Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 08 Apr 2008

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

more propaganda from the non-proliferation-ayatollahs...
Nuclear weapons in India will increase risk of terrorism

Namibia on India radar for uranium
According to experts, once the 1996 African Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty (the Treaty of Pelindaba) comes into force, there is the possibility of these member-nations seeking full-scope safeguards for any transfer of nuclear material to non-Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty states, including India.
Actually the Pelindaba treaty (African nuclear free zone) , unlike the Rarotonga treaty (South Pacific nuclear free zone) doesn't specify that safeguards for NNWS be applied under Article III.1 of the NPT. In contrast, the Rarotonga text seems to have been crafted by an ayatollah to imply full scope safeguards

this is article 4 of Rarotonga Treaty
ARTICLE 4: PEACEFUL NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES
Each Party undertakes:
(a) not to provide source or special fissionable material, or equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material for peaceful purposes to:
(i) any non-nuclear-weapon State unless subject to the safeguards required by Article 111.1 of the NPT, or
(ii) any nuclear-weapon State unless subject to applicable safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Any such provision shall be in accordance with strict non-proliferation measures to provide assurance of exclusively peaceful non-explosive use;
(b) to support the continued effectiveness of the international non-proliferation system based on the NPT and the IAEA safeguards system.
This is article 9 of Pelindaba Treaty
Article 9
Verification of Peaceful Uses
Each Party undertakes:
(a) To conduct all activities for the peaceful use of nuclear energy under strict non- proliferation measures to provide assurance of exclusively peaceful uses;
(b) To conclude a comprehensive safeguards agreement with IAEA for the purpose of verifying compliance with the undertakings in subparagraph (a) of this article;
(c) Not to provide source or special fissionable material, or equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material for peaceful purposes to any non-nuclear-weapon State unless subject to a comprehensive safeguards agreement concluded with IAEA.
The NPT article 3.1 says
1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this Article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this Article shall be applied on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.
Uranium from Oz will require interpretation of NPT 3.1 to apply only to peaceful activities while simultaneously military activities are taking place. Military activities are not actually mentioned becasue the NPT doesn't really take into account NNWS with nuclear weapons. These SNWs are an aberration.

This could be solved by a minor amendment to the NPT text. Just a single character needs to be changed - a '6' replaced by a '7'
For the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 1967.
The ayatollahs seem bent on using nuclear weapon free zones (NPT article 7) to enforce full scope safeguards (nowhere mentioned in the NPT). They may propose a protocol to Pelindaba to block Indian access to non-NSG Uranium.

India needs to lock in supply contracts now.

Those African countries should be offered a helping hand up the value added chain. Instead of being confined to raw material exporters (as France and US would like), they should be helped to develop enrichment, fuel fabrication and reprocessing technology in exchange for uninterrupted supply of Uranium to India.

Helping the non-NSG countries break the exploitative hold of the US and France could be the ticket for a reliable supply of Uranium fuel.
Last edited by Gerard on 10 Apr 2008 03:30, edited 2 times in total.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

bala wrote:Arun_S

I know you have an opinion different than mine, but it does not behoove you to go on a rampage, oh wow. did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed today?

For instance on the Agni page on BR you claim the following:
India's nuclear warhead options are still relatively limited, though adequate. Since the first Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) in 1974 (PoK-I), India adopted the recessed deterrence posture initially consisting of fission weapons (~15 KT yield) followed by boosted fission weapons of 200 KT yield, suitable for the Agni-TD/TTB. The PoK-II 1998 'Shakti' series of nuclear tests in Pokhran were reportedly done to validate multiple weapon designs, of 1995 vintage. Interestingly the 200 KT boosted fission design of 1980 was not tested in PoK-II, evidently its core components and technologies were validated in newer designs, and giving way to a lighter and more efficient S1 design. It is interesting to note that India has access to large quantities[135] of Tritium - produced at an extremely low cost - which lends flexibility to Indian weapon design options, an option that is not available or viable to prior nuclear weapon states.
In other words, you are claiming above that S1 was efficient and tritium provides flexibility to design options; but now are convinced S1 did not work. I have based my observations on what R. Chidambaram, et al said. OK, you have more information about detailed analysis and I don't. But the nuclear deterrent does not need to hinge on TN weapons alone, right?

On 123 let us agree to disagree that is it; no need to bring in anything extraneous. You have a different viewpoint so let it be.
As for getting off wrong side of the bed today: No. But did get off wrong BRF thread to discover some erroneous and unchallenged posts.

This board is about competing ideas. And I consider it my duty to challenge those ideas that in my view do not serve India and/or humanity.

So coming to the Agni article let us analyze what could be construed as "offending" statements:
  • 1: "Interestingly the 200 KT boosted fission design of 1980 was not tested in PoK-II, evidently its core components and technologies were validated in newer designs, and giving way to a lighter and more efficient S1 design".
    I have stated that the core components of the boosted fission design were validated in S1. This is a *fact*, since the primary of S1 was a boosted fission design more advanced than the 1980 design, and it worked flawlessly.
  • 2. "............giving way to a lighter and more efficient S1 design."

    Sure, on paper, the S1 was a newer and more efficient design. The problem is that the secondary did not work!
  • 3. Tritium does not offer Nirvana for basic engineering, just more options.
I have hypothesized in this article, by cautiously analyzing and extrapolating curtailed information based on what was available in the public domain. I have not given a glowing tribute or a thumbs up to the S1 test.

On the flip side, your posts has number of fatal and morally unacceptable flaws:
  • 1. Distorting the nature of the 123 agreement and categorically downplaying the superceding nature of the Hyde Act vis-a-vis any 123 agreement signed with India. This is out in the open literature from the very beginning and there for everybody to see, and certainly was never in the restricted domain.

    You repeatedly stated that the 123 agreement is a contract which overrides the Hyde agreement! The very notion of a contract is that it assumes/suggests an impartial adjudication between the litigating parties.
    Could you refer us to any entity who would impartially adjudicate between the US and India, especially in the areas concerning nuclear policy? Surely, the information and logic that could easily answer this question is not classified!
  • 2. Taking cover behind RC's statements. Whatever RC says doesn't override repeated statements made by Rice, which were meant to specifically squash any speculation and false notions of the 123 agreement peddled by the UPA regime, which you are pushing down peoples throats!
  • 3. By falsely stating that the presence of silicate glass is evidence of a successful TN burn, which flies in the face of the known/established physics. In this case, clearly using bluff and bluster to push down peoples throats a bogus and erroneous viewpoint.
  • 4. Denigrating people who disagreed with you on issues that are in the open domain, and readily understandable by anybody with an average IQ and a basic knowledge of realpolitik! Further, you repeatedly talked in a high and might manner about International law, of which you appear to have little or no knowledge and/or background. The implementation and interpretation of International law is not performed in isolation, but is linked to realpolitik.
  • 5. Quote: ".............'But the nuclear deterrent does not need to hinge on TN weapons alone, right?"

    Would stones serve as a credible alternative for India? Credible nuclear deterrence depends upon the Nation possessing it. For Pakistan, plain fission devices would suffice because they are more likely to use it and does not have "No First Use" policy. For a Nation like India, a credible TN capability is a must because its more for effect than use (hopefully, at least in the near future).
  • 6. Quote: The debate on whether the TN was partial or full burn is rather pointless. Yes it is a good academic exercise and for those who want to learn further maybe. Fact of matter is it is a binary: either it works or not at all. Adding a good dollop of Tritrium should fix the yield curve quite neatly. TN did occur and there is proof, samples were retrieved and glass like formation was observed. Craters, shafts, seismic signatures are all approximate. For now I am quite comfortable with the idea that India has a suitable deterrent and TN is part of Nuclear Weapon Kitty. For those who believe otherwise, sorry, if one does explode in your neighborhood and everything turns into glass then don't be too surprised at whether it worked or not.
    • 1. By claiming that "Dollops of tritium should fix the yield curve quite neatly", you implicitly claim intimate knowledge of what went wrong with the S1 secondary, and its design details. This contradicts what you said today in that you are only stating what RC has stated! Where has R.Chidambrum talked about using extra TN fuel to fix the yield curves? Chidambrum has consistently stated that S1 worked "perfectly".!!

      2. If TN weapons are not important for a credible nuclear deterrent, then why fabricate and distort physics and spout some bullshit to enforce the view that S1 was a success?

      3. Karnad was part of the National Security Establishment. He has categorically stated that the S1 secondary did not perform. In fact, he was not that specific, and has publicly stated that S1 was a flop, which if viewed in totality is correct because S1 was purported to be a TN and not a boosted fission device.!!!! Karnad pulled no punches on this one! Is Karnad a liar? Further, if Karnad was spreading false information, why did RC or the DAE not correct him?
Would love to stand corrected if you could point out where I am being "extraneous".
Last edited by Arun_S on 10 Apr 2008 04:20, edited 2 times in total.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

Note that article 5 of the NPT gives a right to use peaceful nuclear explosives.
PNEs are out of fashion after India tested a PNE in 1974.

The ayatollahs are always claiming that India broke its promise to Canada to use CIRUS reactor for only peaceful use. India exploded a peaceful nuke (as defined in the NPT itself - the sacred text of the non-proliferation-ayatollahs). It was Canada that broke off cooperation.
Article V
Each Party to the Treaty undertakes to take appropriate measures to ensure that, in accordance with this Treaty, under appropriate international observation and through appropriate international procedures, potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty on a non-discriminatory basis and that the charge to such Parties for the explosive devices used will be as low as possible and exclude any charge for research and development. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty shall be able to obtain such benefits, pursuant to a special international agreement or agreements, through an appropriate international body with adequate representation of non-nuclear-weapon States. Negotiations on this subject shall commence as soon as possible after the Treaty enters into force. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty so desiring may also obtain such benefits pursuant to bilateral agreements.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

And Milo Nordyke of Livermore Labs showed in his now declassified paper that based on crater phenomenology the POK I crater was a PNE type as it moved a lot of earth.
Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Post by Anabhaya »

Since, most of the messengers know quite intimately of what Ramanna did to Subbarao,
Arun - are you talking about BK Subbarao ? If yes, are you trying to imply that he was innocent? :roll:
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

ramdas wrote:Arunji:

You also said that there was a corrected version ready for testing in 2003. Does that not mean there was a redesign of the secondary iaround that time ? However, it seems to have been by the same group that messed it up the first time round.
Precisely.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

