India Nuclear News & Discussion - 4 Sept 2007

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

India Nuclear News & Discussion - 4 Sept 2007

Postby Manny » 04 Sep 2007 18:22

I split the thread. Old thread is here.
-Arun_S {Admin Hat on}

---------------------------------------------------------
SaiK wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Manny wrote:
There are no country that allayed with the US has done poorly. After WWII, look at western Europe that allayed with the US. they prospered and did well by their people. Look at Eastern Europe..


Very deep; one word to that level of depth. Pakistan.

And if you go on and on I will throw in another:

Japan.


did Manny meant "allayed" or "allied" ?


Sorry. I meant to say Allied!

:P

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

Postby SaiK » 04 Sep 2007 18:26

imho, w.r.t to pakis, the relationship is Al-lie-munna bhai relationship. Though, we agree they have certain advanced weapons flowing into that country against our wishes.. but, hey France, who is supposed to be closer to us than UNkill, does or have done, and will most probably do bed with pakis.

/ OT anyway.. why is this flame baiting going on here?.. what is the disagreement that we can't agree to be understood in few lines?

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

Postby Rye » 04 Sep 2007 18:27

Sanku wrote:
Please Sir; 123 does not have to say that; it use Hyde in the back drop.
You want to restart that debate again? 123 is a fig leaf for Hyde. I think enough bandwidth has been wasted.


With all due respect...

1) The US constitution gives priority to international treaties over local laws.
2) Hyde Act is only binding on the US, and so if India is foolish enough source all its tech from the US, India will get its just desserts.
3) The prize is in what we stitch up with NSG countries.

Every power in this multipolar world is represented in the NSG.

If this deal was all about sourcing material from the US, it would not be worth the paper it is written.

Last I remember sraj and ShauryaT posted how Hyde can overrule 123 and so have I posted links.


1) International laws supercede local ones
2) 123 states that internal laws cannot be invoked over the 123.
3) US is allowed to invoke the Hyde act at any time, as long as it is willing to face the consequences of violating the 123...okay, as a superpower, people may feel that the US will not face any consequences...but let us see how much smaller non powers have managed to tie down the US in the middle east.
4) 123 must not contradict the Hyde act that was passed in congress,
and as of now, it does not. 123 does not assist India's military program in any way as the hyde act requires. This is why it is sure to pass through congress.

If you still dont agree let us agree that this is one of the fundamental disagreement points. I believe I am right; and if you can quote arguments to how we are wrong I will listen.


Hyde Act is an internal law and the real prize is in what is negotiated with the NSG. So stop pretending that the Hyde Act is in any way relevant to how we source materials from Russia, Japan, or France.



Sorry you are indulging in personal attack and that I am not going to let you spin out of.


You can quit getting excited...I just pointed out that people are not liable to let misinformation slip by here on BRF if they can help it. Well, if you want to continue your whining about personal attacks, don't let me stop you.
Last edited by Rye on 04 Sep 2007 19:25, edited 1 time in total.

rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3332
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Postby rsingh » 04 Sep 2007 18:38

Sanku wrote:
rsingh wrote:
Sir you are one of the wisest posters here; why do you embaress us poor folks by asking what I am sure you know?


:)


Just to clarify I meant it with all my heart; I have used NRao information and views in my own reasoning too. That was not sarcastic.


I liked the wording. There are situations everyday when you can say this. I just like the way you put it. Nothing to do with NRao or anybody. Going to use it :)

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

Postby Kanson » 04 Sep 2007 18:55

Sanku wrote: I can fix my understanding by enabling spell check in my browser
No Sir no, you are mistaken. If your intention is to do good-faith base debate..

Containing China involves deliberate actions from Indian side to interfere in chinese affairs. India at present doesnt interested in that. Though world views can be different, India is mainly considered as alternative to china given the size of population and other similarities. That is what meant by considered as balance.

emsin

Postby emsin » 04 Sep 2007 19:02

Hi

Firstly why are the commies raising hell today 2 years after the strategic Indo-US deal was loudly promoted by the Govt. Should'nt they have raised the stink back then and saved the country the sorry tamasha at this juncture?

