into a strategic whole is being used by the clever tacticians to compromise India’s interests before the nation itself is aware of what is happening.

{But that is an Indian problem na? Also what were you doing when Mushy was serving omlettes at Agra?}


Take just the civilian nuclear energy deal. The Americans sold us a big lollipop: we are giving you nuclear energy, we will take away the restrictions on your nuclear programme, we will bring you out from isolation of the pariah into the mainstream of nuclear acceptance; we recognise you as a nuclear power, as a responsible nation, and we will reward you with energy. And in doing so we will meet your interests; because energy will help your growth; it will help deal with the pollution; it will create jobs and it will help you grow and prosper. The government here has repeated all this with the loyalty of the parrot who recognises the hand he wants to be fed by.

But the differences in approach really arise after this. The Americans go on to point out that the deal addresses their interests as well: it gets them nuclear business that will run into crores; it brings India into the global order that they are seeking to build to promote their own might; it curtails independent Indian foreign policy, and ensures its support for issues as vital as Iran; it takes defence cooperation to new heights and allows US access to a military that had always treated it as hostile; it reins in India’s nuclear programme and brings it well within the non-proliferation limits set out by the US. The only objective that the US is still a little cagey about, at least in public speech, is that India has been identified as the counter to China and now even an increasingly volatile Pakistan in the region.

{Aha! Counter to TSP your beloved Mushy. For a moment I thought you were getting serious.}

The Indians, on the other hand, are cagey from the word go. Little politicians stand up in Parliament with their only defence: trust us, we are patriotic, we will not let the country down. Specific questions are not answered, empty assurances are given but not met, rhetoric and passionate speech are expected to substitute for the truth. For truth is certainly not respected by the politicians heading this government. They use half truths, disinformation and now even total lies to take the country straight into the US embrace. Why? That is a question that Parliament must ask Prime Minister Singh to answer. Why?
{Have you considered that if Indo-US rapprocahment doesnt occur your two beloved minions could set one off in Red Fort and end the India we know? It would become a hard core nation or something else}

How can he and his party presume that they know better what is good for the country than the majority of politicians representing all the states in India, many of them having more contact with the masses and the grassroots than those leading the Congress party today? So then why? Why this desperation, that the Prime Minister is prepared to resign, to threaten, to cajole, to lie — and all for a deal that no one else wants on the present terms? There has to be a reason, and it is certainly not India’s interest that is determining this government’s response. For if it was, then Dr Singh and his government and party would have paused for thought when confronted with the will of Parliament, and dropped a deal that serves only US interests.

{She is getting into Shirleen mode.}

Lies and subterfuge. The Congress party has been isolated in the eyes of the people as a pro-US party. The Texas ranch is more important than Indian Parliament. The NDA has taken a firm stand. But it is the Left that is facing the brunt of the Congress anger. First, it was ridicule. Every Congressman sitting around 10 Janpath would catch the passing scribe to say: Oh, the Left cannot do anything, it will not do anything, it can’t even bark let alone bite. When it started becoming clear that the Left meant business, there was a tinge of desperation. Prime Minister invited CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat for breakfast. It did not work, and the politburo issued a statement re-warning the government not to go ahead with the deal.

Slowly the realisation that the Left did mean business, that it was impervious to Congress threats and bribes, started dawning. {Why slowly? Wasnt the INC not aware of the Left's stance? Was there a failure to communicate? OR is the Left worried after knowing the details of the deal and its potential to dethorne their paymasters_PRC?}A worried Prime Minister went into Parliament, and in a bid to get its support again compromised the truth. He said that India had retained its sovereign right to test. A testy state department, getting fed up with the continuous Indian lies, fielded its spokesperson to say that India did not have the right to test. It might be recalled that earlier US state department sources, followed by negotiator Ashley Tellis, followed by US undersecretary Nicholas Burns have all raised some faults with the Indian briefings about the 123 Agreement.

The government is in crisis. Dr Singh will have to decide whether the deal is more important than the government. Just as Parliament has decided that the nation is more important than the government. The Left will not back off. The word is out: the anti-India deal cannot be operationalised.


Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Postby Paul » 18 Aug 2007 02:30

In 1987 NTRama Rao came up with the brainwave of resigning collectively from Lok Sabha to highlight the Bofors Scandal. RG had 444 members in a 580 member house and the opposition wit 100 odd members knew it could not challenge the then government, but resignation from the parliament could throw the credibility of the RG government into a tizzy especially when other scandals were coming up like grassweed.

If the NDA is really serious and believes that this deal will make India a flunkey of the US, then they should follow this precedent and make a stement that theirs is party with the difference.

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

Postby sraj » 18 Aug 2007 02:54

One cannot come to a conclusive determination on the value of this 123 without looking at the final IAEA safeguards agreement('perpetuity'; 'corrective actions'; etc) and the final NSG language ('testing'; 'sensitive' and 'dual-use' technologies; etc).

Some things that are quite clear from this 123 draft:

1. the so-called fuel supply assurances (Article 5.6 (b) -- which themselves are very funnily worded) do not survive a termination of the agreement by the US, which can happen for any number of reasons with one years' notice. This provides the US with a very short leash indeed.

2. Article 14.9 allows the US to effectively suspend Indian reprocessing at any time.

3. Finally, any one who thinks implementing the 'right of return' would be impractical should carefully read Article 14.5 which talks about 'removal from the territory or from the control, of the other Party' -- implying that the US can just put a seal on critical components of a reactor in India without going through the bother of transporting radioactive stuff back.

It will be interesting to see how this GoI led by MMS reacts if the NSG language converts this short leash into a 'multilateral legality' which will be more onerous than any CTBT would have been.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 18 Aug 2007 03:03

There are questions to ask like what is "international laws".. may be its time for MMS to shoot another statement to get to know what the Khans mean by it?

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6504
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Postby CRamS » 18 Aug 2007 03:14

And as far as I can see, the sovereign right to test will exist as sovereign only as long as India does not test for whimsical reasons.



If India tests, who decides whether it was doen for whimsical reasons or not?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 18 Aug 2007 03:20

CRamS wrote:
And as far as I can see, the sovereign right to test will exist as sovereign only as long as India does not test for whimsical reasons.



If India tests, who decides whether it was doen for whimsical reasons or not?

Now, its "us". After the deal 123, its the Khans.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Postby nkumar » 18 Aug 2007 03:21

Second article by AS in IE Forward-looking farce

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 18 Aug 2007 03:31

hang on a minute.. on the first read of AS, he thinks all materials (nuclear or non nuclear) to be outside of supplier party's? why is he including materials that does not belong to this deal, and that does not apply to this deal., meaning the report from IAEA only applies to imported material, and those material from our side that goes into civilian list.

where is the CRE/hre? how can the US ask for IAEA report about ratehalli or whats up with our WMDs? lets get to that text that says so?


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests