Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 08 Apr 2008

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by JE Menon »

Which federal law of the US, in principle, does not supersede 123?

Although I support the deal and believe it is something that India can benefit from, if properly handled, I generally do not post in this thread - because it has long since stopped being about substance and far more about who can shout loudest and more often. In fact, I am no longer sure, based on reading the various versions of this thread, about which of our scientists did not lie, which of our bureaucrats are not paid off, and which of our politicians are not traitors.

A lot of allegations are being made against individuals here, based on non-public domain information. A significant number of political figures, bureaucrats and scientists have been directly and indirectly named as traitors and agents of one sort or another. In my opinion, BRF has crossed a certain line in this regard, which should not have been crossed and would not have been crossed if we admins - myself very much included - had done our duty properly.

Having a little bit of knowledge of how these things play out, I have no doubt BR as a whole will begin to feel the impact of these accusations and derisive statements in due course. The only question is what form it will take. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

Anyways, don't mind me. Back to bashing politicians, bureaucrats and people who have worked for decades to give us our nuclear and missile deterrents, while we BRF patriots - many of us at least, if not most - continue to work for Western companies, often in the west, and earn western money on a monthly basis.

What happens if, a year or so down the line, an article pops up in the Indian media in which a couple of these allegations are printed in retrospect to explain a particular situation, and forum members are referred to by a "source who preferred not to be identified" as being possibly in the pay of foreign intelligence agencies? What if names are named, just as we are doing now? Will be rather interesting no?
Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Post by Anabhaya »

^^
Do you think Rockfeller foundation have not intruded this forum? :twisted:
Multatuli
BRFite
Posts: 612
Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Multatuli »

Anyways, don't mind me. Back to bashing politicians, bureaucrats and people who have worked for decades to give us our nuclear and missile deterrents, while we BRF patriots - many of us at least, if not most - continue to work for Western companies, often in the west, and earn western money on a monthly basis.
Ahem... That some of the more critical members live and work in the West doesn't mean that they have sold themselves to the West. I will do what I am paid for but that doesn't and can never include arse licking like some journalists of Indian origin who work for the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. do.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Post by Prem »

Rye wrote:bala wrote:
Sunil Sainis (where is he nowadays) led the analysis on the bums. We in BRF stoutly defended India and pooh poohed anyone who said that the bums did not work etc (see archives).
Nothing seems to have changed other than the people's perception based on this deal and the associated fear of freezing the program to its current level. People don't seem to have enough sense on what to say in public and what not to....still do not understand the devilishly-clever strategy of having to destroy the deterrent in order to save it.

In Videshi We Trust, On Desi We Burst.
Preception is not always the reality . Lets wait for the outcome of NSG drama , it will provide bit conclusive material to ponder on .
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by JE Menon »

>>That some of the more critical members live and work in the West doesn't mean that they have sold themselves to the West.

I did not say the more critical members, I said many of us, if not most - i.e. whether critical or not. Of course it does not mean that they have sold themselves to the West (I suppose you mean being paid to do anti-India work). But does this logic apply to the prime minister too or has someone presented proof of him being a paid agent? To the bureaucrats? To our scientific community? To Subrahmanyam, Shekhar Gupta and/or Bharat Karnad (not sure if the last has been accused of traitorhood yet)?

Similarly, can you be certain that none of anti- or pro-deal members are paid to make the posts they do? I will answer it for you. You cannot.

Who among those who are anti-deal (except the commies) have been accused of being traitors, sell-outs, etc? Maybe I missed a post with such an allegation. I do recall, however, that the commies have metamorphosed of late into a patriotic bunch, although it still appears that the majority on BR are having difficulty swallowing that line.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by JE Menon »

>>Do you think Rockfeller foundation have not intruded this forum?

No doubt, with Rothschild walking right behind hand in hand with Ambani and Amartya - ready to do some social engineering on BRF where the sun don't shine... :lol:
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Post by ramdas »

Largely, I get a feeling its all about the not-done maal, but the design of which was verified by s1 shafted warhead, and that the design is basically valid to produce the 200KT thermos easily with the help of facilities we have thus far developed.
At least Arun insists that the issue is S1 itself not working as expected. He seems to have some more knowledge than the rest of us. Also, he indicates that other steps to undermine the deterrent are being taken. Moreover, a section of those who were behind moulding public opinion in favor of a deterrent always believed in a limited deterrent ( a few 20kt weapons, etc). This is what frustrates many. Why compromise on the ability to become a major power with a powerful deterrent ( a large number of reliable 200-300kt
thermos ) ?