Secondly what is the most basic strategic requirement a 1 trillion USD economy growing at almost 10% needs? What is going to be the power requirements to sustain that growth over the next say 13 years? What will be the added capacity needed? What can be the % of that added capacity that is clean nuclear energy if this deal goes through? What is this added capacity requirement in comparison to the whole installed capacity the base last 60 years.

Thirdly it should be clear by now that there is no way to break the uranium cartel except 2. The AQ Khan type network which works in small doses and is not India's cup of tea or the 3rd stage route. If Scientists say that the 3rd stage programme is not compromised by the deal i'm willing to listen and believe them than any leftist and his rhetoric. The 3rd stage would start kicking in by 2020 or atleast beginning to. That will take the sheen out of the uranium cartel. India and ONLY India is in a position to be the top Thorium tech nation as of today. It could by 2030 create it's own cartel and write rules for any nation wanting to use thorium tech and plants. So we can have our own equivalent of Hyde act and the PM can annually certify use of throium tech in US or Uk or Timbuktu. (What will INdia's economy be like 2030?..10 trillion US??

Fourthly i do believe MMS erred in trying to seal the deal as fast as possible without involving the scientific community at an earlier stage. But after a lot of opposition they have been in the loop. And if they are in it i feel safer as they alone understand the technicalities involved better than me or certainly the left or right.

Fifthly these sort of things are not renegotiated on a yearly basis. There are just too many pressure groups the NPAs in the US, the left in INdia..the deal always had to be some compromise..It's not possible for ANY US President to allow nuclear testing without some provisions against it. The NPA community in the US is strong. It will respect ONLY strength. So if the strategic climate does require testing India should go ahead. Except don't put too many eggs in one basket. Meanwhile mine like crazy in Ladhak and Leh...

JM2P

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

Postby Kanson » 04 Sep 2007 19:55

Sanku wrote: It is only you who has the spin "containing china means; interfering with the external affaris" even the magazine used the word caging; if that does not mean containing; it is you who is in a la la land arguging over pedantics instead of meaningful debate.
So you are believeing what magazine says and not the KS. So, after aptly reading the entire passge your conclusion is that the article talks about caging & containing of china and not about how "India should sign the 123 Agreement to avoid Chinese hegemony in Asia" ?

By posing everything not in your understanding/taste as "spin" you are engaing in meaningful debate with everyone ?

Tilak
BRFite
Posts: 733
Joined: 31 Jul 2005 20:19
Location: Old Lal Masjid @BRFATA (*Renovation*)

Postby Tilak » 04 Sep 2007 20:08

NRao wrote:SO, IF at all IAEA is playing hard ball, it is the US that is tightening the screws from the back. As you state, if the IAEA is using the Hyde Act as the template, then for sure it is a power play on the part of the US - how else can IAEA qualify using an "internal Law" as a template when an agreement between two governments exists?

IF IAEA using the HA as a template is true, then this is one more opp for MMS to reject it openly.

Tilak, any chance of sending the urls for these articles you mention to indicgroup at netscape dot net? TIA.


Saar,

Please go through my posts they have necessary references as well :



And we have more news :

Duty of US to convince NSG on N-trade with India: Kakodkar
4/9/2007

Kalpakkam (TN), Sept. 4 (PTI): India today said it was the "duty" of the US to convince the Nuclear Suppliers Group under the civil nuclear deal to provide it with nuclear fuel and light water reactors and ensure "clean, unconditional exemptions" for trade in the atomic field with New Delhi.

India is also engaged with the 45-nation grouping to persuade it to change rules and allow the international community to have nuclear commerce with it, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar said here.

"No post and pre-conditions should be laid and there is a need for clean, unconditional exemptions from NSG guidelines on the import of nuclear reactors," he told reporters on the sidelines of a graduation function at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Academic Research at Kalpakkam, about 75 km from Chennai.

He was responding to a query on NSG guidelines that restrict the export of reactors by members of the grouping, including the US, France, Russia, Australia and Japan.

Reacting to US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns' remarks that it was up to India to convince NSG members to provide it nuclear fuel and light water reactors, he said "it was the duty of the US to do so" in the wake of the nuclear deal recently clinched with America.

Commenting on the deal and the possible US restrictions on nuclear tests by India, Kakodkar said, "We have to look at Indian interests and should be able to carry out our strategic programmes."

The ultimate goal of the Indian nuclear programme is to move from uranium to thorium for producing energy, he said.

By 2050, nuclear energy will constitute 2,74,000 MW or 20 to 25 per cent of India's power production, he said.

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

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2007 20:18

All I can say is while US was busy with its Hyde( bound) Act to tie up India, GOI was also busy tieing up US to its own PRC agenda. KS has layed out the Indian agenda in two articles in less than a month. The Indian agenda is to obtain strategic space with regard to PRC. It has nothing to do with PRC's economic or cultural ambit. Caging the dragon is all about that. Now its a US interest to help cage the dragon. If the dragon raises the strategic pressure with regard to India, then Buddha will roar this time and the order will come crashing down as cheap shelving.

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

Postby Kanson » 04 Sep 2007 20:31

As per my understading, India is not interested in posing itself as one doing the act of containing China. US, Japan probably EU may be interested in that. Indian will do the balancing act until it comes out of shackles and become self-confident & self-sufficient. May be then, it will...

As another poster pointed out, US/Japan/EU will shift their industrial base to India from China...that will make leaping China to limp...I think that is best way to do justice than anything militarily...

Creating strategic space for herself, is meant to breath relaxingly, confidently & assertively... and not as tool to wrench another ones neck.
Last edited by Kanson on 04 Sep 2007 20:48, edited 2 times in total.

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

Postby sraj » 04 Sep 2007 20:32

emsin wrote:Thirdly it should be clear by now that there is no way to break the uranium cartel except 2.

Just stating some facts in the interest of an informed debate; so please do not jump to any conclusions about my views on this deal as it stands today.

Facts:
1. As of today, the 45-nation NSG will not sell Uranium to India without requiring full-scope safeguards on all Indian nuclear facilities. Consequently, all these efforts to get a Waiver from NSG via the US (which created NSG).

2. Niger, Namibia, and Uzbekistan are all among the top 6-7 producers of Uranium today and are not members of NSG. They are all signatories to NPT as a Non-Nuclear Weapon State (NNWS) Party. An Indian company has already acquired a license to prospect for Uranium in Niger.

3. It is perfectly legal under Article III of NPT for an NNWS Party to export Uranium to another country provided such export is covered by IAEA safeguards (pls note the distinction between these NPT rules and NSG requirement for full-scope safeguards on all nuclear facilities in a country).

4. Of course, one could say that the US may bring political pressure to bear on Niger, Namibia, Uzbekistan, etc. not to export Uranium to India.

5. But if the US wishes to show goodwill towards India (because it has a lot of other fish to fry with India), it may decide not to do so. Also, since India should show some self-confidence as per KS, and has developed so much 'clout' which is only going to increase in the future, perhaps it can do so by, for a start, importing Uranium from non-NSG countries in a perfectly legal fashion -- starting tomorrow.

6. Conclusion: there is a way to break the Uranium cartel which does not require breaking any international laws.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 04 Sep 2007 20:37

Tilak,

Thanks.

Ramana,

Roaring Buddha? No possibility of hiding anything there. : )

__________________________________________________________

BTW, did anyone notice. Canada has a new nara: "Use it or loose it". They have parcelled out the arctic region for - Uranium. Their PM is busy building a naval station way up north, to protect these areas.

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

Postby svinayak » 04 Sep 2007 20:43

Kanson wrote:
As another poster pointed out, US/Japan/EU will shift their industrial base to India from China...that will make leaping China to limp...I think that is best way to do justice than anything militarily

Are they doing it. Is there any change in investment destination away from China? Will they shackle economic growth of China. Is it possible?

emsin

Postby emsin » 04 Sep 2007 20:44

It's important to realize whats happening and not just beat about obvious manifestations. India's economy today is the same size as what China's was 6-7 years ago. India's GDP grew more in the last 6 years than in 60 before. With that growth increasing the requirement for power generation capacity is going to be so high that power and energy security will be India's single most important strategic requirement over the next decade and more. A country doubling it's GDP every 6 years or so will manifest in rapid economic, social and political change. IMO all for the better.

The best way to bring about power required for establishing say the 100 billion US Delhi- Mumbai corridor, or POSCO's, TATA's investments into Orissa will be nuclear based. The talk of coal powered power generation is trash. We don't have low ash coal. We have to import coal from Australia with low ash and HCV content for that. Check out the ships stranded in front for weeks outside Haldia, Paradip waiting to unload coal from Australia and South Africa.

IF presently nuclear power generation is just 3% it doesn't mean a thing. Added installed power capacity through nuclear can be blistering at 70%. And in the next decade and half we need more installed power than that has been installed in the last 60 years.

When we use this power to develop there are obvious manifestations. Our strategic value for other nations will rise. Countries like Japan, Korea UK, France will have a huge market base here. They will be constrained to keep good relations. That manifests in power status. IT's not something one has to seek.

China's lone hegemony will certainly be marginalized. But it's going to be as an effect. That is not the driving cause for seeking nuclear power or removing the sanctions status that goes with this deal.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 20:48

Kanson wrote:By posing everything not in your understanding/taste as "spin" you are engaing in meaningful debate with everyone ?


Oh please; I am only saying that you are making tangential remarks to derail the real discussion.

In the article clearly says that China needs to be contained, caged, capped, balanced, countered..........

Please split hairs at which of the words is a better choice and use your favoraite word it doesnt matter a whit to my original statement.

If you need to clutch at these straws; :roll:

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 20:55

Rye wrote:With all due respect...

1) The US constitution gives priority to international treaties over local laws.
.


Rye you seem to be making statements more as article of faith rather than based on any reality. Before I can discuss any other points in your post; I stop at this one since this alone is a "deal-breaker" before we get to others.

I have posted one link; and google throws up many others; that the above statement is not correct. Please read that and then perhaps we can have any other meaningful discussion.

Please feel free to post from informed authoratative sources you base your understanding on too.

Last I heard sraj and ShauyraT asked for pointed references from folks who were hollering that Hyde act does not matter and 5 pages hence there is no reply.

As to your other points; I have always mainted that the current process with US will over shadow negotiations with IAEA and hence understanding the current situation is critical.

Enuff said.

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

Postby Kanson » 04 Sep 2007 20:56

Sanku wrote: In the article clearly says that China needs to be contained, caged, capped, balanced, countered..........
How, can you explain what balancing and caping with reference to the article?
Last edited by Kanson on 04 Sep 2007 20:57, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2007 20:56

Acharya wrote:
Kanson wrote:
As another poster pointed out, US/Japan/EU will shift their industrial base to India from China...that will make leaping China to limp...I think that is best way to do justice than anything militarily

Are they doing it. Is there any change in investment destination away from China? Will they shackle economic growth of China. Is it possible?


Japanese PM Abe's visit was to announce/create the new mfg corridor between Delhi and Mumbai and Delhi and Kolkota. The idea is to move mfg from Japan ot India not from China to India. Its to hedge their(Japan's) mfg capabilities. I dont know about US or EU plans. Japan has stated its plan to shift some mfg from Japan to India. Thanks, ramana

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 20:58

emsin wrote:It's important to realize whats happening and not just beat about obvious manifestations. .


This debate has been raging for a while now before you made your first post on power; please read the archives for discussions on power; projected power with imports and projected power without imports (of nuclear material) and the impact thereof.

There has also been a debate on replacing one source of energy dependence with others. So I would encourage that you go through the archives before you come to the conclusion that you did.

emsin

Postby emsin » 04 Sep 2007 21:00

. Conclusion: there is a way to break the Uranium cartel which does not require breaking any international laws.


I concurr with all the facts you lay out. But to keep up with the power requirements which has to keep up pace with the infrastrucural development stage which has to keep up if we want to grow at 10% requires also nuclear power plants installed all round the country at a blistering pace. Japan, France have the resources and tech to invest at the required pace. However they won't till we sign the deal.

I'm not saying we haven't got the technology. Meanwhile our atomic establishment can give blueprints for it's civilian reactors to companies like Reliance, Tatas etc who can start putting up plants again at a rapid pace.

I conclude that it's extremely critical to get out of this pariah sanctions loop. Even though the NPA lobby in the US is ultra thick skinned, GB has certainly instructed his team to let in INdia wihtout overturning the cart.

My only sider to this whole thing is the scientific community should've pushed the deal rather than political parties. I would'nt hesitate to change my opinion if the Scientific community says our strategic programme is compromised. As long as they are kept in the loop and are satisfied..lets go ahead.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 21:02

Kanson wrote:
Sanku wrote: In the article clearly says that China needs to be contained, caged, capped, balanced, countered..........
How, can you explain what balancing and caping with reference to the article?


I have already answered that; it is based on reading of the article. You can try the same; I have already quoted the parts to make it easy for you.

You are chasing your tail. Anyway....

India is considered a balancer of power, whose growth and technological advancement are good for balance of power in Asia and the world. Without an advanced India, China will be the overwhelmingly dominant power in Asia-a prospect not relished by the US, Russia, European Union and Japan. Only an India with a billion-plus population can balance a billion-strong China.
While the major powers are trying to help India's growth in their own interests, some in this country interpret it as US conspiracy. The only countries that will benefit if the agreement with the international community does not go through will be China and Pakistan.

China avoids direct confrontation with India, but has armed Pakistan with nuclear weapons, missiles and conventional arms. Pakistan has been pursuing a low-intensity conflict with India by supporting terrorism to pin India down. China has tried hard to prevent India from going nuclear by forcing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on India.

emsin

Postby emsin » 04 Sep 2007 21:03

Sanku..i've read each and every post on this topic, archived and present.

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

Postby Kanson » 04 Sep 2007 21:06

The Idea behind this agreement is intended to get equal footing in every sphere wrt other powers and china in particular. Hegemony is broken when other powers (regional & global) give equal importance to India wrt China. In case of China showing it color, others will move towards India, so India acts as an alternative to preferred destination...

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 21:09

emsin wrote:Sanku..i've read each and every post on this topic, archived and present.


In which case you are will be aware of projections of how much nuclear power will be available this is by planning comission.

Please feel free to tell us how India will add all the tons of power without becoming dependent on a foreign source. Please refer to other authorative sources so we know what is your personal opinion and what is fact.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 04 Sep 2007 21:10

Kanson wrote:The Idea behind this agreement is intended to get equal footing in every sphere wrt other powers and china in particular. Hegemony is broken when other powers (regional & global) give equal importance to India wrt China. In case of China showing it color, others will move towards India, so India acts as an alternative to preferred destination...


No body questions the "idea" you see; just like nobody questions Garibi Hatato by IG; it is implementation which hurts usually. Mao's idea were all good too and lefties are the most idealistic people.

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

Postby Kanson » 04 Sep 2007 21:14

Sanku wrote:
Kanson wrote:
Sanku wrote: In the article clearly says that China needs to be contained, caged, capped, balanced, countered..........
How, can you explain what balancing and caping with reference to the article?


I have already answered that; it is based on reading of the article. You can try the same; I have already quoted the parts to make it easy for you.

You are chasing your tail. Anyway....

India is considered a balancer of power, whose growth and technological advancement are good for balance of power in Asia and the world. Without an advanced India, China will be the overwhelmingly dominant power in Asia-a prospect not relished by the US, Russia, European Union and Japan. Only an India with a billion-plus population can balance a billion-strong China.
While the major powers are trying to help India's growth in their own interests, some in this country interpret it as US conspiracy. The only countries that will benefit if the agreement with the international community does not go through will be China and Pakistan.

