Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 13 Apr 2008

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Post by Kanson »

Arun_S wrote: Kanson states:
Kanson wrote:Thats a huge understatement. RC said the yeild can be upto ~ 200kt, but you increased that stock to 300 Kt And all the latest agni 3 diagrams show them equipped with TN device whereas no offical statement indicates any particular device. Thats stamped your signature that TN is authentic. No two ways about it.
1. Yes, my Agni 3 page does indeed contain the statement "The primary warhead for the Agni family would be a 200-300 Kt fusion weapon based on the Shakti-1 (Pokhran-II) test in 1998." These are hypothetical designs, based on the analysis and interpretation of available information, while providing leeway for possibly exaggerated official claims. Anybody would agree that even venturing to place designs that even remotely pass off as actual configurations on a website, would be unwise.
Added later: 1.B. One comment on that BR Missile article by Shri Santhanam was "but America has capped Indian ability to realize and mount that small TN payload on its missiles with this India-US civil nuclear deal". So yes if India validated that TN weapon either by explicit test or ICF/LIF that shape size will be real and credible.

2. As will be noticed, I have used the term 200-300 Kt fusion weapon based on the S-1. It is an accepted fact by most credible sources that the boosted fission primary of S-1 worked flawlessly. Bearing this and the present ground realities/facts in mind, these hypothetical designs could be construed as comprising of the S-1 primary with a re-designed secondary, which would provide a TN device in the range of 300 kT, quite easily. This exercise, however will require further tests, backed up by extensive ICF/LIF experiments and simulations.
Apart from putting you exaggerated claim behind the veil of hypothetical design that you cooked based on so & so sources do you have any other explaination. Is that mean, all your exaggerated claims are all hypothetical ?
When you yourself claimed secondary of S1 didnt performed and it further needs validation, when the offical statement states upto 200 KT your description of 200-300KT is more colourful.
3. RC's statement of ~200kT is surely based on package/weight constrain (in his head),
I hope you are not going to say you have conducted brain mapping analysis to claim this...
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 »

Kanson wrote:This was your previous statement.
Arun_S wrote:BTW, POK-1 yield was ~12 kT against a design yield of 20-25 KT. This doesn't make it a huge success. So, PKI as team leader of POK-1 was not wrong here. Further, as a weapon, its size and configuration would have made it a major flop.
Arun_S wrote: 1. PKI has claimed a test yield of 8 KT against a design yield of 10 KT. He has the gone on to label POK-1 as an unqualified success (see http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaSmiling.html and www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/jul102001/72.pdf). I have stated that the test yield was around 12 KT. The 20-25 KT was the design yield which differs from the test yield. This is based on GoI press release and AIR news broadcast in and around 74 to 75 where 20 to 20+kT was bandied around. Also it is a reasonable assumption that POK-1 objective was to replicate the design parameters of the Nakasaki device. Note that I am not holding either PKI or RC up as paragons of virtue and honesty! However, PKI was correct on S-1, while RC was correct on POK-1.
Thanks for making a correction from your earlier stance of PKI was right to PKI is wrong on POK-I.
To put things in perspective from the clutter, RC or offical yeild reads as 12 +or- 2KT . From the same sources you quoted, PKI first claimed 8KT and later corrected to 10KT after the radio-chem analysis of samples from the test site.
Let me try one more time unless your agenda is something else:
  • PKI says that Pok-1 was flop because it yielded half the yield of 20-25kt target. He is right on that.
    RC saying the yield of Pok-1 was 12kt he is right there.
    PKI saying yield of Shakti-1/Pok2 was fizzle and seriously under performed and he is right.
Feel free to check it out with your analysis/study or from the horses mouth.
And still, my accreditation to your claim of 20-25KT as "mischevious" is still valid. Apart from giving sources as hearsay there is no proof for your claim.
For those who do not want to understand will ask for ultimate proof. I say go to the pit and sniff it first hand for ultimate self evident proof. There is no other solution for such die hards.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Kanson wrote:
Arun_S wrote: Kanson states: 1. Yes, my Agni 3 page does indeed contain the statement "The primary warhead for the Agni family would be a 200-300 Kt fusion weapon based on the Shakti-1 (Pokhran-II) test in 1998." These are hypothetical designs, based on the analysis and interpretation of available information, while providing leeway for possibly exaggerated official claims. Anybody would agree that even venturing to place designs that even remotely pass off as actual configurations on a website, would be unwise.
Added later: 1.B. One comment on that BR Missile article by Shri Santhanam was "but America has capped Indian ability to realize and mount that small TN payload on its missiles with this India-US civil nuclear deal". So yes if India validated that TN weapon either by explicit test or ICF/LIF that shape size will be real and credible.

2. As will be noticed, I have used the term 200-300 Kt fusion weapon based on the S-1. It is an accepted fact by most credible sources that the boosted fission primary of S-1 worked flawlessly. Bearing this and the present ground realities/facts in mind, these hypothetical designs could be construed as comprising of the S-1 primary with a re-designed secondary, which would provide a TN device in the range of 300 kT, quite easily. This exercise, however will require further tests, backed up by extensive ICF/LIF experiments and simulations.
Apart from putting you exaggerated claim behind the veil of hypothetical design that you cooked based on so & so sources do you have any other explaination. Is that mean, all your exaggerated claims are all hypothetical ?
When you yourself claimed secondary of S1 didnt performed and it further needs validation, when the official statement states upto 200 KT your description of 200-300KT is more colourful.
Knowing Shri Santhanam's assessment on that article has far greater waitage than what you think about it. That is the bottom line.
3. RC's statement of ~200kT is surely based on package/weight constrain (in his head),
I hope you are not going to say you have conducted brain mapping analysis to claim this...
Surely you lack intelligence to understand the subject, or you can't deal with cold logic/truth but it hurts your H&D & have nothing else to do.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Folks no more personal characterizations.
Thanks, ramana
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

Arun_S wrote:I urge you to please deeply study & understand Indian strategic environment, now and that which is emerging.

Pls understand the meaning of K.Subramanyam's "It is not a 2-some game" and the scenarios that spin from that, the counter-moves that are open to adversar(ies) and Indian counter to those moves. The lowest common denominator that will emerge is that First use threat to India is global in nature. AND in NO case is it limited to immediate neighborhood. So planning for immediate neighborhood engagement alone makes India a sitting duck to be mauled and raped. And in military/geo-politics the cardinal rule is you dont start a war that you will cant' win. In effect limited to immediate neighborhood range toys, precludes India from entering into war. And those nukes/weapons count as nuke trishankhu
Competition between countries is full spectrum today viz. military, economic and cultural. And developing one area when others are not at the same level does not preclude an attack on a country. Furthermore, even the presence of multi-megaton TNs will not preclude an attack on a country (military as well as economic) as demonstrated by numerous examples in the last 50 years.

I think we all realize that India is facing a multi front threat (including nuclear). But the TN rapier is not a magic bullet which will solve India's strategic problems. When it does come about, it has to happen alongwith the other components necessary for full spectrum competition. If there was an imminent requirement for a TN device necessary to provide for the defence of the country, would not the NDA government have authorized further tests after rectification of the SI design in 1998 itself or 1999?
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 »

ldev wrote:
Arun_S wrote:I urge you to please deeply study & understand Indian strategic environment, now and that which is emerging.

Pls understand the meaning of K.Subramanyam's "It is not a 2-some game" and the scenarios that spin from that, the counter-moves that are open to adversar(ies) and Indian counter to those moves. The lowest common denominator that will emerge is that First use threat to India is global in nature. AND in NO case is it limited to immediate neighborhood. So planning for immediate neighborhood engagement alone makes India a sitting duck to be mauled and raped. And in military/geo-politics the cardinal rule is you dont start a war that you will cant' win. In effect limited to immediate neighborhood range toys, precludes India from entering into war. And those nukes/weapons count as nuke trishankhu
Competition between countries is full spectrum today viz. military, economic and cultural. And developing one area when others are not at the same level does not preclude an attack on a country. Furthermore, even the presence of multi-megaton TNs will not preclude an attack on a country (military as well as economic) as demonstrated by numerous examples in the last 50 years.

I think we all realize that India is facing a multi front threat (including nuclear). But the TN rapier is not a magic bullet which will solve India's strategic problems. When it does come about, it has to happen alongwith the other components necessary for full spectrum competition. If there was an imminent requirement for a TN device necessary to provide for the defence of the country, would not the NDA government have authorized further tests after rectification of the SI design in 1998 itself or 1999?
Rightly said.

