Nuclear Discussion - Nukkad Thread: 25 Apr 2008

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 27 Apr 2008 05:39

would the world would have known what happened during 11th?


The subsistence crater and seismic signature (unlike an earthquake) would be hard to explain. Especially at the location of Pokhran.
Their sampling planes would have overflown a few days later to confirm.

But would they know about the sub-kiloton test? Or the two other tests on the 13th? Apparently not.

With a deep enough burial and a large chamber for decoupling.. who knows .. perhaps covert testing would be possible.

Based on their failure to detect S3-S5, very low yield tests can be masked, unlike what the CTBT mullahs claim..

But deterrence requires that the opponent knows what you have...

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

Postby svinayak » 27 Apr 2008 05:49

Gerard wrote:
With a deep enough burial and a large chamber for decoupling.. who knows .. perhaps covert testing would be possible.

More testing could have been already done. Who knows?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 27 Apr 2008 05:49

There cannot be 100% actinide burnup with the Thorium cycle so there will still be high level waste that needs vitrification and burial.
But the volume of waste will be greatly reduced. Most of it will be a problem for 200 - 300 years, instead of thousands.

Decommissioning of reactors will still require disposal of structures (steel, reinforced concrete etc) exposed to neutron bombardment.

But surely a small area can be set aside for burial of this material. The small amounts of high level fuel waste can likewise be placed in a repository. A chamber the size of a basketball court inside a geologically stable structure is a small price to pay for the energy that runs the country...

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17260
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Postby RamaY » 27 Apr 2008 06:08

To the gurus in this forum:

Would it be possible for India to broker a deal with the key p3 members (US, Russia, France), so that -

1. India will do another round of say 10 tests to validate the TN and modified bum models. Pakistan can follow india and spend another 10 bumbs from their inventory.

2. India will sign CTBT after this. I hope this treaty doesnt have any NWS/NNWS distinction. India will stay out of NPT as it still descriminates NWS.

3. To keep unkil quite it can offer to buy 200 F-18s under the MRCA deal. I think $20b is a fair price to avoid the sanctions that follows.

4. India will sign the nuke deal with a condition that it will not bring any of the existing power plants under this. It should take care of India's strategic program. All new plants will be kept under the IAEA inspections. India will buy all its N-plants from Russia or France only. If any US company wants to supply india, they must come thru these countries.

5. India can pursue the Thoriam path with inputs from the 18 unsafe guarded plants and keep the entire Thoriam IPR to itself.

would it be possible? what will be consequences? what will be the cost-benefit analysis.

thanks in advance

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6644
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Postby Anujan » 27 Apr 2008 07:01

RamaY wrote:To the gurus in this forum:

Would it be possible for India to broker a deal with the key p3 members (US, Russia, France), so that -

Not happening at all. I will let the other gurus explain in detail but basically:

1. India will do another round of say 10 tests to validate the TN and modified bum models. Pakistan can follow india and spend another 10 bumbs from their inventory.

This implies that India would have a credible TN based deterrent. Coupled with A-III, it means flower petal delivery service everywhere. Now let us assume some mullah comes to power in pakiland and sends a bum flying at us. Who do you think India will retaliate against ? Just pakis ? (Hint: Pakis got their bum, with technology gifted by chini while unkil did a wink wink nod nod, so they too are responsible). So it makes sense for Unkil that India does not acquire a credible TN based deterrent.

2. India will sign CTBT after this. I hope this treaty doesnt have any NWS/NNWS distinction. India will stay out of NPT as it still descriminates NWS.

Unkil has not ratified CTBT, why should we sign ? The basic question is, who is CTBT targetted at ? When NPT exists, why do you need CTBT ? The NWS can test all they want, it will not affect the balance of power or the credibility of their deterrent. Non-NWS by the definition of NPT cannot acquire nuclear weapons, so CTBT is moot. Name one prominent country, which has not signed the NPT and it should be made sure that they dont test and acquire credible deterrence ? Any prominent name comes to mind ?

3. To keep unkil quite it can offer to buy 200 F-18s under the MRCA deal. I think $20b is a fair price to avoid the sanctions that follows.

Let us assume that we pay the price and then Unkil sanctions us, keeps the money and doesnt give us the jets. What then ? This is not an unimaginable scenario - look over the border and replace F-18 with F-16.

5. India can pursue the Thoriam path with inputs from the 18 unsafe guarded plants and keep the entire Thoriam IPR to itself.

Uranium prices are through the roof. There are talks about peak oil and coal producing greenhouse gases. The future source of energy (if controlled fusion is not achieved) is thorium. If a country with a booming economy also controls access to and the technology of the most sought after energy source, will Unkil be the sole superpower ?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 27 Apr 2008 07:12

Now let us assume some mullah comes to power in pakiland


A valid assumption.

An invalid worry from Indian PoV. Let the Chinese do that. After all they created half the problem.......and, besides they should have one key to bless any such thoughts. (IIRC, even the tit-for-tat blasts in 1998 had Chinese blessings, else it is my understanding that they could not test.)

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7041
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Postby Muppalla » 27 Apr 2008 07:29

since we are discussing again and again about the success of POK-II and the deal's good/bad issues so much, I guess BR forum (gurus) should also again discuss about what is deterrent in India's context.

How much is deterrent for India? Should we just live with MND? Should India go for MAD strategy?

It may be some of us are not happy with MND and hence the frustration with the terms of the deal.

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

Postby bala » 27 Apr 2008 07:35

I think it is time for India to assert its position and stop pussyfooting. The kinds of things that are necessary, considering the belligerent stance of China and now that BPJ is publicly stating China is a greater threat than Pak: BJP, are things like a seat at the table of NWS, Security Council. China after Tibet crisis is a menace to world peace. India should refuse signing anymore treaties and unilaterally withdraw from the Useless UN organization.

Minimum 1) NPT is modified to include India 2) India is full veto member of Security Council 3) G8 member like Russia. 4) Unfettered access/permission to test Nuclear weapons whenever it deems so.

Everyone is stating that the world without India at UN is meaningless. Having a thug like China as UN Security Council member is a joke. With a 1 + Billion population India needs to call the shots. Just like the IPL, India should throw the gauntlet and give a take it or "screw of" ultimatum.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35979
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 27 Apr 2008 07:51

OTOH, there is a corollary to deterrence values if we had said, that we had completed our 35 sub kilos tests, low yield weapons, and about 5 thermos, and 10-15 specialized neutrons.. All these could have been said in one national broadcast.

I just can't imagine what would pakis alone would do such a reaction. where will they go for 50 odd weapons to test? The khan would jitter at just the mention of such massive tests been done without any idea whatsoever.

May 11th would have had much more meaning to PNE and smiling Buddha!

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

Postby John Snow » 27 Apr 2008 08:45

Goin back to RT/Bessel functions, surface finish/contour correctness etc. (as Ldev guru ji love fest etc) .

I am psoting this link just to visualize how a flame frot (hig temp, High Pressure compressable and combustable fluid would progress when a ignition is done at high voltage. This is only an anology, unlike mavericks I have no first hand knowledge of nuclear material or physics . Just a biragi at keyboard.

http://www.pulstarplug.com/ignition-velocity.html

click on start and watch the flame front propagatio. Please I am not endorsing any product here.

{hope vsunder gurvu garu is reading in the context of wave guides, IC engines etc mentioned earlier]

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

Postby John Snow » 27 Apr 2008 08:46

Goin back to RT/Bessel functions, surface finish/contour correctness etc. (as Ldev guru ji love fest etc) .

I am posting this link just to visualize how a flame frot (hig temp, High Pressure compressable and combustable fluid would progress when a ignition is done at high voltage. This is only an anology, unlike mavericks I have no first hand knowledge of nuclear material or physics . Just a biragi at keyboard.

http://www.pulstarplug.com/ignition-velocity.html

click on start and watch the flame front propagation. Please, I am not endorsing any product here.

{hope vsunder gurvu garu is reading in the context of wave guides, IC engines etc mentioned earlier}

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

Postby shyam » 27 Apr 2008 08:48

While discussing different options, we must also discuss the options India has if a sold out government signs the deal in the last minute.

- BJP's official position is that it will renegotiate the deal, but I'm not sure if uncle will cooperate.

- Other options is, like lakshmic said, conduct few TN tests in couple of years time before we are stuck with external nuclear supply. Any sanctions at this time won't give them access to our balls.

Any other options?

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2286
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 27 Apr 2008 10:47

I think the discussion was initially, at least for me, was about what we loose by signing 123 deal strategically or how does it impact our strategic program? Or in other words what would be the cost of further nuclear testing -

A few billion-dollar worth of nuclear reactors could get turned off in the worst-case scenario? Is that it?

If the world/west gangs up against us like it has against NK/Iran we would have a lot more to loose than few nuclear plants like a $100Billion dollar IT/BPO industry, 10s of billion dollar/year worth of FDI/FII/ECB and numerous other trade/deal/techs. We ain’t NK/Iran, thankfully we have passed that stage successfully and its about time we go on doing better things.

In next 3 decades in the best-case scenario, nuclear power at best can get 10% share (from current 2%) in total generation capacity. Even today nation wide electricity shortage is more than 10% and we are doing all right with 8-9% growth.

We can't see things in vacuum we must look at entire picture.

As to need for further nuclear testing, that doesn’t need any justification. IMO even if all the past tests achieved their stated/designed goals/objective flawlessly, India still needs more testing of devices that are on par with P5 in yield and technological sophestication.

I have seen no evidence that suggests that –

1) India’s strategic program would suffer in scope or scale due to this deal
2) India would be more restricted to test further nuke devices than it already is
3) The economic cost for nulling the deal would fall only on India; in fact almost all of the cost falls on USA.
Last edited by Katare on 27 Apr 2008 11:08, edited 2 times in total.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2286
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 27 Apr 2008 10:50

shyam wrote:While discussing different options, we must also discuss the options India has if a sold out government signs the deal in the last minute.
- BJP's official position is that it will renegotiate the deal, but I'm not sure if uncle will cooperate.

- Other options is, like lakshmic said, conduct few TN tests in couple of years time before we are stuck with external nuclear supply. Any sanctions at this time won't give them access to our balls.

Any other options?


There is a provision in the treaty that gives rights to either side to walk out of the deal at any time with 1 year notice. So that should not be an issue

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2286
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 27 Apr 2008 11:03

NRao wrote:I hope I am not duplicating anything:

Ashok Parthasarathi :: The 123 doesn’t add up

The United States concludes bilateral inter-governmental agreements on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in terms of the provisions of Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, 1954. It has concluded such ‘123 Agreements’ with 24 countries up till now. However, it is only in the case of the 24th — the agreement with India — that both the US government and the Congress here felt the need for the Agreement to be preceded and governed by a special India-specific US Act, the Hyde Act. Unfortunately, it contains a number of restrictive, intrusive and .


This is good example of journalistic dishonesty, ideological blind spot or benign ignorance. All those 23 countries are signatory to NPT/CTBT and India is not. US domestic law doesn’t allow president to sign 123 deals with countries like India. The Hyde act is the whole reason we want the deal.

Although his and most other folk’s criticism of language, restrictions, spirit and tone of hyde act has some truth and should be considered a valid criticism. Hyde act should have been written better but unfortunately it reflects current US congress/senate both of which are filled with pro-NPA and politicians shaped in the era of cold war with.

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

Postby svinayak » 27 Apr 2008 11:12

Katare wrote: Hyde act should have been written better but unfortunately it reflects current US congress/senate both of which are filled with pro-NPA and politicians shaped in the era of cold war with.

This is a right reason to reject the deal. Everything wrong in this deal is the Hyde Act.

Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Postby Anabhaya » 27 Apr 2008 11:58

Acharya wrote:This is a right reason to reject the deal. Everything wrong in this deal is the Hyde Act.


The US can't act hostile without a Hyde Act?

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Neshant » 27 Apr 2008 13:41

Ultimately nothing is going to be signed and its probably for the better.

This is a case of how not to go about doing things.

They did not even explore the possibility of sourcing uranium from non-NSG states all this time. It gives one an idea of how wreckless & careless the policy makers are in terms of future planning.

For once the CPM is actually doing India some good.

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 396
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Postby Prabu » 27 Apr 2008 14:27

NRao wrote:
Neshant wrote:> Govt to act fast on sourcing uranium from non-NSG countries

have they been sleeping on the issue all this while?


Sleeping is too kind a word.

Reactors take years to be designed and more years to build. The amount of fuel and when it is required is well known far ahead of time. That this simple task was not completed and now is being used as an excuse to sign this deal ...................


very well said !

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 27 Apr 2008 15:57

This is good example of journalistic dishonesty, ideological blind spot or benign ignorance. All those 23 countries are signatory to NPT/CTBT and India is not. US domestic law doesn’t allow president to sign 123 deals with countries like India. The Hyde act is the whole reason we want the deal.


This is the 2nd 123 the US is signing with India, IIRC.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 27 Apr 2008 16:43

Correct. The first 123 agreement was for the Tarapur reactors.
To quote BC
New Delhi indeed knows from its bitter Tarapur experience that a 123 agreement has little sanctity in international law. The earlier Indo-US 123 accord, signed in 1963, was abandoned by Washington in 1978 - four years after the first Indian nuclear test - simply by enacting a new domestic law that retroactively overrode the bilateral pact. That broke with impunity a guarantee to supply "timely" fuel "as needed" for the US-built Tarapur plant.

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

Postby Tilak » 27 Apr 2008 16:49

Katare wrote:
NRao wrote:I hope I am not duplicating anything:

Ashok Parthasarathi :: The 123 doesn’t add up

The United States concludes bilateral inter-governmental agreements on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in terms of the provisions of Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, 1954. It has concluded such ‘123 Agreements’ with 24 countries up till now. However, it is only in the case of the 24th — the agreement with India — that both the US government and the Congress here felt the need for the Agreement to be preceded and governed by a special India-specific US Act, the Hyde Act. Unfortunately, it contains a number of restrictive, intrusive and .


This is good example of journalistic dishonesty, ideological blind spot or benign ignorance. All those 23 countries are signatory to NPT/CTBT and India is not. US domestic law doesn’t allow president to sign 123 deals with countries like India. The Hyde act is the whole reason we want the deal.

Although his and most other folk’s criticism of language, restrictions, spirit and tone of hyde act has some truth and should be considered a valid criticism. Hyde act should have been written better but unfortunately it reflects current US congress/senate both of which are filled with pro-NPA and politicians shaped in the era of cold war with.


Tilak wrote:Israel and U.S. sign nuclear cooperation agreement
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
14/04/2008

Israel and the United States signed an agreement several days ago to step up cooperation in the field of nuclear safety.

The new agreement broadens and upgrades previous accords between the two countries in this field, which were signed over the past two decades. It will enable the Israel Atomic Energy Commission to access most of the latest nuclear safety data, procedures and technology available in the U.S. :roll:

The agreement was signed by the director of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. Shaul Horev, and the chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Dr. Dale Klein.

Horev also met in the U.S. with his American counterpart, Thomas D'Agostino, who is the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Even though the agreement is essentially technical in nature, it has much greater significance, as many countries, including the U.S., are inclined {inclined?? :lol: }not to cooperate with Israel on any aspects related to the nuclear field, because Israel is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, the U.S. has agreements on nuclear safety with Israel. Moreover, Israel also has an agreement for limited cooperation on matters of nuclear safety with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and has adopted the stringent standards and safety procedures of the Vienna-based organization.

In recent years Israel has tried to improve and broaden its ties in the nuclear field with as many countries and organizations as possible. This was done in an effort to breach its isolation in this field, but also because of the need for foreign assistance to help ensure safety at the nuclear research compound in Dimona, as well as monitor nuclear waste at the site.

The Dimona reactor - which foreign reports say is used by Israel to develop nuclear arms - was established nearly five decades ago, and is considered relatively old. Experts in the field have expressed concern that safety mishaps could occur there, since it is not under international supervision, due to the classified activities there.

However, Israel has argued that the reactor has been upgraded in recent years and that safety there meets the highest international standards.

The Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) stressed that old reactors in the U.S. underwent similar upgrades and were issued licenses to continue operations for decades more. The IAEC is responsible for operating the Dimona reactor and also for monitoring safety there. The monitoring is done in cooperation with an inter-ministerial body, the Committee for Nuclear Safety.

In recent years, some of the senior members of the IAEC have called for a nuclear reactor here to produce electricity, thus limiting the dependence on imported petroleum and preparing for the forecast shortage in oil reserves.

However, Israel is expected to meet with opposition from abroad to an electricity-producing reactor because of its refusal to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. One of the options raised was to seek an agreement with the U.S. that will allow the transfer of technology for the construction of such a reactor. {Oh.. Poor Yindoos had to jump through all the hoops.. amending "internal laws" which prohibit transfers, Hyde acts.. IAEA, NSG clearances and Congressional clearances and nuke nudity.. not knowing Amrika bahadur treats it like a toilet paper.. :roll: }The U.S. was on the verge of recently signing a similar agreement with India, a country also not a signatory of the NPT, but due to domestic political opposition, an agreement faltered.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 27 Apr 2008 17:00


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 27 Apr 2008 17:02

One of the options raised was to seek an agreement with the U.S. that will allow the transfer of technology for the construction of such a reactor


That should be an interesting NSG meeting. Or will the US even bother with the NSG (which was created to hobble India's nuclear sector)?

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 27 Apr 2008 17:05

Brajesh Mishra has said not signing it would be a "severe loss of face" for India.


What nonsense is this? Since when is India pre-occupied with silly Han notions of 'face' ?

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

Postby Tilak » 27 Apr 2008 17:25

Brajesh Mishra has said not signing it would be a "severe loss of face" for India.


"Severe loss of face" for Congress (MMS clique + "Rajamata" and "Yuvraja").. would be more appropriate. :P .

India would do just fine, and wouldn't like to be dragged into this "game of dice".

India pre-occupied with silly Han notions of 'face' ?


or) in Paki parlance --> "Image"

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 27 Apr 2008 17:43


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35979
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 27 Apr 2008 17:52

"Obviously, dual-use technology will not be available to us if we don't go through with this and, of course, it's a setback. It will be a severe loss of face for the government of India and for India," he said.


This is exactly the type of misunderstandings Unkill wants and in particular Mr. Hyde that both Govts. of USA and other nations under NPA regime., is looking for as deal joiners.

Give me a break!~.. all these years was it a set back????? If its something to do with nukes and its technology it comes with all kinds catches. Just like how we are totally dependent on one type of military systems for armed forces.

How about spilling the beans.. list those technologies first.. and lets take issue based politics here.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 27 Apr 2008 18:08

Uranium Under the Sand, Anger Above
Niger's precious resource... is the cause of monumental suffering here.


solution of course is for western companies to take charge of Uranium extraction..

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 27 Apr 2008 18:18

dual-use technology will not be available to us if we don't go through with this


So is the problem a failure to urinate?

If it is better to have the camel inside the tent pissing outside, than to have it outside the tent pissing inside, why has camel India not been taken inside years before? Why is it being offered a place just barely inside, complete with tethers?

Perhaps because it doesn't urinate on the tent dwellers?

India has full fuel cycle technology, nuclear weapons and delivery systems. It has never provided technology to others but, absurdly, is being accused of proliferating "vertically" (to itself).

Perhaps some horizontal proliferation (pissing) is needed... it worked well for the Chinese...

Prabu
BRFite
Posts: 396
Joined: 22 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: In the middle of a Desert

Postby Prabu » 27 Apr 2008 18:49

India must go ahead with n-deal: Brajesh Mishra

This former NSA, Mr.Brajesh Mishra is the one who came to the rescue of Rahul Ghandhi(as reqested by Sonia) when he was detained along with his Girl friend in US Airport with a huge sum of un explainable (drug mafia ?) money. Mr.Brajesh, considered to be close to former PM , ABV, is also very very close to congress president due to his Italian daughter ! Mr.Brajesh Mishra still holds a Diplomatic passport for un explained reasons ! This same Mishra is reportedly helped the defected RAW official to run away from India, to USA, by NOT permitting our Top cops, to arrest him.

So it is NOT a surprise that he supports the American TRAP, with Hyde act.

How ever, when a stalwart and senior most former NSA, like Mr.Ashok Parthasarathy, who worked for none other than the Great Nationalist Mrs.Indira Ghandi, says, 123 doesn’t add up, it makes sense ! Atleast to me !!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35979
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 27 Apr 2008 19:21

what you call the subliminal mole.

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

Postby John Snow » 27 Apr 2008 21:10

SaiK wrote:what you call the subliminal mole.


Not so fast! There are so many unmol(Hindi) in GOI ,you cant buy (unmol) them period.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 27 Apr 2008 21:59


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

Postby Arun_S » 27 Apr 2008 22:01

Carry over of orphan posts from old thread as it was being split.



Gerard wrote:Safety fears sidelined in Japan's new energy dawn
Japan Nuclear Fuel aims to produce as many as four tonnes of recycled plutonium - roughly equal to 500 of the bombs dropped on Nagasaki - for reuse each year.
The decision by the plant, Professor Koide argues, to release contaminants such as krypton-85, tritium and carbon-14 into the air rather than invest in technology to trap and contain them - "just because they don't want to pay the costs involved - [means] they are committing a premeditated crime".


Gerard wrote:Uranium ban rankles Canadian industry groups
British Columbia announced the ban, which comes in the form of a "no registration reserve" under the Mineral Tenure Act for uranium and thorium, on Thursday.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2286
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 27 Apr 2008 23:58

Gerard wrote:Correct. The first 123 agreement was for the Tarapur reactors.
To quote BC
New Delhi indeed knows from its bitter Tarapur experience that a 123 agreement has little sanctity in international law. The earlier Indo-US 123 accord, signed in 1963, was abandoned by Washington in 1978 - four years after the first Indian nuclear test - simply by enacting a new domestic law that retroactively overrode the bilateral pact. That broke with impunity a guarantee to supply "timely" fuel "as needed" for the US-built Tarapur plant.


A 'smiling Buddha' lies between 1963 and 1978, I don't have any doubt that even this 123 would survive if we test again after signing the deal. We did benefit from previous 123/engagements with west and we might benefit again. Previous 123 didn't prevent us from testing than so there is little credence in the argument that this 123 deal would hinder progress of our strategic program now.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2286
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 28 Apr 2008 00:13

Tilak wrote:
Katare wrote:
NRao wrote:I hope I am not duplicating anything:

Ashok Parthasarathi :: The 123 doesn’t add up

The United States concludes bilateral inter-governmental agreements on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in terms of the provisions of Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act, 1954. It has concluded such ‘123 Agreements’ with 24 countries up till now. However, it is only in the case of the 24th — the agreement with India — that both the US government and the Congress here felt the need for the Agreement to be preceded and governed by a special India-specific US Act, the Hyde Act. Unfortunately, it contains a number of restrictive, intrusive and .


This is good example of journalistic dishonesty, ideological blind spot or benign ignorance. All those 23 countries are signatory to NPT/CTBT and India is not. US domestic law doesn’t allow president to sign 123 deals with countries like India. The Hyde act is the whole reason we want the deal.

Although his and most other folk’s criticism of language, restrictions, spirit and tone of hyde act has some truth and should be considered a valid criticism. Hyde act should have been written better but unfortunately it reflects current US congress/senate both of which are filled with pro-NPA and politicians shaped in the era of cold war with.


Tilak wrote:Israel and U.S. sign nuclear cooperation agreement
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
14/04/2008

Israel and the United States signed an agreement several days ago to step up cooperation in the field of nuclear safety.

The new agreement broadens and upgrades previous accords between the two countries in this field, which were signed over the past two decades. It will enable the Israel Atomic Energy Commission to access most of the latest nuclear safety data, procedures and technology available in the U.S. :roll:

The agreement was signed by the director of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. Shaul Horev, and the chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Dr. Dale Klein.

Horev also met in the U.S. with his American counterpart, Thomas D'Agostino, who is the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Even though the agreement is essentially technical in nature, it has much greater significance, as many countries, including the U.S., are inclined {inclined?? :lol: }not to cooperate with Israel on any aspects related to the nuclear field, because Israel is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, the U.S. has agreements on nuclear safety with Israel. Moreover, Israel also has an agreement for limited cooperation on matters of nuclear safety with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and has adopted the stringent standards and safety procedures of the Vienna-based organization.

In recent years Israel has tried to improve and broaden its ties in the nuclear field with as many countries and organizations as possible. This was done in an effort to breach its isolation in this field, but also because of the need for foreign assistance to help ensure safety at the nuclear research compound in Dimona, as well as monitor nuclear waste at the site.

The Dimona reactor - which foreign reports say is used by Israel to develop nuclear arms - was established nearly five decades ago, and is considered relatively old. Experts in the field have expressed concern that safety mishaps could occur there, since it is not under international supervision, due to the classified activities there.

However, Israel has argued that the reactor has been upgraded in recent years and that safety there meets the highest international standards.

The Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) stressed that old reactors in the U.S. underwent similar upgrades and were issued licenses to continue operations for decades more. The IAEC is responsible for operating the Dimona reactor and also for monitoring safety there. The monitoring is done in cooperation with an inter-ministerial body, the Committee for Nuclear Safety.

In recent years, some of the senior members of the IAEC have called for a nuclear reactor here to produce electricity, thus limiting the dependence on imported petroleum and preparing for the forecast shortage in oil reserves.

However, Israel is expected to meet with opposition from abroad to an electricity-producing reactor because of its refusal to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. One of the options raised was to seek an agreement with the U.S. that will allow the transfer of technology for the construction of such a reactor. {Oh.. Poor Yindoos had to jump through all the hoops.. amending "internal laws" which prohibit transfers, Hyde acts.. IAEA, NSG clearances and Congressional clearances and nuke nudity.. not knowing Amrika bahadur treats it like a toilet paper.. :roll: }The U.S. was on the verge of recently signing a similar agreement with India, a country also not a signatory of the NPT, but due to domestic political opposition, an agreement faltered.


Tilak,

US-Israel agreement is about ‘safety’ only while 123 agreements are about trade and transfer of technologies. In Israel’s case no nuclear material, manufacturing processes/technologies or equipments will be traded/transferred. The agreement is for only safety related data between two specific institutions in Israel and USA. Israel has a similar agreement already in existence with IAEA and this new agreement is in full compliance with existing CTBT/NPT etc laws. If you read those laws you’ll find that all those laws provide exemptions where physical safety is involved. Russia and others have used those exemptions to help India for long.

The agreement in no case legitimizes Israel’s clandestine nuclear program while a 123 with India gives us a legitimate international standing with a defacto NWS status.

They are not comparable deals neither comparable countries.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 28 Apr 2008 00:35

A lot of doubters would be reassured by some robust actions by the GOI.

For example... since CIRUS reactor is to be shut down... where is the replacement weapons production reactor (larger clone of DHRUVA)? Build a second centrifuge plant (larger clone of Rattahili).
Build up the stockpile of fissile material.

Since testing is problematic at the present time, what about the CTBT compliant subcritical testing? Get some activity at Pokhran going. Refine the design of the weapon primaries.

How about building an ICF facility? Germany is building one. It isn't even a NWS. Refine the design of the weapon secondaries.

Authorize an 8000 km range 3 stage version of the Agni. Expand production of all the Agni variants.

Unfortunately the GOI seems timid on all these fronts, probably fearing backlash against the nuclear deal. But nothing above breaks the test moratorium. None of the above is mentioned in the 123 so what is really the problem? India only tested the Agni-3 after General Peter Pace, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave his blessing. Where some in the GOI see a virtue (restraint and caution), others outside see a vice (cowardice).

Visible activity and progress on weapons modernization and production would reassure all those who fear CRE.

If any of the above sinks the deal at the IAEA or the NSG, then so be it. An important part of the deal is a de-facto recognition of Indian weapons state status. If the deal is really about nuclear energy and nothing about capping of capabilities, then nothing above should derail it.
Last edited by Gerard on 28 Apr 2008 00:42, edited 2 times in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 28 Apr 2008 00:36


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Postby Gerard » 28 Apr 2008 02:25



Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests