Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 13 Apr 2008

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

Post by John Snow »

Acharya wrote:
Katare wrote:Neshant,

I have my eyes open for few decades now looking, learning and assimilating information. I have seen this kind of arguments every time there is a major shift in India's policy or a major decision is taken.

India is being sold out, doomed, slaved or our future is capped by traitors/thugs were the same arguments when we opened our economy or when we signed GATT or later WTO. Those were the pre TN Seshan time these slogans were painted all over the building walls and nukkads. Now in changed times they appear on the forum threads and blogs but like they say more we change more we stay the same.

These arguments were even more common in 70s and 80s, they were used even when India was signing for a small loan with WB or IMF or giving a license to a foreign company. So nothing new here for me, been there seen it many times. almost always it turns out that action is better than status-quo.
Lot of decisions were made by Indian govt before in the 70s,80s which were in majority and had strong political support. THis deal has specific problems. It is being done by a political weak govt which does not have political support for this specific deal
One should also remember, that during 1970s and 1980s the Goverment was not made up of hotch potch coalition of parties and all the more the PM was elected not selected via Rajaya sabha.

Thats a big difference
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

The next thing I am predicting is that some one will claim in a post (haste) here claiming that "PKI" was not in normal state when he contested the claims of fusion D."

How so?

PK (if you read in Hindi) and the rest I (in English) means I am not in ground state but in a High (position) state where the functional "-OH group" is fully in fusion(ed) with the neurons in the right place.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Post by amit »

John Snow wrote: One should also remember, that during 1970s and 1980s the Goverment was not made up of hotch potch coalition of parties and all the more the PM was elected not selected via Rajaya sabha.

Thats a big difference
John,

The hotchpotch of coalition parties has become a sad fact of life in the political landscape. And there's no guarantee that the next incumbent, be it the BJP or Congress, will be in any better shape in terms of numbers.

This UPA combination has learnt the art of surviving in a coalition set up but hasn’t the faintest clue of how to govern. The sense of drift is not only in the nuclear deal but also in virtually every other sphere. The government seems to constantly look over its shoulder in fear.

And it doesn't help that the Prime Minister of the country, though personally a good and honest man, always gives the appearance of a weakling.

The tragedy of this country is just when it has reached an inflexion point where it has different options before it; it’s saddled with a political set up which prevents a strong central government. This stymies whatever halfhearted efforts are made at progress.

I get a sense the bad blood between MMS-Sonia combine with the BJP leadership, which is partly to blame for the present mess in the nuclear deal, has more to do with the UPA petrified at the thought of upsetting the Marxists than to anything else.

In the circumstances I would agree to the view that the best course of action for MMS would be to stall and keep the lines of communications open and wait for the next dispensation to firm up the deal be it the UPA again of the NDA. If the US is really keen, then it will go for it irrespective of who’s in the Oval Office after the US elections.

However "good" a deal it may be we shouldn't go for it if we are getting it only because Bush wants it. Such a deal should come about because the national dispensations in both the US and India, cutting across party lines want it. The details could be different but the intent must be bipartisan on both sides. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

JM (humble) T
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Post by Philip »

For those enamoured of westerm nuclearreactors,here's the latest about the French having discovered flaws in their design,which is being sold to Britain."Lack of recent experience in building nuclear plants...".Now this is exactly where India scores!!! Weare continiously building plants and refining our own dsigns and this should be encouraged to the hilt.We need to be totally independent in nuclear technology so that we cannot be dictated to by anyone.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 08461.html

Defects found in nuclear reactor the French want to build in Britain

Safety investigators uncover cracks in the concrete base and substandard welds. Lack of recent experience in building nuclear plants said to have caused problem

Geoffrey Lean and Jonathan Owen
Sunday, 13 April 2008


The French nuclear safety agency has uncovered a series of defects in the construction of a reactor in Normandy considered to be the template for the next generation of stations due to be built in Britain.


The agency, ASN, says that a quarter of the welds seen in its steel liner – a crucial line of defence if there were to be an accident – are not in accordance with welding norms, and that cracks have been found it its concrete base, also essential for containing radioactivity.

The reports – in a series of letters covering inspections made between December and last month – will cause particular concern because similar defects have been listed in a previous report by the Finnish safety authority into the only other reactor of its type being built anywhere in the world.

The earlier report helped put the Finnish reactor, on the island of Olkiluoto in the Gulf of Bothnia, two years behind schedule, three years after construction began. It is also believed to have helped increase its cost by more than 50 per cent. Similar delays and cost overruns here would play havoc with the Government's nuclear programme, and could even lead to it being abandoned.

However, the design, known as the European Pressurised Reactor, remains the most likely to be built in Britain.

Electricité de France (EDF) – which is constructing the French reactor at Flamanville near the tip of the Normandy peninsula – has said that it wants to build four of them in Britain at a cost of £10bn.

Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy agreed to co-operate closely on nuclear power during the French President's visit to London last month, raising visions of the two countries selling reactors worldwide. The French safety reports therefore come like unwelcome bucketfuls of cold water amid this growing nuclear love affair.

Although the ASN reports are identifying flaws very early in construction, the Finnish report – by the country's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority – makes clear that everything should be right from the start: "The technical and organisational preconditions for the safe operation of a nuclear power plant are created during the construction phase of the project."

The ASN report says that investigators have identified faults in the pouring of the concrete and in its formulation. There appears to be an "insufficient" course of action in preparing for concreting and "insufficiency of technical control".

EDF points to reports in technical journals saying that the French nuclear authorities believe that the construction of the reactor is satisfactory and that progress is being made on the issues raised.

The company says that "quality and safety" are its "absolute priority" and that "none of the points made by ASN has direct implications on the delivery of the project or on the safety of the future reactor".

However, the independent nuclear expert John Large says that the faults found on both the French and Finnish sites reflect a lack of recent experience in building nuclear reactors and that similar problems could arise when construction of a new generation begins in Britain.

The Royal Society of Chemistry confirms that a shortage of skills in nuclear construction "will put Britain's nuclear plans in jeopardy".
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Philip,

These "defects" can and have been overcome. These defects are not a defect in the design of the reactors, but a contractor not following proper procedures or perhaps not up to par skilled labor. Or a contractor cutting corners.
Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Post by Anabhaya »

THis deal has specific problems. It is being done by a political weak govt which does not have political support for this specific deal
We do forget that Rao's government was a minority one while we sit here eating the fruits of policies initiated by him.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

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

Post by Arun_S »

I am busy with personal matter, and my reply to Katare's post will have to wait for upto couple of days.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by JE Menon »

Merlin,

>>JEM, I'm surprised at your stance in wanting to keep GoI and its supporters as holy cows not to be touched. Same stance as Sunil. That's very unfortunate.

Hardly. I have never said don't criticise the government. I have merely repeated numerous times that it is not right to abuse executors of the public mandate who are in place as per the constitution, its bureaucratic functionaries who are duly appointed, and others in the strategic enclave who cannot respond in public fora. By all means, feel free to criticise policies, tactics, methods, decisions, whatever.

To call these people traitors (this is mild - ********, pimps and what not have also been used) reflects very negatively on the forum. To call into question their personal morality, take for granted their susceptibility - even propensity - to being bribed, turned, or subverted, without even a shred of what would normally pass for evidence, seems a bit much to me. All the while, of course, ignoring the reality that many of us (me included) are far more vulnerable than these people to the same charges.

I don't think your characterisation of Sunil's stance is accurate. I do not wish to say anymore on that.

>>This particular government has refused to come clean on the deal and has indulged in all sorts of tactics to discredit opposers of the deal, then why shouldn't those anti-deal do the same?

I agree that the government could certainly have done more in terms of the way it handled the intimation of the deal to the other major parties, and I've said so several times before on various versions of this thread (and in this one as well). The government and opposition can do many things to discredit each other. It is par for the course. I do not think any side abused the other like we are doing here. Nor do I recall any particular scientist or bureaucrat being named and shamed by the government or the opposition in the way we are doing here.

>>I'm always surprised at the "support your government at all times" stance, even when its clear that they are in the wrong.

I am not a supporter of this government. Was quite disappointed when the NDA lost, in fact. But they screwed up the pre-election strategy. Hopefully, they will do better next time. That said, I do not find that this government has been especially incompetent in terms of its strategic priorities. One can always cherry-pick issues (I think they should be more robust on Afghanistan with the US, for instance, and not too sensitive to the Paks complaints; or they could be more aggressive in upgrading the defence relationship with Russia; and be less deferential to the Chinese). On the other hand, I don't know if the NDA would have acted any differently. Institutional inertia can be a drag.

But I could be wrong about all these anyways, and here's why: there is no way we will have complete information about the dynamics of any particular relationship unless you are in GOI, and directly associated with the issue. There is no clarity that they are wrong about the nuclear issue. Fact of the matter is we do not know enough about it, i.e. we cannot speak definitively about any of these things without the access. Even people in GoI who are involved most of the time do not have the whole picture because the strategic sector is heavily compartmentalised.

So where do we armchair warriors and strategists stand? Does it mean we should not discuss these things at all? Of course not. We can and must discuss these things to the extent that we can and criticise as much as possible based on the facts and even media speculation. But that's a different thing from immediately attributing bribery to any official or bureaucrat who takes a particular line in favour of, or against, the deal. Has any TV channel or newspaper/magazine (don't know about the commies) so far made any allegation that the deal is being pushed forward through bribes and/or promises of future posts at the World Bank? The media are very careful about these things, in general.

On the other hand, do you seriously think that because some official or journalist or think-tanker who used to be involved (even at a high level) and has some links with some others who used to be involved makes some comments, this should be taken as religion? And even if that were the case, why abuse anybody - serving or retired? Remember that up until recently even the army chief was not fully informed about the nuclear situation...

Unfortunately, it seems BR is going through a period of hubris. We seem to have assumed the mantle of patriotic supremacy over GoI ministers, officials and bureaucrats (bar a few apparently). If we are going to claim patriotic supremacy over all others that we have abused, and make specific claims and name specific names, then - given that we are read by thousands and premsumably taken seriously by some - we should be prepared to be looked at with a non-benign eye.

From what little I know, no government of India is afraid of criticism by the public. But when it is written in a hitherto well-respected forum that bureaucrat A and B and C took bribes, or scientist Y and Z lied repeatedly, or that the PM is waiting for future employment in the US and all this is related to one specific issue, it might become a cause for concern. That's what I meant when I said I think we have crossed a line.

Boss, are you comfortable with all the abuse and derision that has been going on?
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Post by amit »

JEM,

Thank you for a great post. These are the things that make visiting BRF worthwhile. Your comment below:

But I could be wrong about all these anyways, and here's why: there is no way we will have complete information about the dynamics of any particular relationship unless you are in GOI, and directly associated with the issue. There is no clarity that they are wrong about the nuclear issue. Fact of the matter is we do not know enough about it, i.e. we cannot speak definitively about any of these things without the access. Even people in GoI who are involved most of the time do not have the whole picture because the strategic sector is heavily compartmentalised.


Reminded me of this:
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

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

Post by JE Menon »

Thanx Amit.

Unfortunately, we tend to get into confrontational and adversarial mode very easily. People are swiftly categorised into "pro-dealers" and "anti-dealers"... Things are not quite as simple as that. What we can all agree on, I think, is that BRF is meant to be pro-India. Sometimes we will disagree on what that means in terms of a particular option, but obviously this does not mean we should be antagonistic or abusive.

But its a difficult balance... how boring the forum would be without the skillful ridicule dispensed by N3 or the acidic wit of Spinrao, the humour of Rahul Shukla and Nayak, the expressive and evocative prose of GD (Singha for those who do know know who I'm referring to)? Yet, perhaps not having lurked long enough, very often newcomers tend to fly off the handle and things degenerate rather quickly after that. Of course, malicious intent cannot be ruled out either.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Anabhaya wrote:
THis deal has specific problems. It is being done by a political weak govt which does not have political support for this specific deal
We do forget that Rao's government was a minority one while we sit here eating the fruits of policies initiated by him.
Yes, Every thing has a place and a time. Rao fixed the policies what should have been done in the 80s.
Rao did as much with the kind of political strength he had. This deal is a quantum jump for the country and but at a time of minority govt.
Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Post by Anabhaya »

Acharya wrote:This deal is a quantum jump for the country and but at a time of minority govt.
One can say the deal is a continuation of the policies and dialogues initiated by the NDA. The opposition is still for the deal in principle barring a few changes as mentioned here
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Anabhaya wrote:
Acharya wrote:This deal is a quantum jump for the country and but at a time of minority govt.
One can say the deal is a continuation of the policies and dialogues initiated by the NDA. The opposition is still for the deal in principle barring a few changes as mentioned here
Then why cant they get enough political support.
satya
BRFite
Posts: 718
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09

Post by satya »

This deal is a quantum jump for the country and but at a time of minority govt.
You have nailed the issue. Its a whole new virgin territory maybe tht's why everyone so agitated and hyper-emotional about it.
Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Post by Anabhaya »

Then why cant they get enough political support.
They are not in need of anymore political support to run the government.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

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

Post by John Snow »

Folks all said and done BRF is a very unique place (thanks a million for the thankless job of bradmins who not only keep vermins away, but also keep some semblence of order, coherence and adhesion in the forum)

Think for a minute where else do you find the following aspects
1) It is the greatest democratic forum where the latitude in argument, education, , verbal scuffles never go beyond a point. If there is any place where fundamental right to abuse anybody with unequal latitude its here, even in the US it is not automatcally assured or protected. (even the first amendment may be not be in full force now because of GOAT excuse and sheepish congress)

2) BRF, Where Tomorrow comes Today while others Await it to Dawn, is always true due to many a great poster, whose sheer wide angle and panoromic expanse of knowledge is unbeatable anywhere.

3) Finally every one here is for one thing sure, that is the best interests and fair play in co operation, rule of law, equality in partnership is the best when Indo US prosperity geniune co operation ensues. The paths towards may be different but both these countries believe in the above with out each other plagerising they did say this

"E Pluribus Unum" "Unity in Diversity" " Bhinnatvame Ekathvame "

. The short term interest of people in power and the general apthy of american citizen towards foreign countries is lamentable though.


****

Just read here


Q&A: Susan Jacoby
The author of The Age of American Unreason talks about America's infotainment culture
By Kent Garber
Posted February 28, 2008


In America today, author Susan Jacoby sees a cultural landscape that is, in her words, "defining dumbness downward." In her new book, The Age of American Unreason, she argues that Americans have grown increasingly passive and uninformed amid a video-driven culture that prizes "infotainment," celebrates ignorance, and devalues critical thinking. The net result, she says, is a "crisis of memory and knowledge" that poses a serious threat to the two pillars of American intellectual life, reading and conversation, and carries very real consequences, such as the war in Iraq.


Susan Jacoby.
(Courtesy of Random House)Related News
The Culture Warriors
Islam vs. Science
Consumer Culture Vs. Civic Values
Jacoby, who has written on religion, law, and Soviet politics, is now the program director for the Center for Inquiry-New York City, a rationalist think tank. She spoke about her new book with U.S. News. Excerpts:

You say that antirationalism is much more disturbing today but not new. Why?
Antirational beliefs, such as the classic "The sun revolves around the Earth," have historically been a reflection of how little we knew. We would expect there to be much less of it today because we know so much more about the world. So the fact that there has been such an upsurge of antirationalism in America in the past 20 years is puzzling and disturbing because the sum of knowledge is so much more.

What's a recent example?
I was particularly shocked, in a recent National Geographic -Roper study, by how many Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 don't think it's important to know a foreign language or to know the location of countries in which important news is being made. Not knowing these things is ignorance. Being proud of not knowing them is something else. It's being both antirational and anti-intellectual. To say that it's not at all important to know a foreign language is just plain stupid.

What role have video and digital media played in the trend?
Video culture, as it appears in the digital media, gives you a quick hit but doesn't encourage you to go further. It substitutes for reading more. The main difference today is that it's 24-7. Everyone forgets it's actually been little more than 10 years since we've had the capacity to carry infotainment around with us 24 hours a day.

Some critics have called you a Luddite. What's your response?
Luddites are people who didn't want to use new things as tools. I regard computers and all the digital media as a great tool. How could I not? I'm a writer and a journalist. But when you start confusing tools with real knowledge and stop thinking about how you're using it and how much you're using these tools, that's where the danger is in technology.

Ultimately you put much of the blame on the American people.
Dumbness is us. When I hear people saying, "You were lied to," usually in relation to the Iraq war, I think the fundamental question we should ask is really why we as a people were so susceptible to lies. If we don't know where Iraq is on a map, if we don't know anything about other cultures, if we don't know anything about our history, the problem comes from us.

Reading on the Internet, you argue, is not "true" reading. Why?
We use the Web as a shortcut, as a way to provide specific information. I don't think we are reading on the Internet for the sense of loss of consciousness, as you sometimes [do] in fiction, or for really acquiring knowledge—as opposed to just information—as in the case of nonfiction. When we pick up a book, we are not just looking for scraps of information.

Could online reading evolve?
There is a fair amount of evidence already to suggest that it won't. Newspapers thought that online editions would be able to attract young people who don't read traditional print newspapers. That hasn't happened. The proportion of the young who read online newspapers is small, just as the proportion of the young who read print newspapers is small. Online readers of newspapers also read fewer articles.

Many newspapers and magazines are cutting content to attract new readers. You see this as a losing game.
You cannot beat the video image at its own game. You can cut the hell out of stories, and still it's longer than what people can get on the TV, and there's so much information that is immediately visibly accessible on things like YouTube. I think magazines may have to content themselves with being a resource for people who want to read. You cannot outdo the lowest common denominator yourself.

Does it bother you, then, to know this interview is going to be greatly condensed?
I would be a hypocrite to be too bothered, because whether I write 500 words or 5,000 words, I have long been in the business of condensing. I think there is a place for short. If readers are interested in the subject, maybe they will read more about it. Magazines and newspapers have always served as a spur for people who are interested to read more.


http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/nat ... acoby.html
Last edited by John Snow on 13 Apr 2008 22:43, edited 2 times in total.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

An old Artile I co-authored

India and the CTBT: Progress and Prospects

This was based on then info.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

John Snow wrote:The next thing I am predicting is that some one will claim in a post (haste) here claiming that "PKI" was not in normal state when he contested the claims of fusion D."
Hey..gentleman, as a matter of clarification, i respect everyone including PKI to any low rung official who worked for the indian interest. If things crossed the limit, you too have to cross that limit to put a full stop, i think you can understand. And i'm only using the facts that i know. All i'm saying is, dont use the credibility of N device as an excuse to support or stand against the deal. Its very despicable.
PK (if you read in Hindi) and the rest I (in English) means I am not in ground state but in a High (position) state where the functional "-OH group" is fully in fusion(ed) with the neurons in the right place.
And regarding your fusion of manison to find a solution...when there is excess of -OH group (C2H5-OH) things tend to go out of control, to neutralize that you need to look at pK using the indigator I, i.e myself/urself/ourself. In simple, i used PKI, to put things at equillibrium, do u got it ?
Last edited by Kanson on 13 Apr 2008 23:59, edited 2 times in total.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Kanson wrote: Yes, ABV gave 2 reactors, UPA given much more reactors...you know that information, i guess.
Check the total number of reactors in operation in India when Jaswant Singh was having his dialogue with Strobe Talbott post May 1998. Find out how many were already under the specific safeguard regime applicable for individual reactors built with foreign assistance. From the balance that was left over, if ABV offered 2 additional reactors to be put under safeguard as part of a proposed India-US deal, find out the remaining reactors that would be unsafeguarded. I think you will discover the number is the same i.e. 8 reactors on the military side both under the current plan and under the ABV plan available for fissile material production.

This indicates a clear consistency in the approach of DAE as to how many reactors they believe they need for India's strategic program and that number has not changed in the last 10 years. It remains at 8. In fact under the current separation plan, part of the 8 consists of some 540MW reactors commissioned after the NDA government left office and they have a higher capacity than the 220MW plants circa 1998-1999 when the Jawant-Talbott dialogue was on. As such, arguably the potential for fissile material production is greater under the current separation plan than was possible under the 2 reactor offer of the ABV government.
Last edited by ldev on 13 Apr 2008 22:49, edited 3 times in total.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

yse yes we need bio marker in addition to radiological and chemical analyisis, and bio markers come in only when we drop one indi fusion on paki shaitan :wink:
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

@ldev: I'm not making any comparison right now. You see, its not me, Brajesh Mishra told that. wht do u think ?
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Kanson wrote:@ldev: I'm not making any comparison right now. You see, its not me, Brajesh Mishra told that. wht do u think ?
Kanson,

Here is one list of India's nuclear reactors with reactor capacity and date of commissioning. By going down the list you will see what was operational at the time of the Jaswant-Talbott dialogue, what was already under safeguards applicable to specific plants and what was left over.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

ldev wrote:
Kanson wrote: Yes, ABV gave 2 reactors, UPA given much more reactors...you know that information, i guess.
Check the total number of reactors in operation in India when Jaswant Singh was having his dialogue with Strobe Talbott post May 1998. Find out how many were already under the specific safeguard regime applicable for individual reactors built with foreign assistance. From the balance that was left over, if ABV offered 2 additional reactors to be put under safeguard as part of a proposed India-US deal, find out the remaining reactors that would be unsafeguarded. I think you will discover the number is the same i.e. 8 reactors on the military side both under the current plan and under the ABV plan available for fissile material production.

This indicates a clear consistency in the approach of DAE as to how many reactors they believe they need for India's strategic program and that number has not changed in the last 10 years. It remains at 8. In fact under the current separation plan, part of the 8 consists of some 540MW reactors commissioned after the NDA government left office and they have a higher capacity than the 220MW plants circa 1998-1999 when the Jawant-Talbott dialogue was on. As such, arguably the potential for fissile material production is greater under the current separation plan than was possible under the 2 reactor offer of the ABV government.
Sir, I'm seeing your point. As everyone knows, there were/are hide & seek games went & currently going on. But i'm wondering how is my statement is in disagreement with your point. you are taking abt unsafeguarded 8 reactors..i'm taking abt safegaurded reactors where the number went up from the previous offer to current one.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

ldev wrote: This indicates a clear consistency in the approach of DAE as to how many reactors they believe they need for India's strategic program and that number has not changed in the last 10 years. It remains at 8. In fact under the current separation plan, part of the 8 consists of some 540MW reactors commissioned after the NDA government left office and they have a higher capacity than the 220MW plants circa 1998-1999 when the Jawant-Talbott dialogue was on. As such, arguably the potential for fissile material production is greater under the current separation plan than was possible under the 2 reactor offer of the ABV government.
Sir, Namastubhyam :D :D :D

In a drowsy mood w/o any sleep for 2 days, ur messg is trickling in very slowly :-)
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Anabhaya wrote:
Then why cant they get enough political support.
They are not in need of anymore political support to run the government.
But not enough political support to pass legislation and sign big treaties and foreign policy agreements.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Kanson,

Unfortunately because of the partisan bickering that has taken center stage, most people have lost sight of basic facts:

1. India never claimed to have a TN device. The official press releases from 1998 make references only to a boosted fission device.

2. There is general acceptance that there is 100% confidence that the proven boosted fission warhead has a guaranteed yield of 150-200kt.

3. Notwithstanding the weight of such a warhead, it is possible to MIRV 3 such warheads per missile and cover all of China with the Agni 3 (land and submarine launched) and its derivatives.

4. The 8 reactors on the military side plus the FBR can produce enough fissile material to meet India's credible minimum deterrent even with the higher amount of fissile material per boosted fission warhead compared to a TN warhead.
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

Chidambaram ridicules Western doubts over nuclear tests
In the two-stage thermonuclear device, popularly known as the hydrogen bomb, the first stage used was a fusion-boosted fission device for getting enhanced radiation density to detonate the second stage, Dr Chidambaram said.
India's Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation
By George Perkovich
...Chidambaram on May 17 tooks pains to emphasize that the 43-kiloton blast came from a "thermonuclear" or "hydrogen bomb," not a boosted-fission device. "We used a fission trigger and a secondary fusion," he said. "A boosted-fission device does not have a secondary stage." Chidambaram added that the strategic enclave had designed a boosted-fission weapon but decided not to test it. In later interviews he reversed himself and stated that primary stage of the thermonuclear device was a boosted-fission device whose radiation then detonated the secondary, fusion, stage. A close colleague of Chidambaram explained the apparent contradiction by saying that Chidabaram had been flustered by the flurry of questions at the May 17 press conference and had mis-spoken - the primary was indeed a boosted-fission device.
Last edited by Gerard on 14 Apr 2008 00:31, edited 2 times in total.
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3982
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Post by vera_k »

ldev wrote: 1. India never claimed to have a TN device. The official press releases from 1998 make references only to a boosted fission device.
See the link below that claims a TN device. Besides if a TN device was never claimed, then it weakens the case for the deal even more as the test program is not complete.

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

Post by svinayak »

vera_k wrote:
ldev wrote: 1. India never claimed to have a TN device. The official press releases from 1998 make references only to a boosted fission device.
See the link below that claims a TN device. Besides if a TN device was never claimed, then it weakens the case for the deal even more as the test program is not complete.

TN device claim
Do we want to go back to 1998 and start misleading arguments again.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

vera_k wrote:
ldev wrote: 1. India never claimed to have a TN device. The official press releases from 1998 make references only to a boosted fission device.
See the link below that claims a TN device. Besides if a TN device was never claimed, then it weakens the case for the deal even more as the test program is not complete.

TN device claim
I do stand corrected on the press statements.

However, notwithstanding that, India has a proven boosted fission warhead of 150-200kt, 3 of which can be MIRVed on a Agni 3 land and sublaunched missile.

For a guaranteed second strike capability if India is planning an initial fleet of 3 nuclear submarines with 12 missiles each and each missile has 3 warheads, then in times of tension if all 3 submarines are on patrol (as opposed to say 1/2 being on patrol in normal times), India will have 108 sub launched 200kt warheads plus land based warheads that survived an enemy first strike.

Will China e.g. be deterred with 108 warheads of 200kt each? Or does it need more and if so how many more submarines are needed?
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Post by Gerard »

12 K15 missiles with one warhead apiece. If Agni-3s are placed in the tube, only 4 will be carried by the ATV.
So the submarine leg of the triad will have 12x3= 36 warheads, assuming all three ATVs are at sea during a crisis.

Assuming six warheads per target, destruction of the six most important Chinese cities should be a deterrent to Han aggression.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Thank you Gerard. As always you are an encyclopedia!

With China's objective being to achieve G7 levels of income for its citizens by 2040 and the 6 largest Chinese cities contributing roughly 50% of the country's GDP. I concur, the Chinese should be deterred by the potential destruction of those cities.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

ldev wrote: However, notwithstanding that, India has a proven boosted fission warhead of 150-200kt, 3 of which can be MIRVed on a Agni 3 land and sublaunched missile.
hmm...irrespective of so much altercations, it seems no one asked the person, who rocked the boat here, which think tank he belonged to. That would have given some understanding. In the same vein, going by the way the opinions are created on DRDO particularly by IE drdo series and other media articles and seeing the comments in Orkut, one could never believed that drdo could have achieved ABM capabilites, which is only next to US in scope and number one as far as success rate is considered.

How this explains, the 12 MIRV planned for agni or 8 MIRV planned for k-15
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Kanson wrote:How this explains, the 12 MIRV planned for agni or 8 MIRV planned for k-15
He heee ... Wonderful it is to see Indian Nuclear weapons capability grow so phenomenally when I am away from BRFroum. :twisted:

8 MIRV on k-15. : I can only sadly say that who ever says this got to be smoking potent grass. Got Grass?
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Kanson wrote:
ldev wrote: However, notwithstanding that, India has a proven boosted fission warhead of 150-200kt, 3 of which can be MIRVed on a Agni 3 land and sublaunched missile.
hmm...irrespective of so much altercations, it seems no one asked the person, who rocked the boat here, which think tank he belonged to. That would have given some understanding. In the same vein, going by the way the opinions are created on DRDO particularly by IE drdo series and other media articles and seeing the comments in Orkut, one could never believed that drdo could have achieved ABM capabilites, which is only next to US in scope and number one as far as success rate is considered.

How this explains, the 12 MIRV planned for agni or 8 MIRV planned for k-15
The S1 warhead was supposedly designed and built over a 18 month period in 1995-1996 after NRao gave the authorization. It was tested in May 1998 and there is some dispute as is abundantly clear based on discussion here about its intended and actual yield, especially the yield of its second stage. If it did underperform, we can only guess as to the cause of the underperformance - one of the more common causes could be (and this is speculative) the inability of the containment shell of the primary to withhold the blast long enough for a proper trigerring of the secondary and hence a possible fizzle in the secondary stage. If from authorization to completion of the original design took 18 months, it is quite probable that within 6 months of the May 1998 tests, the team was able to redesign the primary shell. Ofcourse it has since not been re-tested.

The speculation regarding 8/12 warheads per Agni is based either on:

1. High confidence levels among the design team that the redesigned S1 warhead will perform.

or

2. The proven 200kt boosted fission warhead has been put on an efficiency diet and lost enough weight that 8 warheads can be mounted within a 1500kg payload.

But ultimately Kanson, this is all informed speculation. None of us is directly involved in these matters.

As far as the "person who rocked the boat" :lol: , I wish somebody had asked him which think tank he did belong too!

Added later: So from a conservative standpoint, at the minimum, India can mount 3 boosted fission warheads of 200kt each on a Agni 3 missile. 8 warheads is speculative at this point of time as given above.
Last edited by ldev on 14 Apr 2008 02:21, edited 1 time in total.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

Arun_S wrote:
Kanson wrote:How this explains, the 12 MIRV planned for agni or 8 MIRV planned for k-15
He heee ... Wonderful it is to see Indian Nuclear weapons capability grow so phenomenally when I am away from BRFroum. :twisted:

8 MIRV on k-15. : I can only sadly say that who ever says this got to be smoking potent grass. Got Grass?
He heee...today only i learnt that all the strategic/miliary decisions are made at BRF at your esteemed presence :wink: :) May i know which weed you are on to.. :)
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

ldev wrote:
or

2. The proven 200kt boosted fission warhead has been put on an efficiency diet and lost enough weight that 8 warheads can be mounted within a 1500kg payload.
... . . . .
Added later: So from a conservative standpoint, at the minimum, India can mount 3 boosted fission warheads of 200kt each on a Agni 3 missile. 8 warheads is speculative at this point of time as given above.
TN offers biggest bang/Kg. So if SRDE Indian wannabe TN weapon is fo 250Kg, how can one even hope of Boosted 200kt to weigh 187Kg? unless one can get a boon from Lord Indra to get an efficiency diet. Heck if there is a boon available ask him the whole world?

For what it is worth, 150Kt boosted weapon will weigh >450Kg and will eat lot of fissile material. Forget about anything more than 3 on A3, and with 3 see it jump the distance of a frog leap.

Care to elaborate how is the Indian 200kt a proven weapon? I sure hope you know the meaning of proven.

Ducking back to chase my accountant.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Arun_S wrote:Care to elaborate how is the Indian 200kt a proven weapon? I sure hope you know the meaning of proven.
:)
All right, I shall say that the combined results of the sub-kiloton boosted fission S3 device plus the unanimous acceptance by the critics that the boosted fission primary in S1 worked as expected has demonstrated India's expertise in controlling the yield of a boosted fission device. As such, there is a high degree of probability that India's boosted fission warhead mounted on the A3 missile will provide the designed 150-200kt yield.

Now, you can go to your accountant. :lol:
Locked