Anabhaya wrote:
Since, most of the messengers know quite intimately of what Ramanna did to Subbarao,
Arun - are you talking about BK Subbarao ? If yes, are you trying to imply that he was innocent? :roll:
It is well known fact that he was set up and humiliated because he rubbed on the wrong side of bloated egos.
Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Post by Anabhaya »

So what about Amb.John Dean's notes?
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

John Gunther Dean's Oral History
Ambassador John Gunther Dean has donated his personal papers to the Jimmy Carter Library. Dean was U.S. Ambassador to Cambodia, Denmark, Lebanon, Thailand, and India during a Foreign Service career that began in 1956 and ended with his retirement in 1989.
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/libra ... /India.pdf
In 1987. the Indian Navy had leased a Soviet nuclear submarine. The purpose of the lease was to train the Indian navy in the use of such a technically advanced naval vessel. The reactor unit was sealed and the spent fuel was to be returned to the Soviet Union. Mr. Gandhi had assured President Reagan that "this specific submarine on lease from the Soviet Union would not be used in any manner in the event of any hostilities." Prime Minister Gandhi had assured President Reagan in writing that there was "no ground for any apprehension". Naturally, our navy wanted to know more about the submarine leased from the Soviet Union to India, and this led to a covert operation to obtain detailed plans and drawings of this vessel. The incident occurred when an Indian Navy Captain was arrested at Bombay International Airport before boarding a flight for the United States in possession of detailed technical data on the Soviet nuclear submarine. Apparently, Indian Intelligence had tracked the Indian naval officer - or was he a double agent - and, in any case, I was asked to meet with the Prime Minister who confronted me with the facts. I did my best to smooth ruffled feathers, and fortunately Mr. Gandhi was sufficiently experienced in international relations to know that information on the Soviet vessel was a legitimate target for our Intelligence agencies. I urged that the apprehension of the Indian officer before leaving India with the drawings should not adversely impact on over-all U.S.-Indian relations. At the same time, I protected vis-a-vis Washington the American official who had been in charge of this case at the Embassy. He left the post quite rapidly, but has enjoyed an interesting career after his service in India.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Gerard wrote:John Gunther Dean's Oral History
Ambassador John Gunther Dean has donated his personal papers to the Jimmy Carter Library. Dean was U.S. Ambassador to Cambodia, Denmark, Lebanon, Thailand, and India during a Foreign Service career that began in 1956 and ended with his retirement in 1989.
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/libra ... /India.pdf
In 1987. the Indian Navy had leased a Soviet nuclear submarine. The purpose of the lease was to train the Indian navy in the use of such a technically advanced naval vessel. The reactor unit was sealed and the spent fuel was to be returned to the Soviet Union. Mr. Gandhi had assured President Reagan that "this specific submarine on lease from the Soviet Union would not be used in any manner in the event of any hostilities." Prime Minister Gandhi had assured President Reagan in writing that there was "no ground for any apprehension". Naturally, our navy wanted to know more about the submarine leased from the Soviet Union to India, and this led to a covert operation to obtain detailed plans and drawings of this vessel. The incident occurred when an Indian Navy Captain was arrested at Bombay International Airport before boarding a flight for the United States in possession of detailed technical data on the Soviet nuclear submarine. Apparently, Indian Intelligence had tracked the Indian naval officer - or was he a double agent - and, in any case, I was asked to meet with the Prime Minister who confronted me with the facts. I did my best to smooth ruffled feathers, and fortunately Mr. Gandhi was sufficiently experienced in international relations to know that information on the Soviet vessel was a legitimate target for our Intelligence agencies. I urged that the apprehension of the Indian officer before leaving India with the drawings should not adversely impact on over-all U.S.-Indian relations. At the same time, I protected vis-a-vis Washington the American official who had been in charge of this case at the Embassy. He left the post quite rapidly, but has enjoyed an interesting career after his service in India.
John Dean's "notes' are pretty much questionable. The Chakra was a Charlie 1 class of 1960's vintage. Anyway, all Charlie 1's were scrapped in the beginning of 1990. Thus, a Charlie 1 design in 1987 would have held no great surprises for the US. BK.Subbarao was set up because he strenuously and correctly argued that the original ATV reactor design was horse manuar. Events showed him to be true, but he was ruined thanks to Raja Ramanna.

If he was an agent, he would have landed up in a top US university, like Arunachalam.

It will be very interesting to see to which university Shri. MM Singh and Montek Singh Alahuwalia will land.
ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Post by ranganathan »

Right, all Charlie classes were in reserve by 1994. CIA must be really stupid if they were trying to obtain details of a piddly little SSGN that was going out of service.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

Depends on whether they had alternate sources of information.

New designs are built on older ones. Even the older design information would be valuable if nothing else was available.

If the CIA was unable to penetrate the Soviet design institutes, an easily bought Indian source must be like manna from heaven.
ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Post by ranganathan »

http://www.indiatogether.org/manushi/is ... bbprof.htm

Off topic (about BK subba rao)but an interesting account. Not sure about validity.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

In 1974 the CIA spent 550 million dollars on Project Jennifer.

Howard Hughes built the Glomar Explorer to raise the wreck of the Golf class diesel electric ballistic missile submarine K-129.

More than half a billion (1974) dollars to raise an obsolete Golf submarine (basically 1950's technology) that had sunk six years before. This at a time when newer Yankee and Delta SSBNs had already become the mainstay of the Soviet ballistic missile submarine fleet...
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1994
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Post by bala »

Arun_S,

Ostensibly, you have an agenda to prove your point and you may be right.

I simply went by available sources not those that arent in public domain.

Just a few clarifications, take it for whatever,

On glass, i really meant the following for fusion

the signatures of the fusion reaction are activation products due to 14 MeV neutrons

R. Chidambaram has stated that the yields were kept down since they did not want to damage villages (Khetolai?).

I am curious, why the issues of "bad S1" were not brought out much earlier and why we let it slide until now. If it were known in say end 98, the BJP should have gone for second testing of nuke weapons.

And for your information I am not trying to prop up 123 or shove it down ones throat as you put it. I don't care either way. The deal seemed promising at first but lately it has degenerated into all kinds of exclusions and waivers and permissions and so forth. I want India to pass its own Jekyl law to counteract Hyde. The rest is up to the team negotiating the terms and conditions.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Post by vsudhir »

deleted OT
ramdas
BRFite
Posts: 585
Joined: 21 Mar 2006 02:18

Post by ramdas »

Bala:

This is probably what happened with S1. The primary certainly worked perfectly. It yielded approx 20kt going by what Arun has said. Since the overall yueld was 45kt , the remaining 25kt came from the secondary. In other words, radiation implosion happened for sure. However, though the secondary yielded something, containement did not happen for long enough. It therefore ended up yielding much less than it was designed for. So, the problem seems to be designing a secondary that rectifies this. Of the approx 25kt yielded by the secondary, how much of this came from the spark plug, we will never know. Presumably 10kt -15kt. So, that leaves 10-15kt of fusion instead of the desired >40kt (maybe closer to 60kt) fusion yield.

So, some fusion yield happened, though the test on the whole did not succeed. Maybe Arun can confirm what I said.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

bala said
"Arun_S,
Ostensibly, you have an agenda to prove your point and you may be right.
You seem to see one when there is none.

He has categorically stated his conclusions based on public domian knowledge that were interpreted with science.

Some times graceful exit is as important as a graceful entry (in arguments/debate)
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

bala wrote:I am curious, why the issues of "bad S1" were not brought out much earlier and why we let it slide until now. If it were known in say end 98, the BJP should have gone for second testing of nuke weapons.
Because, very simply what is not understood is that after the May 1998 tests, testing for India has become a political decision and not a technical decision. Political, because a consensus has to emerge within the country on bearing the costs of testing, especially the economic costs. Unless all the stakeholders give their implicit assent to this, there will be no further testing by India. And this status will remain irrespective of any consensus on the data of the SI test, notwithstanding the dozen odd people who are in danger of requiring hospitalization as a result of getting apoplectic fits on this thread.

Whether the 123 agreement is signed or not, the very rapid progress of India with its attendant rising standards of living make it ever more difficult to upset this applecart by throwing in the joker hand of a test and this IMO will be irrespective of any government that comes to power whether UPA or NDA. It is clear that the NDA government saw this and hence detisted from further testing in the remaing 4 years and 9 months in power after the 1998 tests.
sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Post by sraj »

On the whole issue of India getting non-NSG Uranium:

1. Pelindaba needs 28 states to ratify before it comes into force; 23 states have ratified so far. As Gerard says, India needs to lock up long-term supply contracts now; the recent India-Africa summit should have been a good opportunity to accelerate this at the highest levels.

2. Both Namibia and Niger have NOT ratified so far. Incentives need to be created for both to continue on this path. (btw, the US and UK have also NOT ratified, because Pelindaba covers Diego Garcia).

3. Article 9 (c) of Pelindaba says:
Each Party undertakes:
..................
(c) Not to provide source or special fissionable material, or equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material for peaceful purposes to any non-nuclear-weapon State unless subject to a comprehensive safeguards agreement concluded with IAEA.
4. Similarly, Raratonga says:
Each Party undertakes:
(a) not to provide source or special fissionable material, or equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material for peaceful purposes to:
(i) any non-nuclear-weapon State unless subject to the safeguards required by Article 111.1 of the NPT, or
5. Finally, NPT Article III.1 says:
1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set ......
It is commonly understood that India is a NNWS under NPT (because of the 1967 cutoff date) when in fact India is NOT for the simple reason that it is not a Party to NPT.

In fact, Article IX.3 clearly says:
For the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to January 1, 1967.
Also, while NWS is defined explicitly in Article IX.3 of NPT, NNWS is only defined by implication as all those State Parties to NPT that are not covered by the NWS definition.

As Arun_S points out succinctly:
The implementation and interpretation of International law is not performed in isolation, but is linked to realpolitik.


Conclusion: There is enough wiggle room in all of the above treaties to interpret them as applying to NNWS, which India is patently not for the simple reason that it is not a State Party (and never has been at any time) to NPT.

However, this interpretation will only be used when realpolitik dictates that India has to be accomodated, which will only happen when all attempts to push it around fail. That has not yet happened.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

bala wrote:I am curious, why the issues of "bad S1" were not brought out much earlier and why we let it slide until now. If it were known in say end 98, the BJP should have gone for second testing of nuke weapons.
Five years from today, people will talk of the high treason committed by MMSingh, SGandhi, etc. Why doesn't anybody do anything now?

British were used by the Indians as a tool to get themselves colonized. Indians take their freedom and other priceless commodities for granted, and have a vicious apathy for anything that contradicts their immediate impulses, which more often than not are self-destructive! It is the lack of an indigenous value system that has hit India, at the level of individuals.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

fortunately Mr. Gandhi was sufficiently experienced in international relations to know that information on the Soviet vessel was a legitimate target for our Intelligence agencies
What a gentlemanly understanding among thugs.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

ldev wrote:Whether the 123 agreement is signed or not, the very rapid progress of India with its attendant rising standards of living make it ever more difficult to upset this applecart by throwing in the joker hand of a test and this IMO will be irrespective of any government that comes to power whether UPA or NDA.
India's economy is measured and dictated by SENSEX (some call that rigged gambling den). While people talk of India's growing importance in the US, it easy to verify that CNN Money even shows the motions of the Bangkok stock exchange, but not the Sensex! That should speak volumes about the seriousness the US establishment really takes India.

They know that whoever the person might be in India, he/she can be bought off cheaply with a smile and a condescending pat on the head. Standing firm on the nuclear deal is India's only and last hope in commanding the respect, which till now was either assumed or requested/pleaded for.

About 100 proven TN's in the arsenal with missiles having a range of over 9,000 Kms. is worth a lot more than silly things like a seat in the UN security council. Lest we forget that it took a Smiling Buddha that woke up a realist US from its slumber w.r.t India.
G Subramaniam
BRFite
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58

Post by G Subramaniam »

Arun_S wrote:
ldev wrote:Whether the 123 agreement is signed or not, the very rapid progress of India with its attendant rising standards of living make it ever more difficult to upset this applecart by throwing in the joker hand of a test and this IMO will be irrespective of any government that comes to power whether UPA or NDA.
India's economy is measured and dictated by SENSEX (some call that rigged gambling den). While people talk of India's growing importance in the US, it easy to verify that CNN Money even shows the motions of the Bangkok stock exchange, but not the Sensex! That should speak volumes about the seriousness the US establishment really takes India.

They know that whoever the person might be in India, he/she can be bought off cheaply with a smile and a condescending pat on the head. Standing firm on the nuclear deal is India's only and last hope in commanding the respect, which till now was either assumed or requested/pleaded for.

About 100 proven TN's in the arsenal with missiles having a range of over 9,000 Kms. is worth a lot more than silly things like a seat in the UN security council. Lest we forget that it took a Smiling Buddha that woke up a realist US from its slumber w.r.t India.
I have often wondered why we dont get respect like china
Economically and militarily we are about only about 10 years behind china
And as late as 1980, china had a worse economy
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Post by amit »

ldev wrote: Because, very simply what is not understood is that after the May 1998 tests, testing for India has become a political decision and not a technical decision. Political, because a consensus has to emerge within the country on bearing the costs of testing, especially the economic costs. Unless all the stakeholders give their implicit assent to this, there will be no further testing by India. And this status will remain irrespective of any consensus on the data of the SI test, notwithstanding the dozen odd people who are in danger of requiring hospitalization as a result of getting apoplectic fits on this thread.

Whether the 123 agreement is signed or not, the very rapid progress of India with its attendant rising standards of living make it ever more difficult to upset this applecart by throwing in the joker hand of a test and this IMO will be irrespective of any government that comes to power whether UPA or NDA. It is clear that the NDA government saw this and hence detisted from further testing in the remaing 4 years and 9 months in power after the 1998 tests.

Idev,

It’s rather unfortunate that this simple point is not understood. Irrespective of what BRFites here say, there will be no test unless one of two (or a combination of the two) events take place.
a) Someone else tests like for example China, Pakistan or even the US and India sees this as a window of opportunity to test.
b) There is a massive deterioration in the geopolitical environment due to major terrorist attack either within India or outside.
I had pointed this out some threads back; however, as usual the economic aspect of a nuclear test decision was met with scepticism.
The nuclear deal may stink and the right choice may very well be for India to walk away. However, walking away does not ensure there’s going to a nuclear test the moment “traitorsâ€
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Arun_S wrote:India's economy is measured and dictated by SENSEX (some call that rigged gambling den). While people talk of India's growing importance in the US, it easy to verify that CNN Money even shows the motions of the Bangkok stock exchange, but not the Sensex! That should speak volumes about the seriousness the US establishment really takes India.
It is not the seriousness with which the US establishment takes India that matters to the Indian economic stakeholders. What matters is the tangible increase in income they see in their lives. Ofcourse the much abused "trickle down" effect is evident here too e.g. today, my friend who is the Head of a large audit department in a large company in the Gulf tells me that it is now very difficult to get Indian chartered accountants to go to work in the Gulf because salaries in India are virtually on par with what is offered in the Gulf, even for freshly qualifed CAs, so why should somebody leave India?

I was talking to a senior recruitment consultant in India the other day and she told me that I could make as much money today in India (dollar for dollar) as I can anywhere in the world. So for the first time in my working life, a possibility has opened for me whereby it will be possible for me to work in India and support a family which may have to remain in the West for reasons of children's education etc. etc. This was unthinkable even 5 years ago.

Companies in India have become recipients of investment pools from overseas investing in everything from real estate to SEZs to chicken farms resulting in jobs, income, profits and ever rising standards of living.

India is on an economic path whereby given the nature of "trickle down economics", 15-20 years from now, it may not be necessary for an average labourer to demean himself and go and work in the Gulf Arab states because just as the chartered accountant finds opportunities within India today, so will the labourer 20 years from today.

To all these people, it does not matter what the US thinks of India - what matters is that they are living better today compared to yesterday. And they do not want anything to jeopardize that.

I have described to you the reality of India as I see it. As you have stated in your post, the leaders of India can be bought off by other countries - well the people of India can also be bought off, with economic well being, something denied to them for more than 40 years because of disastrous economic policies.

In such an environment, a few dozen people on BRF and a few strategic analysts crying hoarse for testing become almost irrelevant.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

have often wondered why we dont get respect like china
Economically and militarily we are about only about 10 years behind china
And as late as 1980, china had a worse economy
The Europeans came to loot India of its natural resources, the US will do the same and leach on the middle-class - both as a buying entity and brain power for the benefit of the US.

Indian political leaders are nonexistant. Perhaps business ones can show what they can do..............
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

G.Subramaniam wrote:I have often wondered why we dont get respect like china
Economically and militarily we are about only about 10 years behind china
And as late as 1980, china had a worse economy
Respect as you are trying to define it, is accorded to those countries which have the physical capacity as well the political will to take actions outside their borders such that those actions will impact other countries which then give respect to the country initiating the action. While India is now getting the physical capacity (military + economic) to initiate actions some distance from its borders, the political will to do is is still missing. The reason is that political will requires either a mandate or a consensus. Both are missing in India and given the fractured nature of Indian politics may not come about anytime soon. When India is pro Israel, the Muslim lobby is unhappy, if it is anti China, the CPM is unhappy, if it is for the 123 agreement the BJP and the CPM are unhappy. Other countries therefore know that while India will continue to become stronger and economically prosperous, its ability to deploy its strength outside its borders via meaningful actions or initiatives will be minimal. Hence no fear of India which you are using interchangably with respect.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

[quote="amit"]


Idev,

It’s rather unfortunate that this simple point is not understood. Irrespective of what BRFites here say, there will be no test unless one of two (or a combination of the two) events take place.
a) Someone else tests like for example China, Pakistan or even the US and India sees this as a window of opportunity to test.
b) There is a massive deterioration in the geopolitical environment due to major terrorist attack either within India or outside.
I had pointed this out some threads back; however, as usual the economic aspect of a nuclear test decision was met with scepticism.
The nuclear deal may stink and the right choice may very well be for India to walk away. However, walking away does not ensure there’s going to a nuclear test the moment “traitorsâ€
nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Post by nkumar »

Some folks were talking about international treaties overriding Hyde or Hyde is a piece of junk or it is not worth the paper it is written on. Reality is something else, here are some random quotes taken from old articles to clarify the US position on 123 agreement with respect to its domestic law.
No provision for international arbitration in case of a dispute.

The 123 Agreement has no provision for an arbitral tribunal, despite India’s bitter experience over an earlier 123 accord with the US signed in 1963. The 1963 agreement was not only more protective of Indian interests, but also free of any Hyde Act-style overarching legal framework. Yet, 15 years later, the US effectively gutted the accord by retroactively rewriting its terms through a new domestic law. (Does this clarify what holds supreme, domestic law or 123?)

In the latest 123 Agreement, India has gained the right to be merely consulted but has granted America the right to take all final decisions.
Contrast this with the Japan-US 123 Agreement in which Tokyo’s interests are protected through Article 14: "If any dispute arising out of the interpretation or application of this Agreement is not settled by negotiation, mediation, conciliation or other similar procedure, the parties may agree to submit such dispute to an arbitral tribunal which shall be composed of three arbitrators appointed in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. Each party shall designate one arbitrator who may be a national of its country and the arbitrators so designated shall elect a third, a national of a third country, who shall be the Chairman. If, within 30 days of the request for arbitration, either side has not designated an arbitrator, either side may request the President of the International Court of Justice to appoint an arbitrator. The same procedure shall apply if, within 30 days of the designation or appointment of the second arbitrator, the third arbitrator has not been elected, provided that the third arbitrator so appointed shall not be a national of the country of either party. A majority of the members of the tribunal shall constitute the quorum, and all decisions shall require the concurrence of two arbitrators. The decisions of the tribunal shall be binding on the parties."

The terms, "arbitration," "mediation," "conciliation," "tribunal" and "International Court of Justice," do not find mention in the latest Indo-US 123 accord, which only provides for toothless "consultations." The agreement’s Article 15, titled "Settlement of Disputes," merely states: "Any dispute concerning the interpretation or implementation of the provisions of this agreement shall be promptly negotiated by the parties with a view to resolving that dispute."

Japan is a close ally of the US, yet it sought an arbitral tribunal. India is still grappling with outstanding issues from its earlier 123 Agreement with the US, including an accumulating spent-fuel stockpile, yet its negotiators have placed it at the mercy of the supplier-state.
Primacy of American law has been upheld.

Nothing better illustrates this than the way the Indo-US agreement copies, word to word, Article 2(1) of the China-US 123 accord, but only to drop its critical final sentence — that the "parties recognise, with respect to the observance of this agreement, the principle of international law that provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty"
The 1963 agreement also provided for consultations and for taking into account the economic and other effects of any precipitate action, yet the US unilaterally walked out of the accord. Had there been a provision in that agreement for an arbitral tribunal, would India have been unable to reprocess the Tarapur spent fuel to this day?
MKN quote on lawyers:
"there were state department lawyers" in the negotiations, no lawyer was present on the Indian side because "our country is not litigious like that."
Undaunted by the conditions-laden Hyde Act, New Delhi went ahead and concluded an ambiguously formulated 123 Agreement with a country that has a record of gutting even carefully crafted international treaties and bilateral accords, including an earlier 123 pact with India. The US can happily live with ambiguities in the latest 123 Agreement because the accord — a requirement only under American law — carries no force under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and, in any event, it confers enforceable rights just on the supplier-state. How willingly India ceded ground can be seen from the reprocessing issue.

Is it judicious for Indian officials to suggest, even if obliquely, that the 123 Agreement would override the grating India-specific terms and conditions of the Hyde Act? How can a 123 Agreement — a requirement only under American law — supersede U.S. law? Haven’t U.S. officials publicly made clear that the 123 Agreement merely codifies technical rules of nuclear commerce and cannot supplant the Hyde Act’s provisions?

Isn’t New Delhi aware of America’s consistent legal position that a 123 Agreement with any nation carries no force under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties? Or has New Delhi forgotten the legal stance the U.S. took in the 1970s — to India’s acute discomfiture — that such an accord is liable to change in response to the evolution of American law? (If 123 supercedes hyde, then how come the accord change with the new law?)


This deal stinks big time and it MUST be junked.
csharma
BRFite
Posts: 694
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Post by csharma »

It is hard to see how this deal will make the difference between India becoming prosperous or not. Are the supporters of this deal saying that without this deal India is doomed?

Several things have been bandied to support the deal in various places.
Some people have mentioned that this helps non-proliferation, some have mentioned energy security, some have mentioned Indo-US strategic ties.

So this angle of economic utopia being made possible by the deal is just one way of looking and selling this deal. It is known that MMS is a big proponent of this argument.

Different people have different perceptions of what is important. MMS had opposed nuclear tests and he might feel comfortable by being just an economic power. LKA mentioned MMS address in the Parliament after the 98 tests as what explains MMS's thinking. BJP wants India to be full fledged nuclear power on par with P-5.

If the deal is super critical for the country, how come MMS and his govt did not involve BJP and other parties right from the beginning. When the deal started faltering because their own allies did not support it, they turned to BJP for support. They formed some kind of working group with the Left but did not feel the need for doing so with the BJP which is the second largest party in the LS.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Post by amit »

Acharya wrote: Once you understand the current economic growth in the world is under slippery foundation which could go on a slide with just some dispute and protectionism then you will understand that this Indian growth would be temporary. Indian trade with the rest of the world is the lowest minimum for any large country in the world. There is nothing in the applecart which will not get disturbed even with some recession.
Acharya,

I'm beginning to understand your POV better, thanks to a little help from Arun_S. There is much merit in what you say. However, when you make such a sweeping statement as:
...the current economic growth in the world is under slippery foundation which could go on a slide with just some dispute and protectionism ...
Then there not much one can argue about. I don't share your pessimism simply because if things could get bad so easily then we'd have not had the booming economic growth that has been witnessed.

However, if things do get bad and India regresses dramatically economically, then maybe things would change. Since no such event seems to be on the horizon (maybe you have more far sight than I do) what I have stated as conditions for a nuclear test stands, as far as I'm concerned. As Idev correctly pointed out such is the nature of the consensus among major stakeholders in India. That doesn’t mean I necessarily agree to this consensus but it’s a fact of life.

As a BRF jingo I would love to see our politicians and scientists going for big bangs to let the world know we have the cojones that most folks here feel we sadly lack and hence need to make a public display of.

But then if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

JMT
shyam
BRFite
Posts: 1453
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31

Post by shyam »

G Subramaniam wrote:I have often wondered why we dont get respect like china
Economically and militarily we are about only about 10 years behind china
And as late as 1980, china had a worse economy
Only if its political leaders could stand firmly on their foot and use their brain so that they deserve respect.
Infact, reports during NDA rule period showed that global leaders had started taking Indian leaders seriously. Had UPA showed similar courage in global and domestic affairs, the seriousness would have gone to next level, i.e. respect.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Post by amit »

shyam wrote: Only if its political leaders could stand firmly on their foot and use their brain so that they deserve respect.
Infact, reports during NDA rule period showed that global leaders had started taking Indian leaders seriously. Had UPA showed similar courage in global and domestic affairs, the seriousness would have gone to next level, i.e. respect.
Shyam,

Couldn't agree with you more regarding the need for our political leaders to stand firmly on their foot etc.

However, I'm curious about your point on reports that during NDA rule global leaders had started taking Indian leaders seriously.

Could you please elaborate?

I personally think the only time global leaders (read US of A) took an Indian leader seriously was during Mrs Indira Gandhi's time in 1971 and thereabouts. She had more cojons (love this Spanish word!) than the rest of the PMs put together. It must also be said some of that was due the massive popular mandate her party had at that point of time.
shyam
BRFite
Posts: 1453
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31

Post by shyam »

It was long time back, I read an article describing that first time global leaders felt that they were dealing with different type of leadership in India. Let me see if I can dig that up. Also, there were many that praised Jassubhai's mature leadership a lot.
pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Post by pradeepe »

G Subramaniam wrote:
I have often wondered why we dont get respect like china
Economically and militarily we are about only about 10 years behind china
And as late as 1980, china had a worse economy
While there are definitely inter-linkages, the answer may not be related to either the economy or the size of ones military (within reason).

Its possibly because modern India hasnt made its enemies shed massive amounts of blood. A more enlightened approach or naked fear/dhimmitude? Irrespective of what we believe, the rest of the world might be leaning towards the latter.

Something which the "enlightened" nations have done so in copius amounts and with barbarious glee - with tea breaks and more recently with XBox /Gameboy breaks to boot. The Chinese popped their head into the comity of nations in 1949 already drenched in blood and more than showed what they were capable of by calmly wiping out tens of millions of their own. If they could do that to themselves. As someone said, they have the Kaiser Soze aura...
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

The scare crow that is being created about tests == economy tanking is simply nonsensical and not backed by any evidence what so ever.

Lets look at the past -- the tests have had NO economic impact -- in fact Shri Shri (108 times) MM Singh had made similar noises in the parliament post Shakti; "the world will come to a end and I am quaking in my payjama's" This week kneed behavior is well chronicled and discussed on BRF. Nothing came out of it -- yes some adroit handling was needed and done by NDA but most of it was in strat space and not economic space.

The second straw man which is created is about its a democracy; people want bread first and will not look at anything other than their bread and hence will not support a test move is also far fetched. The fact remains that NDA gained political captial by the tests and not lost it; same for IG.

The fact also remains by that logic the hunger of the masses in a democracy would preclude ALL strategic options and move. Something else that has not happened so far under any other govt than current UPA.

The current UPA govt does not even enjoy a political majority and is a minority govt -- hence the trade off that it is making can not be credited to "popular voice"

So this "democracy == pandering to lowest common denominator" view of the world is also silly and simplistic if not completely incorrect.

So the fact remains that all the stuff about test and tanking and popular voice is nothing but empty rhetoric of scaremonging variety.

If India conducted a test tomorrow - my salary would not be affected because the company I work for depends on me desperately and wont piss me off (a company headed almost completely by Indians BTW) and I know I am not special.

I am not scared though I am amongst those with most to lose -- I suspect the economist types are blindsided by their sole focus on economics and think that that prism is be all and end all of the world.

JMHT, IMVHO etc etc.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

ramdas wrote:Bala:

This is probably what happened with S1. The primary certainly worked perfectly. It yielded approx 20kt going by what Arun has said. Since the overall yueld was 45kt , the remaining 25kt came from the secondary. In other words, radiation implosion happened for sure. However, though the secondary yielded something, containement did not happen for long enough. It therefore ended up yielding much less than it was designed for. So, the problem seems to be designing a secondary that rectifies this. Of the approx 25kt yielded by the secondary, how much of this came from the spark plug, we will never know. Presumably 10kt -15kt. So, that leaves 10-15kt of fusion instead of the desired >40kt (maybe closer to 60kt) fusion yield.

So, some fusion yield happened, though the test on the whole did not succeed.
Unlike what Chidambram said to cover his musharraf, the S1 was full yield weapon, with active tertiary stage. So change your above statement to read "the remaining 25kt came from the secondary and tertiary". Now account for yield from spark plug and tertiary and that leaves embarrassingly pathetic yield of secondary fusion. You see the very bad picture?

Do some research and one can understand Radio Chem analysis flaunted by RC, AK and party.

Pokharan was not kind to RC. Shakti series royally screwed RC (& AK, Sikka etc) credibility, India was screwed worse than RC - in matters more than just credibility. Yet RC is not punished, but given a golden parachute and currently hosted in PMO. The bard will sing songs of praise for whom? His masters voice only, of course. So there is professional honesty between racketeers.

Where do such things happen in the world? It happens only in India. {chorus ...}
Last edited by Arun_S on 10 Apr 2008 21:48, edited 2 times in total.
joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

Nuke deal will help India become a superpower: Assocham

Post by joshvajohn »

What the Indian Government is waiting for? Go ahead with the agreement! You will be remembered in history and also people would support the government even if CPIM pulls it off.


Nuke deal will help India become a superpower: Assocham
Wednesday, 09 April , 2008, 10:13

New Delhi: Leading industrialist and Assocham President Venugopal N Dhoot said the country should accord the Indo-US Nuclear Agreement to achieve nine-ten per cent growth rate in the next 10 years.

''The country should ink the 123 agreement with the US. We need to have good relations with the US to achieve the 9-10 per cent growth rate in the next decade,'' he said at the release of Assocham publication--Liberating India from Technology Denial Regime-Indo US Nuclear Agreement on Tuesday.

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14640893
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

''The country should ink the 123 agreement with the US. We need to have good relations with the US to achieve the 9-10 per cent growth rate in the next decade
The cat is out of teh bag. For denuking India will get a good growth rate.......the "else" branch is left unsaid.
Locked