[/quote]
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Becoming a major power with nukes is a pakistani concept, IIRC.
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Post by ramdas »

It is not a Pakistani concept. A powerful deterrent is an absolute must in order to become a major power. It is fundamental to becoming a major power. Nuke nudity /Semi nuke nudity (a few 20 kt weapons only) ensures that India can never ever be a major power. Poodles like Japan should not be thought of as major powers.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

Rye wrote:Becoming a major power with nukes is a pakistani concept, IIRC.
After so many years on BRF and yet that kind of statement is a sad reflection on BRF education. Sad indeed :cry: :cry:
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

John snow wrote:
After so many years on BRF and yet that kind of statement is a sad reflection on BRF education. Sad indeed
I understand what you and Ramdas are talking about, but it seems highly unhelpful to start making the same demands as the NPA. All the questioning going on must be based on public information, else people are wandering into dangerous territory. secondly, the accusations being made would have to imply an across the board failure of the system....excuse me if I chortle at such accusations. The people in the GoI have to balance economic growth with the ability to support a robust program, without going the paki/Russian way and spending scarce money/people on weapons.

There seems to be a chicken and egg problem here that people are just overlooking -- to start matching china militarily, India would have to grow the economic strength to sustain that military as a matter of normal budget allocations just like now (and not bleed through its ears in trying maintain its military).

But to grow to that level at the current rate of improvement in local manufacturing capability will take a long time -- this deal accelarates that rate of improvement in manufacturing capability. Once beyond a certain breakout point in terms of manufacturing capability, it is only a matter of political will to switch intent. Given that competition for resources is not likely to reduce, and that the current generation is prepared to fight for India's share of the pie, it is not going get any easier to get the GoI to drop its non civilian program. If Israel has "nukes in secret" that scares the pants off the Middle-east countriues, why would India's open testing not have any credibility....unless the Indians themselves take a shotgun to their foot and destroy the credibility of their weapon with ill-considered views?
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

-Edited some typo mistakes and small edits: Corrections marked in violet color.
********************************************************

The credibility of Katare's post may be best summarized by his statement "Hyde act is not binding for India we are not signing off on hyde act...." . This is spouting the same hackneyed and tattered "logic", and that has been discredit across the spectrum from Rice and Boucher, to nkumar's post.

There are however a number of misleading issues and arguments raised by him that contradict his initial salvo, some of which I respond here:
Katare wrote:Civilian nuclear deal would increase India's indigenous capacity manifold by bringing new capital, technology and management practices. Budget support and constraints would only go down as more commercial money would be available for commercial purposes and goI could focus on strategic research. New designs would certainly take years to master and would require hand-holding which would actually be immensely helpful and learning experience for Indian scientists. Productivity gains through infusion of new/western technology, management practices and capital is how developing countries manage to grow much faster than developed countries.
1. This is nothing more than "toothless waffle". Forgetting for the moment of spending capital investment in generating electricity from other cheaper energy source that require less investment and shorter gestation period ; the civilian nuclear deal would in principle increase India's indigenous capacity. However, factoring in the price of the electricity generated, would such an exercise would be un-economical even in the short-medium term and prohibitively costly in the long term. The is purely from an economic standpoint and does not take into account any strategic ramifications. Strategic ramifications OTOH are dealt in later part of this rather long post.

2. Could Katare list out the "new technologies' that this wonder deal would bring into India that are specific to nuclear technology. There are already ample indications that the 123/NSG deal will not cover enrichment and reprocessing activities/technologies. Could Katare shed some light on the magical "management practices", that are in the pipelines to "educate the ignorant Natives of India"? Could not these so-called "new management practices" be better done by achieving greater transparency, de-politicization, and restructuring of NPCL?
Katare wrote:There are enough safeguards in the deal to manage this situation admittedly with lotsa pain. Without the deal there won't be any plants to shut off. It is better to have them even if there is a danger that we may have to shut them off in some unlikely scenario. I doubt that other will abandon lucrative contracts and good partner just because USA is not supporting the deal.
1. Could you please list out the safeguards in the 123/NSG deal in such an eventuality (that India tests after signing the 123/NSG deal), and highlight any source that points to guaranteed compensation of the losses incurred by India, if it carries out nuclear tests after signing off on the 123/NSG deal? The only 'safeguards" that appear to be set in stone are that India will never be able to test after the 123/NSG exercise is completed, without hemorrhaging to death!

2. Would you rather have plants that exist in India, but don't work because India tested after the deal, rather than having no nonperforming 'assets' at all?

3. Who are these "others" that would "abandon lucrative contracts and good partner just because USA is not supporting the deal", and incur the wrath of the US if India tests after the 123/NSG deal is completed? Aren't these 'others' also part of the NSG? Doesn't the Hyde Act specifically state in its exemplary article that the US will do its utmost to forestall any "soft peddling" by an NSG member state on the terms and conditions of the 123/NSG deal, and that it possesses the sufficient means and will promulgate further legislation in such an eventuality?
Katare wrote:Stockpile can't be used for unsafeguarded reactors and for every safeguarded reactor there is a provision for stockpile for its entire commercial life. Domestic supplies could be used exclusively for unsafeguarded reactors making Plutonium
In a previous post on 10-Apr, you stated "On top of it, we would have a significant stockpile, technology and capacity to ease the pain through transition" as solution to the cut off of fuel if India tests after 123/NSG.

If this stockpile is 123/NSG related, then can you point out any source which suggests that India can use fuel obtained under the 123/NSG after testing? If this stockpile is indigenous, then it erodes the strategic program. So what stockpile are you talking about in each scenario? Entire commercial life! that has to count as white lie, or you must be snoozing when this issue raise a strom in land of the freebie, and was explicity discounted to be inaddmissable.
This is not funding detail but standard procedure and norms for commercial Imports. The exporting country provides subsidized loans (through (EXIM Banks) and equipment supplier takes equity in project to achieve financial closure of project.
The funding modalities haven't been worked out as yet. It's premature to assume "soft loans" etc.....
This is completely wrong statement Arun and spun by DDM and leftist journalists, check the budget document itself. There are no budget constraints but lotsa capacity constraints....
1. Are you suggesting that BARC, IGCAR, and, Rathehalli are either irrelevant to the strategic program, or not subject to budgetary cuts. Even ardently pro-deal mouthpieces like the ToI have cited these cuts.
See: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Worl ... 892695.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Worl ... 892700.cms
http://www.indiaenews.com/business/20080324/106246.htm

To go a bit further, even Anil Kakodkar, (the DAE high priest of the nuke neutering of India) has cited these budget cuts, and has tacitly stated that they were done in anticipation of the 12/NSG being completed. Are ToI and AK part of the "leftist plot"?

2. If the objectives of the 123/NSG deal are so benign, then why cut into the budget of the Thorium cycle, which is already under-funded?
3. Is Damodaran, former head of the Nuclear Fuel Complex a DDM or a communist stooge?
4. Would leftist media shed any tears about the centrifuge plant expansion at Rathehalli being put off because of these cuts?
5. Based purely on the above, and there's a lot more to follow if push came down to shove, it appears that your use of jargon like "budgetary cuts via-a-vis capacity cuts" is an exercise in pulling a wool over peoples eyes! From what one gathers, the only "capacity cut" is a CAPABILITY CUT in the Indian strategic program and the FBR/Thorium reactor programs!
Yes I have read Hyde Act and 123 agreement in some details but I did not come to similar conclusions. You have more trust in American politicians than Indian ones. I don not subscribe to that view.
1. Reading the Hyde Act, understanding it, and properly quoting its implications are disjoint events, but they carry great significance!

2. It's not a question of trusting American politicians more than Indian politicians. What I do trust is that American politicians are much less likely to compromise their Nations interests, as compared with their Indian counterparts. This is especially true for the UPA thugs! Why should one trust MMS/SG/Pranab? First they talk of J18, then they lie to parliament, then they offhandedly and immorally ignore calls for a vote in parliament, then they talk of 123 superseding Hyde, the list of lies told by these poeple is endless....................
Although admittedly USofA has not been a reliable partner historically and this is a risk worth exploring before we sign on anything
This is a masterpiece example of 'foot in the mouth disease'. The 123/NSG deal does not allow for "sampling the risk", unless one signs up on debilitating binding treaties! This isn't a wine tasting ceremony. It's like quicksand. You can never know how it feels to be squeezed till you're neck deep in it!
Anyhow still we are not signing off on anything related to MTCR. Nothing in MTCR is binding on China or India and there is no exception(or even a question of exceptions arises) have been made for China. MTCR works on consensus (no-veto) and its changes would largely reflect world view in which we also live.
By signing the 123/NSG, India would have opened the door to prohibitively intrusive applications of the MTCR! The MTCR is a club, which India is not part of! Thinking of MTCR as benign equal equal utopian democracy is what should I say "launghable". I honest suggest to study "Game theory" to understand MTCR and other shitty bitty.
There is no obligation for India to share any details of its strategic program, the obligation is for president to estimate and report to congress. It is absurd to even suggest that there could be such an agreement/demand from USofA.
1. Yes, it is indeed Section 104(g)(H) (i) -(iii) of the Hyde Act. I stand corrected with apologies on this issue!
2. Why would it be so absurd? If the very fact that these issues were thought of sufficiently hard enough so as to place it EXPLICITLY in the Hyde Act (which supersedes the 123/NSG despite whatever spiel you and friends may peddle), then how can you assume that they will not be applied, and why the disingenuous brushing off of the very idea as being absurd?
Section 110 only gives definitions to the terms and words used in the act elsewhere and subsection 5 of section 110 defines term Indian which is generic and common legal concept IMO.
1. Why has Section 110 which states "if an Indian person engages in transfers that are not consistent with NSG or MTCR guidelines" been brushed off by Katare as though it were irrelevant? . The act's Section 110(5) defines the term "Indian person" as encompassing both entities and individuals (including "non-Indian nationals") under India's jurisdiction" such a trivial issue? It formally sets the stage for potentially linking a "created/fabricated" incident to the 123/NSG deal!

2. Why place it with specific references to India in the India-specific Hyde Act? Isn't the issue of espionage cases tacitly treated in a generic form in US federal law? Why hasn't a similar clause naming a specific Nation been placed (or included as an addition) to the US -China 123 deal, when it is a known fact that China is the leading culprit behind espionage activities in the US?

Katare should enlighten us with answers/clarifications to the above!
********************************************************
-Edited some typo mistakes and small edits: Corrections marked in violet color.
Last edited by Arun_S on 12 Apr 2008 23:24, edited 1 time in total.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

http://offstumped.nationalinterest.in/2 ... w-cabinet/
With great distress this blogger has been observing the Executive Delinquency of the Manmohan Singh lead UPA Government which has since degenerated into dysfunctional governance.

From mismanaging the economy to the internal security situation there is not a single area of hope that gives cause for comfort. The one issue where the Prime Minister showed some initiative, the Indo-US Nuclear Deal too has become a joke with the lack of political leadership as lamented by you. How can one take this government seriously if the single most important foreign policy initiative saw the Congress President Sonia Gandhi spend hardly any political capital.

It is now clear that while the Congress hedges on when to call elections the Government is on life support and practically in a state of dysfunction.

This state of dysfunction is taking a heavy toll not just on the economy as rightly highlighted by you but also on other key strategic sectors. The lack of a strategy to tackle terrorism and Maoist activities is well known to you. Fellow bloggers Nitin and Pragmatic have also been highlighting the distress in the armed forces and the plummeting morale amongst the officers.
Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Post by Rye »

Speaking for myself, all the abuse of indian scientists, bureaucrats, and polticians is in poor taste, and even if we ignore the validity/invalidity of the arguments being made (not to mention the worrying nature of what is being spelt out in the public domain WITHOUT any thought as to the consequences). The public character assassination of people who have been held up as heroes here for a while is uncalled for -- since various people are being accused of is unprofessional conduct, just because they are not willing to share some information. Don't people "get it" that what is in the public domain is deliberately of dubious quality for a reason. Just goes to show that something that takes years to build up can be ripped apart in a microsecond due to the lack of sound judgement. :roll: It would make better sense from now on for me to STFU on this thread.
Last edited by Rye on 12 Apr 2008 20:07, edited 2 times in total.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

It would make better sense from now on for me to STFU on this thread.
I second that. I'm STFUing too on this thread.

In any case, my understanding of the issues involved is rather simplistic. Its not as if I could add great insight to the debate here. Not sure about SG/MMS but calling scicom names was a tad much for me to handle.

Shall lurk around though, in case the NSG waiver language rumors start to trickle in.

Goodbyes and goodlucks, janta.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by JE Menon »

These are people who cannot answer back, not on BRF anyways. Also remember that BRF is read by thousands upon thousands of people from countries across the world. This is not to be taken lightly. As I said before, I fear a line has been crossed - wittingly or otherwise - although I hope not.
Raja Ram
BRFite
Posts: 587
Joined: 30 Mar 1999 12:31
Location: Chennai

Post by Raja Ram »

JEM,

Thanks for voicing sentiments that I share. I too have stopped posting on this topic. It is not easy for me to see attacks made on some people who have done a yoeman service for the country.

Sometimes, I think we in BRF get carried away and think that we know all answers. It is sad to see some stalwarts adopt this view point.

Having said that, there is nothing that the GOI has done in this deal that inspires any confidence. This deal represented some very important positives for India, if it was made as per the initial understanding and within the redlines that were there.

The GOI has been irresponsible in not building a consensus on this. If only they had taken a more statesman like approach and cooperated with the NDA and together worked on this, this could have been a defining moment as a mature global power marching towards that tryst with destiny that we commited to as a nation in the midnight hour of 15 August 1947.

Alas, to have intellectually gifted pygmies instead of visionary leaders is our lot these days.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by JE Menon »

>>The GOI has been irresponsible in not building a consensus on this. If only they had taken a more statesman like approach and cooperated with the NDA and together worked on this...

You can say that again and again, R2, and it still would not be enough. IMHO, this has been a monumental error in political judgement by the NDA, with the INC yet to come to terms with the fact that the BJP represents the legitimate aspirations of a large number of Indians. I am not sure though that this is entirely the fault of the PM or even the party leader. Sycophancy (or psychofancy as I prefer to label it) and poor internal advise structure is the bane of the INC, although there are early signs of some light at the end of that tunnel.

On the other hand, the BJP has been as responsible as it can be given the circumstances. It has been immensely relieving to note that they have not taken the opportunity to go to town with irresponsible rhetoric. In fact, of late, BJP comments on the deal have been extremely circumspect and very guarded indeed. Plenty of room is being retained for manoeuvre, which is a good thing. Also the recent meeting between Advani and SG may be regarded as the beginning of a thaw in the long-term relationship between the two parties. All of this can be factored into how things will play out in the coming months.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Civilian nuclear deal would increase India's indigenous capacity manifold by bringing new capital, technology and management practices.
Hmmm.....

Says who?

IF (BIG IF) Bush had pushed what was agreed with MMS on the very first meet I could understand this statement. But a badly watered down Hyde Act will not get you much - some, perhaps - but not close to what was expected by India when it first mentioned this to the US Prez.

Recall India had dual use in mind (and Bush agreed to that) and it is not getting anything close to it.

The ONLY way India will get anything is IF she breaks out, in 2040 or so, out of this deal. That also assumes a 10%+ growth every year (which will not happen, software will slow down in a few years) and that other aspects of Indian eco and social conditions keep pace with this growth - I see nothing of that happening based on what has happened so far - even under the great MMS.

Unless India is given the lead - a clean 123 + a revised clean Hyde Act - As was envisioned by India (NOT the US Congress for sure), forget it. India will only get bread crums. Of course that will be better than today. But that is a bad argument - one that the US can make, not an Indian.
Multatuli
BRFite
Posts: 612
Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Multatuli »

Arun S. Ji, thank you for your strong rebuttal. It´s heartening to see at least a few people with a sound judgement and integrity in India.
Katare wrote :

There are enough safeguards in the deal to manage this situation admittedly with lotsa pain. Without the deal there won't be any plants to shut off. It is better to have them even if there is a danger that we may have to shut them off in some unlikely scenario. I doubt that other will abandon lucrative contracts and good partner just because USA is not supporting the deal. They haven't done that before and IMHO, its highly unlikely Russia/Fr or even Britain would do that in future.
This is so incredibly naive and yet this argument has been repeated so often in BRF. Why can't these people understand the simple fact that France and the UK are members of the same wolf pack, and that Russia too will not go against the other cartel members ?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

I think members would benefit if they read and follow these rules:

Falacies of Relevance
This is part of Logic. Thanks, ramana
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

Sometimes we miss basic things. There is a saying, "Take what you can hold and eat what you can swallow".
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)
If you dont agree with the 123 then you are not a patriot"
Shri MMS


Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)
"In a unipolar world if we dont side with Uncles and aunties, then we will become parent less"

Bhishma pitamaha


Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum)
If we sign the deal we will be making the great masters in the forbidden city and our patron saints angry, with out them there is no future of peaceful India

CPM 100 Karat uvacha


Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
This treaty has been carefuly crafted to make India a super power and time is running out, next congress session may not approve this deal, and we beleive it has to be signed with in six months or else....
N Burns fiddles while stoking the fires.

Ad Hominem Argument
Those who oppose should know that 123 agreement will make NSG open its arms to us and give us unlimited sources of energy just everything you can think of under the Sun, even NPA jihadis are worried about this deal because it benefits India and will make India super power, which is a sure sign of a good deal
Shri P Mukharjee a long standing politician with no roots except in Rajya Sabha

Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignoratiam)

THe Americans had attorneys in their negotiations because the Sate department has them, they are litigatious, where as we are not, besides this is atreaty only, not a dispute or litigation for lawyers presence? no?
His excellency MKN foreign to National affairs seceretary


Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi)
All people at the helm of affairs in Scicom are always in look out for the nation, therefore there is no fission in the yields once you look at the fusion of radio chemical data, crater, soil mechanics, no need for peer review or additional testing, besides even USA did not test before it dropped the bum on Japanese. Even if the number dont add it will work.
for that matter we may actually never use, based on current quivering in the boots to sign the dotted line as told by unkil and aunties. Therefore Its the economy stupid, only states like TSP think of bums every day and night
leading analysts and NRIs with vested interest in India
Last edited by John Snow on 12 Apr 2008 21:37, edited 1 time in total.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

ramana wrote:To be honest there was a very valid reason why the moratraium was announced. Recall ABV authorized six tests. RC and his team set off five tests and the last one was removed and taken back for inventory. The line was "Why waste it?"
I hope you wont mind if i can have some clarifications on this. Sixth device was not tested means, do the team felt satisfied fom what happened on the day before previous day's test ?
So bottom line is that Indian deterrent core weapon is quite validated and its the boosted version. Yes its heavy and thats why Indian missiles have such less range.

Do this explain the 12 MIRV planned for 1.5 ton payload of Agni 3/4. Do this explain the 8 MIRV design for 1 ton payload for k-15. Both these data are quoted by distinguished people in the industry, one is by Avinash Chander and another one by Admiral Raja Menon ?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Kanson wrote:Sometimes we miss basic things. There is a saying, "Take what you can hold and eat what you can swallow".
One has to take a look at what is being given to be held. (Forget 123/Hyde Act for a second.)

All reactors, fuel, reprocessing (IF and when allowed), enriching (to only 20%), consulting and management services, whatever they send - will have to be paid by Indian consumers.

Even after that the nuclear component of Indian energy recs will be minimal - from what 3% to some 6% or so?

Green houses gases will not be impacted at all....India will still rely on coal and oil for some 90%+. So that arg is bogus.

What will impact Indian civilian energy situation is a Throium based system. Of course, that has been conviniently left out of the picture by the Americans/NSG and this GoI.

As far as I know there has been no mention of India exporting any thing (GNEP was an exception, but that is outside this deal). So, the financial burden still remains with the Indian consumer.

So, what is India going to benefit from? Pay a $100 Billion for being dictated to about what India should do with her energy plans?

The ONLY benefit I see is that compared to where India is today she will be "better" - better screw drivers, etc. But that is relative to today only. I feel that India is capable of and deserves a lot more. She should wait. A better deal will come. A far better deal.
Last edited by NRao on 12 Apr 2008 21:50, edited 1 time in total.
Multatuli
BRFite
Posts: 612
Joined: 06 Feb 2007 06:29
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Multatuli »

The scale and depth of the obfuscation practiced by MMS/the UPA combined with the authoritarian manner in which MMS has pushed this deal alone should greatly alarm people.

Ramdas, CRamS, and Arun S. Ji have already explained why some sections of the Indian upper middle class support this deal, it´s about greed, yes personal greed, they don't care about national interests, never did and never will. As long as they ( the Indian supporters of this deal ) are allowed the uncle Tom status ( be first among the slaves, allowed into the masters house ) by massa, it's quite okay to go ahead with 'deal'.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Thus, for example, another test is an absolute imperative to test a reworked thermonuclear weapon design. The one tested in May 1998, many scientists even here believe, fizzled out. The doubt is about whether or not the shock wave set off the ‘secondary’ (meaning, the store of thermonuclear fuel). Reading into the test data, the dissenting scientists who, incidentally, are in a majority, are convinced that most of the yield was due to the boosted fission trigger (or the ‘primary’) and that there was virtually no thermonuclear burn.
Who said this? When? Bharat Karnad. I have found public references of BK and Iyengar stating the above in 1999. So, what is this talk of a holier than thou attitude towards any Government official. When these things were out in the open at least since 1999.
He goes on to say the following:
Now consider the Indian situation. Just one of the five Indian May ’98 tests pertained to a thermonuclear device and that too is now suspect. Nevertheless, the information on innumerable performance variables available from just this one doubtful explosive test is deemed adequate by way of a database for sub-critical testing to facilitate production of newer, more advanced, thermonuclear weaponry! This level of self-confidence verging on scientific and technological hubris could be ignored were it not that it directly endangers the nuclear deterrent and national security in the long run by increasing the chances that any new and advanced weapons designs that might eventuate from Indian sub-criticals in the future will, in the absence of actual tests, run the risk of failing. And, in the larger context, that India may end up having an inventory full of supposedly ‘decisive’ nuclear weapons that do not work. Proof of performance of the weapons systems in the deterrent force will then be available only in time of war. By then it will be too late to matter one way or the other.
And then he says this:
The haste in signing this wretched treaty is foolhardy in the extreme. Three beneficial things will, however, happen were the Government of India (GOI) to not sign this treaty. It will buy the country time and the legal space to test further, should that become necessary, in order to realise a more survivable deterrent with greater lethality, continue levelling the strategic playing field, and afford New Delhi the leverage derived from the promise of eventual adherence to the treaty to more substantively establish India’s geopolitical role and global interests in the coming century.
These are enormous advantages not to be frittered or gifted away in return for something as evanescent as Washington’s goodwill and offers of loosened controls on credit and technology flows which, as will be argued here, will follow provided the GOI keeps unwaveringly to its economic reforms script. It would be gratuitous to expend India’s substantial bargaining power on something that is in the US’ trade and commercial interest to affect and which no administration in Washington will be able to resist doing anyway.
No, he is not talking about the 123, The above was in context of the CTBT in 2000. The man is unsparing with a single mission, to protect India’s interests. He goes on to say the following.

Any P-5 country, able to muster a majority in the verification council, can ask for and get an on-site inspection mandated under UN aegis of any facility or suspect installation in a signatory country. There is no protection against such deliberate harassment and policing measures. Go ask the Iraqis about the UN inspection teams searching for supposedly clandestine factories researching, developing and producing weapons of mass destruction!
Even a suggestion of CTBT, by the then officials of the GoI gets this man to react.
The earlier impression of the ‘security dialogue’ as going nowhere is giving way to a view of a fatal Indian compromise in the offing, which was strengthened by Minister for External Affairs Jaswant Singh’s lengthy interview to The Hindu (29 November 1999). In it, he made the case for India’s signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) soon, notwithstanding its rejection by the US Senate and its non-ratification by the other major nuclear weapons states, Russia and China.
The haste in signing this wretched treaty is foolhardy in the extreme.
The question for us, now, is the same as it was when the following was written in 2000.
the need for more tests if weapons in the megaton class or even 200 kiloton (kt) fusion warheads are to be developed, India will have to develop a suitable strategy to find a way around the CTBT to enable further testing without inviting a fresh round of sanctions and international opprobrium. In case India's nuclear warhead capability remains confined to 15 to 30 kt fission warheads, it will lead to the sub-optimal utilisation of India's meagre fissile material stockpile. With negotiations for the FMCT staring it in the face and the likelihood of an early agreement being reached, India would be hard put to stockpile adequate fissile stockpile for the total number of warheads that its retaliatory strategy and targeting philosophy may require. These are the tough issues confronting the development of a potent nuclear strategy. While there are no easy answers, a determined diplomatic stance and a tough negotiating position with some hard bargaining can achieve the desired results. The world is gradually getting used to the idea that a "cap, reduce, eliminate" policy is no longer feasible and that India's nuclear weapons, born primarily out of the need to safeguard national security, cannot now be rolled back.
The above para is not from BK but Gurmeet Kanwal. BK does not spare anyone and is not beholden to any political point of view. The man is either insane or a true patriot. It is time, we at BRF stop putting blind faith in whatever the GoI says and does and use our own mind and heart, if we can. If we cannot, we put faith in people, whom we trust.

The sad thing for me is what I call is the debating framework has been set in such a way that no matter, if or how we sign this agreement, India has lost one way or the other. If I were to say today that India should accept nothing less than FORMAL NWS status in the global world order, I am sure, I will be called an extremist, an H&D infatuated Paki and what not. When will we learn that the US is not going to give it to us, we will have to snatch it and if we cannot do it now then at least negotiate something with a CLEAR path to the cherished goal.

As we debate this agreement, the question and value of parity is almost lost and the only thing we debate here is if we should sign 123 or not and how. The US has in a master stroke invalidated the idea of an India as a global power, on par with other major powers.

Weak men and structures have been the reason for our fall in the past, Indians should recognize this pattern and correct them, instead of repeating the same old mistakes. We cannot say sign this deal now and say, we will change it later. Some things have a lasting impact on how we deal with the world. I am not ashamed, when India goes around with a begging bowl for support for a permanent UN seat, but it will not happen sweetly with the help of a begging bowl. The ONLY way this will happen is if, we have the will, capability and need to bring this order down and play on our own terms. I only wish that we had taken some effort from the very start learnt to play the great game, instead of living in utopia.
The gloves need to come off in the defense of the nation, there is no one or no institution above the nations interests.

Personally, I am hoping that the establishment scientists are under orders of the GoI to shut up, leaving only external and past members with the option to speak about the failed tests. If the TN test had indeed failed, it will most certainly not be in India’s interests to sign this deal, even if a Jekyl act is passed. (would not make sense). Surprised that some members want to shut up now, when the nations interests are under threat.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Kanson wrote:[
So bottom line is that Indian deterrent core weapon is quite validated and its the boosted version. Yes its heavy and thats why Indian missiles have such less range.

Do this explain the 12 MIRV planned for 1.5 ton payload of Agni 3/4. Do this explain the 8 MIRV design for 1 ton payload for k-15. Both these data are quoted by distinguished people in the industry, one is by Avinash Chander and another one by Admiral Raja Menon ?
The warheads for these would not be field tested, if built and deployed. Only the sub componnets would be tested and if there is an LIF facility the TN portion can also be tested. Even with an LIF, where is all the test data for the simmulations coming from?
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

ShauryaT wrote:
Kanson wrote:[
Do this explain the 12 MIRV planned for 1.5 ton payload of Agni 3/4. Do this explain the 8 MIRV design for 1 ton payload for k-15. Both these data are quoted by distinguished people in the industry, one is by Avinash Chander and another one by Admiral Raja Menon ?
The warheads for these would not be field tested, if built and deployed. Only the sub componnets would be tested and if there is an LIF facility the TN portion can also be tested. Even with an LIF, where is all the test data for the simmulations coming from?
Then tell me how S2 worked perfectly from POK-I design data ? Or, is that too a fizzle ? PKI who voiced concern during POK-II also voiced concern over POK-I. Going by the logic you stated in your preivous post, POK-I should be a dud ?
Last edited by Kanson on 12 Apr 2008 22:21, edited 1 time in total.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

kanson try to find the answer to the question asked of Tellis as to what did MMS agree to give that ABV wanst prepared to and some answers might turn up.

The info you posted might be a re-jigged boosted weapon that is based on S1 primary. No one but a fool will try to deploy the S1 design with tweaks.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

Thanks Ramana, When you try to answer in an imaginative direction, how could every answer should merge on single one, which some of few forum members are scared ?

So if the delpoyed weapon is a TN weapon, do you agree that those who are stating otheriwse here would be fools ?
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

NRao wrote:
Kanson wrote:Sometimes we miss basic things. There is a saying, "Take what you can hold and eat what you can swallow".
One has to take a look at what is being given to be held. (Forget 123/Hyde Act for a second.)
Sir, I think you misunderstood my post. Its about the smptoms that we caught ourselves in.
The ONLY benefit I see is that compared to where India is today she will be "better" - better screw drivers, etc. But that is relative to today only. I feel that India is capable of and deserves a lot more. She should wait. A better deal will come. A far better deal.
Sir, to be frank i didnt crystallized my views on the deal completely. But you see, some people feel that, Nehru too thought that way and sacrificied Security concil seat that we been offered. What do you think, Is what Nehru did at that time right ?
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

John Snow wrote:Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)
If you dont agree with the 123 then you are not a patriot"
Shri MMS


Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)
"In a unipolar world if we dont side with Uncles and aunties, then we will become parent less"

Bhishma pitamaha


Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum)
If we sign the deal we will be making the great masters in the forbidden city and our patron saints angry, with out them there is no future of peaceful India

CPM 100 Karat uvacha


Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
This treaty has been carefuly crafted to make India a super power and time is running out, next congress session may not approve this deal, and we beleive it has to be signed with in six months or else....
N Burns fiddles while stoking the fires.

Ad Hominem Argument
Those who oppose should know that 123 agreement will make NSG open its arms to us and give us unlimited sources of energy just everything you can think of under the Sun, even NPA jihadis are worried about this deal because it benefits India and will make India super power, which is a sure sign of a good deal
Shri P Mukharjee a long standing politician with no roots except in Rajya Sabha

Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignoratiam)

THe Americans had attorneys in their negotiations because the Sate department has them, they are litigatious, where as we are not, besides this is atreaty only, not a dispute or litigation for lawyers presence? no?
His excellency MKN foreign to National affairs seceretary


Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi)
All people at the helm of affairs in Scicom are always in look out for the nation, therefore there is no fission in the yields once you look at the fusion of radio chemical data, crater, soil mechanics, no need for peer review or additional testing, besides even USA did not test before it dropped the bum on Japanese. Even if the number dont add it will work.
for that matter we may actually never use, based on current quivering in the boots to sign the dotted line as told by unkil and aunties. Therefore Its the economy stupid, only states like TSP think of bums every day and night
leading analysts and NRIs with vested interest in India
In these difficult times to Indian national interest your melodramatic black humor is both relieving and a powerful summation of the blind-bards and their tunes; each unable to see the big picture INDIA, and disparaging others of "Lower Birth".

John Snow pls keep up the genius of "Village bairaagi/raagi"
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Kanson wrote:Thanks Ramana, When you try to answer in an imaginative direction, how could every answer should merge on single one, which some of few forum members are scared ?

So if the delpoyed weapon is a TN weapon, do you agree that those who are stating otheriwse here would be fools ?
No-No! When did I say the deployed be TN? It has to be the BF type but redesigned based on S1 primary. That would not need confirmation. Any TN weapon has to be confirmed after issues with the S1 test.

Also clarify the first bolded question. Thanks
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Post by amit »

Multatuli wrote: Ramdas, CRamS, and Arun S. Ji have already explained why some sections of the Indian upper middle class support this deal, it´s about greed, yes personal greed, they don't care about national interests, never did and never will. As long as they ( the Indian supporters of this deal ) are allowed the uncle Tom status ( be first among the slaves, allowed into the masters house ) by massa, it's quite okay to go ahead with 'deal'.
And so you and other folks here have the divine right to brand “sections of the Indian upper middle classâ€
Last edited by amit on 12 Apr 2008 22:49, edited 1 time in total.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

ramana wrote:To be honest there was a very valid reason why the moratraium was announced. Recall ABV authorized six tests. RC and his team set off five tests and the last one was removed and taken back for inventory. The line was "Why waste it?"
I hope you wont mind if i can have some clarifications on this. Sixth device was not tested means, do the team felt satisfied fom what happened on the day before previous day's test ? Sir, can i have your thoughts on this...
Santosh
BRFite
Posts: 802
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 01:55

Post by Santosh »

Ramana, maybe they didn't think it was necessary based on the results of the first five. We don't know if the sixth was TN or sub-KT device.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

But you see, some people feel that, Nehru too thought that way and sacrificied Security concil seat that we been offered. What do you think, Is what Nehru did at that time right ?
The 123 is a negotiated deal, which can be renogotiated. SC seat is not in the same class. The US is after the $100 Billion, so are a few Indian pedros. So, it can be renegotiated for sure. After all check out what they said about the Bajpai gov.....that they were willing to settle for less. A GoI in the future can bargain for more too. India will be in a far better position all around. SC seat or not.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

NRao wrote:
But you see, some people feel that, Nehru too thought that way and sacrificied Security concil seat that we been offered. What do you think, Is what Nehru did at that time right ?
The 123 is a negotiated deal, which can be renogotiated. SC seat is not in the same class. The US is after the $100 Billion, so are a few Indian pedros. So, it can be renegotiated for sure. After all check out what they said about the Bajpai gov.....that they were willing to settle for less. A GoI in the future can bargain for more too. India will be in a far better position all around. SC seat or not.
After independence everyone thought that we will be much better. Dont we still involved in negotations for the SC seat ? Yes, ABV gave 2 reactors, UPA given much more reactors...you know that information, i guess.
Locked