What is determental to Indian interest is to cut off our thumb today to prevent claiming our rightful place in future. That figurative "Eklavya" thumb is key for Indian 360 degree security as and when we choose or are forced to play hardball at a future date. India owes squat to anyone to gift our thumb as token of appreciation. The very fact the stranger in the guise of a friend is asking for the thumb is indicative of the intent and purpose.

For NDA connection. In this framework, that begs the question even more as to what is it that MMS is offering to USA that ABV was not?

Ramana .... . ?
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

That begs the question even more as to what is it that MMS is offering to USA that ABV was not?

Arun_S,

I dont think one should jump to the conclusion that an offer was made which was detrimental to India in the nuclear arena. It could be an offer of cooperation in any other area i.e. economic cooperation, market liberlization, defence acquisions, defence cooperation, a geopolitical alliance etc. etc.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

ldev wrote:That begs the question even more as to what is it that MMS is offering to USA that ABV was not?

Arun_S,

I dont think one should jump to the conclusion that an offer was made which was detrimental to India in the nuclear arena. It could be an offer of cooperation in any other area i.e. economic cooperation, market liberlization, defence acquisions, defence cooperation, a geopolitical alliance etc. etc.
It could be in the area of NPT
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

ldev wrote:That begs the question even more as to what is it that MMS is offering to USA that ABV was not?

Arun_S,

I dont think one should jump to the conclusion that an offer was made which was detrimental to India in the nuclear arena. It could be an offer of cooperation in any other area i.e. economic cooperation, market liberlization, defence acquisions, defence cooperation, a geopolitical alliance etc. etc.
Ok let us wait to get to the truth.

BUT that not take away the fact that the end result as it is proposed now will cut the Thumb (ability to do N Test to perfect the arrow tip that can deter them) away.
Last edited by Arun_S on 15 Apr 2008 04:53, edited 1 time in total.
satyarthi
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 21 Aug 2006 08:50

Post by satyarthi »

The biggest difference between MMS and ABV's handling of affairs is that even while tackling matters of orders of magnitude more delicacy and importance, ABV carried the nation along with him, and even his opponents had a high regard for him. No one had to plead to others to show respect to him.

MMS has definitely split up the country as far as opinion on the nuclear deal is concerned. It used to be that on such matters opposition was made part of a consensus. That consensus is nowhere to be seen, and as the shapers and movers of he deal, the responsibility falls on MMS' govt.

Given this failure on MMS' part in creating a overall consensus in the country, he should refrain from taking any momentous decisions regarding signing the deal. If he is serious, let him go to elections, tell the voters his intentions of signing the deal, get a mandate and sign away.

During the presidential elections, the left parties gave a strange argument for replacing APJ Kalam. They said India needs a "politician" president. Although it should be obvious to most that the presidents are best not contaminated with politics. But somehow the left didn't get bothered by a non-politician prime minster.

What India needs is a "politician" prime minister. Nominated or bureaucrat prime-ministers are a disaster. MMS carried through well as the finance minister because he had Narasimha Rao to fall back for handling political heat. No such escape route now for MMS.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

Arun_S wrote: For NDA connection. In this framework, that begs the question even more as to what is it that MMS is offering to USA that ABV was not?
One word. Parity.

Also, do not think, the talks with NDA reached a serious level of maturity, on this issue.

NRao: Do not think Bush came into this recognizing India as a defacto NWS et al. J18 was carefully crafted by the US from the start. Read the words, it will be clear.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Misunderstanding India

Rajiv Sikri
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301f ... india.html

From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2008

To the Editor:

R. Nicholas Burns' case ("America's Strategic Opportunity With India," November/December 2007) for a U.S.-Indian partnership rests on flawed assumptions. Contrary to what Burns states, the nuclear issue has not been the key point keeping India and the United States apart. Indian mistrust of the United States is rooted in the decades-old U.S. policy of military and diplomatic support for Pakistan. The United States' opposition to India's becoming a nuclear weapons power and its unwillingness to support India's permanent membership in the UN Security Council have only strengthened Indian misgivings.

A change in the United States' attitude toward Pakistan was the one last issue that could have overcome the long-standing estrangement, but the United States deliberately "de-hyphenated" relations with India and Pakistan and persuaded the current Indian government that Pakistan is a fellow victim of terrorism. India has consistently rejected the contention, reiterated by Burns, that Kashmir is a "nuclear flashpoint." Moreover, India's acquiescence to sharing with the United States the responsibility for managing the South Asian region has emboldened India's neighbors to count on the United States to balance India's natural influence in South Asia. This has only aggravated instability in the region.

The United States has failed to appreciate that India's commitment to nonalignment is centered on its desire to follow an independent foreign policy. The nuclear deal between the two countries may well be "wildly popular" among India's affluent elite, but millions of Indians are deeply troubled by reckless U.S. adventurism in India's neighborhood -- in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. The Bush administration's arm-twisting of India on Iran has left a bitter aftertaste in the mouths of the Indian public, and its facile equation of Islam with terrorism has drawn a particularly hostile reaction from India's 160 million Muslims.

Whereas the United States emphasizes the strategic significance and nonproliferation objectives of the nuclear deal, India persists in stressing its nuclear energy aspects. Such a disconnect in stated objectives risks the deal's falling through the cracks. The underlying presumption in Burns' article that India is being "rewarded" weakens the foundation of the partnership, whose potential is limited anyway by a long-term divergence of interests on key global and regional issues, including Burma and Iran. The unabashed U.S. attempt to reduce India's military dependence on Russia threatens to undermine Indian-Russian relations, and the Indian political class is not yet ready to strengthen ties with the United States at the cost of its friendship with Russia.

It is a pity that a combination of wishful thinking by the United States and inept handling by India has cast an unnecessary shadow over what is an otherwise ascendant and mutually beneficial relationship between the two countries. If the quest for U.S.-Indian strategic engagement unravels, giving rise to understandable bewilderment, frustration, and annoyance in the United States, it will be in part because Washington has failed to feel the pulse of India and understand its soul.

RAJIV SIKRI

Former Secretary, Indian Ministry of External Affairs
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

Im agreat admirer of ABV :wink: having that out of the way, the biggest difference is that he won elections many times, even in Jana Sangh or BJP.,in contrast our Man Mohan Sonia is a back door entrant rather than a frontal person, this trait of his is so deeply entrenched in his psyche, that a nuke deal of great consequence which he was pushing was never in a upfront way!
Perhaps his motto is
Je prefer derriere :wink:
Last edited by John Snow on 15 Apr 2008 06:44, edited 1 time in total.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

John Snow wrote:Im agreat admirer of ABV :wink: having that out of the way, the biggest difference is that he won elections many times, even inJana Sangh or BJP.,
in contrast our Man Mohan Sonia is a back door entrant rather than a frontal person, this trait of his so deeply entrenched in his psyche, that a nuke deal of great consequence was never upfront! Perhaps his motto is
Je prefer derriere :wink:
It is not about MMS alone but there is an entire elite which prefers backdoor entry since they look at the rest with contempt
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Post by merlin »

JEM, S2's stance (so amply demonstrated time and again here in the past and you-know-where currently) is support your government at all costs, because, hey they know the best and since you aren't S1 or A3 designers, STFU. Suffice it to say that I don't agree with such blind displays of faith. But enough said about him.
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.
IMHO, the line was crossed when the PM himself labeled anti-dealers as anti-nationals and traitors. You can't get away saying that that was simply unfortunate. Well, then this is unfortunate too, nothing more.
Boss, are you comfortable with all the abuse and derision that has been going on?
To be honest I'm not. Why do you think it had to come to this? Could it be because someone believes that the deal will be signed come what may, overriding all legitimate opposition?

IMHO there is no political consensus around something that has such major implications and no further progress must be made on this until it is possible to achieve such a consensus.
Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Post by Anabhaya »

IMHO there is no political consensus around something that has such major implications and no further progress must be made on this until it is possible to achieve such a consensus.
What is the stance of BJP now ? I believe Advani OK'ed the deal with a few slight modifications?
csharma
BRFite
Posts: 694
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Post by csharma »

Sikri saab's article makes a lot of sense. BR also has been maintaining similiar position throughout. Deliberate attempts to spoil India's relations with Russia have to be resisted while India tries to improve relations with US.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Do not think Bush came into this recognizing India as a defacto NWS et al.
No, in fact I mention that he probably is not capable of understanding the meaning of it all.

However, today I do think that some within his admin would like to keep India close - to use her forces for the benefit of the US. A'stan and Africa come to mind. I do see Indo-US interests in oil in Africa converge. Now, how this plays out I do not know. But both will see a common threat from China - in Africa, besides the one in the IOR in general.

Which is why I would rather wait for the US to assist India in the nuclear arena. The NPAs have a few surprises coming - proliferation will be rampant even without Indian thinking about it - forget acting in that area.

I think China will be compelled to do a few things that will spring a leak that the US cannot ignore as they did wit TSP.
darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4018
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Post by darshan »

[quote="NRao"]It has been a while since I poked my nose into these things, but here is something I found that is rather concise and perhaps even to the point:

[url=http://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/20 ... _India.asp] Feb 14, 2008 :: Rice’s Pledge to Make Global Rules on Nuclear Trade with India “Consistentâ€
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

ShauryaT wrote:
Arun_S wrote: For NDA connection. In this framework, that begs the question even more as to what is it that MMS is offering to USA that ABV was not?
One word. Parity.
Precisely, that is the "PARAM SATYA" of the matter.

It took some of us a lot of inspection/analysis to piece thousands of pointers to come to that CENTRAL POINT to the nature of the deal proffed by ABVajpayee compared to M.M.Singh deal.

I call that giving up the store for a song. A store that was protected zealously even when India was in the most dire and weaker position by precursor of MM.Singh his puppeteer Ms Sonia Miano Gandhi.

Prime ministers before MMSingh's were Lions (Singha), all the way from Nehru, LB Shastri, GP.Nanda, Indira, M.Desai, JJ Ram, Chandrashekhar, CC Singh, Rajeev, VP.Singh, IK.Gujraal, Deve Gowda, Shri PVN Rao, and AB Vapayee. What an irony that the Man from Punjab is no Singh (a slur on the name of the Sikh community who have shown themselves over centuries to be great repository of personal faith, courage and discrimination of right from wrong, central to Guru Granth Sahib), but a "Chooha" (rat) instead.
Last edited by Arun_S on 15 Apr 2008 09:52, edited 2 times in total.
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 »

merlin wrote:
Boss, are you comfortable with all the abuse and derision that has been going on?
To be honest I'm not. Why do you think it had to come to this? Could it be because someone believes that the deal will be signed come what may, overriding all legitimate opposition?
A personal opinion fwiw. I do cringe at the abuse thats flows freely now. I do wish it stops.

But having said that, let it stand that the stink was let loose by the current PM and particularly by his PMO when they started the vilification campaign against the sci-com. Where was the wild eyed indignity then?

I see a lot of flak being generated against this forum. And to be clear I hold him/them in very high regard, but in this instance I cant for sure understand if they bat in its entirety for India or the UPA (yes not GoI).

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

Post by JE Menon »

>>>The Hyde Act establishes several common sense restrictions and conditions on nuclear trade with India, including:

• The immediate termination of all NSG trade with India

This is an American law (not a multilateral agreement) which can say what it wants. Only those weak enough to fall in line will. Please refer to Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) passed some years ago (it was also terrorism and proliferation related). This was meant to impose sanctions on ANY COUNTRY which did more than a cursory amount of trade with any of these two countries. One could even say, tongue in cheek, that non-American trade between the other major powers and these two countries was energized by this ridiculous act, which only ended up hamstringing American businesses.

There is a view that the Hyde Act is merely a via media to enable the superseding of all preceding acts and give the US a fig leaf to cover its own hypocrisy... but that's up in the air.

It really boils down to our confidence in our capabilities, and our skill to outmanoeuvre any kind of obstacle that might be put in the way of our becoming the primary power in the world, of benign, benevolent and compassionate character, and with the civilisational sagacity to differentiate between the impossible absolute and the possible near-absolute in terms of its initiatives across the world. The rest is static.

Observing the big picture of what we have managed over these past 50 years, we should be optimistic about the future of our strategic programme and cautiously optimistic about the country as a whole. Primary/Secondary education is a major concern, leaving aside the energy bugbear. There is also the certainty that the major powers will work to exacerbate chauvinisms and frictions across caste, linguistic, state, religious and ideological lines. They have no other choice... We need to anticipate and be prepared.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

Post by CRamS »

And Unkil is going to sit by and watch it being undercut so India can buy from non-US companies after all the mid nght oil burnt by Nickie & Co. Nice try Ram NarayanJi, in theory you may be right, but in the real world of the US empire, Unkil is rule maker, Unkil is the rule breaker, Unkil is the judge, Unkil is the jury, Unkil is a saint when he wants to be, and a thug when need be ... . And Unkil will bring to bear all these attributes of his with full fury once MMS signs the dotted line.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by JE Menon »

Please refer to ILSA...

Plus, which federal American law does not supersede 123? That's why I'm saying it is a fig leaf. It can be used as a stick, if we let them. As I said, even the weakest government of Deve Gowda (to whom shiv has built a shrine with wifi :twisted: ) did not bend on these issues. This is not a weak government. The leader appears weak, but the leadership is not, and the leader himself is no ninny. There is a tendency, largely to be blamed on the media, to mistake rhetoric for action... Hell, even the BJP floated the idea of signing the CTBT with the US... Do you really think they had any intention of signing it? Come on people... Have some faith.

Merlin,

I won't comment any further on S2. He may not be in a position to respond. I just wanted to clarify my position to avoid giving the idea that I concurred.

I did not know that the PM referred to those who opposed the deal as traitors. I thought he associated approving the deal with patriotism, rather naive and ill-advised rhetoric, but nevertheless a very different thing from betraying the country to a foreign entity.
Last edited by JE Menon on 15 Apr 2008 18:47, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Anabhaya wrote:
IMHO there is no political consensus around something that has such major implications and no further progress must be made on this until it is possible to achieve such a consensus.
What is the stance of BJP now ? I believe Advani OK'ed the deal with a few slight modifications?
NO -- they are for renegotiation.
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Post by merlin »

JEM, what if NSG waiver language follows Hyde language. What then?
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by JE Menon »

We should not let it. But, even so, this is ultimately this is about power. About whether you have the fortitude to get your way, one way or the other. Look at the status of our nuclear sector. Does it look like we don't have the fortitude? We started from absolute scratch. Now they are factoring us into plans to help them out of the mess they created.

For fux sake where are kgoan et al? Some polite clarity is needed.

People, why are you abusing each other personally and being sarcastic? The strength of your arguments should stand on their own. Resist the urge to show y our ugly sides, the forum will be strengthened. If you were at a party with Kakodkar, the PM, Shyam Saran or Chidambaram, you would be embarrassed to say there to guests what you are openly saying about these people to the public in front of the world. Think about what you are saying. Please.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

Not directly realted, however:

April 8, 2008 :: Eliminate nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework: India
Wednesday, 09 April , 2008, 12:31

United Nations: India has sought an "unequivocal commitment" from all nuclear-weapon states to prohibit development, production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons for their non-discriminatory and verifiable elimination within a specified framework.

Addressing the substantive session of the Disarmament Commission, Indian Ambassador to the United Nations, Nirupam Sen appealed to member states to use the UN forum for an intense dialogue and strengthen the international community to initiate concrete steps for a nuclear weapons-free world.

Sen also stressed the necessity for a global agreement on "no first use" of nuclear weapons and called for negotiation of a convention on complete prohibition of use or threat to use such arms.

He said former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's "Action Plan", which is rooted in peace and proposed 20 years ago for a holistic framework to seek negotiations for a time-bound commitment towards a nuclear weapons-free world, remains the "most comprehensive" initiative today.

He asked the Commission to send a "strong signal" of the international community's resolve to initiate concrete steps towards achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Taking into account the global reach and menace of nuclear weapons, he said nuclear-weapon states should reduce nuclear danger, including the risk of accidental nuclear war and de-alert nuclear weapons to prevent unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons.

Sen also stressed on the need for reduction in conventional weapons and told the delegates that India supports "practical" confidence building measures (CBMs) at unilateral, bilateral, regional and global levels to promote a stable environment of peace and security among different nations.

"Guided by these principles, India has initiated several CBMs with countries in our neighbourhood, including China and Pakistan," he told the conference.

Sen asserted that implementation of an "appropriate" confidence measure in specific regions should take into account the specific political, military and other conditions prevailing in the region.

"Such arrangements have to be freely agreed upon by the states of the region concerned while taking into account specific conditions and characteristics of the region," he said warning against "prescriptive approach" that negates the sovereign rights of the country.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Post by NRao »

JEM,

What you say makes sense, however, is there a need to place such a burden on furture gens in India? I do not think so. That a lot of Indian "leaders" are weak is shown here:

April 8, 2008 :: Nuke deal will help India become a superpower: Assocham
We need to have good relations with the US to achieve the 9-10 per cent growth rate in the next decade
Dhoot said the deal would help India achieve its nuclear power generation capacities :?: and encourage nuclear innovations (perhaps - will give benefit of doubt. FBR is not enough inovation for Mr. Dhoot?} and obtaining of quicker licensing with simpler and safer construction techniques and extension of reactor life. {How?}
The US has not build a single reactor in some 30-40 years. Indian three-stage is Indian - not copied from any where. The deal will not help Indian three-satge process.

The nuclear component will not be able to absorb the lack of electricity with the help of this deal.

So, what gives?

ILSA, etc are not in the same ball park: strategic issues. That is a very weak argument you make.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

You cannot expect two pieces of legislation in force in any country to contradict each other. Therefore in the United States, the Hyde Act is in conformity with the Nuclear Non Proliferation Act of 1978.

e.g. in the 1978 act, the sale of uranium is capped at an enrichment level of 20%, because Light Water Reactors in use in most of the rest of the world do not require enrichment beyond that. India's AHWR thorium reactors were not even thought off when NNPA was enacted. Furthermore even as of today, countries outside India do not know the composition of fuel required to run AHWR reactors. It will be a learning process.

Similarly, the NNPA of 1978 requires reporting and termination of cooperation if the counterparty country detonates a nuclear device.

Where the Hyde Act does diverge is that the NNPA requires full scope safeguards across all nuclear facilities for the counterparty country while the Hyde Act recognizes that notwithstanding that India has not signed the NPT, that cooperation be extended with India even though India will have a nuclear industry beyond the purview of the 123 agreement and the Hyde Act.

There is nothing in the Hyde Act which is not already covered in the NNPA of 1978 in terms of penalties for cooperating countries which detonate a nuclear device. Therefore India is as free (or as tied) to test a weapon as before the passage of the Hyde Act. There is no change in that status at all. Therefore if India decides that it needs to do a series of tests for TN devices in the future, the consequences for India will the same with or without the Hyde Act. Hence India will be as free as it is today to develop what it wants, when it wants on the weapon front depending on the decision of the GOI of the day.

As of today, NSG guidelines are exactly in conformity with the US NNPA of 1978 which is in conformity with the Hyde Act which recognizes that India has a strategic program and that there is a component of the Indian nuclear industry which is beyond the purview of all of these pieces of legislation. That IMO is adequate for India to take advantage of this opening.

Now as far as the building of actual reactors is concerned post the IAEA/NSG/US Congress approval. Overseas companies have differing levels of cooperation with their respective governments. Consequently demands of sovereign guarantees will differ from company to company and from country to country depending on their perception of Indian political and economic risk. It will also depend to some extent on who is the Indian counterparty in the supply agreement. If it is NCPIL, the overseas counterparty has an inbuilt sovereign guarantee. If it is a private party such as Tata Power or Reliance Power, then its a completely different ball game.

There are other legislative issues such as operator insurance for whichever entity actually operates the plant. But that is something a littleway down the road.

What this agreement does is give India the option of securing another source of power generation without any further liability beyond what it is already subject to under the US NNPA of 1978 and current NSG guidelines.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

The only think I hated in ABV is his age and its related functions. Can his #1 fit the bill, may be but he would be already disqualified for my likings. I thought shourie was grooming better, but now he appears to be in gallows.

I want a min qualifier for babooze - 40 years, min 5 years of social/civil service, prefer a masters in political science but batch-yellors in any field is great, and others should show extra ordinary abilities, have a small test or exam to pass for standing elections, able to influence decision, and have strong participations in public discussion sites like here :wink: (line up folks) , max 70 years and retire, with a pension perhaps (if not charged for felony, ransom, bribery, corruption, etc scandals), they are salaried, and work for policy driven approaches.

/OT. but matters in deciding who we may want to head a nuclear weapons state.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

NRao said
Quote:

Do not think Bush came into this recognizing India as a defacto NWS et al.


No, in fact I mention that he probably is not capable of understanding the meaning of it all.

Now this is the caliber of NSA member who advises the sole super power about geo politics and current affairs! Based on this you can aquit Bush for invading the wrong country 'Iraq" instead of Afghanistan.

On a second thought imagine the caliber of ex Bill Clinton Advisor George Stephnopolice let it go!,
Then because it is ingrained in our blood that Amrikhans can never be wrong, they are all knowing now that with NSA eves dropings! ever where, I thought probably in order not to antagonize the PRC friends of Amerikhans, they delibrately mistook PRC for Nepal? :roll:

After all just like that PRC can create run on the banks in unkil land no?
Bush Security Advisor Steve Hadley Confuses Tibet with Nepal
watch the actual footage of This Week with George Stepno Police on ABC.


Now back Mrs Jacabi interview (posted earlier)


........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.
sraj
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 07:04

Post by sraj »

JE Menon wrote:This is an American law (not a multilateral agreement) which can say what it wants. Only those weak enough to fall in line will.
We don't know this until we see the NSG waiver language.

Question: if Hyde was just a fig leaf for the US to placate domestic constituencies, why don't they get a clean NSG waiver passed today (it can come into force once India signs the IAEA safeguards agreement)?

What is stopping the US?

Then at least we can evaluate whether this whole idea of "all nuclear trade with Russia/France; don't touch US with a barge pole and Hyde will not matter" has any legs?

On the other hand, a badly worded NSG waiver (effectively enforcing conditions worse than CTBT on India) after India accepts IAEA safeguards would be a fait accompli, with very little chance of being overturned, and pushing India into a corner where it can be painted as ungrateful before the entire international community if it backs out at that stage.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

An intelligent saab like Ldev guru, is forgetting the fact that signing an agreement tanatamounts to agreeing and accepting to be bound by .....

hence the opposition to the deal...

Yes all that you say is true that no two laws of the country be contradictory to each other that is inconsequential to the discussion here. They cant change the law or have laws contradictory is excuse to rub it on some one or impose?
The problem is not with unkil, the problem is with our mala(in hindi) fide(in french) that is going to be millstone around the neck of the nation for ever to come. The problem is India's leadership and Baboodums who are super smart but have vested interest to promote.
Its a case of Dr. Heal thy self.
If a deal is sold as "We (the dealer) will make you( buyer) super power, then its too good to be true!
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by ldev »

>>An intelligent saab like Ldev guru, is forgetting the fact that signing an agreement tanatamounts to agreeing and accepting to be bound by

And an even more intelligent saab like John Snow garu is foregetting that:

India will *sign* the 123 agreement but will *not sign* any NSG waiver because the 123 agreement is between India on the one hand and the US on the other. On the other hand the NSG waiver is among members of the NSG. India is not a member of the NSG and hence has nothing to sign and is hence not bound by anything if it decides at some point of time that its national interests compel it to do things that are beyond the parameters set forth by the NSG. Ofcourse India will pay for its actions. But it will pay for its actions even today without any interaction with the NSG.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by Neshant »

the only purpose of these treaties is to

1) restrict India's nuclear program through backdoor measures

2) control India's energy security

you can be sure they won't be following the treaty when it suits their interest. its a worthless piece of paper just like the ABM treaty.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Neshant wrote:the only purpose of these treaties is to

1) restrict India's nuclear program through backdoor measures

2) control India's energy security

you can be sure they won't be following the treaty when it suits their interest. its a worthless piece of paper just like the ABM treaty.
Go back to Japan before WWII
Controling energy was the main weapon against rising powers.
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

Man Mohan Sonia should right away induct BRF alumni ldev to his PMO office and then things will be crystal clear. As simple as 123!

Ldev saab aap aur hum may zameen asman ka farakh hai Aap udhar mai Idhar, aka there is a degree of difference when it comes to itelligence!

I surrender !!
Locked