China avoids direct confrontation with India, but has armed Pakistan with nuclear weapons, missiles and conventional arms. Pakistan has been pursuing a low-intensity conflict with India by supporting terrorism to pin India down. China has tried hard to prevent India from going nuclear by forcing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on India.
bah...lets try to replace balancing with caging as you mention and lets see if it make sense.... India is considered a balancer of power, whose growth and technological advancement are good for caging of power in Asia and the world...make sense ?

While the major powers are trying to help India's growth in their own interests, some in this country interpret it as US conspiracy.
This is conclusion of what KS meant. If you clutch the straw...yes you can smoke anything.

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

Postby bala » 04 Sep 2007 21:43

Sanku wrote:how India will add all the tons of power without becoming dependent on a foreign source


Why is this an article of faith and so what if we use foreign sources. Currently, we are consuming oil, a foreign source, for eons. So what if we use nuke material, why would that matter. As long as India can convince a few private entities to produce power within the guidelines of Indian Power Regulatory Mechanism India can scale up big time without the help of the Planning Commission.

Sanku wrote:Time to put some canards to rest ...

self-executing treaty


China also has a 123 treaty with the US. So according to your great reading / understanding of international treaties, China's 123 can also come under US national laws despite the clause to the contrary stated in the treaty, "that no national laws can supercede or override the treaty terms and conditions", which by the way is an international law/principle. India's 123 in article 16 force and duration, states that the treaty will abide by international law/principle the same one cited in China's 123 with the US.


Meanwhile the CPI&M are braying louder.


Don't go to IAEA on nuke deal, Left tells Govt

What is up with the IAEA nonsense by the CPI&M oiusleaues.

N-deal will lead to US blackmailing India: Karat

As opposed to China blackmailing via comrade Karat.

Nuke deal: Govt announces composition of committee

The committee consists of six members from Congress, six from Left parties and one each from RJD, DMK and NCP.

The tie breaker are the RJD, DMK and NCP!!!

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 04 Sep 2007 22:55

[quote]By 2050, nuclear energy will constitute 2,74,000 MW or 20 to 25 per cent of India's power production, he said.[/quote]

TODAY -LESS THAN 3000 MW
2020 - 20000 MW (including 4 fast breeder 500MW and may be 15x1000MW light water reactor)

2050 - 2 74 000 MW that is an addition of more than 250000 MW in less than 30 yrs or 250 light water reactor or equivalent in fast breeders and may be some advanced heavy water reactors.This is exactly double what we produce today all in all
Expected cost at 4 billion per 1000 MW reactor = 1000 billion US Dollars

-Does it look feasible by any chance -???

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 04 Sep 2007 23:10

Russia's 27 commercial power reactors require an estimated 3,200 t/y of
natural uranium.24
In addition, Russia uses 1300-1400 t/y to fabricate low-
enriched uranium (LEU) fuel for Soviet-built reactors in former Soviet repub-
lics and in Eastern Europe.25 The nuclear power requirements are likely to be
[
covered by uranium produced by enriching tails associated with the past
I
enrichment production. The enrichment of tails was begun after the HEU pro-
duction stopped in 1988, and a significant fraction of the enrichment capacity
became surplus. Actual production is not known but is probably on the order of
a few thousand tons of natural uranium per year and is enough to


Using the above figures from soviet era which used natural uranium in power reactors to produce plutonium (at low burn up to maximise plutonium production) they used roughly 1500 tons of natural uranium per reactor per 500-1000MW reactor .

So where do we get the uranium to run 250 x1000 Mw reactor unless we put up one fast breder and one plutonium extraction plant for every light water reactor we omport along with its life time supply of uranium and then concurrently pit up another AHWR to use the thorium that have been irradiared in the fast breeders

-Does this looks like a practical dream?

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

Postby bala » 04 Sep 2007 23:18

xPost. Strengthens the case for computer modeling and simulation without the need for explicit testing.

Britain in top-secret work on n-warhead

British scientists are secretly working on the design of a revamped nuclear warhead at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire, near London, a leading daily reported on Tuesday.

"The new device, designated the High Surety Warhead, is the British version of the Reliable Replacement Warhead programme which started more than two years ago at the US military's California and New Mexico nuclear laboratories."

In fact, the top-secret project is being run in conjunction with the American efforts to build a range of modernised 'failsafe' nuclear firepower for its own submarine-launched Trident missiles, the unnamed sources said.

"The aim (of the project) is to produce warheads which contain fewer degradable components, giving them a longer shelf-life, and to make them so dependable that none would have to be detonated in an underground explosion that would contravene the worldwide test ban," the sources said.

Meanwhile, it is learnt that the British government is in the process of investing almost 2.2 billion pounds in the Aldermaston site to equip it with a state-of-the-art Cray supercomputer codenamed Larch and a laser codenamed Orion to help model nuclear explosions in place of live testing.

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

Postby SaiK » 04 Sep 2007 23:44

Britain is always a surrogate mother for the Khans.. The Ruskies knows this.. and have gone more bulova than one can think., but why discuss here?

RaviCV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Sep 2007 16:37

Postby RaviCV » 04 Sep 2007 23:45

bala wrote:xPost. Strengthens the case for computer modeling and simulation without the need for explicit testing.

Britain in top-secret work on n-warhead

British scientists are secretly working on the design of a revamped nuclear warhead at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire, near London, a leading daily reported on Tuesday.

"The new device, designated the High Surety Warhead, is the British version of the Reliable Replacement Warhead programme which started more than two years ago at the US military's California and New Mexico nuclear laboratories."

In fact, the top-secret project is being run in conjunction with the American efforts to build a range of modernised 'failsafe' nuclear firepower for its own submarine-launched Trident missiles, the unnamed sources said.

"The aim (of the project) is to produce warheads which contain fewer degradable components, giving them a longer shelf-life, and to make them so dependable that none would have to be detonated in an underground explosion that would contravene the worldwide test ban," the sources said.

Meanwhile, it is learnt that the British government is in the process of investing almost 2.2 billion pounds in the Aldermaston site to equip it with a state-of-the-art Cray supercomputer codenamed Larch and a laser codenamed Orion to help model nuclear explosions in place of live testing.


Yup, and in the nick of time too!!! Yesterday, after my bitter resistance to the nuclear deal, I turned volte face and indicated that there was indeed a way to navigate through the Hyde Act , but didn't exemplify how! The fact of the matter is if one looks closely, the Centre for Advanced Technology (CAT) at Indore has been kept out of the safeguarded list of establishments.

CAT has a powerful Nd-Glass laser (wavelength 1.06 microns) which can be progressively upgraded to perform hydro-nuclear tests and X-ray radiation compression experiments. Ironically, the laser rods at one point of time used to be sourced from China :lol: .

The results of these experiments can be used as inputs to computer codes, whose outputs are employed to fine tune the warhead designs, while simultaneously using whatever data obtained from the Shakti tests as benchmarks. Codes of this kind are called internally calibrated. One could use existing HPC's on a grid or powerful clusters to do the numerical simulations.

If this approach is seriously pursued, the nuclear deal can be pushed through without fear of the Hyde Act overly affecting India's weapons program, and the Left could/should be told to get stuffed and ship off to China.


Cheers!
Last edited by RaviCV on 06 Sep 2007 01:16, edited 2 times in total.

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

Postby svinayak » 05 Sep 2007 00:04

ramana wrote:
Acharya wrote:
Kanson wrote:
As another poster pointed out, US/Japan/EU will shift their industrial base to India from China...that will make leaping China to limp...I think that is best way to do justice than anything militarily

Are they doing it. Is there any change in investment destination away from China? Will they shackle economic growth of China. Is it possible?


Japanese PM Abe's visit was to announce/create the new mfg corridor between Delhi and Mumbai and Delhi and Kolkota. The idea is to move mfg from Japan ot India not from China to India. Its to hedge their(Japan's) mfg capabilities. I dont know about US or EU plans. Japan has stated its plan to shift some mfg from Japan to India. Thanks, ramana



The internal debate inside US shows that they want to have both China and India as allies against all the other bad boys EU/Russia.
They have already designated China as a land power anchor of Asia.

They had already gamed that India will be in their pocket!


Still, here's the question I often face: Why doesn't America choose India over China for this alliance? India is already a democracy while China's expected to remain authoritarian for quite some time. Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to hitch our wagon to Asia's other rising giant?

I certainly don't argue against strategic alliance with India. I'd like it as soon as possible, but I nonetheless prioritize China for several reasons.

First, a great portion of our national-security establishment wants desperately to cast China as our inevitable long-term threat. Why? It allows them to buy and maintain a huge, high-tech military force for large-scale wars.


Third, if we capture China in strategic alliance, we'll get India in the bargain.
But if we try it the other way around, we'll likely ruin our chances with Beijing, whose leaders fear an encirclement strategy by Washington with India as its key western pillar. Better to lock in China as soon as possible as the land-power anchor of an East Asian NATO. The sooner we achieve that, along with Korea's reunification, the sooner we can draw down our military in the region and better employ them in hotter spots around the world.


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

Postby Manny » 05 Sep 2007 00:10

China already has India in their pocket. I mean, all you have to do is read all the lefty socialist closeted Chinese communists cheerleaders here.

India is full of them. Just tell the millions of poor people that you could steal from the few rich in India and give them the goodies. They would stand around in Calcutta and Kerala and scream "Down with the imperialists". Nothing like stolen goodies for ones soul!

:shock:

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5233
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Postby ShauryaT » 05 Sep 2007 00:31

Arun_S your challenge to RaviCV has done wonders. Hats off to you once again on the technical matters.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 05 Sep 2007 00:53

[url=http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14521464]
Centre announces 15-member N-deal 'truce' panel [/url]

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21089
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 05 Sep 2007 01:29

Manny wrote:China already has India in their pocket. I mean, all you have to do is read all the lefty socialist closeted Chinese communists cheerleaders here.

India is full of them. Just tell the millions of poor people that you could steal from the few rich in India and give them the goodies. They would stand around in Calcutta and Kerala and scream "Down with the imperialists". Nothing like stolen goodies for ones soul!

:shock:


Manny, please note the Current Clean Commie Campaign in Indian Media skillfully managed like "Orange Revolution" . These slaves of China enemies of India & are on the way out .They have been exposed and soon will be publicly discredited.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21089
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Postby Prem » 05 Sep 2007 01:46

Edited /Wrong Thread
Last edited by Prem on 05 Sep 2007 02:20, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby sraj » 05 Sep 2007 02:03

Third, if we capture China in strategic alliance, we'll get India in the bargain. But if we try it the other way around, we'll likely ruin our chances with Beijing, whose leaders fear an encirclement strategy by Washington with India as its key western pillar.

This may be the biggest strategic misjudgment the West makes in a long long time. Time will tell!

India needs to understand carefully and learn from the history of US action and inaction in the first half of the twentieth century (upto and including 1956).

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

Postby SaiK » 05 Sep 2007 02:14

NRao wrote:[url=http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14521464]
Centre announces 15-member N-deal 'truce' panel [/url]
sounds like men who would decide 123 future. Wonder why MMS kept away?.. Again, after truce, I'd be seeing the passage (if the lefties go sombre-{normal behavior after a storm}).. the counter hyde will take a walk.. putting the opposition bjp under a strategic fault line against the Khans.

To jumpstart, I'd guess BJP would come with the counter hyde, and finesse the left before they agree to the upavasis, else BJP 'd lose their next elections (not that it matters in terms of the core matters, but for change from minority centric govt.).

well.. sounds like 123 will be done.. at least our harvard guru lalu is available to do the doosras. :twisted:


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest